Category Archives: Climate Change

Recent Activities of Climate Change Litigation

Please note: this is not meant as a legal discussion of the issue. Do not take this information as legal advice. Speak to a legal professional.

In only the last couple of years there has been a major increase in lawsuits against businesses involved in the oil & gas or related industries for the consequences of climate change, including disastrous impacts. Many of these lawsuits have been brought by municipal officials seeking huge amounts of money for use to develop climate change resiliency programs, although, undoubtedly some funds are likely used by government overall coffers. In general, these lawsuits are founded on the claim of public nuisance or lost income due to events they feel was contributed to by these companies. Such lawsuits began in the early part of this decade were dismissed before going to trial. A key case was American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut where 8 states, New York City and three land trusts sued 6 electric power companies, alleging a public nuisance, and seeking an immediate cap and future reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions plus damages. Initially dismissed as “political”, the matter was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court who ruled that the plaintiffs had standing to make a claim of nuisance under federal law, but that in this case they could not because of exemptions of this in the Clean Air Act. In subsequent cases, nuisance claims were dismissed, but plaintiffs had the right to sue for direct damages.

The next issue to come up was whether plaintiffs can sue for nuisance under their state law. However, legal opinion discouraged this due to the interstate (and global) transport of GHGs, that the federal Clean Air Act provisions took precedent over state law, and different states define “nuisance” in different ways.

More recent climate change cases that are currently pending against businesses cover nuisance, but also seek damages based on calculated physical damage and costs and defendants’ production and promotion of fossil fuels. Several cases are currently being appealed based on decisions similar to those described above earlier in the decade. None have been concluded yet and rulings in federal district courts so far mixed. If any succeed, it is likely that more such lawsuits will be filed using the arguments and strategies of the successful ones.

Another type of climate change litigation has picked up steam recently, “public trust” claims where citizen groups bring suit against governments for enacting policies promoting fossil fuel use causing them to lose business, be displaced or suffer other hardships. In one case, Juliana v. United States, the federal government is being sued. A court hearing was held June 2019. One other category of climate change cases concerns alleged violations of state or federal securities laws, such as misrepresenting climate change information or disclosures in public documents, such as a lawsuit brought on by the State of New York against Exxon.

Given this increase in climate change litigation and the likelihood that it will continue so for some time, the insurance industry is beginning to offer policies to minimize risk of such lawsuits and payouts.

The information is presented here by an engineer and is not meant to be a strict legal interpretation of events. For more information and before implementing any policies, speak to a legal professional. This information here should not be taken as legal advice.

CCES has the technical experts to help your firm determine your carbon footprint, your emissions of GHGs and determine ways to reduce them reliably and economically with minimal impact on operations. We do not provide legal advice. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

New Research To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

See the companion article on new research to promote renewable power. Research is going on in other GHG reduction technologies. After all, there are two ways we can reduce GHG emissions drastically to forestall the effects of Climate Change, for which scientists now predict there is a 90% chance of major deleterious effects. One is a worldwide cultural change and doing actions that will reduce such emissions to meet goals, spurred on by government rules and incentives. That, honestly, is not working, as is the nature of governments and politicians. The other is with new technologies that will reduce GHG emissions, yet are affordable and will fit people’s lifestyles. This article details a few that are in the research phase that have the potential to be effective.

Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS)

CCS is a technology that would take CO2 out of a power plant exhaust and insert it deep in a rock formation, returning the carbon to underground. The USEPA is interested in this technology but is concerned about the long-term fate of the CO2 (it may still exit into the atmosphere in time, negating the effort). This summer, a bill was proposed in the House of Representatives, identical to one in the Senate, which would authorize a new type of exempt facility bond to be issued for qualified CCS facilities. The Senate has already passed an act nicknamed “USE IT”, which would support CCS technology through technology prizes, R&D programs to promote the technology, permitting guidance, a mechanism for tax-exempt bonds, and a regional permitting task force. The chances for long-term legislative encouragement seem to be growing stronger.

Nuclear Energy With Less Risk

A company, General Fusion, is working on a new commercially viable nuclear fusion energy power plant. It would produce no GHG emissions, emitting only helium as exhaust, requiring less land than other renewable technologies currently, with no chance of a meltdown scenario and no long-term hazardous waste.

Alternative to Battery Storage

It has been estimated that 20-25% of global GHG emissions derive from the transportation sector. One of the biggest issues holding back the electric cars is the limitations of riding due to current batteries. Researchers have discovered new materials offering an alternative to battery power and proven to be thousands of times more powerful than a supercapacitor. In theory, the new technology could have the potential for electric cars to travel to longer distances, as long as gasoline-fired cars before a recharge is needed, which could take just minutes to achieve. If this can be achieved affordably, then polluting cars can be replaced in large quantities.

Meat Substitutes

It has been estimated that as much as 30% of global GHG emissions derive from the growing desire for meat and dairy in our diets and the methane emissions of over a billion cows used to produce this. One alternative is lab-grown meat and substitutes that look and taste like the real thing. Two companies, Beyond Meat and Impossible Burger, have created plant-based meat burgers from vegetable protein found in plants that appear to fool many people in taste tests. If demand for cow-based meat declines, that would certainly reduce GHG emissions.

Taken together, these technologies would offer people alternatives that are acceptable and affordable and, at the same time, reduce GHG emissions.

CCES has the experts to help your company use existing technologies to be more efficient, use less energy, reduce your carbon footprint, and benefit in other ways. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

New Solar Power Advanced Technologies Research

I am writing this during Climate Week, 2019, where the general mood is frustration that while most of the world – and most youth – are concerned about the impacts of climate change affecting us, the political and business leaders of the world have done little, and certainly not enough to forestall what many scientists believe will be huge, life-changing adverse impacts. I happen to be an optimist about this. I think, as a planet, Earth will be impacted negatively. But I do think we will eventually address the issues, no thanks to current politicians, because of the great gains in technology. Technologies are beginning to be developed to develop clean energy, GHG-free, and cheaply and reliably. Here are a few new technologies soon to come out that may make a difference.

Work at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO focuses on taking the weak point of any building, windows (takes up much space, but tends to leak air more than any other part of a building), and not only improve its characteristics, but see if it can have a positive energy role for a building. Their research is attempting to turn windows into solar panels. While light-absorbing films on windows have altered the light that comes through a window and attempted to use the radiation to form energy, such solar windows tend to have an unattractive brown tint.

New solar window technologies are able to absorb almost exclusively invisible UV or IR radiation, allowing the glass to appear clear while blocking the radiation that would add to the heating load during the cooling season. The portion of the film that absorbs radiation is called perovskites, which are cheaper than silicon and, in the laboratory, almost as efficient in converting radiation to electricity. Therefore, it is possible as development advances that buildings can create some or most of their own electricity using perovskites, affordably.

Another approach is solar concentrators on windows, quantum dots, which absorb radiation at UV and IR frequencies and re-emit them at wavelengths that traditional solar cells can capture. Placed on windows, the dots can emit the concentrated radiation sideways, through the glass, to solar cell strips embedded in the window frame. This technology is promising because quantum dots are inexpensive to make and only a small amount of solar cell material is needed to capture the re-emitted radiation.

Another idea being researched is semitransparent organic solar cell windows. These windows absorb about half of the incident sunlight that hits them, including visible light. While this darkens these windows compared to clear glass, they absorb light from across the spectrum rather and therefore, do not take on the unsightly reddish hue.

And finally, here is research being done on solar panels for mobile sources. In Portugal, an experimental program is being implemented using electric cars to help power an area. Porto Santo Island has begun testing a strategy in which batteries in electric vehicles are charged by solar power during the day but while parked at night return spare energy to the grid to power people’s homes. Some experts say this form of energy storage could become a global trend.

While many issues remain before solar can power our planet given our lifestyles (length of time windows and cars and their solar power technologies must remain reliable, cost, etc.), research is progressing that could make clean, solar power practical and affordable for all and reduce dependence on fossil fuel-powered power plants and gasoline.

CCES has the experts to help you ascertain whether new technologies, like renewable power, is beneficial to you and your operations now. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Asia Moving From Smokey Energy To Renewables

Momentum is building for green energy in Asia, a region long known for fossil fuel dependency. Asia uses a lot of some of the most polluting sources of energy around, coal and wood. Particulate pollution from coal power plants and from individuals burning wood in non-professionally designed and built units is thick it coats buildings, cars, and, most important, lungs. There are many images of Asians associated with masks performing routine events on a daily basis.

But things are changing. China was faced with worldwide shame and condemnation at the Olympics it hosted in 2016 by the images of people and athletes wearing masks or breathing from oxygen tanks to avoid the toxic smog – despite efforts to clean the air in the months before the games. Ironically, China was the number one manufacturer of solar panels then, but nearly all for export. However, China quickly changed its policy, learning that the visible and potent air pollution not only made them a laughing stock, but had an adverse effect on their economy given the robust health effects it has on workers (lost productivity) and costs to take care of so many sick – costs and lost lives that could have been avoided. Plus, the government understood that visible air pollution was a factor that could lead to unrest and rioting. China now has the world’s largest installed capacity of renewable power, accomplished in a short time.

Vietnam is another example. This country had been aggressive in growing economically and attracting capital investment in industrial facilities. However, the huge growth in coal-fired power plants and wood burning from convenient jungles has worsened the country’s air quality and causing profound health effects. They are on an ongoing path to reduced fossil fuel combustion coordinated with economic growth.

Other Asian nations have realized that it is critical to invest in clean energy and green technology, not only for the sake of climate change, but also for healthier air quality and a better economy. And they are doing so. The collapse of a fossil fuel power plant in Laos that killed 40 people was another spur toward renewables. Governments are investing in renewable power and have learned it is less labor intensive and now less costly to build. While it is unlikely that renewables will fully replace fossil fuels soon, more Asian countries are investing in renewables.

Working with US and European giants like GE and Siemans, several Asian companies are now planning to build renewable projects. Thailand’s Meta Corporation is a leader, preparing to design a 220-megawatt solar project in Myanmar, the region’s largest project. Philippines’ AC Energy plans to spend over $1 billion on solar and wind projects by 2025. India is expected to invest $80 billion over the next 4 years in wind energy. Like China, India has massive public health problems due to air pollution yet is trying to expand electricity to the over 400 million people who have no access to it.

Of course, coal is still king in such nations as China and Malaysia. While renewable technology can replace coal, these and other governments feel an obligation to coal workers and are afraid of potential disruptions that could happen of anything “new.” So there is a lot to overcome financially and psychologically before Asia is high in renewables.

CCES has the experts to help you assess your company’s energy needs and sources. We can help you plan to have a resilient, flexible group of energy sources and determine if renewable power is right and beneficial for you. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

NYC’s New LL 97 Climate Change Rule – Part 3 – Compliance

In the last two months, I have written articles containing basic summaries about New York City’s new Local Law 97, a rule to address Climate Change targeted to existing buildings in NYC with specific greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limits, which is defined by the building’s (and the tenant’s) energy usage. The rule defines 10 different types of buildings (permanent – housing – and temporary – hotels – housing, office, retail, industrial, entertainment, etc.) each with its own GHG emission intensity limit (grams of CO2e per square foot). What is unique about this rule is that the fines for not submitting an annual compliance report and for exceeding one’s limit are very high. Potentially high 6 to low 7 figure annual fines!

The rule goes into effect in 2024; the first annual report is due by May 1, 2025. Fines to follow. That seems like a long way away. But if your building needs to make major changes to meet your limit or to lessen the exceedance and fine, then you may need all of these 4½ years to plan, design, and implement the needed changes. So the first – and perhaps the most important – piece of advice is to start NOW to see where your building stands in 2024 when it comes to LL 97. You may be surprised. In unveiling the rule, NYC emphasized they believed that 80% of existing buildings would comply with their limit based on 2016 benchmarking energy submittals. “Only” 20% of existing buildings would need to upgrade. But that is a little deceptive. Energy usage has been growing tremendously recently as businesses grow and demand for technologies – in most cases – that are energy-intensive to serve customers grows, too. Many of those buildings complying with LL 97 based on 2016 energy usage may get complacent and then learn that energy usage has risen in the intervening years due to many factors, including business growth. One must self-assess and be prepared and vigilant NOW!

LL 97 covers not only landlord-responsible functions (common lighting, elevators, space heating, etc.) but also tenant-responsible energy usage (their lighting, plug load, window AC units, etc.). If you are a landlord, this is the time to reach out to your tenants and get an understanding of total energy usage. NYSERDA’s Commercial Tenant Program is an incentive program providing free energy audits for leased office spaces. 4½ years may be necessary to understand your tenants’ energy needs and work together to manage it better. There has been concern that landlords, concerned with LL 97 compliance, may not renew leases of certain tenants that are high energy users (data centers, 24/7 operations) and encourage new tenants which use less energy to move in.

Once you have assessed your total energy usage and understand who is responsible for what usage and for what functions, you can assess whether you are currently in compliance with LL 97 and project the status in 2024. If your building is likely to exceed their greenhouse gas emission limit in 2024, the energy assessment provides the data to intelligently determine strategies to either comply or minimize the exceedance or fine.

The energy assessment can accurately tell you by how much you exceed the standard and can determine exact energy (and greenhouse gas) reductions to get you down to your limit. Then you can determine which combination of potential energy upgrades is sufficient to meet your LL 97 requirements, taking into consideration cost and side benefits, as well. You have time to plan it out and bring in the right experts to do the job.

Besides reducing your actual credited greenhouse gas emissions by reducing energy usage, LL 97 gives you two other ways to reduce your credited annual greenhouse gas emissions: purchasing renewable energy credits (RECs) and/or emission offsets. RECs are credits one obtains for implementing renewable energy, such as solar or wind project. A deduction from one’s annual building emissions equal to the number of RECs purchased by a building owner as long as the source of the renewable energy credits is considered by NYISO to be a capacity resource located in or directly deliverable into zone J load zone (NYC) for the same reporting calendar year; RECs are solely owned and will not be reused (re-sold) by the building owner, the building that hosts the renewable energy system does not receive a deduction under § 28-320.6.3. Information proving these items must be submitted to the Dept of Buildings with the application.

Emission offsets is procuring greenhouse gas emission credits that are certified by an appropriate board. Such offsets are provided to those who have reduced GHG emissions for an amount beyond that required by regulation. For calendar years 2024-2029, deductions for certified GHG emission offsets will be allowed for up to 10% of the annual building’s emissions limit. The deduction is only allowed for credits generated within the reporting calendar year, publicly registered, and retired (not to be re-sold).

LL 97 also allows a deduction from the reported annual building GHG emissions based on the calculated output of a clean distributed energy resource located at, on, in, or directly connected to the building subject to the report. LL 97 is allowing this portion to be amended based on future research and development.

Again, to summarize, 2024 seems like it’s far away, but given how comprehensive and how onerous LL 97 will be, with huge fines for non-compliance, the time to start evaluating where you stand vis-à-vis this rule is NOW!

CCES has the experts and knowledge of LL 97 to perform that early assessment of whether your building meets your 2024 GHG emission limit or not. If you comply now, we can advise you how to prevent energy creep to better ensure compliance in 2024. If you do not currently comply, we can advise you on cost-effective steps to comply on time and we can manage implementation to ensure you get the reductions in emissions you need. This is an onerous rule and with potential major upgrades needed to avoid high fines, 2024 is not that far away! Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@ CCESworld.com.

Government and Investor “Carrots and Sticks” for Climate Efforts

Governments, investors, and watchdog NGOs are stepping up their efforts to identify companies that are leaders or laggards in the global effort to address climate issues. While most of the effort has been to highlight and publicize those that have reduced or supported reductions in greenhouse gas emissions significantly, there is a growing sense that shame can work, too. Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM), an investment firm that invests in companies that actively address climate matters, puts out annual rankings. In their 2019 list, they voted to divest five firms from their Future World Fund due to unsatisfactory results, including ExxonMobil. Removal may occur for a variety of reasons, such as not meeting climate goals, governance, and lobbying efforts.

Such removals and additions to the list are important as investors use the list as a guide to making investment decisions. Two companies removed from the Future World Fund in 2018 were reinstated in 2019.

In April 2019, for the first time ever, renewables surpassed coal in the US power mix. A combination of the large growth in new wind and solar farms boosting renewable energy output and some coal plants were idled for routine spring maintenance caused this to occur. Hydroelectric dams, solar farms, and wind turbines generated about 68 million megawatt-hours of power that month, exceeding the 60 million that coal produced that month, according to the Energy Information Administration. This is both the most clean power ever produced in the US and the least amount of coal combusted in years.

These trends highlight the growing support for renewable power in the form of incentives and tax rebates by governments and the large number of utilities now encouraging this, too, to lessen their burden. In addition, the cost of building new renewable solar and wind farms has dropped markedly compared to the cost of building new coal-fired plants. And finally, with some exceptions cheap and plentiful natural gas are causing many plants to shift from coal to gas. If these trends continue, Despite the current US Administration supporting the coal industry by gutting environmental rules, other governments and investors are moving away from coal to renewables. It should be noted that April is commonly a month when many coal-fired power plants are shut down for maintenance. This summer, coal combustion at peaker plants should raise the level of coal combustion in the US, putting coal back “ahead” of renewables in terms of electric generation. But the longer-term trends are certainly that government incentives and investor information are causing the long-term growth of renewable power.

CCES has the experts to help your company understand how climate and energy conservation programs can result in many significant financial benefits. We can help you diversify your energy supply, find incentives with direct benefits for you, and find ways to reduce costs. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Talking Points: Climate Change Risk or Opportunity

Part of a series taking important concepts and wording them so you can pass basic information to your colleagues, supervisors, and contacts.

Background

There is no getting around it. Even with the politics of current US leadership being in denial, there is too much factual evidence and too many solid reports from non-partisan scientists to deny: Climate Change is real and will have grave impacts on our very being. The only things we do not know are just how fast and potentially destructive these changes will be, which segments will be hit first and hardest, and what we can do to absorb the changes. While we do not know the details, we need to prepare.

Therefore, the growth in the number and severity of severe storms, rising temperatures, rising sea levels infiltrating drinkable water, public health issues, etc. represents major risks that will cost our planet many lives and much money. However, change also represents an opportunity, seen in any business. The business person who can correctly anticipate change and prepare for it to minimize negative effects and perhaps even turn the “lemons to lemonade” will come out ahead. This has been true for hundreds of other societal and technological changes we have been through.

Climate Change Impacts

First, let’s make clear that Climate Change is not something we should do for the sake of “our children and grandchildren.” Climate Change is already impacting societies and businesses. 2018 was a record year for extreme weather events – droughts, rain bombs, wildfires, melting glaciers and polar vortexes, costing approximately $215 billion, according to insurance giant Aon. Did Climate Change cause these events such that getting the CO2 concentration back down to the long-held 280 ppm baseline will eliminate these events? No. But it is universally agreed in the scientific community that Climate Change – the increase in heat and energy in the atmosphere and oceans – contributed to making these storms more intense and, in many cases, beyond what societies planned for decades or more ago as “worst case.”

And if someone thinks that Climate Change only impacts people far away, well, note that Miami Beach – a 7.7 square mile, small part of Metro-Dade County with a population of only 92,000 – will spend $500 million for projects to pump out ocean water from the city. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article209328849.html. And City officials openly admit that this expenditure may only temporarily delay the City’s demise. Climate Change is hurting us now.

Climate Change Risk

Climate Change risk is not a new phenomenon. Many governments and businesses (mostly in Europe) factor Climate Change into their decision making and forecasting. Business school define and quantify different Climate Change risks as follows:

• Competitive (cost) risks
 potential decline in consumer demand for energy-intensive products
 rise in costs or lack of availability for energy-intensive processes
 rise in costs or lack of availability for transportation fuels

• Reputational risks from perceived inaction on climate change

• Regulatory risks from tightening legislation

• Physical risks from Climate Change (extreme weather, rising sea levels, etc.)
 Asset damage
 Inability to make or transport product, raw materials
 Health and safety risks
 Project delays
 Crop damage or agricultural transition as certain crops no longer are viable in certain areas and new supply chains become necessary

Climate Change Can Be An Opportunity, Too

It is often the case that situations that introduce risk can result in the flip side: an opportunity. Companies that can manage or minimize risk will be stronger for it and those that can develop and sell products to minimize risk or Climate Change impacts for others can do quite well in the market. I gave a lecture on Climate Change years ago where I devoted a portion of it to malaria and the forecasts that in a few decades the incidence of malaria will likely grow because the warming Earth will allow the mosquitoes that spread malaria to travel further north and south on Earth, exposing potentially hundreds of millions of more people to the virus for the first time. A person in the audience noted that he works for a company that manufactures medical equipment and they have a line of products specifically for malaria. If what I said was right, there will be a greater need for these machines and sales would rise and they can make a lot of money. He then stopped and realized he said something politically incorrect. But he was right that Climate Change can represent an opportunity for his employer to increase sales. While it is unfortunate that Climate Change may cause greater suffering, his company is well positioned to address that and make profit from it, too. So for smart companies anticipating Climate Change effects, this can be a business opportunity, too.

I wish there was a quick fix or easy answer to address Climate Change and avoid the potential worst-case situation. In the absence of effective, focused global government action and despite the growing clamor “in the streets” by the public for solutions, the potential enormous risks of Climate Change – plus some potential opportunities – is now becoming a reality which the market and smart businesses will examine and use to their effectiveness and growth.

We hope this has given you some basic talking points to bring up the issue in your firm and begin the conversation. CCES has the experts to help assess Climate Change and potential risks and opportunities for your community and company. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Trump Administration Repeals, Replaces Obama-Era Clean Power Plan

Please note that this is a technical evaluation of current federal regulations. On June 19, 2019, the US EPA issued the final Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule replacing and repealing the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP). ACE establishes emission guidelines for states to use when developing plans to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) at their coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). ACE will allow states to set emissions standards for coal-fired plants. CPP, in effect since 2015, developed national standards to address CO2 emissions from power plants, allowing for a transition to cleaner sources of energy by 2030. The US EPA then projected that CPP would result in $26 billion to $45 billion net climate and health benefits, including the avoidance of 300,000 missed work-days and school-days, 90,000 asthma attacks, 1,700 heart attacks, and 3,600 premature deaths annually.

Instead, the new rule, ACE, will relieve the power industry of meeting these emission standards. This will, in particular, benefit the coal industry. ACE will likely face court challenges from several states, as well as environmental groups who see the repeal of CPP and adoption of ACE as steps backward from fighting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an accepted Clean Air Act pollutant. Shortly after adoption of the new rule, several state attorneys general signaled their intent to sue the US EPA over ACE.

ACE establishes that efficiency improvement of an electric generating unit is an acceptable approach for emissions reduction of CO2, giving coal-fired plants more options to reduce carbon intensity. The US EPA would consider technical feasibility, cost, non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements in determining the most appropriate ways to reduce CO2 emissions. States will establish unit-specific “standards of performance” that reflect the emission limitation achievable through application of improving efficiency. ACE believes that the US EPA’s role is to be a technical advisor of potential strategies to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. The states’ role is to develop plans that establish unit-specific standards of performance that reflect application of best efforts to control emissions, taking into consideration, among other matters, the remaining life of the electric-generating unit. States must submit plans to the US EPA that establish their standards of performance and include measures that provide for the implementation and enforcement of such standards, due in three years. Therefore, states do not have to have any standards currently (CPP has been repealed) and by the time a plan is approved, it can be much longer.

CCES has the experts to provide technical advice on federal, state and local energy and environmental regulations so that you better understand how they impact you. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

NYC’s New LL 97 Climate Change Rule – Part 2

Last month, I wrote an article with a basic summary about New York City’s new Local Law 97, a rule specifically tailored to Climate Change and reaching NYC’s 40% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 and 80% reduction by 2050 goals by regulating existing building operations, the City’s largest source of GHG emissions. The rule goes into effect in 2024. The penalties for non-compliance (exceeding a limit) are great, likely annual 6-figure or greater fines. This article provides more details on the application of the new GHG emission limits affecting buildings.

LL 97 covers all buildings in NYC with a gross size of 25,000 sf or greater. There are several exceptions, such as power or steam plants, City-owned buildings, certain rent-regulated buildings, religious institutions, and certain low-income housing projects.

The crux of LL 97 is calculating annual GHG emissions and comparing it to allowable emission intensity in metric tons of CO2 equivalent per sf multiplied by square footage.

Different building types are regulated per Dept of Buildings listed classifications. Please note that this does not provide the full definition of a group or list all exceptions. Note the GHG emission intensity limits provided are for 2024 to 2029, more stringent in 2030.

Group A-1 – A-5. Assembly: the use of a building, excluding a dwelling, for gathering for purposes such as civic, social or religious functions, recreation, food or drink consumption, awaiting transportation, or similar group activities; or when occupied by 75 persons or more for educational or instructional purposes. Examples: theaters, banquet halls, museums, lecture halls, houses of worship, tennis courts, stadiums, etc. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.01074 tCO2e/sf.

Group B. Business: the use of a building for office, professional, service-type transactions, or for conducting public or civic services, including the storage of records and accounts and limited quantities of goods for office purposes. Examples: health care facilities, banks, laboratories, libraries, offices, professional services, colleges, etc. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00846 tCO2e/sf.

Group E. Educational: the use of a building by 5 or more persons at any one time for educational purposes offered to children through the 12th grade. Examples: academies, day care facilities where no more than two children are under the age of 2, schools, and school libraries. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00758 tCO2e/sf.

Group I-1. Personal care: the use of a building housing persons, on a 24-hour basis, who because of age, mental disability or other reasons, live in a supervised space providing personal care. Examples: adult day care, assisted living facilities, halfway homes, convalescent facilities. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.01138 tCO2e/sf.

Group F. Industrial: the use of a building for assembling, disassembling, fabricating, finishing, manufacturing, packaging, repairing, cleaning, or processing operations not classified as Group H hazardous. Examples: industrial, auto repair shops, printing presses, food processing, etc. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00574 tCO2e/sf.

Groups H (High Hazard), I-2, I-3 (Institutional): the use of a building for child or adult care and treatment of those that are ill. Examples: industrial facilities using compounds considered hazardous, child care facilities, adult homes, hospitals, nursing homes, mental health facilities, etc. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.02381 tCO2e/sf.

Group M (Mercantile): the use of a building for the display and sale of merchandise, and involves stocks of goods, wares or merchandise incidental to such purposes and accessible to the public. Examples: department stores, retail and wholesale stores, drug stores, sales rooms, etc. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.01181 tCO2e/sf.

Group R-1 (Residential, temporary): the use of a building for dwelling or sleeping purposes when not classified as Institutional. Examples: hotels, motels, rooming houses, club houses. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00987 tCO2e/sf.

Group R-2 (Residential, permanent): the use of a building containing sleeping units or more than two dwelling units that are occupied for permanent resident purposes. Example: apartment buildings. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00675 tCO2e/sf.

Groups S (Storage) and U (Utility and Miscellaneous): the use of a building for storage or any other purpose not listed previously. Examples: warehouses, distribution centers (if it does not contain hazardous material), private garages, sheds, greenhouses. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00426 tCO2e/sf.

Each subject building must calculate its GHG emissions for beginning in 2024. Conversion factors:

Electricity from the electric grid: 0.000288962 tCO2e/kilowatt-hour

Natural gas combusted on premises: 0.00005311 tCO2e/kbtu. (0.005311 tCO2e/therm)

#2 fuel oil combusted on premises: 0.00007421 tCO2e/kbtu (0.01039 tCO2e/gal. #2 oil)

#4 fuel oil combusted on premises: 0.00007529 tCO2e/kbtu (0.01090 tCO2e/gal. #4 oil)

District steam used on premises: 0.00004493 tCO2e/kbtu (0.0000466 tCO2e/lb steam)

Future updates will discuss other ways to calculate GHG emissions and the availability of GHG credits to compensate for emissions.

CCES has the experts and knowledge of LL 97 to perform an early assessment of whether your building meets your 2024 GHG emission limit or not. If you comply now, we can advise you how to ensure compliance into 2024. If you do not currently comply, we can advise you on cost-effective steps to comply on time and we can manage implementation to ensure you get the reductions in emissions you need. This is an onerous rule and with potential major upgrades needed to avoid high fines, 2024 is not that far away! Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@ CCESworld.com.

Batteries and Energy Efficiency Programs

A few months ago, I posted a blog article on new trends with battery power, including a description of Massachusetts’ latest energy efficiency plan – the first in the nation – which encourages energy efficiency funds to be used for energy storage projects that reduce peak demand, and otherwise encourage the implementation of batteries to store power at a facility.

There has been some criticism of this part of the plan since it was issued. There is no question that batteries are beneficial to reduce peak demand on a grid, to steady the unsteady generation of solar and wind power, to have as a backup in case of a horrendous storm. However, batteries are also inherently inefficient energy-wise. In the process of gathering, storing, and then releasing power, some electricity is lost. Therefore, for every kilowatt-hour of electricity stored in a battery, more electricity must be generated in the first place. Of course, if this electricity is generated from renewable sources, there is no additional cost (no fuel to obtain) and no GHG emissions.

Therefore, batteries are no help for energy efficiency and GHG emission reduction goals, except in the context of solar and wind technologies. An office complex utilizing battery storage will, by itself, not cause less electricity used for the lights, computers, elevators, AC, etc.

Nobody can argue that battery storage can help make the grid more reliable in case of very high peak demand and storm damage. While Massachusetts is unique in encouraging battery development and implementation, other organizations believe the first and perhaps only priority should be in energy efficiency and reducing demand for energy, while growing the economy.

Supporters of battery storage argue that encouraging usage will help maximize the benefits of solar and wind generation, encouraging more clean power nationwide displacing dirtier fossil fuel-generated power, including peaker plants or fuel-generated plants that operate in conjunction with solar and wind plants.

Therefore, the Massachusetts program should be read as a program to encourage smart energy “management”, rather than for efficiency alone. States and nations need to move toward better energy management, which is not only efficiency, but operations and reliability, as well.

CCES has the experts to help your firm or entity manage your energy better, a growing issue as energy costs rise faster than inflation. Whether it is battery power, renewable power, or just being more efficient to be “green” and save costs, CCES can help you reach your goals and save costs. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.