Normally, December is the month in this newsletter that I delve into areas outside science and engineering and to more philosophical and business matters. But here is another article to contemplate as we begin a new year. One of the greatest dilemmas we face in running or managing a business is change; in other words, whether to “stay the course” or make changes. Making the right, or rather, avoiding the wrong, choice could be existential for your business or running your building.

It is rare that one experiences “smooth sailing” in running a business or building for a significant amount of time. Approaches may work now, but issues or barriers normally come up in time. How do you even recognize that a little problem is a little “speedbump” or a sign of issues to come?  Is the new issue temporary and, in time, will resolve itself? In other words, is it OK to ignore it? Or might it be the beginning of a cascade of problems? And, if so, is it a sign to change your approach or even the way you operate? Finally, even if important issues are not coming up, does it make sense to incorporate change anyway to prevent potential issues from coming up and/or not becoming stale?

I don’t have answers for these questions. Obviously, it all depends on the individual business, building, and circumstances, both markets and personalities. But remember that while buildings and businesses can be considered set “structures”, the circumstances they live in do change. Especially, we, as energy and environmental engineers, should be cognizant of that. Things change – technologies, economics, staffing – and we need to recognize that. We engineers should certainly keep up with new technologies, laws, and trends in our own specialty, but also think about the bigger picture, how it affects us and our businesses. Should we ourselves change course, and, if so, how drastically and when? In addition, we should use information about changing conditions in our consulting and be able to provide information on such changes to our clients and colleagues and anticipate how it might affect them.

For example, there are major changes occurring in New York City in the climate action and energy efficiency areas. While energy efficiency has been applauded and awarded with incentives, it was not mandatory. Now it is. Local Law 97, which went into effect in 2019, mandates energy efficiency or clean energy standards be met by 2024 or the building owner faces high fines. Six-figure fines. CCES has helped several building owners and managers deal with the implications of this change and go forward with smart projects to reduce energy usage to eliminate any potential fine. But I also have discussed LL 97 with several building owners at risk yet are ignoring the law and risk massive fines. In one old commercial building in a poorer section of NYC, the building was simultaneously heating and cooling the spaces and was using very inefficient lighting. When I calculate a potential high fine if such usage continued, the owners shrugged their shoulders and ignored the warning. They ignored a major change.

Hoping for this new year, that you confront the new challenges and barriers that come up in your business and you think it through and execute smart strategies in reaction.

CCES can help your firm anticipate issues in the energy and environmental realms and develop smart strategies for you to choose from to address them. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720 to discuss at no charge.

We all do this, right? Make some New Year’s resolutions to better ourselves around January 1, swear we’ll follow through, but then give up on them by the end of the month!

Here is one business resolution for you for 2023 that will improve profitability, greatly reduce costs, increase employee and customer satisfaction, and reduce operational costs. Create and implement your own energy management plan. It’s more important than ever. In case you didn’t notice, energy prices soared in the US in 2022, up 13.1% overall. This rise had to impact just about every business. What should you do? Just shrug your shoulders and “take it”? No. You can control costs by developing and implementing energy strategies in 2023! And the cost savings of smart strategies can be enjoyed right in your first billing cycle.

What is an Energy Management Plan? It is simply strategically managing your business’s energy usage to ensure it is there when you need it, at an affordable cost. You can implement smart energy saving projects piecemeal or develop a coordinated strategy to align business practices with energy efficiency.

A strategic energy management plan can help you in 2023 in these ways:
• Reduce your costs. Do you enjoy seeing Bookkeeping writing out a large check to the utility every month? In most cases, you can do the operations your business needs to do but do so using less energy, based on smart, proven, new technologies. An analysis of options and whether it benefits your business can lead to significantly reduced costs and greater equipment reliability.
• Risk reduction. It’s hard to believe, but there are parts of this country whose energy infrastructure is not robust enough to guarantee electric or natural gas supply at all times when needed. Imagine the impacts on your business if you had no power – even for a short time. Your operations, equipment, refrigeration, data center! Being more efficient and having backup sources will reduce your business’s risk of a catastrophic failure and, thus, improve stability when faced with potential outages or high costs.
• Competitive advantage. Any way you can smartly reduce energy costs will put you in an advantageous situation compared to others who don’t address this.
• Customer/Employee satisfaction. A comfortable, well-lit, and, yes, green premises will lead to greater satisfaction among customers and employees lead to increased business and greater workforce retention and talent acquisition, the latter being a very big business advantage in this era of worker shortages.

Start slowly but make your 2023 New Year’s resolution to not accept high energy prices, but to smartly use technology, when applicable, to do better and reap the great benefits.

CCES has the experts to help your business develop such a plan tailored to your needs to be energy efficient and develop backup plans for greater reliability. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com. Happy, healthy, prosperous New Year!

All of the experts and government officials were surprised by the high bids received recently for eight offshore wind leases in the New York Bight. So in early December, an auction was held for bids for leases in five Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) off the central and northern coasts of California that could produce as much as over 6 gigawatts (GW) of power. Five different companies won the bids for one area lease each, totaling over ¾ of a billion dollars. The condition of the lease agreements is that the winning bidders must spend cumulatively over $100 million in workforce training programs for American workers to work on offshore wind installations or in their support.

The US Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) next emphasis is expected to be the Gulf of Mexico. The Biden Administration’s announced the goal of developing 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind energy by 2030. This includes two new WEAs in the Gulf of Mexico with the potential of producing up to 3 GW of power, with additional ones in the future. On October 31, 2022, BOEM announced that it had finalized the first two WEAs in the Gulf of Mexico, comprising of over 500,000 acres located 24 nautical miles off the coast of Galveston, Texas, and almost 175,000 acres located 56 nautical miles off the coast of Lake Charles, Louisiana. BOEM expects to issue a Proposed Sale Notice for the two locations by early 2023. The announcement follows years of planning and public outreach with stakeholders in the region including Tribes, local and state governments, fishing and shrimping interests, the maritime and oil & gas industries, the US Dept of Defense, and the Coast Guard.

The current administration is prioritizing renewable power, and in particular, wind power to meet climate change and clean power goals, and is moving forward on deals that will be difficult for a future administration to overturn or stymie wind power.

CCES has the experts to help you at your level to determine if renewable power is beneficial to you. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

by K.-M. Denyse Jones, REM, CESM, Prorsa Consulting

There are a couple of “shifts” you may be missing, but not necessarily in the primary duties/activities of an environmental consultant.

First, an increase in client/consumer research and the rise in social media use has resulted in more consultants actively educating potential leads/clients on hot environmental issues. Microplastics, environmental justice, sustainability, etc. don’t fall under the traditional definition of environmental risk. But these topics help to educate potential clients and showcase the consultants’ expert knowledge on the larger environmental management discussion.

Second, I believe more environmental professionals are entering the consulting arena as environmental, health, and safety generalists. Thus, these consultants may offer both environmental and health & safety services to clients because they possess experience in both disciplines (I fall into this category). In these cases, consultant posts on health & safety topics would be just as relevant as environmental messages.

In my opinion, the ‘what is’ of environmental consulting has not fundamentally changed. However, the marketing strategies and the background experience of environmental consultants may have.

K-M. Denyse Jones is the Owner & Principal Consultant of Prorsa Consulting.  With more than 15 years of environmental experience, she has worked primarily in the environmental testing, municipal government, mining, and lime industries.  During the last 7 years, Ms. Jones has expanded into the safety arena.  She has participated in multiple EHS management system implementations, been instrumental in developing & maintaining various EHS compliance programs, and conducted numerous professional training classes & public outreach sessions.  Ms. Jones is skilled at performing EHS data analysis, regulatory analysis, audits, and compliance reporting.

Most people think that sustainability is a modern concept – that there was no practical knowledge of it until the last few decades. Research is showing that this is not true. History shows areas and events where sustainability guidelines were successfully followed (perhaps “unknowingly” or not by the precepts of today) and others where sustainability principles were ignored for short-term goals, leading to dire results.

Recent research confirms an example of the latter dating back to Biblical times. As shown in Scientific Reports – Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-18940-z), there was a very active copper industry dating back at least 3,000 years in the Timna Valley of Israel (southern Israel, near the current Jordanian border). In the Bible, this area was known as Edom, and is mentioned as an area of conquest by King David. Biblical writings do not say why he conquered it, but King David and King Solomon built many structures and also needed to support armies. They would have needed the large amount of copper that that area could produce to make bronze and other needed items.

Evidence exists of many earthenware furnaces operating at 2,200°F to extract copper from the plentiful ore by smelting in Edom 3,000 years ago. What fuel did the Edomites use to maintain this heat and produce a lot of usable copper? This is a critical question given that the ore was found in a desert. The answer is trees. Studying over 1,000 charcoal samples, well preserved after all of these years by dry, desert conditions, scientists determined that in those years smelters burned primarily local acacia and white broom trees to produce the necessary heat. Broom trees are mentioned in Psalms in the Bible as an excellent firewood. However, scientists found that charcoal remains from more recent furnaces of that time contained elements not found in these trees. In time, the smelters had to shift the fuel to other types of wood, such as junipers and terebinth, found dozens of miles away. Calculations by the researchers estimated that at its peak the smelters were burning about 400 acacias and 1,800 broom trees per year, a much greater rate than can be regenerated. Bringing in trees to Edom from a distance was not cost-effective and evidence exists that copper smelting stopped there around 800 BC. Thus, to satisfy the short-term demands of kings, the Edomites overexploited the local natural supply of trees, eventually making copper smelting unproductive. Also, by wiping out the supply of these native trees, irreparable damage impacted the local ecosystem, affecting water storage and the soil. This damage still impacts the current Timna Valley to this day. Although no smelting has been done in 2,800 years and there is relatively little human activity in this desert region, only some white broom trees have returned, nowhere near the level of back then, because of the damage to water retention and the soil. Thus, the overuse of trees to support copper smelting 3,000 years ago did damage to the ecology of that region to this day.

An interesting historical and Biblical lesson for us all.

CCES has the experts to help you design processes to be successful in meeting goals and also be sustainable and allow long-term operations at the same time. Contact us today at  karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

It seems that over the past few years, a subtle change has occurred in the US. While before, most major decisions and programs were made by government (the New Deal, sending men to the Moon, Civil Rights Movement), now it appears that corporations are drivers for some social change. Frustrated by inaction to realities by government, more corporations are advocating change. For example, earlier this year the Disney Company had many of its tax advantages taken from them by the State of Florida because it came out against education reform concerning LGBTQ people (“Don’t Say Gay” bill). A number of companies put out statements or boycotted the State of Georgia over a restrictive voting law it promulgated.

The “Great Resignation” of the last two years has impacted company values, too. Many employees stuck at home and contemplating their mortality, left their firms for a higher calling. And when many employees fought the return to the office, companies understood that they had to not just pay their staff better but engage them that their work would result in a higher calling. 2021 and 2022 are certainly the years that companies had to re-examine themselves to what they do and treat their employees.

In this time employees got more sophisticated. Years ago people were influenced by just a small number of people (family, close friends, clergy). Now people have access to many more people with more diverse outlooks giving advice on Facebook, LinkedIn, and others. Where people “bought” general bromides thrown out by corporations and their executives, people are now more weary, non-trusting, and willing to seriously listen to alternative opinions. And while workers earlier used to be quite risk averse about losing their jobs, now more workers are willing to chance it, believing they will weather the storm and find (perhaps better) alternatives elsewhere.

It also used to be that a company was an “island”. The company makes a product that people are willing to pay for and does them good and treats their staff, vendors, etc. fairly. All good. That would be perceived as doing the community good. But companies are not islands anymore in many people’s minds, and people are concerned about a company’s influence on the greater good, such as the planet on environmental and climate matters.

So to keep employees and customers more companies are saying “Buy my product” or “Work for us” because we want to make the world a better place. Great! But how can it prove this point? People are a lot more skeptical than they ever were. You need to get away from slogans; you need proof.

The good news is that some companies are moving in that direction, knowing they have a skeptical public and employees, who want a greater say in the direction of their companies. In addition, in the US, the SEC has proposed new standards to force companies to back up their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) claims.

The statements: “We’re working on it” and “It’s important to us” may no longer be acceptable to more people. Companies will have to develop concrete goals with timelines and measure progress to back up their claims. And goals, lofty or not, need to be directly under the purview of senior management, not given off to middle management who may not be motivated.

Change is hard to measure and comprehend. However, I think one of the big changes that came out of the pandemic is the importance of the greater meaning of work, the need to satisfy the growing curiosity of a more knowledgeable consumer and employee class, and the importance of being upfront about goals and demonstrating that they are real and progress is being made.

CCES has the experts to help you develop and implement environmental and climate goals, show real progress, and communicate these to your stakeholders. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Much research is ongoing to find reliable energy sources, available at all times that emit no greenhouse gases. One example is hydrogen. Combust hydrogen (combine with O₂) and you get water and no CO₂. Plus, it is the most efficient fuel from a weight point of view (Btus produced per unit weight). Unfortunately, unlike coal, oil, natural gas, and even the Sun and wind, which are plentiful naturally, hydrogen is not found in significant quantities naturally. Hydrogen has to be formed from other products, taking energy to do so and, thus, taking away from its net potential. Therefore, ways to generate hydrogen for energy systems cheap and easy are being studied. In addition, hydrogen’s efficiency to supply energy (tendency to explode) makes it a challenge for a facility to transport and store it. Therefore, research must continue to develop easier, more effective ways to manage hydrogen, too.

It is estimated that the current percentage of all global energy generated from hydrogen is 4% and growing. Entities recognize the potential of hydrogen as a GHG-less fuel, but more needs to be developed onto the market in a safe way to grow specifically more.

Fossil fuels are the dominant source (over 95%) for the commercial production of hydrogen, with the largest component being natural gas. Hydrogen can be steam separated from methane (natural gas), leaving CO₂ to manage at a fairly high efficiency. Hydrogen can also be produced by the oxidation of other hydrocarbons, coal gasification, water electrolysis, and biomass gasification. These mainly involve fossil fuel combustion to liberate hydrogen, but some require electricity and renewable sources of energy can be used to reduce its carbon footprint.

The future of using hydrogen for energy requires the decrease in cost and increase in convenience to make and store so much hydrogen to be useful. Recognizing the potential of this clean energy source, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will provide billions of dollars of incentives to perform useful research. The major oil & gas and chemical companies all have research groups dedicated to this.

CCES has the experts to help you evaluate whether your operations may be a good match for hydrogen or other “clean” or renewable technologies. Or a candidate for more efficient equipment as a key way to save energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Contact Marc Karell today at 914-584-6720 or at Karell@CCESworld.com.

This is the 2^nd in a series to help us all – in our homes and work facilities – save energy costs. Average US energy costs in August rose 16% compared to August 2021. Wow! Don’t just “shrug your shoulders”, curse a little, and pay your bill. Well, pay your bill, but remember there are ways to reliably bring down future energy costs. And the beauty of reducing energy usage is that such actions will continue to reduce your energy costs for years to come without having to do anything further. Contrast that to sales. If you increase sales, you have to do it all over again every year. When you install energy efficient equipment, it’s not like you are going to re-install the old, inefficient ones again!

Oh yes. These measures will cost money upfront. Yes, I get it. But smart choices will give you a fast return on investment – certainly better than a typical bank or Wall St. can offer you, without the risk! Potential savings are such to make a project quite affordable.

Lighting. Your buildings have many lights. They’re needed not just to safely walk around, but also for your employees to do their jobs properly and for your customers to navigate around and be satisfied with their choices. If you reduced the number of lights or made them dimmer to save electric costs, you know that would reduce worker output, customer satisfaction, and be a safety issue. Goes without saying, right? What if you can install lights that are just as bright as or brighter than the ones you have, and use less than half the wattage of the old lights you have now? The best of both worlds: save on your electric bill AND improve the lighting of your building or business. It’s possible. A no-brainer.

This is not fantasy; it exists in light emitting diodes (LEDs). LEDs use less than half the wattage of equivalent fluorescents and incandescents and actually produce more light. Competition has brought LED prices down recently. At the same time, incentives from utilities or the government exist to pay part of your upfront cost. But don’t wait. These entities see the financial benefits and are cutting incentives; they’re no longer needed.

And here is another benefit of LEDs. Proper LEDs last 7 to 10 or even more years before needing to be replaced – unlike fluorescents and incandescents, which burn out often in just a couple of years. That means less work and distractions for your O&M crew (stopping work on an important project just to replace a key light somewhere) and lower risk of an accident from fewer trips up and down ladders. More cost savings! And LEDs give off less heat than the others, reducing your cooling demand in the summer, enhancing your AC equipment. Again, going to LEDs is a no brainer. Don’t wait. And one more thing: when you install LEDs, you’ll get and see electric cost savings right away – in your next bill!

All this said, it is not in your interest just to go to the nearest big hardware store, buy LEDs and install them yourself. You need to have the right fixtures and ballasts. Thus, make sure you get an experienced LED vendor to evaluate your existing ballasts and recommend ballast replacement or the proper LED lights; have a licensed electrician do all installations. Yes, this adds to the cost, but is still quite affordable given the great savings; plus, you don’t want to sacrifice the savings due to faulty equipment.

And there are other ways to save electricity usage, demand, and cost with lighting. Review your space and determine whether you need all those lights. Many areas in a building may be overlit. Get the IESNA guide for illumination standards for different operations. If your areas are too dim, that’s another reason to change to LEDs or add additional fixtures. But if some areas are well overlit, consider removing fixtures (“de-lamp”). Going to 0 kWh of electric usage is a great way to save, if it does not affect operations. For example, I audited a school and most of the classrooms had illumination levels of 100 or more foot-candles, when the IESNA standard for classrooms (for proper student learning) is 40 foot-candles. I recommended to the manager to disconnect one fixture near a window (which gets additional sunlight) and see whether any teacher or student even notices, not to mention affects performance. If not, then disconnect a second fixture, etc. until a comfortable lighting level is met, meeting IESNA standards. What’s nice about this is achieving electric cost savings with no upfront cost (just disconnect).

Last lighting tip: consider automated controls. As you review your space, are there periods when the area is not used? If so, consider occupancy sensors (which coordinate well with LEDs) to turn off lights or make them dim when nobody is in the area and then turn them on when someone enters. You might think: “I don’t need controls; I’ll start a campaign with reminders to get people to turn off lights when they leave a room.” This approach has been tried by several major firms, spending much money on researching how to motivate such behavior and for proper reminder signage. Every effort has been a failure. Automated controls works and is another major electric cost saving strategy with a fairly low upfront cost showing up right away in your next bill.

One practical example. I performed an energy audit for a warehouse that used fluorescents to light their warehouse area 24/7. The manager acknowledged that there was one wing which is hardly used (perhaps a worker goes there once per week). I calculated that the simple payback for converting the lights to LEDs with occupancy sensors was just 3 months (the electric bill savings would be so great). The company went ahead and fully installed LEDs and occupancy sensors and determined that my estimate was wrong; it took just under 2 months to get the upfront money back!

CCES has the experts to help you assess your lighting, manage your upgrade with top-line lighting firms, and provide options to save you significant costs right away and improve the comfort and effectiveness of your tenants. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

As this is being published, climate leaders have finished the annual global meeting on Climate Change, the 27th Conference of the Parties (COP 27) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Here are a few items that were discussed and may become areas of movement in the future.

Climate Finance was perhaps the most intensely discussed topic at COP 27. Physical effects of Climate Change are clearly occurring more often and affecting more parts of the world, especially in poorer, developing nations. Developing countries used the meeting to demand funding by industrialized nations for loss and damage from climate-related disasters and funding for adaptation projects to minimize future disasters. While the US and the European Union agreed to discuss this, they refused to agree on any set amount or mechanism for transferring funds. The Chair of the African Union requested $100 billion in Climate financing, but no overall commitment was made. However, several individual countries did pledge funds for loss and damage projects in developing nations, mainly in ones that they used to rule.

Green Transportation. The COP 27 meeting identified an underutilized area with great potential for success in bringing down GHG emissions: sustainable transportation. Implementing more low or zero-emission vehicles and green shipping corridors was a high-priority industry at COP 27. The US was a leader here, announcing success stories about the shipping sector. The US believes that full decarbonization of shipping can be achieved by 2050. The US also led a Collective 2030 Zero-Emissions Vehicle Goal at COP 27, encouraging a collective goal that 50% of vehicles on the road in 2030 be Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs).

Methane Emissions Reduction. Because methane is 21 times more potent as a greenhouse gas, compared to CO2, COP 27 encouraged implementation of methane emission reductions to meet temperature goals. The US, which already promised methane reductions of at least 30% by 2030 from 2020 levels, went further at COP 27. The Biden Administration pledged stronger federal regulations pertaining to oil wells, the largest source of methane in the US, if not the world. Methane leaks from the million active or retired oil/gas wells is having a major impact on Climate Change. Most of the wells are not monitored for leaks. The new proposed federal legislation would do so. There was also discussion at COP 27 about levying an annual fee payable by each nation for total methane leaks within it, payable to the International Monetary Fund.

CCES has the experts to help you understand Climate Change, how it affects you, and what you can do to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions in an economically beneficial way. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

If the US will reach its Paris Climate Agreement goals and individual cities and corporations their greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals, entities will have a lot of emission reductions to do. One fortunate thing about reducing GHG emissions is its positive effect on Climate Change whether you reduce your own GHG emissions within the operations you control or any other GHG emissions around the world. GHGs is a global problem, with GHGs having no special impacts in any region, as far as any research shows. Therefore, reducing GHG emissions outside your operations or your property lines may be more economical than controlling them in house. Reducing another’s GHG emissions is known as “carbon offsets” (offsetting your own emissions by reducing them elsewhere). Reducing GHG emissions beyond what you are required to, resulting in bankable excess emissions, is known as “carbon credits”.

Carbon credits and offsets, including their trading, have been established for nearly two decades in Europe and other parts of the world. However, the concepts are not as well known in the US. With New York City about to implement aggressive GHG emission limits in 2024 and building owners scrambling to comply, the issue of carbon credits has come up. What if a building cannot reasonably reduce their GHG emissions to meet its limit (for example, it must provide residents heat, but does not have natural gas service and, thus, has no choice but to use higher-GHG emitting diesel oil instead)? Local Law 97 in NYC, while not in effect yet, is still evolving. It allows carbon offsets for a building to include in its compliance calculations, but only if it is renewable energy being built and offsetting GHG emissions in New York City proper. Offsetting GHG emissions outside of New York City, while an honorable act, is not recognized in Local Law 97.

Looking at the history of carbon credits and offsets, starting with the Kyoto Protocol in 2005, a framework was created for nations and companies to offset emissions by sponsoring projects far away, particularly encouraging these in developing nations. Such projects generate sellable Certified Emissions Reduction (CER) credits in metric tons of CO2e and can be used towards meeting a GHG Emissions reduction limit or sold for what the market will bear. Such flexibility encourages more such investments and projects. The Kyoto Protocol also established an international carbon credit trading program, allowing excess carbon credits to be monetized globally, further encouraging investment, managed by the World Bank, with credits verified for their validity and transactions (amounts and price) memorialized. This program also manages the sales of other credits, including Renewable Energy Certificates or RECs.

The Paris Agreement of 2015 went further, establishing GHG emission goals for both developing and developed nations. The Paris Agreement established two new programs for creating and trading carbon offsets and credits, with better defined rules on what is a qualifying project and the amount and value of the credits. While the Kyoto Protocol counted one ton of carbon emission offset as one ton of credit, the Paris Agreement changed that to show an overall increase in emission reductions, not the shifting of GHG emissions from one location to another.

The carbon market in Europe and Asia is healthy and thriving with businesses and nations evaluating ways to reduce GHG emissions the most technically- and cost-effectively, and such planning is a fundamental part of many major company’s operations. As portions of the US begin to adopt similar GHG emission reduction rules, the approach that has evolved in Europe may very well be utilized in the US.

CCES has the experts to help your firm determine its carbon “footprint”, your current and historic GHG emissions, and to recommend reliable ways to reduce your footprint, saving you significant cost. We can also investigate offset opportunities to further your flexibility. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.