High-Tech PR Blog >> Beyond the Hype

A discussion of the clean tech market in New England

 
The 5th Conference on Clean Energy will be held in Boston next week, on November 12 & 13. Once again, LP&P's clean energy practice, which I co-lead, has partnered with the Conference on communications. The conference, sponsored by the Massachusetts Technology Transfer Center and the Massachusetts Hydrogen Coalition, focuses on the hot topics driving clean energy innovation and growth in New England. There will be panels featuring representatives of the region's clean energy companies and venture capital firms. Additionally, forty early-stage companies will be presenting to investors. 

As part of our pre-show activities, we have collaborated with Xconomy on a podcast with some of region's key VCs in clean tech. Hosted by Wade Roush, the site's chief correspondent, the podcast features John Karlen of Flybridge and Russ Landon of Canaccord Adams discussing the recent IPO of A123, the state of the solar market and how they would grade the Obama administration on clean tech. You'll also hear about the importance of the smart grid, the negative impact of stimulus funds on the clean energy market, and what new markets to keep an eye on.

You can follow the discussion of the Conference by participants and attendees both prior and at the show at on Twitter #CCE-2009.

You can listen to the podcast using the player below or download it here.

Eating Your Own Dog Food - The Energy Dept. Forgets Basic PR Lesson

I think it's fair to say that most companies or organizations at some point have experienced disconnect between what they sell and how they operate - it can be challenging to keep the causes aligned.

Earlier this week The New York Times reported that The Energy Department has not implemented basic smart meter thermostats into its own buildings, which if installed properly, could power 9,800 homes each year and save the agency $11.5 million in energy costs!

I don't know about you, but I consider this one major oversight.

The New York Times kicks off the article by saying "The Energy Department strives to be a leader in championing energy efficiency. Its Web site lists energy-saving tips, while Secretary Steven Chu calls conservation one of the department’s most important goals. But at many of the agency’s buildings, even at national laboratories where talented scientists seek technological breakthroughs to save energy, the department has failed to use one of the most effective tools available to any ordinary household: thermostats that automatically dial back the temperature when nobody is around."

This is somewhat embarrassing and ridiculous that no one bothered to notice what steps the department had taken internally to help save energy and costs. I guess some of the equipment was installed, but it was not working. Yes, I can see how this happened, but I guess my message is this isn't just an operational failure - it's a PR failure and PR teams needs to insert themselves however they can to avoid these fiascoes.

I think this is particularly relevant for the hundreds of companies that are jumping into the clean tech market as demand for green technology increases and the federal government helps foot the bill. Investors and vendors across multiple industries are seeing $$ signs as the green trend takes hold, yet reporters are seeing a new level of hypocrisy occurring among these companies - and they are quite motivated to report on these oversights. 

So my advice to clean tech/green companies (and companies in other industries) is to ensure you re-read your company's customer mission statement and core values - and make sure the company is adhering to these internally. PR teams really need to remind their executive teams of the potential fall-out for these types of stories. If it can happen to the Energy Department, it can surely happen to a public or private company in the private sector - especially with the media's skepticism around green marketing and products.

Waiting on the Superpowers

Today in Italy, our world leaders are meeting at the G-8 Summit to try to solve the world's major problems, with global warming being one of Obama's core initiatives.

I can't imagine how those conversations must be going -- would love to be a fly on the wall -- yet I doubt their posh quarters have flies buzzing about. The developing nations are trying to rise out of poverty and create industries and economies similar to the world powers, yet now they are being asked to slow down expansion and pay extra costs for environmental standards by the same countries that created the environmental problem in the first place. Obama has his work cut out for him.

I think we all know the results, if any, from these types of meetings take years to come to fruition, so there's no use waiting around for initiatives to take effect. I remember last year when I attended a clean tech meeting here in Austin, they conferenced in one of Germany's clean tech leaders who was largely responsible for helping Germany create a prosperous clean tech economy (based on solar of all things, which is impressive given Germany's cloudy, rainy climate). The one comment I remember him making was that Germany didn't wait for the government to implement renewable energy into its culture -- the private sector rose to the occasion without government support.

The memory is comforting being that the Texas legislature just closed last month until 2011, and every single renewable energy bill proposed (69 in total) was wiped off the table. Sad, but true.

I just saw a video I was interviewed for -- created by the Austin Capital Area Workforce Board --  that interviewed local leaders in Austin about what was being done to drive clean tech economic development and green policies in Austin. It was encouraging to see all of the local enthusiasm and dedication to the effort. It just reiterates the truth in the mantra "Think Global, Act Local." We can't wait for the superpowers to play nice, we need to be working on technologies and solving problems on a smaller scale first.

Houston, we don't have a problem here

I couldn't help myself with the NASA reference in the headline, what can I say. NASA might have placed humans on the moon, yet now we're busy developing technology to clean up our own planet. Crazy how times have changed.

I'm sitting in the press room of the George R. Brown Convention Center looking out over the Houston skyline after spending a day talking to companies at the Clean Technology Conference 2009. My first impression after arriving yesterday was that the show has a significant international presence - much more than I expected. There are a great deal of European and Asia-Pacific visitors and companies browsing the showroom floors for clean technology ideas, customers, funding and partners, which I found encouraging - we're truly in the midst of an emerging market that has global appeal and will demand global collaboration.

Solar start-ups continue to attract more investment dollars than the rest of the renewable/clean energy start-ups, despite recent media claims that the solar market is already saturated. I spoke to one solar company today that still thinks there is more room for competition - business looks positive. And I spoke to another solar executive that said despite a dismal Q1, April and May are turning out to be very positive. I heard similar anecdotes from other companies on the show room floor - Q2 is getting better. I hope those anecdotes are widespread.

There is also a lot of early stage activity at the show. Ispoke to quite a few companies that have invented the technology, yet they are targeting an endless amount of markets for the product. Not a lot of focus going on at this stage, many are looking for investment dollars and said they'll figure out the market later. Though, it's funny, while talking to an investor and several entrepreneurs, they all signaled their frustration with some of the smaller companies here that lacked the ability to communicate how their technology is going to change the world - they need to improve their communication. Imagine that?

These companies are solving serious problems, like reducing energy consumption and carbon pollution, now they just need some help communicating how they are going to do it. I'm glad we're here in Houston this week!

IBM Jumps into the Water

In January, I was sifting through clean tech press coverage for our quarterly meeting with the Austin Clean Energy Council and I couldn't help but be amazed by the frenzy of optimism (otherwise known as market hype) in the business press related to smart grid technologies. I can't help it, I'm a sucker for new, exciting markets with growth potential. That is probably why I'm in the PR technology profession.

Back to my point, BusinessWeek, Fortune, Wired, The New York Times, CNN, etc. were all speculating on the money to be made by updating the U.S. power grid (which is, according to utility experts, still in the dark ages, along with much of the U.S. infrastructure. This is all relative, of course).

The coverage was fueled by President Obama's declarations for serious investment into smart grid technologies. Though, what probably impressed me more than anything I read at the time was that IBM's Venture Capital Group had set its sights on the smart grid. Keep in mind this group does not invest in companies, instead it talks to start-ups and VCs to determine future trends. So, this means they aren't nearly as biased as the typical corporate investment wing that invests in the technology, then promotes its potential like crazy.

This past Friday, IBM executed on this vision and announced it is unveiling a new line of water services to help manage water more effectively and find new ways to reduce pollution. The release explained that this is part of a larger initiative the company is rolling out to overhaul infrastructure and power grid issues facing utilities.

I must admit, I'm all for improving the energy system, but I tend to get cynical when I think I'm going to have to wait for the government to accomplish this task (and I worked for the govt. briefly, so i can say this). But seeing an industry heavyweight like IBM jump into this effort in full force is refreshing to see. Granted, dollar signs are the motivation, but there's nothing wrong with making money by improving living and environmental conditions.

As IBM's CEO Sam Palmisano explained, "We will not simply ride out the storm. Rather, we will take a long-term view, and go on offense."

I will save my feelings on "storm" sound-bites for another day, but regardless, I like IBM's approach to this problem and I hope it is successful.

Lighting a Fire Under Clean Tech

 

Yesterday, President Obama initiated several more steps to help the U.S. become an energy independent country. It is a task several U.S. Presidents have tried to accomplish in the past, yet we all know none of them have had any luck so far. I'm optimistic that we'll see progress in this area over the next few years and anxious to see how this will impact the clean tech sector.

Venture capital funding has taken a hit across the boards for all sectors over the past few quarters, though The New York Times noted today that investors put $4.1 billion into 277 clean tech start-ups last year, which is a 52 percent increase over the previous year. For any of those people out there that still haven't seen the light - this market is exploding. 

Despite the uptick in start-ups, (and as I've said before, from what I've gathered), the challenge to commercialize renewable and green energy isn't necessarily about the technology - it's more about economics and changing policy. So President Obama's decision to introduce a $825 billion stimulus package last week to help green technologies merge with our nation's power grid will be warmly welcomed by many following the clean tech industry.

There is still room for innovation, though. Plenty of it. Yes, we need to change policies and our expectations for energy costs, but the demand for innovation will continue to exist. Henry Petroski, a professor at Duke University, wrote an interesting op-ed today in The Washington Post responding to a comment President Obama made in his inaugural speech about "restoring science to its rightful place." He clarified that what we really need is engineering - not science, to help bring real change to our energy mix.

"Most people who aren't scientists or engineers seem to think that science and engineering are the same. They're not. Science seeks to understand the world as it is; only engineering can change it."

He said steam engines were fully functioning before scientists could even explain how they worked. And 19th century scientists argued with engineers that steamships couldn't transport coal on transatlantic trips just before they actually did. Petroski went on to point out that if the Wright Brothers waited for the scientific explanation of aerodynamics, they wouldn't have lived long enough to make their famous flight.

Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but regardless, he makes a fair point. Now let's hope engineers are finding themselves busy right about now. If anyone needs to be busy at this point in history, it's them.

Renewables - Investing and Building Gets Us Only So Far

Om Malik's post today on the group think mentality running rampant among technology venture capitalists. I just visited a some VC firms in the Bay Area a few weeks ago, and it was interesting to hear the complaints about the recession and see the similarities in the questions and interest levels between the firms. But one of the more uplifting things noted in Om's post was speculation about clean tech investments.  It still looks positive for next year, despite the doomsday economic news about which we are all tired of reading.

Austin made a pretty significant clean energy/tech announcement earlier this month that captured national attention by rolling out the country's first comprehensive smart-grid project. The initiative aims to figure out how to handle distributed power when people start producing more of it in their homes versus depending on a centralized power plant.

I was sitting in an Austin Clean Energy Council meeting last month listening to our City Council member Brewster McCracken explain the "Pecan Street Project" - or what he referred to as the "The Power Internet" - and he made an interesting analogy to the technology industry. 

For those following clean tech investing trends, you are probably aware that energy storage is the "next big thing." Storage is the next frontier because if renewables start making up more than 3 percent of the domestic energy mix, storing the generated power when it doesn't need to be used is going to be a real issue. McCracken explained in the meeting, "Similar to storing data on a servers for consumers to pull when they want it, we need to translate this model to the electric grid." And this is enormously complicated being that energy is distributed by regional utilities versus a national entity. As he explained during a press interview earlier this month"

"Several other cities are testing clean-generation or efficiency products,” McCracken says. “We’ll do that. But we’ll also test the software, storage and business models we need to make it all fit together."

Austin is really onto something with this concept (maybe I'm biased, I'll admit), but it has already attracted the support of the Enviromental Defense Fund, GE Energy, Cisco, Freescale and Dell. We'll see how it comes along, but I'd keep an eye on it if your interested in seeing renewables become integrated into our energy structure. It's one thing to build and invest in them, but if they can't integrate into our energy system, developing them won't do us any good.  

Keeping it clean

Earlier this week, LP&P collaborated with Xconomy on a podcast with several participants in the 4th Annual Conference on Clean Energy. In the podcast, host Wade Roush asked the participants about the state of VC funding in the sector as well as their thoughts on what an Obama or McCain win means for clean tech. You can give it a listen here.

UPDATE 11/3:  Wade Roush published a post on Xconomy this morning with the podcast.

Bringing Renewables to the Mainstream

Today the Austin City Council is reviewing a proposal by our utility Austin Energy to build a $2.3 billion biomass power plant in an effort to get our city funneling 30 percent of our electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2020. It's great news for Austin. Though, it seems like the more I learn about energy, the more I realize that there are a great deal of established technologies already available for the taking that just haven't been capitalized on for various economic and political reasons. For example, biomass power plants that run on plants and/or timber trimmings have been around for decades - since 1979, to be exact.

Regardless, it's nice to finally see such a strong push among cities and utilities nationwide for renewable energy sources. I was interviewed a few months ago by a local radio station based on the work we have done for the Austin Clean Energy Council to get my views on the leadership Austin has shown nationally for its green initiatives.  One of the things I brought up was that I looking forward to seeing more collaboration between the green leaders in Austin and the energy legacy leaders in Houston. Fast Company recently profiled Jerry Patterson, the Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, to explain how Texas has become the country's leading wind producer. It's a story definitely worth reading because 1) he really is funny, yet I'm sure he offends plenty of people and 2) because he talks about how environmentalists are now finding themselves sitting side-by-side next to profit-seeking energy executives, which is something happening across the entire country. Each side complements each other, despite their differences.

Here's an excerpt of the commissioner's take on why Texas leads in wind power.

"California is an oppressive regulatory environment. Texas is not. And Texas has a lot of open space to build wind power. To California's credit, when you're a pioneer in something you're going to make mistakes. The early technology turbine blades that turned faster, at Altamont Pass, killed a lot of birds. And we have a different attitude here. People here are concerned about bird kills because they want to shoot the birds, not have them have them killed in a turbine....I talked to the Audubon Society and told them, 'Don't worry about this, after several generations we'll have smarter birds.' They did not think that was funny."

I'll admit, I'm not a fan of hunting birds, but he sure knows how to get his point across clearly. One last point I'll make on this topic that you probably already saw this week was that MIT announced a breakthrough discovery in storage for solar last week that could change solar energy from an alternative power source to a mainstream power source. They are speculating that it will hit the electric grid within 10 years, which is very exciting. If you're having a hard time getting why this is such a big deal, watch this Solon commercial. It's one of my favorite communications vehicles I've seen about why people should be paying attention to solar.   

Answer Might be Blowing in the Wind

It was hard to miss T. Boone Pickens' PR blitz earlier this month that kicked off his campaign to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and increase windfarm production. With all eyes on the explosive cost of oil, Boone explains why gas prices are so high and states that we are past the point of no return with cheap oil. He said it will stay where it is or get worse based on new demand from China and India and a finite supply of oil.

With 60 years in the oil business, he did a good job getting his message across until he told Bloomberg last week that he won't put windfarms on his ranch, "because I think they are ugly." Now, call me crazy, but I don't care how rich and powerful you are - everyone needs PR help avoiding landmines if you are kicking off a PR campaign to drive excitement around a new multi-billion dollar effort. He clearly didn't go over his talking points before making this comment, and this isn't exactly the best way to get his neighbors and future customers clamouring about for windfarms.

But seriously, I do hope his effort is successful, despite the cynicism around "clean tech." I was reading "The Onion" this weekend, one of my favorites you may notice as I have a tendency to keep referencing it. It has a humorous article about the need for another bubble. 

"According to investment experts, now that the option of making millions of dollars in a short time with imaginary profits from bad real-estate deals has disappeared, the need for another spontaneous make-believe source of wealth has never been more urgent."

Although this was an exaggeration, for those of us living in the technology market we all know there is an element of truth to this. Mark Veverka of Barron's has already cast his doubts on clean tech last year, calling it a "fuzzy business category" in a blog explaining that saving humanity and making profits are rarely intertwined.

I see what he's saying, but I think T. Boone might be onto something. Global warming is finally accepted by society as a real problem, and whenever I read articles like the one I did yesterday pointing out anxiety-ridden tidbits like a quarter of the world's oil is shipped through a narrow passage called the Strait of Hormuz between Israel and Iran, I tend to get a little antsy for other energy sources for the world.