Category Archives: Climate Change

President Issues Executive Order On Climate-Related Financial Risk

On May 20, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order with a goal of increasing disclosure of climate-related financial risk in both the public and private sectors. As a result, disclosure and reporting obligations regarding climate-related risks will likely increase. The Order called for a comprehensive consideration of climate change-related financial risks, and how they should be communicated to the public and investors.

The Order directs federal policymakers to develop a strategy for identifying and disclosing climate-related financial risk to government programs, assets, and liabilities, including identifying public/private financing needed to reach economy-wide, net-zero emissions by 2050 to limit further temperature rise per the Paris Climate Agreement.

The Order also requires the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to assess climate-related financial risk to the federal government and overall U.S. financial system. The FSOC should discuss the necessity of greater climate-related disclosure by certain entities to mitigate risk to the stability of the financial system and new regulations for identifying and mitigating such risks.

The Order directs the Dept of Labor to identify regulatory actions to assess the threats that climate risk may have to savings and pension plans. This includes reconsidering rules that prohibit investment firms from considering environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in investment decisions related to workers’ pensions.

The Order also requests recommendations for incorporating climate-related financial risk into federal management and reporting, including potential new accounting standards for reporting of such risks. The Order also requests changes to rules that would require that major federal suppliers publicly disclose GHG emissions and climate-related financial risk and set reduction targets. Similarly, lending and grant agencies like Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs are to consider integrating such risk assessment into their lending policies and programs.

The Order also requests the federal government develop regulatory standards for misleading advertising and claims about climate change and sustainability (“greenwashing”) that may result in enforcement actions.

After signing the Executive Order, President Biden included in his FY 2022 budget to Congress $44.0 million in new funding to the Dept of Justice “to advance environmental justice, tackle climate change, and enhance environmental stability.”

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve has established two committees to evaluate climate-related financial risk, examining how climate change affects individual banks.

Please note that this is not a legal analysis of the Executive Order. Consult with qualified legal professionals before pursuing actions or policies concerning this Executive Order. CCES has the technical experts to help you determine your status concerning GHG emissions and sustainability. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Consumer Tastes Are Changing To Eco-friendly

One item that will surely dictate how we address Climate Change and other environmental issues is public sentiment. If such sentiment at the ballot box and at the store favors environmentally-friendly candidates and products, the message will have gone out to politicians and companies and moves will be made to, for example, combat Climate Change. If the “same old” candidates win elections and products are purchased in stores, then no significant change will likely happen.

Consumers have been slowly prioritizing sustainability choices. In a 2019 Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PwC) Global Consumer Insights Survey, 35% of respondents said they chose sustainable products to help protect the environment and 41% said they avoided the use of plastic when they could. The COVID-19 pandemic has given people a lot of time to ponder and time home to absorb their environment. PwC’s June 2021 Global Consumer Pulse Survey concluded that a higher percentage, about half of all global consumers surveyed, say they’ve become even more eco-friendly in their choices. There are differences world-wide, as Asian and Middle Eastern consumers were said to be more eco-friendly in consumer behavior than those in other regions. In the US, it was about 15% of consumers surveyed who said they buy primarily from companies who are perceived to be supportive of the environment. In addition, younger consumers (under 32 years old) are more eco-friendly than other age groups.

Another recent study by Visual GPS and YouGov also indicates a shift during the pandemic, finding that 81% of people polled expect companies to be environmentally conscious in their advertising and communications, and 69% of respondents said they were doing everything possible to minimize their carbon footprint.

However, while eco-consumerism is clearly on the rise, the recent PwC survey showed that such consumers have not fully embraced sustainable shopping. A large number of consumers, while sympathetic to environmental concerns, still rank convenience and price as major factors in making decisions on products.

Is this a temporary increase in awareness and effort due to the pandemic or is eco-friendly consumerism here to stay? PwC suggests that it is here to stay. A growing number of companies are offering consumers a growing array of eco-friendly alternatives and sales data show they are performing well.

Such a rise in interest in such a short time and this unique appears to indicate that people spending more time at home gave them more time to think, learn, contemplate, and explore alternative life choices, such as greater proof of environmental friendliness in products purchased.

With the growing number and severity of incidents of extreme conditions cataloged and on the news in recent days (record breaking heat in the US Northwest, historic flooding in Europe), it is very possible that this trend toward eco-consumerism will only increase, resulting in companies accelerating their focus on innovative products and more sustainable practices to please consumers which will be good for their bottom line, too.

CCES has the technical experts to advise your company on determining your carbon footprint and other sustainability measurements and to help your company design and implement a sustainability program to save expenses and inform consumers of your accomplishments. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

US Govt Approves On-site Wave Energy Research

Renewable energy, of course, is growing in acceptance. Solar panels on people homes have become ubiquitous. Solar “farms” are growing in popularity as people and governments see this is a clean way to generate electricity from land that may not otherwise have commercial value. And now wind turbines are growing in popularity, as the source of power is a little bit more constant. An offshore wind project off the Massachusetts coast that would create 800 MW of electricity (enough to power 400,000 homes) was approved by the federal government. The Vineyard Wind project would be the first utility-scale wind power development in federal waters.

Other sources of clean energy exist and one form, which has worked experimentally, got a boost recently to see if it can create clean power “in the field”. Or rather, the water. It is ocean waves. Wave action, as anybody who has spent time on an ocean beach or sailing in the ocean, is relentless. Those constantly rocking waves, which brings nausea and other problems for some people, can also result in electricity generation. Given the large quantity of ocean and if harnessed properly, wave action may yield a significant yield of electricity. While solar and wind have issues (the sun is not always shining and wind speeds vary and often subside), wave action off most ocean coasts never stops.

On March 1, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted Oregon State University the first license in the US for an ocean wave energy testing facility. A cable will be installed to connect an offshore location with a testing facility and the local power grid. As many as 20 technologies will be installed and tested to determine their capability to and efficiency of producing electricity, as well as each one’s reliability over time, ability to scale up, reactions to changing conditions in the ocean and atmosphere, and any impacts each may have on the ocean, the fishing industry, and aquatic life.

The goal is to be able to narrow down the potential wave technologies and assess the most successful ones by 2023.

Of course, even if successful, wave technology has its limitations. Geographically, if operable, it can only serve the US coasts, as the costs of and losses through transmission of electricity to inland sections of the country are high. But if wave action can be a useful source of clean, cheap, reliable, and consistent electricity for large states like California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, and others, then it will be a benefit for all.

A related source of renewable power is tidal, the power of underwater tides to push turbines and make electricity. Here is an article about research being done in Scotland: https://slate.com/technology/2021/06/orbital-marine-power-scotland-ocean-energy.html

CCES has the experts to help your firm determine which source of renewable power can be best for your operations and to help make your operations more energy efficient to reduce your energy costs and to scale down a future needed system. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

A Silent Source of Emissions We Pay For

Many of us are concerned about Climate Change and do whatever is reasonable to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We buy more energy efficient lights and equipment. Perhaps we drive a little less (and walk more). We consider candidates who care about Climate Change.

However, there are many ways that we contribute to greenhouse gas emissions that we do not realize. Like all Americans, we buy things. Whether it is grocery shopping, some paint to spruce up the house, some toys for our granddaughter’s visit, and a few plants for the yard, each of these items probably got from the places they were made or grown to warehouses and to the stores by being transported by a heavy-duty truck. This is even more true today, as we buy from companies that deliver goods directly to your home.

According to Businessinsider.com, 70% of freight is carried by trucks in the US. Trucks dominate because they are fast, safe, and take goods right to where they need to go. But trucks are not fuel-efficient and thus, are heavy GHG emitters. According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA.gov), the average fuel efficiency of a heavy-duty truck is 6.6 miles per gallon of fuel, which is 27% worse than trucks achieved in 1950 (9.0 mpg)! Trucks, of course, burn a lot of diesel fuel; a truck may use as much fuel as about 50 new passenger cars.

According to The Truckers Report, fuel is the greatest cost for the truck owner, nearly 4 times higher, per mile travelled, than driver’s salary.

Thus, the Obama administration passed guidelines to raise minimum fuel standards for trucks to as high as 30 mpg for light trucks by the late 2020’s. The Trump administration rolled back those standards, with business support, as too expensive to consumers. But one can state that the lack of mileage standards are themselves very expensive for the American consumer. One estimate states that the average US household pays $1,100 per year to fuel heavy trucks and this does not include the indirect environmental costs (both Climate Change and direct toxic emissions from diesel fuel combustion).

The Biden administration is considering re-establishing mileage standards for passenger cars and an array of trucks.

Therefore, consumers and businesses would benefit from new truck efficiency standards, with freight costs dropping markedly. The Obama standards would have caused a reduction of 270 million tons of GHG emissions annually in the US, cut emissions of air toxics from fuel production and combustion, and reduced oil consumption by 1.4 million barrels a day, more than we currently export from Saudi Arabia.

Americans should examine silent operations that we pay for that contribute significantly to Climate Change and try to implement ways to reduce them (buy fewer products, only those most important) and lobby for fair rules to reduce their numbers and impact.

CCES has the technical experts to identify and estimate the emissions of greenhouse gas and toxic emissions from different applications, analyze the implications on cost and your business, and develop smart ways to reduce it. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

President Issues Executive Order On Climate-Related Financial Risk

On May 20, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order with a goal of increasing disclosure of climate-related financial risk in both the public and private sectors. As a result, disclosure and reporting obligations regarding climate-related risks will likely increase. The Order called for a comprehensive consideration of climate change-related financial risks, and how they should be communicated to the public and investors.

The Order directs federal policymakers to develop a strategy for identifying and disclosing climate-related financial risk to government programs, assets, and liabilities, including identifying public/private financing needed to reach economy-wide, net-zero emissions by 2050 to limit further temperature rise per the Paris Climate Agreement.

The Order also requires the Financial Stability Oversight Council to assess climate-related financial risk to the federal government and overall U.S. financial system. The Council is tasked with assessing the necessity of greater climate-related disclosure by certain entities to mitigate risk to the stability of the financial system and new regulations for identifying and mitigating such risks.

The Order directs the Dept of Labor to identify regulatory actions to assess the threats that climate risk may have to savings and pension plans. This includes reconsidering rules that prohibit investment firms from considering environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in investment decisions related to workers’ pensions.

The Order also requests recommendations for incorporating climate-related financial risk into federal management and reporting, including potential new accounting standards for reporting of such risks. The Order also requests changes to rules that would require that major federal suppliers publicly disclose GHG emissions and climate-related financial risk and set reduction targets. Similarly, lending and grant agencies like Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs are to consider integrating such risk assessment into their lending policies and programs.

The Order also requests the federal government develop regulatory standards for misleading advertising and claims about climate change and sustainability (“greenwashing”) that may result in enforcement actions.

After signing the Executive Order, President Biden included in his FY 2022 budget to Congress $44.0 million in new funding to the Dept of Justice “to advance environmental justice, tackle climate change, and enhance environmental stability.”

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve has established two committees to evaluate climate-related financial risk, examining how climate change affects individual banks.

Please note that this is not a legal analysis of the Executive Order. Consult with qualified legal professionals before pursuing actions or policies concerning this Executive Order. CCES has the technical experts to help you determine your status concerning GHG emissions and sustainability. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Climate Change Laws and Strategies in New York City

New Laws Are Taking Effect

Two laws pertaining to energy efficiency and climate change that were promulgated in 2019 are now sinking in and causing many buildings to change their ways. This could be a portend of things to come in other cities and nationally affecting many businesses.

Local Laws 133 and 95 assign energy grades to large buildings in NYC. These grades are based on Portfolio Manager ratings for which buildings are already required to upload total energy data annually. Buildings are required to post these grades in their front lobbies prominently. Like a restaurant with a grade based on cleanliness, these grades are based on energy usage per sq. ft. And NYC is a tough grader. Even buildings that would qualify for an Energy Star award from the USEPA could get only a B in the NYC system. Even being slightly above the median would give one a D. I have already gotten projects of buildings ashamed of their grades, looking for a better one.

Local Law 97 was promulgated in 2019. While it does not go into effect until 2024, it is beginning to shake up the NYC real estate world now. Initial studies show that buildings that are even in decent shape when it comes to energy efficiency are potentially liable for high annual fines (6 figures) and they only have 2½ years to implement upgrades to comply. Some upgrades may be major construction projects. Therefore, NYC buildings need to assess their energy usage, plan, and begin to implement very soon. Remember that a building’s total energy usage is assessed, even of your tenants who you may have no control over. Therefore, an understanding of their energy usage is critical.

Here are a couple of examples. I reviewed the historic energy usage and equipment of a subject, but relatively small, office building in a poor section of NYC. The temperature the day I visited was about 70⁰F, a pleasant day. Yet, the building’s boiler was on and radiators were hot to the touch. It was so hot in the tenant spaces that several were operating their air conditioners! Think of that: simultaneous heating and cooling when neither should be on (a beautiful day). And the building was full of T12 fluorescent tubes, the most inefficient tubes available. I plugged in their recent historic energy usage and calculated that if they used the same energy in 2024, they would pay a fine of $62,000 that year. This is a building with a lot of small, family-owned businesses; ownership cannot have a high revenue. A $62,000 annual fine would impact them greatly.

On the other end of the spectrum, I reviewed the historic energy usage and equipment of a subject, large office building in the financial district of NYC. Although they went through a major renovation of their heating system, they faced a $132,000 per year fine if their current energy usage continued in 2024. We developed several potential strategies, ranging from modest to robust in impacts. The property manager was wise enough to realize that just meeting their limit was not sufficient. They had to go well below it. What if there is a very severe winter or summer in 2024 and they have to give more heat or cooling that year than in the base year? They realized they had to give themselves a buffer to take into account an unpredictably severe season and are working to install smart strategies to get well under the limit.

NYC PACE Financing

The NYC PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) Financing Program has finally released its program guidelines and is beginning to take shape. The program was officially approved in New York City on June 16. This is critical as building owners need to work toward complying with Local Law 97 soon, requiring large capital expenditures for which affordable financing is critical. The NYC PACE Program will provide building owners with low-interest (usually around 6%), long-term (usually 20-30 year) financing for energy efficiency retrofits and renewable energy projects resulting from professional energy audit study recommendations. PACE financing will also result in significant mortgage tax savings.

In summary, new NYC laws are mandating many buildings upgrade their energy usage and equipment to be more efficient, burn cleaner fuels, and consider renewable energy sources with the threat of major fines and embarrassing grades which could affect rentability and asset value for not meeting standards. Yet the tools are coming into place to pinpoint the problems of energy waste, determine smart solutions, and financing to allow implementation sooner, rather than later to avoid Local Law 97 fines.

CCES has the technical expertise to determine your Local Law 97 compliance status and potential fine for non-compliance in 2024. If you provide CCES with complete, concise full-year energy usage, CCES can tell you your LL 97 status FREE of charge. CCES also performs energy audits and project management to provide you the information about numerous smart strategies to comply with LL 97 and improve your energy grade and to implement the strategies most effectively. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

USEPA Moves To Phase Out HFCs

On May 3, 2021, the USEPA released a notice of proposed rulemaking to institute a major phasedown in production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), used in refrigeration and air conditioning systems. The USEPA estimates the phasedown will yield total climate-related economic benefits of $283.9 billion through 2050.

HFCs were encouraged to replace chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which are listed as ozone-depleting substances, and ultimately banned globally for that purpose. However, research determined that HFCs are powerful greenhouse gases (GHGs), with global warming potentials (GWPs) thousands of times greater than CO2. While HFCs are not as ubiquitous as CO2, their potency represents a major global climate change risk.

The USEPA’s proposed rule’s goal is to achieve an 85% overall reduction in HFC production and consumption in 15 years. The USEPA would administer an allowance allocation and trading program, assigning GWP values to individual HFCs and allocating production (producers), consumption (importers), and application-specific allowances. Six HFC use types would qualify for application-specific allowances:

• propellants in metered-dose inhalers,
• defense sprays, such as bear spray,
• structural composite preformed polyurethane foam for marine use and trailer use,
• etching of semiconductor material or wafers and the cleaning of chemical vapor deposition chambers within the semiconductor manufacturing sector,
• mission-critical military end uses, and
• on-board aerospace fire suppression.

The USEPA has not yet listed the specific number of allowances in each application-specific use, but proposed overall numbers of allowances, including for production and consumption (million metric tons, CO2 equivalents; percents are of baseline), as follows:

• 2022-2023: 90% (296.1 consumption, 337.5 production)
• 2024-2028: 60% (179.4 consumption, 225.0 production)
• 2029-2033: 30% (89.7 consumption, 112.5 production)
• 2034-2035: 20% (59.8 consumption, 75 production)
• 2036: 15% (44.9 consumption, 56.3 production)

The USEPA intends to revisit its allowance allocation procedures before 2024.

What is a plant manager to do to replace HFCs? For refrigerant systems, one can use “natural” refrigerants, such as propane, isobutane, ammonia, and CO2. CO2? Yes, it is a GHG, but its GWP is 1, much lower than HFCs, whose GWPs are in the thousands, so thus, beneficial. For air conditioning, viable alternatives include installing heat pumps, which transfer heat to or from a large reservoir (ground or air), or systems that use less refrigerant, such as those with variable refrigerant flow systems. Some of these use the same refrigerants as above and many can function well using water to transfer heat.

It may take several months to go through publication and public comment before it becomes the law, but expect this to be promulgated and, if you use HFCs, expect to deal with allowances and, therefore, restrictions and higher costs. Plan now to change your refrigeration or cooling systems to those that do not use HFCs.

CCES has the technical experts to help you manage your operations to minimize your environmental impacts. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or karell@CCESworld.com.

Environmental Enforcement Expected To Rise – What To Do

As predicted by many, the shift in administrations from Pres. Trump to Pres. Biden has led to many quick changes, including an increase in enforcement of environmental regulations. One of the first speeches of the new USEPA Administrator Michael Regan reaffirmed the agency’s “commitment to working collaboratively and cooperatively with the states to protect public health and the environment.” Therefore, facilities should expect to see increased federal and state enforcement of environmental laws. New York Attorney General Letitia James recently stated that the change in administration is allowing her office to shift its focus from litigation against the federal government to other priorities, such as greater environmental enforcement. James also said that the expected greater collaboration and coordination with the USEPA would allow more successful enforcement initiatives.

Increased enforcement at the federal level is expected in the new administration, too. The Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division is expected to be supportive of prosecutors going forward with environmental cases. Enforcement tools constrained by Trump administration policies are in the process of being changed.

In addition, the Biden Administration has signaled that it will aggressively address the issue of environmental justice, excess emissions, waste, or impacts potentially harming poorer or minority neighborhoods.

Therefore, to prepare for this new uptick in environmental enforcement, companies potentially impacted should:

• Review current environmental regulations to determine which currently are applicable and, if so, whether the facility is in compliance, has slipped to potentially be out of compliance, or whether the monitoring systems to definitively determine continual compliance status are no longer working or reliable

• Review existing environmental management systems to make sure they are functioning properly and set and actually achieving compliance

• Undergo one or several rigorous compliance audits by outside qualified experts to determine your compliance status or what should be done to better assess it

• If non-compliance is discovered, develop and execute a plan to promptly correct the violation and potentially voluntary self-disclosure to reduce the chance of criminal prosecution.

• Since it may have been a long time since the last inspection, develop procedures in case federal or state environmental officials perform a surprise inspection of your facility. What would your staff do? What procedures should they follow?

CCES has the experts to perform the technical assessments to determine your air pollution emission rates and estimate where it stands vis-à-vis applicable federal, state, and local air quality regulations. Your company should retain a qualified, experienced attorney to counsel on legal issues. CCES has the technical experts to work with legal staff and determine compliance and help return your facility to compliance. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

New Presidential Executive Order on Supply Chains

Lack of US independence in the manufacturing of crucial items, such as personal protective equipment and battery components, has led many to be concerned with how we will respond to the next pandemic or move forward on clean energy. On February 24, President Biden issued an Executive Order focused on shoring up supply chains of critical items. The order will require a 100-day review of the supply chain of many products worked on by government contractors and the private sector. In addition, over the next year federal agencies will be required to develop and begin to implement additional actions to maximize domestic production of crucial items and/or ways to work with allies on a coordinated response to hasten supplies when needed.

For example, the Secretary of Energy, coordinating with other agencies, is required to submit a report identifying risks in the supply chain for items such as, large-scale (industrial and electric vehicle) batteries and policy recommendations to address these risks. Also required is a report on supply chains for the energy sector industrial base.

The US Senate confirmed in a bipartisan vote former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm to serve as the 16th Secretary of Energy. In a Department of Energy blog post shortly after confirmation, Secretary Granholm outlined her priorities including solar, wind, electric cars, advanced batteries, energy efficient appliances, and a weatherized grid structure. Secretary Granholm is known as an electric vehicle enthusiast.

One of her first actions as Secretary is to jumpstart a $100 million funding opportunity for “transformative clean energy solutions” to identify cutting-edge clean energy technologies to address the climate crisis. Energy officials believe total research in clean energy sponsored by the agency will increase to the billions.

CCES has the experts to help your company be more energy efficient and productive. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

The Proposed Infrastructure Plan: Clean Energy

On March 31, 2021, President Biden released his $2 trillion infrastructure plan intended to aid the nation’s economic comeback from the COVID-19 pandemic by raising employment in jobs for necessary projects, such as energy efficiency, renewable energy growth, and grid modernization. This is also part of the government’s strategy to achieve a net-zero emissions power sector by 2035, and a net-zero economy by 2050.

In response to the recent power crisis in Texas, the proposed Infrastructure Plan would invest $100 billion to modernize the electric grid with at least 20 GW of high-voltage capacity power lines. The Plan also proposes creation of a Grid Deployment Authority at the Dept of Energy to manage this effort.

The proposed Infrastructure Plan also promotes the retrofitting of existing residential, commercial, and municipal buildings to be more energy efficient and electrified and a $27 billion Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator to mobilize private investment.

The Infrastructure Plan proposes creation of Energy Efficiency and Clean Electricity Standard (EECES) aimed at improving energy efficiency, promoting cleaner energy, and incentivizing efficient use of existing infrastructure and carbon-free energy from nuclear and hydropower. The Infrastructure Plan proposes to invest $174 billion in electric vehicle (EV) development, including building a network of 500,000 EV chargers by 2030, replacing 50,000 diesel transit vehicles, and electrifying at least 20% of the school bus fleet. The Plan also includes a 10-year extension of an expanded direct-pay investment tax credit and production tax credit for clean energy generation and storage.

The Infrastructure Plan proposes both a $10 billion investment in public land and water conservation, community resilience, and environmental justice through a new Civilian Climate Corps and a $5 billion investment in remediation and redevelopment of Brownfield and Superfund sites in disadvantaged communities.

The Infrastructure Plan rebuilds research in climate areas that was decimated under the previous administration, setting aside $35 billion for research and development of new, beneficial technologies, such as energy storage, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, EVs, floating offshore wind, and biofuel products.

One of the criticisms of the Plan is what will happen to the industries that will be harmed or ruined by the switch to clean energy, such as coal and oil & gas. The Plan proposes to address this by training fossil-fuel industry workers to apply their skills for clean energy and for employment to plug oil and gas wells and clean abandoned mines.

As one sees in the news, the Infrastructure Plan faces political hurdles, as many feel it is too expensive for a government already high in deficit spending. Democrats believe that the economic benefits and savings to the private sector will lead to economic growth that would raise revenues and eventually would pay it back plus some. It is likely some compromise (cutting back) of some of the ambitious goals (clean energy and others) will occur before it is promulgated.

CCES has the experts to help your firm manage energy (yes, manage this important resource), assess your energy profile, and move toward cheaper, cleaner energy choices and energy efficiency to reduce your energy waste, save you significant costs, and improve productivity. With the likelihood of financial incentives from the federal and many state governments, even the initial investment to reduce your energy and carbon profile can be quite affordable. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.