Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Gebroe-Hammer Orchestrates $51M Apt. Deal

Gebroe-Hammer Orchestrates $51M Apt. Deal

 

Philadelphia City
Apartments
PHILADELPHIA, PA - In the largest market-rate multifamily transaction of 2012 here, Gebroe-Hammer has arranged the sale of the Presidential City Apartments for $51 million, GlobeSt.com has exclusively learned. The company that bought the apartment building – which is the city’s biggest apartment complex - will renovate and reposition the 1030-unit structure, while the seller retains the ground lease.
“It is very rare to have a deal structure like this for a property in Philadelphia,” Joseph Brecher, managing director for Livingston, N.J.-based Gebroe-Hammer tells GlobeSt.com. “We were able to perform out-of-the-box for this seller and buyer,” says Brecher.
Along with Eli Rosen, a senior vice-president, Brecher represented the unidentified seller - a large New York City-based private investment company - and identified the buyer, Post Brothers Apartments of Philadelphia.
The property is situated just off the Schuylkill Expressway, a 3900 City Avenue. It had been marketed by several brokerage firms over the past few years, Brecher says, without a deal having gelled.
Two months ago, Gebroe-Hammer handled the $16.75 million sale of 228-unit Chestnut Hill Tower in Philadelphia for the same company that owned Presidential City. That transaction required creative structuring, Brecher notes, and resulted in G-H being solicited to conjure up an “out-of-the-box” arrangement for the more sizable multi-family deal.
Post Brothers is a builder/owner/manager of numerous buildings in Philadelphia. “They plan a full-scale renovation of the Presidential City property that will realize the true value of the location,” Brecher says. The current structure which offers studios, 1- and 2-bedroom apartments, dates from the 1950s, he added.

Monday, December 10, 2012

Walmart Installs 1 MW Wind Turbine on Distribution Center

Walmart Installs 1 MW Wind Turbine on Distribution Center

Energy Manager Today Staff

A large-scale wind turbine at its distribution center in Red Bluff, Calif., is Walmart’s first onsite industrial-sized wind turbine and will generate approximately 2.2 million KWh, providing up to 20 percent of the distribution center’s annual electricity use. The GE SLE 1 MW wind turbine is comparable in height to a typical 20-story building, with a tower measuring 265 feet tall and a blade spanning 250 feet in diameter.
Under the terms of a power purchase agreement with Foundation Windpower, the project will contribute to energy expense savings as well as provide price certainty for the electricity produced. Foundation Windpower installed, owns, and operates the wind turbine while Walmart purchases the power produced at a fixed rate.
Red Bluff was selected for the installation because it provides an environment with good wind conditions and available land already owned by Walmart.
The wind turbine in Red Bluff is one of more than 180 renewable energy efforts underway worldwide as Walmart works towards its goal of being supplied by 100 percent renewable energy. Walmart’s current wind energy projects include:
  • A 90-MW wind farm in West Texas, providing 15 percent of power for over 300 Walmart stores and Sam’s Clubs
  • 348 stores in Mexico supplied by wind power, providing 17 percent of energy needs for Walmart de México
  • Wind power provides 100 percent of the electricity needs in fourteen stores in Northern Ireland
Additional wind energy projects include 12 mini wind turbines that power a Walmart store in Worchester, Mass., wind turbine installations at Walmart’s food distribution center in Balzac, Alberta Canada and micro wind installations at the Sam’s Club in Palmdale, Calif.
In addition, Walmart has set a goal to bring solar energy to more than 75 percent of Walmart and Sam’s Club stores in California – approximately 130 stores – by the end of 2013

Friday, December 7, 2012

Ameresco Partners with Northeastern Wisconsin School District to Reduce Energy Consumption and Enhance Student Quality of Life

Ameresco Partners with Northeastern Wisconsin School District to Reduce Energy Consumption and Enhance Student Quality of Life
$2.7 million Energy Savings Performance Contract expected to help reduce Oconto Falls School District’s energy use by 23 percent
FRAMINGHAM, Mass. & OCONTO FALLS, Wis.--()--Ameresco, Inc., (NYSE:AMRC), a leading energy efficiency and renewable energy company, announced today that it has signed an Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) with Oconto Falls School District in northeastern Wisconsin. The $2.7 million ESPC is expected to save the District over $137,000 in energy and avoided operational costs annually through energy efficiency and infrastructure upgrades at eight facilities.
“We are thrilled to assist Oconto Falls in moving forward to squeeze and redirect every dollar possible back into their learning environment to fill the gap left by current state funding program changes”
Located just north of Green Bay, Wisconsin, the District includes six schools and two district facilities. The Oconto Falls schools that will be upgraded include Abrams Elementary School, Oconto Falls Elementary School, Washington Middle School, New Path Charter School, the Falls Alternative Learning Site (FALS), and Oconto Falls High School. Energy and operational upgrades will also be performed at the District Office and the District’s bus garage.
“Opportunities to complete facility upgrades have all but disappeared with the recent reduction in state funding. As a result, we invited Ameresco into our facilities to identify savings opportunities when we realized there may be additional opportunities to further improve our operating systems,” said David Polashek, Superintendent of Oconto Falls School District. “Ameresco has worked closely with our staff in developing a project that will reduce energy consumption while improving the daily learning environments for students and teachers alike. We were impressed with the creativity used to design this project which used savings from avoided energy and maintenance costs, rather than tap the District's capital fund to implement necessary building improvements. An ESPC project with Ameresco makes this all possible.”
The ESPC is expected to help reduce the District’s energy use by over 23 percent through the duration of the 20-year contract via upgrades that include lighting controls, water conservation retrofits, buildings envelope enhancements, boiler plant upgrades, and domestic water heater replacement. In addition to the energy savings facility improvement measures, the District will receive future capital avoidance savings for a roof section replacement. Under an ESPC, Ameresco guarantees the energy cost savings for the duration of the contract. A portion of the projected savings are expected to repay the upfront costs allowing Oconto Falls School District to take a practical approach to reduce its energy consumption while working towards achieving sustainability goals.
With guidance from the District’s financial consultant, the debt financing for the energy project was completed simultaneously with a refinancing of other District debt obligations that lowered the interest rate and reduced the annual interest cost. The combined payment plan allowed the District to reduce the current tax levy for debt.
“We are thrilled to assist Oconto Falls in moving forward to squeeze and redirect every dollar possible back into their learning environment to fill the gap left by current state funding program changes,” said Louis P. Maltezos, Executive Vice President, Ameresco. “The bottom line is that the District’s use of the State ESPC vehicle allows for Ameresco’s budget neutral approach to both reduce their energy consumption and upgrade their facilities.”
As part of the ESPC, Ameresco will handle design, construction, commissioning, project management and measurement, and verification. The District will enjoy guaranteed energy savings and significant infrastructure upgrades, improving the facilities’ efficiency and students’ comfort. Ameresco has a long history of partnering with schools, municipalities and non-commercial entities to improve energy infrastructure and install energy efficient technologies. The Ameresco team pioneered the ESPC financing model, making the budget-neutral solution an increasingly popular option when modernizing a single facility or providing a comprehensive campus-wide energy management system for customers across North America.
About Ameresco, Inc.
Founded in 2000, Ameresco, Inc. (NYSE:AMRC) is a leading independent provider of comprehensive services, energy efficiency, infrastructure upgrades, asset sustainability and renewable energy solutions for facilities throughout North America. Ameresco’s services include upgrades to a facility’s energy infrastructure and the development, construction and operation of renewable energy plants. Ameresco has successfully completed energy saving, environmentally responsible projects with federal, state and local governments, healthcare and educational institutions, housing authorities, and commercial and industrial customers. With its corporate headquarters in Framingham, MA, Ameresco provides local expertise through its 63 offices in 34 states and five Canadian provinces. Ameresco has more than 900 employees. For more information, visit www.ameresco.com.
About Oconto Falls School District
Oconto Falls serves approximately 1,875 students and is located just north of historic Green Bay, WI. Oconto Falls School District has identified itself as one of the leaders in northeast Wisconsin. The Oconto Falls Schools have produced numerous state champion athletes and teams, The District has also received recognition for its FFA program and for their students of Fine Arts. Recently, Mrs. JoAnn Miller, an Educator at the Oconto Falls High School, received the distinction and award for the 2012 Wisconsin High School Teacher of the Year and will be Wisconsin's representative in the National Teacher of the Year selection process.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

When It Comes to Energy Savings, Isn’t There More than ‘Lights, Thermostats and Locks?’

When It Comes to Energy Savings, Isn’t There More than ‘Lights, Thermostats and Locks?’

December 6, 2012 By William Peak
William Peak

Is that all there is to our new advancing convergence of utility and service markets for the homemaker and small business owner — Lights, thermostats and locks? First of all, why “lights?” Doesn’t anyone understand that lighting is one of the lesser users of energy in the home or small business? Yet whenever we see a discussion on the topic, lighting seems to be an important part of any program.
Likewise Energy Management Systems, even those touted to be advanced, don’t seem to ever venture beyond traditional direct load control (utility shuts off a device, such as A/C compressor, pool pump, water heater, etc., in peaking period for a specified time), or via Programmable Controllable Thermostats (PCTs), where a price signal is sent to a thermostat to set-back the cooling setting for a specified period, or a display showing current pricing, total usage and (sometimes) a projected usage. We even have alarm companies that are offering monitoring systems that also control lighting, thermostats and lock/unlock doors. Wow! These new functions and features are really great! You might think so, if all you could see was current advertising and hype around the new services offerings from your local electric utility, cable provider or alarm monitoring company.
It seems that every mind-numbing energy management system has been designed and built upon the premise that the consumer must be (somehow) made aware of their consumption (and current pricing) so that they will make the “right” choices in their energy purchases and then they will use a few simplistic functions surrounding lights, thermostats and locks. But can’t we do much, much better? It seems to me that our message here should be that people can (and will) make better decisions with better information. Isn’t that what utilities are trying to provide?
While there is truth to that, smart meters by themselves only tell you when you are using a lot of energy. What they lack is an accompanying toolset to do something about it. So, why can’t we create a choreographed household that manages energy usage (possibly by device and groups of devices), that balances price to need, learns consumption and lifestyle patterns, and, importantly can analyze the interplay of multiple energy sources/options, and current and future usage against current and projected needs to produce the most efficient solution? This sounds real interesting, but is it really possible? I believe it is, and that it is achievable by building upon current mainstream AMI technologies.
Here is where, as an industry, I think we lose sight of the target audience: if it’s the general public, they will think this is mumbo-jumbo (no offense) because they have no idea what their benefit is to doing all of this. So clearly we need to do a much better job of educating them on what value is in this for them (back to my point above about providing people with better information to make better decisions). I also agree with the assessment that the real answer is favoring automated-intelligence over pieces of hardware (which is what dominantly is being marketed right now).
For this to work correctly we need significant change–and the new AMI technology is just the beginning. The first of these are the rates that utilities charge consumers of their electricity; and for these new technologies to work all customers need to be charged time of use rates. To me, this will produce a more equitable system. For those willing to collaborate with the utility, they should be rewarded and those that do not collaborate should have to pay extra. Everyone is suggesting that you are the starting point, but to me if you want to be radical, then we need a more equitable system. For example, if I keep my thermostat set at Energy Star settings all year long, but all my neighbors keep their AC at 60 degrees, I am actually paying for that (in the form of shared common utility costs). So their overall capacity cost share should probably be more than mine since they exert more overall demand on the system than I do, especially at peak load times. But all of this will not happen without a revamp of our regulatory environment as well as an overall energy policy. Here is another core issue: utilities/consumers have been benefiting from prior-decade decisions to build power plants and we have been riding that benefit. Many of those plants across the country are about to reach their end of life. Utilities need to invest in new generation, but without a comprehensive energy policy I could inadvertently create a new plant that is “taxed”/penalized because of the latest whim of politicians. A comprehensive energy policy (not regulations) could provide the appropriate roadmap. Maybe we even suggest a “grandfathering clause” for a plant that’s built and/or upgraded specifically to adhere to that energy policy.
Typically each consumer is charged for three general categories of services: (1) a general customer charge, (2) a usage charge for how much you use over the billing period, and (3) a capacity charge (for how much maximum demand you actually place upon the system at some specified time; think of this as how fast you turn on the water), but right now the capacity charges are typically only called-out and detailed for very large commercial and industrial customers, while it’s embedded within the small commercial and residential rates. In today’s world your local utility has to build and operate their system to meet all three of these demands that you actually may place upon their system. But they bill you individually based upon the aggregate of the group you’re within. So when you behave responsibly and raise your thermostat on really hot days you’re paying the same rate per kWh as your neighbor that runs their house at 66 degrees all summer. So while they are actually consuming far more expensive energy they are actually paying the much cheaper average rate and you are helping to make up the difference.
Residential and small commercial customers generally make up the largest blocks, by numbers, of customers for a utility, but may be eclipsed in overall load caused by the utility’s very large industrial customers (which may constitute a fairly small number of accounts). Further, the residential and small commercial customers may often also have the greatest variability between low average usage, average usage and peak usage; and even more so during extreme peak periods. Thus these individual points of seemingly low consumption become significant matters for utilities when they are aggregated into tens of thousands and even millions of customers. So systems and programs that can positively influence the actions of these individual customers can have significant impacts at the utility level. Therefore the message from the utility to the customer is simply, “You can make a real difference in your impact on the environment and your monthly energy costs.” A good analogy is recycling: every little bit helps but you really get a social benefit when everyone participates.
However, we also need to remain aware that individual consumers are not ever going to become energy wardens and spend a significant part of each day monitoring and controlling their energy consumption. The key, to me, is that we need to try and begin to address the entire premise by providing technologies and customer rate programs that you can set-up/configure and then (essentially) forget. We need these programs to provide a way to make decisions based upon the housing/premise characteristics, energy-consuming devices and life-style (or business type) of the utility customer; and the system needs to know enough about the various energy consuming, storage and generating devices to learn and optimize their use to match current and forecast conditions and lifestyle events.
But all is not lost as I’m starting to see evidence that utilities and technology vendors, and PHEV/PEV manufacturers, are starting to address these issues. For example, in Spain, Endesa (one of Europe’s largest electric utilities) is moving toward integrating the charging and battery storage capabilities of PHEV/PEV’s.
In Texas, TXU Energy has announced a rate plan for “Free Nights.” Through this rate plan consumers will get free energy from 10 PM to 6AM of every day. I’m hoping to see next “Free Nights and Weekends.” I’m also anticipating that perhaps TXU might bundle this with upgraded air conditioning, like an ice-based chilled water system, perhaps? Then perhaps we could see room-based zone heating/cooling? Pneumatic zoning is very economical; maybe in the new TXU world this type of A/C should be designed in with any new/retrofit install?
Then again on the PHEV/PEV front we have Toyota offering a charging system that is starting to look like a precursor to a whole-premise energy management toolset:
“Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC), in collaboration with its customer service IT company, Toyota Media Service Corporation, has developed a tool to support easy home-based charging of the Prius PHV plug-in hybrid vehicle, due for launch next year, and electric vehicles (EVs). Toyota Housing Corporation, TMC’s house construction and design subsidiary, will start sales of the tool, the H2V (home-to-vehicle) Manager, in Japan in January 2012. PHEV users can connect (wired or wireless) to the H2V Manager from a home PC, television or smartphone to set or adjust their PHV or EV charging start time, as well as check household electric power consumption. The same operations can be performed remotely with a smartphone, through the Toyota Smart Center. When necessary, the H2V Manager automatically interrupts PHV or EV charging when household power demand spikes, and then resumes charging when there is spare power capacity. This function prevents circuit breakers from cutting off power supply when a large number of home appliances are used simultaneously, pushing electricity consumption beyond the home’s maximum voltage.” The logical next step seems obvious.
So perhaps I was too harsh in my complaint about lights, thermostats and locks. Maybe we’re really moving in the right direction with the real-world application of Smart Grid. I’d just like to see it happen a bit more quickly with less emphasis on the single small steps and more on the whole house (or premise) approach.
William Peak is senior principal consultant with Infosys.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Doha conference highlights national divisions over climate change

Doha conference highlights national divisions over climate change


By Bryan Dyne
3 December 2012

The Doha 2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which began November 26 and will run through December 7, has been characterized by irreconcilable national divisions and the lack of any serious proposals to address climate change.

The Doha conference is the latest under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It comes after failed talks in Rio this year, a Copenhagen conference in 2009 that the US walked out of and the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which established the goal of cutting emissions for the 40 signatory nations by at least 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

The conference location itself is an indication of the focus of the talks. The hosting country of Qatar is a longstanding ally of the US in the Middle East and the highest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita in the world. During the opening speech of the conference, former Qatari oil minister Abdullah Bin Hamad al-Attiyah attempted to divert any responsibility away from Qatar, stating, “We should not concentrate on the per capita (emissions). We should concentrate on the amount from each country.”

The ineffectual discussions at Doha contrast with the severity of the climate change crisis and the many indicators that the global climate is reaching a tipping point.

In the midst of the conference, the World Bank issued a report, “Turn Down the Heat,” which outlines the potential impact of an average global temperature increase of 4º C and the likelihood that this will occur within the next century. It predicts a 20 percent chance that such a temperature increase will occur by 2100 even if countries hold to their emission reducing agreements. The temperature increase is predicted to occur by 2060 if the agreements are not held to.

Consequences of such a global increase in temperatures include ocean acidification and the loss of coral reefs, rising sea levels and loss of coastlines, and widespread crop failures. This is in addition to the higher probability of extreme weather events.

The current talks are formally an attempt by the 200 participant nations to reach the so-called Durban Platform, an agreement which would take effect by 2020 to slow climate change, primarily by countries reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, as with previous summits, such as the Rio+20 conference that occurred over the summer, the promises and pledges by various countries will be as vague as possible or will simply go unrealized.

The main division at the conference is between the United States and China. In particular, the US has insisted that China accept hard constraints on its emissions, while the US has resisted any effort to implement binding targets.

Other tensions have also emerged. On Friday, India and Brazil accused the “developed” world (particularly the US) of doing little to prevent the rise in greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. Mira Mehrishi, the head of India's delegation, said, “We are disappointed... that the developed countries are in the process of locking in low ambitions.”

This was echoed by Brazil's delegation, headed by Andre Correa do Lago, who said, “Many developed countries are not...concentrating on their main problem, which in general is energy.”

The statements come after an attempt by the US to preempt criticisms towards itself, when the US delegation stated at the beginning of the conference, “Those who don't follow what the US is doing may not be informed of the scale and extent of the effort, but it's enormous.” This is a fraud. Since coming to office four years ago, the Obama administration has done virtually nothing to address carbon emissions, following the basic path put in place by Bush.

Qatar itself has plans to hold a ministerial-level meeting outside of the formal conference schedule which would draft a new text for the conference outside the framework of negotiation. This runs the risk of causing the talks as a whole to collapse.

Further divisions exist among the advanced countries. The Doha talks have been presented as a means to revive the Kyoto Protocol and extend it past 2012. However, Russia, Canada, New Zealand and Japan have all issued statements to the effect that they will not sign to a second commitment period, which would begin January 1, 2013.

Under these circumstances, only the European Union and Australia would remain in the framework of an extended Kyoto Protocol. The United States was never a part of the Kyoto Protocol.

An element of cynicism towards the talks was introduced by the head of the UN's climate change secretariat, Christina Figueres. Recognizing that the Doha talks—and discussions on climate change in general—have been ineffectual, she lamented on the perceived lack of public support for climate change and called on individuals to “assume responsibility.” She added, “It's not just about domestic governments.”

There is not a lack of public support to address climate change, but rather a well-deserved lack of faith in the ability of the major states to do anything. All the various governments involved are guided by the profit interests of competing sections of the capitalist class. Any serious coordination and scientific approach is impossible within this framework.

Figueres’ remarks are essentially an admission that the world capitalist system and the system of rival nation-states are incapable of solving the climate crisis. The rivalry between nation-states, chiefly that of the US and China, actively undermines all serious attempts to address the impending climate crisis because it would interfere with national interests. Solutions to such problems, which require global solutions, first and foremost require the working class breaking the political stranglehold of the nation-state system over social life

Monday, December 3, 2012

Making Wind and Solar Work With the Grid

Making Wind and Solar Work With the Grid

And making ISOs work with wind and solar

Herman K. Trabish: November 27, 2012
The two traditional excuses for not adding more wind and solar into grid operations have been that they could not be called on (“dispatched”) when energy was needed and they were too expensive (“uneconomic”). But grid operators around the U.S. have begun to discover that neither is necessarily true.
“The New York ISO was the first to implement dispatchable intermittent resources in allowing wind to participate in economic dispatch and congestion management. It was thought of then as crazy to use wind for grid reliability,” said National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) Senior Research Engineer Erik Ela. “Now almost every ISO in the U.S. uses wind this way. And we can go further and use more of the flexibility wind has to provide more support to the grid.” Ela said utility-scale solar can eventually do the same.
Researchers at NREL, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the University of Colorado are working to demonstrate how the unique characteristics of wind and solar can, much like traditional generation, perform Active Power Control (APC) to support the grid. Researchers are especially focusing, Ela said, on two areas of APC, regulating reserves and primary frequency control.
“APC is control of power output to balance generation and load,” Ela explained. “Providing dispatch is one way of doing that. It can even do that in the faster time scales.” APC can support the grid during specific events such as when a large generator goes offline and the lost supply has to be replaced, Ela said. It can also steady the grid as load and renewables vary and require balancing.
"Grid operators would like to have more support for transmission line overload, voltage drops, and frequency variations,” Ela said, but don’t typically ask that renewables provide it, and regulators have not imposed the requirement to use renewables in that way.
Wind turbine manufacturers say they can provide the capability for renewables to provide APC services but see no demand for it from renewables developers.
Renewables developers don’t see any point in driving up costs by building in the capability to provide a service for which there is no demand from grid operators.
Regulators see no point in requiring grid operators to buy a service from renewables they may get for free from traditional generators.
“We are doing research on ways to connect these perspectives,” Ela said.

Regulating reserves “correct for the energy imbalance within economic dispatch intervals,” Ela explained. “It is a little faster than normal dispatch. It uses a signal that comes directly from the system operator on how a generator’s output should be changed on a minute-to-minute time frame.” All U.S. balancing areas, RTOs/ISOs, and vertically integrated utilities have “a certain amount of capacity they use as regulating reserve,” Ela explained.
Studies have shown wind plants can provide this service “faster and in some ways more accurately on these time scales than conventional generation,” Ela said, because “conventional generation has thermal time constants that slow down this kind of response whereas wind is all power electronics: You need that response, you get it.”
The price for meeting this grid need can be very high in ancillary services markets. Ela noted an example where the market was paying $0.21 per kilowatt-hour ($209.02 per megawatt-hour) for regulation reserves.
“There are often times where the market is paying more for this service than for energy and as more renewables are integrated into the system,” Ela said, “that is going to happen more often.”
A simulation in which wind was allowed to provide regulation, he said, showed “an increase in revenue of $4 million for all the wind plants for a two-month period for the California ISO.” And, he added, “there are a lot of things that can happen that could make that revenue more.”
Primary frequency control is needed, Ela said, when a large generator goes offline and everything connected “will synchronously start to slow down to provide the power compensation. That slows the frequency. If the frequency slows too much, there will be load shedding and brownouts to avoid a major catastrophic blackout.”
Primary frequency response stabilizes frequency slowing.
Studies show that with up to 40 percent wind in a transmission system, the grid’s performance is degraded if there is inadequate frequency response from wind but “in simulations in which wind provided frequency response, it improves performance pretty significantly”
There is a major economic factor separating regulation reserves and frequency response, Ela said. “There is no ancillary service market for frequency response. Operators and generators are doing this without any market incentive.”
But, he said, the supply for frequency response “keeps declining every year, and many believe there should be an incentive for resources to provide this. Otherwise, this decline might continue.”
“We have to ensure this primary frequency response -- this other control -- has incentives,” Ela said, “and you can’t prohibit anybody from providing those.”
The bottom line on using renewables for APC, Ela said, is that additional revenues per generator “could possibly be very high if they choose to participate and if market rules are correctly designed.” And renewables can behave even better than other generators. “Studies may show wind providing the finest scales of active power control capability on a better quality than other generation and being a supporter to the grid, rather than a detriment.”

GE, the 'Industrial Internet' and radical efficiency

GE, the 'Industrial Internet' and radical efficiency

Published December 03, 2012
GE, the 'Industrial Internet' and radical efficiency
General Electric’s chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, addressed a crowd of innovators in San Francisco last week, talking about a new generation of products and services designed to radically improve customers’ efficiency and productivity, cut energy use and waste, and foster a new wave of innovation. He described the potential to cut billions of dollars of energy from sectors like aviation, railroads, power generation, and oil and gas development. He talked about ecosystems and intelligence and efficiency.
Ecomagination 2.0? Nope. Welcome to the Industrial Internet.
GE’s latest branding effort sounds a bit like its earlier, more green-focused campaign, launched in 2005. Except that this one shuns any mention of climate change or sustainability, let alone "eco." I doubt you’ll see any daisies or dancing elephants in its marketing efforts, even though the new messaging sounds a lot like the “jet engines, trains, and power plants that run dramatically cleaner” that GE’s ecomagination ads once touted.
And yet this is not a rehash of the same old thing. Something important is going on here. GE’s new focus is about “the convergence of the global industrial system with the power of advanced computing, analytics, low-cost sensing and new levels of connectivity permitted by the Internet." It's about how "the deeper meshing of the digital world with the world of machines holds the potential to bring about profound transformation to global industry, and in turn to many aspects of daily life, including the way many of us do our jobs.”
It’s fundamentally about data — Big Data — and how it transforms and, in many ways, revitalizes the dirty work of manufacturing, transportation, and energy production.
In many ways, GE’s new Industrial Internet push — articulated in a report issued last week (download – PDF) and at a high-profile San Francisco event — meshes with (and validates) our global series of VERGE events, which cover similar ground: the convergence of systems and technologies around buildings and transportation, and how data and IT create new platforms that enable radical efficiencies, breakthrough business models, and innovative products and services. Like VERGE, the Industrial Internet has a great deal to do with radical efficiencies, primarily of energy, as our friend (and VERGE 25 award winner) Katie Fehrenbacher reported last week.
GE sees this convergence as a very big business opportunity. According to its report, connecting devices to the Industrial Internet could boost global GDP by $15 trillion by 2030. That’s roughly the size of today's U.S economy, according to the World Bank. The savings come from such things as lower fuel and energy costs; better-performing and longer-lived physical assets, like airplanes and power plants; and lower-cost healthcare. The authors claim that in the U.S. alone the Industrial Internet could boost average incomes by 25 to 40 percent over the next 20 years "and lift growth back to levels not seen since the late 1990s."
Next page: "Things that spin"
For example, says GE, achieving a 1 percent fuel savings across the entire global airline fleet would save $30 billion over the next 15 years. A similar 1 percent improvement in the efficiency of gas-fired power generation would save $66 billion over that same period. A 1 percent improvement in railroad efficiency adds $27 billion to the total. (Note that these examples — planes, trains, and power plants, as well as healthcare devices — are GE’s bread and butter. GE’s report didn’t delve much into other parts of the industrial world, such as logistics, supply chains, and manufacturing.)
What the report makes clear is that industrial companies are no longer just about “big iron” — planes, trains, power generators, and the like. Today, software, intelligence, connectivity, analytics, sensors, diagnostics, integration, user interface, and materials science are key parts of industrial companies’ ecosystems.
All of which makes the Industrial Internet (and VERGE) a powerful platform for innovation. GE gets a bit hyperbolic on the subject, calling it the third wave of innovation, after the industrial revolution (machines and factories that power economies of scale and scope) and the Internet revolution (computing power and rise of distributed information networks). In the Industrial Internet, advances in software tools and analytic techniques provide the means to understand the massive quantities of data that are generated by intelligent devices.
GE sees vast potential in "thing that spin" — millions of rotating machinery around the world: motors, turbines, compressors, pumps, fans, blowers, generators, rollers, conveyors, and more, from simple electric motors to highly advanced computed cosmography (CT scanners) used in healthcare. Each of these assets is subject to temperature, pressure, vibration and other key metrics, which can be monitored, modeled, and manipulated remotely to provide safety, enhanced productivity, and operational savings.
This is already happening, says GE:
Companies have been applying Internet-based technologies to industrial applications as they have become available over the last decade. However, we currently stand far below the possibility frontier: the full potential of Internet-based digital technology has yet to be fully realized across the global industry system. Intelligent devices, intelligent systems, and intelligent decisioning represent the primary ways in which the physical world of machines, facilities, fleets and networks can more deeply merge with the connectivity, big data and analytics of the digital world.
As we’ve made clear with VERGE, all of this is a significant sustainability play, encouraging systems thinking across organizations and value chains, tapping into vast new opportunities for energy and operational efficiency, and rethinking and retooling business models and value propositions in ways that dramatically dematerialize and decarbonize the economy.
From what I’ve seen so far, GE seems to be deliberately downplaying the sustainability value proposition here, to the point of sustainability being conspicuous in its absence. At last week’s San Francisco event — which included presentations and panels with a number of big brains from the technology world — the words “climate change” weren’t spoken. If the S-word was mentioned, I didn't hear it.
Next page: Is ecomagination over?
Neither was “ecomagination,” once a prime focus of the company. Despite the star power GE brought to the event — in addition to Immelt, there were at least three other GE corporate officers present — Mark Vachon, who heads ecomagination at GE, wasn’t there, nor were any of his lieutenants.
Perhaps this had to do with Immelt’s apparent souring on green messaging, based on Reuters’ report of comments the CEO made last year:
"If I had one thing to do over again I would not have talked so much about green," Immelt said at an event sponsored by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Even though I believe in global warming and I believe in the science ... it just took on a connotation that was too elitist; it was too precious and it let opponents think that if you had a green initiative, you didn't care about jobs. I'm a businessman. That's all I care about, is jobs."
So, is ecomagination over?
I asked Beth Comstock, GE’s chief marketing officer, about ecomagination’s absence at the San Francisco event. “It wasn’t intentional,” she responded. She went on to describe a variety of initiatives done under the ecomagination banner — a greener mining business unit and a battery storage play, for example, both launched in 2012 — explaining that “ecomagination is not a special campaign, it’s just the way we work.”
Perhaps. But at one time it was a special campaign. In searching press releases on GE’s corporate website as well as its ecomagination site, it appears that ecomagination has become a secondary messaging platform at best. Internally, it’s a program GE uses to validate environmental metrics (via third-party verification) in order to establish solid underpinnings for its marketing claims. Externally, the brand seems to have lost juice within the company.
Maybe that’s just as well. Given that “green” and “clean” (and “eco”) have become politically problematic language in some circles — at least within the United States — it may be wise for Immelt and his team to quash the sustainability talk. (It’ll be interesting to see if the messaging for the Industrial Internet is different outside the U.S.)
Indeed, it was significant, albeit not surprising, that Immelt — the first to take the stage at the San Francisco event — mentioned the word “revenue” within the first 20 seconds of his presentation. GE’s newest marketing message is all business: productivity, innovation, revenue growth, and a massive opportunity.