Cutting Energy Use In Your Town

Now that your town or school system has pared every other cost to the bone, have they turned to cutting energy expenditures as a way to help balance the budget? Maybe because there are a lot of “green thinking” folks where I live, energy usage has become a hot topic among our volunteer school committee members and town administrators. And, we have three budgets – town, K-8 school system and regional high school – which makes things even more “interesting.”

About a year ago, I attended a K-8 school committee meeting at which energy use and its financial impact was discussed. The schools’ head of operations presented some pragmatic, rapid payback, steps he had already taken. Smart. The “low hanging fruit,” things like installing detectors in rooms to turn lights on and off when people entered and exited, were already saving the schools thousands of dollars annually. It makes sense to address straightforward conservation measures first.

Then we heard about the energy generation side; everything from photovoltaic and solar thermal arrays on school roofs to large wind turbines in back of the baseball fields to geothermal power to fuel cells. All this information was based on the conclusions of firms – consultants, manufacturers, installers – solicited to tell the schools about their particular area of specialization. Turned out there were no easy answers, nothing that addressed how the financially strapped school system would pay to implement the proposed solutions, and no good ways for lay people to sort out the operational and economic plusses and minuses of each energy-generating technology.

My take-away from that meeting, colored by experience in renewable energy consulting, was that a rifle-shot, siloed approach to resolving energy needs doesn’t work. A holistic methodology is needed.

A true systems approach, even for one part of a small municipality, isn’t easy. First, it requires understanding your energy demand (in this case, the schools’): how much of what type of energy is needed during which times of day. Then, the demand has to be mapped against the local available energy sources from the grid, solar insolation, wind, geothermal resources . . . the list goes on. Now, figure in the economics of each energy technology, and the financial and other decision criteria for the wide array of products available on the market that could deliver the energy. Don’t forget to consider the governmental incentives and tax implications – Federal, state and local – that attach to the different solutions.

Does your community have all the resources to make rational energy decisions?

So, how can towns and school systems do what’s best, or at least reasonable? A resident of one area town happens to chair an engineering department at a local university. He helped assemble a team of students to research and model parts of the problem. Their efforts didn’t produce a definitive answer, but did give the town better knowledge from which to work. In my town, an “Energy and Sustainability Green Ribbon Committee” has been formed to develop approaches to better energy use and ways to fund them. It’s composed of local volunteers with a sampling of energy know-how and understanding of municipal workings. That’s a good step. But, as one member of the group who’s on the K-8 school committee commented to me, “We still need all the help we can get.” From where?

Here’s my idea: create a for-profit entity, perhaps based within a university, composed of a cross-section of energy sector, engineering, business, and public policy experts. It would deliver to towns, cities and school systems the information, analysis, evaluation, and related services – including links to capital – needed to help them make and implement decisions about renewable energy alternatives.

Yes, I’m working on it.

–  Posted by Tom Witkin

“Destination Collaboration” – Stillborn?

Saw a thought-provoking YouTube video hypothesizing that people in organizations don’t collaborate because it’s just too hard. The post came from my friend and former colleague, Andy Fox, who was CTO of SiteScape when I was VP of Marketing there. The company, since acquired by Novell, made a terrific web and real-time collaboration application.

Andy’s message is spot on. “Destination collaboration,” a term I believe he coined, is too difficult and rarely embraced by the people who should be communicating and sharing knowledge. He suggests that messaging with “organizing tools” added in is the way to go and the future of collaboration.

But messaging was and is a dismal failure for collaboration. (The exception might be what I call “short burst issues:” matters that are narrow in scope and timeframe.) Witness the collapse of Kubi Software, which (in its original incarnation) was created to use messaging as the collaboration platform, supplemented by the kind of organizing structures I think Andy has in mind. The limitations of messaging are why destination collaboration tools were invented in the first place. This is a central theme in the marketing messages from developers of these applications.

Research from groups such as NetAge, as well as our experience at SiteScape, reveals that so much of the problem getting collaboration to work is a people / culture issue that organizations ignore like the plague (or perhaps the H1N1 virus). When stakeholders do pay attention to organization culture and people’s motivations, so-called destination collaboration can be highly effective. Witness the success of large-scale collaboration at Shell International and the US Centers for Disease Control, two enlightened users of these tools.

If you want to learn more about “destination collaboration” and Andy Fox’ point of view, watch his video, “Say Goodbye to destination collaboration.”

The renewable energy ventures I work with need good ways to collaborate. Andy, I’ll be interested to hear your next step.

– Posted by Tom Witkin

Changing habits for renewables success

One of the most active cleantech investors, Vinod Khosla, made an interesting statement last Fall quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle: “Anything that requires people to change their habits has a low probability of success.” A pretty cynical, discouraging view when you think about our energy needs, priorities and what has to change.

Now, think about whether elasticity of demand related to energy prices affects buying behavior beyond reducing energy consumption directly. For example, in addition to reducing the number of miles people drove, higher gas prices rapidly tipped buying behavior toward higher mileage cars. A secondary effect, or cross elasticity. If so, does that contradict Khosla’s view? The director of the Stanford’s Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency noted in Stanford Business, November 2008, that “The oil market has only small elasticity of demand.” Their research shows that a 10% increase in oil price lowers demand by just 1%. A small reaction to a large change in price makes it a little hard to believe that fundamental buying habits are going to be affected.

When gasoline hit $4.00 a gallon, we saw demand for gas guzzling SUVs drop off precipitously in favor of smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Why, if elasticity is so low (inelastic)? Soaring gasoline prices produced a visceral reaction – sticker shock – at fill-up time. That immediate behavioral change points up the difference between short-term and long-term elasticity. So, my conjecture is that – in the SUV case – behavior tracked a short-term effect that was much more elastic than cited by the Precourt Institute. Now that gasoline and other energy prices tied to oil have dropped, people don’t seem to care as much about efficiency. While oil prices may continue to creep upward, most don’t expect the volatility that recently got us north of $4.00 a gallon gas.

If energy prices move up slowly, the 0.10 elasticity number – long-term inelasticity – seems more reasonable. Vinod Khosla’s assertion about changing habits may be correct if people resist those changes when the forces are so incremental, even insidious, that they don’t cause sticker shock. The fall-off in SUV sales that came from a fast, large almost discontinuous shift in the game is, perhaps, the exception that proves the rule.

How will we as a nation help achieve Obama’s goal to embrace renewable energy alternatives if we don’t experience energy price movements big enough to affect our habits in ways that produce strong reactions that counter Khosla’s view?

The founder of an energy firm told me that “Marketing guys will be the last to get hired in this economy.” (Many would take his belief further: marketing should be the first thing being cut in the downturn.) I argued in a previous blog post that tough economic times may be the best time to use marketing to prime the pump. Maybe marketing is at least part of the answer to two issues: how we change habits and ensure those changes have positive outcomes.

It takes real effort to drive adoption of new ideas and approaches in any sector. In my previous life in the enterprise software world, I rarely saw vendors implement well designed “change management” programs – typically requires a large marketing component inside the user organization – alongside their technical implementations. As a result, there were more failures of information technology initiatives due to organizational and cultural resistance than to technical problems. Renewable energy faces the same risks. Just as in software firms, technical considerations dominate and marketing lags well behind.

If we want renewable energy initiatives to take hold broadly, marketing needs to become a key weapon in the fight – right now. Otherwise, Khosla’s “rule” will be proven correct and the goals of renewable energy and cleantech are less likely to succeed.

At a presentation yesterday, Ed White from National Grid, an international energy transmission and distribution company, talked about the photovoltaic project they’re building alongside a gaudily painted natural gas tank that everyone in Boston knows well. He took great pains to point out that commuters will be able to see the fields of PV arrays while they’re driving (likely stuck in traffic). That’s a marketing message. And it’s critical to the future of renewable energy.

– Posted by Tom Witkin

Cleaner cars . . . too late?

Yesterday was a good day for the environment. Tomorrow may not be.

NY Times, 1/26/09: “President Obama directed federal regulators . . . to move swiftly on an application by California and 13 other states to set strict limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks. He also ordered the Transportation Department to begin drawing up rules imposing higher fuel-economy standards on cars and light trucks.”

The Bush administration stonewalled California’s efforts since 2002 to further limit pollution and they failed to create regulations to implement a 2007 Department of Transportation law requiring a 40 percent improvement in gas mileage for autos and light trucks by 2020. At last a change.

Don’t feel bad for the US auto industry. “They knew this was coming,” pointed out Ray LaHood, the new Secretary of Transportation and former Republican congressman from Illinois. And, autos manufactured by these same companies for the European market can already do much of the job.

So much for the good news. According to an NPR report based on a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Turning off the carbon dioxide emissions won’t stop global warming . . . Climate change is essentially irreversible . . . The global thermostat can’t be turned down quickly once it’s been turned up . . .” We’re talking thousands of years. Now I’m really depressed.

What should be done? Susan Solomon, one of the study’s authors, suggests that if the problem is irreversible, that gives us more reason to act now, just as the new administration is doing.

But, why do we need to wait until 2020 for the 40 percent fuel economy gain? So much of the needed technology has been in development since I started working on renewable energy in the early 80’s. Step on the accelerator.

– Posted by Tom Witkin

Inelasticity, SUVs and Idling

We moved to our Boston suburb in large part because of the quality of the schools, lots of woods, and location. As you can probably guess, there are a lot of well-healed families here (though perhaps disproportionately fewer now, given the number who work in the financial sector). But, there are some things that disturb me – increasingly so – about where we live. First is that this affluent community expects town services – especially education – to maintain a high level; but these same people are unwilling to pay the relatively small marginal cost (because of our tax situation) that is required. Recent municipal votes announced this loudly.

That leads directly to my next gripe: If you look at any parking lot in town, you could believe that we’re actually a giant, upscale SUV dealership. By now you should know my view of these gas guzzlers from a sustainability standpoint.

But I’m seeing something more onerous than the mere existence of these vehicles. At the town’s several schools, legions of these Abrams Tank wannabes line up each day as much as twenty minutes before dismissal so they can be near the head of the line. And, many sit there with the engine running for the duration. Just imagine their carbon footprint; the greenhouse gases emitted for no good reason. Add that to the waste of fuel. And, no, this behavior, from what I observed, didn’t abate when gasoline topped $4.00 a gallon. We are an inelastic town.

The aphorism “think globally, act locally” applies here. Yes, it’s cold outside in New England. Folks, your electrically heated seats and steering wheels will work off the battery, without the engine running. If not, try dressing more warmly, as you would if you walked your dog in the cold.

But, there may be a partial solution to both this budget and environmental problem: Massachusetts has an “Anti-Idling” law. Vehicles are not allowed to idle for more than five minutes except for specific reasons (waiting on line for your child isn’t one of them). Fines can be levied up to $100 for the first offense and up to $500 for each succeeding offense. Enforce it.

Now let’s see how inelastic you are.

– Posted by Tom Witkin

It’s hard driving green

We just bought a new car. It was a frustrating experience, but not for the usual reasons. We got a good deal, the color wasn’t an issue, and the salesperson seemed a decent guy. The car is a manual Hyundai Sonata sedan with an EPA rating of 22 City / 32 highway. It’s highly rated and appears to be a good buy, but it isn’t nearly as green as I would have liked.

Here was our problem: small cars like the Toyota Prius, Honda Civic (hybrid or not) and Hyundai Elantra get excellent mileage, but just don’t have enough rear seat leg room for our two growing teenagers. So, not an option. The car that really fits my needs (and more visceral wants) is the VW Jetta TDI, a turbocharged diesel that gets terrific mileage. Yes, diesel fuel is expensive at the moment compared to gasoline, but great fuel economy offsets part of that. And, when gas prices go up, diesel gets more attractive. As someone who cares about sustainability, I am willing to pay somewhat more for fuel if I can generate less carbon dioxide.

Ultimately, what knocked the Jetta out of the box was price; about $8,000 more than the Sonata, even taking into account the $1300 Federal tax credit for clean-burning diesels. There weren’t viable alternatives: VW, BMW and Mercedes produce the only diesel cars available today in the US. And, the Toyota Camry hybrid is also relatively expensive and doesn’t get mileage that much better than its conventional sibling.

Why don’t we have more choices? According to a Forbes article in the fall, “Between now and 2011, Acura, Nissan, Hyundai and Kia all plan to launch clean-diesel cars of their own.” Does it have to take that long? Estimates from auto experts are that 50-60% of new cars sold in Europe are diesels. I believe it; every car I’ve rented there over the past six years has been a diesel, many of them Fords, GMs and Toyotas. The engineering changes needed to accommodate minor differences in US-produced ultra low sulfur diesel can’t be that daunting.

The issue of high-priced diesel fuel in the US remains an issue, but one that should resolve. If gas prices do go back up, the economy advantage of a diesel will skew the cost delta back toward the diesel. As people start to buy and drive more diesels, the oil companies will certainly increase supply, helping to drive down prices, at least from that side of the supply and demand equation. And, today, a relatively low percentage of “gas stations,” at least where I live in the northeast, offer diesel, so there’s little price competition between outlets. Diesel drivers, I suspect, are just happy to find their fuel. That should change, too, as the number of diesel-powered vehicles goes up.

We’re seeing an emerging market thirst for cars with better mileage. Part of GM, Ford and Chrysler’s travails stem from their years of ramping up production of gas guzzlers. Giving US consumers access to what’s been available in Europe for years would be one expedient answer to the problems of the US auto industry. Maybe that should be a condition of any bailout package.

– Posted by Tom Witkin

Is there a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal for Collaboration?

At a recent collaboration conference in Boston, I listened to various users, vendors and consultants talk about implementing enterprise collaboration systems. A lot of the focus was on how technology tools can improve the flow of business processes; simple HR workflows to Six Sigma and ISO 9000 stuff.

The conference discussions got me thinking about whether collaborative processes are subject to some sort of Heisenberg uncertainty principle; a business version. (Though I figured out by the end of freshman year in college that I wasn’t meant to be a physicist, I’ve long kept an interest in the subject.)

For those who haven’t dabbled in physics, Heisenberg’s is an often quoted principle that’s a highly specialized case of what’s known as the “observer effect:” the measurement of any parameter in a physical system changes one or more other parameters in that same system. In other words, the act of measuring touches and affects the system in some way. The application of technology to business processes isn’t a perfect analog, but I hope you’ll grant me a little license.

Wikipedia talks about the observer effect as it applies to information technology: “In Information Technology, the observer effect refers to potential impact of the act of observing a process output while the process is running. For example . . . observing the performance of a CPU by running the observing program on the same CPU . . . will lead to inaccurate results.”

For a system built on information technology to be successful, you have to get a bunch of things right (call them “essentials”) that have nothing to do with the technology: strategy, processes, content, roles and responsibilities, change management. At least, that’s been SiteScape’s experience with team collaboration initiatives. I suspect IBM agrees. Dan Carroll, a biz school classmate of mine and long-time IBMer told a class gathering that IBM now considers itself first and foremost a consulting firm, not a hardware or software vendor. Consulting implies a focus on these same essentials.

What does this have to do with Professor Heisenberg or the observer effect? When we set out to help a customer collaborate better, we examine and codify the “essentials” to form a snapshot of how things are getting done today. Then we think about how they should be done if those things are going to improve. Without that understanding, we don’t know where and how to apply our marvelous technology. But, when all the essentials are overlaid with technology, don’t the essentials themselves change? My collaboration version of the observer effect.

Except in a pure self-service model, IT professionals become involved when software technology is applied to a business issue or process. By construction, the roles and responsibilities component of the essentials has now changed. New people, influences, reporting relationships, activities have been inserted into the collaborative process. An analog to one of Heisenberg’s physical systems?

If our notional implementation involves a shift from a predominately paper system to one built on software, the content changes. Paper folders can hold different kinds of stuff from software folders. Invariably, people do put different kinds of objects into those software folders.

There are lots of degrees here, to be sure. The steps to get a vacation request approved are not going to change much because you automated the system. But, in a complex business process made up of hundreds, even thousands of “states,” (Six Sigma and ISO 9000 come to mind) subtle shifts accumulate. The underlying business processes that we so carefully evaluated at the start of the project are changed as a result of our attempts to optimize them.

We’re now saddled with a moving target. As we use technology and the other essentials to optimize how different parts of an organization work together, what we need to optimize shifts.

The implication for organizations of all types and sizes is that improving collaboration and related workflow processes needs to be iterative. It can’t be one giant leap. To work, it needs to be a series – often a constant, on-going series – of steps, adjustments, reworks, additions and deletions. It’s a consultative process of listening and observing, applying lessons learned, then listening and observing some more.

At the beginning of any project or initiative, it’s critical to put in place the people and mechanisms you need for this iterative, consultative approach. Hmm, doing that kind of changes things, too.

—-posted by Tom Witkin

Marketing and renewable energy start-ups

A smart venture capitalist I’ve known for some time introduced me to one of her clean energy portfolio companies. As I transition from the enterprise software / Web 2.0 world to renewable energy, she has been incredibly helpful.

Then I heard back from the founder of that energy firm: “Marketing guys will be the last to get hired in this economy.” Maybe that seems true, even obvious, to many. But, let’s think about this.

There’s a problem I see among renewables start-ups; in fact, many early-stage companies dominated by scientists and engineers. Their scarce financial resources (getting scarcer by the day) are allocated predominately to on-going research and product development. Why? They are comfortable with R&D as opposed to the black magic (I could use two different words) world of marketing. And, there’s the perception that you can’t move forward unless your product or service is fully baked.

A client and founder of a company with a really compelling, web-based business-to-business service continued to fund software engineering with limited seed capital and just one small paying pilot customer. My perspective is summed up in my dissenting assessment of his path: “You are going to have the best web platform in the world for [XYZ] when you close the doors.” Their precipice is perilously close.

It’s never too early to sell the story. A tough economy may be the best time to prime the pump. In this period of bleeding cash and non-existent credit, organizations aren’t likely to buy today or tomorrow. But, if your offering is top-of-mind when things loosen up, you’ll be in great shape. People will be willing to pilot your not-quite ready primetime stuff because you’ve had them chomping at the bit.

The choice is simple: the perceived great product that will be available soon or the completed widget they’ve never heard of?  In all of high tech, the choices are myriad. Similarly, the alternatives for customers’ energy portfolios are getting broader and broader.

Tell your story now. Do some marketing.

— posted by Tom Witkin

Give the new Secretary of Energy a chance

Tom Friedman’s Sunday Op-Ed posited that “If you want to guarantee that America becomes a mediocre nation, then just keep vilifying every public figure struggling to find a way out of this crisis who stumbles once — like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner or A.I.G.’s $1-a-year fill-in C.E.O., Ed Liddy — and you’ll ensure that no capable person enlists in government.” Spot-on.

 

I see the same phenomenon in our local town politics where volunteer, elected school committee members are vilified – via anonymous comments to articles in the local newspaper – for working tirelessly to preserve educational excellence in our underfunded public schools.

 

At least we know it was John McCain who went after Energy Secretary, Stephen Chu, in a recent Senate hearing. But, note that Chu has been in the job for only nine weeks.

 

As reported in a New York Times article today, Energy Secretary Serves Under a Microscope. “Dan Leistikow, the Energy Department’s director of public affairs, said that Dr. Chu was a scientist, not a politician, and should be given a little time to adjust . . . ‘A Nobel scientist is more likely to figure out Washington than a career politician is to figure out how to deal with carbon sequestration,  Mr. Leistikow said.”

 

Let’s give Secretary Chu a chance. I know he can pronounce “photovoltaics” as well as “nuclear.”

 

– Posted by Tom Witkin

 

UAW and Obama: 100% of nothing or 75% of something?

The December 21, Sunday NY Times piece, “Downturn Will Test Obama’s Vision for an Energy-Efficient Auto Industry,” noted that the president-elect’s “writings and speeches on the auto industry suggest a keen interest in finding ways, including new technology, to improve the fuel efficiency of the cars and trucks that Americans drive.” These views, going back well over two years, have their roots in concerns over both climate change and competitiveness. The challenge faced by the auto industry, the government, and the unions alike, as the article points out, is how to fix decades of bad business decisions during a severe economic downturn and stimuli for the broader economy.

What happens next depends in large part on the judgment and resolve of the new president and the UAW. UAW workers average around $30 an hour plus generous benefits that bring the fully burdened number above $70 an hour, according to most accounts. Folks, that’s north of $140,000 a year.

At the same time, the UAW is resisting wage and benefit concessions. I’m not clear why the union feels so entitled, other than the fact that they’ve gotten away with it for a long time. Yes, their jobs are considered “skilled.” But, as one Harvard economist (a liberal Democrat, by the way) pointed out to me recently, it’s true that most of us could not do their jobs if we walked into an auto plant tomorrow. But, we could certainly learn to do those jobs pretty fast.

At the same time, the UAW – which stood by as GM, Ford and Chrysler management continued to design and offer less and less competitive products – is a major reason that these three manufacturers are uncompetitive. Their bloated compensation and lack of vision threatens the whole US auto sector. That sector, by the way, includes most major “foreign” car makers (your Honda was likely produced in Marysville, Ohio), as well as hundreds of second and third tier suppliers. Yet, the UAW seems unwilling to make the concessions needed to help their big three employers become competitive.

The powerful union backed the Obama election bid and feels they should have a friend in the next White House. So, I have two questions:

• Will President Obama hold the UAW’s feet to the fire, regardless of union campaign contributions?
• Does the UAW prefer to make 100% of nothing (if GM, Ford and Chrysler fold) or will they help themselves and the country by accepting 75% of something?

This country needs a viable US auto industry for both economic and environmental reasons.

– Posted by Tom Witkin

Intel Inside your car?

Andy Grove, former chairman of Intel, is reported to be pushing his old firm to become a manufacturer of electric car batteries. The December 12 WSJ report cites Grove’s advice as a potential solution to the microprocessor company’s “[struggle] to create another major business.” Apparently, current management is non-committal.

Why am I interested? Electric cars will become increasingly important to the economy and environment (let’s not get into what ultimately fuels the electricity). And, I used to be responsible for market strategy for a major US semiconductor maker.

There’s little doubt that the automotive battery business is going to be big. Sheer size, though, does not a strategy make.

The WSJ piece also states that Grove “believes that the principle of Moore’s law could apply to batteries . . .” It’s not clear to this one-time physics student that science and technology analogous to what drives Moore’s law could enable the same success in the chemistry and manufacturing of car batteries. Then again, unlike the Secretary of Energy designate, Steven Chu, I don’t have a Nobel Prize in physics or anything else.

Having the right partners and distribution channels are also key enablers for effective strategy. Intel is still the dominant designer and manufacturer of microprocessors. Cars these days do contain lots of semiconductors, both microprocessor-based CPUs as well as digital signal processors and other application-specific chips. I don’t know – maybe you do – what portion of these circuits are produced by Intel. But, the business process behind getting semiconductors designed into a car, then producing and delivering them, strikes me as quite different from what it takes to establish the relationship between a car company and a firm making batteries that provide the fundamental umph behind the vehicles.

You may already have “Intel Inside” your car. Will the meaning behind that great brand change? I’m skeptical.

– Posted by Tom Witkin

Airline industry more renewable than US auto?

I’m still not sure where I sit vis-à-vis the bailout of the three US auto makers. Years of bad decision-making in light of myriad technology options (like right-sized vehicles, lighter materials, smarter transmissions, diesel, hybrid, electric; the list goes on) paints a dismal picture. Unlike a Prius or Jetta, a hybrid electric or turbodiesel 747 isn’t a possibility.

It may come as a surprise that the airline industry – from airlines to aircraft and system manufacturers to NASA and the FAA – has been working on innovations to manage both energy costs and sustainability. Yes, there is government involvement and research. And no, these efforts won’t give us more leg room. But they may help assure the public of viable air transportation for the long-term that does its part to limit environmental impact.

There were two relevant pieces in Aviation Week magazine’s November 24 issue that put auto’s lack of leadership and creativity in an even starker light. On December 8, “An Air New Zealand Boeing 747-400 is scheduled to take off from Auckland . . . on the first flight to use a sustainably produced replacement for petroleum-based jet fuel . . . a 50:50 blend of conventional Jet A-1 and a biofuel derived from jatropha . . .” Jatropha and other biofuel feedstocks that meet sustainability criteria are of huge interest to aviation simply to assure fuel availability. Sure it’s self-interest, but it’s enlightened.

The second story pointed up straightforward approaches to conservation, something rightfully getting more and more interest among clean energy investors: “A United Airlines Boeing 777 Saved 1,564 gal. of fuel and cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 32,656 lb. on a single flight . . . from Sydney to San Francisco on Nov. 14 . . . [using] a tailored approach to [SFO] with a continuous descent at near idle power from cruise altitude to final approach.” This was part of the Asia and South Pacific Initiative to Reduce Emissions (Aspire) program that includes United, Boeing, the FAA, Airservices Australia and Airways New Zealand. The flight used 11 fuel-saving techniques.

Pretty slick.

— posted by Tom Witkin