Author Archives: Marc Karell

Want to Be More Energy Efficient? Go After The Weak Point!

Numerous studies demonstrate that so much of our energy usage comes from the buildings we spend time in, whether they be our home, office, school, or other place. An ideal building, of course, will keep conditioned air (heated in the winter, cool air in the summer) in the building and minimize infiltration of non-conditioned air from the outside. There are many places in a building from which such an exchange can happen. With the exception of large openings, the most common place where air can be exchanged is at windows. Windows being transparent can also allow air to go through, and are much thinner than any walls. As one says in the field, “A bad wall is better insulation than a good window.” So a focus on any area to minimize air movement from inside to outside or vice versa is to strengthen the windows.

The problem with upgrading windows to minimize conditioned air loss is that new windows are expensive compared to the cost of electricity saved by using the air conditioner less in the summer or gas or oil saved by using a boiler less in the winter. Often building owners wait until there is a noticeable draft before upgrading windows; at that point the conditioned air effect is great. Because windows often have a long payback – often beyond what is “acceptable” at many companies – one idea is to create a hybrid project of window upgrades and LED lighting, whose payback is short. Together, they could yield an acceptable payback to upgrade windows before it is very late. If a company separates projects and only goes for short paybacks then window upgrades can take a great amount of time. Window film is a way to improve insulation properties somewhat fairly inexpensively without the capital cost or installation.

Recent research is trying to turn windows into not only better insulation for a building, but into electricity-generating items, too. Materials scientists have embedded light-absorbing films in window glass to keep heat out in the summer. But films can also be used to generate electricity; solar panels on windows. Such films, however, give windows a reddish or brown tint that building owners and architects find unappealing.

Newer solar window technology absorbs more invisible UV or IR radiation, leaving the glass clear while blocking the UV and IR radiation that can normally transfer through the window, resulting in unwanted heat in the building and raising the demand on the AC system. These new UV/IR absorbing windows can cut heat gain while generating electricity. For a glass building it could be possible that the building will power itself.

Research is also ongoing about a new class of opaque solar cell materials, called perovskites. They are improving in efficiency, approaching 22%, only a little behind standard crystalline silicon whose top efficiency is about 25%. Perovskites provides the interesting potential option that they can also be adjusted chemically to absorb specific frequencies of light if it is important to remove a certain frequency from the area or allow other frequencies to travel through.

CCES can help you assess the conditioned air losses in your building and recommend upgrading your windows or other ways to tighten your building and save energy usage, demand, and cost. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

NYC’s New LL 97 Climate Change Rule – Part 3 – Compliance

In the last two months, I have written articles containing basic summaries about New York City’s new Local Law 97, a rule to address Climate Change targeted to existing buildings in NYC with specific greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limits, which is defined by the building’s (and the tenant’s) energy usage. The rule defines 10 different types of buildings (permanent – housing – and temporary – hotels – housing, office, retail, industrial, entertainment, etc.) each with its own GHG emission intensity limit (grams of CO2e per square foot). What is unique about this rule is that the fines for not submitting an annual compliance report and for exceeding one’s limit are very high. Potentially high 6 to low 7 figure annual fines!

The rule goes into effect in 2024; the first annual report is due by May 1, 2025. Fines to follow. That seems like a long way away. But if your building needs to make major changes to meet your limit or to lessen the exceedance and fine, then you may need all of these 4½ years to plan, design, and implement the needed changes. So the first – and perhaps the most important – piece of advice is to start NOW to see where your building stands in 2024 when it comes to LL 97. You may be surprised. In unveiling the rule, NYC emphasized they believed that 80% of existing buildings would comply with their limit based on 2016 benchmarking energy submittals. “Only” 20% of existing buildings would need to upgrade. But that is a little deceptive. Energy usage has been growing tremendously recently as businesses grow and demand for technologies – in most cases – that are energy-intensive to serve customers grows, too. Many of those buildings complying with LL 97 based on 2016 energy usage may get complacent and then learn that energy usage has risen in the intervening years due to many factors, including business growth. One must self-assess and be prepared and vigilant NOW!

LL 97 covers not only landlord-responsible functions (common lighting, elevators, space heating, etc.) but also tenant-responsible energy usage (their lighting, plug load, window AC units, etc.). If you are a landlord, this is the time to reach out to your tenants and get an understanding of total energy usage. NYSERDA’s Commercial Tenant Program is an incentive program providing free energy audits for leased office spaces. 4½ years may be necessary to understand your tenants’ energy needs and work together to manage it better. There has been concern that landlords, concerned with LL 97 compliance, may not renew leases of certain tenants that are high energy users (data centers, 24/7 operations) and encourage new tenants which use less energy to move in.

Once you have assessed your total energy usage and understand who is responsible for what usage and for what functions, you can assess whether you are currently in compliance with LL 97 and project the status in 2024. If your building is likely to exceed their greenhouse gas emission limit in 2024, the energy assessment provides the data to intelligently determine strategies to either comply or minimize the exceedance or fine.

The energy assessment can accurately tell you by how much you exceed the standard and can determine exact energy (and greenhouse gas) reductions to get you down to your limit. Then you can determine which combination of potential energy upgrades is sufficient to meet your LL 97 requirements, taking into consideration cost and side benefits, as well. You have time to plan it out and bring in the right experts to do the job.

Besides reducing your actual credited greenhouse gas emissions by reducing energy usage, LL 97 gives you two other ways to reduce your credited annual greenhouse gas emissions: purchasing renewable energy credits (RECs) and/or emission offsets. RECs are credits one obtains for implementing renewable energy, such as solar or wind project. A deduction from one’s annual building emissions equal to the number of RECs purchased by a building owner as long as the source of the renewable energy credits is considered by NYISO to be a capacity resource located in or directly deliverable into zone J load zone (NYC) for the same reporting calendar year; RECs are solely owned and will not be reused (re-sold) by the building owner, the building that hosts the renewable energy system does not receive a deduction under § 28-320.6.3. Information proving these items must be submitted to the Dept of Buildings with the application.

Emission offsets is procuring greenhouse gas emission credits that are certified by an appropriate board. Such offsets are provided to those who have reduced GHG emissions for an amount beyond that required by regulation. For calendar years 2024-2029, deductions for certified GHG emission offsets will be allowed for up to 10% of the annual building’s emissions limit. The deduction is only allowed for credits generated within the reporting calendar year, publicly registered, and retired (not to be re-sold).

LL 97 also allows a deduction from the reported annual building GHG emissions based on the calculated output of a clean distributed energy resource located at, on, in, or directly connected to the building subject to the report. LL 97 is allowing this portion to be amended based on future research and development.

Again, to summarize, 2024 seems like it’s far away, but given how comprehensive and how onerous LL 97 will be, with huge fines for non-compliance, the time to start evaluating where you stand vis-à-vis this rule is NOW!

CCES has the experts and knowledge of LL 97 to perform that early assessment of whether your building meets your 2024 GHG emission limit or not. If you comply now, we can advise you how to prevent energy creep to better ensure compliance in 2024. If you do not currently comply, we can advise you on cost-effective steps to comply on time and we can manage implementation to ensure you get the reductions in emissions you need. This is an onerous rule and with potential major upgrades needed to avoid high fines, 2024 is not that far away! Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@ CCESworld.com.

Government and Investor “Carrots and Sticks” for Climate Efforts

Governments, investors, and watchdog NGOs are stepping up their efforts to identify companies that are leaders or laggards in the global effort to address climate issues. While most of the effort has been to highlight and publicize those that have reduced or supported reductions in greenhouse gas emissions significantly, there is a growing sense that shame can work, too. Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM), an investment firm that invests in companies that actively address climate matters, puts out annual rankings. In their 2019 list, they voted to divest five firms from their Future World Fund due to unsatisfactory results, including ExxonMobil. Removal may occur for a variety of reasons, such as not meeting climate goals, governance, and lobbying efforts.

Such removals and additions to the list are important as investors use the list as a guide to making investment decisions. Two companies removed from the Future World Fund in 2018 were reinstated in 2019.

In April 2019, for the first time ever, renewables surpassed coal in the US power mix. A combination of the large growth in new wind and solar farms boosting renewable energy output and some coal plants were idled for routine spring maintenance caused this to occur. Hydroelectric dams, solar farms, and wind turbines generated about 68 million megawatt-hours of power that month, exceeding the 60 million that coal produced that month, according to the Energy Information Administration. This is both the most clean power ever produced in the US and the least amount of coal combusted in years.

These trends highlight the growing support for renewable power in the form of incentives and tax rebates by governments and the large number of utilities now encouraging this, too, to lessen their burden. In addition, the cost of building new renewable solar and wind farms has dropped markedly compared to the cost of building new coal-fired plants. And finally, with some exceptions cheap and plentiful natural gas are causing many plants to shift from coal to gas. If these trends continue, Despite the current US Administration supporting the coal industry by gutting environmental rules, other governments and investors are moving away from coal to renewables. It should be noted that April is commonly a month when many coal-fired power plants are shut down for maintenance. This summer, coal combustion at peaker plants should raise the level of coal combustion in the US, putting coal back “ahead” of renewables in terms of electric generation. But the longer-term trends are certainly that government incentives and investor information are causing the long-term growth of renewable power.

CCES has the experts to help your company understand how climate and energy conservation programs can result in many significant financial benefits. We can help you diversify your energy supply, find incentives with direct benefits for you, and find ways to reduce costs. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Talking Points: Climate Change Risk or Opportunity

Part of a series taking important concepts and wording them so you can pass basic information to your colleagues, supervisors, and contacts.

Background

There is no getting around it. Even with the politics of current US leadership being in denial, there is too much factual evidence and too many solid reports from non-partisan scientists to deny: Climate Change is real and will have grave impacts on our very being. The only things we do not know are just how fast and potentially destructive these changes will be, which segments will be hit first and hardest, and what we can do to absorb the changes. While we do not know the details, we need to prepare.

Therefore, the growth in the number and severity of severe storms, rising temperatures, rising sea levels infiltrating drinkable water, public health issues, etc. represents major risks that will cost our planet many lives and much money. However, change also represents an opportunity, seen in any business. The business person who can correctly anticipate change and prepare for it to minimize negative effects and perhaps even turn the “lemons to lemonade” will come out ahead. This has been true for hundreds of other societal and technological changes we have been through.

Climate Change Impacts

First, let’s make clear that Climate Change is not something we should do for the sake of “our children and grandchildren.” Climate Change is already impacting societies and businesses. 2018 was a record year for extreme weather events – droughts, rain bombs, wildfires, melting glaciers and polar vortexes, costing approximately $215 billion, according to insurance giant Aon. Did Climate Change cause these events such that getting the CO2 concentration back down to the long-held 280 ppm baseline will eliminate these events? No. But it is universally agreed in the scientific community that Climate Change – the increase in heat and energy in the atmosphere and oceans – contributed to making these storms more intense and, in many cases, beyond what societies planned for decades or more ago as “worst case.”

And if someone thinks that Climate Change only impacts people far away, well, note that Miami Beach – a 7.7 square mile, small part of Metro-Dade County with a population of only 92,000 – will spend $500 million for projects to pump out ocean water from the city. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article209328849.html. And City officials openly admit that this expenditure may only temporarily delay the City’s demise. Climate Change is hurting us now.

Climate Change Risk

Climate Change risk is not a new phenomenon. Many governments and businesses (mostly in Europe) factor Climate Change into their decision making and forecasting. Business school define and quantify different Climate Change risks as follows:

• Competitive (cost) risks
 potential decline in consumer demand for energy-intensive products
 rise in costs or lack of availability for energy-intensive processes
 rise in costs or lack of availability for transportation fuels

• Reputational risks from perceived inaction on climate change

• Regulatory risks from tightening legislation

• Physical risks from Climate Change (extreme weather, rising sea levels, etc.)
 Asset damage
 Inability to make or transport product, raw materials
 Health and safety risks
 Project delays
 Crop damage or agricultural transition as certain crops no longer are viable in certain areas and new supply chains become necessary

Climate Change Can Be An Opportunity, Too

It is often the case that situations that introduce risk can result in the flip side: an opportunity. Companies that can manage or minimize risk will be stronger for it and those that can develop and sell products to minimize risk or Climate Change impacts for others can do quite well in the market. I gave a lecture on Climate Change years ago where I devoted a portion of it to malaria and the forecasts that in a few decades the incidence of malaria will likely grow because the warming Earth will allow the mosquitoes that spread malaria to travel further north and south on Earth, exposing potentially hundreds of millions of more people to the virus for the first time. A person in the audience noted that he works for a company that manufactures medical equipment and they have a line of products specifically for malaria. If what I said was right, there will be a greater need for these machines and sales would rise and they can make a lot of money. He then stopped and realized he said something politically incorrect. But he was right that Climate Change can represent an opportunity for his employer to increase sales. While it is unfortunate that Climate Change may cause greater suffering, his company is well positioned to address that and make profit from it, too. So for smart companies anticipating Climate Change effects, this can be a business opportunity, too.

I wish there was a quick fix or easy answer to address Climate Change and avoid the potential worst-case situation. In the absence of effective, focused global government action and despite the growing clamor “in the streets” by the public for solutions, the potential enormous risks of Climate Change – plus some potential opportunities – is now becoming a reality which the market and smart businesses will examine and use to their effectiveness and growth.

We hope this has given you some basic talking points to bring up the issue in your firm and begin the conversation. CCES has the experts to help assess Climate Change and potential risks and opportunities for your community and company. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Trump Administration Repeals, Replaces Obama-Era Clean Power Plan

Please note that this is a technical evaluation of current federal regulations. On June 19, 2019, the US EPA issued the final Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule replacing and repealing the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP). ACE establishes emission guidelines for states to use when developing plans to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) at their coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). ACE will allow states to set emissions standards for coal-fired plants. CPP, in effect since 2015, developed national standards to address CO2 emissions from power plants, allowing for a transition to cleaner sources of energy by 2030. The US EPA then projected that CPP would result in $26 billion to $45 billion net climate and health benefits, including the avoidance of 300,000 missed work-days and school-days, 90,000 asthma attacks, 1,700 heart attacks, and 3,600 premature deaths annually.

Instead, the new rule, ACE, will relieve the power industry of meeting these emission standards. This will, in particular, benefit the coal industry. ACE will likely face court challenges from several states, as well as environmental groups who see the repeal of CPP and adoption of ACE as steps backward from fighting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an accepted Clean Air Act pollutant. Shortly after adoption of the new rule, several state attorneys general signaled their intent to sue the US EPA over ACE.

ACE establishes that efficiency improvement of an electric generating unit is an acceptable approach for emissions reduction of CO2, giving coal-fired plants more options to reduce carbon intensity. The US EPA would consider technical feasibility, cost, non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements in determining the most appropriate ways to reduce CO2 emissions. States will establish unit-specific “standards of performance” that reflect the emission limitation achievable through application of improving efficiency. ACE believes that the US EPA’s role is to be a technical advisor of potential strategies to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. The states’ role is to develop plans that establish unit-specific standards of performance that reflect application of best efforts to control emissions, taking into consideration, among other matters, the remaining life of the electric-generating unit. States must submit plans to the US EPA that establish their standards of performance and include measures that provide for the implementation and enforcement of such standards, due in three years. Therefore, states do not have to have any standards currently (CPP has been repealed) and by the time a plan is approved, it can be much longer.

CCES has the experts to provide technical advice on federal, state and local energy and environmental regulations so that you better understand how they impact you. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Rooftop Gardens As A Sustainability Strategy

Some entities understand the financial benefits and would like to be more sustainable, but are under some pressure to have a “showcase” project that is more interesting and picturesque than energy efficiency or upgrading sophisticated equipment. If you are in that situation, consider rooftop gardens as an effective way to be more sustainable, gain benefits, and have a great “photo op.” Particularly in urban areas, rooftop gardens bring some greenery and an area for relaxation into a “concrete” space.
Rooftop gardens are essentially backyards atop one’s building, bringing “nature” into an otherwise sterile space. Rooftop gardens can be either vertical or horizontal and is an effective way to reduce the heat load on your AC system, saving on energy bills.

Rooftops are, by nature, urban heat islands, absorbing the sun’s radiation and giving off energy slowly, resulting in massive pockets of hot air. In an urban environment of many dark-colored roof tiles and concrete streets, cities are particularly prone to higher than normal summer temperatures because of heat islands, which contributes to worse air quality and mental and physical health concerns. In addition, energy being kept in and close to buildings raises the demand for air conditioning and other cooling equipment, making it work harder and for longer causing a significant rise in energy usage and putting a strain on the local energy grid, which some utilities have trouble maintaining. In addition, the building owner pays for the urban island effect big time as more utilities put a premium charge on high peak demand during the cooling season (summer). Even if a building has one 15-minute period in a month of very high cooling demand, it will be charged a very high amount for this single short-term spike in demand. In addition, heat islands damage roofing material, requiring the building owner to upgrade it more often than if a rooftop garden is installed and maintained to protect the building’s materials.

Rooftop gardens can mitigate this effect because the plants absorb the sun’s radiation, not the roof shingles or underneath part and the shade offered by plants reduces heat transport, resulting in cooler temperatures and improved air quality.

A recent study found that an exposed roof can get as hot as 158⁰F on a sunny day while an identical roof with a rooftop garden covering most of the roof stayed relatively stable at a temperature of 77⁰F (https://www.thespruce.com/green-benefits-of-a-roof-garden-1708536). In addition to providing natural cooling, rooftop gardens can provide a natural sound barrier, delay stormwater runoff, and provide filtered rainwater.

It is critical that the building owner bring in an experienced qualified roof garden designer and installer, who can check about any local permits and regulations that must be adhered to in your jurisdiction. Be sure that the designer assesses your building to determine whether it can hold a rooftop garden, that it can be waterproofed, or whether normal temperature extremes in your area may damage a roof garden or roof. It is crucial to choose the right types of plants depending on your local climate, such as winds and temperature extremes. If this is an office building with periods of inactivity, it may make sense to include low-maintenance plants, needing little water or pruning.

The cost of a rooftop garden will depend on many factors, such as size, plants selected, and construction materials used. A rule of thumb range of initial cost is $15-$40 per square foot of space. However, you should quickly begin to save money on energy bills and a payback in a reasonable time is likely, plus it should advance the building’s asset value and attractiveness for other potential tenants.

CCES does not perform rooftop garden design or landscaping. But we can manage professionals in these fields to do the proper work to install one to maximize your benefits. In addition, we can perform a sustainability assessment of your buildings, company, or assets to determine which strategies are most effective to become more sustainable and to optimize the financial benefits. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or karell@CCESworld.com.

NYC’s New LL 97 Climate Change Rule – Part 2

Last month, I wrote an article with a basic summary about New York City’s new Local Law 97, a rule specifically tailored to Climate Change and reaching NYC’s 40% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 and 80% reduction by 2050 goals by regulating existing building operations, the City’s largest source of GHG emissions. The rule goes into effect in 2024. The penalties for non-compliance (exceeding a limit) are great, likely annual 6-figure or greater fines. This article provides more details on the application of the new GHG emission limits affecting buildings.

LL 97 covers all buildings in NYC with a gross size of 25,000 sf or greater. There are several exceptions, such as power or steam plants, City-owned buildings, certain rent-regulated buildings, religious institutions, and certain low-income housing projects.

The crux of LL 97 is calculating annual GHG emissions and comparing it to allowable emission intensity in metric tons of CO2 equivalent per sf multiplied by square footage.

Different building types are regulated per Dept of Buildings listed classifications. Please note that this does not provide the full definition of a group or list all exceptions. Note the GHG emission intensity limits provided are for 2024 to 2029, more stringent in 2030.

Group A-1 – A-5. Assembly: the use of a building, excluding a dwelling, for gathering for purposes such as civic, social or religious functions, recreation, food or drink consumption, awaiting transportation, or similar group activities; or when occupied by 75 persons or more for educational or instructional purposes. Examples: theaters, banquet halls, museums, lecture halls, houses of worship, tennis courts, stadiums, etc. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.01074 tCO2e/sf.

Group B. Business: the use of a building for office, professional, service-type transactions, or for conducting public or civic services, including the storage of records and accounts and limited quantities of goods for office purposes. Examples: health care facilities, banks, laboratories, libraries, offices, professional services, colleges, etc. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00846 tCO2e/sf.

Group E. Educational: the use of a building by 5 or more persons at any one time for educational purposes offered to children through the 12th grade. Examples: academies, day care facilities where no more than two children are under the age of 2, schools, and school libraries. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00758 tCO2e/sf.

Group I-1. Personal care: the use of a building housing persons, on a 24-hour basis, who because of age, mental disability or other reasons, live in a supervised space providing personal care. Examples: adult day care, assisted living facilities, halfway homes, convalescent facilities. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.01138 tCO2e/sf.

Group F. Industrial: the use of a building for assembling, disassembling, fabricating, finishing, manufacturing, packaging, repairing, cleaning, or processing operations not classified as Group H hazardous. Examples: industrial, auto repair shops, printing presses, food processing, etc. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00574 tCO2e/sf.

Groups H (High Hazard), I-2, I-3 (Institutional): the use of a building for child or adult care and treatment of those that are ill. Examples: industrial facilities using compounds considered hazardous, child care facilities, adult homes, hospitals, nursing homes, mental health facilities, etc. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.02381 tCO2e/sf.

Group M (Mercantile): the use of a building for the display and sale of merchandise, and involves stocks of goods, wares or merchandise incidental to such purposes and accessible to the public. Examples: department stores, retail and wholesale stores, drug stores, sales rooms, etc. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.01181 tCO2e/sf.

Group R-1 (Residential, temporary): the use of a building for dwelling or sleeping purposes when not classified as Institutional. Examples: hotels, motels, rooming houses, club houses. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00987 tCO2e/sf.

Group R-2 (Residential, permanent): the use of a building containing sleeping units or more than two dwelling units that are occupied for permanent resident purposes. Example: apartment buildings. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00675 tCO2e/sf.

Groups S (Storage) and U (Utility and Miscellaneous): the use of a building for storage or any other purpose not listed previously. Examples: warehouses, distribution centers (if it does not contain hazardous material), private garages, sheds, greenhouses. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00426 tCO2e/sf.

Each subject building must calculate its GHG emissions for beginning in 2024. Conversion factors:

Electricity from the electric grid: 0.000288962 tCO2e/kilowatt-hour

Natural gas combusted on premises: 0.00005311 tCO2e/kbtu. (0.005311 tCO2e/therm)

#2 fuel oil combusted on premises: 0.00007421 tCO2e/kbtu (0.01039 tCO2e/gal. #2 oil)

#4 fuel oil combusted on premises: 0.00007529 tCO2e/kbtu (0.01090 tCO2e/gal. #4 oil)

District steam used on premises: 0.00004493 tCO2e/kbtu (0.0000466 tCO2e/lb steam)

Future updates will discuss other ways to calculate GHG emissions and the availability of GHG credits to compensate for emissions.

CCES has the experts and knowledge of LL 97 to perform an early assessment of whether your building meets your 2024 GHG emission limit or not. If you comply now, we can advise you how to ensure compliance into 2024. If you do not currently comply, we can advise you on cost-effective steps to comply on time and we can manage implementation to ensure you get the reductions in emissions you need. This is an onerous rule and with potential major upgrades needed to avoid high fines, 2024 is not that far away! Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@ CCESworld.com.

Blockchain Applied To Energy Management

Blockchain is the future of information technology and is beginning to be applied to how energy is created and transmitted in the US.

First, a quick review. Blockchain is the direction of information technology is moving toward: how we gather and store data. A blockchain is a collection of records aggregated into “blocks” that are linked to one another in a “chain”. It typically contains a history of a certain process, such as amount of energy generated, what type, when, and under what circumstances, and can also be used to set future actions, such as energy generation, based on history or other circumstances programmed. Blockchain data is usually available in some form in hundreds of distinct copies. While there are privacy guards in case someone attempts to alter the blockchain, a hacker will likely be able to alter only a minority of the copies. Full data from a blockchain is available to those that are permitted to access it, is accurate based on what was entered, and can provide privacy (which person is responsible for what), if need be.

Initiatives spearheaded by energy industry groups and stakeholders are working to create standardization in energy data sharing and blockchains. The North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) is in the process of developing a standard digital representation of natural gas trading using blockchain. The results and mechanism for developing useful standards may well be replicated in other parts of the energy industry, such as managing electricity generation and renewable energy certificates (RECs). NAESB is industry-driven and organized by areas of interest, such as wholesale gas, wholesale electric, and retail markets to develop the standards for each energy group.

NAESB has developed a joint committee to develop a standard digital representation of natural gas trade events (futures or actual) in order to standardize and communicate smart contracts and trade disputes. A base contract for the sale or purchase of natural gas is being developed for the industry that can be used in a blockchain to keep appropriate and useful records. The actual base contracts are still being developed.

Given that renewable energy generation differs from that of fossil fuel-derived because the nature of renewable energy generation, the sun or wind, is free and, theoretically available to all, the future renewable energy blockchain application will likely focus less on development and futures, but instead on post-generation services, such as storage, distribution, and RECs, from generation to sales and retirement. This should come in handy as tracking RECs currently is a difficult process as records of transactions associated with RECs sales are difficult, given the different organizations and rules concerning RECs. Developing standards with blockchain to track RECs through their lifecycle could encourage renewable energy growth and investment.

CCES can partner with experts on blockchain technology to improve your data management. In addition, we can help you understand and manage your energy demand and usage, which is the first step to being more cost-effective and minimizing risk. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Providing More Information on Energy Applied To Home Sales

Benchmarking is now the rage. More and more local governments are requiring building owners to compile and submit their energy usage data so that prospective buyers and renters have additional information to make their decision whether to bid, how much to bid, and to prepare for their time in the space. But these rules generally apply to large and/or commercial buildings and spaces. Since we spend most of our time in and our money on our homes, why can’t home buyers get access to a prospective home’s utility bills before you bid on it? The city of Portland, Oregon, has a program to give home shoppers such information, enabling the public to consider – if they wish – energy efficiency when buying a home. See https://www.pdxhes.com/ Other cities are looking at similar programs. After all, the energy efficiency of cars is public knowledge and used by many to decide on which brand to buy, why not the bigger investment of a home?

Portland is the first US city to require home sellers to determine and disclose a Home Energy Score through the Better Buildings Program of the US Dept of Energy, which gives a score from 1 to 10 and compares the energy performance of a given home compared to others in the US. Home owners must hire a certified assessor to perform an energy audit to determine the score.

In 2018, about 10,000 homes were assessed in Portland, achieving an average score of 4.6, slightly below average (5.0). This low score occurred presumably because many homes for sale were older, built before building codes set efficiency requirements, greatly reducing the mean. Of course, this brings up to the owners an opportunity to install insulation, replace windows, and/or upgrade HVAC to raise its energy score and, thus, improve the home’s marketability.

Austin, Texas, requires homes that are 10 years or older to have a professional energy audit performed and disclose its results when listing the property. Berkeley, California requires home sellers to develop a home energy score and disclose it to the buyer at or shortly after the sale. Montgomery County, Maryland, and Chicago require disclosure of utility bills to potential home buyers; Chicago also encourages (but does not require) including this information in listings.

Many believe that this can be successful in encouraging energy efficiency, as evidenced by automobile purchase trends. US car buyers now rate energy efficiency as important as price. Home energy ratings, already more common in Europe, has led to the correlation of higher home energy ratings resulting in higher sales prices.

CCES has the experts to help you determine how energy efficient your building is, whether it be your home, a commercial, or an industrial building. We can determine cost-effective ways to raise your score or efficiency, which will save you cost and raise your building’s asset value. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or karell@CCESworld.com.

Batteries and Energy Efficiency Programs

A few months ago, I posted a blog article on new trends with battery power, including a description of Massachusetts’ latest energy efficiency plan – the first in the nation – which encourages energy efficiency funds to be used for energy storage projects that reduce peak demand, and otherwise encourage the implementation of batteries to store power at a facility.

There has been some criticism of this part of the plan since it was issued. There is no question that batteries are beneficial to reduce peak demand on a grid, to steady the unsteady generation of solar and wind power, to have as a backup in case of a horrendous storm. However, batteries are also inherently inefficient energy-wise. In the process of gathering, storing, and then releasing power, some electricity is lost. Therefore, for every kilowatt-hour of electricity stored in a battery, more electricity must be generated in the first place. Of course, if this electricity is generated from renewable sources, there is no additional cost (no fuel to obtain) and no GHG emissions.

Therefore, batteries are no help for energy efficiency and GHG emission reduction goals, except in the context of solar and wind technologies. An office complex utilizing battery storage will, by itself, not cause less electricity used for the lights, computers, elevators, AC, etc.

Nobody can argue that battery storage can help make the grid more reliable in case of very high peak demand and storm damage. While Massachusetts is unique in encouraging battery development and implementation, other organizations believe the first and perhaps only priority should be in energy efficiency and reducing demand for energy, while growing the economy.

Supporters of battery storage argue that encouraging usage will help maximize the benefits of solar and wind generation, encouraging more clean power nationwide displacing dirtier fossil fuel-generated power, including peaker plants or fuel-generated plants that operate in conjunction with solar and wind plants.

Therefore, the Massachusetts program should be read as a program to encourage smart energy “management”, rather than for efficiency alone. States and nations need to move toward better energy management, which is not only efficiency, but operations and reliability, as well.

CCES has the experts to help your firm or entity manage your energy better, a growing issue as energy costs rise faster than inflation. Whether it is battery power, renewable power, or just being more efficient to be “green” and save costs, CCES can help you reach your goals and save costs. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.