As you know, nearly all of the articles I write and post about air pollution are centered on regulations. What may the upcoming regulations in Air look like, and how will they impact your firm and job? I hope this information has been useful. But it’s important once in a while to examine what is going on in the Air field. What does the latest scientific research show? What are the newly shown potential effects of key air pollutants on public health? And, therefore, what may be driving the future debate and regulations in the area?

Fortunately, I have a leg up on answering these questions. You see, I am an adjunct professor at New York Medical College and teach each spring semester an online, graduate level course in Air Pollution to MPH and MD students. Every week I post up an open-ended question about Air, both science and policy, and the students go at it with their opinions and research and all. They are amazing, as they find new areas of research that I am not aware of. Well, the semester is over and I wish to take the opportunity to share with you some of the new work and long-term implications that may affect trends in regulations and our professional lives.

New potential approach for air toxic emissions. Recent studies have shown that in recent years the biggest source of toxic emissions is now mobile sources. MACT standards begun to be implemented in the 1990’s have been successful in reducing air toxic levels nationally. A few years ago the Health Effects Institute released a study claiming that half of all cancer risk and about three-quarters of non-cancer risks are due to air toxics from mobile sources. The USEPA has started to address this issue in making more stringent its CAFÉ (mpg) standards and benzene limits in gasoline. The USEPA is beginning to address issues like these using life cycle impact assessments (LCIA). LCIA is an analysis of all environmental inputs and outputs and what they may mean in terms of air levels and public health. For example, a proposed regulation which would reduce gasoline combustion would result in reduced levels of SO2, NOx, benzene, CO, CO2, etc. SO2 reduction would result in reduced acidification of both the air, oceans, and land, which would have physical results (benefits). CO2 reduction would reduce climate change. Etc. Of course, reducing mpg would have many proposed positive effects, benefiting many areas. Many changes or strategies may benefit some areas, while having negative impacts on others. LCIA attempts to quantify and allow analysis for overall benefit.

Increase in cross-border impacts. There was an interesting presentation on a probIem called “Hwangsa”, yellow dust, affecting South Korea. This is dust originating from the Gobi Desert in China and Mongolia. PM levels used to rise to dangerous levels in Seoul on average 3 or 4 days per year. There would be a yellow tint to the air and the vista throughout the country. However, in recent years the number of such days has risen to over 12. Plus the hospitals have seen a major increase in the incidence of bronchitis and pneumonia corresponding to Hwangsa incidents and there have been significant impacts on agriculture, such as livestock deaths and irrigation canals being affected. Even airplane flights are impacted by the yellow dust. The increase appears to be due to the growing desertification of the Gobi, contributed to by climate change. South Korea has begun to work toward solving this problem by working with Chinese authorities to plant trees and otherwise halt and reverse the desertification. Of course, this is one example, but cross-border effects are likely to increase in the future.

Greater health impacts of air toxics. New health research appears to show that health effects of air toxics are wider in the human body than previously understood. It was thought that toxics getting into the body primarily affected the lungs before being diluted in the blood stream. However, growing evidence indicates that even diluted levels of certain compounds can do damage to organs one would not associate with air toxics. And this relates to the increasing impacts of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which can carry and release certain air toxics deep in our lungs. A major recent study showed a strong correlation not only between PM2.5 exposure and effects on the newborn, such as low birth weight, birth defects, etc., but also tracked the migration and buildup of metals (transported by PM2.5) in the uterus. A quantitative correlation between PM2.5 exposure and birth weight was established. Certain airborne exposures of potassium and titanium also correlated to birth weight. PM2.5 exposure also correlated to rate of premature and stillborn deliveries.

Correlation between regulations and health effects. A major study was done in India correlating air emissions with health effects, focusing on coal-fired power plants. Such plants are located in only certain parts of the country (over 400 million Indians do not have access to electricity). India has Air rules for coal-fired power plants, but allowable emission rates are much higher (as much as an order of magnitude higher) than US standards. Pockets of high asthma hospitalizations correlate strongly to regions downwind of coal-fired plants. The study showed a cost to the economy from these health problems alone of over $5 billion annually, and suggested amended rules approaching US standards and electrification using non-coal means as ways to save money and improve the nation’s health.

I hope these ideas are of interest to you and indicate where Air research is going.

CCES has the experience and expertise to help you organize your Air toxics program to minimize emissions and impacts and to do so cost effectively. Contact us today.

May 17, 2013

Climate Change & Environmental Services (CCES) managed the construction management and environmental permitting for a major boiler modernization project for a large apartment complex in NYC that has reduced emissions and saved substantial energy costs. East River Housing (ERH) Corporation operates a boiler house providing heat and hot water to a number of apartment buildings with over 2,700 units plus a shopping center. It had been combusting over 2 million gallons of No. 6 fuel oil annually. ERH decided the time was right to modernize the boilers and switch fuel to natural gas.

ERH replaced one aging boiler with a new modern unit and renovated their other two existing boilers, installing new low NOx burners with flue gas recirculation. ERH worked with the local utility to bring a natural gas line into the boiler house for the fuel switch. No. 2 diesel oil is to be used as a backup during natural gas interruptions, necessitating the installation of a new tank farm replacing the No. 6 fuel oil tank farm. CCES carried out construction management to address scheduling and technical issues with the implementation of the installation and testing, as well as all environmental permitting.

The physical installations are complete and the plant has operated under natural gas for one full year now. CCES has assessed the cost savings and environmental benefits due to the project. Given natural gas being piped to the facility, removal of No. 6 oil tanks, and use of a modern No. 2 oil tank farm, ERH virtually eliminated the risk of a messy oil spill in the densely populated area. In addition, emissions of pollutants critical in an urban area all markedly dropped because of this project, such as NOx (85%), particulate matter (75%), greenhouse gases (equivalent of removing 4,600 cars from the road), and SO2 (99%). These reductions helped change the permitting status of ERH from major to minor, saving them much in fees and removing several regulatory requirements.

CCES determined that thermal efficiency improved by about 18% (fewer therms to create steam). CCES also calculated cost savings. In the 12 months of natural gas service (May 2012 through April 2013), ERH directly saved over $2.8 million (63%) in fuel costs compared to the previous 12-month period, despite this being a measurably colder winter than the one before. CCES also calculated avoided cost savings (added fuel costs ERH would have had to incur if ERH still combusted No. 6 fuel oil with the old boilers). The avoided cost savings for the 12-month period was conservatively estimated to be about $5.5 million. The project payback, initially anticipated to be about 4 years, will be under 2.5 years based on direct cost savings.

CCES has technical experts experienced in advising you of whether your combustion system can successfully be modernized like ERH, and in managing the entire effort.

May 2013

I once had a client who wanted to implement a green program for his company. After I compiled a baseline energy usage and carbon footprint for him and made preliminary sound scientific cost-saving strategies to reduce GHG emissions, he, in all seriousness, declared how his company would be green: they would plant a few more trees at their headquarters building. Of course, this person was not technically oriented, and he honestly believed that planting some trees (and having a plaque to boast about it) was enough. What he did not know was that the public is now a lot more sophisticated than ever about detecting greenwashing. Also, planting trees is one of the least efficient and most expensive ways to reduce GHG emissions (the “average” mature tree removes about 50 pounds GHGs/year; remember, we measure GHGs in tons!). See McKinsey’s Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve. It shows many cost-effective ways to reduce GHGs. Energy conservation is more effective and, if done right, will save money.

Insulation. The simple act of ensuring that all of your pipes transporting a heated or cooled stream are insulated will save you money (less fuel to combust or electricity to use to make the hot or cold stream needed in other parts of your building or plant) and also reduce your carbon footprint. Insulating a bare surface can reduce heat losses (or gain to a cold stream) by 90%. Cost savings vary per pipe size, fuel cost, and heat content of stream, but calculated cost savings can range from $9 to $400 per foot of insulation per year, and GHG emission reduction by as high as 1.0 metric ton per foot of insulation per year. This is like planting 45 trees (without the backbreaking work!).

Lighting. Assuming that a CFL or LED light reduces electrical power consumption by 75% (some do better), replacing a single 60-watt incandescent bulb with a 15-watt fixture that operates 2,000 hours per year will save 90 kWh of electricity. At $0.20/kWh (common in the Northeast), that one bulb replacement would save $18/year, and roughly 100 to 150 pounds of GHG emissions per year, depending on the source of one’s electricity. Of course, a building uses many light bulbs, so savings are multiplied.

Automobiles. One can save fuel costs and reduce GHG emissions by driving more fuel efficient models (mpg) and by driving fewer miles. Increasing fuel efficiency by just 1 mpg would save $145 per year (assuming 15,000 miles of driving per year and $4.00/gallon gasoline) and one-third of a metric ton of GHG emissions per year. And companies often have fleet of cars and gains can now be many mpg.

Climate Change & Environmental Services experienced experts can help you design an energy plan focused on maximum long-term cost savings in these tough times. We can also track your GHG emissions and demonstrate true green accomplishments.

May 2013

Well, we are finally out of the grips of cold weather. Your boilers can finally rest after a long and busy cold season. But remember, this is the time of year to examine your boiler system. So with that in mind, here are some maintenance tips to insure your boilers will continue to function reliably and properly and save you money.

Boiler Maintenance

Yes, investment. Little affects the bottomline (and those who administer it) more than suddenly having to shell out big bucks to replace a boiler with avoidable damage. So the first tip is to implement a regular maintenance and inspection program with a qualified contractor. Such a professional should come at least annually to inspect. Here are some of the items that should be checked at a minimum during the review:

• Make sure the shut off valves function properly. Check for water leakage. If there is any sign of potential leakage, have a leak test performed.

• Check the refractory for integrity to ensure it is properly protecting critical portions of the boiler. Check for broken pieces or even cracks, and repair if needed.

• Check the functioning of controls, safety devices, and indicators, including the low-water cutoff devices and regulators, pressure gauge, safety valves, and the pressure release valve. Any that are not working properly puts the boiler at risk of major structural damage.

• Check your fuel feed system and burners, particularly if your boilers use liquid fuels. They should be inspected and cleaned. Not doing so will result in inefficient combustion and heat transfer, resulting in higher fuel costs and less effective heating. Related to this is to clean or replace any fuel filters so as to maintain effective fuel flow, without which damage could occur.

• Be sure to clean boiler heat transfer surfaces regularly to remove buildup of soot. Soot can act as an insulator which cuts down on the efficiency of the heat transfer between combustion gas and steam generation.

When inspecting your boiler, remember to look for any signs of corrosion, overheating, or erosion, as well as any leaks from the boiler or external piping. These items can be signs that the boiler is not working properly and should be repaired immediately.

CCES technical experts can help you perform such site-specific evaluations of your energy equipment, which can reduce your risk of failure. Or we can take the longer view of your energy profile and recommend and implement cost-saving strategies. See our website: www.CCESworld.com for more information. Contact us today.

April 2013

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the U.S.’s first carbon cap and trade program, is expected to be modified later this year, a sign of changes to come and gives lessons to those who may design future cap and trade rules. RGGI affects large power plants in 9 Northeast states (NJ withdrew last year), mandating that each state’s plants reach its early 2000’s baseline when the rule began in 2009 (with flexibility: as emissions may be averaged over 3 year periods), then decrease gradually to 10% below baseline by 2019. Affected facilities must buy allowances from their states for all emissions, limited to the quantity of the baseline. However, due to a number of factors, including Recession-related decrease in electricity demand, GHG emissions declined right away and demand for allowances was very low, causing them to be sold at the floor price. In fact, now GHG emissions from the affected power plants have decreased by 40% from the baseline, well below the 2019 goal already. States thinking there would be a cash bonanza from sales were disappointed, a non-ideal market (for them).

The RGGI organization issued a model rule change in February 2013 to “correct” (http://www.rggi.org/docs/PressReleases/PR130207_ModelRule.pdf) the situation. The rule requires a more stringent GHG emission decline, which is expected to stimulate the price for allowances and strategies for compliance. The change would lower the overall cap to 91 million (short) tons beginning in 2014 (about 45% below the original baseline), with an additional reduction of as much as 33% from that cap by 2020.

The model rule change contains necessary actions should the cost of allowances exceed certain triggers. But instead of expanding the definition of offsets as the original rule states, the proposed change allows states to sell additional allowances, called cost containment allowances (CCAs). The original RGGI rule allows an affected facility to average allowances over 3 year periods; one can wait to purchase allowances for all 3 years at the end of the third year, for example. The draft change states that one must obtain at least 50% of the necessary allowances each year. The draft change raises the minimum (“floor”) price of an allowance in 2014 to $2.00/ton, rising 2.5% per year.

The draft model rule change must be reviewed and passed by each RGGI state by its own legislative process individually. Changes are aimed to be finalized later this year. Each state may make additional changes outside of these major ones. New York, for example, proposes to maintain its renewable energy set-aside at 700,000 tons, and potentially expand it. The comment period closes in New York on May 6, 2013. For further information, see: http://www.rggi.org/design/program_review.

CCES can help you keep up with changing environmental, energy, and climate change regulations, including determining the impacts of cap & trade and other types of regulations on your operations. Profit while complying with new rules. Call us today.

April 2013

So, you are a Sustainability, Environmental, or Energy Manager or a key technical resource and part of your responsibility is to ensure and maximize the success of your (fill in the blank) Sustainability, Green, Energy, etc. Program. You have the technical knowledge (hopefully, at least in part, from CCES blog articles – see www.CCESworld.com/blog for the full list of useful energy and sustainability articles). That’s important, but now you need the organizational skills to get everyone on board and make sure that people are doing what they are supposed to and are motivated to perform their tasks and meet all goals in a first-class, timely manner.

In my work in this area with a wide variety of companies and municipalities, there are common organizational threads that strongly contribute to success or failure. Yes, technical knowhow (bringing in the right technical experts) and having use of capital are very critical. But without behavioral considerations, your program may be less than the success first envisioned or will take a longer time period at a greater cost.

Yes, behavior and that annoying word, “culture”. As engineers and scientists, we like to think good scientific thought and thorough planning and implementation are all that’s needed for success. But the reality is that companies and municipalities are led by people, and their attitudes need to be in sync for the Program to be successful and to ensure goals are met. Here are some critical steps to ensure success:

Get clear support from THE top. I have seen with my own eyes that this is the most important factor for such a Program’s success. Sustainability, energy conservation (whatever you call it) is not a “typical” program that people are used to, trained for, and comfortable with. Thus, to make sure that tasks for various people are taken seriously and not shoved aside, it is critical for the CEO him/herself to voice – not just once, but consistently – the Program’s importance and to empower managers to incentivize employees to perform needed tasks. I was involved in one project for a municipal entity, whose Executive Director declared that he wanted his to be “the greenest ___ in the U.S.”, a high priority. It was great working for this Authority, and staff was very cooperative gathering data and taking ownership of the Program. Then the Recession hit and the Executive Director had, I’m sure, other legitimate concerns and the Green Program became a much lower priority and he said so. Well, staff changed their attitudes quite quickly. Suddenly, people were not returning my e-mails and voice mails, and not providing promised data. At a meeting of its Environmental Committee, about half the group now openly admitted they did not believe in Climate Change and in the Program as a whole (this was the Environmental Committee!). The Program ground to a halt. Ironically, no longer following through ended up costing them money in not realizing the financial gains from energy and sustainability upgrades. And this could have helped them recover from the Recession.

Get support from the top, and keep the top up-to-date, knowledgeable and engaged.

Set reasonable goals. I don’t just mean set modest, easy-to-achieve goals. I mean set goals – both long- and short- term – that are measureable, understandable, and transmittable. These can be reductions in energy costs/usage and/or greenhouse gas emissions. But they should be clear and able to be communicated. There is a temptation to link “green” goals to those of other groups, such as Finance, Legal, Production, EHS, etc. That is certainly OK to get those groups on board. But this is secondary; goals should be reasonable, understandable and universal for the entity.

Use initial goals to catapault to others. Yes, do start your Program with modest goals that can be achieved in a relatively short time frame. This will demonstrate the worth of the Program and make that person at the TOP more convinced quicker of the value of the program (before he/she gets frustrated). If cost savings can also be demonstrated, you now have “house money” to pursue more challenging goals.

Give some ownership to all. Keeping a Sustainability Program as the “baby” of a single department will not engender support. It is important to make everyone in all departments feel they are part of the Program and reaping benefits. Items like energy cost savings, recycling gains, etc. should be shared with all employees. A lot of anecdotal evidence is springing up that communicating such successes with all employees makes them proud to work for the entity – and less likely to leave.

It’s a long-term Program. It is tempting to think with each positive change in your organization (lights, insulation, water conservation, etc.) you can check off another box to reach the magic goal of “Sustainability”. But, this is really a long-term game whose “goal posts” shift some over time. Therefore, training staff to properly maintain implemented strategies is a key to success. Also, technology changes, and thus, it is important to be aware of changes and upgrade when necessary and cost effective.
Finally, while gains are being made, there is no final goal. One can always improve energy or water efficiency a little more for benefits (reduced risk and costs). Prepare everyone in advance that this is a long haul, but with positive outcomes throughout.

Shaping your Program these ways will better ensure that your technical work will be successful and recognized.

CCES has the experience and expertise to help you organize your Sustainability or Green Program to maximize the chances of long-term interest and success. Plus, our technical experts can help achieve success in all facets. Contact us today.

April 2013

Climate Change & Environmental Services (CCES) performed a technical assessment for a large building owned by a confidential New York Fortune 25 company of its options to comply with changes in it state’s NOx RACT rule. The rule had been modified to change emission standards so to essentially discourage the combustion of No. 6 fuel oil and solid fuels. This building had been combusting No. 6 oil for several decades. CCES reviewed their boilers and operations and provided the facility with a thorough discussion about the revised rule and a list of potential compliance options, including their short- and long-term costs, advantages and disadvantages. These options included fuel switching, de-rating, and equipment modifications. The facility selected the option best for them.

CCES then provided both technical assistance on how to implement the selected strategy and emission calculations and suggested revised permit language to demonstrate compliance with the revised rule and to minimize future onerous recordkeeping requirements. While at it, CCES also reviewed the facility’s entire Title V Permit and suggested other areas to potentially optimize and streamline, including a potential permit condition that had become no longer applicable and should have been removed. The description of the compliance plan, the emission calculations, and suggested amended Permit language were submitted to the New York State Dept of Environmental Conservation’s air permitting regulatory agency who reviewed and concurred with the requested changes.

The building is currently implementing the changes to the boiler plant and will be in full compliance with the revised rule when it becomes effective in 2014.

CCES can assist in your environmental compliance efforts, including reviewing new or modified regulations and developing smart and cost-effective technical options to comply and in revising your Title V or other environmental permits to demonstrate compliance in a manner most comfortable to you and your organization. Contact CCES soon to see how we can help your compliance efforts, to demonstrate reliability, and to save you time and aggravation.

April 16, 2013

President Obama has spoken often about the need to develop new sources of domestic energy – sources that are cleaner in emissions and (after development) less expensive. An interesting article in the March 2013 issue of Agricultural Research Journal provides a description and a positive cost-benefit analysis for switchgrass pellets replacing fuel oil to heat buildings. (http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar13/switchgrass0313.htm)

A life-cycle assessment comparing costs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the generation and use of coal, natural gas, fuel oil, and pelletized switchgrass was conducted. The analysis indicated that 479 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) were emitted for every ton of switchgrass pellets, mainly N2O from fertilizer application, from farm equipment operation, and from the pelletizing process. Switchgrass pellets reduce emissions of GHGs by about 150 pounds of CO2e compared to GHG emissions from one gigajoule of heat from fuel oil or from natural gas.

From a monetary point of view, the researchers calculated that the cost for each gigajoule of heat for a residence using switchgrass pellets would be about $21.36 (including pellet storage), while for fuel oil the same amount of heat would cost $28.22, about a 25% savings. This is based on the average heating oil price in the 2010-11 heating season, and current fuel oil prices are higher.

According to projections from the USDOE, by 2022 there could be enough sustainably harvested biomass available in the northeastern United States to meet the entire regional demand for heating oil. It would also reduce GHG emissions by about 5%.
Of course, research and application of switchgrass for heating purposes is in its early stages, but there is hope that it can be a viable and less expensive substitute for oil. Developments like this are important for the professional to follow.

CCES has the technical assistance to evaluate your heating and other energy systems and determine what conventional and unconventional fuels and strategies can meet your changing energy goals, be reliable, provide flexibility so you are not cut short, and both save you money and reduce GHG and other emissions. Give us a call today.

April 2013

This blog has put out monthly articles on simple, inexpensive ways for companies and buildings to save energy. These are good tips and have proven successful in the “real world.” However, these tips focus on individual pieces of equipment (HVAC, lights, etc.) or practices, and therefore, while cost effective, may not be the “home run” of energy savings that a company wants. A report by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy looks at energy efficiency differently, taking the larger view. Their report, “A Defining Framework for Intelligent Efficiency” (http://aceee.org/research-report/e125), concludes that as a nation we can reduce energy consumption by 22% and save billions of dollars per year in energy costs by implementing “intelligent efficiency.” For some individual companies and buildings, the percent cost savings can be much greater.

The report discusses system efficiency opportunities to produce and distribute energy that can result in significant savings. The report discusses how major improvements in IT (information technology), such as the Internet, sensors, and communicating readings between equipment, can result in properly using and distributing energy cost-effectively.

Here are 2 such strategies cited in the report that can result in energy efficiency gains:

Manufacturing often uses intricate equipment with complex electricity and steam needs. Advanced sensors and controls can record real-time energy usage and operational information and feed it through the Internet to pinpoint changes in demand over time. Sensors and controls with the proper software can link to a company’s existing software to regulate energy usage, reducing waste and saving costs.

Real-time energy usage data in office buildings can also save money. Some office buildings already use systems that compute electricity usage between different offices and functions and communicate them to individuals at their desks or on a video monitor for all to see. The key is to give tenants real-time data to better understand the major energy consuming operations and to determine gains in energy efficiency by implementing different strategies. Such “what if” analyses can lead to cost savings.

While there will continue to be improvement in individual component efficiencies, the systems-based approach can result in major energy efficiency gains to result in measureable energy cost savings and reduce energy risk.

CCES can work with your engineering and IT staff to develop and help implement intelligent energy systems to help you understand your energy usage and improve efficiency. We can also recommend strategies to improve the efficiency and save you money for the individual components, as well.

April 2013

Summer Peak Electricity Load Reduction

As I wrote last month, summer is not too far away. One of the big electricity “killers” that hurts building owners and tenants in the summer is the extra fees you must pay for high peak load. Utilities encourage facilities to reduce their peak demand and punish those which are high in order to be able to continue to provide electricity reliably to all facilities without having to expand their infrastructure, obtain more electricity, etc. These can be big costs, so the financial incentives and “punishments” can be severe. Now is the time to plan a “Demand Response” program to reduce your peak summer electricity demand, saving you both the kwh and that extra peak charge. Here are some low cost and even no cost Demand Response strategies that have been successfully used by commercial buildings during the peak summer season:

• Shut off non-emergency lights during the day, such as exterior, garages, lobbies.

• Electricity coasting. Turn off the building’s or a section’s AC system, say, 30 minutes before the close of business for a couple of days in a row. Make sure that the office and return air’s temperature and humidity are recorded and ensure that workers are still comfortable. Then try 45 minutes before close, then 60, etc., until the longest time that the conditions are found to be acceptable is found. Tenant and landlord can work together for mutual savings benefit. Can the AC be turned on or the setpoint adjusted later every morning?

• Shut off or adjust setpoints of electric hot water heaters.

• Raise chilled water and/or return air setpoints on AC systems. Replace a chiller’s constant speed compressor with a variable speed compressor and control speed.

• Replace the constant speed drive on the supply and return fans with a variable speed drive (VFD). Consider shutting off exhaust fans to areas not used regularly (i.e., storage space, garage).

These strategies not only have been shown to work in actual commercial buildings in reducing peak load and peak load charges, but these are also no or low cost to utilize and maintain.
Therefore, April and May are the times to work with your tenants and landlord and establish acceptable parameters that can save everybody money and energy during the peak hot summer season.

CCES has the expertise and experience to help you in your energy optimization endeavors, whether cooling or heating. We can perform an entire review of your buildings’ energy systems to save you energy costs. Give us a call today.