Author Archives: Marc Karell

Is Your Building “Smart” or “Well-Managed”?

We all see the expression “Smart Building” a lot. What really is the definition of a “smart” building? Is any building using a BMS a “smart” building? Can a well-managed building (with simpler technology or a good manager) still be “smart” or is it its own category?

There are no established answers; definitions are a matter of degrees. A BMS is simply a series of thermostats or meters that allow adjustment of parameters based on pre-programmed inputs. Even if thermostats are primed from the building manager’s mobile device, is that really “smart”? Most BMSs include sequences to respond to needs and energy efficiency (turn off when unneeded), so they are at least a little smart.

Some people define a “smart” system as one integrating data to predict needs and adjust accordingly. Here are two examples. A smart system will recognize that a certain rooftop HVAC unit is not working properly (exit air temperature is too high) and provides the building manager with a list of potential issues that may be causing this; perhaps even self-investigating and resolving the problem itself, saving time and energy.

Second, a specific employee enters the building’s garage and the smart system knows which particular office will be occupied in X minutes by which hallway, so the necessary lights and HVAC loops are activated ahead of time. Both of these examples show the functionality and energy saving capability of a smart system.

New smart building technologies not only improve equipment operation and efficiency, but also address the daily habits and experience of the occupants. Traditional BMS systems were programmed to give optimal results for building management, while today’s smart technologies try to optimize the comfort of each occupant.

The question comes down to whether you need a “smart” building and whether the extra cost is worth it. If all employees arrive and leave at about the same time, then the capability to react to an employee’s unique arrival is not useful. Since there will probably always be a custodian on staff, are the extra “bells and whistles” of self-repair really necessary? Might a good alarm system (found in conventional BMSs) communicating a problem be sufficient? On the other hand, “smart” technology that makes employees more productive is worth quite a bit in terms of what the company pays its professionals and for the quality of the product it produces, and might justify such an investment.

CCES has the experts to help you make your building more energy efficient and your workers more productive, whether it be as a “smart” building or utilizing something simpler. We want to help you improve your business! Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Growing Demand For Green Building Materials

Many building owners want to be more “green”, but among the reasons some hesitate to do so is they feel it may be a hassle to buy and maintain. They don’t want to expand building maintenance staffs or spend more money to ensure “green” solutions work. But if “green” strategies can be made a part of the building itself, has tangible benefits and does not need special or increased maintenance, then that concern goes away.

There is a growing industry exactly working toward that end. Paints and glues that are solvent (VOC)-free are available that are just as attractive and effective (attach the parts, water-resistant, etc.) as those that contain solvents, and will not leach out and risk exposing workers or residents. In other words they meet “green” and WELL health standards. Carpets, steel, lumber, and insulation using recycled materials have been formulated and successfully tested to be just as attractive and hearty as those using virgin materials.

The movement for using green building materials in renovating or building a new structure is a growing business segment worldwide, as the “green” replacements are just as effective as the conventional ones.

One report projected that the global green building materials market will grow on average 12.5% annually between 2013 and 2019. Insulation accounted for the largest product segment, and is a welcome new home for recycled materials in the recycling industry which has a growing amount of recycled materials to find use for.

In addition, the “green” movement is also influencing and growing several conventional industries that were feared to be slowing down. For example, the growing interest in green roofs (vegetation) will drive demand for roofing application materials.

CCES has the experts to help provide advice on new technologies and approaches to building “green”, whether it is a new building or a renovation to save you costs, improve comfort for your tenants and workers, and/or be more innovative and reliable. The technologies are there, proven, and quite beneficial. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Review of Basic Climate Change Facts

In this blog, we are constantly referring to Climate Change and measures that can reduce its effects. It has been awhile since we re-examined the basic facts about Climate Change and whether it has changed and just how strong the effect is. Here is a brief discussion so you can talk about this with your bosses and colleagues and share with your children! These facts have been published by mainstream organizations who study and measure this, such as the USEPA, the World Resources Institute, the World Watch Institute, NASA, and the US Green Building Council.

• 97% all scientists in this field agree that warming trends over the past century are very likely caused by human activity.
• The main greenhouse gas, CO2, trapping radiation and releasing it as heat, causing this overall global warming trend reached levels exceeding its historic, stable atmospheric concentration of the previous 400,000 years beginning around 1950, and continuing to grow since. The average concentration of CO2 is about 407 ppm, well above the historic stable concentration of 270 ppm.
• The average worldwide temperature increase in the last century is 1.5°F. This doesn’t appear to be much, but consider the huge circumference of the Earth and 50,000 feet above the entire surface. That’s a lot of excess heat released to raise that volume’s temperature by that 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit.
• Global sea levels have risen on average 8 inches over the last century. The rate of rise has nearly doubled in the last two decades.
• In 18 years since, 2000, nearly all, 16, were record-setting hot years. 2016 was the hottest year yet.
• The 9 most explosive fires in US history have all occurred since 2000, with the biggest one burning 10.1 million acres of land.
• The acidity of the world’s ocenas have increased 30%.
• The estimated economic loss to the US by end of the century if no action is taken on climate change is $180 billion.

Of course, CO2 emissions are derived mostly from combustion of fossil fuels and people love to burn gas, oil, coal, etc. for comfort, electricity, movement, etc. Increases in US and world wide energy consumption (requiring more combustion of fossil fuels) is tied to higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and the atmospheric temperature rise.
• Domestic US energy consumption in the commercial, industrial and transportation segments totaled 70,930 trillion BTU’s in 2017 – a 35% increase over 2013.
• Operations using the most energy and, thus, causing largest emissions of greenhouse gases:
Space Heating 25%
Other (mostly plug load) 13%
Lighting 10%
Refrigeration 10%
Ventilation 10%
Cooling 9%
IT/Office 8%
Cooking 7%
Water Heating 7%

Type of building and its average annual energy use per square foot:
Building Type            Electricity (kWh)                  Natural Gas (cf)
Health Care                       23                                           110
Office                                  17                                             32
Retail                                  14                                              31
Grocery                              49                                              50
Restaurant                         38                                            141

Sources of CO2:
• Solid fuels, such as coal: 35%
• Liquid fuels such as oil or petroleum – 36%
• Gaseous fuels such as natural gas – 20%
• Industrial gas emissions from manufacturing or processing plants – <1%
• Deforestation which increases emissions by decreasing the cleaning performed by forests – 5%
• Consuming 70% of US electricity, structures account for more greenhouse gas emissions than from the industrial or transportation sectors.

CCES can help your firm develop your own Climate Change or Sustainability program to evaluate how much energy your entity uses and greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Quantifiable changes will both make your company be a leader in the growing Climate Change movement and, if done intelligently, can reduce costs and provide other direct financial benefits, as well. Contact us to help you begin a program at karell@CCESworld.com or 914-584-6720.

Incentives For Lighting Upgrades Are Flickering

There’s no doubt about it. LED lights are now accepted as a way to reduce electricity for all types of buildings. They use much less electricity than historic bulbs and their prices have come down. Bloomberg estimated that nearly 500 million were installed nationwide in 2016. With this recognition, many utilities and government agencies are wondering whether it is time to gradually end incentive programs for LED lights.

But there are some strong arguments to keep incentives to encourage companies and the public to purchase LEDs. Despite their advantages, they have not totally won over the market. According to the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, LED lamps accounted for 36% of national light bulb sales in the 4th quarter of 2017, while halogen lamps still held 48% of market share. LEDs are displacing CFLs.
Also, the 36% market share is not consistent across the US, but is greatest in states or areas that either have strong financial incentives or high electric rates, from as high as 50% of the market in California to about 12% in Kentucky, according to the USEPA.

Some statistics in New York and Massachusetts, whose utilities have begun to reduce incentives, show that conversions to LEDs have also slowed down. Although switching to LEDs is strongly financially beneficial, consumers and companies have an expectation to get a further financial reward from the utility or government.

The belief is that when the new federal DOE standards come into effect on January 1, 2020 making it illegal to sell most halogen and incandescent light bulbs (less efficient than 45 lumens per watt), LED sales will increase. However, such sales may not soar because retailers will still be allowed to sell its non-complying products in the store past the compliance date and enforcement is unknown. The burden is not on the manufacturer or consumer, but on the retailer to stop selling non-compliant lights. How DOE will enforce these measures in many type of retail stores is unknown.

Utilities are realizing that targeted incentive programs may be best to encourage LED sales in the long term. Some utilities are beginning to focus on underserved markets to promote LED lights, such as rural and low-income urban areas. Programs may also be effective if they target the elderly market who have been slower to adopt to LEDs.

Some consumers have shied away from LEDs thinking they are limited in terms of beauty and utility. Focusing incentives to encourage people to buy decorative and reflector lights can improve this market and convert very energy inefficient lamps of these types to more efficient ones.

Finally, comes the transition to more robust incentives for lighting controls, turning lights – even more efficient ones like LEDs – off altogether when a room is not in use. Utilities are beginning to incentivize effective dimming and occupancy controls that are easy to install and operate.

CCES has the experts to help you upgrade your lights to LEDs to maximize the energy cost savings and to improve your employee’s or customer’s productivity and comfort. We know the existing incentive programs and can maximize these to provide you the best performing project economically with the shortest payback and return on investment. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Making Your Building Healthier: It’s Not A Gimmick; It Can Make You A Profit!

There has been a lot of stories on the news for decades now about the high cost of health care in the U.S., the brunt of insurance costs borne by companies and organizations. According to one publication, companies and employees now spend an average of $18,000 annually per employee for health costs, a 61% increase in 10 years. And this is likely to grow in the near future, an unsustainable path for business. And that is the direct monetary cost. Additional costs to business include missed work, distraction, bureaucracy, turnover. Ways that a building owner can upgrade its stock that demonstrably will improve the health of the renters’ employees can be shown to be a positive force for the tenant’s bottomline and put your property in great position in the rental market. Even if you move the costs of such upgrades into the tenant’s rent, it is likely to be smaller than the savings in that annual payment for health care.

Now, some of you may be skeptical, but a lot of research has been performed about this and there is no question that a “healthy” building does lead to fewer sick days and higher performance, something that businesses and tenants know are critical for survival. In addition, “healthy” buildings can be cost-effective and produce a strong ROI.

Is there a “magic” or simple formula that will make a building “healthy” and reduce such costs and sick days in a quantifiable? No – at least not right now. The USGBC has developed “WELL” standards which, when implemented, will raise the chances that workers will have fewer sick days, be more focused and productive, etc. WELL buildings are certified that the owner has implemented the most modern, tested strategies to optimize the health of those that use or live in the space. See: https://www.wellcertified.com/en/explore-standard

Consider implementing WELL standards in any new construction or renovation. Perhaps you may not want to go all the way to become certified at this time. But any upgrades you can install that can be shown to improve the health and well-being of the users will put you in a better position in terms of tenant retention or attracting higher level (and higher paying) tenants.

It is critical to recognize that this is not “cookie cutter”. You must begin by understanding each individual property. Is it in an urban, suburban or rural area? Are there other health issues around (contaminated sites or major polluters nearby)? Data is important. What has been the sick day history of previous tenants? Have there been certain patterns?

With this understanding, you can better focus your strategies to those more likely to be successful for more users, whether it be concerning water, air, infrastructure, light, etc.

CCES has the technical experts to help your building become “healthier” by developing the right specific strategies for your buildings and implementing them to the best effect – to increase the odds that users will be healthier, more focused, more productive, and satisfied. All factors to improve tenant retention and attraction and better for your long-term bottom line. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

The Value Of Modernizing Your Aging Buildings

According to the US Energy Information Administration, only 12% of existing commercial buildings have been built since 2003 and more than half were constructed before 1980. The median age of such buildings is around 32 years. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/reports/2012/buildstock/

Many cities and states in the US have developed goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, commonly by 80% from a 1990 baseline by 2050. New buildings that are certified as LEED are helpful in meeting these goals. However, the statistics above demonstrate that meeting this goal and also reducing energy usage and demand to more effectively manage the grid cannot be met unless existing buildings modernize. More utilities are developing incentives for existing buildings and municipalities laws or new codes to require existing buildings to be more energy efficient.

Incentives are a positive, but only help the bottom-line a little bit, and sometimes have strings attached. Laws are useful, but often result in building owners addressing the letter of the law and not doing all that can be helpful to be more energy efficient.

Building owners should look at modernizing their existing stock as an investment opportunity with many potential financial benefits for the following reasons:

1. Long-term, reliable energy and other cost savings. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), energy savings of 50% to 75% can be achieved in commercial buildings that implement smart energy efficiency measures. Their biggest problem is aging building envelope, causing boilers and air conditioning units to work harder to develop the heat or cold lost to the aging envelope.

Since heating and cooling constitute the largest portion of energy consumption, most old buildings lose energy due to poor interiors and exteriors. Retrofitting older buildings can help with a significant reduction in energy needed to heat or cool the building.

Of course, upgrading lighting to LEDs is a sure-fire financial winner, with significant, reliable cost savings. When upgrading lighting, don’t forget to include lighting controls to keep lights off when the room is not occupied and daylighting to dim your light fixtures when sunlight is entering a room. Why pay for energy when natural light can help?

In addition, such modernizations and new technologies inevitably lead to cost savings in terms of O&M. Modern buildings with intelligent systems use 20% to 40% less energy and result in 8% to 9% lower operating expenses. https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/BSA/20140108_moa_jones.pdf

2. Meet sustainability goals. Many commercial buildings rent space to private firms that have written sustainability or climate change goals, including reductions in energy usage and/or greenhouse gas emissions. These companies develop multiple strategies to ensure meeting the goals. Working in a building that is energy efficient can keep a tenant happy or attract potential tenants which may have difficult goals to meet. Either way, an energy efficient building can put your building in greater demand (resulting in greater revenue) for your units.

3. Reliability in a world of growing energy use. More companies do more and more things to stay competitive, including, but not limited to bigger and greater data centers. It has been estimated that energy demand will rise 50% between now and 2050. Is your building able to reliably supply energy to tenants. Remember, risk may include serious incidents affecting business viability occur, which, of course, could lead to litigation. Therefore, not wasting energy and bringing in sufficient amounts for all situations is critical, and may require some modernization of the building and its wiring.

This includes automated controls, sensors, monitoring of energy use and feedback, “smart” technologies, and backup power. Being in control of energy usage and distribution puts you in a more powerful position. Are such new technologies expensive? No, they are not as automation has brought down prices. Not having modern features can be more costly to your business as a building owner.

4. Better performing business, greater demand for your space. A modern, green retrofit building with efficient energy systems has been shown to lead to improved worker performance and reduced sick time compared to companies in existing buildings that have not retrofitted appropriately.

A recent Harvard study found that worker cognitive functions improved with better indoor environmental quality and ventilation, including a 50% increase in focus, doubling in crisis response, and a tripling in information usage and strategic thinking scores. A follow-up study found positive impacts on sleep and wellness. https://green.harvard.edu/tools-resources/research-highlight/impact-green-buildings-cognitive-function

5. Rising revenue for a modern building. Continuing on these themes, providing potential tenants with the most modern technologies, reliable energy service, and beneficial working conditions will result in greater market demand. Buildings certified as energy efficient (LEED, Energy Star) are in greater demand and can charge greater rents than stodgy, inefficient buildings with not a lot of specialization to offer the tenant.

Modernizing older buildings with improved energy efficient systems appears to be expensive and a “hassle”. However, the technologies are established, have little chance of failing, and results in many positive items that will raise both the value of your property and the demand to rent space from it, raising revenue and lowering cost significantly. This can only be done, however, if retrofits are implemented intelligently, led by experienced architects and engineers.

CCES has the technical expertise to help you plan and implement smart upgrades to your existing building to gain the benefits listed here. Our experts can help you lower energy usage and costs reliably and to maximize the benefits and, with the help of incentives, minimize the payback and hasten growth. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Should I Be More Energy Efficient or Should I Go For Renewable Energy?

Building owners and managers are seeing more and more evidence of the growing costs of energy and realize these costs must be managed and lowered. But how does one most effectively do this? Does one evaluate the current systems that use energy (HVAC for comfort, lights for lighting, plug load) and make smart upgrades to improve its efficiency (do the same or more using less electricity or gas/oil)? Or does one invest and implement renewable energy to bypass the local utility and take advantage of the free resource generating energy (solar, wind, geothermal)?

Certainly being more energy efficient is a good thing financially for your building. It is in your interest to operate your equipment – for which you paid a lot of money – properly and efficiently; you want to get your money’s worth. If a system (an area of lights, a rooftop unit, a boiler, some PCs) is wasting energy day after day, it is in your interest to replace or upgrade it with equipment that works as well, but uses less energy. On the other hand, renewable energy is all the “rage”, with prices declining. There is certainly security; we know, if designed right, solar, wind, etc. work reliably. Being less dependent on your local utility is a good thing. Which one should a smart building owner/manager lean toward?

Well, it is best to optimize both strategies, but in a particular order. It is tempting to install solar panels or a wind turbine right away. It’s a great “show” piece for stakeholders, incentives are available in many places, and prices are coming down. But it is best to emphasize energy efficiency first. Have a thorough energy audit performed by an experienced, certified (P.E., CEM, or CEA) professional. That auditor will undoubtedly identify multiple smart strategies to save energy, with numbers demonstrating that each potential strategy will pay back the initial costs for the strategy in a reasonable amount of time, taking into account local incentives. Do not take the numbers literally. For example, if a payback of a certain strategy is listed as 3.2 years, it may end up being a little shorter or longer because factors involved in the audit and calculations are changeable. However, in a well-performed audit, the real payback is usually close to the predicted. Seriously consider and implement one or more listed strategies in the audit report that your company is comfortable addressing. Measure and note the decline in electricity or gas/oil usage. Remember that most energy efficiency projects have other benefits that renewable energy does not confer, such as improved productivity and reduced O&M costs and efforts. So you are getting these confirmed financial advantages relatively early.

Now that energy usage has been reduced and efficiency improved, you can consider alternative sources of energy. Solar panels and wind turbines are improving in effectiveness and reducing in price in time, so a slight delay in their procurement is probably in your favor. But more important, with energy usage minimized, now you can design the proper sized and placed system, reducing the upfront costs. If you bring down your electricity usage, say 20% because of improved efficiency (better lights, plug load, improved weatherization, upgraded HVAC), that could reduce the number of solar panels or wind turbines needed to reach your goals, reducing the capital costs you would need to get from Financial or any type of loan you may take out. And this will reduce the labor needed to install the equipment and leave you room on your roof or property for other things.

Sources estimate that currently energy efficiency typically costs one-third to half the full cost of rooftop solar. Therefore, it makes sense to prioritize efficiency before sizing a rooftop system, reducing the number of panels needed. For example, if a 40 kW commercial solar system can be reduced to 30 KW because of reduced need for power (improved efficiency), then the upfront cost for the panels can be reduced by $15,000 or more, a financial incentive to optimize energy efficiency first. It would not be good to install a large system and then after implementing energy efficiency projects find out that such a large system was not needed after all for the long-term future. Obviously, the exact numbers may vary based on efficiency and renewable energy incentives available.

CCES has the experts to perform a thorough and useful energy audit of any building type, providing normally multiple smart strategies to reduce energy usage effectively and at a reasonable payback. We can project manage the strategies you select to ensure that you get the maximum benefits (on top of utility cost savings) of the selected upgrade. And then we can help you decide on which renewable energy source is right for your building and work with established vendors to ensure that a good system is installed, providing you with maximum benefits and is smooth to operate. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6820.

Congress Votes for Clean Energy with Omnibus Bill

On March 23, 2018, President Trump signed the much ballyhooed 2018 Omnibus Spending Bill contained spending and resources for many industries and groups, including for energy efficiency. The Consolidated Appropriations Act (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4417591-FY-2018-Omnibus.html) passed by Congress disregarded major cuts in spending proposed by the administration and instead raised funding in many areas that Congress favored, including federal programs that help consumers and businesses save energy. President Trump reluctantly signed the bill, enabling several programs to be re-established.

Overall, the bill increases funding for energy efficiency programs at the USDOE and maintains funding levels for such programs at the USEPA. The bill maintains current funding levels for ENERGY STAR® and other programs that give consumers and businesses information to select energy-efficient products. The USEPA’s laboratory, where vehicle certification testing and research occurs, was not cut.

There had been concern that funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy would be cut. Instead, the USDOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy will see an overall increase in funding of 11%. The Building Technologies and Vehicle Technologies Offices will each receive an increase of 10% more funding. The Bill also includes a 10% increase for the Weatherization Assistance Program. It should be noted that the USDOE’s Equipment and Building Standards Program was cut by 7%.

It is ironic that Republicans in Congress strongly supported such programs that are also supported by environmentalists and by those wishing to fight Climate Change. However, Republicans supported these programs because they represent “clean energy” and cost savings, something they recognize the US needs to stay in the lead at globally. Several Republicans whose states stand to gain from these technologies, such as Ohio, which has several wind turbine manufacturing plants, supported these measures.

In addition to the funding, the Bill also addressed financial incentives for energy projects. For example, the combined heat and power (CHP) market will get a boost from the extension of the federal tax credit for such projects. The tax credit can benefit the owner or an operator of its CHP system or a 3rd party owner selling power to the utility through a power purchase agreement. It is anticipated that more investors will take an interest in microgrids and CHP, including utilities, to spread the risk of power delivery. This would be an interesting development as utilities for quite some time fought hard to discourage microgrids as unfair competition against their large grid service.

Finally, the Bill reinstates the IRS tax deduction for energy efficient upgrades of buildings called EPACT (Section 179D), going back to January 1, 2017 and is valid through December 31, 2018. EPACT provides a potential tax deduction up to $1.80 per square foot for certain energy upgrades.

CCES has the experts and experience to assist you in performing energy efficiency evaluations and implementing the projects with the maximum financial benefits for the building owner and manager, including getting the greatest incentives from appropriate agencies and tax deductions. Contact us at karell@CCESworld.com or 914-584-6720.

Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rise for 1st Time in 3 Years

The International Energy Agency (IEA) announced that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions rose by 1.4% in 2017, the first rise in three years. GHG emissions have reached a historic high of 32.5 gigatonnes (Gt), a resumption of growth after three years of global emissions remaining flat. See https://www.iea.org/geco/. The increase in CO2e emissions, however, was not universal. While most major nations saw rises, some others experienced declines, including the U.S., United Kingdom, Mexico and Japan. The biggest decline came in the U.S., mainly because of growing installation of renewable sources of energy.

Improvements in global energy efficiency slowed down in 2017. The rate of decline in global energy intensity, the energy consumed per unit of economic output, slowed to only 1.6% in 2017, lower than the 2.0% decline in energy intensity seen in 2016.

The greatest growth in global energy demand was in Asia. China and India together represented over 40% of the increase. Energy demand in all advanced economies contributed over 20% of global energy demand growth, although their share in total energy use continued to fall.

Notable growth was also registered in Southeast Asia (which accounted for 8% of global energy demand growth) and Africa (6%), although per capita energy use in these regions still remains well below the global average.
In November 2017, the US EIA projected that growth in global CO2e emissions from energy-related sources will slow to 0.6% per year through 2040 despite increased energy consumption.

CCES has the experts to help your firms understand the technical aspects of all climate change rules and to help you organize a successful Climate Change or Energy program for diverse company types. We have helped others benefit! Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Debate Over How US Consumers and Businesses Will Be Affected by Changes To CAFE Standards

On April 2, 2018, the USEPA took initial steps to roll back Obama-era rules that mandated that automobile manufacturers meet ambitious mileage and emission standards (Corporate Average Fuel Economy or CAFE) from cars sold in the US by 2025. The most recent CAFÉ standards that the Trump Administration wishes to reverse were set in 2012 and mandated an average fuel economy of cars and trucks of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025. At that time, the USEPA estimated that meeting such a limit would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion tons per year and reduce total oil usage by 12 billion barrels over the cars’ lifetime. The announcement did not say to what level the USEPA would change the required fuel economy requirement – back to the pre-2012 level or something in between.

US automakers argued that the current standards for 2025 were too difficult and costly for car manufacturers to meet and would likely cause car prices to rise significantly and/or force manufacturers to produce a fleet of cars for sale not reflective of what US consumers want. Each of these could hurt the U.S. economy. In addition, some business interests point to research studies that indicate that reducing gasoline consumption in the transportation sector is not as effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to reducing energy use in the residential building sector. (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0739456X17729438)

Historically, California has requested and received the right to enforce stricter standards than the nationwide one given its smog issues. However, the USEPA indicated they may fight California and any other state that may wish to maintain the 54.5 mpg standard. California subsequently did. Several car manufacturers stated that it would be difficult to build and sell fleets of cars having to meet different mileage requirements for California (and other states that may follow it) and for the rest of the US. Leaders from states representing one-third of the US car market stated support for the current standards; it is unknown how many will follow through.

On the other hand, several business groups issued statements against the proposed roll back of fuel economy standards, stating that such actions would undermine the global competitiveness of the US auto industry at a time when the larger world market is prioritizing cleaner vehicles and those that use less gasoline, and save consumers and businesses (which are major customers for automobiles and trucks) significant costs. Other statements pointed out that the aggressive fuel economy standard would also reduce the US’s dependence on oil, reduce climate risk, create jobs, and by saving costs at the gas pump, give US consumers more discretionary spending opportunities, growing the overall economy. Strong fuel economy standards also offer automakers flexibility to keep market share by selling fuel efficient vehicles during periods when gasoline prices spike.

Given the recent tumult and controversy at the USEPA and its Administrator, Scott Pruitt, it is unknown whether the agency will modify the CAFÉ Standards, how drastically, and when and how. But this will likely result in lawsuits and other actions.

CCES has the experts to help your firm keep up on the technical aspects of federal and state environmental rules so you can make informed decisions. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@ccesworld.com.