With widespread and well-publicized incidents, such as huge forest fires, more severe storms, and draught and destruction, many countries and private entities are implementing actions or putting pressure on others to address Climate Change in advance of the annual global United Nations COP 26 discussions in November 2021.

220 financial institutions with assets over US$29 trillion have asked 1,600 companies worldwide to urgently set science-based emissions reduction targets in line with a 1.5°C scenario, ahead of the major COP 26 meeting in November in Glasgow, Scotland.

The companies targeted are thought to account for more emissions than the annual total of the US and EU combined.

Companies are being urged to set emissions reduction targets through the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) to ensure that their climate targets are independently verified, credible and robust. Studies have shown that companies with science-based targets in place have typically cut emissions by 6.4% per year, well above the average rate needed for alignment with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

The 2021 SBT Campaign is being coordinated by non-profit CDP (formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project) which runs a well-known carbon and environmental reporting system.

A number of large corporates with key global supply chains and US$500 billion in annual procurement (including L’Oréal, Renault, AstraZeneca and HP) have also joined financial institutions in asking for science-based targets.

In an announcement that portends substantial regulatory changes, the head of the US EPA Chemicals Office announced a shift in policy to further regulate chemicals within manufactured goods or finished products. The change would mean that importers, manufacturers, and processors will need to know the chemicals in manufactured or finished goods and assess whether the US EPA restricts those chemicals.

The US EPA announced these changes during remarks to the Product Stewardship Society on September 28, 2021. The US EPA already viewed chemicals in manufactured or finished goods as subject to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), shifting years of policy in which the agency carved out exemptions for certain products.

Since the beginning of the Biden Administration, regulatory actions by the US EPA on persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals show how the agency may impose this new view on regulating articles under TSCA.

• In January 2021, the US EPA issued regulations for five PBT chemicals, which restricted the presence of some of these chemicals in products or articles, starting in 2021, with some compounds receiving an extension as certain industries were not given enough notice to find substitutions.
• In June 2021, the US EPA issued a proposed rule that would require reporting from importers of articles containing polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, known as “forever” chemicals. The rule would require manufacturers and importers of articles that contain at least one listed PFAS chemical in any year since January 1, 2011, to report on PFAS uses, production volumes, disposals, and hazards.

These actions indicate that the US EPA under the new Administration is taking environmental impacts and public health very seriously.

Please note that this article is not a legal discussion about these rules and policies. If you are considering taking action based on any of these items, you must discuss it thoroughly with a qualified legal professional.

CCES has the technical experts to help your company and operations reduce its chemical- or health-based impacts on workers and neighbors, avoiding potential fines and enforcement penalties. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

In the absence of federal legislation to address Climate Change and to improve the reliability of delivery of different energy sources (infrastructure), a number of states and cities are passing legislation. While any action is better than inaction on these matters, this is also resulting in a “quilt” of different requirements all intended to address primarily local issues affecting those states and cities.

Texas

Remember the big winter storm much earlier this year that led to zero-degree temperatures throughout Texas and power plants to fail because of freezing? It got lost in the next news cycle, but in response to it, the Texas Legislature passed several bills to address energy-related issues, including imposing weatherization requirements on electric generation and transmission assets and on some of natural gas infrastructure, and a redesign of the electric market to ensure grid reliability.

All that said, officials are also working to help Texas increase energy generation to respond to growth and have adequate energy reserves. This includes encouraging implementation of electric generation resources that can respond within 30 minutes and provide uninterruptible power for 24 hours and encouraging investment (incentives) for new thermal generation.

Boston

On October 5, 2021, Boston enacted an amendment of its current ordinance called Building Energy Reporting and Disclosure (BERDO), imposing greenhouse gas emissions performance standards on existing buildings, with the goal of achieving zero emissions from large buildings by 2050. Now they along with New York City (Local Law 97) and Washington, D.C. have such performance standards on buildings.

BERDO now contains greenhouse gas emissions standards that applicable buildings must meet beginning in 2025, measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per square foot. All energy usage for a building must be accounted for, excluding emergency backup power and EV charging. BERDO has some flexibility for compliance. For example, certain owners can apply for an “Individual Compliance Schedule”, that must ultimately plan for emission reductions of at least 50% by 2030 and 100% by 2050. Owners may also qualify for a “Hardship Compliance Plan” for those with financial hardships, certain affordable housing, historic buildings, and those with long-term, pre-existing energy contracts.

BERDO presents potential compliance strategies, besides energy efficiency and fuel switching, to achieve the required GHG emissions reductions, such as renewable energy measures, such as Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) Class I eligible Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with non-CO2e emitting renewable sources. Fines for excessive emissions ($234 per metric ton of CO2e exceedance will be placed into an “Equitable Emissions Investment Fund” to support local emissions reduction projects within Boston.

Oregon

On September 25, 2021, a sweeping climate change rule for retail electricity generation in Oregon went into effect. H.B. 2021 sets aggressive GHG emission reductions targets for electricity sold to Oregonians, including 100% GHG-free electricity by mid-century.

HB 2021 has interim targets, such as 80% non-GHG emitting by 2030 and 90% by 2035. Non-GHG emitting includes hydropower and nuclear. Provisions encourage community-based renewable energy projects and encourage environmental justice.

Oregon is now one of 17 states to severely restrict usage of GHG-emitting energy sources for electricity generation by mid-century.

Please note that this is not a legal evaluation of these new laws, but one written by an engineer. Therefore, making any decisions based on these new rules, please consult a qualifying legal professional.

CCES has the technical experts to assess your company’s equipment and operations and significantly reduce your GHG emissions and maximize the financial benefits for you. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

OK. You need to cut back on energy usage for any of several reasons (cost savings must be realized, new regulations, general upkeep). Switching to LED lights is one of the “low hanging fruits” of energy efficiency. LED bulbs and tubes are fantastic in energy efficiency and longevity with a payback often of two years or less and cost savings lasting many more years, with a decrease in O&M, too. However, which LEDs to install, how, and where are critical questions to determine the success of your upgrade project.

Let’s assume that funds are not there to replace all lights, but only some. Which fixtures should be replaced to get the greatest gain? The best payback will occur when LEDs replace less efficient types of lighting, such as halogen and incandescents bulbs, where LEDs can reduce electric usage by over 75%. Electric use reduction of compact fluorescents or T8/T12 tubes is solid, but not as large as for the others. If performance or O&M is important, then you may wish to prioritize upgrading to LEDs in critical or in hard-to-reach areas, such as for security or in parking lots or on high ceilings or outdoors. LEDs last longer than other types, meaning less frequent replacements would be needed, including in cold, rain/snow, or other uncomfortable conditions.

It is critical to consider your current fixtures and whether they are compatible with LED lights. An old, ineffective ballast can reduce the electric savings of LEDs and potentially damage the new LEDs, endangering their warranty. While it will cost more upfront, it may be in your financial and mental interest to remove old ballasts and retrofit the fixtures or purchase all new fixtures to accommodate and get the best out of new LEDs.

Another consideration of where to prioritize LEDs is the area of use. Incandescents, CFLs, fluorescents, etc. generate significant heat, necessitating them to be placed in glass. LED bulbs, because they generate much less heat, can and typically are encased in shatterproof plastic, making them the better choice for places where light fixtures may be hit, such as in schools and gyms.

I have just given you some tips on where you may wish to prioritize if you cannot change all of your lights to LEDs at once. However, I hope you can initiate a complete upgrade to LEDs to get the maximum financial and operational benefits sooner. One more consideration to implement the entire change at once is incentives. In many parts of the country, the local utility or state offers incentives to re-pay you part of the upfront cost of the LED and fixture upgrade. However, the benefits of switching to LEDs illustrated here, particularly the cost savings, and the fact that the cost of LEDs has been coming down has gotten some agencies to wonder whether incentives are necessary any more. LEDs is such a good deal even without incentives. It is thought that more and more utilities and government entities will reduce and potentially eliminate such incentives and rebates in the next couple of years. Thus, now is the time to take advantage to get the greatest return from an upgrade to LED lights.

CCES has the experts and experience to assess your facility and determine how to maximize the financial and operational benefits of switching to LEDs for your specific facility and needs. Reduce energy costs significantly and improve productivity, too. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

The UN’s IPCC issued its 6^th Assessment Report on the physical state of global Climate Change on August 7, 2021, ten years after the prior one.

While there was some doubt 10 years ago, this report declares: “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.” More important, the rate of the temperature rise is itself rising. Global surface temperatures are 1.09⁰C higher between 2011 to 2020 compared to 1900, with over 90% of this rise due to human activities.

The rate of sea level rise has increased, as well, to 3.7 mm per year in the last decade, compared to 1.3 mm per year from 1900-1971 and 1.9 mm per year from 1971-2006.

In 2019, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations were higher than at any time in at least 2 million years (high confidence), and concentrations of CH₄ and N₂O were higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years (very high confidence).

The report documents that human-induced Climate Change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region of the world, such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones since the previous report.

The report provides five potential future scenarios and how the world will react. In all cases, global temperatures will rise until at least mid-century. Global warming of 1.5°C to 2°C will be exceeded during this century unless deep reductions in GHGs occur in the coming decades.

The most optimistic scenario (#1) has the world reducing GHG emissions to zero by just after 2050. In that scenario, global temperatures will still rise by about 1.5⁰C by 2050 and 1.6⁰C by 2100. In the most pessimistic scenario (#5), GHG emissions will double from 2015 rates by 2050 and continue to rise from there. Global temperatures are predicted to rise by 2.4⁰C by 2060 and by 4.4⁰C (8⁰F) by 2100. Scientists have already predicted that our planet can only tolerate a rise of only another 1.5⁰C before major effects are felt.

The report projects that further global warming will further intensify the variability of the water cycle, increasing global monsoon precipitation and severity of wet and dry events. Many changes due to past and future increased GHG emissions are irreversible for centuries, especially changes in the ocean, ice sheets and global sea level.

The report clearly states that we have no more time to waste or ponder. Major reductions in CO₂ and other GHG emissions must begin soon and we must get to net zero CO₂ emissions by mid-century or else there may be permanent changes to our sea levels and ocean currents, affecting us for centuries to come.

CCES can help you develop and implement a Climate Change plan to reduce your emissions of GHGs. Contact us today at 914-584-6720.

Sustainability is more than just a corporate goal; it is becoming a personal goal of more and more people. How can we as individuals reduce our impact on the planet. One area of focus has been our overall large consumption of meat. According to Forbes, beef consumption results in 60 kg CO_2e produced per kg of beef, over twice the greenhouse gas production of the next meat on the list, lamb, and triple the production from cheese.

With this as motivation, several companies are trying to create a plant-based product that has the same taste and consistency of beef, most prominent being Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods. Studies show that these products produce 10 to 13 times less CO_2e compared to a same-sized hamburger. In addition, the ingredients of these products use less land and significantly less water. Both products have grown in sales tremendously in the past 5 years and can be found in many fast-food restaurants as “healthy” alternatives to hamburgers, filleted chicken, and other meat products. CNBC predicts the market for meat substitutes to reach $2.5 billion by 2023.

According to Beyond Meat, ingredients for its plant-based patties include water, pea protein isolate, expeller-pressed canola oil, refined coconut oil, rice protein and other natural flavors, including apple extract and beet juice extract (for color). Ingredients for Impossible Foods burger include water, soy protein concentrate, coconut oil, sunflower oil, potato protein, soy leghemoglobin (a group of protein found in animals and plants) and other natural flavors.

While avoiding the saturated fats found in beef is positive from a health standpoint, some are beginning to question whether eating foods with so many highly processed ingredients is healthy. It appears that in getting them to taste the same as beef burgers, plant-based burgers have about the same amount of sodium and saturated fat as traditional burgers and that may not be so good for the public’s health.

However, there is the thought that such plant-based “meat” may be useful as a transition food, helping wean people off of meat products. Most Americans would not enjoy eating a full vegetarian diet because their taste buds are used to a diet that includes high fat and processed foods.

In the same token, the environmental benefits of the Beyond Meat and Impossible Burger make them the right choice.

CCES has the experts to provide advice on helping your company be more sustainable in your operations, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and water usage. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Many companies do not realize the high cost of energy for their operations impacting their bottom line – not just the direct costs, but also money spent indirectly for energy in the supply chain and for outsourced work. Yet many firms approach energy as merely just another cost to be managed. Get the bills, pay it, and little else. This bypasses opportunities to reduce cost significantly and, also reduce risk and improve resilience.

While that alone is moving energy up many corporate priorities, recent strong social and environmental trends, such as recent Climate Change-related disasters, are bringing this issue to the table. Adding on the vageries of availability of some energy sources, greater scrutiny about corporate carbon footprints and environmental performance, and innovations in energy technologies make corporate energy policy more important and provides the opportunity to outshine one’s competition and create value.

Is this real or just nice talk? One example is Microsoft. As written by several writers. Electricity used to be an afterthought for Microsoft. Turn the PC on, and it goes on. Turn the data center on, and it goes on. But with the growth and complexity of systems, Microsoft realized that electricity was critical in its operations and products, particularly its availability and price volatility. As their systems grew, Microsoft realized it was one of the biggest electricity users in the country. Under growing pressure, it developed and implemented firm-wide goals on energy efficiency and on moving toward renewable sources, saving it lots of cost and placing it as a perceived environmental leader.

OK, so your firm is not Microsoft. What can you do to manage your energy use and maximize the opportunities?

1. Let Energy Be Heard. It is impossible to make or implement a beneficial energy policy without the clear-cut structure of a group and direct involvement from the CEO. Experienced professionals need to be engaged (from the outside or within) and get support from many throughout the organization, most important the CEO who can ensure that goals move forward. Goals must be formulated and communicated and accountability ensured.
2. Don’t Skip The Basics. There is a tendency to want to get the answers first. But it’s important to define the questions and get basic answers first. How much energy does the company use, how much does it cost, and which areas use the most? A thorough energy audit should be conducted early on to answer these questions. Then you can tackle the questions of how to best reduce energy usage and cost, where can the use of renewables make sense, and how do these align with company expectations? Or, in other words, understand your risk factors and opportunities for gains.
3. Develop Comprehensive Goals. Once you understand the company’s full energy profile, now you can develop an action plan to ensure fuel availability at lower costs and how that will impact one’s carbon footprint. You can focus on the areas deemed most inefficient. However, one important tip is do not ignore the rest of the operations, the parts that do not appear to need upgrading. It is also important to manage your entire operations, especially growth in business areas doing well. While you may get savings from upgrading inefficient portions, the savings could be short-lived and balanced out by growth in areas that are efficient. Be aware of and account for overall future growth. Don’t forget to consider opportunities for your suppliers to reduce energy usage, which you pay for indirectly.
4. Shift To Renewable Or Flexible Energy Sources. The group’s analysis should also look forward at your current energy sources and determine will they still be available 10, even 20 years in the future or might changes happen that will reduce its availability or raise its price. Try to analyze which fuels are anticipated to be available and plentiful and build operations to use these so the company is not painted into a corner in the future. And consider renewable technology, such as solar, wind, and geothermal, where the source is free and the costs have dropped markedly.
   CCES has the experts to help your firm analyze your energy profile – to perform the energy audit to create a full understanding of your energy usage and demand and to evaluate and develop robust, long-term strategies to reduce energy usage and cost and maximize opportunities for growth. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

On June 17, 2021, the USEPA agreed to reconsider the August 2020 NESHAP: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (the “MON Rule”). The MON rule is the first USEPA rule to use the 2016 toxicity values from IRIS. Responding to five petitions, the USEPA granted reconsideration that more stringent standards are required for the MON sector, particularly for ethylene oxide (EtO), given more data that EtO may result in a greater carcinogenic risk than previously thought. 

EtO is a flammable, colorless gas used to sterilize medical equipment and common in the chemical industry in manufacturing many common products. The revised 2016 IRIS risk assessment for EtO characterized the chemical as a more potent carcinogen for humans by inhalation than previously understood. However, critics claim that the USEPA used improper statistical modeling that resulted in an overestimation of the risk of EtO exposure. Texas, home to many chemical industries, performed an in-depth review of the 2016 assessment and claimed scientific deficiencies and that EtO is a less potent carcinogen than the USEPA estimated in its 2016 report.

The USEPA declared that it would use 2016 IRIS risk values for future rulemaking, including for the December 2019 proposed MON Rule and an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making: NESHAP: Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization and Fumigation Operations. The MON Rule was finalized in August 2020 with the USEPA not addressing comments regarding the validity of the 2016 IRIS values.

The USEPA will now do a more formal review of the generation of the 2016 IRIS risk values and modify the MON Rule accordingly, if necessary.

Besides the effects on EtO emission regulations, the USEPA’s actions on EtO may suggest how the agency will proceed on other outstanding chemical and toxics issues, such as formaldehyde, a naturally occurring chemical found in a variety of products, such as construction materials, insulation, glues, paints, and in plywood and particleboard used in consumer products like cabinets, flooring, and furniture. Formaldehyde is also used as a preservative in medical laboratories and mortuaries.

Like with EtO, the USEPA issued an IRIS risk assessment for formaldehyde in 2010. It underwent much scientific criticism. 11 years later, the USEPA has still not addressed the formaldehyde IRIS criticisms and confirmed or updated its level of toxicity.

2016 amendments to TSCA require the USEPA to conduct risk evaluations for certain high-priority chemicals to determine whether each presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, under the conditions of common use. The USEPA must exclude cost considerations and base decisions on the weight of scientific evidence.

Last year, the Trump Administration issued final TSCA risk evaluations for the first 10 high-priority chemicals. In February 2021, the Biden Administration announced that it will revisit the final TSCA risk evaluations for these 10 chemicals.

CCES has the technical experts to help you assess the quantity and toxicity of air emissions from your various processes and facility. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Marc Karell is the owner of the consulting firm Climate Change & Environmental Services, LLC (website: www.CCESworld.com). He is a licensed professional engineer (P.E.) in the State of New York with over 30 years of technical consulting experience in the areas of energy, climate change, sustainability, and air and environmental compliance. He is also a Certified Energy Manager and an Existing Building Commissioning Professional with a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering from Columbia University.

Marc has a passion for environmental and energy issues and started his firm, CCES, in 2009. Since then, Marc has served a wide variety of client types, large and small, to help them deal with issues involving energy and the environment. He knows these are new, confusing, technical subjects. However, there is opportunity out there and a company making the right technical choices can benefit tremendously financially and stay ahead of the competition. Marc provides technical options to firms.

In addition, CCES has no employees besides Marc. He will gladly bring in technical specialists, when needed, for a client. And CCES clients know that Marc, with 30+ years of experience, will be intimately involved in their projects and is responsible for their success. No young “kid” right out of school will be thrown out there to perform evaluations for you!

Marc has extensive experience performing ASHRAE Level I, II, and III energy audits for diverse building types (such as office buildings, schools, warehouses, and multi-families) in the New York City Metropolitan area and nationally. Marc also performs building retro-commissioning evaluations, to assure building owners that their systems are operating optimally (they are getting their money’s worth). Marc has combined both his energy auditing and retro-commissioning experience to help dozens of buildings comply with New York City’s Local Law 87, mandatory energy auditing and retro-commissioning for large buildings, discovering many opportunities for savings in buildings. Marc uses this knowledge to perform project management projects for clients to ensure that energy savings are fully realized in the actual implementation of upgrades.

Marc also performs greenhouse gas emission inventories (carbon footprints), green building assessments, and has led training to ensure that operators understand how to maintain their energy upgrade strategies so that they continue to benefit the building in the future.

Marc also performs evaluations of air emissions from commercial and industrial processes, including emission inventories, design of air pollution control equipment, permitting, and evaluation of potential health effects of air toxics.

Marc has performed successful projects for such major firms as ExxonMobil, Alberto-Culver, Toyota, Regeneron, Cytec, New York Medical College, the United Nations, and the New York Archdiocese.

Marc Karell can be reached at 914-584-6720 or at Karell@CCESworld.com. Do not hesitate to contact him for a free preliminary consultation. Good luck in your environmental and clean energy journey!

Large companies spend billions of dollars directly on energy each year. We used to think that only traditional manufacturers are dependent on energy. But now that we live in a data-driven world, even “office-based” companies depend on electricity to save and manage data in huge data centers. Imagine the impact on them of even a brief electrical interruption. Yet most firms still approach energy as just another cost on their ledgers, overlooking the risks of energy shortages or losses and the opportunities to reduce risk, improve resilience, and create new value.

Many firms are treating energy as a higher priority due to business trends, changes in energy technologies, the realities of Climate Change, and changing costs of energy sources. All companies that need energy (and that’s nearly everyone) need to study and track trends and evaluate risks and opportunities to save costs and create value.

Here are some issues to consider, even if your firm is fairly small and simple in operation.

Energy Availability

Questions:  Where do you get your energy from? Do you know it will be reliable and affordable in the future?

Concern:  If you are a simple firm and get your electricity from the grid and natural gas from a utility, how reliable is service? While the U.S. has a power infrastructure, much of it is now old. Also, while some parts of the country have grown, the ability to provide it energy has lagged (i.e., Texas), as this can be a high hundred million-dollar investment by a utility, who won’t make it unless it is sure of success and, even if they do, will take time to implement. Utilities in a growing number of areas have stated they cannot guarantee meeting full demand for energy, especially on hot summer days. Costs will rise, too. Might high costs and potential interruptions in delivery affect your business?

Strategies to Consider:  Consider having backup energy sources. Consider the costs involved to develop and maintain vs. potential losses if you must stop operations. Your own power generation, maintenance of batteries, and dual fuel boilers are potential backup energy sources to better ensure you do not get an interruption of energy.

Renewable Energy

Questions:  Does it really work?  Will it benefit my business? Is it a pain to maintain?

To consider:  Renewable energy works and it is cheaper than ever. In fact, from a utility point of view, a solar or wind farm is cheaper to build and maintain than an oil- or coal-fired power plant of the same output. If your facilities have proper roofs without blockage (from trees or hills), then solar can be an affordable alternative to provide electricity. If your facilities have space, geothermal energy for heating and cooling can be a safer and cheaper alternative to combusting a fuel for heat and using electric for cooling. With utility and government incentives, this may be a good financial investment giving you a good alternative source. Do consider that renewable sources have their drawbacks, too, and you may wish to do overall planning to give you flexibility.

Investing in Energy Efficiency

Question:  For a simple company, is it worth the effort to invest in energy efficiency?

To Consider:  There is no simple answer to this question. One size does not fit all. Each company and operation is unique. However, there has been literally a revolution in advancements in technology where many types of energy-using equipment are much more energy efficient than they were just 5 years ago. In many projects I’ve managed, the ROI for energy upgrade projects has been 20, 30, even more % per year. In other words, the money put into the efficiency project made that equivalent amount of “yield” in terms of avoided cost to the utility. A lot better than investing in a bank, right?

However, one must approach energy efficiency smartly and not just change “willy-nilly”. One example, a small company rejected a proposal to change their many lights in a professional, thorough manner to LEDs, as the CEO said he and his brother would just go to the local hardware store, buy LEDs and install them themselves. Well, things “happened” and they never got around to the project for quite some time, paying a premium for the added time the old lights were still operating. And buying the cheapest LEDs in the store and not evaluating the fixtures increased the likelihood of failure. Evaluating the fixtures that would hold the tubes and buying the best (and not necessarily the cheapest) will guarantee them lasting without a change for 7 or more years. Getting them from the local store: risk of quick failure without a warrantee.

Another example, a school selected a vendor for solar panels solely on the cheapest price. Well, some panels failed and others did not provide the output expected.

In summary, energy efficiency can save even a small firm significant cost. And the one-time effort, again, if done smartly, will save the company costs year after year and ensure reliable use of equipment. Therefore, even small firms should devote – invest – resources in evaluating their energy usage and use it more effectively, with no reduction in reliability of operations.

CCES has the experts to advise your company or entity on ways to diversify your energy supply and to evaluate technical strategies for more reliable and cheaper power for your operations. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.