[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Innovative Strategies for Electric Utilities
Burton,
You make some good points and I found the CBSM site interesting and so
well organized. I am a little nervous, however, when someone comes
across so altruistic. Skimming through the contents illustrates very
specifically, that there is a lot more to technology dissemination than
the technology.
Even then, I wonder, if they are not being a little simplistic for
practical reasons when certain behaviors, such as practicing
"conservation" can so conveniently(seemingly) be correlated with reading
a pamphlet, and other actions. One can , of course, produce numbers.
What would happen if these people were tested by different groups of
instructors (say with or without beards) at different times in the day,
in their life etc. How repeatable would be the results? Do other
groups from different walks of life come close to the same thing? How
big is the noise band?
Along the same vein, just informing somebody, in essence telling the
horse where the water is, will not make them drink it. You bring up an
issue of "waste" (that oh so scientific word). It made me think that
we may be "wasting" a lot of money on churches, because the sermons
don't seem to have a very direct impact on behavior.
On the other hand, the $300 million spent in CA perhaps should really
have been $300 billion program in order to adequately cover all the
other steps CBSM suggests.
Lastly, my sermon: The idea of "reducing" is useful but not the only
approach in town. I am reminded however that if you are on one end of
something, and you want to get to the other end by "reducing", you take
a very large number of steps never actually get there
(anti-incrementalist thinking).
Second, let's not treating P2, recycling, conservation as dogma, at
least if you're trying to make scientific sense (per the initial
argument). As far as the planet is concerned, there is no waste,
pollution, clean, dirty, good or bad, etc. Our actions /activities
interact and result in consequences, some of which we prefer over others
(the we being loosely defined). The Ecology will do its balancing
adjustment with or without us, and everything gets "recycled".
Ivars
Burton Hamner
<bhamner@cleanerprod To: Ivars Licis/CI/USEPA/US@EPA, Gary Miller
uction.com> <gmiller@wmrc.uiuc.edu>
cc: jlmartinezp@repsolypf.com, Mark.Johnson@lcra.org,
07/23/2002 12:16 PM mark.snyder@moea.state.mn.us, nppr@great-lakes.net,
owner-nppr@great-lakes.net, p2tech@great-lakes.net,
scott.butner@pnl.gov
Subject: Re: Innovative Strategies for Electric Utilities
Following a short conversation with Rick Reibstein, I do wish to clarify
a
remark I made below. I said that "Sending engineers to a firm to give
them
advice about P2 is generally ineffective." I was referring to the case
when
this is the ONLY form of promotion. I should have added, "if there are
not
supporting strategies such as effective regulation, social promotion,
education and other complementary support."
For ten years I have watched international agencies send engineers and
others, including myself several years ago, to companies around the
world to
give them P2 assistance. They are on site for several days, give lots
of
advice, write detailed reports and recommendations, do some training,
then
go home. However there is no change in the regulatory environment, the
local market for resources or wastes, public concern, or any of the
other
things that are needed to support change. Consequently, the firms
receiving
the TA generally do not change or implement P2. Which is not
surprising.
I do not wish to imply that the many excellent P2 engineers are not able
to
give good advice or to instigate change. We need good P2 engineers to
help
companies. I do believe that success depends on more than short term TA
alone. I suppose I get stuck on this point because I have watched
USAID,
UN, World Bank etc spend AT LEAST $20 million in the last 10 years doing
things the wrong way, in my opinion. Itīs been an expensive learning
process.
Burt Hamner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Burton Hamner" <bhamner@cleanerproduction.com>
To: <Licis.Ivars@epamail.epa.gov>; "Gary Miller" <gmiller@wmrc.uiuc.edu>
Cc: <jlmartinezp@repsolypf.com>; <Mark.Johnson@lcra.org>;
<mark.snyder@moea.state.mn.us>; <nppr@great-lakes.net>;
<owner-nppr@great-lakes.net>; <p2tech@great-lakes.net>;
<scott.butner@pnl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Innovative Strategies for Electric Utilities
> I posted this note before on this topic, but it seems timely to
remind...
>
> The single most useful source of info on this topic I have found in
ten
> years is
> "Fostering Sustainable Behavior," a relatively short book available
for
FREE
> on line at the website on Community Based Social Marketing, at
www.cbsm.com
>
> It specifically discusses the lack of response by customers to
conservation
> promotion by electric utilities, among other topics. Demonstrating
that
> people will save money does not change their behavior in most cases.
> Sending engineers to a firm to give them advice about P2 is generally
> ineffective. The book provides step by step guidance for effective
behavior
> change strategies, including behavior research, obtaining commitments,
role
> modeling, providing prompts for behaviors, effective communications,
and
> more. All of it is backed up by excellent summaries of research and
actual
> field tests of behavior change models. I recommend this book and the
> website to everyone promoting sustainable behaviors.
>
> The website also has over 1000 abstracts of the research literature on
> behavior change. It also includes hundreds of graphics used for
prompting
> desired behaviors, all of which you can copy for your own use.
>
> The sad part of the book is the documentation of the IMMENSE amounts
of
> money wasted on ineffective conservatoin promotions. Like $300
million
> wasted in California on TV advertising to promote energy efficiency.
Which
> acheived no measurable result. Ahem, imagine what could be done
properly
> with $300 million, why we could hire Arthur Andersen (sorry I am a
little
> grumpy about this).
>
> Burton Hamner
> Department of Accounting - Program on Corporate Social Responsibility
> Universidad del Pacifico
> Avenida Salaverry 2020,
> Lima 11, Peru
> 511-219-0100, fax 511-219-0135
> cell 511-943-3357
> email bhamner@cleanerproduction.com
> www.up.edu.pe
> www.cleanerproduction.com (personal website)
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Licis.Ivars@epamail.epa.gov>
> To: "Gary Miller" <gmiller@wmrc.uiuc.edu>
> Cc: <jlmartinezp@repsolypf.com>; <Mark.Johnson@lcra.org>;
> <mark.snyder@moea.state.mn.us>; <nppr@great-lakes.net>;
> <owner-nppr@great-lakes.net>; <p2tech@great-lakes.net>;
> <scott.butner@pnl.gov>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 8:39 AM
> Subject: RE: Innovative Strategies for Electric Utilities
>
>
>
> Gary,
>
> I'd just like to second your points re P2. As one who learned some
> similar lessons in piloting P2 technology and hoping for "customer"
> acceptance of perfectly good and economical P2 ideas, it was
instructive
> to find how few people beat a path to our door.
>
> Tim makes some very good points. "Marketing" is a word that is very
> meaningful. The people coming from a technical background (such as
> myself) might use a good dose of it to understand the problem better.
> People in the business of marketing spend very large amounts of
effort
> and money to induce changes in existing behavior patterns.
>
> The second point, beware of P2 technology panacea. Typically, with P2
> we seem to aim for "cheaper" and "cleaner" as "better" ways of meeting
> compliance with existing regulations. The words in quotes are neither
> technical or scientific. If you were to take them and answer the
> questions "for whom, when, where, how long, how fast, etc. " you can
> notice how variable the answers can get. Typically if "everybody did
> it all the time" the regulations would have to be rewritten. A large
> number of not so transparent assumptions, compromises and trade-offs
> went into them.
>
> Exceeding regulations, for example, may or may not be "better" than
> meeting them from a scientific standpoint, depending on how well the
> relative impacts were understood. For example, right now, there are
> knowledgeable people that claim that the making and use of energy is
> the source of our worst pollution.
>
> On the other hand, minimizing "waste" seems like a solid approach.
> However, an "activity" means input of energy and many activities can
> start to get more net energy intensive the more rigorously we clean
or
> even, dare I say it, PREVENT WASTE, suggesting that there is a
crossover
> point. What we don't have is a metrics system to determine it.
YET.
>
> I know your organization has taken a few whacks at it, but it's
> complicated. Naturally, I apologize to those people in the choir who
> have heard this sermon before.
>
> Ivars J. Licis
>
>
>
>
>
> Gary Miller
> <gmiller@wmrc.uiu To:
> jlmartinezp@repsolypf.com,
> c.edu>
> mark.snyder@moea.state.mn.us, nppr@great-lakes.net,
> Sent by:
p2tech@great-lakes.net,
> scott.butner@pnl.gov,
> owner-nppr@great- Mark.Johnson@lcra.org
> lakes.net cc:
> Subject: RE:
Innovative
> Strategies for Electric Utilities
>
> 07/22/2002 09:23
> AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Fellow P2ers,
>
> This discussion concerns me because too often I have seen companies
and
> even P2 folks take the easy way out of dealing with a waste problem -
> pollution control. Often consulting engineering companies are a
large
> driving force for control technologies because the technologies are
> known (i.e., proven) and the consultants/vendors can make a lot more
> money designing a pollution control system versus true P2 solutions.
>
> We have been focusing this discussion on costs. Cost is only 1 of 6
> critical factors. I can give several examples of companies who chose
> pollution control over the P2 option even though it was agreed by
> everyone involved that the P2 option would save a million $ or more
per
> year and pay back in a short time. By comparison the control option
> chosen was shown to never pay back and be more costly. We used to
think
> it was the companies who were stupid. Then we looked deeper and found
> we were not addressing all their concerns. we needed to change.
>
> P2 options most often fail because we forget to address the other 5
> values necessary for acceptance of change. Those values are
> compatibility with existing systems, complexity, observbility,
> trialability and and technical soundness. This has been outlined
nicely
> by the NPPR Research and Technology Transfer working group in a white
> paper they published a few years ago (Pollution Prevention Technology
> Diffusion White Paper by the National Pollution Prevention
Roundtable's
> Research and Technology Transfer Workgroup -
> www.p2.org/whitepapers/techdiff.doc) Tim Lindsey wrote several
articles
> in P2 Review on this topic.
>
> I urge you to read this and Tim's articles and then reconsider your
mode
> of operations. We have to constantly be on guard to not take the easy
> way and we must improve our ability to "sell" p2 by addressing all the
> needs of our customers. It's time to move beyond the typical P2
> assessment model if we are to win the war on waste, truly conserve
> resources and make manufacturers competitive.
>
> Gary Miller
>
>
>
>
>
> At 08:40 AM 7/22/2002 +0200, jlmartinezp@repsolypf.com wrote:
> Very interesting discussion
>
> I am writing form Europe. Here, we have a an internal law called
> IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control); the idea was
> to have something like PPAct but being a bit more flexible. We
> are trying to combine making a trade off between Prevention and
> Control of the Pollution
>
> I think we, process, design or environmental engineers, should
be
> able to think about a trade off between PP or Pollution Control
> following a case by case procedure. Does Pollution Prevention
> pay? The answer should be yes, but applying concepts like best
> available technologies not entailing excessive costs.
> I remember a paper form Bob Pojasek titled: "For PP be
descriptive
> not prescriptive" so let us select scrubbers when necessary or
> let us select any source reduction measure when available at
> economic good conditions
>
> I agree that we should avoid to transfer pollutants from air to
> land (for example) but this is not always technical or
economical
> feasible.
> I am studying petroleum refineries cases and believe me that
it
> is harder to decide when to apply Pollution prevention or
> pollution control measures that go to your PP recipe book and
> select one of them
>
> Jose-Luis Martinez
>
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Snyder, Mark [mailto:mark.snyder@moea.state.mn.us]
> Enviado el: viernes 19 de julio de 2002 20:53
> Para: nppr@great-lakes.net; p2tech@great-lakes.net;
> scott.butner@pnl.gov; 'Mark Johnson'
> Asunto: RE: Innovative Strategies for Electric Utilities
>
>
> This certainly sounds like a good step forward for cleaner air
in
> Texas, but after reading the press release, I'm left with some
> questions. Is this project to install scrubbers an example of
> pollution prevention or is it an example of more stringent
> pollution control? Given that scrubbers have been around for a
> number of years and have been required for a number of
facilities
> in different areas, what exactly makes this permit innovative?
Or
> is there something I'm missing from the press release?
>
> Mark Snyder
> Pollution Prevention Specialist
> Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
> mark.snyder@moea.state.mn.us
>
> > ----------
> > From: Mark Johnson[SMTP:Mark.Johnson@lcra.org]
> > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 12:02 PM
> > To: nppr@great-lakes.net; p2tech@great-lakes.net;
> scott.butner@pnl.gov
> > Subject: Innovative Strategies for Electric Utilities
> >
> > A shameless plug for my organization Lower Colorado River
> Authority (LCRA) and the Texas Natural resource Conservation
> Commission (TNRCC) and EPA Region 6!
> >
> > We recently submitted an application for a Flexible Air Permit
> to the TNRCC for our 1,500 MW coal fired power plant in La
Grange
> Texas. The innovative air permit will allow our facility to
> implement many P2 projects that would have not been possible
> without the Flex Permit (most of these P2 projects would have
> triggered NSR). The Flex permit will be put in motion over the
> next 10 years.
> >
> > This innovative permit strategy can be followed by most other
> utilities if the states are able to provide the flexibility. It
> can provide some near term benefits and long term reductions
> without waiting for CAA reforms or implemntation of the Bush
Clear
> Skies initiative.
> >
> > For more details please visit this link
> > http://www.lcra.org/about/news/2002/07/plan.html
> >
> >
> > Mark L Johnson, REM.
> > Senior Environmental Coordinator
> > Lower Colorado River Authority
> > Email: mark.johnson@lcra.org
> > Phone (512) 473- 3200 ext 2868
> > Fax: (512) 473-3579
> > Fax (512) 473-3579
> >
> >
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
> * *
> p2tech is hosted by the Great Lakes Information Network:
> http://www.great-lakes.net
> To unsubscribe from this list: send mail to
> majordomo@great-lakes.net
> with the command 'unsubscribe p2tech' in the body of your
message.
> No
> quotes or subject line are required.
> About : http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/p2tech/p2tech.info
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
> * *
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
> * *
> p2tech is hosted by the Great Lakes Information Network:
> http://www.great-lakes.net
> To unsubscribe from this list: send mail to
> majordomo@great-lakes.net
> with the command 'unsubscribe p2tech' in the body of your
message.
> No
> quotes or subject line are required.
> About : http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/p2tech/p2tech.info
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
> * *
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> Gary D. Miller, Ph. D.
> Assistant Director
> Illinois Waste Management and Research Center
> Department of Natural Resources
> One East Hazelwood Drive
> Champaign, IL 61820
> www.wmrc.uiuc.edu/
> www.pneac.org
> www.glrppr.org
> www.p2rx.org
> www.elsevier.nl/locate/issn/0959-6526
>
> 217/333-8942 phone
> 217/333-8944 fax
> gmiller@wmrc.uiuc.edu
>
****************************************************************************
> **
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> nppr is hosted by the Great Lakes Information Network:
> http://www.great-lakes.net
> To unsubscribe from this list: send mail to majordomo@great-lakes.net
> with the command 'unsubscribe nppr' in the body of your message. No
> quotes or subject line are required.
> About : http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/nppr/nppr.info
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
nppr is hosted by the Great Lakes Information Network:
http://www.great-lakes.net
To unsubscribe from this list: send mail to majordomo@great-lakes.net
with the command 'unsubscribe nppr' in the body of your message. No
quotes or subject line are required.
About : http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/nppr/nppr.info
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *