Category Archives: Energy Management

Talking Points: Lighting Upgrades

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

Background

There is no hard and fast rule, but for many businesses lighting is a significant, if not majority, source of energy usage. Therefore, reducing energy, a fast-growing cost center, should start with lighting. There has literally – not figuratively, literally – been a revolution in technology allowing equipment to operate just as well, if not better, while using significantly less energy. Leading the way is lighting technology.

Light emitting diodes (LEDs) in general, use about half of the electricity (wattage) of an equivalent fluorescent lamp producing the same amount (lumens) of light. For incandescents, wattage reduction is 70% or more. LEDs is not a “new” technology as some think; it was invented in 1927. It was not popular for a long period because of its high cost and limitations on how it can be used. Over time, these issues have been overcome, LEDs can fit in virtually every existing fixture or ballasts, and its cost has dropped markedly and likely bottomed out. Now, it’s a “no-brainer” to replace with LEDs.

The Many Benefits of LED Lighting

• Save significant energy costs. As mentioned above, LED lamps use half or less the wattage of conventional lamps. One may think that replacement may represent “only” a “minor” drop in, say, 16 watts per lamp, and, thus, is “not worth it”. However, many commercial buildings operate hundreds, if not thousands, of lights over many hours per day and days per year. Therefore, the electric usage (kilowatt-hours) and cost savings by switching to LEDs is significant. Switching to LEDs also reduces peak load, reducing that high charge utilities typically charge based on peak demand.

Depending on the LED project, it is typical to see simple paybacks of 1 to 3 years. Since most LED lights are warrantied for 7 years, you will have 4 to 6 years of “gravy”. In fact, many LED replacement projects have a return on investment in the range of 20 to 40% per year. What bank or Wall St. investment pays this well, with no risk (reduced wattage is reduced wattage)?! And the single act of changing to LEDs leads to an increase in future savings as cost is based on electric rates, which only going up every year!

Some managers, even when they are convinced that LED lamps are the way to go, will only replace existing lights as they burn out. Given these robust financial benefits, switching all your lighting to LEDs makes the most economic sense, and represents cost savings that occur and will be quite visible in your first electric bill.

• Longer life spans. LED lamps typically last much longer than fluorescent lamps translating into lower maintenance and replacement costs. LED lights are warrantied for 7 years or more, while fluorescents must be replaced, typically, every two years. Having to change lamps less often saves building management time and aggravation in replacing lamps and frees Maintenance to concentrate on more important issues. Also, fewer lamp changes means fewer trips up and down a ladder or cherry picker, reducing the risk of accidental falls. Finally, the long lifetime also reduces the quantity of lamps you must keep onsite for replacement, freeing up valuable space for other purposes.

• Cool. LEDs release much less heat than other lamp types. Therefore, switching to LEDs can reduce indoor temperatures by 1-2°F, and therefore lower AC usage during hot weather, further reducing your electricity usage, peak demand, and, therefore, cost.

• Superior color, increased comfort. LED lamps produce light that is more pleasing to the eye given its clear light and high marks on the Color Rendering Index (CRI). This also indicates accurate true color reproduction. LEDs can be programmed to change its color temperature as the day goes on to reduce eye strain and stress, increase worker productivity, and raise visiting customer comfort and mood.

But There’s More!

If that were not enough, there are other strategies that one can implement to reduce energy usage through lighting. It is important to start with a lighting evaluation. Are there dark spots? Might you be delivering too much light to places, not only wasting electricity, but also causing eye strain and frustrated workers? There may be opportunities to de-lamp, remove one or several lamps in different areas to deliver the right amount of light.

And there is lighting controls. Operating even an efficient LED lamp is wasting electricity if it is lighting an area not being used. It is often assumed that all lights are turned off by the last user when a space is vacated. However, the reality is often people forget to turn off lights (as well as Housekeeping), and they remain on lighting an empty space for many hours or all night. Lighting controls effectively save electricity by turning off lights when a space is not in use and turning them back on when people enter. These controls can operate based on the space’s occupancy, a set schedule, or amount of sunlight entering the space. Significant electric cost savings can be achieved by intelligent use of lighting control technology.

I hope that this overview of lighting opportunities gives you the information to forge ahead and implement sound strategies sooner rather than waiting, rather than later, to upgrade your lights for greater user comfort and productivity and to save electric costs.

CCES has the experts to help you assess your space and determine which lighting and other energy strategies will provide you with the most direct financial benefits. We can perform the preliminary assessment, rank the options for you, and project manage the strategies you select to ensure locking in to those maximum financial benefits. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

US EPA To Classify Wood Burning as Carbon Neutral

The US EPA recently stated its plans to propose a rule that would classify combustion of forest biomass from power plants and other sources as carbon neutral.

The US EPA has struggled to develop an accounting framework for biogenic CO2 emissions for a decade as part of its effort to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act, as it must based on a Supreme Court ruling. The US EPA has modified Title V, New Source Review (NSR), and other programs accordingly. For example, NSR is triggered by net emission increases of proposed new or modified plants or operations and requires certain emission reductions. How does one count the CO2 generated from wood-burning equipment, given that the carbon given off comes from the ground and the CO2 generated can be absorbed by other biomass? The US EPA has performed a lengthy process to research and assess whether combustion of biomass is truly carbon neutral and whether such treatment of biogenic CO2 emissions is valid.

In 2011 and then again in 2014, the US EPA published draft technical reports containing frameworks for assessing biogenic CO2 emissions associated with biomass combusted for power generation at stationary sources based on a carbon lifecycle approach. Peer review of the second draft report has not been finalized due to accounting and calculation disagreements. Therefore, the answer to the question of how to account for GHG emissions from biomass combustion has not been settled until now.

On April 23, 2018, the US EPA issued a policy (stated as a non-scientific) statement (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-04/documents/biomass_policy_statement_2018_04_23.pdf) that future regulatory actions would treat as carbon neutral biogenic CO2 emissions from the combustion of biomass from managed forests at stationary sources for energy production. The policy statement intended to reduce environmental barriers and, thus, encourage the use of forest biomass for energy at stationary sources.

On April 2, 2019, US EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler told lawmakers that the agency intends to propose a new rule that would treat biogenic CO2 emissions from power plants as carbon neutral. The proposal is expected this summer and, if adopted, the rule will have implications for the power generation industry

Besides changes in emission accounting in NSR and similar air quality rules based on this potential rule change, this potential rule also has impacts on forest policy. Currently, there are few certifications that qualify a forest for federal procurement opportunities. However, if biomass combustion is considered carbon neutral and less negative compared to the past, then the number of forests that could participate in federal procurement opportunities could increase. In the private sector, this could make it easier for companies to claim sustainable environmental practices and meet established sustainability criteria.

Declaring biomass combustion as carbon neutral may provide states with more options to meet their Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). Nearly 40 states have their own RPS, which requires a specified percentage of saleable electricity to come from renewable sources. If biomass combustion is considered carbon neutral, it can be an additional option for a state planning to meet its RPS goal.

CCES has the experts to help your facilities manage your energy usage and to provide workable strategies to diversify your fuels and energy sources for greater future flexibility and meet your sustainability goals. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Hospitals Is An Industry Making Minor Progress On Energy Efficiency

According to a recent report from Grumman/Butkas Associates, hospitals has shown some, but not substantial progress in being more energy efficient over the past 20 years. See https://mailchi.mp/grummanbutkus.com/hospitalsurvey2018p1-1345361.

Comparing recent surveys by the firm, hospital greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2010 averaged 63 lbs CO2e/square foot(sf)-year, while in 2017, it dropped to 52 lbs CO2e/sf-year.

However, average site energy usage intensity dropped only 0.3% during that period. Total energy usage (electricity, gas/oil, steam) of participating hospitals was nearly 242,000 Btu/sf in 2017.

As far as costs are concerned, according to the 2018 benchmarking survey report, hospitals have reduced their energy costs per square foot from a peak of about $3.75/sf in 2008 to about $3.16/sf in 2017. However, given the note above that the industry made only minor progress in energy efficiency, most of this cost reduction was achieved by negotiating better supply prices, leveraging their large usage. And, most of this was on the natural gas side. These numbers are fairly similar to those developed during their first survey in 1999.

All of this data spells critical issues, and also opportunities for the hospital industry. A 2014 survey showed that 51% of hospital expenses was energy related, far exceeding staff costs. Thus, reducing energy usage can help control hospital costs, which, as we all know, is a major political issue, in terms of affordable health care for all.

One problem with attempting to reduce energy usage in hospitals is the culture of redundancy. One way to reduce energy usage and, thus, GHG emissions, too, is to reduce or eliminate redundancy. However, having extra equipment, ambulances, at the ready is an important part of how a hospital operates and thinks. A hospital cannot function thinking there is a risk to patient health due to a cutback that would “merely” save energy or GHG emissions. Therefore, investments in ensuring more reliable systems can reduce redundancy and, therefore, emissions.

I can share the story of a hospital that keeps an ambulance running on idle at all times (24/7) in its “bullpen” in case an emergency call comes in. It would certainly not be acceptable in the rare case of all the ambulances to not be able to start. Well, this policy turned into an environmental issue as the exhaust of the constantly-running ambulance got into the intake of a major hospital building and exhaust was detected in patients’ rooms (ironically, in a wing specific for patients with lung diseases). In rectifying the problem, the hospital replaced older ambulances with those with sufficient and charged batteries so that reliability was no longer an issue and they did not have to run an ambulance at all times.

CCES has the experts to help your facility – whether it be in health care or not – minimize your energy usage and carbon footprint with smart ideas or with new, proven technologies. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Despite Tech Advances, CO2 Emissions Soar in 2018

Global CO2 emissions from energy sources rose by 1.7% to 33 Gigatonnes (billion metric tons or Gt) in 2018, reversing a trend of a slow decline.

Despite the recent growth in renewable power projects (31% increase in solar alone) and the retirement of a growing number of coal and other fossil-fuel plants, world CO2 emissions grew in 2018. The main reason is the overall increase in global energy demand, by 2.3% in 2018, the greatest rise this decade. Analysts believe this was driven by a growing global economy and reaction to greater severe weather (increased heating and cooling needs) in some areas. While natural gas is a “cleaner” fuel than coal and oil, its use increased markedly in 2018, including new power plants, and accounted for 45% of the rise in energy consumption, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). While the 31% growth in solar last year was impressive, it is 31% increase of a small number compared to fossil fuels whose overall use rose, too.

Despite the decline in coal use and retirement of coal-fired power plants in Europe and the U.S, coal-fired power plants are still popular and growing in developing Asia, where many of these plants are relatively new and have decades of useful life remaining. Therefore, decreasing CO2 emissions in the future is problematic.

Renewables were a major contributor to this power generation expansion, accounting for nearly half of electricity demand growth. China remains the leader in renewables, both for wind and solar, followed by Europe and the U.S.

A significant contributor to the 2.3% increase in global energy demand in 2018, according to the IEA, is the increase in heating and cooling as average winter and summer temperatures as some regions approached or exceeded historical records.

Energy demand growth was led by the U.S. Together, China, the U.S., and India accounted for nearly 70% of the total global rise in energy demand.

Global natural gas demand rose 4.6% in one year; in the U.S., the rise was for natural gas alone was 10% last year, the U.S.’s largest increase since the beginning of IEA records in 1971. Gas demand in China increased by almost 18%. Oil demand grew 1.3% worldwide, with the U.S. leading the global increase due to strong growth in petrochemical and other industrial production and transportation.

This points to a need to improve our energy intensity (energy use per GDP) and energy efficiency to allow economic growth while stifling the growth and even decrease usage of energy sources to address the goals to reduce CO2 emissions. The technology is there, but the leadership from government is lacking.

Global issue or not, CCES can help your company improve your energy efficiency to save you costs, raise your asset’s value, and improve productivity at the same time. In addition, we work with a number of utility and government programs who will pay YOU to be more energy efficient and save money. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Effects of Customers Going Off-Grid in Near Term

According to a recent poll, 95% of global utilities executives agree that the rate of electricity customers making changes to go off the grid and only using it as occasional backup will increase significantly in the next two years. Implementation of distributed generation (DG) technologies, such as having one’s own generation unit and solar and battery power, is increasing greatly in recent years, changing long-term strategies for utilities in terms of building new grid capacity to handle increases in electric demand. Nearly half of the respondents said that parts or all of their grid will reach maximum capacity in three years or less.

Of course, this is what most utilities wanted when they encouraged customers (residential and commercial) to install solar or their own generation units in order to relieve their stress on the grid, particularly on peak demand days. It is beginning to bear fruit in terms of the amount of investment in expanded grid infrastructure.

Other reports estimate the proportion of total (residential and commercial customers) with rooftop solar photovoltaics could exceed 15% by 2036 in some markets, such as California, reducing future net electricity demand growth and the need to invest in new power plants or related infrastructure.

A challenge for any utility is to predict just what that growth will be. Accurate modeling can help a utility forecast more accurately what their long-term capital spending needs will be. Such accurate modelling can save a utility a lot of costs or interest from borrowing and, thus, can predict future rates better. This need was ranked as the second-highest cost-saving opportunity for utilities, behind only improved forecasting of materials and fuels (supply chain unit costs).

Utilities acknowledge that DG represents a challenge to distribution utilities, providing service to customers getting their electricity from a different source, as a backup only during failure. Utilities must maintain this infrastructure and deliver when required, even if they charge little for the service. Yet it is also an opportunity, as many utilities are moving into this area as a potential growth and profit center. More than half of the respondents globally identified an ownership stake in areas such as large- and small-scale DG and community and grid-connected storage.

CCES has the experts to help your firm control its energy usage and cost and provide technical services to determine if implementing DG is in your financial interest. We can also provide you with information on incentives for solar, wind, or your own generation in your specific area. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Changing Work Patterns And Office Space Planning

The office environment has changed radically in recent years, affecting space allocations, planning, and energy. Gone are the days when most office workers sat at their desks all day and perhaps used a rare conference room for a meeting or two. Technology and social changes have transformed workplaces, resulting in what experts call the “liquid workforce”.

Today, according to surveys, more than half of all workers spend significant time away from their office desks, either working from home or remote offices or holding meetings or other sessions away from the desk. The average knowledge worker sits at his/her desk only 40% of the time. According to JLL survey, 43% of respondents indicated that enclosed offices now constitute less than 5% of their sites.

Occupancy data is changing how space should be used.
Surveys indicate that office workers spend over 80% of their time doing collaborative work. Every year the number of people working from home, cafes, outside coworking spaces and even alternative spaces within their own workplace is increasing.

Companies are spending more resources tracking occupancy metrics as a first step to a more optimized real estate portfolio. According to JLL, companies that report metrics are twice as likely to report cost savings and avoidances. Artificial intelligence (AI) and utilization monitoring can be combined with visual observations to provide real-time utilization insights to help plan for the future.

While this is being done to reduce real estate expenses and to please current and future workforce (Millennials) to the firm, a potential disadvantage of such workplace flexibility is that more space will be underutilized as workers work elsewhere. Instead of heating or cooling an area where one knows workers will be working all day, those workers will move from space to space, potentially necessitating controlling the temperature and humidity and lighting of workspaces not being utilized in a given moment. This makes the use of occupancy sensors to control temperature or lighting more important. With improved insights of short-term occupancy, companies can move toward optimizing energy usage to provide broad range comfort and acceptable lighting to enhance worker productivity, while saving energy when spaces are not utilized.

CCES has the experts to advise you on energy conservation matters if your workspace is new or is undergoing changes. We can recommend technologies based on your knowledge to optimize worker conditions and minimize energy usage. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

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.

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.