[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *