Category Archives: Energy Management

Overlooked Way To Reduce Electricity Usage: Power Factor Correction

This blog has produced many articles on how to save electricity and other energy usage through energy efficiency or use of renewable power. All good. But an additional way to save electricity usage is to optimize the way electricity comes into your building and is managed, called Power Factor Correction. According to this excellent article in FacilityExecutive.com, Power Factor Correction can reduce energy use by 10% or more. (https://facilityexecutive.com/2017/02/paying-attention-power-factor/)

The article describes two kinds of power used in AC operations: active energy and reactive energy. Active power is more conducive to perform mechanical work. Therefore, ways to increase the relative proportion of active power to reactive power will lead to greater electricity savings. The article uses a beer analogy to describe this. Think of the beer mug as total electricity. The beer is composed of the liquid beer (active power) and the foam (reactive power). While the foam has some taste, you are clearly getting more of your money’s worth having more liquid in the mug and less foam.

The power factor (PF) is the ratio of the active to total electricity. A PF of 90% or greater is optimal. PF can be affected by two areas. If a motor is oversized for the application, this can lower PF. More power is needed initially to overcome greater viscosity during mixing compared to the middle of the operation. This can be corrected and efficiency improved with a variable frequency drive (VFD), which adjusts the motor output based on need. Another option to save electricity is to use a smaller motor, but perform the mixing for a longer period.

Another fine article (http://ecmweb.com/electrical-testing/how-s-your-power-factor-these-days) discusses well correcting PF at the load which for large motors can produce significant energy savings. Power factor correction introduces capacitor banks or energy compensators into the facility electrical infrastructure. Implementing these tools reduces energy loss, increases energy efficiency, and reduces equipment costs.

Power factor correction can be enhanced by adopting certain measures:

• Automatic capacitor banks provide economic benefit for low voltage loads

• Installing automatic low voltage capacitor banks allows for full compensations without risk of overcompensation.

• To better manage large sites with multiple transformers, facility managers should consider devices for capacitor bank monitoring and control with built-in communications capabilities.

While power factor correction is not as glitzy as solar panels or LED light arrays, it should be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce energy usage and costs. Make sure a qualified, experienced electrical firm performs the measurements of PF, as well as designs and installs the strategies to improve efficiency.

CCES has the experts to help you by performing an energy audit to help you maximize financial benefits by minimizing your energy usage and peak demand. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Natural Gas Generated from Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations

Municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) do the unheralded work of taking sanitary waste and treating it so it can be safely managed. Over a hundred years ago, cholera and other diseases of exposure to crude sanitary waste were commonplace in the US. But quietly, because of well-run WWTPs we have few cases any more.

While treating the solid waste portion of sanitary waste, bacteria digest the solids anaerobically to form digester gas, a gas that contains methane and has combustion capabilities. However, digester gas is more dilute, in terms of methane – than natural gas, and, therefore, is not very useful. Many WWTPs have purchased generators that can combust digester gas for supplemental power, but otherwise, there has been little interest in using digester gas for energy, particularly outside the WWTP.

A new process has been developed to convert digester gas to natural gas. This is often called RNG or renewable natural gas to differentiate it from natural gas that comes from the Earth and is mined, a fossil fuel. A large Phoenix WWTP is currently implementing this new process to turn digester gas into RNG and to place it in the city’s natural gas pipeline to use as a transportation fuel for its bus lines, making it the largest in the U.S.

This illustrates an opportunity for governments to take an asset it has (digester gas) and turn it into something useful for a different, large function (providing fuel for a bus fleet), saving much costs. It is also possible that governments could market and sell RNG to private entities, making such municipal functions money-makers. Of course, using RNG to displace fossil natural gas or diesel fuel has environmental benefits, as well, and can be part of an effort to make the municipality more sustainable. The project is expected to initially generate $1.2 million in annual revenue. While the cost of the project is high and the payback may not be strong, this is a useful endeavor for the Phoenix area and give leaders flexibility in terms of how to power their plants and fleets.

CCES can help your firm evaluate your energy sources and provide you with cost savings and greater flexibility of future use. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

How Many Engineers Does It Takes to Change a Lightbulb?

Kelly Blount
Mintek Corporation

The question is silly, yes, but it could help determine if your facility spends too many labor hours on an asset that doesn’t need such attention, perenially saving you costs.

Lighting plays a crucial rule in any organization. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the percentage of electricity usage due to lighting rose from 38% of total electricity draw in 1979 to 55% in 2003, more than that for space heating, cooling, ventilation, office equipment, and computers combined.

Some facility owners take for granted that LED lighting saves cost over fluorescents or incandescent lighting for their organizations. The question then becomes: what other benefits are there and how much could you save in labor costs by switching to LEDs?
LED lighting can reduce electric costs in your facility by 20% to 50% or more depending on which current light sources are being replaced.
The life of a LED replacement lamp or module in dedicated fixtures is much longer than incandescent, halogen, or T12 or T8 fluorescent tubes. Therefore, they don’t require replacing as often as conventional light bulbs.

The average lifespan of one LED bulb is about 50,000 hours where a conventional incandescent bulb lasts about 1,000 hours. So, you will change a conventional bulb 50-labor consuming times before you change an LED once.

There are a few variables that can affect labor savings when using LEDs. Facility managers should consider the distance maintenance personnel must travel to retrieve the bulb, transportation method, height/accessibility of the bulb, and other factors contributing to labor hours. Assuming an average bulb-changing time of 15 minutes, an average labor cost of $12/hour, replacing one bulb will cost- $3.00
But, during the lifetime of a single LED, you will have changed the incandescent bulb in the same fixture 50 times which brings the total labor changing cost to $3.00 for 1 LED vs. $150 for incandescents. And this is the cost to replace just 1 bulb. Assume your facility uses 200 bulbs, total replacement labor cost for the LEDs would be $600 vs $30,000 (200 x $150) for conventional bulbs!

Facilities can also save on ballast installation for fluorescent tubes; there is a labor cost associated with the installation of replacement ballasts which is avoided when upgrading to LEDs. Ballasts for fluorescent bulbs adds additional electricity use, too.

Maintenance expenses in the lighting world manifest themselves in three primary ways:
1. Cost of replacement lamps and fixtures
2. Cost of labor to replace said lamps or damaged fixtures
3. Warranty protection and duration
Therefore, in many situations, the substantial maintenance savings can nearly double overall project savings. LED is smart business when it comes to return on investment.

LEDs, like any other asset, are also best paired with an Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) software in a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS). This allows technicians to keep records of all maintenance done on the bulbs to show proper cost savings and retrieve asset history, demonstrating that LEDs are the smart move.
Hospitality Equipped With LEDs

The hospitality industry is just one of many industries/businesses that could save on labor and maintenance cost by switching to LEDs. According to Lumenistics.com, “a hotel in Las Vegas reportedly replaced inefficient metal halide lights on the building’s facade with LED lighting; this move saved the facility about $41,000/annually.”

In the same article, there was a casino in Wisconsin that was expected to save “more than $221,000 in electric costs the first year the building’s new LED lights are in use, and $120,000 in maintenance costs over the next six years.”

Switching to LED bulbs give facilities more time to focus on other labor costs, maintenance situations, asset management, and less time focusing on an asset that can basically take care of itself and save you money.
Wouldn’t you want more options like that for your facility?

Mintek is a turn-key solutions developer for the telecommunications, lodging, and public utilities industries. Mintek’s EAM/CMMS software, Transcendent, provides access to customer, employee, and asset information beyond the traditional office. We allow facility managers to “run their business from their phone.” Our premise is that our technology must provide a rapid verifiable return on the investment.

Link: www.mintek.com
Mintek Mobile Data Solutions
Contact: Kelly Blount
Phone #: 800-789-7226

Little-Known Federal Appliance Standards Rank as #2 Energy-Saving Tool

There is much concern as the new Trump Administration must now administer such well-publicized environmental standards, such as Clean Power Plan, Paris Climate Treaty, new vehicle fuel efficiency standards and more that it has inherited. The Trump Administration has been open about their disdain for many new environmental programs and their desire to abrogate or weaken them.

However, a couple of other existing USEPA and DOE programs have quietly been quite effective in reducing toxic air emissions, energy usage, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions: the corporate average fuel economy or CAFÉ standards and the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA).

According to a recent study, CAFE standards for cars and trucks saved more energy in the US in 2014 (7.3 quadrillion BTUs) with US appliance standards coming in second at 5.3 quadrillion BTUs of energy saved in 2014.

While abandoning the US’s pledge for the Paris Climate Treaty (26-28% reduction in CO2e emissions by 2025) and repealing the Clean Power Plan (cutting CO2e emissions by about 220 million metric tons by 2030) will not be positive for energy savings and GHG emission reductions, there is certainly a movement among US consumers to save energy, and, thus, GHG emissions, as the cost of excess energy usage comes from their pockets.

Current CAFÉ standards were finalized in August 2012, highlighted by an agreement with 13 large automakers to increase fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025. Even the immediate improvement in fuel economy for limited models has resulted in the great energy and GHG emission savings noted above. These savings will increase more rapidly as the years go on as the standards increase and more models hit the road.

Quietly, though, national appliance standards have also effectively reduced energy use and GHG emissions. The original National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA) was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. It created uniform federal standards in response to complaints by the industry that it was difficult to keep track and comply with a myriad of different state standards. It contains minimum efficiency standards for a variety of appliances. It also prohibits manufacturers from advertising a product as meeting their energy efficiency standard unless it performed testing under federal guidelines that confirms this and that the testing is available to the public.

National appliance standards have been estimated to save the average US household about $500 per year on utility bills. In 2015, the appliance standards has been estimated to avoid 300 million tons of CO2e emissions.

The DOE has periodically updated the NAECA standards, mainly as part of the Energy Act of 2005. Over 50 consumer products are now covered by these standards. Despite being called an “Appliance” standard, NAECA covers other consumer, home-based products found in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors, such as battery chargers, pool heaters, and furnace fans. See http://www.appliance-standards.org/national. Some products have minimum energy standards found only at the state level. California, Connecticut, and Oregon have been the most aggressive, with minimum standards for televisions, DVD players, and game consoles.

Energy savings due to the NAECA has grown to 13% of electricity consumption in 2015 and 4% of natural gas consumption. And these energy savings are achieved without the consumer doing anything or investing in anything. And there is no risk of failure as the appliances will meet the standards of lower energy usage.

These savings are expected to grow in the future as future, more stringent standards will come in line for new or existing products. The USDOE has issued new standards for rooftop air conditioners and commercial warm air furnaces that are predicted to reduce energy usage by an additional estimated 5.8 quadrillion Btus over 30 years.

So while other prominent energy and environmental accords and rules have garnered a lot of publicity and have the risk of being eliminated or curtailed, the NAECA is an act that has quietly been successful in reducing a significant amount of energy for people in the residential and manufacturing areas with no loss of availability or function with no hassle or bureaucracy for the end-user. And with little or no complaint from the appliance industry. There appears no talk that it will be streamlined in the new administration. And let’s hope that the CAFE standards, the most successful government act in reducing energy usage, does not materially change, although there is some talk about that.

CCES can help you evaluate the energy usage of your building, whether it be commercial, industrial, or residential and determine many ways to reduce energy usage and peak demand, saving you money, creating other financial benefits, and with minimal risk or disruption. Join the many who have used CCES to save money in the short- and long-term. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

More Multifamily Buildings See the Value in Energy Efficiency

Energy efficiency has taken over in commercial and industrial buildings. It is simple to administer, as the entire building can be evaluated and the owner pays the upfront costs, but also reaps the benefits of energy cost savings and longer lasting equipment.

It is a different story for residential multifamily buildings, however. Energy is used in many different ways in a multifamily and is controlled by many different elements, not just the owner. Residents control much of the energy use of the building, such as lighting, AC, plug load, and how they are operated. For each resident to swap out more efficient lights, TVs, etc. for their current ones is not cost-effective, and doing so as a unit can lead to disputes. Similarly, building owners who wish to become more energy efficient on common energy sources, such as boiler, pipes, hall and lobby lights, elevators, and laundry equipment, are discouraged by coop or condo boards and by distribution of monetary benefits (savings go toward owner’s profits or be given to renters or unit owners in reduced rent or maintenance). And then there is building maintenance staff (“supers”), who have no training or knowledge of energy efficiency.

Therefore, multifamily buildings rarely undergo energy upgrades and tend to have older, less efficient equipment than in commercial or industrial buildings, even though they can be larger in size. This is too bad as multifamilies offer great potential for savings.

One new item that is changing the equation and encouraging investment in energy efficiency in multifamily buildings are the new energy benchmarking rules in effect in about a dozen major US cities currently. Renters and buyers now have information and can and will use such data to determine where they prefer to live. For the owner of a relatively efficient building, they have proof their property is more desirable and enables them to charge higher rents or maintenance fees. For buildings said to be relatively inefficient, it provides the confirmation needed to tackle problems and that there are many other buildings to try to emulate. There is hope out there.

Energy efficiency data, virtually completely absent from real estate evaluations 5 years ago, is now more accessible, and the appraisal community is beginning to integrate such data into their value equations. This should result in relative right-sizing the value of efficient and less efficient buildings, and encourage investment in buildings which may have many things going for it, but are inefficient energy-wise.

This is beginning to real results to conserve energy use in multifamily buildings. For example, the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) is researching an energy efficiency credential program for multifamily staff. Everyday maintenance of the physical building and equipment is a cost-effective way to save energy.

In summary, the world of multifamily buildings – when it comes to energy – is complex, with differing needs and concerns of renters and unit owners, coop and condo boards, and owners. Who will pay the costs of upgrades? Who will benefit and when? However, multifamily buildings represent an opportunity for significant energy savings. Given popular benchmarking rules where the public can see energy (and water use) ratings of buildings, there is impetus to invest toward energy efficiency.

CCES can provide the technical experience to perform an energy evaluation of your building (multifamily or not) and develop cost-saving strategies to reduce energy use and peak demand saving you not only significant energy costs, but also improving the value of your building and reducing your O&M costs. Contact us today with any questions at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

How to Avoid Costly Office Technology Disasters: 7 Cringeworthy Examples of What Not to Do

BY DAVID J. ROSENBAUM, PRINCIPAL,
CITRIN COOPERMAN TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING

When selecting space or designing an office interior, proper planning for technology is critical; failure to do so can be expensive and disruptive. Including a technology consultant as part of the professional design and engineering team can help to avoid costly mistakes. Learn from these 7 real-life examples.

1. Server Room Column – The architect designed offices for a law firm and provided a centrally positioned server room with adequate dimensions to accommodate the firm’s file server rack. What the architect failed to take into account were the clearances required in front of the rack and behind the rack to service the equipment, and the fact that the column in the server room would prevent the equipment from sliding out of the rack for maintenance.

2. Building MPOE – The real estate broker and landlord assured the client that Internet and telephone services were provided to a warehouse building. What nobody disclosed was that the building’s main point of entry (MPOE) was at the opposite side of the building, and that a 2” EMT conduit would be required from the MPOE to the client’s communications room with an unexpected, unbudgeted cost of nearly $15,000.

3. Conference Table – The furniture dealer proposed a beautiful conference table for the client’s Board Room, and the architect specified appropriate core drills to bring power, voice and data service to the surface of the table through the table’s pedestals. When the furniture dealer recommended an “even more beautiful” conference table that was “on sale” he failed to coordinate the change with the architect or general contractor. The result was delivery of a truly beautiful table that didn’t align with the incoming feeds. The cables draped on the floor from the core drills to the pedestals were unsightly and compromised the entire look of the Board Room.

4. Space Heaters – The MEP consultant and the architect assured the client that the temperature in the new offices would be properly regulated and balanced, and that staff would not need space heaters in order to be warm during the winter. What the MEP and architect failed to take into account was client “organizational culture” which emphasized work comfort, interpreted as allowing space heaters. In the client’s old office, a proliferation of space heaters resulted in frequent circuit breaker trips and loss of data on the computers that were sharing the circuits; in the new office, an additional electrical panel to support individual space heaters would have added $45,000 to the project. Ultimately client management agreed to prohibit employee use of space heaters, and tasked the MEP, architect and general contractor with assuring that employees were comfortable without them.

5. “Redundant” Air Conditioning – The MEP met the client’s requirement for redundant server room air conditioning systems, but designed the two systems to both rely on the building’s cooling tower. When the cooling tower lines froze during the winter, both air conditioning systems failed and the server room began to overheat. Ultimately a 3rd air cooled system was added at significant post-construction expense to provide proper system redundancy.

6. Cable Pathways – The cabling vendor roughed-in cables from the building’s service closet to the tenant’s communications room, which were then enclosed in a soffit by the general contractor. When additional communications circuits were later required, it was discovered that nobody had thought to leave a drag line or provide pull boxes to facilitate future connections. Due to the pathway and turns in the pathway, the soffit needed to be penetrated to install additional cabling, then reclosed and repainted at additional cost and disruption to the client.

7. Internet Services – The real estate broker identified space that met the client’s requirements for location, budget and useable square footage, but didn’t review the availability of suitable Internet services for the floor the client would be occupying. After signing the lease and beginning construction, the client learned that the building’s management would not permit the current Internet provider to install any additional services through the riser closets unless they first cleaned up the cabling that had been installed haphazardly over the past 15 years. The result was that the client experienced delays in occupying the space and incurred additional costs securing Internet service from a different, more expensive provider that wasn’t similarly barred.

This demonstrates the importance of planning and anticipating future needs. While it’s not possible to anticipate everything when selecting or designing an office space, a thorough review of current technology-related requirements and possible future needs is critical to assure that the client’s needs are met. Working with professionals who’ve been through the process before can help to avoid these and other pitfalls.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: David Rosenbaum is a Principal at Citrin Cooperman. He has more than 35 years of experience in the information technology field and is a third-generation entrepreneur. David can be reached at 914.693.7000 or drosenbaum@citrincooperman.com

Citrin Cooperman Technology Consulting is focused on meeting the needs of small and midsized businesses. With experience in a variety of industries, our team is well-equipped to support your company’s growth and vision. We have four core service offerings including best practices assessments, outsourced IT, corporate relocation services, and compliance implementation.

Solar PV Will Grow in 2017 And Beyond

According to a recent Bloomberg article, solar power has become the world’s cheapest form of new electricity generation. See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind Solar PV is cheaper than not only other renewables (i.e., wind), but also is cheaper than conventional sources, such as coal and natural gas.

According to Bloomberg’s analysis, the cost of solar power in many emerging market economies has dropped by about two-thirds since 2010. The article reports that during 2016 the price of electricity from solar dropped by over 50% to a low of $29.10/MWh in Chile, which is about half the price of coal-produced electricity there. The article attributes this drop in costs to China’s massive investment in solar panel production and its assistance to other countries financing their own solar projects. 2016 is expected to see global generating capacity of newly-installed solar PVs reach a record 70 gigawatts (estimated), exceeding that of wind for the first time.

And solar PV will get a further “shot in the arm” as technology to integrate solar power into buildings themselves is ready to make its debut in the field. Tesla and Panasonic will jointly begin to manufacture and market Tesla’s solar roof products. Manufacturing will be performed at Tesla’s Buffalo, NY facility.

This technology is called building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) sector. See http://news.energysage.com/tesla-solar-panel-roof-the-next-solar-shingles/ BIPV is the inclusion of solar power-generating elements in the construction of a structure. A roof or window is present not just for protection from elements or for aesthetics, but now can contain the elements to absorb sunlight and generate electricity, as well. This is in contrast with traditional rooftop solar installations, which entails attaching PV panels separately to roofing material. Integrating solar power generation as part of the construction project rather than as a separate post-construction addition would result in cost savings by reducing labor and installation costs and eliminating the need for separate racking equipment. With Tesla’s BIPV, solar becomes an efficient building material rather than an add-on. This is not the first such product as solar roof shingles (from Dow and others) already exist, but has had a limited market. Dow has exited this business segment.

Market research indicates that some building managers are hesitant to commit to traditional solar panels because they are an add-on. If the roof underneath needs work there is extra labor to remove and then put back on the solar panels. An integrated product would address this concern. A recent study estimated an annual compounded growth rate of BIPV of nearly 10% over at least the next 5 years.

CCES can help you decide if solar PV is right for your buildings, including BIPV or traditional add-on panels and whether it makes economic sense. And we can advise you on any of many other issues in the energy and environmental areas to maximize your financial gain and minimize risk. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Despite Election, Six Reasons Why Clean Energy Will Still Do Well In The Future

With a new presidential administration and team at Energy and the USEPA soon to be sworn in, it is assumed that the US will repeal many current environmental rules, attempt to develop more of its own fossil fuels, and walk away from Paris climate change commitments. However, there are strong economic, global, and non-political factors that will move the US away from these actions or prove that they are actually harmful for the companies that the new Administration wishes to benefit the most.

Here are six reasons:

1. Economic forces are stronger than repealing a few rules. Right now, there is a glut of oil relative to demand, as many nations are only slowly recovering from the Great Recession or are entering a new slowdown themselves (i.e., China). Should the US succeed in greater exploration of coal or crude oil or invest in improving pipelines to move the oil, this will be a “dump” in the market, pushing down prices more and reducing profit margins of coal and oil companies. This would be true even if this growth were to take a few years, as futures markets will react.

Further, if the Trump Administration gets its wish to relax or repeal many environmental rules, which they believe is “holding back” energy companies, economic forces will make coal, oil, etc. more inexpensive. Other oil and coal producers (Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Middle East, etc.) are all desperate for revenue to keep their regimes going and populations happy, and are likely to dump as much energy supply on the market as possible. The US will just add to that. Despite OPEC agreements to hold back putting oil on the market, countries will want to maximize needed revenue. Economic forces are greater than loosening some environmental rules.

2. The effort to get fossil fuel supplies. Even with a “green light” from Energy or the Interior, as time goes on, it will get harder for companies to drill for or mine oil, natural gas, or coal. Companies naturally look for the easiest and cheapest sources. In the future, companies will need to dig deeper or in further away places than years ago, raising the baseline cost. Because of oversupply the price of a gallon of crude oil or coal may not be worth the cost to produce it – even if environmental regulations were to be relaxed (if this is even allowed).

3. Improved technology favors clean sources of energy. Another economic force that even the Trump Administration cannot stop is technology. Improved technologies are being invented and successfully implemented all the time to make renewable energy more effective, practical, and affordable. New wind farms in west Texas can be built for as little as $22/MW, and solar farms in the desert for about $40/MW. In contrast, the cost to build a new natural gas-burning power plant is estimated to be about $52/MW and for coal about $65/MW. Even if environmental controls do not need to be included, there will still be a gap and that gap will climb as renewable technology improves more. There is also the crucial issue of time. Renewable power plants can be up and running in a matter of months; for a fossil fuel plant to begin operation, it’s years.

While causing GHG emissions, natural gas will also be favored because it is lower in GHG emissions compared to oil or coal and can be shipped overseas as LNG much more conveniently and cheaper than oil or coal.

There is also forecasted progress in battery storage capabilities. Thus, it is likely that eventually, all forms of transportation will be able to operate using electric power, lessening the need for gasoline or diesel oil combustion, resulting in lower GHG emissions and saving money, too. It is not an accident that major oil & gas companies are all investing in energy storage, LNG, and renewable energy.

4. Growing understanding of the impacts of “dirty” fuels. Another factor favoring clean energy is the strength of the problems and growing understanding about the impacts of “dirty” energy. There is much worldwide publicity about the air pollution issues in China with pictures shown worldwide of filthy vistas and people walking around in masks. Asthma and other lung diseases have risen dramatically, and the Chinese now realize that environmental issues are high impact economic issues, too, affecting future growth. Many other locations worldwide are learning this, too. So even if the Trump Administration tries to repeal many environmental and public health rules, it will not succeed because of the risk of such scenes becoming common in the US and that world markets, with the biggest component, China, in the lead, will move away from dirty fuels and toward renewables over the next few decades.

5. The power of the States. While those picked to run national environmental and energy policies have historically fought to repeal many regulations, the States have considerable sway in their energy mix. More than half of US states have laws requiring utilities to incorporate a minimum percentage of renewable energy into their generation mix. Some such rules are in force in states considered conservative politically. Some states have very aggressive goals. These will force utilities to contract for or build plants for renewable power in the near future, independent of who is President.

In addition, some states administer GHG emission rules that have been determined to be effective in getting utilities to move away from coal toward renewable power. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cap and trade system for GHG emissions from large power plants in 9 Northeastern states, and is considered a success as it met GHG reduction goals ahead of schedule at a relatively low cost to the regulated utilities. California has aggressive rules it is enforcing. Other states are considering similar rules to encourage renewable power in their states.

6. The power of the private sector. In addition to the States, some major corporations have thrown in their lot to move toward a heavy reliance for renewable power, including Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and Google. It is in their long-term plans to maximize renewable power as their source of electricity for a variety of reasons, including reliability of supply (the sun will always shine, while there could be an embargo or shortage of oil or coal). For the most part, these companies have succeeded and saved energy costs, as well. Other companies are likely to see the success and authorize their own programs to catch up and obtain the benefits.

While there is much to worry about in terms of our future work in the environmental and energy sectors, these factors, beyond the control of the upcoming Administration, should ensure that there is much progress in the future for clean energy, environmental safeguards, and renewable powers.

CCES has the experts to help your company assess impacts of future environmental or energy rules. We can provide you technical advice to help you determine your current status and determine strategies in the future to put yourself in a better place. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Focus on Efficiency: Steam Heating

There are lessons we can learn from New York City, which was the first major city to have an energy benchmarking rule, requiring owners of large buildings to report (not necessarily, reduce) energy usage. Several years of data confirm what most New Yorkers know: most residents live in multifamily buildings 50 or more years old (built when energy was plentiful and cheap), using steam-generating boilers for heating. These systems are complex, not designed with efficiency in mind, and old, a bad combination. Many potential upgrades are complex and expensive, so most owners wait for the system to virtually break down before upgrading. In addition, many years ago there was very bad publicity about certain managers who intentionally withheld heat from tenants to get them to leave (to re-rent units at higher rates). To avoid such publicity, most owners now willingly incur the cost of inefficiency to give too much heat to tenants. It is not unusual to walk around NYC and see open windows when the outside temperature is well below freezing!

With this large housing stock and together with NYC Sustainability Office’s goal of reducing GHG emissions by 80% by 2050, there is impetus to promoting upgrades of cranky, ancient steam systems. Other cities are taking note. The USDOE estimates that 2.5 million multi-family buildings are steam-heated nationwide.

The key to achieving success in making steam systems in so many buildings more energy efficient is to convince owners to invest in them and demand results, a difficult matter to educate them on.

NYC’s Office of Sustainability estimates that if every large, steam-heated building in New York City performed only fairly simple upgrades, its building-based GHG emissions could be cut by about 5%. This includes annual tune-ups for boilers and burners and insulating pipes in steam or hot water service (including condensate return pipes). NYC has rules which mandate steam production when the outdoor temperature drops below a certain point. As a result, many control systems regulate boiler operation based on outdoor temperature only. However, more efficient control systems can react to indoor temperatures pinpointing areas to deliver steam in apartments that need it, closing certain radiator valves, if unnecessary. Some valve systems can be controlled by the tenant, allowing residents to control the steam flow to the unit rather than receiving full load and opening windows to the cold outdoor air.

Such simple actions to improve a steam system’s efficiency can reduce heating fuel use by about 15%, saving building owners $10,000 to $30,000 annually.

But besides the money savings, it’s important to show building owners that such upgrades are quite achievable and risk-free; teaching them that these simple steps have worked for others and will work in their systems. It’s important to counter the defeatist attitude of: “Oh, my system is so old, nothing will ever work to make it better!” Emphasize these steps are simple and will work successfully. While we, as engineers, understand that, it is difficult to express this to clients, as it is part of our nature to be careful and not overpromise, while they do not want to hear about risk.

CCES has the experts to help you evaluate your steam boiler system and recommend small or large upgrades to be more efficient, save utility costs, and provide assurance of comfort to your tenants. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

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.