At a recent roundtable discussion, executives of Indiana companies gathered to discuss trends, challenges and opportunities with respect to green industries.  This blog provides their insight as a result of the discussion.

Tina Vujovich is the Vice President, Marketing & Environmental Policy at Cummins Inc.

Getting large organizations working toward a common initiative is not an easy task.  The habit to keep doing what we have always been doing is much easier than figuring out how to do things in a different way.  However, there is great power in alignment.  In fact, I am certain that at large companies it is the only way to make major changes, and moving to a more energy efficient operation is one of those big initiatives  which requires alignment.

Alignment starts at the top.  As much as we would like to think that grass roots, bottom up efforts at a new initiative are successful, there is nothing like having the top of the organization on board.  But "on board" does not mean a tacit approval of the initiative.  It means a very active, visible and supportive behavior.  At Cummins, this happens only after a strong business case for the initiative is established.

Cummins jumped with both feet into the environmental energy efficiency initiative about two years ago.  We decided that the debates on Climate Change and greenhouse gases were over, and if nothing were done with the consumption of fossil fuels and the production of GHG the world as we know it will change markedly, and thus sustainability of Companies such as our own would diminish.  So, we made the leap and made a commitment to the USEPA Climate Leaders Program.  We committed to reduce greenhouses gas intensity by 25% from 2005 to 2010.

The business case for Cummins was an obvious one.  For our facilities -- over 250 of them worldwide -- our efforts to get them more energy efficient would result in lower utility costs!  For our products -- the majority of which are involved in producing power -- our efforts to improve energy efficiency translates to lower operating costs for our customers!  Once we had our top management convinced of the business case, their energy went quickly from challenging the initiative to putting their unwavering support behind it.

Aligning the organization was the next step.  Cummins has long held that our ability to design, develop and manufacture products for an environmentally regulated market is a capability with a worldwide competitive advantage.  All of our employees know well our mission statement which says that we "demand that everything we do leads to a cleaner, healthier and safer environment."  Moving the organization to the next environmental frontier of greenhouse gas control and energy efficiency was easy -- particularly when it comes with a payback to our bottom line and to our customers.  Important to note is that not all projects in this initiative gets implemented.  Every project must pass our financial hurdles.  In other words, if the payback is not reasonable, the project is not done.  But the interest in succeeding in this initiative has caused us to get very creative and industrious in the projects so that they do produce a satisfactory payback.

Now, about one and a half years into our six year commitment we are well over half way to our Climate Leaders goal.

With regard to our products, we are just as aggressive about energy efficiency.  Even before definitive legislation is structured, we are already developing plans for significant fuel efficiency gains from our products.

At Cummins, we have found that the secret to a successful environmental energy efficiency initiative was all about having the right mission, articulating a clear business case, and getting the alignment of the organization behind the initiative.  It has worked well for us, and we expect to continue this effort long after our Climate Leader's goal is met.

Only in that way can we expect to sustain ourselves in this very competitive and energy consuming environment.

Steve Corwell is the Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs for IPL.

All of us desire to breathe cleaner air, and indeed, as a result of modifications that Indiana utilities have made to electricity generating facilities over the past several years, customers are benefiting from cleaner air, but at a cost.  In the case of IPL alone, over the past five years, we have spent over $400 million on the installation of emission reduction equipment, reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxide (NOx) and Mercury (Hg) by approximately 97 percent, 90 percent, and 40 percent, respectively.

As we face potentially significant green house gas regulation in Washington, available mitigation technologies are more limited and therefore, achieving meaningful targets will be expensive. Coupled with these costs, further, more restrictive, NOx, SO2 and Hg regulations are likely, and many utilities are, or soon will be, embarking on the next major power plant construction program to meet their customers' growing needs for electricity. At the same time, the cost of Indiana spot coal has risen more than 75 percent in the last six months, as that coal is more and more influenced by world coal demand.

As we look to comply with the increasing costs of cleaner air, it will be important that we educate customers about both the benefits and costs of cleaner air and our increasing demands for electricity. Through education, we will be able to help our customers understand that clean air has a price and a proper balance must be found.

Bill Brown is an Associate Partner at Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf Architects.

Buildings account for about 30% of greenhouse gases, 65% of landfill waste and about 70% of electricity use, so they are a big part of the energy and environmental problems we face today and they can be a big part of the solution. LEED Certified “green” buildings typically save 30% in energy, 35% in carbon, 30 to 50% in water and 50 to 90% in solid waste for about the same initial cost as code minimum “brown” buildings.  The biggest current driver for green buildings in the market, however, is not energy efficiency or pollution prevention but enhanced environments for people, which enhances learning, health, productivity and retention.

A building built strictly according to code is the worst building you can legally build. A building built strictly according to Indiana Energy Code is the worst building you can legally build in the United States since we are tied with Tennessee for the oldest model energy code. New buildings in the United States use 2.5 times more energy per square foot than do buildings in the European Union.  Our ability to compete in world markets would be enhanced if we can increase energy productivity and people productivity in our buildings.

We just designed two public library branches in Indiana that will make as much energy as they use for an initial cost of less than average library construction. Chrisney Library recently bid for $140 per square foot.

My blog: http://frombrowntogreen.blogspot.com.