Five with Katherine Hamilton: Connecting Policymakers to the Grid and Clean Energy Economy

In 2008, when I participated in the trade mission to Copenhagen at COP-15, I heard time and again from global corporations that climate mitigation would actually provide great business and economic growth opportunities. I thought to myself, why then is U.S. business seemingly so opposed to investing in these solutions? Why do our policymakers not understand the connection of new clean technologies to economic growth and environmental sustainability? —Katherine Hamilton, 38 North Solutions

Nearly everything that Katherine Hamilton does is with the underlying goal of getting clean energy technologies into the marketplace to alleviate climate change. She is co-founder of 38 North Solutions, a young, DC-based, public policy firm engaged at a critical juncture in the energy and innovation industries. Acting as a bridge between clean energy clients and D.C. policymakers, her firm is focused on accelerating the transition from entrepreneur to market for clean energy and innovative technologies.

In addition to helping a wide range of clients navigate the public policy process, 38 North Solutions is also seeking to take a more holistic, thought leadership role in the clean energy space. Recently, the firm introduced The Clock – a quarterly report on clean energy trends measuring the industry’s progress. The “hands of the clock move backwards or forwards toward the midnight hour, when clean energy can compete head to head with fossil energy across the U.S. on cost, reliability, and quality.”

Hamilton parlays direct technology experience at a utility into her work in clean energy policy. She thinks there will be more energy storage, distributed energy resources and smart grid technologies on the grid in the future, but that tomorrow’s grid configuration will ultimately force an evolved utility model that offers consumers more choice in the process of using energy.

She became interested in transitioning from a technological background to public policy while at National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). As manager of government relations, she educated Members of Congress on NREL’s research programs, often finding that policymakers did not understand the linkage of research and development in innovation to applications in the “real” world.

Q:  How did you leap from English and French degrees to being a distribution engineer and eventually, pursuing a career in clean energy advocacy?
A:  My grandfather worked as an engineer for the electric company and wanted someone to be an engineer in his family; I somehow ended up becoming that. I had dreamed of writing and illustrating children’s books but also wanted to make a living wage. One summer during college I worked as a technical writer at what was then Virginia Power, now Dominion, and was lucky enough to land a full-time spot there following graduation. The company placed me in a program that required I take a test every six months, take engineering classes at night, and learn how to design distribution systems on the ground during the day.

The commercial building boom in the ‘80’s created a huge demand on the electrical grid and the utility needed to market creative solutions like time-of-use rate structures and new technologies like thermal storage to shift the peak. I moved into commercial marketing and managed over 100 corporate clients, focusing on helping them to become more efficient.

I used my decade at the utility to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program where I started energy audit and water conservation programs for federal buildings, hired through the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. I eventually became manager of government relations for the lab—by using both my communications and technical skills—to begin connecting the world of innovation to the world of policy.

Q: What keeps you up at night?
A: Climate change. I have four children and the thought of an unsustainable planet is terrifying. What can we do to reverse the direction we are going in? What does success realistically look like? Will we ever get there? We don’t as a nation have a vision and long-term energy strategy.

I believe part of the problem is in our political cycle. Representatives are elected every two years, making it difficult for them to focus on long-term issues. Structurally, this will not change, but we do need to attempt to take a longer view. One common misperception is that clean energy is more expensive and that solving climate change will be a drain on our economy. In fact, we have a huge economic opportunity to keep innovation in this country and provide a strong manufacturing base in clean and sustainable solutions. For those who have been working in traditional energy venues, this transition could be incredibly positive. 

I think we have to come at this in two ways. One, shore up Congress with facts and concrete policies that enable them to stand up to incumbents who do not want to change the path we are on. Convince them that everyone can benefit from change both economically and environmentally. Two, break down the concept of climate change so the average person doesn’t say, “Climate change is so big I can’t do anything about it.” Each citizen needs to begin noticing the environmental changes around them, such as how their garden has changed in the last few years, how much earlier the mosquitos are coming out, how storms are becoming more frequent.  Then we need to give people something to act on politically—support policymakers and candidates who take our planet’s future seriously and want to combat climate change.

Q:   Is there a state(s) that stands out as a leader in using renewables?
A:  California comes to mind right away. In order to get to the reductions they want, the state is using every conceivable policy path and every available clean technology. Building the value proposition for new technologies like energy storage, for example, is extremely important and California will help with this by incentivizing these systems. New York is also in a leadership role; Governor Cuomo has laid out a strong plan and vision for a sustainable energy future. Texas, while separated from the “organized” bulk power markets, has taken a pro-active position in building transmission that can exploit one of their greatest resources—wind energy.

In addition to Silicon Valley, places like Austin, Boston, Chicago, Raleigh, and Boulder have become clean tech hubs that attract innovators and investment in new technologies that can make our grid stronger and smarter. Many cities not on the “usual suspect” list are stepping up to attract entrepreneurs as well.

Q:  What is hampering the development of technologies like grid-scale energy storage? How do we change that?
A:  We tend to place a lot of blame on utilities but they are hamstrung by our arcane regulatory construct in many ways. If we could change some of the metrics regulators use—add the value of reduced carbon, more resilience, increased energy security, for example—we might have better outcomes for new clean innovations like energy storage. I have been working hard to ensure that federal and state regulators get the rules right and capture the value technologies like energy storage can provide to the grid. I think we will get there and, hopefully, before the U.S. loses its foothold on the innovation.

Q:  What do you think the electric grid will look like in 10 years?
A: I think we will have a lot more “disruptive” and distributive technologies on the grid—smart grid, energy storage, demand response, and renewables. We will have a more electrified transportation system and the utility business model will change to allow for much higher consumer engagement. I am an eternal optimist and think our policymakers will evolve as well. With climate change staring us in the face, we will all be stepping up to participate in a clean energy economy.

                                                             # # #

Tale of Two Jobs Messages

While the perceived order of benefits from renewables and natural gas on this chart might be expected, it also depicts a glaring PR issue renewable energy advocates need to address. Despite the continued upward trend in the number of direct and indirect jobs generated by the cleantech industry overall, the link between renewable energy and jobs is lost on too many Americans. It's time clean energy advocates ramp up their messaging on jobs and career opportunities. Losing control of the narrative is too costly for the planet and our children.

Better to Have a "B" Idea with an "A" Team Behind You, Than...

To have an "A" idea with a "B" team. So I've heard. Which is why I thought it refreshing to read this article on what women can teach men about becoming stronger entrepreneurs. I'm just wondering if it will stop some investors from asking a woman entrepreneur if she's going to get married or have a baby?

Countering the Negative: Scaling Up the Numbers Positively

I don't know about you, but I'm awash in negative numbers where female entrepreneurship is concerned. From the number of women launching businesses and leading high-growth companies to the number of government contracts won by women and venture-backed female start-ups. The general consensus: the numbers are too low.

I agree. Innovation and economic growth benefit greatly from an expanded talent pool. But the following article posted by Jonathan Ortmans on the Policy Forum Blog, along with many others in recent months, leaves me asking: What numbers indicate success for female entrepreneurs? Is there even a "right" answer to this question? What are we shooting for?

Increasing the overall number of start-ups launched by women in direct proportional representation to their percentage of the general population (~51%) or college degrees received (~60%) seems unrealistic. Yet, these stats are often cited as one of several metrics to use. Could focusing on the stats, however, actually be perpetuating the very negative we want to change?

It might be a difficult pill for some to swallow, but Lesa Mitchell, Vice President of Advancing Innovation, Kauffman Foundation, and Sramana Mitra, founder of the One Million by One Million initiative, might have it right. Mitchell says, "Women's entrepreneurship is an economic issue, not a gender-equity issue." Mitra recently penned that, "For those who choose to whine about prejudice and obstacles, you are wasting your time."

Rather than rehashing the negative, why not highlight the positive? Women are running start-ups. Perhaps it's time to report on and write more about the women currently launching and running start-ups. Doing so just might create a far more powerful—and positive—change in the numbers down the road.

What do you think?

Transitions: A Matter of Scale and Effort

In researching an unrelated article, I came across Joe Romm's post at thinkprogress.org in which he summarized the Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 report published by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Given all the hype and hope of late (among some) around natural gas as the bridge fuel to a clean energy future, I think it worth resurrecting IEA's report 11 months later and giving it a read. 

Romm's article reminded me of a conference I attended two years ago in Washington, D.C., that brought together women 200 women leaders from the fossil fuel and renewable energy industries, as well as the environmental sector. In discussing how to convert the U.S. energy portfolio to a greater percentage of renewables and alternative energy sources, one oil industry executive nonchalantly stated that, “Transitions take a long time. And the U.S. is rich in fossil fuels.” Ergo, there's no rush. 

While transitions can take a long time, this one should not. They are simply a matter of scale and effort. But our technological know-how seems to be outpacing our wisdom when it comes to embracing a clean energy future. Scavenging for extreme oil and natural gas is certain to drag out the U.S. transition. 

Watch How We Really Change the Energy Landscape

In many ways, women are more closely tied to and affected by the energy question than men. Yet our general lack of presence in the C-suite, board room, and government has put our ideas, health, and safety on the back burner. If rules are made to be broken, then status quos are made to be changed.

When it comes to moving to a clean energy future faster women are the "X" factor. And C3E (Clean Energy Education and Empowerment -- video link) could be the initiative that finally taps this global resource.

Support C3E. Add women. Change the energy landscape.

Five with Lauren Glickman – Should Clean Energy’s Messaging Get ‘Dirty’?

A little background…
This post may also be viewed on www.c3enet.org -- a global network for women advancing clean energy where they share ideas, perspectives and projects. C3E (Clean Energy, Education & Empowerment) is an initiative of the Clean Energy Ministerial focused on increasing women's participation globally in the clean energy revolution. Visit C3Enet.org and add your voice to the discussion.
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

I spoke recently with Lauren Glickman, founder and principal of WindyGlick, LLC, a strategic communications shop focused on digital strategy in Washington, DC. Prior to going solo, Glickman re-designed and managed the American Wind Energy Association's (AWEA) social media program and online advocacy portal—www.powerofwind.com—increasing traffic 40,000 percent. She’s also a campaign veteran, having worked on several East Coast campaigns around wind energy, urban development, and off-shore oil drilling from Maine to Florida. In 2011, she earned a victory in the Virginia Statehouse, where she wrote and achieved passage of legislation—Voluntary Solar Resource Development Fund Act of 2011—to promote solar energy projects for homeowners and utilities.

In listening to Glickman recount several of her campaign experiences, I was struck by the critical advantage clean energy opponents seemed to enjoy over clean energy proponents. Sharp, succinct, patriotic messaging met with polite, detail-laden, sometimes finger-wagging slogans from clean energy proponents. The former unapologetically does the thinking for us; the latter asks us to stop and think, while even admonishing. In a society on fast forward, clean energy proponents need to pick up the pace on the messaging front to counteract what is becoming a dangerous and protracted transition to a clean energy future.

Despite the slogan mismatch at times, cleantech must keep big oil up at night. According to an October 2012 New York Times article, “…Big Oil companies have fought to maintain $4 billion of their annual subsidies, while seeking to undermine clean energy investments.” In addition to turning to outside groups to run attack ads such as Americans For Prosperity, the big five oil companies “spent over $105 million on lobbying Congress since 2011, according to lobbying disclosures through the third quarter...[and]…spent ”over $150 million…on [election] TV ads promoting fossil fuel interests….”

Although Glickman has spent the better part of 10 years “talking people off the clean energy ledge” it might surprise you to know that she’s run into the most enthusiastic wind supporters in America’s heartland—Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Missouri—where in places like Iowa over 20 percent of electricity is generated by wind and farmers see it as the next cash crop that could save their family farms.

Q:  What triggered your interest/decision to pursue a job in cleantech?
A:  I’m a climate activist at heart. I went to school in New Orleans and graduated just before Hurricane Katrina hit.  I watched the Katrina advance toward my home and that’s when the impact of climate change went from theory to reality for me.

Prior to AWEA, I worked on a number of political campaigns. I got my first taste of clean energy working on the Cape Wind campaign out of Boston, Massachusetts. I was engaged in door-to-door education and saw my first industrial wind turbine development in Hull, just south of Boston.

Q:  While at AWEA, what was, and perhaps is still, the most common misperception among the public about wind power?
A:  The wind doesn’t blow all the time so how can we rely on that energy source? The American Coalition for a Clean Coal Economy’s message says, “Coal keeps the lights on.” What people don’t know is that coal-fired power plants aren’t always burning and all energy is intermittent. You’ll see grid operators pulling from all sources. Wind can realistically be part of the portfolio because modeling makes it easier now to predict when a wind farm will produce energy; this is harder to do with fossil fuel plants. When coal plants do go offline it’s usually a surprise related to a hardware issue such as pipes freezing; then you have a blackout. Grid operators like wind because it is easier to predict when it will blow and how it interacts with the grid. The best messaging I’ve seen around this subject came from the Energy Foundation’s video “How the Lights Stay on.”

A lot of the public’s misperceptions around clean energy are re-enforced by the fossil fuel industry’s success in co-opting the American energy story and branding themselves as “American energy.” Currently, there is an initiative to repeal State Renewable Portfolio Standards across 29 states. In Virginia, environmentalists are united behind, “Save the RPS” as a campaign slogan while their opponents, led by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), are using the “Electricity Freedom Act” If your choice is to choose between “Electricity Freedom Act” and “Save the RPS,” which would you choose?

Q:  Is there one organization doing a good job of countering Big Oil’s and King Coal’s messaging?
A:  The Truman Project’s  “Operation Free.” Operation Free works with U.S. veterans who support clean energy in addition to some now working in the industry—reliable messengers who fought for this country. They are focused on talking about what it means to be an American energy source, energy independent, and energy secure—for instance, deploying solar power in the field is safer than running oil to troops.

Q:  You're launching your own consultancy soon. How will you know if you're successful?
A:  Beyond the basics—food, water, shelter—I feel successful at the moment because I’m working for issues and progressive causes I care about, while leveraging resources these groups otherwise would not have access to. Looking back at AWEA, I can see where they are now compared to where they were.  I define success very concretely, for example: sending 1 million messages to Congress for a campaign vs. 10,000 for an earlier similar initiative.

Q:  What do you wish you were asked?
A:  People don’t ask the right questions about what (or in some cases who) is behind the opposition to renewable energy. There is a fossil fuel industry spending billions of dollars propagating myths about clean energy to preserve the status quo. What started out as a few people concerned about a disrupted view shed has become a well-funded machine.  No one is asking where the money came from for anti- wind billboards in Idaho or where the funding came from to produce the anti-wind documentary “WindFall.”

In my opinion, people (and more specifically business people) are afraid of the fossil fuel industry. You have to be willing to talk about your competitor’s weaknesses and, in my experience, the cleantech industry at large hasn’t been willing to do this, maybe with the exception of community wind supporters, such as in the case of Coal River Wind project.

If folks are concerned about the construction of an industrial scale wind project in their backyard, perhaps they should spend a night in a West Virginia home in range of blasting from a mountaintop removal (MTR) site. Or, they can speak with the parents of 3-year-old Jeremy Davidson who was crushed to death in his sleep by an 1100-pound boulder that was dislodged from the MTR site above his house in the middle of the night. As a society, we are committed to consuming energy, but that commitment comes with a cost regardless of the energy choices you make. When you’re making a side by side comparison between clean energy impacts and the impacts of coal mining or natural gas fracking the answer becomes pretty obvious.

                                                                          #  #  #