Category Archives: Climate Change

Can California Become Carbon Negative?

On September 10, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown set California on an ambitious clean energy path signing Senate Bill 100 (SB 100), which requires that by 2045, 100% of California’s electricity be generated from carbon-free sources. In addition, Governor Brown signed off of a new statewide goal to reduce California’s overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to zero by 2045 and then go negative thereafter. SB 100 also requires that its implementation does not increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and does not permit resource shuffling, a limitation that effectively prevents California from relying on fossil fuel generation from outside the state to serve the state’s electricity needs.

SB 100 makes California the world’s largest economy to commit to generating 100% of its power from clean energy. California has been steadily increasing its renewable portfolio standards, from an initial goal of 20% by 2017 to 60% by 2030, to the 100% by 2045. SB 100 does give California some flexibility. While hydropower and nuclear power do not qualify as renewable energy under renewable portfolio standards, these likely will qualify under SB 100, as they are “zero-carbon”. SB 100 also leaves open the possibility for other carbon-reducing innovations such as carbon capture and sequestration technology should it ever become practical.
SB 100 requires all California state agencies to incorporate this policy into all relevant planning and to issue joint report to the California legislature by January 1, 2021, and every four years thereafter discussing progress toward the goals.

Many opponents of the bill do not believe California can meet these goals unless it joins a larger regional market to have access to carbon-free energy from outside the state. This will mean entering into agreements with these other neighboring states to develop their own large renewable energy projects from which California can use the energy in its grid. It may be difficult to convince some of these states to replace traditional fossil fuel plants with more renewable power. If they can do so, then California may be able to reach a goal of negative carbon emissions in the future.

CCES can help your firm understand your electric bill and your sources of electricity to enable you to be most economic in your energy use and most efficient. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Insurance Industry Urged To Divest From Fossil Fuel Activities and Firms

A coalition of NGOs, including the Sierra Club, the Waterkeeper Alliance, the Rainforest Action Network, and Greenpeace, has been putting pressure on certain industries to encourage renewable energy and end support of the fossil fuel industry for some time. The latest industry to be targeted is insurance based on the logic that while attempting to protect us from catastrophic risk, supporting the dirtiest fossil fuel industries is, instead, adding to worldwide climate change adverse risk.

These NGOs sent letters to the CEOs of 22 major US insurance companies, urging them to stop insuring projects of and to start divesting from companies that produce coal and those that extract and transport tar sands. These US insurers hold hundreds of billions of dollars in coal, oil, gas and electric utility stocks and bonds. Similarly, the letter requested that these major insurance companies underwrite and invest in more clean energy companies and projects.

In addition, these NGOs recommended that these insurance companies insist that all insured quantify the carbon footprint of their projects as a prelude to being insured. Campaign leaders claimed that several insurance companies have divested about $30 billion from coal companies and stopped or limited insuring the coal industry in recent years.

Climate change-caused or -enhanced incidents pose great risk to insurance companies. More than 10,000 claims were filed from the Carr and Mendocino fires, whose intensity were said to be contributed to by climate change, totaling $845 million in insured losses.

Insurance industry leaders, regulators, and business leaders acknowledge that climate change is a major strategic issue for the industry, and are beginning to be addressed in terms of their business model. As we see with the intense recent storms of Florence and Michael in the US, not to mention recent very deadly storms, tsunamis, and typhoons in Indonesia, the Phillipines, and India, there is an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms, and in particular, more rain, which has caused widespread flooding and destruction. The insurance industry is being hit hard by this increase in destruction and is being urged to take more steps to both add climate change to their risk equations and to take an active part in investing in a future to mitigate climate change.

CCES has the experience to help your firm cope with climate change, evaluate risk and protections for your business and asset, and reduce your carbon footprint. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Benefits of Trees for Sustainable Cities

More than half the population of the world now lives in areas defined as urban. There is growing pressure to convert more open space into residences and commercial buildings to serve the growing urban population than ever before. More people means more customers for entrepreneurs and more businesses means more revenue (taxes) for municipalities. But is this growing dense, urban development costly for urban living?

While this seems trite and inefficient, trees have been shown to be effective in preserving urban ecosystems. Of course, the trend is commonly to chop down trees to build another development. But keeping and increasing the number of trees have been shown to have many benefits for urban residents and businesses. Trees clean the air and water, reduce health costs, improve stormwater management, optimize building energy use, mitigate climate change, and provide many cultureal treats.

According to the US Forest Service, for every dollar invested in planting, cities get a $2.25 return on their investment each year. https://www.fs.fed.us/ucf/supporting_docs/UCF-Brief-Feb2018.pdf

A recent aerial survey of 35 megacities showed that 20% of the average city’s urban core is covered by trees, ranging from just 1% in Lima, Peru to 36% in New York City.

A study published last year aimed to determine how much trees contribute to human well-being in urban locations showed a correlation between the number of trees planted and human well-being. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304380017300960

The study focused on 10 very large cities worldwide. The study estimated that each square kilometer of tree cover saved a city significantly in air pollution health care costs, water runoff, building energy heating and cooling costs, and in the value of CO2 removed. Total savings was estimated to be about $1.2 million per square kilometer of trees, on average in these 10 very large cities.

Despite the feeling that large cities have no room to plant trees, the study indicated that, on average, about 18% of a metropolitan area is available to plant additional trees. Potential locations included sidewalks, parking lots and plazas. Tree trunks can be located in narrow bands, yet the tree’s canopy could shade these areas and allow pedestrians or cars to move freely.

CCES has the experts to help your company or municipality (any size) design a sustainability plan involving trees (as well as other strategies) to maximize benefits, such as the ones above (energy savings, healthier employees, etc.). We can use the latest science to develop a plan that is specific and will benefit you. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

USEPA Proposes To Replace The Clean Power Plan

On August 21, 2018, the Trump Administration released its proposed replacement for the Clean Power Plan (CPP), called the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents/frn-ace-proposal_8.20.2018.pdf

What’s interesting is that the USEPA’s own analysis open demonstrates that the ACE will result in fewer benefits than the rule it replaces, such as GHG and criteria pollutant emission reductions. So this is a “step backward” in terms of environmental impact. See the ACE Fact Sheet: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents/ace_overview_0.pdf. ACE is projected to reduce GHG emissions by one-tenth that the CPP is projected to: up to 30 million short tons of CO2e by 2025, compared to 300 million short tons under CPP. Interestingly, the Fact Sheet states that ACE will result in a “monetized domestic climate benefit” of $1.6 billion, compared to no rule at all. This is an interesting admission by this Administration that climate change is real and tangible and also that reducing GHG emissions will result in financial benefits. In addition, if these numbers are true, then reducing GHG emissions by 300 million tons should result in a greater economic benefit to the U.S. Why would the Administration go against such economic logic?

In addition, the Regulatory Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed ACE states that replacement will result in hundreds of additional premature deaths per year due to higher particulate emissions rates allowed by ACE. Most of these deaths will occur in U.S. regions downwind of coal-powered power plants. Proposing a rule change that will reduce reductions of GHG emissions (at a cost to our economy) and raise the number of premature deaths goes against USEPA’s stated priority of protecting public health.

Other changes in the proposed rule include:

• Reducing the USEPA’s authority to regulate and letting more GHG regulation in the hands of states, going against the recent recognition that impacts of air emissions do cross state lines and is, therefore, a federal responsibility.

• ACE applies only to coal-fired power plants, while CPP applies to both coal and gas-fired plants.

• ACE encourages improved efficiecy, rejects carbon capture and sequestration.

• Removal of cumulative GHG emission reduction targets or limits for power plants.

• Trading of GHG credits will not be allowed, although averaging among units in a single facility will be allowed. It is unclear how that may affect an existing trading program, like RGGI.

• While ACE contains USEPA-approved guidelines for reducing GHG emissions, a state’s standards may be less stringent than the USEPA guidelines. The state must explain why meeting USEPA guidelines for GHG emissions is a hardship.

The proposal to implement ACE was published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2018, beginning a public comment period. Comments are due by October 30.

CCES has the experts to help you develop an energy and a GHG emission reduction program to provide you maximum financial benefits and operating flexibility. Contact us today and we can help. karell@CCESworld.com or 914-584-6720.

1st Commercial Ferry Using Fuel Cells Will Launch in 2019

One of the most problematic segments of the economy when it comes to the environment is the shipping industry. Since most ships travel outside of countries’ boundaries, it is hard to enforce environmental rules. In addition, the culture of shipping is overwhelmingly avoiding rules and regulations and having the “freedom” to do what one wants. Countries, NGOs, and other organizations have tried to educate shipping companies about the values and benefits of climate change and environmental responsibility, but nobody wants to spend resources to address problems that their competitors are not addressing.

Thus, it was a bit of a surprise when Water-Go-Round announced the first commercial fuel-cell-operated ferry in the world beginning in 2019. The hydrogen fuel cell-powered ferry will be monitored by Sandia National Laboratories. The project received a $3 million grant from California Air Resources Board (CARB).

According to passengership.info, the aluminium catamaran will have a capacity of 84 passengers. The vessel has a top speed of 22 knots and will be powered by 360 kW-worth of Hydrogenics fuel cells, alongside lithium-ion battery packs. It will carry a 264 kg tank array of 250-bar compressed hydrogen, which should permit up to two full days of operation. Propulsion will come from two 300 kW shaft motors.

Following its launch, Water-Go-Round will undergo a three-month study period in San Francisco Bay, during which time Sandia National Laboratories will gather and assess performance data. CARB will use this data to assess the suitability of the technology for wider marine use. A hydrogen-battery hybrid system was chosen over a purely electric system because of its perceived greater flexibility, their lack of moving parts, near-silent operation, and scalability, as fuel cells can be combined into larger systems.

CCES has the experts to help your firm assess whether new technologies or applications can save you costs, boost productivity, and put your business in a more competitive position. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Recent Decisions On Major Gas Expansion Projects

Decisions made by state utility commissions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) have much influence on both our energy future and that of responding to climate change. Two contrary decisions in June are described here.

FERC denied the rehearing of its order authorizing construction and operation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project in West Virginia and Virginia and a related project that would connect to Pennsylvania. Among the arguments rejected by the majority of FERC commissioners were that FERC should have evaluated whether energy demands could be met with “non-transportation alternatives” such as energy conservation or renewable energy resources, that FERC failed to adequately analyze climate change impacts of the end use of natural gas transported by the project, and that FERC’s consideration of climate change in the context of evaluating the public interest under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) was inadequate. The FERC majority said greenhouse gas emissions from the downstream use of natural gas did not fall within the definition of indirect or cumulative impacts, and also concluded that the Social Cost of Carbon tool could not meaningfully inform decisions on natural gas transportation projects under NGA. FERC said it continued to believe the Social Cost of Carbon tool was “more appropriately used by regulators whose responsibilities are tied more directly to fossil fuel production or consumption.” Two commissioners wrote dissents. In re Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, No. CP 16-10-001 (FERC June 15, 2018).

On June 26, 2018, the California Public Utilities Commission issued its final decision denying a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a new 47-mile natural gas pipeline to replace an existing pipeline. The proposed decision found that the applicants had failed to demonstrate a need for the project and had not shown “why it is necessary to build a very costly pipeline to substantially increase gas pipeline capacity in an era of declining demand and at a time when the state of California is moving away from fossil fuels.” The decision indicated that based on Commission precedent, the Commission could deny a proposed gas pipeline or transmission project based on insufficient need without completed CEQA analysis. The Commission directed that the preparation of a draft environmental impact report be halted. In re San Diego Gas & Electric Co., No. A1509013 (Cal. PUC June 26, 2018).

CCES is a technical firm and the information provided here should not be used in any way to make any decision on the fuel usage of your facility. Information from legal, business and other professionals should be used in making such final decisions. CCES does have the engineering knowhow to help you assess energy source options and technologies that can save your facility significant energy costs. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tips To Gain Support for Your “Green” Program

One of the most difficult items for an environmental/sustainability manager to deal with is showing progress in a program that you know is beneficial, but others at the firm do not understand or are fearful of. How do you educate your colleagues and get them on your side, so you have support as you implement changes to be more “green”? Here are some proven ideas on how some companies promote “green” programs.

1. The standard is set at the top. There is no question that culture and change and importance of philosophy starts at the top, with – quite literally – the CEO. Whether it is just saving energy costs or a comprehensive sustainability program, the CEO stating support for the program goes a long way. I was involved in a project to establish a sustainability program for an entity and the head person was all for it. He understood the benefits and wanted to maximize these and get ahead of his competitors. He sent a mandate to cooperate and move toward a more sustainable future. An environmental committee was established. But then the Great Recession hit and several existential issues came up for the firm. The leader lost interest in sustainability. Then, members of the environmental committee stopped returning my emails and voicemails; the project ground to a halt. I convened a meeting of this committee and most members revealed to me they did not believe in climate change or sustainability, Al Gore was a ___ (well, I won’t use the language here!), sustainability was a foreign plot to take over the US, etc. When the head was interested in sustainability, these employees had to cooperate. But once the leader lost interest, they let their true feelings show and it derailed the project.

Since the “top” is so important to jumpstart a “green” program, it is important that you, as a manager, reach the CEO or other head and educate him/her on what the program is all about (I dealt with a senior VP of a company who thought a “green” program was just planting trees. Really!). Emphasize the benefits, but do not overpromise or give the impression these items will appear overnight. This education is not one-time, and it must be continual. You must keep track of how the program is doing and inform the leader. Also, manage expectations. Make sure leaders understand that achievements occur slowly, but they themselves will lead to more benefits down the road.

2. Establish a winning culture/brand. Perhaps more important than a strategy or procedures is establishing a “green” culture, such as no tolerance for environmental or OSHA violations or looking to avoid wasting of energy, water, etc. First, know the entity, its history, its own culture and people, and then you can establish a “green” culture that is likely to be accepted by most people. Software programs exist to help assess the current culture of a company. People like consistency, and stating and maintaining goals like these make others realize the value of a “green” program to a company (besides saving costs) and that the program is here to stay. This culture should be spread to other groups to give the environmental group a positive identity. Take the time to explain to all who will listen the culture and how they benefit.

3. Go beyond the workplace. While the top rung of management is most important to support a “green” program, it is important to communicate the program to all levels of stakeholders. Support is needed from all layers. One way to achieve this is not just to implement changes to reduce energy use, water use, etc. at the facilities, but also to recommend strategies for employees to engender energy, water, etc. savings themselves at home. Let them be “heroes” to their families for saving money or the planet, and they will return the support tremendously.

4. Communicate rationally, yet emotionally, too. We engineers tend to communicate using only facts, numbers, savings, comparisons, etc. It’s what we’re used to. But to promote a “green” program, this will not work for many; their eyes will glaze over! Therefore, in addition to communicating the facts, it is also important to engage one’s calls to action in their hearts as well as their minds. The “green” program not only benefits the bottomline, but also the livability of the immediate area and the Earth as a whole. Make others feel like they are part of something consequential, and you will engender more support. Of course, with a “green” program, there is much to choose to show positive consequential outcomes.

5. Assess and adapt. One strategy does not always work well or approaches need to change as a “green” program progresses and matures. Periodically assess where your “green” program is – not only how it’s doing, but also its acceptance in your company. You may need to make some changes to the communication or to who you communicate with to engender further support. Assess and adapt to new realities to gain followers and momentum.

6. Don’t give up. The first Earth Day may have been in 1970, but for many, the environment is this fuzzy concept that does not affect them. Education about the environment has lagged, and many still do not understand its importance to everyday life. And sustainability is an even newer concept. Certainly anybody who is a leader likely did not learn about sustainability in Business or Engineering School “back then”. People innately feel that if they did not learn it in school is must not be important.

Therefore, it is not only the rational and emotional message, but the fact that it is sustained that will make people learn and understand the importance of these concepts. Constant education and communication about different aspects of environment, energy, and sustainability are needed, not only during the early stages of establishing a program, but later on, as well, even after the major elements of the plan are in place. Communication by multiple means has been shown to be effective.

CCES has the experts to help your company establish a “green” or sustainability or energy conservation program – not just the technical expertise, but we can help you organize it and begin the communication process to engender support in your firm. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Plan for Installing Occupancy Sensors

A few years ago I performed an energy audit for an office building and developed a good half-dozen sound energy strategies to save them money. While discussing occupancy sensors with the building’s owner, he understood its value. I offered to help, but he turned me down. He was going to go to the nearest Home Depot to pick up some on sale and install them himself. Well, big mistake. I suppose this owner so understood the simplicity of how an occupancy sensor works that he felt that no thinking was necessary. On the contrary, proper planning will make the difference between a reliable, cost-saving venture vs. an unsuccessful one. A few things to consider:

1. Invest time, determine where sensors can save the most by observation. Determine which areas have long periods of dormancy and can use occupancy sensors to save energy and which areas are regularly used. Yes, one can guess the need for occupancy sensors by evaluating a room’s use (for example, an IT room, where, theoretically, people enter rarely). One can review conference room reservation logs, but in many cases, rooms are fully booked, but hardly actually used. Thus, spend a few days to observe which rooms are actually unoccupied for long periods. Perhaps there is significant flow in and out of the IT room after all; perhaps a conference room really is or is not used as much as the logs show.

2. Accurate, up-to-date floor plans. Once areas are identified, plans are needed to determine which lights and electrical panels serve each space to place the sensors appropriately. With this information you can determine in which rooms to place occupancy sensors (connected to which panels) to get the best effect.

3. Placement of sensors. This is crucial to their effectiveness and occupant satisfaction. Sensors should be capable of “seeing” anyone who comes in the door. In some cases, multiple sensors may be needed for odd-shaped rooms or for spaces shielded by high cubicle walls or cabinets. Do you place the sensor high up on a wall “to see” more of an area, but make it inconvenient to repair? Or closer to where people work?

4. Pick your occupancy sensor brand carefully. Don’t buy them just because they are cheaper or are on sale. There are differences in quality and sensitivity. Installing the “wrong” sensors can affect morale and efficiency. If your budget allows, consider dual technology sensors, those that sense both motion and thermal, particularly for large or odd-shaped spaces. You don’t want lights going out just because people in a room have not moved in some time. This just happened to me. The host was quite embarrassed.

5. Provide early notification to staff. Establish an installation schedule and give advance notice to staff approximately when occupancy sensor installation will occur in their areas. Send staff either a brochure or some summary of the specs. of the sensors, so they have an idea of what it can and will do.

Final question: does one still procure occupancy sensors if one has switched to LEDs? Installing LEDs and saving energy costs should not preclude one from installing occupancy sensors. Even reduced wattage lamps, such as LEDs, represent wasted electricity and cost if on for many hours when a space is unused. The math may be different (lower savings because the cost of wasted electricity is lower), but in most cases there should be a reasonable, if somewhat longer payback for using occupancy sensors.

CCES has the experts to help you perform a full assessment of your lighting and total energy usage and needs, and provide detailed smart strategies to reduce usage, demand, and cost that have worked for others. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.