Often times we talk about the Green Spectrum, particularly with respect to projects that are green in general, or appear to have no sustainability aspect, when, in actuality, all projects have a sustainability element.  This time, we’ll look at a project that is Green by Definition, but is scrutinized through a sustainability lens.  And, it is a very,very interesting concept.

As part of the “Smart from the Start” (that sounds like a good phrase for sustainability in projects, too) initiative by Secretary of Interior Salazar, there is a proposal for a 200 mile-wide wind energy corridor stretching from Canada to the Texas coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

While we don’t know yet about the other sustainable aspects being considered, we do know, at this point, that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) will write an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).  “Wind energy is crucial to our nation’s future economic and environmental security. We will do our part to facilitate development of wind energy resources, while ensuring that they are sited and designed in ways that minimize and avoid negative impacts to fish and wildlife,” said Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe. “This EIS process gives us an opportunity to evaluate impacts to dozens of imperiled species at a landscape level to ensure that wind energy development occurs in the right places in the right way.”

The reasoning behind the EIS is that in order to accomplish the project, an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) needs to be granted.  Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations “prohibit the take of animal species listed as endangered or threatened.”  It doesn’t allow the harassment, harm, pursuit, hunting, shooting, wounding, trapping, capturing, or collecting or, an attempt to engage in those practices when it comes to endangered or threatened species.  However, Under Section 10 of the Act, it allows for people to obtain an ITP as long as they are pursuing otherwise legal activities.  The permittee is then provided “incidental take” authorization.

The applicant must submit a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) containing the measures that it will take to minimize, avoid, or mitigate incidental take.  The Service will then review the HCP and issue an EIS that considers the impacts.  The Service will also identify “potentially significant impacts on biological resources, land use, air quality, water quality, water resources, economics, and other environmental/historical resources that may occur directly or indirectly as a result of implementing the proposed action or any of the alternatives. Various strategies for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating the impacts of incidental take will also be considered.  Sounds like risk management to me!

“The proposed Permit Area is defined as a 200-mile wide corridor determined by defining the center line of the whooping crane migration based on the database of confirmed whooping crane observations from the Cooperative Whooping Crane Tracking Program and buffering that line by 100 miles on either side. This corridor spans the Gulf Coast of Texas north to the Canadian border and encompasses such cities as Houston, TX; Oklahoma City, OK; Wichita, KS; Bismarck, ND; Grand Island, NE; and Aberdeen, SD. In addition, the permit area includes the current and a large part of the historic range of the lesser prairie-chicken which extends the covered area beyond the 200-mile wide whooping crane migration corridor to include parts of Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas.”

“Species currently considered for inclusion under the permit include the following: the endangered whooping crane (Grus americana); endangered interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos); endangered piping plover (Charadrius melodus); and lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus), a candidate species.”

There are two important points here for a project manager.  The first is that this will be one heck of a program, involving a huge amount of projects, wind energy projects including; the wind power generators themselves, transmission, distribution, support facilities, etc.  Secondly, it involves looking at the project through a sustainability lens.  In above case, a very narrow view because of regulatory issues (specifically the Endangered Species Act) one of the “drivers” in our book.  There will be more and more of these opportunities for the project manager who is not only aware of sustainability issues, vocabulary, and problems and drivers, but also uses that knowledge and considers greenality* when approaching any project.

* The degree to which an organization (project manager) has considered environmental (sustainable) factors that affect its projects during the entire project life cycle and beyond.

“The organism is an organism.”

The title of this blog post is a quote from David Berry.  It comes from a truly fascinating article from Boston Magazine, linked here.

The quote is  not from  Dave Barry, the columnist from The Miami Herald, and author of some fairly funny books…but David Berry, 33-year-old founder of Joule Unlimited.

To draw from the article, and whet your appetite to consume it all – despite the fact that it features pond scum,

“Berry and his team have figured out how to grow algae that are little diesel-making machines, designed to do nothing in life except ingest sunlight and CO2, drink water, and crap pure, clean fuel. And if Berry’s done his math right, these bacteria are the secret to a petroleum-free future. It’s only a matter of time, he says, until they eliminate the need for oil pulled from the ground. Joule Unlimited is not going to reduce our reliance on oil. It’s going to wipe it out.”

This is fascinating stuff.

The quote, “the organism is an organism”, comes from a part of the interview when Berry did not want to get any more specific about the type of cyanobacteria (pictured above) which was being “trained” to become the next major provider of the Earth’s energy needs.

And it’s a “green-by-definition” project, one in which the product of the project is related directly to sustainability or environmental issues.

Remember, we say that you don’t have to be on this type of project to think green, but it’s still inspiring to take a look at this side of the green project spectrum for inspiration – and just to have a peek at some of the brilliant work being done in this area.

We suggest reading the article and getting some of that good ol’ pond-scummy inspiration!

Our US Department of the Interior announced yesterday (16-December-2010) that it has drafted a new environmental policy to expedite large-scale solar power projects in six western states.

The policy, known as the Draft Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), designates 24 sites on public lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Utah for renewable energy projects.

We’re not talking about small potatoes here.  This is about over 100 active solar applications covering 1 million acres that developers estimate could generate 60,000 megawatts of electricity.

Why should you care?

Well, if for no other reason: job security. Does this effort trigger projects (and therefore the need for project managers)?  Well, perhaps this will help answer that question.  The 32 page Introduction section of the PEIS document contains the word project of program over 150 times.

Presentation on the document structure:

Click here for a short video on how to use the document.

Link to full PEIS document:

Click here for the full document.

Click here for a set of Questions and Answers on the program.

As we have continued to assert – climate change cynic, or earthy enthusiastic environmentalist, as a project manager, you are best off – and importantly, best suited - to ride the green wave.  Start riding.

With all due respect to the musical South Pacific, we were reading the Boston Globe the other day and saw an article on a technology that makes a lot of sense.  Why not get rid of the problem before it becomes a problem.  It would seem easier than trying to get rid of it after. It’s like we say about greenality, plan it in!

According to eassortment , “The technical definition of fossil fuels is “incompletely oxidized and decayed animal and vegetable materials, specifically coal, peat, lignite, petroleum and natural gas”.  The technical definition of fuel is “material that can be burned or otherwise consumed to produce heat”. In our modernized western world, fossil fuels provide vast luxurious importance. We retrieve these fossil fuels from the ground and under the sea and have them converted into electricity. Approximately 90% of the world’s electricity demand is generated from the use of fossil fuels. Combustion of these fossil fuels is considered to be the largest contributing factor to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In fact it is believed that energy providers are the largest source of atmospheric pollution today. There are many types of harmful outcomes which result from the process of converting fossil fuels to energy. Some of these include air pollution, water pollution, accumulation of solid waste, not to mention the land degradation and human illness.”

According to several sources there is between 1.4 and  2.5 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas in the United States.  A significant amount and if managed correctly could greatly reduce our need for foreign oil.  However, even though natural gas may be one of the cleaner fuels, when it is burned, it produces carbon dioxide, water, and energy.  It’s just a fact of combustion.  However, a new technology (project) developed by a Canadian company, Atlantic Hydrogen Inc. of Fredericton, New Brunswick, may be able to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent and can capture that black gunk (solid carbon), “a substance that can be used in making tires, laser printer toner, and other products.”  Makes sense to us.  Let’s get it out before it gets in and, if we have a usable byproduct, all the better.  Read the full article here.  My question to you is: Where in the “green” spectrum is this project (Green by Intent; Green by Project Impact; Green by Product Impact, or Green General)?

We came across an interesting series of postings, tweets, and links, totally by serendipity, but it led to some good questions and reinforced our belief in the word greenality.

Below, in italics, you will see a United States BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) definition of “green jobs”.  Below this post, you will find the detailed description.  But start with the basic one:

Green jobs are either:

• A. Jobs in businesses that produce goods or provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources.
• B. Jobs in which workers’ duties involve making their establishment’s production processes more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources.

There were two immediate discoveries when we did some detective work here.

First, when we followed up and went to the actual US Government sites, we noticed that the supporting text constantly  and repeatedly stumbled looking for a word to describe greenality.  They used “greenness” in most of those cases.  Greenness?  Really?  Our word – greenality -fits the bill.  We will send it along to the author of the document and continue to push for its use.  Remember, greenality means: the degree to which an organization has environmental (green) factors that affect its projects during the entire project life cycle and beyond”.

Second, the two-part definition the BLS uses mimics what we say about the spectrum of green in projects.  There are some projects – such as the creation of a new biofuel facility – in which the project’s outcome is, by definition, green in its purpose.  There are some, however, like a new version of game software, for which the green element is not so obvious.  Like us, the BLS seems to be asserting that “making their establishment’s production processes” (or in our view, their projects) – :more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources”.

This BLS definition is new, but it is reassuring to see that it reflects our thoughts and what we continue to convey to PMs and their organizations via this site and our book.

Here are some references from which we drew this information.

http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/10/government-looks-green-jobs/

http://www.thegreenjobbank.com/stories/us-bureau-of-labor-statistics-publishes-definition-of-green-jobs

http://www.bls.gov/green/

What do you think?  Never mind the US Government for a moment, how would you define a green job?  How would you define a green PM?  We’ve very interested in hearing from you on this topic.

As promised above, here is the detailed definition from the BLS:

• A. Jobs in businesses that produce goods and provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources. These goods and services are sold to customers, and include research and development, installation, and maintenance services. This definition will be used in the BLS survey of establishments in industries that produce green goods and services. Green goods and services fall into one or more of five groups:
  1. 1. Energy from renewable sources. Electricity, heat, or fuel generated from renewable sources. These energy sources include wind, biomass, geothermal, solar, ocean, hydropower, landfill gas, and municipal solid waste.
  2. 2. Energy efficiency. Products and services that improve energy efficiency. Included in this group are energy-efficient equipment, appliances, buildings, and vehicles, as well as products and services that improve the energy efficiency of buildings and the efficiency of energy storage and distribution, such as Smart Grid technologies.
  3. 3. Pollution reduction and removal, greenhouse gas reduction, and recycling and reuse. These are products and services that:
     • Reduce or eliminate the creation or release of pollutants or toxic compounds, or remove pollutants or hazardous waste from the environment.
     • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions through methods other than renewable energy generation and energy efficiency, such as electricity generated from nuclear sources.
     • Reduce or eliminate the creation of waste materials; collect, reuse, remanufacture, recycle, or compost waste materials or wastewater.
  4. 4. Natural resources conservation. Products and services that conserve natural resources. Included in this group are products and services related to organic agriculture and sustainable forestry; land management; soil, water, or wildlife conservation; and stormwater management.
  5. 5. Environmental compliance, education and training, and public awareness. These are products and services that:
     • Enforce environmental regulations.
     • Provide education and training related to green technologies and practices.
     • Increase public awareness of environmental issues.
• B. Jobs in which workers’ duties involve making their establishment’s production processes more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources. These workers research, develop, maintain, or use technologies and practices to lessen the environmental impact of their establishment, or train the establishment’s workers or contractors in these technologies and practices. This definition will be used in the BLS survey of establishments across all industries to identify jobs related to green technologies and practices used within the establishment. These technologies and practices fall into one or more of four groups:
  1. 1. Energy from renewable sources. Generating electricity, heat, or fuel from renewable sources primarily for use within the establishment. These energy sources include wind, biomass, geothermal, solar, ocean, hydropower, landfill gas, and municipal solid waste.
  2. 2. Energy efficiency. Using technologies and practices to improve energy efficiency within the establishment. Included in this group is cogeneration (combined heat and power).
  3. 3. Pollution reduction and removal, greenhouse gas reduction, and recycling and reuse. Using technologies and practices within the establishment to:
     • Reduce or eliminate the creation or release of pollutants or toxic compounds, or remove pollutants or hazardous waste from the environment.
     • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions through methods other than renewable energy generation and energy efficiency.
     • Reduce or eliminate the creation of waste materials; collect, reuse, remanufacture, recycle, or compost waste materials or wastewater.
  4. 4. Natural resources conservation. Using technologies and practices within the establishment to conserve natural resources. Included in this group are technologies and practices related to organic agriculture and sustainable forestry; land management; soil, water, or wildlife conservation; and stormwater management.

As I was waiting for my flight back from the PMI Global Congress in Washington, DC, I picked up a discarded Washington Post (…..REUSE..REUSE…).  There was an article by Juliet Eilperin about Google backing a “superhighway”  for wind power, subtitled Underwater Energy Grid. If that wasn’t exciting enough, there was a sub-subtitle $5 billion project would supply mid-Atlantic area.  Project!  This is definitely one of those projects we term green by definition, but it is a very intriguing one, and one that a company like Google is willing to partner with Good Energies, and environmentally focused international investment company.  Google will provide 37.5% of the equity for initial development.

The project is dubbed the Atlantic Wind Connection and is intended to provide the transmission lines for a series of offshore wind turbines capable of supplying 1.9 million homes without taxing the already overburdened electric grid.  It is very ambitious project covering an area of 350 miles with on-shore transmission nodes in Norfolk, VA, Lewes, DE, the proximity of Manasquan, NJ, and Newark, NJ.  The article goes on to say that the water remains relatively shallow 10-15 miles offshore, far enough so as not to be seen from shore, one of the issue plaguing the Cape Wind Project.

How exciting to be a project manager on that project.  One of the risks would certainly be that since it is the North Atlantic, there is always that possibility of the “prefect storm”.  The timeline for the project looks like a deliverable in 2013 of construction start, complete in 2020, but with an interim milestone of the initial stage of construction complete in 2016.

Interestingly, Ken Salazar, Interior Secretary, said last month “Rather than develop transmission infrastructure on a piecemeal basic, we should – in close coordination with the private sector, states, and tribes – lay out smart transmission systems upfront.”  Gee, a strategy for a change (sorry-editorial comment).

Anyway, we’ll keep an eye on this project and this is just another reason for PMs to be “surfing the green wave“.

Often, here on EarthPM, even though we’re intentionally very project-centric, people ask us about how they – as individuals – are doing, and how they personally could do better to ‘green up’.

This posting is just a simple link to a new survey put out by Philips NV which helps you determine your “energy color” based on a set of questions which are accompanied by stunning photographs and slick sound effects.

http://www.asimpleswitch.com/b2c/survey/intake

On the site, you’ll find some interesting facts about your own personal consumption that will probably surprise you, and that you could extrapolate to your project work as well.  Consider this (from the above site):

“How much water is needed to make one cup of coffee? You might say anything from 30-50 milliliters for an espresso to, let’s say, up to half a liter for a supersized latte. While it’s true that this could very well be the amount of liquid that ends up in the cup, the actual number of liters (yes, plural) used to brew precisely one standard cup of coffee is a staggering 140. Hard to believe? Perhaps, but ever so true.

This is how it’s calculated: it costs roughly 21,000 litres of water to produce 1 kilo of roasted coffee. A standard 125 ml cup of coffee requires 7 grams of roasted coffee, so that single ‘cuppa’ costs 140 litres of water to make. And it’s not just coffee that takes a lot of water to produce, the same goes for other stuff we eat or need. Rice: 3,400 litres for 1 kilo. Cotton: 2,700 litres for 1 cotton shirt. Beef: 15,500 litres for 1 kilo. If you didn’t know it already, you’ve just learned something about the size of our water footprint. We’re not walking this planet leaving Cinderella-sized footprints; we’re leaving marks that would make Godzilla’s seem petite.”

So visit the site,  get your own personal color reading, and enjoy the wealth of information available on the site as well.  It may not be directly project related, but we bet you can make at least one discovery if you spend some time looking at your own energy usage!

That was the title of a recent article in our local paper (The Portsmouth Herald).  It was subtitled “Timberland (one of the companies featured in Top of their Game in our new book) achieves profits while helping the environment.”  It is a good news environmental story for a change and it points out what we are saying, green projects make cents.  According to Timberland sources, “broad corporate social responsibility is the essence of good business.”  We can’t agree more.

“Business success, for us, is defined not not only by the return we earn for our stakeholders but also by the positive impact we have on our community and environment,” said Betsy Blaisdell, Timberland’s senior manager of environmental stewardship as quoted in the article.  Further she says, “Bottom-line results are obviously critical – if we cease to be profitable, we cease to exist – but if we earn them at the expense of our values and commitment to be responsible corporate citizens, we’ve failed.”

Projects like reducing energy, chemical, and resource use at Timberland-owned and operated facilities worldwide are being executed.  Timberland’s goal is also to engage employees, the public, and even challenge competitors to do the same.  Timberland continues to grow in spite of a weak economy.  “Success for us comes from a business model in which commerce and justice are inextricably linked,” Blaisdell explained.  Learn more about Timberland’s environmental stewardship.

Whether your TV tastes run to Fringe, 24, or the serials, like My Friend Flicka, or The Lone Ranger, there is always a recap from previous episodes.  So here goes.  “In our last episode,”  I talked about how Steve Fludder from GE and Richard Cohen from Bank of America are embracing green efforts because they are good for the bottom-line.  In this post I will look at the view from “big oil”.  Peter Voser, Royal Dutch Shell, was interviewed for ECO-nomics.   U.S. CAP (the U.S. Climate Action Partnership); he believes that market-based energy legislation is needed in this country and others and only by participating with the other stakeholders will it be effective.   His thinking is that to be effective, “energy legislation (must) drive supply security, drive lower fuel emissions, drive new jobs and preserve old jobs.”   “We will quite clearly look out for natural gas developments, which we see as a long-term source of energy that has a lot of positives.” (new projects)

We all think of Shell as an oil company, but they are big in the natural gas industry, too, having started 30 years ago and continue with innovation. (new projects) “By 2012, we will have more (natural) gas production world-wide than we have oil.”  His answer to the question of what will be needed as far as answering our environmental problems, his answer is “From a global perspective, the demand for energy will double by 2050. So we will need most of the energy forms that we know today.” Look for my next post about an alternative source and it’s not wind or solar, but something very different.)

Finally, his thoughts about future transportation; Mr. Voser thinks that by 2050 we will go from 1 billion cars world-wide to 2 billion cars, and about 40% of those will be electric.  That leaves about 1.2 billion to be fueled by other forms.  So hybrids, low-carbon-fuel cars, and more efficient engines are needed (all new or continuing projects)

There is much more in this Wall Street Journal section that we find very interesting, including a view from “big oil”, and a top ten ranking of “clean-tech” companies.  Look to future posts for some more information on these and other topics.

Baby steps were taken yesterday to overcome the stall of the climate bill.  It really comes down to the order in which two controversial bills (one on immigration and this one on climate change) are handled.

Below, from AP, is the top of that story, and below that, you’ll find some links for more detail.  At least here at EarthPM, you can count on us to have things in order…but what else would you expect from a project management blog – sequencing tasks in the proper order for efficient execution…

By Matthew Daly
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday he is willing to bring up climate change legislation ahead of an immigration bill, the first step toward resolving a dispute with Senate Republicans that threatened to derail a bipartisan effort months in the making.

Reid said the long-delayed climate bill “is much further down the road in terms of a product” than the immigration measure, which remains unwritten.

“The energy bill is ready. We will move to that more quickly than a bill we don’t have,” the Democratic leader told reporters. “I don’t have an immigration bill.”

Reid’s comments were intended to help resolve a dispute that emerged during the weekend when Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham threatened to withhold support for the climate bill if Reid pushed ahead first with an immigration legislation.

The full AP news story.

New York Times coverage.

NPR’s version of the update.