• Life-cycle energy costing and carbon (CO₂ equivalent) accounting of diverse energy technologies. 

         We have prior experience in this.

• Consumers and planners are often unsure of the answers, or sometimes of the issues themselves. Do solar photovoltaics pay back more than the energy inputs for making, installing, and maintaining panels and circuitry?  (Answer: nowadays, yes; 10-fold over life of 25 y; not so in the past.  The quantitative answer also depends upon geographic location, of course, but also whether the installation is centralized or at point of use)   Similarly, is nuclear power nearly carbon neutral?  (Not nearly as close as promoted; CO₂ emissions in producing steel and especially concrete are quite large; carbon cost loosely tracks economic cost for energy technologies, and nuclear capital costs are very large) 
• Costs and carbon emissions can be resolved as capital (in manufacture and installation), operational (inputs), and maintenance.  One of more of these categories is often ignored, sometimes with political consent.  Full disclosure will better serve citizens, investors, and other stakeholders.
• One may extend the concept to other impacts.  For example, geothermal power in many regions does not include reinjection of water.  Discharge water has loads of salts and moderately toxic compounds, disposed of with various levels of impact.
• One likely service that we could offer is a decision support system, or modules to go into same.  We would point out items that are important for economic decisions, regulatory needs (with feedback to costs), etc.