In April, home improvement retailer Home Depot launched its Eco-Options program in the United States. Designed to help customers identify products that have less of an impact on the environment than their counterparts, Eco Options has received both praise and criticism around the blogosphere. Last week, I had a chance to talk with Ron Jarvis, the company’s Vice President of Pro Business, Tool Rental, and Eco Innovation (pictured on the right), about the program.

While charges of greenwashing and opportunism have been among the responses to the program’s roll-out, Jarvis told me that Eco-Options is the end result of seventeen years of work and planning by the company. "This isn’t a marketing ploy," he said. "We’ve been studying these issues, and leading the industry during this period." Jarvis described the program as "merchant-driven," and noted that Home Depot has gone to its vendors with specific requests for more environmentally-friendly products. He told me "A lot of the changes you’re seeing are driven by us." The results of this effort have included a eco-friendly green cleaning product from Terracycle, low-VOC paints from Glidden, and plantable pots for live plants, among others.

Jarvis also noted that the company has worked to reduce the environmental footprint of its stores, which led to $20 million in energy savings in 2006; the company has also built four LEED-certified stores, and four more that used LEED standards as guidelines for building.

Of course, the true test of any green retail program is its ability to help consumers make better choices for their homes and families. So, in addition to talking with us, Jarvis and the Environmental Innovation team put together the following five home improvement tips for saving energy — and money.

1. Don’t Wait to Insulate

According to the Department of Energy, up to 45 percent of a home’s energy loss is through the attic.

Upgrading insulation to a higher R-value can drastically lower energy costs. Start with insulating the attic and unheated crawl spaces with PINK Fiberglass Insulation from Owens Corning and GreenFiber Cocoon Blow-In Cellulose Insulation. It fills in gaps and voids in a home, creating a thermal blanket of protection, and the insulation reduces noise, airflow and energy loss.

Here are some tips from The Home Depot on installing insulation in the attic:

• Start at the outer edges of the attic and work toward the center.
• When adding a second layer of insulation, always use unfaced insulation, because faced insulation will add a second vapor barrier and create moisture problems.
• If the joist cavity is not full, add a second layer of insulation on top of the first to fill it up.
• Use continuous rolls in attics and floors because of longer joist spans.
• If you have to cut insulation, do so in a well-ventilated area to keep the amount of fiberglass dust raised to a minimum.
• Blown-in cellulose insulation is an alternative to fiberglass insulation, but it requires a machine to fluff the insulation and feed it through the installation hose.

2. Fill the Cracks

Air leaks raise a home’s energy bill and make a house drafty and uncomfortable in cold weather. The biggest leaks are almost always hidden in the attic or basement.

To find leaks in the attic, follow these steps:

• Look for holes along the top of a wall that leads down into the house, including those for wiring and plumbing.
• Check for insulation that is dirty around the edges, which indicates that air has passed through.
• Feel for drafts around gaps and cracks.

There are numerous places in the home where air can leak. Check all of these areas:

• Along the top of the basement wall or crawl space where the cement comes in contact with the frame
• Plumbing and dryer vents
• Recessed can lights
• Furnace flue or duct chase ways
• Indoor and outdoor electrical wires
• Window and door frames

In many cases, the best way to block air leaks is by filling the gap with caulk, expandable foam or weather stripping. Expanding spray foam like Great Stuff™ Home Sealant is ideal for sealing gaps in the attic. Spray foam should not be used next to chimneys or flues that get very hot.

3. Program Your Temperature

An Energy Star® qualified programmable thermostat, like the RiteTemp™ Seven-Day Programmable Thermostat, keeps your home comfortable and saves energy costs by automatically adjusting temperature settings while you are asleep or away.

The Home Depot suggests the following tips for installing a new thermostat:

• Turn off the power to the heating and air-conditioning system, and remove the old thermostat cover plate.
• Unscrew the thermostat mounting screws and remove the thermostat body.
• Label the low-voltage wires to identify their screw-terminal locations using masking tape. Disconnect the wires.
• Remove the old thermostat base by loosening the mounting screws. Tape the wires to the wall to prevent them from slipping into the wall cavity.
• Thread the low-voltage wires through the base of the new thermostat. Use a small level to verify accurate mounting.
• Connect the low-voltage wires to the appropriate screw terminals on the base. Follow the diagram in the new thermostat owner’s manual.
• Locate the low-voltage transformer that powers the thermostat. Tighten any loose wire connections.
• Install batteries in the thermostat body, and attach the body to the base. Restore power and program the thermostat as desired.

4. Enhance Your View

Your home’s windows may keep the outdoors from coming in, but they may not be keeping all of the air inside your house. Heat can escape from windows (such as single-pane windows) that aren’t energy efficient. Depending on where you live, you can save between $110 - $400 a year in energy costs by installing Energy Star®-qualified windows.

5. Branch Out

Plant a tree for an all-around environmental boost. When properly sited, trees and other landscaping can save up to 30 percent in home cooling and heating costs.

The Piaggio Group USA, a US subsidiary of the famed Italian maker of Vespa scooters, is giving Vespa riders and enthusiasts a chance to express their passions with the launch of its "Go Green Vespa Video Challenge."

Launched on August 20th, potential entrants have until October 15th to make a video (15 seconds - 2 minutes in length) that highlights "Vespanomics," or the facts about scooters’ contributions to reducing gas consumption, carbon emissions and traffic congestion. A few claims made by Vespa:

• Did you know that if Americans were to switch just 10% of their total mileage to scooters, they would save roughly $42 million on gas and consume 14 million gallons less fuel PER DAY (based on $3/gal average).
• If Americans were to switch just 10% of their total mileage to
  scooters, carbon dioxide emissions could also be reduced by 324 million
  pounds per day.
• By shifting the daytime vehicle mix to 80 percent cars / 20 percent
  scooters in the Manhattan (New York City) Central Business District
  (stretching from 60th Street to the lower tip of Manhattan), there
  would be a total decrease in delay of more than 4.6 million hours per
  year - which translates to time savings of nearly 100 working hours per
  person annually.

The prizes for winners are, as you might guess, Vespa scooters. The grand prize winner takes home a GTS, second place scores an LX150, and third place a LX50. Official contest rules are available here.

Apparently, Vespa also has hybrid scooters in the prototype stage… we’ll keep an eye on this.

Editor’s note: While I highlighted the group sessions and activities in my coverage of the Symi Symposium in Paros, Greece, last month, I also had the great pleasure of meeting a number of people engaged in important and interesting work on environmental protection and restoration. One of those individuals was Gerd Leipold, the executive director of Greenpeace International. Gerd and I were originally going to do a podcast interview, but symposium activities prevented that, so he agreed to answer the handful of questions I’d prepared by email.

Gerd, and Greenpeace International, are based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Green Options: While Greenpeace is no longer viewed as the radical environmental group by US citizens (that honor is now reserved for ALF and ELF), it’s still often considered extreme by many Americans, particularly the on the right. How do you respond to these kinds of labels? How would you characterize Greenpeace to someone concerned about the same issues as the organization (the environment, nuclear energy and weapons, world peace), but who also might be put off by the perception of GP as "radical?"

Gerd Leipold: The most extremist environmental groups in the US are the government of George W. Bush and some big corporations like Exxon Mobil, who still refuse to fully acknowledge the clear evidence of climate change and prevent the necessary action.

I think that an objective observer would come to the conclusion that what we now know about the state of the environment vindicates 35 years of campaigning by Greenpeace. While we had strong and stark messages, one certainly can say now that we were more foresighted and more realistic than those who termed us extremist.

GO: I spent some time on the Greenpeace international web site today, and while I saw plenty of examples of the kinds of direct activism most commonly associated with Greenpeace (disrupting nuclear weapons testing, whaling, etc.), I also saw a number of consumer awareness and educational efforts (tips for green living, 7 Steps Towards an Energy Saving (R)Evolution). Is that a relatively new area for GP? Does this show an embrace of more evolutionary tactics vs. revolutionary? Does the web itself affect Greenpeace’s campaign style at all?

GL: Raising awareness and stopping environmental abuse through our peaceful actions remains at the heart of Greenpeace. But we also believe that we need millions of people to become Greenpeace activists in their way and with their possibilities. Only if many people become active and live differently do we stand a chance to overcome the environmental crisis.

The web has affected our campaigning style, because it allows a faster, deeper and more responsive relationship with supporters and members of the public. The web is a powerful tool of communication and organization, and it allows global action. It also allows campaigning without having a physical office infrastructure in a country, and therefore increases the global reach of Greenpeace.

GO: Can you give us any insight into upcoming Greenpeace campaigns? What should we be looking for?

GL: Our highest priority is climate, and we are putting special emphasis on creating awareness about the reality of climate change in India and China. Over the next few months we want to influence the crucial negotiations for the next phase of the Kyoto agreement: the positive countries need to be encouraged to agree to bold targets, and any attempts by the United States to derail the process needs to be counteracted.

One of the quickest ways to reduce climate change impacts is to protect ancient forests. If we manage to keep old forest standing, then we have achieved a massive reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, we have protected many endangered animals and plants and some of the most beautiful and important ecosystems. And we can only do it if we also protect the future of the people who live in and of the forests. Therefore, rainforest protection in the Amazon, in Indonesia and the Congo is big task for us.

We have also a big campaign to stop the whaling operations of Japan in the Southern Oceans. Our whaling campaign is part of our oceans work, where we draw attention to the perilous state of the world’s oceans.

Thanks to Gerd for taking the time to answer my questions. For more on his perspective on climate change and related environmental challenges, watch this interview conducted at the symposium.

Photo source: papendreou.gr 

In this week’s content swap with Naturalpath, we’ve added another article to the Green Life Guide: "Low Energy Light Bulbs: What’s the Deal?" The Naturalpath team has put together an informative Q&A on the issues surrounding compact fluorescent light bulbs that includes answers on the fixtures in which they can be used, the amount of energy you can save with these bulbs, the mercury question, and their strange shape. If you’re not using CFLs in your home lighting fixtures, you’re missing out on an easy, inexpensive and, yes, harmless way to cut your electric bill.

As always, we’re grateful to Naturalpath for sharing their content with us. Don’t forget to look and see which of our blogs posts the NP team has chosen to feature on their site.

And, if you were looking for the second part of NP interview with the authors of Skinny Bitch, you can find it here.

Thursday morning’s session at the Papandreou Foundation’s Symi Symposium focused on the "green economy": how to craft economic policy that both internalizes the costs of a carbon-based economy, and creates incentives to move away from carbon-intensive energy sources. The presenters in this session were Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and former member of the Clinton administration, and Angelo Consoli, Director, Codeco s.s., European Affairs and Progressive Communication.

Professor Stiglitz’s presentation picked up on a theme that has run throughout the conference: the question of the best economic mechanisms to address climate change. Stiglitz argued (as have others) that a carbon tax is preferable to a cap and trade system (the model embraced by the Kyoto treaty, and much of the business world). Because changes in the market away from fossil fuels will inevitably make those energy sources less expensive, carbon taxes keep their prices high, reflecting the costs imposed on society by carbon emissions. Stiglitz also argued that such taxation responds to another reality: market-based approaches won’t work by itself, and government investments in infrastructure, research, and preparedness will be needed to round out a comprehensive approach to fighting climate change.

Other costs that the developed world likely will face stems from advancing the concepts of energy security and independence. If countries like China and India act in accordance with these concepts, that inevitably means that they’ll be burning more coal — China is already building coal-fired power plants at the rate of one/week. This could be disastrous in terms of climate change, but it points to the need for developing countries to build their energy infrastructure. If countries like China and India have to impede their own development to play a part in a global response to the climate crisis, Stiglitz argued that they should probably be compensated.

All of these question are important for the next round of climate negotiations. Stiglitz noted that in order to bring the developing world into this process, measuring carbon emissions on a per capita basis will be critical, as will a strict enforcement system. His last point: trade sanctions will likely be the most effective means of enforcing adherence to carbon mitigation strategies adopted by the international community.

Consoli’s presentation dealt with a completely different issue: the necessity (his argument) of developing the hydrogen economy in order to address global warming. He argued that one of the major impediments facing the growth of renewable generation technologies is storage, and that by using renewables such as wind and solar power to electrolyze water and create hydrogen, we can overcome that impediment. Consoli noted that the development of such systems, which would be decentralized, also has the benefit of empowering (in every sense of the word) people around the globe without access to electricity, or the capital to create it with current centralized generation technologies. The economic effect of such a transition involves a move from carbon-intensive energy sources, which require high amounts capital, to renewable sources that require high amounts of labor, so renewable production of hydrogen as an energy storage mechanism ends up boosting employment and economic growth.

Consoli presented the EU Parliament’s Written Declaration on energy, and it’s five pillars:

• Efficiency
• Renewables
• CO2 Reduction
• Hydrogen
• Smart Grids

As you might imagine, the questions and responses came quickly and furiously to these presentations, and included thoughts about the political reality of carbon taxation, the idea that such taxes create a right to pollute, the problem of hydrogen generation from "dirty" sources, and the methods by which governments can encourage their citizens to accept changes that could be painful in the short term. As usual, I’m giving a quick and dirty overview here — feel free to ask questions or offer your own responses.

Photo: A view of the Mediterranean

Editor’s note: I started working on this post yesterday, and after writing and writing and writing, I realized it was turning into a David post While I heard a lot of interesting discussion yesterday, I’ll try to stick to an overview of main ideas and questions, and then respond to your comments and questions. Perhaps we can extend the symposium into our own space here…

This morning, I got to attend my first major session at the Papandreou Foundation’s Symi Symposium. Entitled "Energy in Flux: Safe Passage to a Future of Alternatives," the session consisted of three presentations on transitioning to a new energy future, and a lively debate over the challenges and opportunities created by the need to shift energy priorities in the face of global climate change.

Overall, I was delighted by the optimistic tone that ran throughout these presentations (which, in some cases, became points of contention in later open discussion): all three speakers acknowledged the enormity of the environmental challenges we face, and noted that combined efforts of the public and private sectors will be necessary to mobilize the larger public to action. In each presentation, the speaker focused on public involvement (in the roles of consumers and citizens), and made the case that an educated populace will provide the momentum for adoption of clean, renewable energy options. Let me just give a very brief overview of the main points offered by each speaker.

The first presentation focused on consumers’ roles in transitioning to a low-carbon energy infrastructure. Dr. Joseph Stanislaw noted that, traditionally, when we talk about energy, we talk about supply: where does it come from? He argued that a shift in mindset and language towards the services energy provides creates greater opportunity for transitioning towards more sustainable energy options. Consumers don’t want energy created from coal, or from solar power, for that matter: they want the services that reliable energy provides. By focusing on meeting this demand, we can address our contributions to climate change by implementing currently available technologies (particularly conservation technologies) while also working on the next generation of cleantech solutions. Consumers can be empowered to contribute to lower consumption by educating them on the "low hanging fruit" available: CFLs, for example. Finally, Stanislaw noted that the private sector is well ahead of the (US) government in recognizing these opportunities: he specifically discussed Wal-Mart’s sustainability efforts.

The second and third presentations both focused on engaging populations as citizens in transitioning towards cleaner energy technologies. The first, presented by James Fishkin of Stanford University of the two described experiments conducted by Texas utilities in "deliberative democracy": representative groups of customers were brought together in person, and through television, to discuss opportunities to purchase "green" power through their utilities. The sessions served to both educate the people gathered, and to listen to their concerns. These sessions produced amazing results: before these sessions, 52% of these consumers will willing to pay more for green energy; afterwards, 84% expressed willingness. The speaker noted the the increased prices don’t have to be much larger: even a $.25 addition to customers’ monthly bills would generate millions of dollars for increased renewable infrastructures. The success of the Texas experiment has led to other requests to hold such events: they’ve been repeated in Nebraska and Nova Scotia (with similar positive outcomes), and more will be held in Vermont, and as part of the next National Governor’s Association meeting. The third speaker, John Panarenos, provided the results of a similar effort in Europe: when asked, the representative samplingof citizens choose "energy and environment" as the most pressing issues facing the EU. The combination of terms was important — when the word "environment" was presented by itself, it didn’t receive nearly as high numbers.

As you might imagine, other symposium delegates had plenty of questions and even challenges for these speakers. A few points offered:

• The "small steps" position of the first presentation was challenged with the Chinese proverb "You can’t cross a ravine with small steps": ultimately, the enormity of these problems require much bigger responses.
• The market focus (which was not exclusive — he wasn’t arguing for "letting the market fix the problems") of the first speaker’s presentation was also questioned, with at least one respondent noting that we must focus on what scientists say is necessary, rather than what is possible in a consumer market.
• Several respondents also argued for more top-down regulation — in fact, that seemed to be a major point of debate: a focus on grassroots action (which is what I heard coming from these presentations) vs. government regulation.

Needless to say, this session was fascinating and provocative: as the first speaker noted, we can’t separate energy issues from climate change, so these kinds of discussions are necessary. I’ve just given the briefest of overviews here — feel free to offer comments or ask questions…

The evening sessions at the symposium are shorter and a bit less formal. Tuesday’s evening’s focused on a presentation by Kim Alter (Oxford University) on the concept of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise: the hybridizing of business and non-profit models into a unique endeavor that harnesses market forces in innovative ways to address social (and environmental) challenges. As with the morning session, the discussion was lively following the presentation. The concept of social enterprise as a distinct category, rather than another form of non-profit, was a major question for participants in the discussion.

Tomorrow: Excursion day…. with lots of photos from Paros and Antiparos….

Paros, Greece, from the back porch of my hotel roomThis week, we've got something exclusive for you: an inside look at a major symposium on climate change hosted by Greece's Andreas G. Papandreou foundation. The Foundation invited me to participate in the event, and I just arrived on the Greek Island of Paros a few hours ago.

Needless to say, I was very excited by this invitation, and not just because I get to spend a week in the Greek Isles and still call it work. Papandreou's annual Symi Symposium brings together great minds from around the world each year to discuss solutions to global issues. The participants include politicians (several members of various parliaments, and one president), business leaders, academics and representatives of non-governmental organizations. This year's theme is "Climate Changes Everything," and I'm definitely looking forward to hearing the perspectives presented on addressing the global climate crisis.

Some minor travel mishaps kept me away from the symposium's first session, "After Kyoto: How to Design a New Global Accord." Now that I'm here, I'm definitely looking forward to upcoming sessions and workshops on energy alternatives, social entrepreneurship, the "Green Economy," and climate change in the developing world. I'll be providing details throughout here, and may even give podcasting a try (there's a studio for it here). I'll also take plenty of photographs… everything is worthy of a picture here!

The Papandreuo foundation has graciously picked up the tab for me to attend and cover this event.

Cross posted at sustainblog

Another guest post by Mike Taylor, publisher of Solar Kismet.

Electricity, or how I saved over $500 this winter

You may recall in Part 1 on Natural Gas, I outlined how I saved $166 on my natural gas bills over a two month period versus the previous homeowner (standardized against winter temperature differences) with little to no effort and less than $100 in supplies. That number has now increased to over $400 in savings from September 2006 through March 2007…

Now I'm happy to report that I got the electricity data on the previous owner as well, and frankly I'm not sure how she used so much electricity in our little house - she used as much in one month as we expect to use in a whole year. But the data doesn't lie and over the same 6 month winter time period, i.e. no air conditioners or dehumidifiers to skew the data, we have saved an astonishing $516 over her previous bills in the same 6 months the year before…Our monthly bills are $25-$35 in the DC metropolitan area (we're paying 13 cents/kWh on average). It's incredible how easy it is to save electricity, money, and pollution.

As before, your first thought must be that I'm sitting in the dark or bought all new appliances. Nope. The porch light greets us when we come home, we hang out in various rooms in the evening without much thought to turning the lights off, and we haven't replaced any major appliances (same refrigerator, dishwasher, laundry, etc).

Here are my secrets, not exactly rocket science, which cost less than $100 and only a little effort:

• Replaced all lights with CFLs - Every one. The light is the same. They hardly burn out. Friends can't tell the difference. The trick? Don't buy the $2 cheapie and expect it to put out the save amount of light. Pay $3 for the one with the most lumens, i.e. the 100 watt replacement (use these where the bulb won't be visible), and/or the ones with the fancy cover so it looks like a regular bulb (use these where the bulb is visible). You can get really small ones and specialty ones for vanity lights that work great. Some may take 5 seconds to warm up and reach full brightness but is that too much to ask? Prioritize the lights that are on the most (not the ones in the closet) if you don't want to replace them all.
• Light sensor on the front porch - I don't like to come home to a dark porch. So I paid $10 for a light sensing socket and screwed it into the old socket on the porch. Sun goes down, light comes on, and it has a timer to turn itself off after 2, 4, 6 hours (or the next morning).
• Phantom Loads - There are a lot of things that are "on" even when "off" - anything with a remote control, a fat box for a plug (a transformer that converts AC to DC), a clock, cell phone chargers, printers, monitors, etc. We have 2 or 3 power strips that allow me to shut off 3-4 things at once where it's convenient, or we unplug them. But it's not practical to do everything - I don't like to reprogram the VCR, TV, microwave clock, etc so I don't bother. I do unplug the clock radio in the guest room when no one's there (that thing uses $24/yr alone) and the chargers that don't get used everyday. Get a Kill-a-Watt and use it to go around the house and test different appliances (or better yet, buy one with some friends and pass it around to share costs). You will be surprised how many of these you have…

That's about it…surprisingly simple. Other things you can do:

• Switch to natural gas appliances - As you replace your old appliances (if they break or you remodel), switch to natural gas. It's cheaper and cleaner for the most part (even with the higher natural gas prices recently) - stove, dryer, and water heater. After all, electricity production is about 30% efficient and mostly comes from coal. I found a free natural gas dryer on Craig's List a few years ago at my old house. An electric water heater alone probably costs over $500/yr to operate - that's more than it costs to buy it.
• Buy Energy Star appliances - As you replace your old appliances, pay a little bit more for ones with the "Energy Star" label. They are more efficient and save more money in the run. Don't necessarily replace the appliances if they still work (although a new refrigerator over one that is 10 years or older could easily save over $100/yr). The "big four" users are refrigerator, dehumidifier, central air conditioner, and electric water heater.
• Buy a window air conditioner - We haven't gone through a DC summer yet, but we plan on using the air conditioner at some times…but there's no reason to cool the whole house at night, so we'll use a window air conditioner for our room and shut the central air off. Use a fan at night if it cools down - even 4-5 use less than the air conditioner.
• Refrigerator details - Turn off the ice maker. We don't use much ice and don't feel the need to have 2 gallons of it available at all times, so I turn it off once it's filled (and it usually stays off for 2-3 months actually). And if you buy a new refrigerator, the top/bottom door styles are more efficient than the side-by-side doors. Refrigerators can easily use less than 500 kWh/yr now versus 1500+ a few years ago (hurray for federal efficiency standards).
• Don’t replace the windows for energy reasons - As before, do it for aesthetics. Do it for comfort. Don’t do it expecting to save oodles of money and run from anyone who says otherwise.

John Addison publishes the Clean Fleet Report (www.cleanfleetreport.com) and is the author of the 2008 book Save Gas, Save the Planet.

With panoramic views of the ocean, over 86,000 make Santa Monica their home. On the edge of Los Angeles, Santa Monica is a desirable place to work and live. Residents want to keep it that way and make the city a model of sustainable living.

Santa Monica plans to be the nation’s first “Net Zero” city. Through energy efficiency, solar and other renewable energy, the city envisions generating clean energy that matches its total energy consumption.

Santa Monica currently has over 60 buildings with solar power. Other residential and commercial buildings are in the process of installing solar roofing.

The Civic Center Parking Structure will have 250 kW of PV. Where the city government does not use solar power, the city has contracted with Electric America to supply the City with 100% renewable electricity. Electric America has the flexibility to use a mix of renewable sources including geothermal, wind, biomass power plants, and solar.

Solar Santa Monica launched a two year program on January 1, 2007. The voluntary program will start with 50 residential and commercial buildings. With the benefit of what is learned from these 50 projects, the program will be made available to all. The 50 buildings will include 30 to 35 residences, 5 to10 business and 5 municipal buildings.

Susan Munves estimated that over 20 years, $1.4 billion is the probable investment required to achieve being a “Net Zero” city. This is likely to be less than the current utility electric costs. The city will only invest a small part of that investment. The city’s primary role is facilitating and project management. Santa Monica’s 20 year plan would eliminate electricity produced by coal and natural gas power plants, and all the resulting greenhouse gas emissions.

Stuart Cooley, Energy Efficiency Engineer for the city, explained that a detailed GIS database was developed of all the roofs of the city. Aerial photography was used to identify over 100MW of available rooftops on the 17,500 roofs in the city. With future solar PV technology, the roofs could represent even more solar energy potential.

Solar Santa Monica makes it easy for citizens to participate. To prevent excess expensive solar power from being installed, the city offers energy audits and identifies solutions from efficient fluorescent lighting to energy saving appliances to cut usage. The city is prequalifing “preferred partners” to install efficiency upgrades. Prepackaged PV and solar thermal systems are offered to residents and include preferred pricing, streamlined purchasing, permitting, installation and financing.

For commercial properties, Solar Santa Monica will provide comprehensive energy assessments for both the property owners and the leasing businesses. Proposals will be delivered with energy bill analysis, system specifications and pay-back analysis. Tax advantages will be detailed. Preferred financing sources will be offered.

Today’s guest post comes from our friends at Solar Kismet. You can find Part 1 of this series here.

The three most common reactions from many CitizenRE supporters when questioned about unrealistic goals is to:

1. Dismiss any questioning as being a solar industry conspiracy against the new competition. However, three other solar companies already offer a similar rental model, and you would be hard pressed to find any serious debate on their integrity.
2. Chastise the existing industry as having accomplished little and not having a real vision for the revolutionary ideas, even though the industry has grown at a rate of 40% annually over the last decade. Thousands of people work in the solar industry, many of whom have no vested financial interest in any one company, and a sizable portion are skeptical of CitizenRE’s claims.
3. Explain what CitizenRE isn’t rather than answering the substantive questions about what it is and can reasonably accomplish.

Ultimately, the skepticism of CitizenRE is founded in overstated plans that have relatively little supporting documentation, other than “trust us.” CitizenRE’s goals are ambitious to say the least:

• World’s Largest Solar Manufacturing Plant - Last June, Nanosolar (a company started in 2001 and backed by the Google founders) announced the construction of a 430 megawatt solar manufacturing facility, the world’s largest. Nanosolar’s new thin film technology was met with cautious optimism: as one industry insider put it, announcing and producing are two different things. CitizenRE states it intends to develop an even larger 500 megawatt solar manufacturing plant that will use a new combination of lower-quality silicon material. Originally slated to begin production in early 2007, the CitizenRE website now states a production goal of early 2008. In a recent interview, Sharp Solar, one of the world’s largest solar companies, indicated they have manufacturing lead times of 18-24 months under the best circumstances, which would further push CitizenRE’s new plant into 2009. The proposed plant is not on the radar of any solar news or industry analysts and CitizenRE has still not announced a location.
• New Solar Technology - CitizenRE’s new solar manufacturing plant will use a lower-purity silicon in the production of the solar panels, in hopes of lowering costs. All things being equal, this will result in a lower-efficiency solar panel. The new technology has no commercial track record. Furthermore, silicon supplies are tight, impacting multinational corporations like Sharp and Kyocera. CitizenRE will also need to deal with this tighter market.
• New Inverter Manufacturing Plant - Solar panels produce DC power, like batteries. Inverters convert the DC power into grid-compatible AC power. CitizenRE also intends to build their own inverter manufacturing plant.
• Third-Party Solar System Ownership - Three companies already offer “third-party ownership,” where a solar company owns and operates the solar system installed on a customer’s building. CitizenRE is similarly proposing to operate the third-party ownership model on residential homes, a scale over 200 times smaller. The also plan to do business in 30 or more states than existing companies currently operate. Industry analysts indicate that they cannot run any realistic scenarios where such a venture could be profitable.
• 100,000 Installations per Year - There are currently about 35,000 solar systems in the United States, with approximately 30,000 (PDF) of these coming in the last six years. CitizenRE originally had a stated goal of 100,000 installations per year, which has since been scaled back to a reported 25,000 per year.
• 2025 Vision - By 2025, CitizenRE has a vision to operate 25% of net electricity generation (presumably in the U.S.), 20% of peak capacity (also presumably in the U.S.), 330,000 megawatts of solar manufacturing capacity, and over 1 million megawatts of installed capacity. It is truly unclear how these are in the realm of reality. They will need to build 660 of their 500 megawatts plants in the next 18 years - that’s thirty-eight plants per year. And the first one has been delayed at least one year.

If any ONE of these things was announced by an unknown company, the idea would be met with serious skepticism. Frankly, if many of these things were announced by an established company, there would be skepticism. But the combination of industry-changing goals, all with serious learning curves, really brings into question CitizenRE’s basis of understanding. Could five established companies accomplish these goals, let alone one unknown?

CitizenRE’s business structure and start-up methodology also raise questions. As a multi-level marketing company, CitizenRE has recruited over 5,000 “ecopreneurs” who are not company employees, but rather associated with the company and will potentially receive a payment based on signing up other customers. Typically MLMs involve emotional sales pitches, sold from person to person, and can be associated with devolving into pyramid schemes, where a few top leaders make money by exploiting the lower ranks.

In CitizenRE’s case, money isn’t exchanging hands, which is frequently cited as a reason CitizenRE can’t be a scam. Instead, an equally powerful motivator is being used, one that drives the environmental movement: hope. CitizenRE is essentially promising THE energy, environmental and economic solution all rolled into one. It’s a powerful emotional driver that has resulted in the viral spread of CitizenRE’s ecopreneurs and potential customers, many of whom are no doubt one in the same, and whom may not understand the nuances of what they are selling or purchasing. Perhaps the promise of a future solar system is reason enough to participate, in leiu of immediate payment. Since ecopreneurs will ultimately be compensated (PDF) based on the number of systems they refer, misinformation and excessive hype has been the common marketing strategy. The company has since disapproved of such tactics, and ordered associates to stop using such tactics.

In addition to the sales force and resulting customers, CitizenRE will also need to train and recruit hundreds, if not thousands, of site inspectors and installers across the country. Not all homes will be suitable and every installation is unique, with the permitting and interconnecting process varying by each locality and electric company. Imagine trying to process 25,000 permits for a backyard deck, a common permitting request, in a few thousand cities. Now imagine doing so with a technology of which the inspectors are only vaguely aware. As permits delay things, installation quality will likely suffer in the name of making up speed and efficacy. And once the installation is complete, the system needs to be inspected for safety with the electric grid. Delays are inevitable at nearly every level of the sales and installation chain.

Ultimately, one wonders why they did it this way - marketing heavy and delivering lightly. Why not start building the manufacturing plant, which in order to raise money from investors or loans from banks, would have to show fiscal solvency in and of itself? Prove that idea. Why not start installing tens, and then hundreds of systems in the California first, the best market for solar systems, and build some industry experience and credibility? Prove that idea. Why not focus on doing one thing well before doing all things hypothetically? I am amazed at how far the hypothetical has taken this company.

Instead, CitizenRE has promised it all to everyone. There is basically nothing they haven’t decided they can do bigger and better than the existing solar industry, as if forging new paths is only a matter of an idea. But ideas are cheap and CitizenRE needs to hit grand slam after grand slam in order to come close to their vision. The shifting time frames and requests for patience have already started, and it is only a matter of time before various parts of the plan fall apart. The best businesses do one of two things - “promise and deliver” or “underpromise and overdeliver.” It’s kind of ironic that the industry is now abuzz about CitizenRE, a brand new company that hasn’t delivered anything…only promised.

Next Time: What effect might CitizenRE’s improbable success have on the industry? What about failure? (part 3 of 3)