I read a recent article from All Things D in which Arik Hesseldahl described a revelation he had during a lunch meeting with former Intel CIO (and current manger of Intel’s Data Center and Connected Systems group) Diane Bryant.

In the article, Hesseldahl describes Intel’s recently announced Romley generation of its Xeon processors. The Romley chips are both 80 percent faster and 50 percent more energy efficient that the previous generation Nehalem chips. Bryant was in New York promoting these new chips prior to her lunch with Hesseldahl. During the lunch, Hesseldahl cites a J.P. Morgan survey of one hundred CIOs in large companies showing that 91 percent did not expect to upgrade their data centers with the Romley chips.

Bryant responds by pointing out that she recently visited a customer who is one of the world’s largest 100 companies. At that particular customer, she notes, 36 percent of the chips in its data center were more than four years (or two chip generations) old. But that group of chips was consuming 65 percent of the data center’s power, while providing only four percent of the computing power. 

Bryant’s counterpoint to Hesseldahl’s argument that the Romley chips might not be the game changer CIOs are looking for to upgrade their data centers shows that a simple calculation can reveal extraordinary inefficiencies in data centers. In the case of Bryant’s example, replacing the older chips will not only boost the data center’s speed and efficiency, it will also reduce the amount of energy needed to cool the computer towers.

So think about your data center’s age, capability, and efficiency sort of like a dog’s age. A dog that is five years old is actually about 35 in “dog years.” Similarly, your four-year-old data crunchers are probably about 80 years old in “computer years.” You might consider boosting your computing power and efficiency, and reducing energy expenses and emissions, by making a data center upgrade.

The Harvard Business Review recently published a short article summarizing some recent developments in the area of eco-labeling. Andrew Winston’s story emphasizes that we may be at a crossroads in the practice of putting labels on products to indicate how sustainable they are. First off, he notes that GM recently announced a program to provide eco-labels on some Chevrolet models while UK retail giant Tesco reversed its four-year program of putting carbon labels on its products.

The opposite actions of these two companies highlights the fact that eco-labeling, as a practice that has been exploding in the past few years, may be reaching a cooling or maturation stage as companies learn more about the investment and purpose behind such labels. Winston pinpoints a few important questions that should be asked when developing eco-labels, and companies are beginning to realize the answers to these questions means that not everything needs a label, nor should every label provide the same data to customers.

The five questions Winston lists (paraphrased here) are:

1. Does this product even need an eco-label?
2. What should the eco-label communicate?
3. Is a label capable of communicating the relevant information about a product’s sustainability?
4. How much work needs to be done to develop the information in the label?
5. Will a customer understand or even care about the information?

As it turns out, companies are starting to learn that some low-impact products (like a pack of gum) may not be appropriate for an eco-label, while other products (like a car or television) probably benefit from eco-labels. Even then, figuring out the exact information to put on the label is difficult. Think about the information in a nutrition label, which is standardized and mandatory. Is it easy to read? Is it the right information? Do people even pay attention to them or do they affect consumer choices?

A sample nutrition facts label, with instructions from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Standards for nutrition and financial accounting have been developing for decades, or even centuries. We are still in the dawn of eco-labeling. The article points out that right now we know a lot more about the stages in products’ life cycles that have a heavy impact on the environment than we do about the size and character of that impact. The tools are likely to keep improving, and more data will certainly become available as companies invest more money in researching the sustainability aspects of their products.

Winston concludes by making the point that business to business sales are driving much of the move to improved eco-labeling. Much of the research and work that takes place is opaque to individual consumers. The outcome is that companies end up making a lot of decisions for consumers before a product even gets to the shelf. Based on our experience as a company helping organizations sustain behavioral changes among employees, I can certainly say that everything companies can do to make the decision simpler for consumers is a good thing. Of course, that is only the case assuming that companies make decisions that are truly good for the environment, because greenwashing is the enemy of true.green.

The per-gallon gas tax has not kept up with inflation, and as vehicles once again become more fuel-efficient (or run on electricity) and people drive less, the highway fund struggles to keep up. Officials in Oregon have been looking for a way to replace the per-gallon gas tax for about a decade. In particular, they have been considering a mileage-based tax under which roadway users would pay for how much they use the roads, rather than how much gasoline they buy.

This story from the BikePortland.org blog features an interview with the manager of Oregon’s Road User Fee pilot program. The program has been exploring several mechanisms and structures for collecting a mileage-based fee from roadway users. After a few failed pilots, they think they have the program figured out and that it can pass through the Oregon legislature this year for implementation by 2014. Some features of the proposed system are:

• platform independent and able to evolve with technology
• a fee of 1.56¢ per mile (based on $0.30/gal tax and 21 mpg vehicle)
• flexible payment options
• GPS not required
• option for paying a flat annual fee for a mileage limit
• online reporting options

In spite of the several pilots and long evolution of the proposed system, much skepticism remains about the ability of the program to function, let alone gain approval by the Oregon legislature. Either way, this is a great example of states acting as “laboratories of democracy” attempting to find solutions to nation-wide problems, whether they succeed or not.

What do our readers think about a mileage-based tax? Is it more fair than a fuel tax? Will it provide the funding needed to maintain our roads? Is it politically feasible?

Last month Public Opinion Strategies conducted a phone survey of 400 Omaha residents (registered voters) to learn about city residents’ opinions regarding transportation. Public Opinion Strategies published a memo to summarize its findings. Interestingly, the survey shows that even though there is a strong preference for driving a car among Omaha residents, 72 percent favor “increasing spending to expand and improve public transportation, sidewalks and bike lanes in Omaha.” Even more surprising is that 57 percent favor increasing such spending even if it requires a tax or fee increase.

As Omaha winds down on the transportation master plan process, this survey demonstrates tremendous support for dedicating some percentage of transportation spending to offer more choice, including public transportation and infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists. Lowering the bar to transportation choices will make Omaha a more vibrant and attractive place to live and allow it to remain at the top of so many national rankings of cities’ economic and social vitality.

Electrons are difficult to see, so talking about electricity can sometimes be confusing for people whose everyday job does not involve measuring kilowatts (kilo-whats?) and kilowatt-hours (did you fall asleep just reading that sentence?). But just about everyone uses electricity everyday. If you are a commercial or industrial customer, then it is really important to understand electricity demand.

Understanding that you pay for the electricity you use in a given period of time is pretty straightforward. Understanding demand is a little trickier. Demand charges are based on the fact that electricity generators and transmitters must match electricity production and delivery to the instantaneous demand for electricity. Thus, they need to have the capacity to deliver all of the electricity needed at the point in time when the total demand for electricity is highest (typically in the summer months due to air conditioner use). Utilities must maintain this capacity even at times when demand is not at its highest. The demand charge helps to pay for the infrastructure that isn’t being used all the time so it is available when needed during the peaks. Customers that have a greater contribution to that peak end up paying a higher demand. Typically, only commercial and industrial customers are large enough to individually affect the peak, which is why residential customers do not see demand charges.

Pretend for a minute that you bake pies and I buy and eat only your pies. Your oven can only bake one pie at a time, but you also have to have a pie ready for me whenever I want to eat one. As long as I eat pies at the same or slower rate than you can bake them, you don’t need another oven or any more pie-making equipment (e.g., pans, mixers, or ladles (are ladles used when making pies?)).

Anyway, if I start to eat pies faster than you can make them in your single oven, you will have to invest in a second oven and more pans and equipment because you must have a second pie ready when I finish the first one. I will eat pies faster for a while, but eventually I will slow down again and one oven is all you need to keep up. But now you have a second oven and extra equipment you aren’t using anymore. As your only pie consumer, you could start making me pay more for my pies now. After all, I caused you to need a second oven even though it is just sitting there. I was the reason you had to buy it, so it is reasonable for me to help pay for it.

The electric demand charge is like the extra cost of that second oven, except that electric utilities spread that cost among many customers. Utilities also figure out who is eating the most pies and causing most of the the need for extra ovens. Utilities charge those pie eaters even more than the rest of pie eaters.

Depending on how your company uses electricity, it might save as much energy from demand reduction as it could from energy efficiency improvements (energy efficiency is like eating fewer total pies, regardless of how fast you eat them). Although it is clear that the energy efficiency market has been attracting smart money, and that efficiency improvements can reduce demand, many companies fail to consider how strategic demand reductions can save money.

In Verdis’ own work OPS has made significant progress with energy efficiency improvements (lighting retrofit, building system improvements, behavior change). Thus, Verdis is starting to explore whether and how targeted demand reduction can help OPS save additional dollars. Although the main driver for demand reduction in many organizations is cost savings, there is an environmental benefit as well. The longer we can help keep that usage peak low, the longer we can delay construction of the next big utility plant. And until every next utility plant will be something other than coal- or natural gas-fired, we have an extra incentive to keep demand low.

Although the recent snowfall in Omaha has somewhat “curbed” cycling by Verdisians, our fleet of 1970s vintage Schwinn 10-speeds are enjoying the respite.

Since our office is in north downtown, and we often have meetings within two miles, late last summer we decided to work with the Community Bike Project Omaha to procure a couple of nice velos for the Verdis cause. I went over to the CBPO shop at 33rd and California where Matt Martin, director of the CBPO helped me select two Schwinn 10-speeds in good shape for short trips around the downtown/midtown Omaha area. Matt and the CBPO team got the bikes ready to ride and even supplied a few extra 27-inch inner tubes for the less-common wheels on the bikes.

We ended up with a baby blue “Continental” and a bright-yellow “Super Sport.” The Continental is appreciably taller, and perhaps only ridable by fearless leader Craig. The Super Sport features a step-through frame and is a little more versatile. The bikes have seen about a dozen trips this fall. It is great to have the option of riding a bike to meetings when we don’t have our own bikes at work. In this case, yellow and blue are helping Verdis be a little more green.

Verdis keeps a couple of bikes at the office to ride to nearby meetings.