Category Archives: Energy Efficiency

The Future Of Energy And Environmental Policies In A Trump Administration

November 10, 2016

Last month I wrote an article about the potential course of events for environmental and energy policies if either presidential candidate was elected. Now we know there will be a Donald Trump administration. So first I will repeat the thoughts about what a Trump administration might look like when it comes to energy/environmental policy, and I’ll present some early policy areas being considered. Nothing here is written in favor or against any policy, but future issues facing the energy/environmental professional.

Energy: Donald Trump has been severely critical of current energy and environmental policy and has stated he will reverse many of President Obama’s initiatives. During a May 26 speech, Trump reflected a desire to achieve US energy independence by reducing federal regulations on the energy industry, increase investments in fossil fuel development and infrastructure to bring it to market (such as supporting the Keystone Pipeline), and reduce federal investment in renewable energy, as he has criticized both solar and wind power. Trump also supports increased use of nuclear power.

Environment: Trump has stated he would rescind a number of President Obama’s environmental rules, such as the Clean Power Plan. As a real estate developer, Trump has a particular aversion to environmental rules which he felt has cost him unnecessary money and delayed his projects. He has also specifically pointed to the Clean Water Act as another regulation he would greatly weaken. Reversing or weakening these and other EPA rules would require EPA rulemaking, requiring a public notice process. A Trump Justice Department may just not defend these and other environmental rules when challenged in court by industry. Neither approach would ensure success, as environmental and other groups would surely marshal forces in defense of the rules. Furthermore, courts could rule that these regulations are valid, legal, and necessary.

Climate Change: Trump stated on the campaign trail several times that climate change has not been proven. However, closer to the election, he was more neutral about the topic. He certainly feels it is not a high priority. He has expressed his intention to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Agreement, which may be difficult to do. Trump could do as little as possible to implement it, which has weak enforcement mechanisms. He has also stated he would stop all US payments toward UN climate change initiatives.

Early Steps

One of Trump’s main advisors on environmental issues is Myron Ebell, a known climate change denier. There is speculation that he may be put in charge of the EPA. Mr. Ebell has been very critical of not only climate change, but also of recent Obama environmental rules. There is speculation that he may even call for the repeal of signature environmental rules, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and the dismantling of the EPA. This would likely require passage by Congress. Both houses of Congress are controlled by Republican majorities, but slim ones. There are many Republicans who believe in climate change and environmental rules or live in districts with constituents who would be bothered by radical change like this.

Published reports have stated that Mike McKenna has been a major advisor for the transition team on energy issues. He is a former DOE employee, and has been a lobbyist for several oil & gas and chemical companies. It is believed that a Trump-led DOE and Republican Congress would open up more federal land for oil exploration and encourage more coal production by repealing rules discouraging it. This would lead to greater energy supply, lowering prices for consumers, but also potentially raising risks of costly environmental damage. Many have argued that with other countries willing to supply much oil, gas, and coal to the global market and with rising exploration costs, the market may convince many oil & gas and coal firms to restrain anyway. With fracking and a large natural gas supply, coal and oil may yet be too expensive to invest in even with reduced regulations. But it appears that’s the direction of the new administration.

While this is happening on the federal level, it is certainly conceivable that states or groups of states will re-double their efforts to enforce meaningful environmental rules. However, with weak federal rules, one state’s lax rules could attract new businesses in place of a state with stricter rules to protect its public’s health.

And finally, there is the market. Many people were shocked by Trump’s electoral victory, but the sun still came out the next day, and with it solar and other renewable energy. While Trump has been critical of its implementation, the market has certainly favored this and being more energy efficient, as renewable power and energy efficiency programs have grown tremendously in the last few years. Renewable power is generally cheaper, growing in reliability, and reduced in cost compared to many fossil fuel applications. While dis-incentivizing these programs may set them back, positive results in the market should still attract business.

CCES can help you evaluate your company’s energy use and environmental impacts and can perform the technical aspects to determine compliance with current rules and develop opportunities to reduce your energy usage and diversifying sources, saving you money and decreasing business risk. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

The Future Of Energy And Environment Policies Under The Next Administration

October 17, 2016

While most of the analysts predict a Clinton victory and Democratic administration, here are some thoughts about what a Trump administration might look like when it comes to energy/environmental policy and what may change in a Clinton Administration. As I have written in other blog articles, nothing here represents writing in favor or against a candidate or policies, but instead addresses future issues facing the energy/environmental professional.

Should There Be a Trump Administration.

Energy: Donald Trump has been severely critical of current energy and environmental policy and has stated he will reverse many of President Obama’s initiatives. During a May 26 speech, Trump reflected a desire to achieve US energy independence by reducing federal regulations on the energy industry, increase investments in fossil fuel development and infrastructure to bring it to market (such as supporting the Keystone Pipeline), and reduce federal investment in renewable energy, as he has criticized both solar and wind power. Trump also supports increased use of nuclear power.

Environment: Trump has stated he would rescind a number of President Obama’s cornerstone environmental and energy achievements, such as the Clean Power Plan. Trump has also specifically pointed to the Clean Water Act as another regulation he would greatly weaken if he were elected. Reversing or weakening these and other EPA rules would require EPA rulemaking, requiring a public notice process. A Trump Justice Department could just not defend these and other environmental rules as they are challenged in court by industry. Neither approach would ensure success, as environmental and other groups would surely marshal forces in defense of the rules. Furthermore, courts could rule that these regulations are valid, legal, and necessary.

Climate Change: Trump has stated on the campaign trail that climate change has not been proven. In a recent speech, he was more neutral about the topic, but has expressed the feeling that this is not a high priority. He has expressed his intention to withdraw the US from the recent Paris Climate Agreement. With the Paris Agreement officially ratified, it would be difficult to withdraw, although Trump could likely do as little as possible to implement the Agreement, which has flexible objectives and no enforcement mechanism.

Should There Be a Clinton Administration.

Energy: To enable energy independence, Hillary Clinton has outlined a wide ranging list of investments by the federal government, such as clean energy, upgrading energy infrastructure, promoting responsible domestic drilling for oil and natural gas, and building on many of the core energy and environmental programs of the Obama Administration, such as the Clean Power Plan and Paris Climate Agreement. Clinton has spoken out in favor of natural gas development, citing it as a bridge fuel in the transition away from coal, including supports for fracking, although she has stated that deference should be given to localities who wish to ban it in their communities. Despite the “all of the above” approach in energy development, Clinton has stated policies that would discourage coal as an energy source, unless acceptable environmental levels are met. Clinton issued an infrastructure plan, prioritizing the development and repair of large-scale energy infrastructure across the country. Clinton would likely seek to continue the current Administration’s strong support for renewable energy development, call the US a future clean energy “superpower.” Clinton’s specific plan increases the percentage of renewable generation to 25% of total national energy mix by 2025.

Environment: Clinton supports the Clean Power Plan and wants to expand it in other industries in order to implement “smart” pollution and efficiency standards. Clinton has given no specifics, but states she supports additional policies to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate Change: A Clinton Administration has committed to continue to abide by the Paris Climate Agreement. The Democratic Party platform stated: “Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy.”

Control of Congress.

Remember that while the President wields considerable power through the EPA and DOE, control of Congress is certainly important, too, in “setting the tone”, promulgating new rules and funding existing agencies. Republican control of the Senate and perhaps the House is in play in the upcoming election. A Democratic control could dramatically change the policies of several related committees in the Senate and House.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, the current chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has been a strong advocate of the “all of the above” approach to energy. She supports energy exploration on federal land, such as in her home state of Alaska. Senator Maria Cantwell is the ranking Democrat on this committee and would likely chair it if the Democrats take control of the Senate. She has billed herself as a champion of “smarter” energy policies to diversify energy sources and lower costs for consumers. Senator James Inhofe, the current chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is a noted climate change skeptic and strongly supports scaling back environmental regulations and promoting greater domestic energy production. If the Senate flips to Democratic control, Senator Tom Carper is expected to chair this committee.

CCES can help you evaluate your company’s energy use and environmental impacts and can perform the technical aspects to determine compliance with current rules and develop opportunities to reduce your energy usage and diversifying sources, saving you money and decreasing business risk. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Is RGGI A Success?

When the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the cap and trade program for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from large power plants in 9 Northeast states, was first implemented, the states in the group participated with trepidation. They all wanted a program that would be effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, encourage investment and implementation of renewable and other clean energy options, result in funds that would be invested in energy research and implementation of more efficient options to the public, and examine whether a carbon trading system can actually work. But would RGGI work and be a “laboratory”, a model for other states or the federal government to mimic. There were modest goals and flexible plans to allow goals to be met with as little financial damage or inconvenience as possible. The hope was that they would have early success and perhaps make adjustments with revised, “tougher” goals after the first few years and that other groups of states or the federal government would expand its provisions and goals into a nationwide movement.

The RGGI organization recently released a new report “The Investment of RGGI Proceeds Through 2014” (http://rggi.org/docs/ProceedsReport/RGGI_Proceeds_Report_2014.pdf).

Its conclusions:

• GHG emissions have decreased by over 45% since 2005. This occurred while the regional Gross Domestic Product increased by about 8% in that time period, and despite a major recession. One can have energy reduction and environmental progress, while economic growth occurs.

• The total value of RGGI investments reached $1.37 billion through 2014, money that would likely not been invested in energy or other research.

• 58% of RGGI investment went to energy efficiency, with an expected lifetime energy savings of $3.62 billion.

• 13% of RGGI investments went to clean and renewable energy research and other initiative, with an expected lifetime energy savings of $836 million.

In addition, RGGI achieved its GHG emission reduction goal of 10% reduction from the mid-2000’s baseline several years early. RGGI will almost certainly be modified and extended with the hope of bringing in power plants in other states for the benefit of all.

CCES can help your company become more energy efficient, saving major energy costs, extending the life of your equipment, and providing a productive work environment, raising productivity. CCES can find you the government incentives out there and low-cost financing to make the numbers very powerful for your organization. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Affecting Power Plants Finalized

On September 7, 2016, the USEPA finalized an update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by issuing a final CSAPR Update. See https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/final-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update. The final rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register.

CSAPR was designed to address facilities that cause significant pollution that travels long distances impacting people in other states. States in which these facilities operate have not been motivated to regulate their emissions as it does not affect the health of their citizens. This federal rule achieves this. USEPA estimates that the rule will reduce summer (May – September) emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from power plants in 22 states, result in benefits totaling up to $880 million, and reduce ground-level ozone exposure for millions so people, reducing rates of asthma, cancer, and other diseases.

Beginning in May 2017, the new rule will affect 2,875 electric generating units at 886 coal, gas and oil power plants. The USEPA says affected power plants can achieve the required NOx emissions reductions using existing, cost-effective technology.

Under CSAPR, each of the 22 states hosting an affected electric generating unit must develop state implementation plans meeting minimum NOx emission requirements under the supervision of the USEPA which could issue a federal implementation plan for each state that fails to submit an approvable plan.

The power industry has come out against CSAPR since its inception, suing the USEPA. The US Supreme Court upheld the CSAPR in 2014. However, the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit in July 2015 remanded parts of CSAPR to the USEPA for updating, and this is the final update. This update is based on downwind areas meeting the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 parts per billion, and not the subsequently updated standard of 70 ppb. The power industry is still not happy with the updated version and a legal challenge to CSAPR is likely.

CCES has the technical experts to help your company implement the technical requirements to comply with a variety of environmental and air quality rules. Our engineers can perform an emissions inventory and determine from a technical point of view how to maintain compliance or get in compliance with federal and state air rules. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Fuel Economy Standards Tightened For Heavy, Medium-Duty Trucks – Phase 2

The USEPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration jointly issued a final rule with new fuel economy standards for heavy to medium trucks which had kept its fuel economy standards virtually unchanged for many years. While the USEPA had made more rigorous fuel economy standards for passenger cars (Corporate Average Fuel Economy or CAFÉ) and light-duty trucks, medium- and heavy-duty trucks have escaped such tightening of standards for a few decades. Phase 1 standards were issued beginning with model year 2014 heavy-duty trucks. The new Phase 2 standards (https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/2016-08-ghg-hd-final-rule-phase2-preamble.pdf) will be phased in through 2027. The final rule’s impact is estimated to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from such trucks by about 10% or about 1 billion tons over the lives of the regulated vehicles, as well as save about 75 billion gallons of (mainly) diesel oil and 25% more fuel efficient.

The new rule covers vehicles, such as big rigs, passenger vans, truck trailers, school and passenger buses, and dump trucks. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles currently account for approximately 25% of GHG emissions in the US transportation sector.

Phase 2 will provide significant GHG emission reductions and save fuel by:

• Accounting for ongoing technological advancements. Truck owners will be required to procure trucks containing certain fuel and emission reduction technology. While more expensive, the payback is estimated at about 2 years for tractors and trailers and about 3 years for heavy-duty pickups and vans.

• Containing first-time standards for trailers. Phase 2 standards include fuel efficiency and GHG emission standards for trailers used in combination with tractors. Although standards will not be finalized for all trailer types, the majority will be covered.

• Encouraging innovation while providing flexibility for manufacturers. For each category of trucks, performance targets will be set that allow manufacturers to achieve reductions through a mix of different technologies (such as any combination of advanced aerodynamics, engine improvements, waste heat recovery, etc.). Manufacturers will be free to choose any means of compliance.

CCES has the air quality experts to help your firm understand and provide the technical expertise to comply with a variety of air regulations. We can perform a complete emissions inventory of your facility and technical evaluation of compliance with federal and state air rules. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@ccesworld.com.

USEPA Proposes Clean Energy Incentive Program

On June 30, 2016, the USEPA published a proposed rule laying out its Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), found in the Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 126. CEIP is a voluntary early action program within the federal Clean Power Plan of 2015 (CPP), regulating CO2 emissions from existing power plants. To provide greater compliance flexibility, including having a pool of allowances for subject power plants to buy to comply, the USEPA would like to have this available when CPP goes into effect in 2022.

Implementation of CPP has been hobbled by a stay put on it by the US Supreme Court in February 2016. While some have argued that all compliance deadlines must be postponed because of the stay, the USEPA is continuing efforts for full implementation of all aspects of the Plan, including the proposed CEIP program.

The publication contains proposed guidelines for states that wish to participate in CEIP, including procedures for states to distribute allowances or to issue emission reduction credits (ERCs) for approved energy efficiency (in low-income communities) and zero-emitting renewable energy projects (in all communities). The proposed rule lists solar, geothermal, hydro, and wind as eligible renewable projects; it does call for comments on whether it should expand the definition to include CHP and nuclear. An entity which has successfully implemented an approved project by 2020 may get matching ERCs from the USEPA and can sell or transfer the ERCs or allowances to subject power plants to comply with their CO2 emission reduction goals from CPP. The USEPA is limiting the pool to 300 million short tons of CO2 emission allowances to distribute, based on its estimation that this will be the level that subject power plants will reduce CO2 emissions as part of CPP. These allowances will be distributed to states based on its share of the estimated reduction.

The proposed rule contains administrative requirements for states that choose to participate in the CEIP and the requirements for energy projects to meet CEIP eligibility. In general, a renewable energy project will receive 2 ERCs for every 2 MWh of renewable power generated. This ratio doubles for projects in low-income communities. For a project to be eligible to obtain ERCs, it must be implemented in a state that is participating in CEIP, and has demonstrated that it is replacing electricity production from a subject power plant in 2020 and 2021.

CCES has the technical experts to help you plan, design, select, and fully implement an energy efficiency or renewable energy project and help you obtain ERCs under this program, when it comes into force. We can maximize not only the revenue you can make selling ERCs under this program, but also maximize the financial benefits of your projects for your bottom line, as well. Contact us today for a free, no-obligation discussion at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Insulation: Another Way to Save Energy Costs

Pipe and building insulation are proven strategies to reduce energy usage and, therefore, costs. Don’t try this at home or at work, but imagine how hot a metal pipe in steam or hot water service is and then imagine the reduction in heat loss when it is properly insulated. That heat loss stays inside the pipe with the steam or hot water, making it more effective and necessitating less energy usage (fuel combustion) to produce that steam or hot water. Properly and completely insulating a bare surface in steam or hot water service can easily reduce heat losses by over 90% and therefore, reduce your need to produce steam or hot water significantly, saving you fuel costs, improving safety (workers not touching the hot pipes), and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and of toxics that may impact your plant and neighbors.

To illustrate the cost-effectiveness of insulating pipes in steam or hot water service, see this example. A facility produces and pumps steam at 350°F from an oil-fired boiler operating at an average efficiency of 80%. Oil is purchased at $2.50 per gallon. The 4-inch steam header is insulated with 2 inches of fiberglass pipe insulation. The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) has software to estimate the energy savings. Let us say that the insulation reduced heat loss from that bare pipe by 95%. Assuming the boiler is used only during the heating season, this can easily save the building $100-$150 per foot per year, for the avoided cost of oil not combusted to replace the lost heat. This figure can be much higher if the cost of oil rises or if the boiler is used for other purposes and is used all year. This also reduces greenhouse gas emissions significantly, too.

Savings can also occur for cold piping, too. Cold water – from electric chillers – transported through pipes can be insulated to save the use of these chillers, reducing electricity usage. While oil prices are relatively low these days, electricity prices are at all-time highs and projected to rise even more. Anything that can be done to reduce electric usage, will save you money.

August is the time of year many buildings – residences, offices, and industry – check their boilers and chillers to make sure they are maintained so they run reliably in the upcoming months. Part of your evaluation should be whether there are pipes that are uninsulated or with insulation that is cracking and damaged. Of course, look out for asbestos and, if present, make sure its removal is managed professionally and via the law. If you see such areas that are uninsulated, underinsulated, or insulated with damaged or cracked insulation, now is the time to re-insulate it properly. That extra time and cost for insulation will be paid for in savings this winter.

CCES has the experts to perform an energy audit of your building, and examine this and many other energy issues to help you save energy and other costs reliably and effectively. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Prioritizing Your LED Lighting Upgrade

Most people know now that switching to more efficient lighting, such as LEDs, is one of the most effective strategies for saving energy costs. Facility managers are increasingly turning to LED lights for energy efficiency.

However, “going to Home Depot and picking up LEDs” is not the best way to upgrade buildings. It may be a stretch to change all your lights to LEDs at once (lack of available capital for upfront cost, lack of incentives to make it economically feasible). You may have certain goals and constraints. Thus, what can you do to optimize gains from a lighting upgrade in your facility? How should you prioritize an upgrade?

• Types and age of lights currently used. To best prioritize a partial upgrade, focus your replacement on the lights that are older and less efficient, such as T-12 fluorescents, halogen bulbs, and incandescents. Replacement of certain bulbs, such as newer T-8 fluorescents with new ballasts, represent a smaller efficiency gain. Of course, it is preferable to replace them all with LEDs, but if that is not possible, then replace older and more inefficient lighting types first.

• Your current fixtures’ hours of operation and usage. It is best to install LEDs to replace less efficient lights where high intensity light is needed, such as security lights. Also, determine which of your lights are on the greatest number of hours per year. Only bulbs that are on use electricity, so if lights are used in a situation where they are rarely on, such as a storage room or an electrical room, these could be candidates to be replaced later compared to lights used often. Or to look at it another way, prioritize replacement with LEDs of bulbs normally used often, such as warehouses, parking garages, hallways, elevators and entrances. Of course, for lights with these functions, it is also good to consider occupancy controls which automatically dim or shut off the lights during idle periods.

• Maintenance issues. Prioritize replacement of lights with LEDs in places that are difficult to reach or require significant time. LEDs last considerably longer than most fluorescents and incandescents. Therefore, LEDs will also free up your maintenance staff to perform other duties. It will also reduce rental fees of cherry pickers and result in fewer trips up and down ladders, reducing the risk of a costly accident. Longer lasting LEDs mean fewer bulbs to keep in storage, freeing up some space there, too.

• Prioritize based on operating condition needs. Unlike most other lights, LEDs do not flicker, reducing eyestrain for office workers. A recent study estimated that properly-designed (less glare) lights resulted in the average office worker having one less “coffee” break per day, improving productivity. Therefore, switching to LEDs in an office setting could be a higher priority. LEDs can also be found in any color on the CCT scale (2,000 to 7,000 Kelvin). For areas where precise work by workers is critical, such as lab or work benches and offices, an LED with a high CCT rating (5,500-6,000K) may be best.

Of course, it is preferable to maximize energy cost reductions by replacing all your lights with appropriate LEDs. However, because many large buildings and entities have financial and other constraints it may be necessary to prioritize where one replaces older lights with LEDs. Proper research into the areas of the building that are lit and their function and current lighting status will be helpful in prioritizing properly.

CCES can help you design and implement a lighting upgrade to maximize your financial benefits and improve productivity. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@ccesworld.com.

Resolution for 2017: Take Control of Energy – Your Most Controllable Operating Expense

It is August, and things may be slow in your office or company, as many people are taking well-deserved time off. But that also means that September – the start of school, fall is around the corner – which means everyone is back at work. For many companies, September is also the start of budgeting season. Departments and Operations envision and plan for projects in 2017, and request budget for them. I think energy efficiency should be on the top of your wish list for your company, as this is the lowest-hanging fruit for reducing operating costs and also provide other financial benefits. Of course, you need to communicate that energy efficiency provides great return for minimal risk to your Finance Dept in language they understand to get approval for initial upfront funding. Actual case studies demonstrate that smart energy efficiency projects help businesses be more competitive.

Briefly, here are some facts about energy efficiency to present to your bosses and CFO:

• Great financial returns. The rates of return for energy efficiency projects vary, of course, based on technology, the building, and design. But in many cases, they are superior to most financial investments, often over 25%/year. What bank or Wall St. investment pays that?

• Low risk, high reliability. New energy efficiency strategies are not experimental and are proven in the field. While some vendors offer better quality products than others, they will work, bring about energy reductions, and should be warrantied.

In financial investing, we are constantly faced with high risk to get high yields. Or if we are afraid of losing our investment, we sacrifice yield. With energy efficiency, we have low risk (reliable product) and get fine cost savings! See chart comparing energy efficiency with other financial investments found below:

http://www.roienergyservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Risk-reward.png

• Long lasting savings. Energy efficiency results in continual savings for many years, actually growing in time with no additional effort, based on energy rates you pay, which will only go up in the future. If you saved $1,000 in one year from an energy efficiency project, that savings will be $1,050 the next year if rates increase 5%. And that is with no additional effort on your part!

• Reduced O&M costs. Most technologies last longer than the ones replaced. This means less time for maintenance staff, for example, changing light bulbs. This frees them up for other, more important projects to benefit employees and customers (tenants). Fewer light bulb changes also means fewer trips up and down the ladder, reducing the risk of a costly accident. Longer lasting items mean fewer need to be procured in reserve and stored, freeing up space for other uses or allowing you to downsize the space you rent.

• Raise the desirability and value of your property. Perhaps I’ve saved the best for last. Studies have shown that buildings and offices that are energy efficient are ones that employees will work more productively in, which may be more valuable than the cost savings. Employees will be happier, too, reducing turnover and reducing HR and productivity costs of finding replacement workers and hoping he/she is as good as the one that left. With solid energy efficiency technologies to show, companies or families will have a greater desire to rent your property, raising rental income, or desire to buy your building, raising its resale value.

Bottom line: the right, smart energy efficiency projects will produce many financial benefits, more than compensating for the cost to implement them, and an overall positive cash flow.

I hope this primer will help you approach your bosses for some smart energy efficiency ideas and projects for 2017! CCES has the experts to help you design and implement energy efficiency projects to maximize the financial benefits and to ensure they are implemented properly and work well. We want you to succeed and get the benefits and credit! Contact us for an initial discussion at karell@ccesworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Applying Green Building To Manufacturing Plants

July 2016

The “green” building movement as thought of by LEED standards has progressed well as applied to residences and commercial buildings, such as office buildings. But what about manufacturing? When we think of “factories”, we imagine large “clunky” buildings built for the necessities of 100 or more years ago, when energy and water were cheap and room was needed (and available) for assembly lines. With the decline in manufacturing in the U.S. over the last few decades, few have thought it worthwhile to invest in green features in old manufacturing buildings.

However, the U.S. Green Building Council recently released a short report “LEED in Motion: Industrial Facilities,” there are more than 1,775 LEED-certified industrial facilities, covering nearly 500 million square feet of space, with high future growth likely.

Many former industrial hubs have seen an increase in available, empty industrial buildings that are primed to be refurbished or repurposed. Meeting LEED certification standards by demonstrating excellent energy, water, resources, waste, etc. performance makes such efforts worthwhile. Pittsburgh is considered the leader in this effort, as its municipal government has encouraged repurposing and refurbishing its large stock of former factories through LEED.

Why is the “greening” of factories necessary and beneficial? First of all, the economics of operating a manufacturing plant has changed compared to decades ago. Energy, water, waste management were easily available and cheap; not so anymore. Space is more of a premium, too. Factories have to be more efficient in resource management to meet the new realities of the market. In addition, US industry is competing in global markets where labor costs, which are often much greater then resource costs, are cheaper. As “LEED in Motion: Industrial Facilities” states, U.S. manufacturing buildings must be more efficient when it comes to not only energy, water, and waste, but also labor productivity. LEED buildings of all types result in high-performing buildings where the health of the labor force is enhanced.

The first packaged-goods manufacturer to achieve a LEED Platinum rating is Method Product’s cleaning products factory in Chicago. Method heavily invested in renewable energy and the world’s largest rooftop farm, expected to produce 500 tons of food annually. Method estimated that the plant cost them about $30 million, about 33% higher had it aimed for a lower LEED rating, but that they would make the extra money back quickly in increased productivity, reduced costs, and reduced transportation costs.

CCES can assess your current or prospective industrial facilities and determine whether they are candidates for upgrades to become more “green” and to estimate the necessary investment, payback, and profit of different green strategies. We can assist whether you wish to do a complete green upgrade or want to address one issue at a time. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.