CCES News For You

July 25, 2010

Some major news recently on the Air front. The USEPA recently published a proposal aimed at reducing SO2 and NOx emissions from power plants. Such emissions may be transported hundreds of miles downwind across state boundaries before it reaches ground level, impacting millions of people. Many believe this is the reason many downwind states cannot meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5 (SO2 and NOx are potential precursors) and ozone (NOx a precursor). That’s why this rule has been termed the “transport” rule. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain provisions to addresses potential harmful emissions from upwind pollution sources.

The rule targets power plants whose SO2 and NOx emissions likely transport to 31 eastern states plus the District of Columbia. The USEPA believes the transport rule will result in a 71% reduction of SO2 and 52% reduction of NOx vs. 2005 levels. The proposed Transport Rule is the USEPA’s response to the DC District US Court of Appeals which ordered the USEPA in 2008 to improve upon and replace the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).

“This rule is designed to cut pollution that spreads hundreds of miles and has enormous negative impacts on millions of Americans,” said USEPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “We’re working to limit pollution at its source… The reductions we’re proposing will save billions in health costs, help increase American educational and economic productivity, and — most importantly — save lives.” The transport rule would also provide further benefit to ecosystems, such as the Appalachians, lakes in the Adirondacks, and estuaries and coastal waters. It would improve visibility in state and national parks.

The preferred approach would be to publish emission limits for each of the 31 impacted states, allow intrastate trading, but limited interstate trading. A secondary approach that the USEPA is considering is to set emission limits for the two pollutants for each applicable power plant, but allow emission averaging within a state.

The proposed Transport Rule will have a major impact on power plant operations. Facilities will need to implement air pollution control devices, such as scrubbers and/or ammonia injection and/or will need to switch fuels. The rule is not final and ongoing public comment and hearings will need to be addressed by the USEPA.

More information on the proposed Transport Rule can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/actions.html#jul10

July 18, 2010

I haven’t yet commented on the BP Gulf Catastrophe. We are now at Day 90 since the initial explosion, and as I write this there is great optimism that the cap appears to be working to stop the oil leak (at least most of it), and that the relief well is ahead of schedule and should end the rupture “permanently” next month. I hope that this good news and being in the midst of summer and taking it easy and vacations does not cause us to forget the incredible issues that the catastrophe has brought up.

This is an environmental catastrophe of great proportions because even if it is isolated to just one coast line and 4 states, it has put to risk our tidal estuary breeding-grounds, many livelihoods, and important food sources. We are hurt by a broader issue here, and that’s our dependence on oil. As we have exhausted the “easy” sources of oil (i.e., the TV/movie images of digging a few feet into the ground and a geyser of oil erupts or “bubblin’ crude”), we find riskier sources of oil that require a greater amount of energy invested to obtain it. While the ratio of energy developed to that invested for the easy sources was often 20:1, we now have projects that are closer to 5:1 (estimated ratio for the Alberta tar shale), not to mention the greater risks of environmental damage.

Another thing that cannot be forgotten is the direct financial cost to BP. It appears that BP will survive this incident, but only because of its vast wealth and profits. The economic burden of this mess, the tens of billions of dollars it will spend to “get it right”, will hurt them temporarily, but not put them out of business. For many other companies, such a disaster would put them out of business.

Therefore, this should be a warning to companies. Plan and invest in prevention of environmental consequences big and small. Invest in contingencies at the ready. Design intelligently with redundant systems to minimize failures. This should teach all companies interested in investing in projects to make profits, that this is a small, wise investment compared to the risk of an unanticipated failure. Environmental risk is real.

From the government’s point of view, the federal government should not allow any new deep water projects until approved plans are in place with multiple-redundant systems to minimize the risk of catastrophies. President Obama says that his is a scientifically-driven administration. Great. Put together right now a commission of the brightest scientists, oil and gas engineers and drillers to determine the risks and develop minimum standards that should be implemented to minimize the chances of such a catastrophe happening. And also require appropriate reporting to demonstrate that such procedures are working and not ignored. The standards should be tested and upgraded periodically because the stakes are critical. Finally, any company doing deep water drilling should post an appropriate bond on projects and have insurance to cover at least this level of disaster. We shouldn’t have to scramble to find money.

Let’s not forget!

Environmental News for YouTM July 2010

It goes without saying that when developing “green” strategies for a company the first thing that’s asked is “So, what’s this going to cost us?” The assumption is that green strategies – to save energy, to reduce GHG emissions, to reduce water use and waste generation – will always come at a premium, with greater upfront costs compared to traditional (non-green) approaches. While most people and companies understand that green strategies ultimately save money in the long term (reduced energy and water costs, carbon credits), many of these ROIs are out a few years. Our culture has changed to ignore even prudent investments in long term gains as pressure mounts for short ROIs. For example, several senior staffers at municipalities have told me that no project would ever be approved in their municipalities if the payback is realized after the current term of the mayor! And, of course, there is pressure from company boards, shareholders, and others for quick paybacks!

Fortunately, as research and experience grows and green strategies are implemented, the upfront costs of more and more green strategies are declining compared to conventional alternatives. And now in the area of buildings, some green building strategies have now been established to be less expensive upfront than the conventional alternative, while still providing the longer term benefits.

Of course, potential cost savings will depend on a number of variables for each individual project. Bob Faulhaber, “The Green Civil Engineer”, has written about some recent case studies that he is involved in showing that the upfront costs of “green” alternatives can be cheaper than conventional approaches. Here are a few examples. Remember, these may not apply exactly for every situation.

Bob developed a cost estimate comparison for a commercial stormwater management project: a parking lot with distributed rain gardens vs. traditional catch basins and a detention pond. Approximate costs and assumptions were made. The cost of rain gardens for the parking lot is cheaper than traditional lot drainage.

One more example also involves parking lots – pervious surface vs traditional. The data for this cost comparison is drawn from a small parking lot project. The options included underground detention in the form of pipe or chambers or using pervious pavement and stone base for storage. The proposed parking lot built with pervious pavement and underground water storage was significantly less expensive than an impervious parking lot with traditional rain drainage.

The key is the big picture – verify systemwide costs, not focus on individual project portions.

There is also growing evidence that companies that commit to “going green” receive business benefits beyond the traditional ones of reduction in energy costs and reputational enhancement. D&W Inc., a company that supplies glass and mirrors, recently published the story of their green program. This is their words, but they have evidence that their program not only directly saved them money, but also reduced their regulatory profile and increased operational efficiencies. For example, based on some process changes to improve efficiency and reductions in the VOC content of their coatings, they were able to transition to a lower air permit level, reducing annual regulatory costs, red tape, and need for costly audits. In addition, the program simplified operations to enable easier cleanup at the end of the day, saving them labor costs and improving product quality.

Get more useful information in our blog: www.CCESworld.com/blog
——————————————————–
This Environmental News for You is meant to provide general ideas on how to implement effective “green” program strategies. You should evaluate these thoroughly before implementing. CCES experts have the experience to assist you in helping to organize, strategize, and implement a “green” program and properly evaluate potential strategies for their economic and environmental benefits.

July 4, 2010

Happy and Safe 4th everyone!

I have written a lot about the pure business reason for having a robust “green” program at your company, including putting your products in an environmentally positive light. Does that really do any good in terms of actual sales? Are Americans willing to pay more to “help the planet?”

Surveys and research in recent years show mixed results. But an interesting study recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by V. Griskevicius, et al., U. of Minnesota examined this phenomenon. Why do people buy environmentally friendly products when they are more expensive than conventional products? According to these authors, status is a greater pull than knowing one has done good for the Earth. Customers buy less-luxurious and more-costly “green” products primarily when they know other people can notice.

The researchers conducted experiments involving more than 400 participants to explore the roles that price, quality, and social reputation play in determining why customers choose non-green versus environmentally friendly products. In one experiment, the authors found that people who were asked to imagine they were shopping alone online at home and were told to think about their reputation among their peers were more likely to choose luxurious, non-green products. But when those same individuals were asked what they would buy when shopping in public at stores, their preference for green products increased significantly; the authors believe that this was because others would witness them making the purchase. This was especially true when green products cost more. The researchers found that despite a higher price tag people wanted to show off they were willing to be seen with a product noted for being good for the environment. When deciding between two equally priced vehicles, one a car loaded with features and the other an environmentally friendly car, 55% chose the green car when reminded of its reputation versus only 37% in the control group, who were told to disregard reputation.

For companies looking to corner the market on green items, the study argues that the key is to link green products to status, especially for pricier goods. Companies should also, whenever possible, ensure that their products are sold and used in public spaces. Customers are looking to enhance their reputation when they buy green products.

June 27, 2010

The potential federal climate bill remains in limbo, as Congress has been distracted by other priorities, such as financial reform and the Gulf of Mexico oil leak. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) plans to bring a bill to the floor in July, but there are huge philosophical differences even within the Democratic Party on its critical elements.
There is no strong consensus on pricing and trading carbon. It is possible that any type of trading provisions will be eliminated or downplayed and the emphasis of the bill will be energy independence, conservation, and renewable sources.

Here are some of the latest proposed Senate bills.

• The latest proposed bill was suggested by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) whose bill creates a national renewable energy standard but does not place a mandatory cap on GHG emissions.

• Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) favors a “cap and dividend” approach, with revenue gained from carbon credit sales going directly back to taxpayers.

• Several months ago Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) submitted draft legislation that would contain moving caps on GHG emissions and put a price on carbon.

• Finally an energy bill introduced by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) has elements that may attract some Republican votes. Lugar’s legislation calls for retiring the costliest coal plants, expanding nuclear and renewable power, and increasing energy efficiency of buildings and vehicles, but has no GHG emission goals or caps.

The question is which approach – or combination of approaches – can result in 60 votes in the Senate, and, of course, also engender support from the House of Representatives and the White House.

Occasionally people ask me some variation of the following: “I can’t get my company to develop a ‘green’ program. People are either too busy or they worry that it will cost too much or can’t grasp the benefits. Can you suggest some simple, cheap ‘green’ ideas that we can implement easily that will result in some tangible benefits? Maybe then there’ll be interest in a fuller program”. Excellent question and certainly understandable given the pressure managers are under in this economy. Here are some simple tips that will reduce both your energy costs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Here’s one a little out of the ordinary, but research shows can be very effective in reducing utility bills: paint your building roofs white. U.S. Energy Secretary and Nobel Prize Winner Steven Chu has promoted this simple act as both beneficial to your company and the earth. By changing the color of flat roofs to white, sunlight will reflect back through the atmosphere reducing the “heat island” effect and also reducing the demand for air conditioning, resulting in significant electricity cost savings, particularly peak usage rates at their highest. Lowering roof temperature rises also reduces long-term maintenance costs, paying back the cost to paint the roof white. You can put a logo on the roof to advertise one’s company or school. The roof does not even have to be white; there are other “cool” roof colors that would reflect away much of the radiation. While such an effort may be less effective in extreme northern latitudes, cost savings potential from this single act abound.

The next simple suggestion has a major caveat. When you replace office equipment and appliances, purchase Energy Star-rated products. Energy Star is a program jointly run by the USEPA and USDOE to evaluate and reward products that meet their particular energy efficiency standards and uses less energy than similar ones. A wide variety of products for your office or facility can earn the Energy Star label, such as appliances, office equipment (computers, printers, copiers), windows, doors, air conditioners, light fixtures, etc. A recent McKinsey studied demonstrated that equipment upgrade is the most cost-effective way to reduce GHG emissions, and can earn you back the extra capital cost in reduced electricity bills in a relatively short time. So work with your Purchasing Department to procure Energy Star equipment and with your landlord to provide you with Energy Star products, too. Now comes the caveat. There were news stories a couple of months ago that an audit conducted by the Government Accountability Office found that the Energy Star program improperly awarded labels for non-existent products. See the New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/earth/26star.html?scp=1&sq=energy%20star&st=cse. Obviously, this calls the Energy Star program into question. Let’s hope the program is revamped soon. In the meantime it may be necessary to perform further checking to confirm that items you plan to purchase really are energy efficient and will reduce your utility bills. Keep site of the real benefits.

Here’s a 3rd idea to help reduce your transportation fuel bill: convert a vehicle to combust a biofuel. Transportation is unique in that all fuels derive from petroleum (a car fueled by a solar cell has not yet been invented!). But renewable biofuels from the agricultural sector can substitute in many vehicles with just minor engine adjustments. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 established incentives raising production of biofuel from corn and cellulosic, non-food (i.e., wood, grasses) sources from the current 10 billion gallons/year rate to 36 billion gallons/year by 2022. Just be careful that you have access to affordable biofuels. For example, the Northeast is currently without a major biofuel production plant. Getting biofuels to the Northeast market may be complicated and expensive. But the technology is there to operate trucks on biofuels, and can be simple as used vegetable oil.

The next idea is very practical: improve your lighting. You already know to convert your incandescent bulbs to CFLs or LEDs. Improving your lighting also means asking the questions: do you really need that light fixture and is it giving you the light you need for the task? The phraseology these days is “task lighting” and trying to meet “ideal” task lighting. What is the right amount of light needed to perform the necessary task? Metrics exist. Facilities using this approach gain the greatest benefits. There is growing research on effective lighting levels for different needs. This may result in adding light fixtures, but may also result in either removal of light fixtures or usage of bulbs with lower wattage because too much light had been used based on needs. Besides the likely saving of electricity costs and GHG emissions, this effort could also improve worker efficiency.

The next idea is an extension of this, and that is control your lighting. Buy and install sensors as a lot of energy and costs are wasted in lighting unused areas. In fact, sensors can be bought fairly cheaply (careful: you get what you pay for!). Enjoy the savings when all lights go off at the end of the day and stay off all night and go off when the sun shines brightly into a room. But there is new technology that goes further. LED bulbs contain six sensors which can be programmed through network cables. Therefore, they can be programmed through your main computer (and in the future through one’s iPhone and Blackberry!) to each individual light on when each should be on or off or brighter or dimmer. For example, in a warehouse or large work area, light can be focused on the areas where people are working and walking and not on others. Is this science fiction? No, “smart” lighting is now reality. While these systems are not yet available in the open market, this will probably become available through electrical contractors. Several utilities are working with contractors to install and test this and determine electrical and cost savings. Contact your local utility to see if they offer the prototype and may allow you to be an early user of this “smart” energy saving system.

We hope this has given you some good ideas of simple projects you can implement at your facilities to show how “green” strategies have many financial and other benefits. With many plants in shutdown mode in June and July, this could be a good opportunity to implement some of these suggestions.

Get more useful information in our blog: www.CCESworld.com/blog
———————————————————————————————————————————————-
This Environmental News for You is meant to provide general ideas on how to implement energy-saving ideas. You should evaluate these thoroughly before implementing. CCES experts have the experience to assist you in helping to organize, strategize, implement, and assess the success of energy and GHG emission-saving programs. How to make such a program work for you both profitably and for your stakeholders.

June 6, 2010
Last month the USEPA recently issued its long-awaited “tailoring” rule, its attempt to use the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from stationary sources (see www.epa.gov/nsr/actions).

The USEPA will use existing Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD, found in 40 CFR Part 52.21) and Title V Permitting (40 CFR Part 70) rules to regulate GHG emissions in a phased approach. From Jan. 1, 2011 until June 30, 2011, facilities currently subject to PSD permitting (new large sources or existing ones seeking a significant net increase in emissions of a regulated pollutant other than GHGs) will be subject to PSD if it proposes to raise CO2e emission rates by at least 75,000 tpy. Such sources will need to demonstrate the inclusion of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize GHG emissions. BACT, determined case-by-case, is the most stringent emission control technology taking economic (cost effectiveness), energy, and environmental impacts into consideration. Title V Operating Permits issued during this period must address any relevant regulatory requirements applied to GHGs. From July 1, 2011 until July 30, 2013, PSD permits will be required for any new facility with the potential to emit at least 100,000 tpy or an existing facility proposing to raise emissions by at least 75,000 tpy of CO2e even if it does not meet the threshold for any current PSD-regulated compounds. Also during this period, Title V Operating Permits must be obtained by any facility with a potential to emit of at least 100,000 tpy of CO2e even if emissions of no other compound exceed its Title V threshold. The USEPA has stated its desire to reduce these thresholds in the future to 50,000 tpy of CO2e beginning in 2016.

Many states are delegated the review and issuance of PSD and Title V Permits. Thus, there was much comment from the states about this ruling. The USEPA notes that even the reduced future threshold is higher than the proposed draft 2009 threshold of 25,000 tpy. The USEPA raised the thresholds in response to these comments.

Implementing CAA rules to address GHG emissions is very controversial. The CAA was written to address emissions of compounds that have direct health or environmental effects and whose ambient concentrations are changeable. Reducing GHG emissions significantly has no impact on local CO2 ambient concentrations. Therefore, many feel that while reducing GHG emissions is a worthy effort, this is a flawed approach; we should wait for legislation specific to the unique characteristics of climate change. Others feel that this is a good stopgap measure that does not tax industry while specific legislation is debated, as it is unknown when and if such legislation will ever pass. Majority Leader Reid has said he wants to press forward with hearings this summer to develop a bill, likely a hybrid of the House Waxman-Markey and Senate Kerry-Lieberman bills. At the same time, there is consideration in the Senate of a bill to prevent the USEPA from applying CAA rules on GHGs from stationary sources.

Climate Change & Environmental Services (www.CCESworld.com) can help you prepare for these changes and help you prepare PSD and Title V permits for GHGs.

May 31, 2010
Many companies think about going green. I have talked about this to managers at several companies. Many nod their heads that the business benefits of growing green are real and can have a positive impact on their firm. (See my blog article below of the 8 purely business reasons to have a robust Climate Change program.) But then most of those either choose not to go green or, if they do, go about it the wrong way, cutting corners – or worse. Am I a bad debater or persuader? Perhaps. But it has been written that only a small percentage of US companies today are going green despite the known advantages. Why? I believe it is mostly the comfort level. Although company leaders agree with the arguments, many really do not fully trust the concepts and worry that a green program will drain green (money) and achieve little financial benefit. What will such a program cost? When will we break even? Will there be added business risk?

Well, besides the direct economic benefits of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that I detailed in that earlier blog article (major energy cost savings, pleasing retailers and customers, rebranding your products, revenue from carbon credits, etc.), many additional, indirect economic benefits have also been realized. Though seemingly minor, these effects can add up to significant economic benefits.

A good way to reduce GHG emissions is to study and implement process changes to increase efficiency: make the same product with less energy, water, solvent, etc. Not only are you saving growing energy costs, but water and raw materials, too. Purchasing fewer raw materials, say solvents, means lower VOC emissions from the facility, which means greater assurance of meeting air regulatory and permit limits. Perhaps a lower annual VOC emission rate can move your facility out of a major Title V Permit to a less costly minor permit. Perhaps a significant emissions reduction can enable you to opt out of expensive air pollution control equipment (check with an experienced Air Engineer to ensure this is allowed). In addition, lower raw material usage could mean less labor and equipment for storage and handling. Together, a green program that can reduce your need for raw materials can result in lower capital and regulatory costs, less red tape, better relations with stakeholders, and less labor to maintain your production system.

Here’s another example. A good lighting evaluation will not only result in more compact fluorescents and LED lights, but better positioning of fixtures, resulting in improved worker productivity, fewer accidents, less maintenance labor (these bulbs last much longer than incandescents, meaning many fewer trips up and down the ladders by maintenance crews to change bulbs), not to mention the energy cost savings.

So on top of the direct benefits discussed in the other blog article, think about the many indirect benefits mentioned above. Imagine other benefits not mentioned. The bottom line is that such a green effort will also help you improve the quality of your product and provide a more satisfied staff, both having tremendous financial value, and both giving you an edge in a highly competitive world of business. Climate Change & Environmental Services (www.CCESworld.com) can help you maximize these gains.

May 23 2010
Special thanks to Dennis Shelly of Apex Companies (www.apexcos.com), leader in due diligence assessments for his contributions to this article.

As I’ve written a number of times, climate change has moved in the last year from being a voluntary program for companies that’s good for the bottom line and the Earth to a program tied to regulation. There will likely be federal legislation in the next few years as Sens. Kerry and Lieberman released draft climate/energy legislation that they believe can win bipartisan support. In the meantime, a number of states and even cities and counties have or are seriously planning climate change or greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction rules, some written as changes to energy and building codes. They will impact how facilities operate and can result in penalties for noncompliance.

Therefore, when you are performing an environmental compliance audit or a compliance assessment as part of due diligence for a proposed merger or acquisition, an understanding of the potential obligations associated with climate change rules may be a material consideration. Certainly an assessment is vital to understanding whether significant actions will be required on the part of the operation to respond to this growing issue. In addition, the SEC has recently required companies to disclose the potential impacts of climate change on their business as part of the annual reporting process.

Here are some questions to consider involving GHGs and energy that can be incorporated into the data collection stage of an audit or due diligence exercise:
• Has a facility carbon footprint been performed? Is it subject to 40CFR Pt 98? What contributes to GHG emissions (fuel usage, electricity, mobile sources)?
• What state and/or local climate change and energy conservation rules exist? Do any potentially apply to the facility?
• For the previous three years, what were the facility’s electrical, gas and water usage and costs? Are there usage trends? What rates does the facility pay? Are they discounted compared to other similar local industries or buildings?
• Does the facility operate within any voluntary climate change or energy goals, such as USEPA Climate Leaders, Energy Star, or LEED? If so, under what operating and monitoring requirements must the facility continue to operate?
• Has an audit to identify potential reductions in energy, water consumption, and waste generation been performed at the facility? What were the results? Were actions taken on audit recommendations and if so, what gains were made?
• What are the sources of the facility’s electricity, fuel, and water? Are there options (i.e., renewable sources)? What fuel do the facility’s boilers and other equipment use? Is a cheaper or “cleaner” fuel available (e.g., are there natural gas lines that can reach the facility)? Does the region have abundant or limited fresh water sources? Does the facility own Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)?

Answers to these questions provide valuable information regarding energy, sustainability, and climate change issues affecting facilities and their monetary impacts. With more climate change rules on the way, this is important information to consider.

People who have read Environmental News for You over the last year plus know that I have been providing more solid financial and business reasons to develop a robust program, regardless of whether you call it a “Green”, Climate Change, or Sustainability. There are now many examples of companies that have directly improved their bottom line by implementing such a program. With the recession ending and companies looking for wise investments, why would any company still resist?

Companies, directed by people and acting like people, have cultures; really, personalities. And most are cautious, conservative. They do not want to risk spending resources on anything that they are not completely familiar with, knowledgeable about, or feel that they are in control of. This is particularly true of something that may be identified in the general culture as “liberal” or “progressive”.

How can an individual in a company break these barriers to implement and get buy-in to develop such a new program and reap the benefits? Such a program leader must demonstrate personal commitment, ability to plan, focus on emphasizing what’s good for the company as a whole, have strong communication skills for (particularly) upper management, and perhaps most of all, show enthusiasm. The green programs that succeed do so because a leader or team exhibits these traits.

1. Personal Commitment. To build a green program, a leader must possess knowledge of the science of and show commitment to climate change and sustainability. It is virtually inevitable that someone or several in the organization will voice a strong antipathy toward climate change (as a skeptic), based on something read on the Internet or seen from a talking head on TV. The leader should steer the conversation away from the emotional, away from the politics and toward the benefits for all at the company. As a consultant, most of my clients have had at least one prominent person who thought climate change was a fraud, a waste, or worse. What I tell them is that I will not make any finding for a potential climate change action just for the sake of pleasing certain constituencies or to be “cool”. I will only present recommendations if they could result in potential bottom line gains for the company. That has usually succeeded in mollifying the people who want to defeat such a program. Of course, you have to back up what you say.

2. Planning. Company leaders are often afraid of green initiatives because they don’t have a comfort level with green ideas. They may perceive of “green” as “pie in the sky”, rather than what it really is: grounded in science and economics. Spend time evaluating the steps needed to grow a green program (i.e., doing a GHG inventory, investing funds for energy upgrades, employee buy-in, etc.) and which may be the most difficult to succeed. Organized diagnostics exist to quantify relative difficulty. Then create a plan, budget, and timeline for the elements of your program. Share this with the upper management and meet and explain in person the steps, risks, and overall benefits. They will be more comfortable seeing such a well-organized plan and concrete path to reaching goals.

3. Focus on What’s Good for the Company. As discussed above, a green program will fail if company leaders believe that the program is meant mainly for aesthetic effects. All steps taken and progress shown should be focused on bottom line benefits for the company. What I have told some companies is that no one company’s GHG emission reductions (even if a “magic wand” could remove them totally) can stem the tide of the global problem of climate change. So, of course, the focus should be steps that result in direct benefits to the company, while reducing GHG emissions. Although a systematic approach with sequential steps is usually best, there may be benefits by going out of sequence and implementing some small GHG reduction projects with a quick turn-around, so company leaders can see quick, tangible progress. In my blog (www.CCESworld.com/blog), I have posted 5 simple GHG emission reduction projects that fit this bill and can show company leaders relatively quickly how “green” progress can have a beneficial effect on the company.

4. Communication. The green program leader must share the program with people throughout the company. Of course, the CEO, CFO, and other upper management are most important. If the CEO does not feel a green program is important or his/her enthusiasm wanes, then the program will fail. But most organizations also have other spheres of influence who must be convinced this is good for them, too: plant workers, maintenance, engineers, etc. As progress is made, inform each interest group in the terms of their interest to gain wider buy-in of the program. While bottom line gains are the best (“We reduced our energy bills by X% this month compared to one year ago”), secondary gains often are also well received and reinforce the program’s value (“By switching to CFLs, we also reduced our O&M labor costs by Y% because fewer workers have to climb up to the ceiling and …”).

5. Enthusiasm. Ultimately, enthusiasm and energy convince the most people that a program is here to stay and has the most benefits. Related to these two is inevitability. If you are seen as enthusiastic about your green program, people will get enthusiastic too or, at worst, will accept the fact that such a program at their company is inevitable, and they’ll “get with the program.”

Another unifying approach is to put your company’s program in terms of a win-win-win spirit. By having a robust green program, your company is reducing energy use, reducing expenditures, reducing GHG emissions, reducing the enrichment of bad regimes overseas, strengthening the dollar, making the air cleaner, creating more jobs in the U.S., and bringing down the price of oil, the trade imbalance, and the budget deficit. Every person at your company has to feel positive about at least one aspect of this list of positives!

Get more useful information in our blog: www.CCESworld.com/blog
——————————————————–
This Environmental News for You is meant to provide general ideas on how to gain traction to implement a new or optimize and grow an existing climate change program in your company. CCES experts can assist you in helping to organize, perform diagnostics, and to plan for, evaluate costs and risks, obtain maximum buy-in, and assist with designing and implementing all of the elements of a green program.