Suzuki Foundation finds little evidence of strong engagement by the parent organization, and recommends the IOC play a stronger role to ensure that future host cities like London and Sochi follow through on their environmental commitments.

The Vancouver 2010 Olympics deserve a bronze medal for climate protection initiatives, the David Suzuki Foundation concluded in a "climate scorecard" released this week and reported in the Vancouver Sun.

The Vancouver Organizing Committee hired the foundation in 2008 to estimate the carbon impact of the Games and to recommend ways to offset those emissions. Prior to that engagement, the foundation had been one of VANOC's most vocal critics.

David Suzuki himself was at a press conference to award the "medal" to VANOC. He gave the Olympic organizers credit for innovative and energy-efficient venues, but lamented that a legacy of the Winter Games will be more carbon emissions.

The carbon will come from cars and sprawl due to the decision to upgrade the Sea to Sky Highway, instead of investing in rail transit between Vancouver and Whistler.

VANOC could have been more transparent about its sustainability budget and how it acquired offsets, while the International Olympic Committee could have played a stronger role in making sure its sustainability "pillar" is properly upheld, the foundation noted.

Our perspective: The Olympics must set a shining example of sustainability in action. VANOC has instead focused on being a little greener than previous Olympics. At that rate, it will take decades for the Games to eliminate their negative environmental impact.

VANOC will use this moment as an opportunity to close the door on debate about its sustainability practices, hoping that the Games' excitement will dissolve the messy details into a green memory.

Thus we don't expect to see any sustainability-related media reporting objectively from the Games starting next week. Instead, VANOC PR will spoon-feed the broadcast media with the official message of sustainability, which will be delivered unabridged. Watch for music-backed stories of frogs and reclaimed wood, positioning the "greenest games ever" as "carbon neutral" in the minds of the viewing public.

###

By Denis Du Bois at Energy Priorities

On February 2, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") published an interpretive release to provide guidance to public companies on the SEC's existing disclosure requirements relating to climate change. Those requirements apply to registration statements and periodic reports filed under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

by William Lin, Michael Nesteroff and Jeffrey Wolfstone

This is the first time the Commission has addressed climate change disclosures. The interpretive release does not create new legal requirements or modify existing requirements. Instead, the guidance is intended to provide clarity about the requisite disclosures for public companies regarding the impacts of climate change on their businesses. The guidance is meant to foster consistency in the treatment public companies give to their disclosures related to climate change.

Existing SEC Disclosure Rules and Regulations

The SEC has identified the following disclosure rules and regulations as the source of existing disclosure obligation related to climate change:

• Business Description. Item 101 of Regulation S-K under the Securities Act requires disclosure of the material effects that compliance with environmental laws may have on capital expenditures, earnings or the competitive position of a company.
• Legal Proceedings. Item 103 of Regulation S-K requires a company to describe any material pending legal proceedings to which it or any of its subsidiaries is a party. This would include any environmental enforcement actions and orders material to the company.
• Management's Discussion and Analysis ("MD&A"). Item 303 of Regulation S-K requires a company to disclose known trends, events, obligations or uncertainties that will, or are reasonably likely to, materially affect the company's liquidity, capital resources or operations. Companies are also required to disclose any other information the company believes is necessary to an understanding of its financial conditions, changes in financial condition and results of operations.
• Risk Factors. Item 503(c) of Regulation S-K requires a public company to provide a discussion of "the most significant factors that make the offering speculative or risky." A company should clearly state the risk and indicate how the particular risk specifically affects the company and avoid generic risk factor disclosures that could apply to any company.

Climate Change Related Disclosures

The interpretive guidance highlights four specific topics as examples of where climate change may trigger disclosure requirements under the existing rules and regulations summarized above.

• Impact of Legislation and Regulation: A company should consider whether existing laws and regulations regarding climate change have a material effect on the company and evaluate the potential impact of pending legislation and regulation related to climate change. These developments may trigger disclosure obligations under Items 101, 103, 503(c) and 303 of Regulation S-K.

  In the case of risk factor disclosures (Item 503(c)), companies should consider specific exposure they face as a result of climate change laws and avoid generic risk factor disclosures that could apply to any company. In addition, a company should not limit its disclosure analysis regarding proposed legislation or regulation only to the adverse consequences of those regulations. Rather, companies should also evaluate whether there are any new opportunities afforded to the company by changes in the law or in the company's business practices that would warrant disclosure under the circumstances.

  The SEC notes that companies will need to regularly assess their potential disclosure obligations related to climate change since climate change regulation is a rapidly developing area. In addition, disclosures should be attuned to the risks that are particular to the company's industry. For example, a company in the energy sector may face significantly different risks compared to a company in the transportation sector.

• Impact of International Accords: A company should consider and disclose any material risks or effects of international accords and treaties relating to climate change on the company's business. The need for this disclosure should be assessed by reference to the MD&A disclosure requirements under Item 303 of Regulation S-K (e.g., disclosure of any known trends, events, obligations or uncertainties that will or are reasonably likely to materially impact the company's liquidity, capital resources or operations).
• Indirect Consequences of Regulation or Business Trends: A company should consider, and disclose where material, any indirect consequences of regulation or business trends relating to climate change. Those consequences may occur as a result of legal, technological, political or scientific developments that may create demand for new products or services or decrease demand for existing products or services. For example, a technological innovation that enables a competitor to produce products that emit lower greenhouse gases could result in an increase in demand for that competitor's products and a corresponding decrease in demand for a company's products. These business trends or risks may trigger disclosure as risk factors under Item 503(c) or as a trend or uncertainty that may have a material favorable or unfavorable impact on the company's business under Item 503.
• Physical Impacts of Climate Change: Companies should evaluate the physical impacts of climate change on their businesses. Floods, hurricanes, sea levels, arability of farmland and water availability and quality all have the potential to affect a company's operations and results. Accordingly, companies whose businesses may be vulnerable to severe weather or climate-related events should consider and disclose the material risks of, or consequences from, such events as risk factors under Item 503(c).

The SEC intends to monitor the impact of this interpretive release as part of the SEC's ongoing disclosure review program. As part of the SEC's evaluation of whether further guidance or rulemaking related to climate change disclosure is necessary, the SEC intends to: (i) review its experience with the disclosure review program, (ii) hold a public roundtable on climate change disclosure in Spring 2010 and consider the information it gains through the roundtable, and (iii) consider any recommendations made by the SEC's Investor Advisory Committee (formed in June 2009 to advise the SEC on matters of concern to investors in the securities markets) which has been considering climate change disclosure issues.

The text of the interpretive release is available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp.shtml.

William W. Lin is a Shareholder at Lane Powell and a member of the Firm's Corporate Finance and Securities Practice Group. He can be reached at (206) 223-7982, linw@lanepowell.com.

Jeffrey C. Wolfstone is a Shareholder and Co-Chair of Lane Powell's Corporate Finance and Securities Practice Group. He can be reached at (503) 778-2153, wolfstonej@lanepowell.com.

Michael A. Nesteroff is a Shareholder and Chair of Lane Powell's Sustainability and Climate Change Team. He can be reached at (206) 223-6242, nesteroffm@lanepowell.com or Twitter: @USClimateLaw.

###

By Lane Powell at Energy Priorities

The 2010 Games are being dubbed the "Sustainable Olympics," but is Vancouver BC setting any world records? In this month's Briefing we examine some lessons from the global spectacle. First we look at the venues that Canada constructed for the upcoming Winter Games, to see if they win any green medals. Seven years after winning the bid, we find Canadians are not entirely happy about the upcoming games. Green business guru Martin Westerman shares his thoughts about how to really make the games green. (podcast)

http://tinyurl.com/greenolympics

Podcast

 LISTEN to the Briefing

The Winter Olympics begin February 12, 2010 in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Guests:
Ann Duffy, corporate sustainability officer for the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.... from an interview we recorded for our May 2009 program.

Stephen Lacey, host of the Inside Renewable Energy podcast.

David Helliwell, co founder and CEO of Pulse Energy

Vaughn Palmer, political columnist for the Vancouver Sun

Martin Westerman, author, lecturer and consultant on sustainable business

Program notes & transcripts

Vancouver British Columbia is hosting the 2010 Winter Olympics. Just as the great games make stars of little-known athletes, they also make stars of cities -- like Torino, Nagano, Lillehammer, and Sarajevo.

The games are an opportunity of a lifetime for worldwide publicity, and nations compete fiercely for the spotlight.

That same global spotlight also illuminates issues that are culturally important at the time, like race, political freedom, or human rights.

The cultural issue of the 21st century is sustainability. The International Olympic Committee has made sustainability a pillar of its mission. The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games -- commonly known by its much shorter acronym, VANOC -- has conducted a major campaign to highlight its efforts at making the 2010 games "green."

That campaign quickly led to charges of greenwashing. It's no surprise -- how could they completely mitigate the environmental impact of an event that lasts this long, draws as many spectators, and requires the construction of multiple major facilities specifically for that event.

Weeks of televised competitions in three cities will be responsible for an estimated 300 thousand tons of carbon emissions. Thousands of athletes and trainers, 10,000 media, 14,000 volunteers, and a quarter-million spectators will put pressure on every aspect of the cities' infrastructure, from roads and power to waste management and water treatment.

VANOC ordered those cities to build 9 venues from the ground up, and renovate several existing arenas. All of the new venues will be certified green buildings. VANOC committed to meet or exceed a third-level rating in the Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design -- LEED Silver.

Part 1: The Green Venues of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics

Related:
"Vancouver LEED Neighborhood Handed Over to Olympic Organizers"
"Vancouver Plans on More Transit, Less Traffic during 2010 Winter Olympics"
"One Year to Go: Countdown to 2010 Olympics"
"Vancouver 2010 Olympic Village" (October 2008)
"Globe Conference Draws Business and Sustainability Leaders to Vancouver from around the World" (May 2008)
"Beijing Olympic Village Certified Green; Vancouver Seeks Twin Golds for 2010" (2008)

Energy:Minute -- Energy Monitoring

» Transcript

Part 2: Monitor Olympic Venue Energy Consumption in Real Time

» Transcript

Related: "Olympic Venues to Display Energy Consumption in Real Time "

Part 3: Seven Years after Winning the Bid, How Are Canadians Feeling about the Games?

» Transcript

Part 4: How To Really Make the Olympics Green

» Transcript

Part 5: Lessons from Vancouver

Most cities are unlikely ever to face the unique opportunities and complex challenges posed by hosting the Olympics. But Vancouver's experience offers some valuable lessons.

It's possible to use a high-profile construction project to influence future green building. That can backfire. These particular examples will always be associated with the Olympics, and the Vancouver Olympics are not without controversy. If other issues come up, whether it's doping or security or Canada feeling cheated out of a gold medal in hockey, it could dampen the impact these venues have on future developments.

Transparency and documentation are extremely valuable, in these early days of sustainable business. Doing what you believe is right sometimes brings bad publicity. It's ok to sacrifice publicity for sustainability, but not to sacrifice sustainability for publicity.

Sometimes that might mean questioning whether a green building is still a good thing, when no building would have been better.

And there are lessons from Vancouver about green business.

Any organization that ignores public opinion about the environment proceeds at its own risk. The higher your profile, the higher the expectations.

Carbon neutral is no longer the ideal, it's becoming the baseline. Carbon offsets are indispensible, but ultimately we need to get to where we're not emitting the carbon in the first place -- as Martin Westerman says, focus on not making a mess, rather than on cleaning up afterward.

For almost any green initiative, charges of greenwashing are inevitable. The best defense is a large dose of verifiable measures -- like certified green buildings, or energy efficiency that can be monitored.

Never forget: The world is watching.

###

By Denis Du Bois at Energy Priorities

If we had no choice but to make the Olympics environmentally neutral, how would we do it? Martin Westerman has some ideas. He is the author of "The Business Environmental Handbook," a lecturer on sustainable business for the University of Washington Business School and the Bainbridge Graduate Institute. (podcast) (transcript)

This is a highlight from the Building Priorities Briefing.

 GO to the Briefing

Transcript

Denis Du Bois:
Earlier in the program I asked if there's any way to completely mitigate the environmental impact of an event of this magnitude. But what if the Olympic Committee -- and its sponsors -- were faced with the challenge to either make the games environmentally benign, or stop holding them altogether?

To explore that idea with us, I've invited Martin Westerman, author of "The Business Environmental Handbook" and other works on environmental subjects. He's a lecturer on sustainable business, for the University of Washington Business School, and the Bainbridge Graduate Institute. He's President of Green Business Advisors, and a columnist on green living.

Martin, is it possible to neutralize the environmental impact of the Olympics?

Martin Westerman:
We're, unfortunately, in a space where we're all about cleaning up after ourselves rather than not making a mess. The fact is that we've already made the mess. A lot of what we do is devoted to learning as we go and finding out that we've already made a mistake. And you know, hindsight is 20/20, but when we're creating the mess, often we're not aware of what we're doing until we refine our research.

So, I think that given those circumstances, the Vancouver Olympic Committee, VANOC, is doing the absolute best it can to think ahead and balance that thinking ahead with cleaning up after itself. And within the context of environmental matters being a very low priority compared to everything else on its plate.

What it should be, and what Paul Lingl of the David Suzuki Foundation and a number of other people say, is it should be build in so that nobody has got any choice about the matter, it's just built in. It's just the way we do business.

And their sustainability person, says pretty much the same thing. She's trying to build it into their operations, rather than making it an overhead item. Which, of course, is going to be shunted off to the side, because making a profit on this thing, and selling the tickets on it, and getting the security for the venue, and making sure the transportation is lined up. Making sure their public relations are not impacted by the drug problems in Vancouver and the homeless problems in Vancouver. Those are all bigger priorities than just making sure we don't generate too much carbon.

Also, the economics of it say there is really...carbon is an externality that is not monetized. When you think about it, everything we value is not monetized. We don't value -- we don't monetize community. We don't monetize family. We don't monetize education. We don't monetize faith. We don't monetize health...

Denis:
What would you do if it were your job to completely minimize the environmental impact of an event like the Olympics?

Martin:
I would put it in the same place every year.

And a lot of people have made that suggestion, and it's a logical thing to do. But humans don't really operate on logic, they operate a lot more on emotion.

Logically, you put them in one venue. Two thirds of the carbon generated for the Olympics is in travel, air travel between all the points around the world and the Olympic venues.

If you put the Olympics in one place, then a third of that impact would be taken care of every year. You wouldn't generate new carbon footprint, new greenhouse gasses, building new venues every year in different place in the world, and having to re-sort how everybody was going to fly out there.

Because people are flying from more collections of countries in Europe to Vancouver, for example, than they would be from collections of countries to Athens, say, for the Summer Games and to the Italian Alps for the Winter Games.

There are so many countries and so many Olympic teams in proximity to those two particular locations. So if the IOC -- the International Olympic Committee -- designated single venues for Summer and Winter Games in country-population centers. And by that, I mean areas where lots of countries surround the venues rather than venues where very few countries surround the venues -- say Peking, or Beijing, or Vancouver -- then immediately we would reduce the air flight impact of getting to the games.

The problem is we don't operate logically, What we operate on is how exciting it is and how much revenue each new venue can generate and how much reputation it can build by getting the Olympics in their home city.

I was talking with somebody close to the US Olympic Committee who said, "You know, even though these cities run the risk of bankrupting themselves and their countries just to put this thing together. Even though they're going to get an onslaught of additional people and have to find additional lodging and have to find better transportation and so on, they line up out the door to bid for an Olympic games because the prestige of it is so huge."

It's really the human nature aspect that's driving this, not logic.

Denis:
What is the reputation of British Columbia in terms of sustainability?

Martin:
It's a mixed bag, I think, like other developed countries. And I'd like to better informed about this than I am, but my observations of it are that Vancouver is one of the leading environmental cities in the world. They've got a terrific public transportation system. They're moving towards being a carbon-neutral city like Seattle is, and that's reflected in what they're doing with the Olympics.

The province itself, however, makes money on logging, they make money on farming. They're not doing much organic farming, and they tend to be rapacious around their logging. So when it comes down to, again, sustainability, jobs versus environment is how they look at it. So the priority of the environment is low and the priority of making the revenue is high.

Vancouver, actually, and Victoria, and northwestern Washington cities, have been contending for quite a while about sewage that Victoria flushes into the Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca. Anyway, they've been contending about that for quite a while, and Victoria is unwilling to pay for tertiary treatment. They're even, I think, unwilling to pay for secondary treatment on that sewage.

And then, also, when the protesters were showing up to block the expansion of the Sea to Sky Highway for the Olympics. That's the one that runs from Vancouver up to Whistler. The gendarmerie arrested everybody and threw them in jail without trial or without attorneys' representation, by using an injunction form of the law.

And so they tend to be very tough on people who protest for the environment. People who want the province to mitigate damage and then report on the damage are hitting stone walls all the time because the province is really unwilling to mitigate and they're unwilling to report -- except in the case of the Olympics, which is a showcase event.

So, since they're in the world-wide public eye, they've got to show some kind of transparency. But generally, they're less willing provincially to be transparent and to be proactive and helpful.

Denis:
So if you were advising the IOC or any future Olympic host city, like London Sochi, what strategies would you recommend?

Martin:
Number one, build sustainability into the entire operation, so that there isn't any question. "We just operate this way." And in order to do that, you have got to do a lot of homework on the business case, or the business cases, for say, locally grown and organic food supply, composting all the waste, doing a carbon footprint for scopes one, two, and three. That is your direct activities, your indirectly related activities, and then the activities that are peripheral but related to your initiative. So for the entire seven years to know beforehand that you are going to build this much, and you are going to put this much concrete on the ground. You are going to dig this much earth out and so on.

And the architecture firm Mithun, here in Seattle, has done a lot of work on the carbon footprint, the life cycle carbon footprint of construction. And there are other people who are working on that, too.

So everybody mitigates everything, or they avoid degeneration in the first place from the get-go. We don't look it all over and after seven years we say, "OK. Let's buy enough carbon offsets to take care of this."

So we build sustainability into the operation from the beginning, because we already know what the operation looks like. We have done it in Vancouver, and Calgary, and Athens, and Beijing, and everywhere already. So we know what it looks like. So why does each committee in each city have to start fresh?

The second thing is we market the heck out of it. We just say, "Hey," to the populous. And this is the catalyst to change the building codes so that, everything was built from when the city gets its bid approved onward, the building codes change, so everything built there, whether it is for the Olympics or not, gets built to the different standard.

And we use this as a catalyst, as Vancouver did, to improve the transportation infrastructure so that we have got a legacy afterward of improved transportation infrastructure and reduced carbon footprint infrastructure.

And then we change the food supply system as part of that sustainability piece. Instead of an average 1,500 miles that the food travels to get to the plate of the person in the city, we start sourcing locally and regionally. We use those building codes again to help local farmers by keeping their taxes low so that they can stay on the land and produce for the cities. So we make the city healthier not only while we do the Olympics, but the legacy afterward is a healthier city.

###

By Denis Du Bois at Energy Priorities

You can't manage what you can't measure. Monitoring is an essential component of managing energy use. (podcast) (transcript)

Energy:Minute Podcast

 Listen to the Podcast

Transcript

Energy monitoring is a process that starts by gathering data from energy meters -- the same ones the energy utility uses to bill their customers, plus submeters on large loads like heating, air conditioning, lighting and machinery.

Monitoring is an essential component of managing energy use. The obvious first step is to compile that data and analyze it, establishing benchmarks and looking for ways to reduce energy waste.

To take this to the next level, you could allocate energy costs to departments -- making the data center pay for its energy consumption, and manufacturing pay for theirs -- so line managers are motivated to contribute ideas for controlling energy costs.

And to take it up another notch, correlate energy use with business processes. Measure the kilowatts per widget manufactured, or the energy cost per contract processed. Consider how that information can make your business more efficient, more competitive, more profitable, and more sustainable.

Related articles:

"Monitoring Solar Energy for Fun and Profit: Fat Spaniel's "PV2Web" Displays Real-Time Status"

"Olympic Venues to Display Energy Consumption in Real Time"

###

By Denis Du Bois at Energy Priorities

Seven years after winning their bid to host the 2010 Winter Olympics, how are Canadians feeling about the upcoming games? Denis Du Bois talks with Vaughn Palmer, political columnist for the Vancouver Sun. (podcast) (transcript)

This is a highlight from the Building Priorities Briefing.

 GO to the Briefing

Transcript

VANOC's sustainability plan covers a multitude of environmental measures, from reducing landfill waste, to measuring air and water quality, to protecting wildlife and habitat.

Still, There's been plenty of criticism.

After committing, in its 2003 bid, to "move toward zero-emissions games," VANOC waited five years to come up with a plan for "carbon management," and then only under public pressure. In 2009 it took half-steps to mitigate its carbon emissions, and tried to find new, last-minute sponsors to pay for the carbon offsets -- while long-time sponsors were withdrawing their support for the games due to the economic downturn.

You don't have to look far to find vocal critics of the new highway through old-growth forest, the high cost of seats, the lodging shortage, the byzantine ticketing process, and the seemingly endless inconvenience to the locals.

Bloggers accuse the Olympic Committee and the Canadian government of greenwashing. Headlines routinely decry the cost overruns, the mounting public debt, and the desertion of major sponsors.

Our next guest is Vaughn Palmer, a political columnist for the Vancouver Sun. He also gives a weekly commentary on Canadian news on NPR station KUOW in Seattle, where this program is produced. He's based in the Provincial capitol of Victoria.

Vaughn, have the venues been a political tool?

Vaughn Palmer:
In general terms, the government tried to use the Olympic venue construction and building program to point in the direction that it wanted construction to go in the province in the future. So they brought in LEED standards. And one of the other things they did, for instance, was that they dictated that wherever possible wood would be used. And that's because the forest industry is the mainstay industry in British Columbia and it's also in serious trouble, so they wanted to set an example.

So, if you went to see our new convention center, which was built in part so that they would have a media center for the Olympics, you'll see a building that has just got some stunning use of wood all the way though. If you went to look at the skating oval in the municipality of Richmond, again, you'll see a wooden roof.

So they used public construction as sometimes governments do to make some statements, and they made a double statement with these projects. One, they wanted them to be green. And the other, they also wanted them to make use of the province's reserves of natural wood.

Denis:
How are canadians feeling about the olympics in general?

Vaughn:
I think with the Olympics in general -- you know, they always say, it's one of the most popular brands in the world. People get very excited about the Olympics.

British Columbia -- because we're paying for the games and games-related projects -- have been, the last few months, consumed with a lot of stories about cost, cost overruns, about security costs, and just about the massive disruptions that you have in a major city when you stage a world event.

Having said that, I expect that what will happen is when the games actually open next month, the focus will turn to the athletes and the events. And if the Canadian team does well at the Olympics, I expect the Canadians will be feeling pretty good about it.

Denis:
Sustainability is a big part of VANOC's messaging around the games. How well is that message breaking through all the noise?

Vaughn:
Their most recent report on it, I think, identified the dilemma. And that is that you can do many, many green things and you can do many things associated with a big event like this that makes the event carbon neutral. And you can have building codes.

You can do all of that. The problem they have is that one of the biggest greenhouse gas contributions of the Olympics is the massive amount of air travel that's involved in bringing people here. Tons and tons of CO2 and CO2 equivalents. And the only way you can deal with that is, basically, to buy offsets. So last report I saw, it looked as if the Olympics would be buying about 50 percent of their emissions. They would be dealing with those by buying offsets.

Now, everybody buys offsets, so it's not like it's a scandal, but the big contributor to the Olympics is air travel and the only way to do that is to buy offsets.

Denis:
"Legacy" is an important conept to the IOC. The games aside, did these communities have a shortage of stadiums and such?

Vaughn:

The biggest thing we built that there'll be some controversy around, in terms of lasting legacy, may be the skating center in Richmond. I don't know how much we needed that.

They're using existing hockey rinks, for example. The International Olympic movement agreed to use a North American-sized ice surface instead of the larger European-sized ice surface, so we wouldn't have to build new hockey rinks. So they're using existing facilities.

They're using the existing Whistler ski facility, which is one of the largest in world. I should say, one of the largest in North America. They did develop a second ski resort development at Callahan Valley, but that's going to be useable anyway.

The convention center was controversial, because it had a huge budget overrun. But that'll be used by the Olympics for a few weeks, but then it'll be available as a convention center. The bookings for the convention center are looking pretty good.

They built the new transit line from the airport, linking downtown Vancouver. It's an elevated light rail system. Very expensive, $2 billion. It's already in operation and very popular with the public. It's meeting its ridership projections, and of course it'll be there after the games are over as well.
So when I point out, and others have pointed out, the enormous cost of the games and the games-related projects, the people associated with the Olympics movement will come back and point out that there are a number, as you say, legacies that are associated with these games.

And unlike, I guess the most egregious example is that giant birds nest thing in Beijing. Which I think has been used once since the closing ceremonies in Beijing. We don't have anything that big and big expensive and will only be used for the games and not have a lot of use afterwards.

There is some controversy around that, but we were able either to use existing facilities or what we built has other uses down the road.

The one controversy we haven't mentioned is the Olympic Village in Vancouver, which is massively expensive. It's going to be turned back to what is called "affordable housing." But the only it will work as affordable housing, affordable to anyone in Vancouver who even pays taxes, they're going to have to subsidize the operations of it in some form or eat some of the debt associated with it.

Because some estimates have suggested that the actual cost of construction of that Olympic Village, once the renovations are completed and it's turned into housing, if you include the price of the land as well which was donated by the city. You're looking at [CAD] $600, 000 to $750, 000 per unit.

Well, that may be affordable in some circles, but it doesn't meet my test.

Denis:
There's more public land surrounding the Olympic Village. Does Vancouver have an appetite for more green building?

Vaughn:
One of the things that I'd say there was a piece in the "Los Angeles Times" recently that remarked on this. One of the thing that I think Vancouver is looked to is a measure of success in getting people living within a downtown core and effectively using the cheapest form of public transit, which is they walk to work.

The city has brought a lot of development into walking distance from the city core, and the Olympic Village site is on the edge of that. You'd have to walk across a bridge to get downtown, but it's not a long walk.

###

By Denis Du Bois at Energy Priorities

Pulse Energy in Vancouver is making it possible for you to watch real-time energy consumption at the 2010 Winter Olympic venues in Vancouver. Denis Du Bois talks with the company's co-founder, David Helliwell. (podcast)

This is a highlight from the Building Priorities Briefing.

 GO to the Briefing

Related article:

"Olympic Venues to Display Energy Consumption in Real Time "

Transcript

A Vancouver company called Pulse Energy supplies the software. The company's co-founder, David Helliwell, was involved with the 2010 Olympics as early as the bid stage in 2003.

David, was energy monitoring always in the plan? or, how did this come about?

David Helliwell:
This came about because, as the organizers for the 2010 games were trying to figure out how they could be the greenest games ever, they were trying to figure out the natural question: if we say we're going to be the greenest, how did the others perform? They found affirmative information about how they deal with solid waste at other Olympics, and other elements of running the games, but nothing really about how the building really performed. About solar panels and using renewable energy, but nothing really about how well the buildings performed.

So what we're doing is we're tracking electricity use, and in some cases natural gas use at the main Olympics venues. That's from the speed skating oval to the figure skating and the hockey arenas and the athletes' villages in Vancouver and Whistler.

We're tracking that, and we're really looking at two dimensions. One dimension is how much energy is being saved and how it's being saved. It's mostly being saved by how the buildings have been constructed, because there are a number of sites that are LEED certified, and generally they've been taking the approach to having them be as energy-efficient as possible.

Then the other one is how can find anomalies and when are we wasting energy that we can deal with right away? And that's something that will be useful during the games, but it'll be even more useful in the years and years and decades ahead when these buildings will be operating. They'll be able to stay tuned up in a way that will make them as energy efficient as possible.

Denis:
And when the TV crews pull out and the dust settles, will these owners continue to monitor their facilities?

David:
Yes, that's certainly the plan. The way the software works is Pulse is software as a service, and you just pay for you ongoing usage. Certainly the intention is to continue using it. In fact, recently the city of Vancouver who is obviously the host city for the games has just announced that they're rolling out Pulse Energy software in over a million square feet of their largest buildings.

So certainly it's something that, during the games there's certainly some PR and messaging that people like to show, but it's after the games and into the future that there are real financial benefits and operational benefits.

Denis:
Power from the games comes from the province's utility, BC Hydro...

David:
Yes. BC Hydro has a program called Power Smart that is largely recognizes as one of the leading energy conversation programs in North America. A number of the venues have been Power Smart certified. It's a little like LEED certification, but for the specific venues. Also Pulse Energy has partnered with BC Hydro, and they're helping to finance the deployment of our software in a number of these locations.

Denis:
How many buildings do you monitor, and what's the typical facility for you?
David:
Well, we monitor hundreds of buildings around North America, right now, with a lot more about to come online. And a typical facility will be anywhere upwards of 20,000 square feet, in commercial buildings.

So it could be office buildings, it could be hospitals, universities, schools, retailers, supermarkets. Anything, any type of building that uses a significant amount of energy, and that includes electricity, that includes natural gas, steam, hot water, anything that's carrying energy even cooling systems geothermal energy. It can be the production of energy, with wind, or solar energy, as well, from renewables.

So any of those, any building that needs a better hold on their energy information is what we really focus on. And probably the best buildings for us to get going quickly with are buildings that already have some form of energy monitoring in place, because it's very quick and simple for us to integrate to that. We do a lot work with buildings with existing enterprise energy management systems, although it's not to say we don't work with other buildings, as well. It just involves putting in a small amount of hardware to get the software going.

Denis:
You're working on research with Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. So let me ask you -- where is this technology headed?

David:
Well, that's a good question. I guess there are a few things that are pretty certain to happen.

One is that there will continue to be more and more energy information out there that will be whether it's with smart meters or improved metering and sensors that are being installed all over all sorts of buildings so there will be a need to be able to connect to this information. More and more it will be in real time, for the connectivity.

One of our major partners, on the connectivity side, is Cisco, where we're one of the lead companies in their Smart Grid Ecosystem, and working with them on connected real estate. So that's something that's definitely coming.

Working with utilities and demand response. That's something that's evolving quickly and going from being just manual phone calls to being integrated in the software.

###

By Denis Du Bois at Energy Priorities

The Wall Street Green Trading Summit is coming up on March 23 and 24, 2010, in Times Square in New York City. Launched in 2002, this is one of the longest-running environmental market events in the industry.

CONFERENCE

Wall Street Green Trading Summit IX March 23-24 Times Center New York Times Building New York, NY www.WSGTS.com 1-888-435-2632

According to Wall Street Green Trading Summit founder Peter Fusaro, the two-day conference covers innovations in carbon trading and finance, insights into renewable energy market opportunities, linkages of cleantech investment and carbon trading, among other current topics.

Sessions will feature practitioners and leaders in the field. In addition to Fusaro, the roster of 55 speakers features Greg Arnold, Managing Partner of CE2 Capital Partners, and Nick Baily, Founding Member of Belgrave Climate Exchange, Inc.

"The Wall Street Green Trading Summit IX is the 'one-stop shop' to come up to speed on the latest developments in Green Trading and Finance," Fusaro says.

Fusaro certainly has been at the forefront of change for 35 years in the global energy industry. Fusaro claims to have coined the term "Green Trading." His experiences and insights have placed him at the forefront of energy consulting, including carbon and emissions trading, cleantech venture capital and renewable energy project finance.

The conference runs March 23 through 24 at the Times Center in New York. A pre-summit seminar on March 22 offers an introduction to carbon trading and finance.

###

By Denis Du Bois at Energy Priorities

BC Hydro and the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (VANOC) launched an online energy tracker that will publicly monitor real-time energy consumption of 2010 Winter Games sites within the cities of Vancouver and Richmond, the Resort Municipality of Whistler and Whistler Blackcomb.

"This marks the first time Games venues and associated sites have collected and publicly reported on their energy consumption during [2010 Olympic] Games-time," said VANOC CEO John Furlong. "Thanks to the commitment of BC Hydro and our 2010 venue partners in Vancouver, Whistler and Richmond, our Games will achieve a high standard of energy performance. This is a legacy that will pay dividends for years to come through ongoing use of these facilities."

Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games venues and associated sites participating in the live energy tracking project include the Richmond Olympic Oval, Canada Hockey Place, Vancouver Olympic/Paralympic Centre, South East False Creek Community Centre, Whistler Blackcomb Roundhouse Lodge and Snowmaking Facilities and the Olympic and Paralympic Villages, Vancouver and Whistler. (Images courtesy Pulse Energy/VANOC)

Blair Lekstrom, Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the Province of B.C., said, “Thanks to energy-efficiency measures that have been implemented at 2010 Winter Games venues and associated sites, through Power Smart programs, the venues are expected to save approximately 18 gigawatt hours of electricity -- enough to power more than 1,600 homes for an entire year."

The online energy management software for the venue energy tracking dashboard was developed by B.C.-based Pulse Energy. The software helps measure and verify the effectiveness of retrofits and sustainable attributes in their design and construction. Real-time energy tracking enables facilities to optimize their energy efficiency on an hourly and daily basis. It also enables them to compare their performance to other similar facilities.

###

By Denis Du Bois at Energy Priorities

The race is on to develop a competitive advantage in cleantech -- not just for corporate profit or state and regional economic development, but as a key driver of national economic competitiveness in the 21st Century. Is the US prepared to compete and win at this new Great Game? Two recent deals in China for US solar companies First Solar and eSolar show a worrying trend.

When I worked at Electricité de France Group (EDF), the French energy giant and national champion, there was a story that circulated internally about the nuclear plants EDF helped set up in China.

EDF was one of the first Western multi-nationals to be invited into China in the mid-1980's and there was much skepticism at the time about the rule of law and the ability of EDF to protect its commercial interests, including, of course, its considerable intellectual property in nuclear plant operations.

In partnership with its sister construction company Areva (known as Framatome at the time), EDF provided much of the engineering design, control systems expertise, and on-site management during the early years of operation at the first French-built plants, Daya Bay Units 1 and 2, which entered service in 1993 and 1994, respectively.

The story goes that under a twinning arrangement with the host utility, a Chinese engineer "shadowed" each EDF employee, learning his tasks and tools in order to progressively take over day-to-day operations. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Chinese engineers from these first plants quickly became expert in EDF technology and helped domestic firms reverse engineer much of the IP.

As a result, China has largely appropriated the expertise needed to run the next wave of plants, above and beyond the original agreement, and cut EDF engineers out of the picture.

eSolar is striving to make concentrating solar power at cost parity with coal. (eSolar photo).

One take away from the EDF story is that the reality of "IP theft" is seldom as clear cut (or glamorous) as the James Bond image portrayed by the media - a stealth agent sneaking into the office at night, hacking security or perhaps rifling through files on an unsecured desktop.

In the EDF case, the transfer of proprietary technology and expertise was a slippery slope - the gradual and inevitable accumulation of knowledge by trained local staff, done with the complicity of the IP owner, as part of a long term, lucrative partnership. As everyone involved knew at the time, the Chinese would and did eventually acquire the skills to operate their own nuclear fleet. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is hard to get him to pay corkage.

First Solar and eSolar: Faustian Bargains

I've been reminded of the EDF experience in the context of two recent deals involving US solar companies First Solar of Tempe, Arizona, the world leader in thin film PV modules based on Cadmium Telluride (CdTe), and Pasadena based eSolar, a leading developer of utility-scale concentrating solar power (CSP) systems.

As announced in the press, both companies signed mega-deals with authorities in Western China, each involving up to 2 GW of solar generation. But unlike standard Power Purchase Agreements in the US, the Chinese in each case negotiated for licensing of the technology to local manufacturers and "technology transfer" as an expected part of the transaction.

Based on the EDF experience, I am willing to speculate that these will be the last plants ever built by these two companies in China - at least as US based entities.

From a private, commercial perspective, of course, there is nothing unusual or even unsavory about any business owner knowingly sacrificing future market potential to generate current cash, selling off a small piece of its "soul" to save its skin. Times have been extremely tough for solar companies - especially those with non-silicon technologies that must compete against the massive pressure from raw silicon price drops of 50% in the last year, driving down the cost of competing PV, combined with the global economic slowdown and its affect on demand.

First Solar was the darling of the recent solar boom and has also led the retreat. After seeing its stock run up from $30 to $300 in '08 and early '09, FSLR currently trades at less than half its pre-crash high (a still healthy $137, as of today).

eSolar is tightly privately held, but has switched from project development to a pure licensing strategy, in part because of difficulties raising sufficient capital in today's tight capital markets.

While these two deals may make sense from a narrow, corporate perspective, from a national energy policy perspective, there is something ominous at work here. China is not just any local market and solar is not just any technology.

What we are seeing is a very high stakes strategy -- the proverbial "shot across the bow" - no doubt orchestrated from the very top levels of the Chinese energy bureaucracy, to challenge US strategic leadership in the next generation of clean energy technology.

The question is: is anyone in Washington even paying attention?

CORRECTED: Unlike eSolar, Ausra does not license its technology. Ausra designs, manufactures and installs solar thermal steam generators for power generation and industrial processes.

Matt Lecar is a veteran energy industry expert with 18 years in utilities, international business development, cleantech venture capital, and consulting. Most recently, he served as Fund Manager for the CalCEF Angel Fund, a first-in-kind seed stage fund focused exclusively on clean energy markets. This article is part of a series called "View from the Poletop" -- broad perspectives on the current state of markets in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and smart grid.

More from Matt Lecar...

###

By Matt Lecar at Energy Priorities