I. Introduction and Summary…………………………………:………….. 1

II. Saving Resources, Saving Money……………………………………… 2

III. Results and Analysis……………………………………………………. 3

IV. Conclusion……………………………………………………………… 6

Table 1: Payback Periods in a Sample……………………………………… 7

Table 2: Possible Savings if Resource Efficiencies Were Replicated……….. 8

Table 3: Assumed Annual Savings Per Firm, Organization or Sector………. 9

Appendix 1: Resource Efficiency Programs in the PNW

and Selected Case Studies ………………………………………………….. 11

Appendix 2: Companies, Sectors and Savings……………………………… 15

The citizens of Washington and Oregon know that a majority of streams fail to meet water quality standards and that many salmon stocks are listed as threatened or endangered regionwide. The public and decision makers want to take appropriate steps to resolve these problems, but often hesitate because they fear the economic consequences will be too severe.

In the spring of 1999, The Center for Watershed and Community Health (CWCH), a non-profit research institute affiliated with the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University, initiated a project to help decision makers throughout the region better understand the economic issues and facts associated with salmon and stream conservation. The CWCH’s Salmon Economics Project aims to provide accurate, objective, and easy-to-understand information about the potential costs and benefits associated with restoring water quality and healthy salmon populations. This document is one in a series of reports to be produced over the next few years as part of this project. The Salmon Economics Project is an integral part of CWCH’s focus on developing new, effective approaches to environmental governance.
 
 

This report was produced by:

Dr. Eban Goodstein, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Lewis and Clark College, Portland Oregon 97219, and Research Associate, The Economic Policy Institute, Washington DC. E-Mail: eban@lclark.edu

Bob Doppelt , Director of the Center For Watershed and Community Health, a non-profit research institute affiliated with the Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University. Phone: E-Mail: CWCH@pdx.edu

Dr. Karin Sable, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA 98416. E-Mail: KSable@ups.edu

We are grateful to Helen Tammela for her research assistance, and Kim Spir for administrative help.
 
 

The CWCH gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Ford Foundation, Brainerd Foundation, Lazar Foundation, and Harder Foundation for this project. The authors are solely responsible for the content.

I. Introduction

As the Pacific Northwest faces the new millennium, the struggle to preserve our natural environment in the face of swelling population and robust economic growth appears daunting. There is great concern, especially with the recent ESA listing of endangered salmon, that action to reduce environmental impacts on streams, water quality, and salmon habitat will present major economic costs to companies, communities and society. However, over the last few years, a large number of businesses in Oregon and Washington, often in partnership with government agencies, have been quietly saving money while at the same time helping to preserve the environment.

This report documents that 375 businesses and other organizations in the Pacific Northwest, through aggressive pursuit of environmental efficiency opportunities, have substantially reduced water, energy, hazardous materials and other inputs, reducing pressure on stream habitats and the environment while at the same time saving millions of dollars. These firms are at the leading edge of a movement referred to as "eco-efficiency", creating a more economically and environmentally efficient economy through incremental improvements in resource use and environmental impact¹. They demonstrate that while there will always be initial investment costs, in both the short and the long term there are often much larger economic savings from efforts to reduce environmental impacts to conserve streams, salmon, and the environment. In sum, taking steps to restore regional environmental quality can produce significant economic benefits—not major costs—to companies, communities and the region.

Of the 375 organizations analyzed for this report, data on cost savings were available from 137; these businesses report a combined minimum gross savings of over $42 million from 1992-1999, with most of these savings coming in the last three years. Three examples illustrating the types of savings follow; additional examples are found in Appendix 1.

• In Portland, the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group is saving $92,000 per year in energy costs. The firm connected independent compressed air systems in their three main production buildings. By doing this, they were able to shut down two of the compressors during off-peak hours, saving 2.3 million kWh/yr. Energy use at the plant has been cut by half. The 1998 retrofit cost $180,000, so the project will pay for itself in only two years, while simultaneously extending the life of the compressors².

• In Hood River, Walter Wells & Sons Viewmont Orchards took a number of small steps leading to big savings: $55,000 per year. The company conserved energy by replacing an inefficient oil pressure heating system, and installing capacitors and control circuitry to regulate energy use. Water inputs were reduced with a switch to micro-irrigation. And company employees even switched from disposable coffee cups to re-usable mugs³.

• Sound Ford Auto Body Shop in Renton, Washington, introduced two innovations: they let car painters reap the cash benefits of paint conservation, and the company introduced a computer tracking system—all saving $7,000 per month, $84,000 per year in paint and disposal costs. "Usually the more hazardous a material the more expensive it is to buy and dispose of", says manager Robert Leverette. "By using less hazardous products and adopting a new paint materials payment program, we have reduced operational costs by almost six hundred percent over the past two years⁴".

• Each of these examples and the others described in this report provide multiple benefits for water quality, salmon habitat and the environment. For example, improved water efficiency leaves more instream water for fish; moreover, energy use is reduced since less water needs to be treated before use, pumped to sources, and retreated after use. Energy efficiency measures reduce the need for power from hydro-electric dams, allowing more water to be spilled to promote fish passage. Reducing the use and discharge of hazardous substances and toxic materials reduces the contamination of surface and groundwater, the soil and the atmosphere. This saves businesses and taxpayers the cost of future clean-up. Reducing, reusing and recycling physical waste reduces the need for virgin feedstocks, relieves pressure on landfills, and reduces the leaching of toxic materials from landfills into the regions streams.

Our study finds that the percentage of businesses and other organizations in Washington and Oregon who are actively engaged in voluntary resource efficiency efforts are at or below six percent of the total firms within their sectors; in the majority of cases, the figure is below 1%. This suggests tremendous opportunities to realize substantial improvement in stream habitat and overall environmental quality while saving money at the same time. We provide an estimate for the 9 subsectors of the economy for which we have comparable data—accounting for 34% percent of total regional employment. If only one-quarter of Oregon and Washington firms in these sectors followed the lead of the early movers, businesses in the two states could realize savings greater than $1 billion, while simultaneously taking significant steps to protect salmon and the environment.

II. Saving Resources, Saving Money

Energy, water, and raw materials: these are the key inputs that go into producing all the goods and services we enjoy, ranging from computer chips to haircuts, from railroad cars to heart transplants, from fine northwest wine to education for our kids. These resources are extracted from the natural environment. Withdrawals in excess of recharge can cause imbalances in these natural systems leading to unintended consequences, such as salmon depletion. These inputs are also often unnecessarily transformed into pollution and waste: air pollutants from energy production; waste water clogging our sewage treatment plants and spilling into our rivers; chemicals and other raw material inputs winding up in the air, water and landfills.

Increasingly, businesses and government agencies are recognizing that pollution and waste not only create environmental problems, they also represent a financial loss as well. By getting more "environmentally efficient"—using less energy, water, virgin feedstock or toxic material to produce the same level of output-- firms can cut their costs while protecting streams, salmon, and the environment. In short, improving environmental efficiency is just good business.

In the last few years, over ten government agencies and non-profit organizations in Washington and Oregon have been sponsoring different programs providing either recognition or technical assistance to businesses that engage in voluntary actions to reduce their environmental impacts. The list includes the Hood River of Chamber of Commerce's Green Smart Program, the City of Portland's Office of Pollution Prevention, King County's Envirostars awards program, and outreach efforts by both the Department's of Ecology in Washington and Environmental Quality in Oregon. (For a complete description of these programs, as well as a further sampling of case studies, please see Appendix 1.) In this analysis, we have gathered the available case study information from all of these different programs to provide a comprehensive snapshot of the ongoing efforts in our region to improve water and air quality, manage waste, and reduce resources while at the same time saving money.

The case studies vary in their level of detail. Some provide information on monetary savings from resource efficiency measures, others do not. In this study, we compile all of the self-reported cost-savings by businesses and agencies, always employing conservative assumptions. If an estimated range was provided, we recorded the lower value. If an annual cost-savings figure was provided, we converted that to a total value from the time of the investment through the end of 1999. Not every business or agency that has engaged in voluntary resource conservation measures will have made it into our report. However, we suspect that the Oregon and Washington firms most actively engaged in these efforts are represented in our sample.

III. Results and Analysis

Appendix 2 provides a listing of all the firms and agencies who have undertaken voluntary resource reduction measures in Oregon and Washington over the last 8 years, and for which data was available through one of the public programs. The data is in tabular form. Column 3 indicates the type of resource that was reduced by the different organizations. (The category "waste" ranges from used oil at an auto repair shop, to scrap metal in a machine shop.) Of the 375 organizations listed, 137 reported specific cost saving information. The total reported from 1992-1999 was $42,271,381 with most of these savings coming in the last few years.

This figure is gross savings. It does not deduct the amount invested to realize these savings. For example, to achieve annual savings of $1,000, Southtowne Auto Rebuild, Inc., in Tukwilla, WA, invested $4,000 in an on-site recycling system for paint thinner. Thus, net savings will be realized for this firm after 4 years-- a sound investment opportunity. Arco had less than a two-year payback on its Cherry Point Refinery project. In 1996 the company invested $714,000 in a project that returns $385,000 on an annual basis. Of the 139 companies reporting cost savings, only 25 firms also reported either their initial investment costs, or a payback period.

Table 1 summarizes this information—mostly based on energy efficiency investments. There is a clear difference between the private and the public/non-profit sector. The former reported average payback periods of just over 4 years, corresponding roughly to a 25% rate of return. Public sector investments had somewhat longer paybacks, around 8.8 years on average, or close to an 11% rate of return⁵.

Table 2 presents the information on a sectoral basis. For each type of business, it shows the number of firms, the number of firms reporting dollar figures for cost savings, and the average savings. For the 13 sectors where comparable data was available, the table also shows the total number of firms and organizations of that type in Oregon and Washington. (Some categories, such as services and retail, were too broad to establish a meaningful comparison group; others, such as senior centers, were too narrow to generate comparison data). In all, these 13 sectors account for about 34% of total regional employment. In these sectors, the percentage of businesses and other organizations in Washington and Oregon who are actively engaged in voluntary resource efficiency efforts are at or below six percent of the total firms within their sectors; in the majority of cases, the figure is below 1%.

The final column in the table provides some rough insight into the potential cost savings if only one quarter of the establishments in each of nine sectors were to adopt efficiency measures. If 25% of the firms or organizations in each category achieved the average cost savings reported by the early movers, than the total savings in the two states would be quite large. For the nine sectors for which we did the calculations, potential savings reach a total of over $1.1 billion over a period of 5 years⁶.

Is this figure a reasonable target? Table 3 illustrates the yearly water, energy and resource savings that one quarter of the businesses and agencies in the nine sectors would have to achieve in order to realize the $1.1 billion estimate. These saving figures-- ranging from $416 for restaurants to $58,339 for hospitals-- have already been experienced by the early adopters in our study. Can they be replicated? Our sample may not be typical for a number of reasons. On the one hand, it is possible that the businesses in our sample moved first because they were the most inefficient in the region, and thus had the most to gain from improved environmental efficiency. On the other hand, the owners of these businesses-- already more aware of potential savings opportunities-- may have been running organizations that were more efficient than average to begin with. Finally, if the businesses in our sample are larger than average, smaller companies in the region will have difficulty replicating these savings from environmental efficiency⁷.

Having recognized these issues, however, and based on the figures in Table 3, it seems plausible that 25% of the businesses and other organizations could successfully follow the lead of the early movers in each sector. In manufacturing for example, twenty-one plants reported total savings under $600,000; another 5 reported savings greater than $1 million. Ignoring those high end cost savings, the average amount saved per year at each manufacturing plant was $39,579. Based on other pollution prevention and energy efficiency research these numbers should, on average, be within reach of the largest quartile of plants in the region⁸. The occasional Boeing-sized opportunities (Boeing reported $12 million per year in energy savings in the EPA’s Energy Star program) makes realizing large energy, water, and other resource savings in the Pacific Northwest even more feasible.

This number of $1.1 billion is thus not a firm projection of potential cost savings— rather it is a reasonable estimate based on the cost savings already reported by the early movers in each industry. In addition, it includes only the potential of one-third of the regional economy. Finally, of course, economic benefits from environmental efficiency would be larger if more than one quarter of the businesses and organizations in the two states pursued energy, water and resource efficiency options. Beyond the data in this report, there are clear indications of this regional potential: in the late 1990’s overall water consumption in the Seattle area was the same as in 1980—in spite of a 20% increase in population. By getting more efficient, Seattle businesses and residents have cut water usage by 50 billion gallons since 1990, for a monetary savings of $95.5 million⁹.

IV. Conclusion

A recent feature article in a regional newspaper characterized the choices that the region will need to make if it is to address the problem of salmon recovery as "expensive", "drastic", and "tough". Undoubtedly, some tough choices will have to be made. But this report illustrates that there are also a tremendous number of easy choices—decisions that can both protect the environment for salmon and save money. Beginning about a decade ago, and picking up speed over the last three or four, Northwest businesses and organizations have been engaging in a wide variety of voluntary resource conservation measures. The 137 organizations in our sample reported savings of $42 million dollars while simultaneously improving environmental quality; these are just plain good business decisions. Expanding these win-win opportunities should be a high priority for public policy.
 
 
 
 

TABLE 1-- Payback Periods in the Sample
 

Company	Type of Business	Payback Period, Years
Private Sector
Columbia Gorge Veterinary Clinic	Vet Hospital	2.00
Duckwall-Pooley Fruit Co.	Services	7.00
Hood River Sports Club	Services	1.50
Centerplex	Retail	4.31
Larry's Markets	Retail	2.20
Tidymans	Retail	2.05
ARCO's Cherry Point Refinery	Refining	1.85
World Vision	Office	7.27
Kaiser Permanente	Office	6.44
Nike	Office	6.31
KinderCare Learning	Office	3.51
Epson	NA	2.54
Boeing	Manufact	3.63
Boeing	Manufact	1.96
Silicon Wafer Man.	Manufact	1.40
Westin Hotels	Hotel	3.32
US Bancorp	Bank	11.45
Southtowne Auto Rebuild, Inc.	Auto Repair	4.00
PRIVATE SECTOR AVERAGE		4.04
Public / Non-profit Sector
Portland Public Schools	School	8.45
State of Oregon	Govt	13.21
Southern Or University	Education	12.02
Good Samaritan	Hospital	9.90
Sacred Heart	Hospital	8.94
Seattle University	Education	8.20
Corvallis-Benton Cnty. Library	Govt	0.80
PUBLIC / NON-PROFIT AVERAGE		8.79

 
 
 
 
 

TABLE 2: Possible Savings if Resource Efficiencies Were Replicated
 

Type of Business	Number of Firms/ Agencies	Number Reporting Savings	Average Savings Reported	Number of Firms/ Agencies in OR & WA	Percent Reporting Savings	Five-Year Savings if 25% invested in Efficiency
Agriculture	4	2	$30,900	na	na	na
Auto Repair	34	11	$42,217	5502	0.62%	$57,711,136
Auto Sales	8	0		779	1.03%	na
Bank	3	2	$126,626	3902	0.08%	$123,428,206
City	8	2	$12,407	na	na	na
Dental	35	0		4348	0.80%	na
Govt	5	3	$44,150	na	na	na
Higher Educ.	4	3	$73,545	107	3.74%	$1,893,792
Hospital	8	4	$291,693	136	5.88%	$9,334,176
Hotel	5	5	$170,839	2128	0.23%	$90,672,799
Manufact*	65	21	$197,158	16592	0.39%	$814,607,567
Manufact**	65	26	$810,112	na	na	na
Metals	12	3	$1,074,667	203	5.91%	na
Military	7	1	$354,000	na	na	na
Museum	1	0		na	na	na
Newspaper	1	1	$14,400	na	na	na
Office	23	17	$132,969	na	na	na
Park	4	2	$437,326	na	na	na
Pest Control	4	0		na	na	na
Port	4	1	$3,240,000	na	na	na
Power	1	0		na	na	na
Printing	10	1	$27,000	220	4.55%	$1,417,500
Recycling	2	0		na	na	na
Refining	2	1	$1,155,000	na	na	na
Research	3	1	$34,850	na	na	na
Restaurant	5	4	$2,079	15629	0.03%	$8,119,598
Retail	36	20	$19,093	na	na	na
School	5	3	$17,132	1181	0.42%	$5,036,808
School System	1	1	$713,286	na	na	na
Senior Center	1	1	$990	na	na	na
Services	36	7	$120,830	na	na	na
Software	2	2	$261,450	1102	0.18%	na
Theatre	1	1	$5,000	na	na	na
Transportation	8	2	$250,000	na	na	na
Vetern. Clinic	2	1	$400	na	na	na
Wholesale	2	1	$64,200	na	na	na
Wood Products	2	0		na	na	na
TOTAL						$1,112,221,582

 

* Includes only savings of less than $600 thousand; net of primary metals.

**Includes all reported savings, including $12m at a single plant; net of primary metals.

Data on Number of Firms from Oregon State Employment Department and Washington State Employment Securities Department.
 
 

TABLE 3-- Assumed Annual Savings per Firm or Organization, by Sector
 
 
 

Type of Business	Five-Year Average Savings Reported
Auto Repair	$8,443
Bank	$25,325
Higher Educ.	$14,709
Hospital	$58,339
Hotel	$34,168
Manufact*	$39,579
Printing	$5,400
Restaurant	$416
School	$3,426

* Includes only savings of less than $600 thousand; net of primary metals.
 
 

Goodstein, Eban (1999) Economics and the Environment (Jon Wiley & Sons: NY)

Hawken, P., M. Lovins, and L.H. Lovins, (1999) Natural Capitalism (Little Brown and Company, Boston, New York and London)

Romm, Joseph (1999) Cool Companies (Island Press: Washington, DC)

Seattle Public Utilities (1999) Regional Water Conservation Accomplishments, 1990-1998. www.ci.seattle.wa.us/util/RESCONS/default.htm
 
 

1.  Hawken, Lovins and Lovins (1999).
2. City of Portland, Best Award Winner; see Appendix 1.
3.  Hood River Green Smart Program; see Appendix 1.
4.  King County Envirostars Program; see Appendix 1.
5.  Omitting the Benton County Library observation  (less than a one-year payback) raises the public sector payback average to 10.1 years.
6.  While some of the savings data on which this projection was based stretch back 8 years, most of the savings listed in Table 1 were in fact achieved within the last 5 years.  Thus a 5-year window is assumed for the projected savings.
7.  We did not have the information needed to assess this issue.
8.  See the review in Goodstein (1999: Chapter 19), Romm (1999), and Hawkins et al. (1999).
9.  Seattle Public Utilities (1999).  The dollar figure was determined assuming that half of the water was used in summer, half in winter, and priced at marginal cost.  Summer rates were assumed to be $3.22 per thousand gallons, and winter rates were $.60 per thousand gallons.  The marginal cost of sewage was set at zero, assuming that base sewer flows have almost no impact on their treatment costs, since treatment and conveyance in Seattle are built to handle wet weather flows.  This information was provided by Tim Skeel at Seattle Public Utilities.
 
 

Appendix 1:

Resource Efficiency Programs in the PNW & Selected Case Studies

Resource Efficiency Programs in Oregon
 
 

The Fred Meyer baking Plant (Clackamas) identified and corrected water leaks and drips totaling 709,000 gallons per year. Financial savings: $3,280/year. Resources Savings: 1,772 therms (natural gas) and 709,000 gallons (water)/year.

Changed the packing procedure for bear claws and other pastries. Previously, packing staff had not always had enough time to switch packaging types when production shifted from one product to another. For example, at the end of a batch of bear claws, staff would need to move the packaged bear claws out of the packing area and prepare to package the next product. Insufficient time to make the switch meant that the last products in any given batch were often trashed. By increasing the time between product lines (at the packing end) by three minutes, this problem was largely eliminated. RESOURCE SAVINGS: 12480 pounds/year.

As part of an ink manufacturing process, Graphic Sciences added a cooling tower to the pigment grinding process. This allows most of the cooling water to be reused, cutting water use by 80%. The installation paid for itself in a matter of months, helping to make lower cost ink of the same quality using less water. RESOURCES SAVINGS: 2,500,000 gallons a year.
 
 

Wacker Siltronic changed from saws using single pass cooling to saws using recirculating glycol and a heat exchanger. This change and others reduced water use by 37 million gallons per year.
 
 

Lamb's Thriftway, (BEST* in 1998) This grocery store is saving over 1.3 million KWh/year (worth about $65,000/yr) through a comprehensive package of renovations to their 1981 store. This was done at the same time they were expending their floor space by about 80 percent. They have upgraded their refrigeration systems, the store lighting, and hearing and air conditioning control systems. The annual energy savings are equal to what Lamb's net income increase would be if they boosted their grocery sales by $8.7 million a year.
 
 

Columbia Gorge Veterinary Clinic (CGVC) is the recipient of a special Green Smart award for making the largest number of cost-effective, resource-efficient changes in 1998. CGVC has cut their energy bill by 25-30% by installing a ventilation system that reduces the need for air conditioning, by upgrading lighting and lighting controls, and by insulating their water heater. CGVC has also reduced their water use by adding faucet aerators and a toilet tank displacement device. CGVC uses cost-competitive recycled and unbleached paper products, and has increased their use of reusable cloth towels instead of disposable paper towels. In their office CGVC has reduced their cots by reusing file folders and large envelopes, and by redesigning and simplifying their medical form. CGVC recycles all of their standard recyclables, and has also purchased an innovative system that reclaims silver from used x-ray fixer solution.

Resource Efficiency Programs in Washington
 
 

The TREE team Christina Colouzis, James Hanley, James DeMay and Linda Pange, P.E., recently completed a waste reduction assessment for Basic Frozen Foods (BGFF). BFF is a manufacturer of frozen shredded has browns potatoes in Warden, Washington. The City of Warden could not allocate more water to BFF for a new french fry line. When the TREE team first visited Basin in March, 1999, BFF was using 275,000 gallons of water per day. With TREE team suggestions, Basin staff decreased water use to 195,000 gallons per day by the end of April. By implementing the additional recommendations the TREE team has submitted to Basin, BFF will reduce use by an additional 70% (an additional 121,500 gallons per day.) The direct cost savings from these reductions is about $10,770. Reducing water use in has brown production allows BFF to add the french fry line that satisfies their new contract with Nestle. The contract is worth an undisclosed amount. The TREE team will be presenting summaries of this project at ERO June 29, 1999 and at NWRO on June 30, 1999.
 
 

Canyon Creek Cabinet Company, in Monroe was formerly classified as a major source of hazardous waste and emissions. Then, in 1991, it implemented a pollution prevention plan and set the goal of becoming an environmental leader in the industry.

The company's waste management task force began to identify the company's hazardous materials and wastes and look for ways to reduce or eliminate them. Working closely with Department of Ecology and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, it succeeded in a big way. It has become the only wood-finishing company in the state to switch to water-borne products.

Canyon Creek worked with its vendor to develop a water-borne topcoat for wood products. The change resulted in greatly reducing hazardous air emissions, and avoiding the requirement for a special air permit.
 
 

Snow sports equipment and skateboard manufacturer K2 Corporation on Vashon Island noted excellent progress in the first year of their 1997 Five-year Update. Screen wash was replaced with a less toxic alternative resulting in significant reductions in hazardous substance use, air emissions, and waste generation. Waste ink was reduced due to increased efficiency in screen-printing. They also believe improved communication and education contributed to reduced waste from spills. They reported a 38, 611 pound reduction in hazardous substance use, a 39,936 pound reduction in hazardous waste generation and a savings of over $115,000.
 
 

When it comes to preventing pollution, Auto Hound is "top dog" in the automotive field. The auto body and paint business runs a clean, green shop in an industry once known for its polluting activities.

Dee and Wiesje Baskerville started Auto Hound in 1993 near Lake Union. From the beginning, they planned to run a safe, environmentally friendly shop. Dee had worked in the auto repair business for many years and felt strongly about creating a clean environment for employees. Managing hazardous materials properly has been one key strategy. Auto Hound staff receive yearly training in hazardous materials management and in health and safety issues. The Lake union shop has a separate mixing and holding room for paint and other hazardous materials.

Auto Hound uses noncorrosive, water-based products rather than more toxic degreasers and floor cleaners to reduce solid waste, they replaced plastic car covers with a water-based spray. The shop tests alternatives and considers safer options for all the products it uses.

Recycling is an important way to cut waste. Auto Hound recycles paper, bumpers, scrap metal, paint thinner, antifreeze, batteries and freon (from cars' air conditioning systems. Workers even use old soup cans and paint cans for mixing clear primers, saving about $25 per month on the cost of containers.

The spray paint booth (used to paint cars) offered another chance to trim waste. Staff clean the paint spray gun washer every eight weeks rather than every four weeks. They clean the booth floor every four jobs instead of every time. The shop saves $100 a month from such changes

Naturally, Auto Hound is a member of Green Works, a King County program to reduce solid waste and promote use of recycled products. The Baskervilles talk about safety and pollution prevention to customers and to their peers within the automotive industry.
 
 

Resource Efficiency Programs in EPA Region X
 
 

Intel Corporation. At the Dupont, Washington Campus: by design, this manufacturing facility's processes are so "environmentally friendly," that activities there are below the regulatory thresholds requiring air or wastewater permits, saving time and money associated with permit application and approval.
 
 

Appendix 2:

Companies, Sectors and Savings

(Please refer to Appendix 1 for further information on the listed sources)
 

Company	Type of Business	Resource Reduced	Total Savings	Source
Walter Wells & Sons, Viewmont Orchards	Agriculture	multiple	$55,000	Hood River Green Smart
Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc.	Agriculture	multiple	$6,800	OR DEQ Clearinghouse
Belmont Dairy	Agriculture	multiple		Portland BEST
Indian Creek Ranch	Agriculture	multiple		Hood River Green Smart
Sound Ford Auto Body Shop	Auto Repair	waste/pollution	$420,000	King County Envirostar
Washington St Parks Maintenance Shops	Auto Repair	waste/pollution	$25,000	King County Envirostar
Precision Engineering, Inc.	Auto Repair	waste/pollution	$5,000	WA DEC Progress Report
Federal Way Radiator and Muffler	Auto Repair	multiple	$3,060	King County Envirostar
Auto Hound	Auto Repair	multiple	$3,000	King County Envirostar
Tom's Automotive Service	Auto Repair	waste/pollution	$2,640	King County Envirostar
Fat City German Car Inc.	Auto Repair	multiple	$2,500	King County Envirostar
Southtowne Auto Rebuild, Inc.	Auto Repair	waste/pollution	$1,000	King County Envirostar
Aaron's Bicycle Repair	Auto Repair	waste/pollution	$800	King County Envirostar
Phil's Finishing Touch	Auto Repair	waste/pollution	$753	King County Envirostar
RBD Enterprises	Auto Repair	waste/pollution	$638	OR DEQ Clearinghouse
Alki Auto Repair	Auto Repair	multiple		King County Envirostar
Busch Collision	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		WA Governor's Awards
By's Automotive and Muffler	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Firestone Tire & Service Center	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Fleet Maintenance Shop-City of Seattle	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Goodyear Auto Service Center	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
High Road Automotive	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Hobbs Hilltop Auto Inc.	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Interbay	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		WA DEC Progress Report
Jay's Professional Automotive	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Kelly's Auto Body Collision 1	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Ken's Redmond Auto Body Inc.	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
LM Body Shop	Auto Repair	multiple		King County Envirostar
Moore's Bodyshop	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Murray's Service First Collision Center	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Poor Boy's Auto & Marine Repair	Auto Repair	multiple		King County Envirostar
Prompt Auto Car Care Center	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Rick's Diagnonstic & Repair Service	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Spark's Computerized Car Care	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Sunfair Chevrolet	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		WA DEC Progress Report
Thoroughbred Collision Center	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Willows Collision Craft	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Woodinville Collision Craft	Auto Repair	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Alley Chevrolet	Auto Sales	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
BMW Seattle	Auto Sales	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Kirkland Chrysler Jeep & Eagle	Auto Sales	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Michael's Toyota, Inc.	Auto Sales	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Renton Honda Automobiles	Auto Sales	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Specialty Motors	Auto Sales	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Tree Sisters Nelson Chevrolet	Auto Sales	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Walt's Radiator & Muffler (14 stores)	Auto Sales	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
US Bancorp	Bank	waste/pollution	$155,000	Portland BEST
US Bancorp	Bank	energy	$98,251	EPA Energy Star
Bank of America	Bank	waste/pollution		Portland BEST
Graffiti Ragers--The City of Seattle	City	water	$19,035	King County Envirostar
City of Milwaukie	City	multiple	$5,778	OR DEQ Clearinghouse
City of Portland Parks & Recr.	City	multiple		Portland BIG
City of Seattle	City	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Hood River County Chamber of Commerce	City	multiple		Hood River Green Smart
Portland City Hall	City	multiple		Portland BIG
Seattle Police Dept.-Photo Lab	City	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
4th & Seneca Cosmetic Dentistry	Dental	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Alam Samsavar	Dental	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Alvin Taniguchi	Dental	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
B. Robert Cohanim	Dental	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Brian Etscheid	Dental	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Brian Larsen	Dental	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Broadway Dental Center	Dental	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Carrie York	Dental	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Creekside Dental	Dental	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
D.S. Randall	Dental	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Daniel S. Friedman	Dental	waste/pollution		King County Envirostar
Dr. Eric Hagman	Dental	multiple		King County Envirostar
Dr. Gerrarda O'Beirne	Dental	multiple		King County Envirostar
Dr. James McAnally	Dental	multiple		King County Envirostar
Dr. Patricia Shigihara	Dental	waste/pollution