Author Archives: Marc Karell

AI Used For Improved Energy Efficiency

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is all the rage. Can a machine be built to use its intelligence to replace or even exceed the “natural” intelligence of humans? Can machines reliably and correctly process and interpret external data, learn from such data, and use it to achieve specific goals? The media is full of news of new AI discoveries and ways to use “robots” to displace workers in many fields. Can AI help society become more energy efficient?

Metro de Madrid, in conjunction with Accenture, developed and implemented a self-learning AI-based ventilation system to mini¬mize energy costs and ensure commuter comfort in metro stations. See https://www.energymanagertoday.com/artificial-intelligence-platform-firm-0177074/ Metro de Madrid claims to have reduced its ventilation energy costs by 25% and cut CO2 emissions by 1,800 tons annually.

To help passengers stay cool inside stations on hot summer days, Metro de Madrid operates 891 ventilation fans, consuming as much as 80 GWh of electricity annually.

Madrid Metro and Accenture Applied Intelligence developed a system that used an optimization algorithm leveraging data to explore every possible combination of air temperature, station architecture, train frequency, passenger load and electricity price. Both historic and simulated data were used. The algorithm used machine learning; the system improved its prediction of the optimal balance for each train station over time.

The system also includes a simulation and maintenance module, allowing for, among other things, tracking for failures in the fans’ operation. This enables Metro de Madrid to not only predict and monitor energy consump¬tion, but also identify and respond to potential system deficiencies and pro¬actively order equipment maintenance.

Teaching systems to find and use historic data to more accurately predict needs in the future is a way AI can help a system run better and more energy efficiently, too.

CCES is not an expert on AI, but we can use our extensive experience to help your entity be more energy efficient and productive and bring in AI experts, if necessary. We can give you options to determine the best direction forward of producing your product reliably and efficiently. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

How Do We Manage Energy Storage Systems?

Perhaps the great “missing piece of the energy puzzle” is energy storage. While renewable power has come down in price and is now competitive cost-wise compared to fossil fuel-fired plants, renewable power is still not a consistent source of power. The sun has its limits; wind has its limits. As people and businesses need power, at least one can combust fossil fuels all day or all year long to consistently supply power. If energy storage of excess power developed from renewable power plants can be made feasible and affordable, utility-sized renewable power projects will become commonplace; the market will demand this. Much research is being conducted into achieving this for energy storage and some progress has been made.

How should energy storage units be regulated? A recent petition at the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) may be a harbinger of such issues. The EFSB oversees transmission lines, gas pipelines, and certain generating facilities; in other words, the management and approval of, cost of, and environmental impacts associated with most significant energy infrastructure in Massachusetts.
In January 2019, Cranberry Point Energy Storage, LLC submitted a request that the EFSB not have jurisdiction over a proposed 150-megawatt, lithium-ion energy storage system in the state because the proposed system is not a “generating facility.” The proposed energy storage unit does not transform one type of energy into electric energy; it merely takes electric energy generated elsewhere, stores it, and then transmits it. Therefore, Cranberry Point does not need EFSB approval to construct and operate the proposed facility, nor can the EFSB regulate its use.

This is a potential double-edged sword for a developer. EFSB’s approval process for energy projects in Massachusetts is often rigorous and adds on to other state permitting processes. One would understand Cranberry Point’s desire to avoid EFSB review. However, EFSB approval of a project has also been used by applicants to counter local opposition to projects (if the project meets EFSB’s tough standards, it must be beneficial). Another concern is if an agency, such as EFSB (or equivalent ones in other states), no longer has jurisdiction to approve or manage an energy storage project, who does? If other aspects of energy infrastructure are subject to public oversight, why should energy storage be exempted? And if not, who is appropriate to decide if such a project is in the public interest and regulate it so it is run reliably and safely?

A decision on jurisdiction is likely within later this year. The debate, as the technology becomes more established, will spread throughout the country undoubtedly.

CCES has the experts to help your company manage your energy usage and sources to provide reliable, affordable power for electricity, heat, and steam. We understand the technologies for you to more efficiently and cost-effectively use power and from reliable, diversified sources. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

DOE Moves To Rescind Lighting Energy Efficiency Standards

The US Department of Energy (DOE) published its intention to rescind two 2017 rules which expanded energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. See https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/02/f59/withdrawal-of-gsl-definition-nopr.pdf. The DOE claimed that the plan misconstrued existing law and can no longer go forward.

The DOE’s Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles covers most major household appliances, including general service lamps (GSLs), The rule directs the DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles, one to include incandescent lights within the definition of GSL and the other to evaluate energy conservation standards for GSLs. January 2017 rulemaking addressed these 2 issues. The new energy conservation standards, which incandescent bulbs would have problems meeting, were to go into effect in January 2020.

Rescinding the rule would cost consumers billions of dollars and also increase emissions of GHGs and toxic compounds. Most of the American public and businesses have already addressed the standards, in terms of caldelabras, reflectors, sockets, and bulb performance. About 3 billion sockets in US homes alone would be impacted.

An analysis of the rule and its potential roll back estimates that rescinding the rules will:

• cost American households $22 billion in 2025, about $180 per household.

• US electricity use would increase by 80 billion kWh per year — about the combined usage of all households in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

• This relaxing of standards would cause more power plant activity (fossil fuel combustion) which would produce pollution harming the environment and contributing to health problems like asthma. Annual emission increases would include an extra 19,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, 23,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 34 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2025 — the latter equal to that of over 7 million cars.

The potential rescinding of the rules would also stifle innovation, eliminating a robust incentive for businesses and homeowners to purchase or invest in energy-efficient LED light bulbs.

The draft rule is currently open for public comment. A public hearing on this issue will be held on February 28, 2019.

Rule or no rule, CCES has the experts to help you invest in the most energy efficient lights possible to maximize your cost and other savings and to design and install them to optimize productivity and reduce O&M. Contact us today 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Summary of the Green New Deal

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey on Feb. 7, 2019 each released a framework for prospective legislation called a Green New Deal (GND), an ambitious green and economic policy. The GND proposals may serve as a blueprint for a future climate and energy package or a bipartisan infrastructure bill. Remember, these are not proposed legislation, but, instead, non-binding statements of principle, meant for public release, education, and debate. See: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5731829-Ocasio-Cortez-Green-New-Deal-Resolution and https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Green%20New%20Deal%20Resolution%20SIGNED.pdf.

General suggestions of a GND have been around going back to the Obama Administration, but took a turn to become more serious with the House returning to the Democrats following the 2018 midterm elections and the election of several Congresspeople whose election centered on climate issues, such as converting the U.S. to 100% carbon-free energy, revert to more aggressive environmental regulation, and make “green”-oriented investments in infrastructure and climate adaptation. Until earlier in February, there was no written structure to the recommendations.

The frameworks begin with the arguments about why green change is necessary, referring to the findings of the October 2018 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and of the November 2018 U.S. government National Climate Assessment Report. The documents use these findings to state their goals of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change by reducing GHG emissions by 40 to 60% below 2010 levels by 2030 and to net-zero global emissions by 2050.

However, these proposals go beyond just green goals by tying them to other issues of importance in the U.S., such as public health, environmental degradation, income inequality, and lack of access to healthcare, which affect of way of life and security. In addition, the documents propose major infrastructure, land management, afforestation, and public transportation investments to raise employment, improve productivity of land, and adapt to impacts of climate change. Few specifics are provided in terms of funding and economic output; however, this would result in major changes to the U.S. economy.

Neither GND resolution provides specifics on how this would be achieved. There is no suggestion of whether a price or tax on carbon emissions would be created or whether cap and trade policies would be used. There is nothing that would eliminate nuclear power as an option or carbon capture and sequestration.

Neither resolution has come up for a vote in either chamber, and whether either will is unknown. GND has garnered a lot of press attention, and there will likely be much debate throughout the country. There is growing press about recent extreme events (forest fires during “off-season”, polar vortex pulling apart, hurricanes, etc.) tied in part to climate change that worries a large portion of the U.S. population and the realization that reduced GHG emissions is necessary. On the other hand, it is anticipated that the GND will require a large injection of public money during a period of high deficits, potentially risking damaging the overall economy. Plus, there is the reality that much of the U.S. population is unfamiliar with these issues and technologies, and can be made to be fearful of change they are not familiar with and worried about future unknowns.

Polls and feedback from constituents may ultimately dictate its success. This will likely lead to the ultimate number of co-sponsors which will lead to an up or down vote or lead to further discussions by Presidential and other candidates in the 2020 election cycle. Might GND become an official plank of the Democratic party? If a vote can be held (more likely, the House), then whether it wins or loses in a close vote, may inform politicians of a growing green popularity in the U.S.

Should GND prove popular in public polls or in a vote, it is possible that some legislators will take some GND provisions and create new legislation based on them relativey soon, which could mean impacts of GND sooner than anticipated.

In the meantime, the public discussions of GND, its need, implementation, and potential impacts are occurring.

CCES has the experts to assist you in “greening” your operations in conjunction with or independent of the GND resolutions. We can recommend “green” options that will also benefit your bottom line (reduce costs, improve productivity, etc.) and project manage these changes to solidify the benefits. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Turning Peak Electric Demand Into a Positive

It is mid-winter and we are not thinking about the cost of cooling. However, it is not too early to consider that large portions of the country face a conundrum of an aging infrastructure, not as effectively delivering electricity to satisfy growing power demand. There is a growing risk of brownouts and blackouts – not from a shortage of electricity, but the difficulty in delivering it in amounts required when needed. This is bad for the bottom line of the utility and, of course, bad for business because without power or even with the heightened risk of losing power, businesses are vulnerable.

There is a double whammy of growing demand for energy and weaker infrastructure to deliver it. While many homes used to air condition only a couple of key rooms, now more homes can cool the entire house. It used to be people came home from work to a hot apartment or house, then turned on their AC unit and in a short time felt comfortable again. But with today’s technology, people can turn on their home ACs from their office, so they are cool when they enter their homes. As a result, there is demand for electricity simultaneously cooling an office and a home. This becomes a greater risk on a hot, humid day, which are growing in number. With economic growth, people use more electrical devices. We have the conundrum of a growing demand for electricity, with an aging infrastructure to deliver it at its peak. Many utilities now charge for high peak demand, as well as usage, to encourage reduction, but they are limited in cost hikes as ratepayers will not absorb the cost of upgrading infrastructure in their utility bills.

Therefore, many utilities must invest in programs to reduce electric (or natural gas) demand, particularly in the peak seasons (summer for electric, winter for gas). It is simply risky to expect a utility in some areas to deliver to meet growing peak needs. Many utilities have programs to reduce peak load and improve efficiency. In the most vulnerable areas of New York City (weakest infrastructure), Con Edison is giving away free of charge LED lights to building owners to reduce peak demand.

Another program that some utilities encourage is Demand Management (DM), which provides financial incentives to move energy-using processes to operate at night when relative demand is low. An example is replacing a large AC unit with an ice storage system, which would cool intake air. While making ice at night and maintaining it can use more electricity than an AC unit, the majority of electric use moves to night and not the peak afternoon hours. Therefore, this is something that utilities encourage – reducing demand during the peak period (hot, humid afternoons).

Another option is using an organization’s backup generation system to generate power on a hot, humid day, called Demand Response (DR). The building can be taken off the grid during peak demand, somewhat relieving the pressure on the utility to deliver large amounts of electricity to a particular area. In a typical program, the utility informs the building manager a day before that it will take the building off the grid and make sure they run their generator(s) during a few peak demand hours the next day. The utility provides healthy financial benefits for being available to go off the grid and each time one is called on and does so. The backup generator, often forgotten equipment, becomes a revenue generator. One complication of DR is the requirement that the facility obtain an air permit from the local environmental agency (usually the State). Being in DR, the unit is no longer “emergency” and loses its exemption from permitting. In addition, some states have specific emission or air pollution control requirements for non-emergency generators. Often, generators used for emergency purposes are older and may not have been an advanced model. Why spend on a unit that will be used so rarely? Thus, their emissions are likely higher and may not be able to meet the emission standards, unless they are upgraded, which could cost 6 figures.

Getting an air permit has a cost but is not too expensive. Upgrading to meet stringent emission standards, on the other hand, can be very expensive and overwhelm DR economic benefits. DR is something that companies which already have emergency generators should consider as a sound financial program. However, one should research air quality rules to see if there are stringent control requirements for such generators requiring costly upgrades.

CCES has the experts to provide you with site-specific information to help you decide on strategies to reduce your peak electric demand and enter incentive programs that reward such strategies. We can manage the implementation of the strategies to maximize your financial and risk benefits. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Prescriptive Vs. Performance Energy Incentive Programs

More utilities and local governments are creating and implementing incentive programs to get buildings to be more energy efficient. Energy infrastructure is aging and expensive to replace. There is concern in many large cities that during a peak demand period, such as a hot summer afternoon, needed electricity will not be able to be provided throughout a utility zone, affecting citizenry, businesses, and quality of life. It is not only in the utility’s interest, but in the government’s, as well, to encourage energy efficiency, so that a peak demand can be met. One way to incentivize the procurement and usage of energy-saving technologies and strategies is to reduce its cost. More and more entities offer rebates for the implementation of certain technologies, which otherwise may be costly. Of course, if public money is going to be given out, it must be accounted for; it must go to owners who actually upgraded their buildings for energy efficiency. This can lead to significant bureaucracy, which itself is costly and takes away from the pool of money available to incentivize. Therefore, the simplicity of an incentive program is very important, as well.

With this in mind, there are two major philosophies used to design incentive programs for those to become more energy efficient, prescriptive vs. performance. Each has certain advantages to different groups of people.

Prescriptive energy incentive programs try to minimize bureaucracy, be simple for the building owner and manager, and emphasize installing the technology. A typical prescriptive program allows the participant to purchase and install the technology and reap the rewards fairly quickly, irrespective of the final results (energy savings). Prescriptive incentives typically pay out a certain percentage of the upfront cost of a technology so that the user can plan the expenditure and what it will get back.

For example, a New Jersey prescriptive lighting program pays the building owner a certain cost per LED light. It may be $5 per tube for replacement of tube fluorescents with LED tubes, $15 per fixture for replacement of high bay lumineres with LEDs, $15 per fixture for task lights, $100 per fixture for stairwell lights, etc. The building owner simply counts the number of lights that are replaced with the LED equivalents, multiplies by the incentive factors, and now can determine what the simple payback is. Once the lights are demonstrated to be installed, the calculations can be confirmed and the incentive check issued.

In a prescriptive program, it does not matter precisely how many watts the new LED lights are or the wattage of the lights being replaced. The effectiveness of the exercise (total kWh or KW load reduced) is not important for this incentive program. A prescriptive energy efficiency program is a reward for installing improved technology.

The other type of energy incentive program is performance, basing financial incentives on the achieved energy reduction of the strategies. For each light replaced by an LED, the before and after wattages of the lights must be computed and, together with the estimated usage (hours per year) of each group of lights, the total kWh or kW reduction is computed. The rebate tied to the reduction in electricity usage and demand is what a performance incentive program is all about. Such programs give the building owner a certain money (typically $0.10 per kWh or $1.00 per therm reduced or peak kW reduced). This is used for lighting incentive programs, as wattages can be compared.

However, for other technologies, it is more difficult to determine accurate gains and performance. For example, if one upgrades HVAC equipment to something more modern and efficient, the exact energy savings cannot be predicted because it depends on the outside weather which differs from year to year. One may get a huge reduction in kWh from one year to the next. However, it may be due at least in part to a milder summer in the year the technology is installed, as much as the efficiency improvement. One way to get around this is to have a performance incentive program use computer energy modeling holding the weather as a constant to predict energy usage with old and new equipment conditioning the indoor air.

Performance incentives, therefore, require a lot more information before the incentive is issued compared to prescriptive. This means more time spent on the computer and more labor hours that needs to get paid for before the incentive is earned. However, the effort will likely result in a document that reports what the energy reduction due to the new equipment is likely to be. And utilities and governments often wish to provide rebates based on the actual degree of efficiency or usage reduced achieved as opposed to merely upgrading technology which may not be that effective to demonstrate significant energy usage reduction.

CCES can help manage the energy incentive programs in your area and advise you on which ones are more relevant and profitable to your business at whatever stage you are at. We can do the testing, complete the incentive paperwork and answer questions of the regulators. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or karell@CCESworld.com.

Sustainability Grows in the Apparel Industry

Sustainability has grown as an area of concern in the apparel industry. Years ago the emphasis was on child labor and fair pay. More recently sustainability reviews have focused on the use and treatment of raw materials through manufacturing and shipment processes to retail. The potential careless use and management of toxic chemicals and the fate of garments and material not sold are being scrutinized and is leading many in the industry to change practices.

Spurred by Walmart and other partners, fashion industry heavyweights, including Gap, H&M, and Nike recently started a “Make Fashion Circular” initiative to change the “throw away” mentality and create business models to keep clothes in use longer, utilize safer, renewable materials, and implement operations to turn used clothes into new ones.

Reducing Solid Waste

A major sustainability issue affecting the apparel industry is solid waste. An estimated 75% of all fashion chain materials are disposed of and end up in landfills or equivalent. Less than 1% is recycled or re-purposed. The value of switching raw materials to those that can have other uses or are more easily recyclable is being communicated.

Earlier this year, several major clothing lines announced new programs addressing this issue, ranging from using a new organic wool clothing line to the growing use of sustainably sourced cotton to promoting a closed material cycle. In addition, other new programs being established emphasized recycling, such as re-use of discarded cotton and polyester fabrics and eliminating the use of virgin plastic.

Hemp As A Sustainable Apparel Material

With the legalization of cannabis across the U.S., people are taking another look at the hemp plant for its wide variety of uses, not just medicinal. Hemp has been cultivated for industrial purposes by many civilizations for well over 10,000 years. Hemp fiber was and is one of the strongest and most durable of all natural textile fibers. Hemp was the desired fiber used to manufacture clothing as well as other things including building materials, paper, rope, and canvas, until alternative textiles and synthetics for these purposes were discovered. But hemp is making a comeback in the apparel industry.

In terms of lifecycle, hemp doesn’t wear out, it wears in – holding its shape and stretching less than any other natural fiber — the ultimate when it comes to reducing waste. Since hemp is porous, it is very water absorbent and will dye and retain its color better than any other fabric. Hemp apparel is naturally cool to wear in warm weather and warm in cool weather. It is mildew resistant, is resistant to ultraviolet light, and softens with age. Apparel made from hemp incorporates all the beneficial qualities and will likely last longer and withstand harsh conditions. Hemp blended with other fibers easily incorporates the desirable qualities of both textiles. Not only is it an excellent yarn for clothing, but also an excellent yarn for bed and bath linens, and table linens.

Hemp is a renewable material, producing 250% more fiber than cotton and 600% more fiber than flax using the same amount of land. Hemp’s root system is strong, anchoring and protecting the soil from runoff, building and preserving topsoil and subsoil structures as seen in forests. Hemp leaves the soil in excellent condition for succeeding crops.
With such sustainable qualities like durability and the potential to be produced cheaply, hemp textiles are the wave of the future!

Dyeing and Finishing

Another major sustainability issue in this industry is use of chemicals in dyeing and finishing processes, which form highly-polluting and toxic gases which can adversely affect health of residents downwind of manufacturing facilities. The problem is that manufacturers do not want to change their chemicals or procedures lest the product change its appearance and be less attractive (and sell less) or the substitute chemicals or procedures be more expensive, a difficult cost to bear in a competitive market.

Despite these concerns, some firms have seen reducing or changing usage as an opportunity to save costs. Several firms have implemented new technologies to use much fewer chemicals in the dyeing or treatment process for jeans and other clothes.

“Re-Commercing”

A final growing sustainable movement in the apparel industry is re-commercing, taking clothing that does not sell, returning them to distribution or manufacturing centers to either wait until it may grow in demand or to modify them or use parts to manufacture other sellable apparel. Several major brands are instituting such programs.

CCES has the experts to help your firm develop economic and creative ways to improve your sustainability. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

And for more information about hemp and how its use can help you in apparel and in many other applications, contact Ms. Bonnie Hagen of Bright Energy Services at 347- 470-7090 or at bonnie@brightenergyservices.com.

Surprise: US Water Use Is Declining!

The US Geological Survey latest study on US water use in 2015 showed that US water use was 322 billion gallons per day (bgd), a 9% decrease from 2010 levels. Water withdrawal in the US grew from 1950 to 1980, hitting a peak of 430 bgd. Withdrawal levels remained relatively constant through 2005, when they began to drop.

Thermoelectric power generation, irrigation and public drinking supply make up 90% of water use in the US. Of all categories, thermoelectric power use decreased the most, down 18% from 2010. Industrial water use has consistently declined in the last 30 years; 2015 estimates are about 43% less than in 1985. This may be contributed by the slowdown in the economy in the early 2010’s, as well as industries moving overseas.

The 9% decline in withdrawals for public supply between 2010 and 2015 was unexpected, given an increase in total US population of 4% during that time. Per capita use declined from 88 gallons per day in 2010 to 82 gallons per day in 2015.

These short- and long-term results go against conventional thinking as the US population increased and water infrastructure continued to age, resulting in more lost water from our supply. Add on to this climate change effects on weather patterns (greater dry periods and more severe storms where water cannot be effectively captured), and the measured reduction of water use was surprising.

As happens often, patterns of change occur led by individual municipalities and states in need implementing innovative water conservation programs. Advanced purification technology from Israel and other nations that treat sanitary sewage water and turns it directly into drinking water has been shown to be effective and is being implemented by a number of municipalities, the largest of which being El Paso, TX.

Progress is also made by competition. Recently, New York City launched a Water Challenge to Universities. The six participating universities will work to reduce their campus-wide average water consumption by at least 5%, which would be a savings of approximately 1.3 million gallons of water per month. Not only is that a beneficial result in itself, but this is practical training the future engineers and professionals for how to implement and administer these and other innovative programs.

Of course, demand for water relative to supply is a major driver of conservation. California allocates resources to find creative strategies to manage their water resources. In Arizona, a draft contingency plan to save water from Lake Mead in order to address shortages from the Colorado River appears to be finalizing.

Water conservation for “green” or cost-saving purposes certainly sells. Therefore, companies are investing in innovative water management strategies, for industrial or irrigation use. Manufacturers of home appliances are designing more products that conserve water, as they sell. There is a growing number of WaterSense-labeled and Water Smart-certified homes, saving an estimated 1.4 billion gallons of water annually.

CCES can help you develop and implement a robust water conservation program within your Sustainability program, maximizing benefits and flexibility. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Massachusetts’ New Comprehensive Energy Plan

In December 2018, the Massachusetts Dept of Energy Resources released a new Comprehensive Energy Plan. (https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/12/11/CEP%20Report-12122018_0.pdf).

It may serve as a model for other states or regions of the country. Massachusetts’ two-fold goal is to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions consistent to what is called for by the United Nations and reduce energy usage substantially. It calls for the state to both electrify and to conserve energy usage as much as possible.

According to the Department, in 2016, only 17% of Massachusetts’ energy demand of over 1 quadrillion BTUs was from the electric sector. Transportation uses 44% of its energy and buildings (thermal) use about 39%. Therefore, significant upgrades need to be made in these two areas.

To achieve progress in transportation, the Plan recommends the following 3 changes:

1. Improve electric charging infrastructure

2. Establish a “goal” to require all new cars, light duty trucks, and buses sold in Massachusetts beginning in 2040 to be electric or have equivalent emissions

3. Establish a RGGI-style reduction credit trading system for transportation GHG emissions with other Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.

As for buildings (thermal), many buildings are switching fuels to natural gas, which results in solid GHG emission reductions. However, to meet the necessary climate change goals, a significant portion of buildings must do better. Because it is not likely in the foreseeable future that thermal load will become decarbonized, reductions can only work by reducing amount of fuel needed to be combusted. In other words, improve energy efficiency. The Plan has numerous references to improved efficiency, such as frequent testing and upgrading of boilers, improved insulation, smarter building, etc. But just as important, it has recommendations to get the information out and incentivize building owners and tenants to invest in energy and carbon reduction.

Together, this Plan could well be a model for what other states select as their way to reduce energy usage within their state and of GHG emissions in the future.

CCES has the experts to help your firm reduce energy usage in a smart way, to reduce costs and GHG emissions. Economical strategies, for you to get the best payback possible and to maximize other benefits, such as improved equipment and worker productivity, reduced O&M costs, no/minimal disruptions, etc. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

New Climate Change Disclosure Litigation

This year, the New York State Attorney General filed a lawsuit in NY State Supreme Court against Exxon Mobil alleging the firm violated the securities fraud provisions of a 1921 New York statute called the Martin Act in connection with their public disclosures of the future costs of complying with climate change regulations, as well as the future of the company’s existing energy processes. The Attorney General alleged that Exxon misrepresented to stockholders climate change risks by excluding its public estimates of climate change costs, substituting lower internal estimates when evaluating business risks. The AG stated that this maneuver gave investors the impression that Exxon was a safer investment than it may be and caused its stock price to be overvalued.

Public corporations are required to disclosure fully to its investors complete and accurate available data of all matters related to the business’s viability. Recent rulings include risk pertaining to climate change, even if hard numbers are not attainable. While projecting business impacts from physical, business, and regulatory risks of climate change is not definitive, the NY AG believes Exxon knowingly misled the public.

Climate change business risk is focused on the oil and gas industry, as climate change may make their very business obsolete or too costly, not to mention the means it must endeavor to get oil and gas (more physically difficult). Another risk that Exxon did not disclose but is of growing importance to the oil and gas industry is the growing global movement for carbon taxes, which would hit this industry hardest.

While Exxon will, no doubt, vigorously defend itself against this lawsuit, the pending litigation does portend the future importance of changing regulations, sound data gathering, risk assessment, and clear communication by public companies now applied to climate change.

This is a non-legal assessment of developments. If you have further interest, please engage qualified legal professionals. CCES has the experts to help your entity assess the technical and physical aspects of climate change and advise on technical policy to address these issues. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.