Category Archives: Energy Efficiency

Talking Points: Green Buildings

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

Background

With growing public awareness and concern about climate change and environmental peril, upgrading buildings is becoming of greater importance. Buildings play a significant role in our everyday human life. We spend so much of our time inside buildings. They must not only serve our purposes and be comfortable but have a minor impact on our environment. How can we design and operate buildings in this way to be “green”?

What Is “Green Building”?

There is no specific, universal standard for a “green building”, and, sadly, some claims are controversial. The USGBC has a green building standard called Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED). Any building meeting LEED standards and certified by the USGBC as thus, can certainly claim to be “green”. But meeting strict LEED standards is expensive and takes time, a hardship for some. Owners can benefit from incorporating at least some green building features. Any building improvement resulting in energy efficiency, reduced water usage, better indoor air quality, reduced waste formation (and/or greater recycling rates), and incorporation of innovative technologies, such as green roof systems and renewable power, are positive steps toward being “green”, will likely result in financial benefits, and is worth talking about.

The Many Financial Benefits of Green Building

It is important to understand that implementing strategies in some or all of these areas will result in positive financial benefits. Here are some.

• It’s Not So Expensive. Conventional thinking is that adding “green” features to an upgrade will make the project prohibitively expensive. Not true. Most “green” technologies have dropped in price because there is more competition. Also, many utilities and governments have reason to encourage “green” upgrades and will pay part of the upfront cost directly to you in rebates or tax incentives.

• Reduced Costs. Key phrase: if done properly, a green upgrade will reduce your operating costs, such as electricity, fuel, and/or water enough over the lifetime of the change to pay back the initial investment and much more. ROIs equivalent to 20, 30, or 40% or more per year have been achieved. What many people don’t realize is that, for example, for technologies to reduce electricity usage (improved lights, better HVAC, improved insulation), you pay for it one time, but get the cost savings year after year. (It’s not like you are going to yank out the efficient lights and re-install the old ones!) In fact, if you determine that you save, say, $10,000 per year in electricity costs the first year after changes, the savings will not only be another $10,000 the next year, but actually more, as savings are based on your utility rate, and that only rises in time (have you seen a utility lower its electric rates?). This is why such projects – again, if done smartly – should not be thought about as cute or “cool”, but as a very good financial investment, too. According to the California Sustainable Building Task Force (https://www.thespruce.com/benefits-of-green-buildings-1708553), a 2% invest-ment in green building design will save over 10 times that investment in the long run. A $20,000 investment in green features of a $1 million project, will typically result in $200,000 in actual cost savings over 20 years. A question I like to ask: what bank or Wall St. investment pays a return like that?! And with no risk?

• Reduced O&M. Many “green” upgrades result in reduced O&M costs compared to previous. For example, LED lights do not “burn out”. Many LED lights are warrantied for 7 to 10 years, unlike most fluorescents which typically last about 2 years. This means less time for Maintenance to change light bulbs, freeing them to focus on high-priority projects and also reducing accident risk (fall off a ladder).

• Higher Rents, Better Tenants. Having a certified “green” building is known to attract more high-end tenants who want/need the association, allowing the owner to charge higher rates. The resale value of certified “green” buildings is higher because potential buyers know that costs (energy, water, waste) will be lower.

• More Satisfied Tenants (Less Turnover). There is enough experience now that studies have shown that working in a certified green building is good for both physical and mental health, improving the productivity of the tenant company and resulting in the desire to renew the lease for the long-term. Lower tenant turnover and having successful businesses as tenants is good for the building owner. Investment by an owner in such features as better ventilation, no VOC carpets and furniture, no toxic pesticides, green roofs can result in this. A building owner can go further and invest in upgrades for gyms, more bike racks, better furniture, upgrading staircases, etc. to boost the health and well-being of building users. A new standard from the USGBC called WELL codifies such changes. One major study (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/study-certified-green-companies-238203) showed that employees who work in green buildings were 16% more productive than those who work in traditional buildings. Another one (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/urban-expeditions/green-buildings/surprising-ways-green-buildings-improve-health-sustainability/) showed that employees in green buildings were better at making decisions, reaching goals, and completing tasks. Some “green” features helped circadian rhythms, allowing workers to sleep better at night and be more alert.

• Finally, Environmental Progress. While this article has focused on financial benefits, let’s not forget that “green” building results in indisputable environmental benefits, too. By moving toward “green” building, your firm can demonstrate to stakeholders progress which can be tracked through the amount of greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved.

CCES has the experts to help you assess your buildings and determine which green features will provide you with the most direct financial benefits, whether it be a full LEED certification or just upgrading with select features. We can assure you that the features will be incorporated correctly and provide the maximum financial benefits. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

AI Used For Improved Energy Efficiency

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is all the rage. Can a machine be built to use its intelligence to replace or even exceed the “natural” intelligence of humans? Can machines reliably and correctly process and interpret external data, learn from such data, and use it to achieve specific goals? The media is full of news of new AI discoveries and ways to use “robots” to displace workers in many fields. Can AI help society become more energy efficient?

Metro de Madrid, in conjunction with Accenture, developed and implemented a self-learning AI-based ventilation system to mini¬mize energy costs and ensure commuter comfort in metro stations. See https://www.energymanagertoday.com/artificial-intelligence-platform-firm-0177074/ Metro de Madrid claims to have reduced its ventilation energy costs by 25% and cut CO2 emissions by 1,800 tons annually.

To help passengers stay cool inside stations on hot summer days, Metro de Madrid operates 891 ventilation fans, consuming as much as 80 GWh of electricity annually.

Madrid Metro and Accenture Applied Intelligence developed a system that used an optimization algorithm leveraging data to explore every possible combination of air temperature, station architecture, train frequency, passenger load and electricity price. Both historic and simulated data were used. The algorithm used machine learning; the system improved its prediction of the optimal balance for each train station over time.

The system also includes a simulation and maintenance module, allowing for, among other things, tracking for failures in the fans’ operation. This enables Metro de Madrid to not only predict and monitor energy consump¬tion, but also identify and respond to potential system deficiencies and pro¬actively order equipment maintenance.

Teaching systems to find and use historic data to more accurately predict needs in the future is a way AI can help a system run better and more energy efficiently, too.

CCES is not an expert on AI, but we can use our extensive experience to help your entity be more energy efficient and productive and bring in AI experts, if necessary. We can give you options to determine the best direction forward of producing your product reliably and efficiently. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

How Do We Manage Energy Storage Systems?

Perhaps the great “missing piece of the energy puzzle” is energy storage. While renewable power has come down in price and is now competitive cost-wise compared to fossil fuel-fired plants, renewable power is still not a consistent source of power. The sun has its limits; wind has its limits. As people and businesses need power, at least one can combust fossil fuels all day or all year long to consistently supply power. If energy storage of excess power developed from renewable power plants can be made feasible and affordable, utility-sized renewable power projects will become commonplace; the market will demand this. Much research is being conducted into achieving this for energy storage and some progress has been made.

How should energy storage units be regulated? A recent petition at the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) may be a harbinger of such issues. The EFSB oversees transmission lines, gas pipelines, and certain generating facilities; in other words, the management and approval of, cost of, and environmental impacts associated with most significant energy infrastructure in Massachusetts.
In January 2019, Cranberry Point Energy Storage, LLC submitted a request that the EFSB not have jurisdiction over a proposed 150-megawatt, lithium-ion energy storage system in the state because the proposed system is not a “generating facility.” The proposed energy storage unit does not transform one type of energy into electric energy; it merely takes electric energy generated elsewhere, stores it, and then transmits it. Therefore, Cranberry Point does not need EFSB approval to construct and operate the proposed facility, nor can the EFSB regulate its use.

This is a potential double-edged sword for a developer. EFSB’s approval process for energy projects in Massachusetts is often rigorous and adds on to other state permitting processes. One would understand Cranberry Point’s desire to avoid EFSB review. However, EFSB approval of a project has also been used by applicants to counter local opposition to projects (if the project meets EFSB’s tough standards, it must be beneficial). Another concern is if an agency, such as EFSB (or equivalent ones in other states), no longer has jurisdiction to approve or manage an energy storage project, who does? If other aspects of energy infrastructure are subject to public oversight, why should energy storage be exempted? And if not, who is appropriate to decide if such a project is in the public interest and regulate it so it is run reliably and safely?

A decision on jurisdiction is likely within later this year. The debate, as the technology becomes more established, will spread throughout the country undoubtedly.

CCES has the experts to help your company manage your energy usage and sources to provide reliable, affordable power for electricity, heat, and steam. We understand the technologies for you to more efficiently and cost-effectively use power and from reliable, diversified sources. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

DOE Moves To Rescind Lighting Energy Efficiency Standards

The US Department of Energy (DOE) published its intention to rescind two 2017 rules which expanded energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. See https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/02/f59/withdrawal-of-gsl-definition-nopr.pdf. The DOE claimed that the plan misconstrued existing law and can no longer go forward.

The DOE’s Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles covers most major household appliances, including general service lamps (GSLs), The rule directs the DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles, one to include incandescent lights within the definition of GSL and the other to evaluate energy conservation standards for GSLs. January 2017 rulemaking addressed these 2 issues. The new energy conservation standards, which incandescent bulbs would have problems meeting, were to go into effect in January 2020.

Rescinding the rule would cost consumers billions of dollars and also increase emissions of GHGs and toxic compounds. Most of the American public and businesses have already addressed the standards, in terms of caldelabras, reflectors, sockets, and bulb performance. About 3 billion sockets in US homes alone would be impacted.

An analysis of the rule and its potential roll back estimates that rescinding the rules will:

• cost American households $22 billion in 2025, about $180 per household.

• US electricity use would increase by 80 billion kWh per year — about the combined usage of all households in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

• This relaxing of standards would cause more power plant activity (fossil fuel combustion) which would produce pollution harming the environment and contributing to health problems like asthma. Annual emission increases would include an extra 19,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, 23,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 34 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2025 — the latter equal to that of over 7 million cars.

The potential rescinding of the rules would also stifle innovation, eliminating a robust incentive for businesses and homeowners to purchase or invest in energy-efficient LED light bulbs.

The draft rule is currently open for public comment. A public hearing on this issue will be held on February 28, 2019.

Rule or no rule, CCES has the experts to help you invest in the most energy efficient lights possible to maximize your cost and other savings and to design and install them to optimize productivity and reduce O&M. Contact us today 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Summary of the Green New Deal

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey on Feb. 7, 2019 each released a framework for prospective legislation called a Green New Deal (GND), an ambitious green and economic policy. The GND proposals may serve as a blueprint for a future climate and energy package or a bipartisan infrastructure bill. Remember, these are not proposed legislation, but, instead, non-binding statements of principle, meant for public release, education, and debate. See: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5731829-Ocasio-Cortez-Green-New-Deal-Resolution and https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Green%20New%20Deal%20Resolution%20SIGNED.pdf.

General suggestions of a GND have been around going back to the Obama Administration, but took a turn to become more serious with the House returning to the Democrats following the 2018 midterm elections and the election of several Congresspeople whose election centered on climate issues, such as converting the U.S. to 100% carbon-free energy, revert to more aggressive environmental regulation, and make “green”-oriented investments in infrastructure and climate adaptation. Until earlier in February, there was no written structure to the recommendations.

The frameworks begin with the arguments about why green change is necessary, referring to the findings of the October 2018 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and of the November 2018 U.S. government National Climate Assessment Report. The documents use these findings to state their goals of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change by reducing GHG emissions by 40 to 60% below 2010 levels by 2030 and to net-zero global emissions by 2050.

However, these proposals go beyond just green goals by tying them to other issues of importance in the U.S., such as public health, environmental degradation, income inequality, and lack of access to healthcare, which affect of way of life and security. In addition, the documents propose major infrastructure, land management, afforestation, and public transportation investments to raise employment, improve productivity of land, and adapt to impacts of climate change. Few specifics are provided in terms of funding and economic output; however, this would result in major changes to the U.S. economy.

Neither GND resolution provides specifics on how this would be achieved. There is no suggestion of whether a price or tax on carbon emissions would be created or whether cap and trade policies would be used. There is nothing that would eliminate nuclear power as an option or carbon capture and sequestration.

Neither resolution has come up for a vote in either chamber, and whether either will is unknown. GND has garnered a lot of press attention, and there will likely be much debate throughout the country. There is growing press about recent extreme events (forest fires during “off-season”, polar vortex pulling apart, hurricanes, etc.) tied in part to climate change that worries a large portion of the U.S. population and the realization that reduced GHG emissions is necessary. On the other hand, it is anticipated that the GND will require a large injection of public money during a period of high deficits, potentially risking damaging the overall economy. Plus, there is the reality that much of the U.S. population is unfamiliar with these issues and technologies, and can be made to be fearful of change they are not familiar with and worried about future unknowns.

Polls and feedback from constituents may ultimately dictate its success. This will likely lead to the ultimate number of co-sponsors which will lead to an up or down vote or lead to further discussions by Presidential and other candidates in the 2020 election cycle. Might GND become an official plank of the Democratic party? If a vote can be held (more likely, the House), then whether it wins or loses in a close vote, may inform politicians of a growing green popularity in the U.S.

Should GND prove popular in public polls or in a vote, it is possible that some legislators will take some GND provisions and create new legislation based on them relativey soon, which could mean impacts of GND sooner than anticipated.

In the meantime, the public discussions of GND, its need, implementation, and potential impacts are occurring.

CCES has the experts to assist you in “greening” your operations in conjunction with or independent of the GND resolutions. We can recommend “green” options that will also benefit your bottom line (reduce costs, improve productivity, etc.) and project manage these changes to solidify the benefits. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Turning Peak Electric Demand Into a Positive

It is mid-winter and we are not thinking about the cost of cooling. However, it is not too early to consider that large portions of the country face a conundrum of an aging infrastructure, not as effectively delivering electricity to satisfy growing power demand. There is a growing risk of brownouts and blackouts – not from a shortage of electricity, but the difficulty in delivering it in amounts required when needed. This is bad for the bottom line of the utility and, of course, bad for business because without power or even with the heightened risk of losing power, businesses are vulnerable.

There is a double whammy of growing demand for energy and weaker infrastructure to deliver it. While many homes used to air condition only a couple of key rooms, now more homes can cool the entire house. It used to be people came home from work to a hot apartment or house, then turned on their AC unit and in a short time felt comfortable again. But with today’s technology, people can turn on their home ACs from their office, so they are cool when they enter their homes. As a result, there is demand for electricity simultaneously cooling an office and a home. This becomes a greater risk on a hot, humid day, which are growing in number. With economic growth, people use more electrical devices. We have the conundrum of a growing demand for electricity, with an aging infrastructure to deliver it at its peak. Many utilities now charge for high peak demand, as well as usage, to encourage reduction, but they are limited in cost hikes as ratepayers will not absorb the cost of upgrading infrastructure in their utility bills.

Therefore, many utilities must invest in programs to reduce electric (or natural gas) demand, particularly in the peak seasons (summer for electric, winter for gas). It is simply risky to expect a utility in some areas to deliver to meet growing peak needs. Many utilities have programs to reduce peak load and improve efficiency. In the most vulnerable areas of New York City (weakest infrastructure), Con Edison is giving away free of charge LED lights to building owners to reduce peak demand.

Another program that some utilities encourage is Demand Management (DM), which provides financial incentives to move energy-using processes to operate at night when relative demand is low. An example is replacing a large AC unit with an ice storage system, which would cool intake air. While making ice at night and maintaining it can use more electricity than an AC unit, the majority of electric use moves to night and not the peak afternoon hours. Therefore, this is something that utilities encourage – reducing demand during the peak period (hot, humid afternoons).

Another option is using an organization’s backup generation system to generate power on a hot, humid day, called Demand Response (DR). The building can be taken off the grid during peak demand, somewhat relieving the pressure on the utility to deliver large amounts of electricity to a particular area. In a typical program, the utility informs the building manager a day before that it will take the building off the grid and make sure they run their generator(s) during a few peak demand hours the next day. The utility provides healthy financial benefits for being available to go off the grid and each time one is called on and does so. The backup generator, often forgotten equipment, becomes a revenue generator. One complication of DR is the requirement that the facility obtain an air permit from the local environmental agency (usually the State). Being in DR, the unit is no longer “emergency” and loses its exemption from permitting. In addition, some states have specific emission or air pollution control requirements for non-emergency generators. Often, generators used for emergency purposes are older and may not have been an advanced model. Why spend on a unit that will be used so rarely? Thus, their emissions are likely higher and may not be able to meet the emission standards, unless they are upgraded, which could cost 6 figures.

Getting an air permit has a cost but is not too expensive. Upgrading to meet stringent emission standards, on the other hand, can be very expensive and overwhelm DR economic benefits. DR is something that companies which already have emergency generators should consider as a sound financial program. However, one should research air quality rules to see if there are stringent control requirements for such generators requiring costly upgrades.

CCES has the experts to provide you with site-specific information to help you decide on strategies to reduce your peak electric demand and enter incentive programs that reward such strategies. We can manage the implementation of the strategies to maximize your financial and risk benefits. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Prescriptive Vs. Performance Energy Incentive Programs

More utilities and local governments are creating and implementing incentive programs to get buildings to be more energy efficient. Energy infrastructure is aging and expensive to replace. There is concern in many large cities that during a peak demand period, such as a hot summer afternoon, needed electricity will not be able to be provided throughout a utility zone, affecting citizenry, businesses, and quality of life. It is not only in the utility’s interest, but in the government’s, as well, to encourage energy efficiency, so that a peak demand can be met. One way to incentivize the procurement and usage of energy-saving technologies and strategies is to reduce its cost. More and more entities offer rebates for the implementation of certain technologies, which otherwise may be costly. Of course, if public money is going to be given out, it must be accounted for; it must go to owners who actually upgraded their buildings for energy efficiency. This can lead to significant bureaucracy, which itself is costly and takes away from the pool of money available to incentivize. Therefore, the simplicity of an incentive program is very important, as well.

With this in mind, there are two major philosophies used to design incentive programs for those to become more energy efficient, prescriptive vs. performance. Each has certain advantages to different groups of people.

Prescriptive energy incentive programs try to minimize bureaucracy, be simple for the building owner and manager, and emphasize installing the technology. A typical prescriptive program allows the participant to purchase and install the technology and reap the rewards fairly quickly, irrespective of the final results (energy savings). Prescriptive incentives typically pay out a certain percentage of the upfront cost of a technology so that the user can plan the expenditure and what it will get back.

For example, a New Jersey prescriptive lighting program pays the building owner a certain cost per LED light. It may be $5 per tube for replacement of tube fluorescents with LED tubes, $15 per fixture for replacement of high bay lumineres with LEDs, $15 per fixture for task lights, $100 per fixture for stairwell lights, etc. The building owner simply counts the number of lights that are replaced with the LED equivalents, multiplies by the incentive factors, and now can determine what the simple payback is. Once the lights are demonstrated to be installed, the calculations can be confirmed and the incentive check issued.

In a prescriptive program, it does not matter precisely how many watts the new LED lights are or the wattage of the lights being replaced. The effectiveness of the exercise (total kWh or KW load reduced) is not important for this incentive program. A prescriptive energy efficiency program is a reward for installing improved technology.

The other type of energy incentive program is performance, basing financial incentives on the achieved energy reduction of the strategies. For each light replaced by an LED, the before and after wattages of the lights must be computed and, together with the estimated usage (hours per year) of each group of lights, the total kWh or kW reduction is computed. The rebate tied to the reduction in electricity usage and demand is what a performance incentive program is all about. Such programs give the building owner a certain money (typically $0.10 per kWh or $1.00 per therm reduced or peak kW reduced). This is used for lighting incentive programs, as wattages can be compared.

However, for other technologies, it is more difficult to determine accurate gains and performance. For example, if one upgrades HVAC equipment to something more modern and efficient, the exact energy savings cannot be predicted because it depends on the outside weather which differs from year to year. One may get a huge reduction in kWh from one year to the next. However, it may be due at least in part to a milder summer in the year the technology is installed, as much as the efficiency improvement. One way to get around this is to have a performance incentive program use computer energy modeling holding the weather as a constant to predict energy usage with old and new equipment conditioning the indoor air.

Performance incentives, therefore, require a lot more information before the incentive is issued compared to prescriptive. This means more time spent on the computer and more labor hours that needs to get paid for before the incentive is earned. However, the effort will likely result in a document that reports what the energy reduction due to the new equipment is likely to be. And utilities and governments often wish to provide rebates based on the actual degree of efficiency or usage reduced achieved as opposed to merely upgrading technology which may not be that effective to demonstrate significant energy usage reduction.

CCES can help manage the energy incentive programs in your area and advise you on which ones are more relevant and profitable to your business at whatever stage you are at. We can do the testing, complete the incentive paperwork and answer questions of the regulators. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or karell@CCESworld.com.

Massachusetts’ New Comprehensive Energy Plan

In December 2018, the Massachusetts Dept of Energy Resources released a new Comprehensive Energy Plan. (https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/12/11/CEP%20Report-12122018_0.pdf).

It may serve as a model for other states or regions of the country. Massachusetts’ two-fold goal is to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions consistent to what is called for by the United Nations and reduce energy usage substantially. It calls for the state to both electrify and to conserve energy usage as much as possible.

According to the Department, in 2016, only 17% of Massachusetts’ energy demand of over 1 quadrillion BTUs was from the electric sector. Transportation uses 44% of its energy and buildings (thermal) use about 39%. Therefore, significant upgrades need to be made in these two areas.

To achieve progress in transportation, the Plan recommends the following 3 changes:

1. Improve electric charging infrastructure

2. Establish a “goal” to require all new cars, light duty trucks, and buses sold in Massachusetts beginning in 2040 to be electric or have equivalent emissions

3. Establish a RGGI-style reduction credit trading system for transportation GHG emissions with other Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.

As for buildings (thermal), many buildings are switching fuels to natural gas, which results in solid GHG emission reductions. However, to meet the necessary climate change goals, a significant portion of buildings must do better. Because it is not likely in the foreseeable future that thermal load will become decarbonized, reductions can only work by reducing amount of fuel needed to be combusted. In other words, improve energy efficiency. The Plan has numerous references to improved efficiency, such as frequent testing and upgrading of boilers, improved insulation, smarter building, etc. But just as important, it has recommendations to get the information out and incentivize building owners and tenants to invest in energy and carbon reduction.

Together, this Plan could well be a model for what other states select as their way to reduce energy usage within their state and of GHG emissions in the future.

CCES has the experts to help your firm reduce energy usage in a smart way, to reduce costs and GHG emissions. Economical strategies, for you to get the best payback possible and to maximize other benefits, such as improved equipment and worker productivity, reduced O&M costs, no/minimal disruptions, etc. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Financial Factors Point to 2019 As The Best Time to Invest In Energy Upgrades

One of the most common complaints from building owners who want to upgrade their facilities, be more energy efficient and green, and save costs is that they do not have the funds to invest in those energy-saving technologies. If they can just get access to capital cheaply, they would make the investment and reap the benefits and savings in the future. As has been discussed in these writings, energy upgrade is a great investment, as good as any in any bank or on Wall St. A well-designed and executed project can net the building owner or company 20%, 30% or greater return on investment per year. Given that, a number of financial institutions have begun specializing in energy project financing. They realize with returns like these the risk of a borrower not having the funds to pay a loan back is very low. With low risk, they can afford to offer relatively low interest rate loans. Never has funds been so available for energy upgrade projects.

One area of lending specifically for energy projects is Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy or C-PACE (in some areas, known as PACE). With C-PACE, building owners can begin to implement smart energy upgrades quickly and re-pay over a long time through a voluntary benefit assessment lien, levied and recorded against the benefiting property, to be repaid along with property taxes. C-PACE allows building owners to potentially finance 100% of the cost of energy upgrades with, in most cases, only positive cash flow. The team assesses the likely future energy cost savings over time and arranges payments based on those projections, so that there is only positive cash flow. In the meantime, the upgrade is completed and the owner gets the benefits while repayment is made. Payments are usually made at the same time as property taxes are paid to the municipality, which transfers C-PACE payments to the lender. The owner knows when payment is due and how much.

A C-PACE loan is repaid through a long-term assessment, similar to property taxes, spacing out payments longer than traditional 7-year financing. Therefore, energy cost savings will exceed annual C-PACE payments for nearly all applicable projects. Only positive cash flow. While the owner receives a long-term asset upgrade, tenants get lower overall expenses and a more productive work environment.

Building owners commonly express concern that a C-PACE loan binds it to the building. While the buyer does have the obligation to pay back the loan once they take over ownership, the C-PACE lender has no say regarding the sale.
The C-PACE lender does not impose traditional lender requirements, such as quarterly reporting, maintenance of debt covenants or similar requirements. One less item for the building owner to worry about.

Things are topsy-turvy in government, in terms of energy policies and incentives to upgrade one’s energy systems. But waiting is not the answer because there is much money being wasted waiting and in the meantime operating old, clunky energy inefficient systems. This is simply not good business. As funds are now more readily available with terms that are more acceptable, 2019 is the best time to borrow funds and move forward and evaluate, design, and implement good energy upgrade projects.

CCES has the experts to help you plan the most financially beneficial energy upgrade project. We can give you several options to save money on energy and related systems and you can choose the one(s) most beneficial to you. CCES knows the PACE and C-PACE programs, as well as other lenders to help your projects go to reality and get the most benefits for you. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

EIA Report on 2017 CO2 Emissions

On October 31, 2018, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) released its report on US greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions in 2017. See: https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/

US energy-related CO2 emissions fell in 2017 to 5.14 billion metric tons, a drop of 0.9% from 2016 levels. Energy-related CO2 emissions dropped 14% (861 million metric tons) since 2005, and in 7 of the previous 10 years. Most of this year’s decline was due to continued reduction in coal combustion by fuel and in electric power by sector. CO2 emissions from the transportation sector rose slightly in 2017, exceeding those from the electric power industry sector for the first time since estimations began. Please note that before one celebrates too much, the electric power segment decline in CO2 emissions in 2017 were caused, in part, by a slightly milder summer nationwide (and lower demand for space cooling) compared to 2016.

In the longer term, from 2005 to 2017, the US economy grew by 20%, while US energy consumption fell by 2% and energy-related CO2 emissions decreased by 14%. Therefore, US economic growth in 2017 was 29% less carbon-intensive, and energy consumption was 12% less carbon-intensive.
Looking ahead, EIA projects that US energy-related CO2 emissions will rise by 1.8% (nearly 100 million metric tons) in 2018, then remain virtually unchanged in 2019.

While US energy-related CO2 emissions declined in recent years, the EIA estimates that global energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 21% (6,040 million metric tons) from 2005 to 2017. This rise in emissions was led by China, India, and other Asian nations, which collectively increased by slightly more than this amount. EIA projects that the rate of global growth of energy-related CO2 emissions will slow to 1% in 2018 and remain essentially flat in 2019.

The EIA estimates that the 4 states that emit the most energy-related CO2 emissions per capita (in order) are Wyoming, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Alaska. All of these states did reduce per capita CO2 emissions in the last decade, Alaska by 32%.

CCES has the experts to help you determine your company’s carbon footprint and recommend strategies to reduce it that will also save you costs and improve worker efficiency. A win-win: a better environmental footprint and many financial benefits, too. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or 914-584-6720.