Category Archives: Renewable Energy

Energy Strategies For The C-Suite

For many firms, energy is recognized as its third largest expense, behind labor and real estate costs. Some companies spend millions of dollars directly on energy each year—and more indirectly (supply chain, transportation, etc.). However, except for energy-intensive industries, most firms have historically taken energy for granted. When they turn on the switch, the equipment goes on and vice versa. They don’t pay much attention to the volatility and risks of energy availability and costs.

In the last few years, however, energy is climbing up the corporate agenda, due to greater environmental and climate change awareness, increasing pressures on natural resources, as recent large-scale fires in Latin America show, and innovations in energy technologies together with dropping renewable energy prices.

In recent years, more critical business functions depend on reliable electricity and fuels. IT, data centers, and cloud computing have grown in complexity. These are energy-dependent and energy-intensive operations. Lose electricity for even a few seconds, and millions of dollars worth of data, not to mention records, reputation, lawsuits, are lost or become issues. Major companies are realizing this and are thoroughly evaluating risk related to energy. And conclusions are reaching the C-Suite, as risks are becoming existential for many companies. C-Suiters are also influenced by the growing quilt of energy- or climate change- rules, as well as the growing costs of energy.
More major firms are devoting effort to increase renewables in their energy mix and improve energy efficient, given the large costs involved. But it is not just “high tech” companies; others understand energy is a significant business issue. Agriculture is responsible for about one-third of greenhouse gas emissions. A number of leading firms in the food field have developed and are meeting stringent energy and carbon goals.

Whether your firm is major or not, it is a good idea to develop and implement an energy management plan. However, it is critical not to just “jump in there”. Planning is critical for your energy plan to succeed and minimize its costs. Perhaps the most important area is “political” success; “political” meaning getting all major factors on board, including, and most importantly, the CEO him or herself and all other major players in the company, so there is unity behind the effort and respect for the results. It is also important to coordinate efforts, to ensure you have enough staff to track energy at all levels throughout the company’s assets. Finally, it is important – before you start – to work through that there are resources to invest in smart energy projects (energy efficiency and/or the switch to renewables). Good, potential projects will not wither and not go forward. If these areas are worked out – or if you know the potential barriers that may occur in certain circumstances – the chances of success are raised tremendously.

CCES has the experts to help your firm develop and execute a smart energy plan with distinct financial benefits. We have helped firms prepare their plans to understand their strengths and weaknesses so they go in with firm goals and procedures to do it right. Contact us today at (914) 584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Asia Moving From Smokey Energy To Renewables

Momentum is building for green energy in Asia, a region long known for fossil fuel dependency. Asia uses a lot of some of the most polluting sources of energy around, coal and wood. Particulate pollution from coal power plants and from individuals burning wood in non-professionally designed and built units is thick it coats buildings, cars, and, most important, lungs. There are many images of Asians associated with masks performing routine events on a daily basis.

But things are changing. China was faced with worldwide shame and condemnation at the Olympics it hosted in 2016 by the images of people and athletes wearing masks or breathing from oxygen tanks to avoid the toxic smog – despite efforts to clean the air in the months before the games. Ironically, China was the number one manufacturer of solar panels then, but nearly all for export. However, China quickly changed its policy, learning that the visible and potent air pollution not only made them a laughing stock, but had an adverse effect on their economy given the robust health effects it has on workers (lost productivity) and costs to take care of so many sick – costs and lost lives that could have been avoided. Plus, the government understood that visible air pollution was a factor that could lead to unrest and rioting. China now has the world’s largest installed capacity of renewable power, accomplished in a short time.

Vietnam is another example. This country had been aggressive in growing economically and attracting capital investment in industrial facilities. However, the huge growth in coal-fired power plants and wood burning from convenient jungles has worsened the country’s air quality and causing profound health effects. They are on an ongoing path to reduced fossil fuel combustion coordinated with economic growth.

Other Asian nations have realized that it is critical to invest in clean energy and green technology, not only for the sake of climate change, but also for healthier air quality and a better economy. And they are doing so. The collapse of a fossil fuel power plant in Laos that killed 40 people was another spur toward renewables. Governments are investing in renewable power and have learned it is less labor intensive and now less costly to build. While it is unlikely that renewables will fully replace fossil fuels soon, more Asian countries are investing in renewables.

Working with US and European giants like GE and Siemans, several Asian companies are now planning to build renewable projects. Thailand’s Meta Corporation is a leader, preparing to design a 220-megawatt solar project in Myanmar, the region’s largest project. Philippines’ AC Energy plans to spend over $1 billion on solar and wind projects by 2025. India is expected to invest $80 billion over the next 4 years in wind energy. Like China, India has massive public health problems due to air pollution yet is trying to expand electricity to the over 400 million people who have no access to it.

Of course, coal is still king in such nations as China and Malaysia. While renewable technology can replace coal, these and other governments feel an obligation to coal workers and are afraid of potential disruptions that could happen of anything “new.” So there is a lot to overcome financially and psychologically before Asia is high in renewables.

CCES has the experts to help you assess your company’s energy needs and sources. We can help you plan to have a resilient, flexible group of energy sources and determine if renewable power is right and beneficial for you. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

NYC’s New LL 97 Climate Change Rule – Part 3 – Compliance

In the last two months, I have written articles containing basic summaries about New York City’s new Local Law 97, a rule to address Climate Change targeted to existing buildings in NYC with specific greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limits, which is defined by the building’s (and the tenant’s) energy usage. The rule defines 10 different types of buildings (permanent – housing – and temporary – hotels – housing, office, retail, industrial, entertainment, etc.) each with its own GHG emission intensity limit (grams of CO2e per square foot). What is unique about this rule is that the fines for not submitting an annual compliance report and for exceeding one’s limit are very high. Potentially high 6 to low 7 figure annual fines!

The rule goes into effect in 2024; the first annual report is due by May 1, 2025. Fines to follow. That seems like a long way away. But if your building needs to make major changes to meet your limit or to lessen the exceedance and fine, then you may need all of these 4½ years to plan, design, and implement the needed changes. So the first – and perhaps the most important – piece of advice is to start NOW to see where your building stands in 2024 when it comes to LL 97. You may be surprised. In unveiling the rule, NYC emphasized they believed that 80% of existing buildings would comply with their limit based on 2016 benchmarking energy submittals. “Only” 20% of existing buildings would need to upgrade. But that is a little deceptive. Energy usage has been growing tremendously recently as businesses grow and demand for technologies – in most cases – that are energy-intensive to serve customers grows, too. Many of those buildings complying with LL 97 based on 2016 energy usage may get complacent and then learn that energy usage has risen in the intervening years due to many factors, including business growth. One must self-assess and be prepared and vigilant NOW!

LL 97 covers not only landlord-responsible functions (common lighting, elevators, space heating, etc.) but also tenant-responsible energy usage (their lighting, plug load, window AC units, etc.). If you are a landlord, this is the time to reach out to your tenants and get an understanding of total energy usage. NYSERDA’s Commercial Tenant Program is an incentive program providing free energy audits for leased office spaces. 4½ years may be necessary to understand your tenants’ energy needs and work together to manage it better. There has been concern that landlords, concerned with LL 97 compliance, may not renew leases of certain tenants that are high energy users (data centers, 24/7 operations) and encourage new tenants which use less energy to move in.

Once you have assessed your total energy usage and understand who is responsible for what usage and for what functions, you can assess whether you are currently in compliance with LL 97 and project the status in 2024. If your building is likely to exceed their greenhouse gas emission limit in 2024, the energy assessment provides the data to intelligently determine strategies to either comply or minimize the exceedance or fine.

The energy assessment can accurately tell you by how much you exceed the standard and can determine exact energy (and greenhouse gas) reductions to get you down to your limit. Then you can determine which combination of potential energy upgrades is sufficient to meet your LL 97 requirements, taking into consideration cost and side benefits, as well. You have time to plan it out and bring in the right experts to do the job.

Besides reducing your actual credited greenhouse gas emissions by reducing energy usage, LL 97 gives you two other ways to reduce your credited annual greenhouse gas emissions: purchasing renewable energy credits (RECs) and/or emission offsets. RECs are credits one obtains for implementing renewable energy, such as solar or wind project. A deduction from one’s annual building emissions equal to the number of RECs purchased by a building owner as long as the source of the renewable energy credits is considered by NYISO to be a capacity resource located in or directly deliverable into zone J load zone (NYC) for the same reporting calendar year; RECs are solely owned and will not be reused (re-sold) by the building owner, the building that hosts the renewable energy system does not receive a deduction under § 28-320.6.3. Information proving these items must be submitted to the Dept of Buildings with the application.

Emission offsets is procuring greenhouse gas emission credits that are certified by an appropriate board. Such offsets are provided to those who have reduced GHG emissions for an amount beyond that required by regulation. For calendar years 2024-2029, deductions for certified GHG emission offsets will be allowed for up to 10% of the annual building’s emissions limit. The deduction is only allowed for credits generated within the reporting calendar year, publicly registered, and retired (not to be re-sold).

LL 97 also allows a deduction from the reported annual building GHG emissions based on the calculated output of a clean distributed energy resource located at, on, in, or directly connected to the building subject to the report. LL 97 is allowing this portion to be amended based on future research and development.

Again, to summarize, 2024 seems like it’s far away, but given how comprehensive and how onerous LL 97 will be, with huge fines for non-compliance, the time to start evaluating where you stand vis-à-vis this rule is NOW!

CCES has the experts and knowledge of LL 97 to perform that early assessment of whether your building meets your 2024 GHG emission limit or not. If you comply now, we can advise you how to prevent energy creep to better ensure compliance in 2024. If you do not currently comply, we can advise you on cost-effective steps to comply on time and we can manage implementation to ensure you get the reductions in emissions you need. This is an onerous rule and with potential major upgrades needed to avoid high fines, 2024 is not that far away! Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@ CCESworld.com.

Government and Investor “Carrots and Sticks” for Climate Efforts

Governments, investors, and watchdog NGOs are stepping up their efforts to identify companies that are leaders or laggards in the global effort to address climate issues. While most of the effort has been to highlight and publicize those that have reduced or supported reductions in greenhouse gas emissions significantly, there is a growing sense that shame can work, too. Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM), an investment firm that invests in companies that actively address climate matters, puts out annual rankings. In their 2019 list, they voted to divest five firms from their Future World Fund due to unsatisfactory results, including ExxonMobil. Removal may occur for a variety of reasons, such as not meeting climate goals, governance, and lobbying efforts.

Such removals and additions to the list are important as investors use the list as a guide to making investment decisions. Two companies removed from the Future World Fund in 2018 were reinstated in 2019.

In April 2019, for the first time ever, renewables surpassed coal in the US power mix. A combination of the large growth in new wind and solar farms boosting renewable energy output and some coal plants were idled for routine spring maintenance caused this to occur. Hydroelectric dams, solar farms, and wind turbines generated about 68 million megawatt-hours of power that month, exceeding the 60 million that coal produced that month, according to the Energy Information Administration. This is both the most clean power ever produced in the US and the least amount of coal combusted in years.

These trends highlight the growing support for renewable power in the form of incentives and tax rebates by governments and the large number of utilities now encouraging this, too, to lessen their burden. In addition, the cost of building new renewable solar and wind farms has dropped markedly compared to the cost of building new coal-fired plants. And finally, with some exceptions cheap and plentiful natural gas are causing many plants to shift from coal to gas. If these trends continue, Despite the current US Administration supporting the coal industry by gutting environmental rules, other governments and investors are moving away from coal to renewables. It should be noted that April is commonly a month when many coal-fired power plants are shut down for maintenance. This summer, coal combustion at peaker plants should raise the level of coal combustion in the US, putting coal back “ahead” of renewables in terms of electric generation. But the longer-term trends are certainly that government incentives and investor information are causing the long-term growth of renewable power.

CCES has the experts to help your company understand how climate and energy conservation programs can result in many significant financial benefits. We can help you diversify your energy supply, find incentives with direct benefits for you, and find ways to reduce costs. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

NYC’s New LL 97 Climate Change Rule – Part 2

Last month, I wrote an article with a basic summary about New York City’s new Local Law 97, a rule specifically tailored to Climate Change and reaching NYC’s 40% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 and 80% reduction by 2050 goals by regulating existing building operations, the City’s largest source of GHG emissions. The rule goes into effect in 2024. The penalties for non-compliance (exceeding a limit) are great, likely annual 6-figure or greater fines. This article provides more details on the application of the new GHG emission limits affecting buildings.

LL 97 covers all buildings in NYC with a gross size of 25,000 sf or greater. There are several exceptions, such as power or steam plants, City-owned buildings, certain rent-regulated buildings, religious institutions, and certain low-income housing projects.

The crux of LL 97 is calculating annual GHG emissions and comparing it to allowable emission intensity in metric tons of CO2 equivalent per sf multiplied by square footage.

Different building types are regulated per Dept of Buildings listed classifications. Please note that this does not provide the full definition of a group or list all exceptions. Note the GHG emission intensity limits provided are for 2024 to 2029, more stringent in 2030.

Group A-1 – A-5. Assembly: the use of a building, excluding a dwelling, for gathering for purposes such as civic, social or religious functions, recreation, food or drink consumption, awaiting transportation, or similar group activities; or when occupied by 75 persons or more for educational or instructional purposes. Examples: theaters, banquet halls, museums, lecture halls, houses of worship, tennis courts, stadiums, etc. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.01074 tCO2e/sf.

Group B. Business: the use of a building for office, professional, service-type transactions, or for conducting public or civic services, including the storage of records and accounts and limited quantities of goods for office purposes. Examples: health care facilities, banks, laboratories, libraries, offices, professional services, colleges, etc. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00846 tCO2e/sf.

Group E. Educational: the use of a building by 5 or more persons at any one time for educational purposes offered to children through the 12th grade. Examples: academies, day care facilities where no more than two children are under the age of 2, schools, and school libraries. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00758 tCO2e/sf.

Group I-1. Personal care: the use of a building housing persons, on a 24-hour basis, who because of age, mental disability or other reasons, live in a supervised space providing personal care. Examples: adult day care, assisted living facilities, halfway homes, convalescent facilities. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.01138 tCO2e/sf.

Group F. Industrial: the use of a building for assembling, disassembling, fabricating, finishing, manufacturing, packaging, repairing, cleaning, or processing operations not classified as Group H hazardous. Examples: industrial, auto repair shops, printing presses, food processing, etc. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00574 tCO2e/sf.

Groups H (High Hazard), I-2, I-3 (Institutional): the use of a building for child or adult care and treatment of those that are ill. Examples: industrial facilities using compounds considered hazardous, child care facilities, adult homes, hospitals, nursing homes, mental health facilities, etc. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.02381 tCO2e/sf.

Group M (Mercantile): the use of a building for the display and sale of merchandise, and involves stocks of goods, wares or merchandise incidental to such purposes and accessible to the public. Examples: department stores, retail and wholesale stores, drug stores, sales rooms, etc. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.01181 tCO2e/sf.

Group R-1 (Residential, temporary): the use of a building for dwelling or sleeping purposes when not classified as Institutional. Examples: hotels, motels, rooming houses, club houses. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00987 tCO2e/sf.

Group R-2 (Residential, permanent): the use of a building containing sleeping units or more than two dwelling units that are occupied for permanent resident purposes. Example: apartment buildings. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00675 tCO2e/sf.

Groups S (Storage) and U (Utility and Miscellaneous): the use of a building for storage or any other purpose not listed previously. Examples: warehouses, distribution centers (if it does not contain hazardous material), private garages, sheds, greenhouses. Building GHG emission intensity limit: 0.00426 tCO2e/sf.

Each subject building must calculate its GHG emissions for beginning in 2024. Conversion factors:

Electricity from the electric grid: 0.000288962 tCO2e/kilowatt-hour

Natural gas combusted on premises: 0.00005311 tCO2e/kbtu. (0.005311 tCO2e/therm)

#2 fuel oil combusted on premises: 0.00007421 tCO2e/kbtu (0.01039 tCO2e/gal. #2 oil)

#4 fuel oil combusted on premises: 0.00007529 tCO2e/kbtu (0.01090 tCO2e/gal. #4 oil)

District steam used on premises: 0.00004493 tCO2e/kbtu (0.0000466 tCO2e/lb steam)

Future updates will discuss other ways to calculate GHG emissions and the availability of GHG credits to compensate for emissions.

CCES has the experts and knowledge of LL 97 to perform an early assessment of whether your building meets your 2024 GHG emission limit or not. If you comply now, we can advise you how to ensure compliance into 2024. If you do not currently comply, we can advise you on cost-effective steps to comply on time and we can manage implementation to ensure you get the reductions in emissions you need. This is an onerous rule and with potential major upgrades needed to avoid high fines, 2024 is not that far away! Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@ CCESworld.com.

Blockchain Applied To Energy Management

Blockchain is the future of information technology and is beginning to be applied to how energy is created and transmitted in the US.

First, a quick review. Blockchain is the direction of information technology is moving toward: how we gather and store data. A blockchain is a collection of records aggregated into “blocks” that are linked to one another in a “chain”. It typically contains a history of a certain process, such as amount of energy generated, what type, when, and under what circumstances, and can also be used to set future actions, such as energy generation, based on history or other circumstances programmed. Blockchain data is usually available in some form in hundreds of distinct copies. While there are privacy guards in case someone attempts to alter the blockchain, a hacker will likely be able to alter only a minority of the copies. Full data from a blockchain is available to those that are permitted to access it, is accurate based on what was entered, and can provide privacy (which person is responsible for what), if need be.

Initiatives spearheaded by energy industry groups and stakeholders are working to create standardization in energy data sharing and blockchains. The North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) is in the process of developing a standard digital representation of natural gas trading using blockchain. The results and mechanism for developing useful standards may well be replicated in other parts of the energy industry, such as managing electricity generation and renewable energy certificates (RECs). NAESB is industry-driven and organized by areas of interest, such as wholesale gas, wholesale electric, and retail markets to develop the standards for each energy group.

NAESB has developed a joint committee to develop a standard digital representation of natural gas trade events (futures or actual) in order to standardize and communicate smart contracts and trade disputes. A base contract for the sale or purchase of natural gas is being developed for the industry that can be used in a blockchain to keep appropriate and useful records. The actual base contracts are still being developed.

Given that renewable energy generation differs from that of fossil fuel-derived because the nature of renewable energy generation, the sun or wind, is free and, theoretically available to all, the future renewable energy blockchain application will likely focus less on development and futures, but instead on post-generation services, such as storage, distribution, and RECs, from generation to sales and retirement. This should come in handy as tracking RECs currently is a difficult process as records of transactions associated with RECs sales are difficult, given the different organizations and rules concerning RECs. Developing standards with blockchain to track RECs through their lifecycle could encourage renewable energy growth and investment.

CCES can partner with experts on blockchain technology to improve your data management. In addition, we can help you understand and manage your energy demand and usage, which is the first step to being more cost-effective and minimizing risk. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Batteries and Energy Efficiency Programs

A few months ago, I posted a blog article on new trends with battery power, including a description of Massachusetts’ latest energy efficiency plan – the first in the nation – which encourages energy efficiency funds to be used for energy storage projects that reduce peak demand, and otherwise encourage the implementation of batteries to store power at a facility.

There has been some criticism of this part of the plan since it was issued. There is no question that batteries are beneficial to reduce peak demand on a grid, to steady the unsteady generation of solar and wind power, to have as a backup in case of a horrendous storm. However, batteries are also inherently inefficient energy-wise. In the process of gathering, storing, and then releasing power, some electricity is lost. Therefore, for every kilowatt-hour of electricity stored in a battery, more electricity must be generated in the first place. Of course, if this electricity is generated from renewable sources, there is no additional cost (no fuel to obtain) and no GHG emissions.

Therefore, batteries are no help for energy efficiency and GHG emission reduction goals, except in the context of solar and wind technologies. An office complex utilizing battery storage will, by itself, not cause less electricity used for the lights, computers, elevators, AC, etc.

Nobody can argue that battery storage can help make the grid more reliable in case of very high peak demand and storm damage. While Massachusetts is unique in encouraging battery development and implementation, other organizations believe the first and perhaps only priority should be in energy efficiency and reducing demand for energy, while growing the economy.

Supporters of battery storage argue that encouraging usage will help maximize the benefits of solar and wind generation, encouraging more clean power nationwide displacing dirtier fossil fuel-generated power, including peaker plants or fuel-generated plants that operate in conjunction with solar and wind plants.

Therefore, the Massachusetts program should be read as a program to encourage smart energy “management”, rather than for efficiency alone. States and nations need to move toward better energy management, which is not only efficiency, but operations and reliability, as well.

CCES has the experts to help your firm or entity manage your energy better, a growing issue as energy costs rise faster than inflation. Whether it is battery power, renewable power, or just being more efficient to be “green” and save costs, CCES can help you reach your goals and save costs. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

NYC Enacts New Rule Requiring GHG Emission Limits for Commercial, Residential Buildings

On April 22, 2019, Earth Day, the City of New York enacted the “Climate Mobilization Act” into law (“Intro 1253”). This law will impose mandatory GHG emission limits for large buildings, beginning in calendar year 2024. This new rule is clearly the most ambitious Climate Change rule taken by a U.S. municipality.

Buildings are responsible for about 70% of NYC’s GHG emissions; half of this comes from large buildings. Therefore, NYC has focused on the building sector to meet their 80% X 2050 emission reduction goals, starting with its own energy code and with local laws requiring benchmarking, energy audits, retro-commissioning, and sub-metering.

Rule Overview

Intro 1253 goes further, containing GHG emission intensity limits on nearly all buildings of at least 25,000 square feet of floor area beginning in 2024. The law defines the term “building emissions” as “GHG emissions as expressed in metric tons of CO2e emitted as a result of operating a covered building.” Thus, the limits on GHG emissions will apply not only to Scope 1 or on-site sources (such as those from a building’s boiler) but also include Scope 2 or off-site sources caused by a demand, such as purchased steam or electricity consumed in building operations. The building emissions intensity limits are tailored to specific Occupancy Groups. They will be be ratcheted down in 5-year intervals after 2029 to reduce GHG emissions from covered buildings by 80% by 2050.

The table in the link below summarizes GHG emission limits from different listed building types. https://energywatch-inc.com/breaking-new-york-city-council-passes-first-of-its-kind-ghg-emissions-cap-for-buildings/

Exemptions

A major category exempt from this law is “rent regulated accommodations”, such as those with rent-stabilized units, lest rents may be raised markedly for needed upgrades. Intro 1253 does require the owners of such excluded rental multifamily buildings to implement several prescriptive energy conservation measures, such as repairing leaky heating systems, insulating pipes for heat and hot water, weatherizing windows and ductwork, and installing timers on exhaust fans. Among the other rule exemptions are public housing and houses of public worship. Not-for-profit hospitals and health-care facilities are not exempted from the rule but will need to meet less stringent standards.

Paths To Compliance

Intro 1253 provides a number of pathways to reduce GHG emissions. Thus, reductions may be credited to an owner for “renewable energy credits” (RECs), so long as the RECs are generated by a renewable source located in or directly deliverable to NYC. For calendar years between 2024 and 2029 deductions for up to 10% of reported annual emissions may also be taken for GHG offsets (offsite emission reductions) purchased by a building owner. Additional deductions from a building’s calculated emissions for the output of a clean distributed energy resource must be located at, on, in or directly connected to the building.

This new law does not allow for emissions trading among covered buildings. However, the City is studying the feasibility of such a trading scheme and will report to the Mayor and Speaker of the City Council by no later than January 1, 2021.

Intro 1253 imposes significant civil penalties for exceeding the annual building emissions limit and the degree of excess emissions. These penalties could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

What You Can Do NOW To Reduce The Cost and
Aggravation of Complying

Owners of covered buildings should take advantage of the “head start” before the 2024 compliance date to begin developing strategies for addressing the requirements of Intro 1253. Technical experts can estimate whether a building, as it is operating today, would comply with the 2024 limits and, if not, options to achieve compliance in time. The owner has time to choose the best option(s) to comply, reducing costs and risk if the owner waited longer. And future planning is critical. The technical assessment can anticipate the likely operation and emissions of systems in 2024. This early determination of strategies can save a building owner a lot in avoided compliance costs.

Intro 1253 is reality. Building owners in NYC will need to determine their GHG emissions and possibly modify or upgrade energy systems to comply with the standards. Other cities and states will be watching and Intro 1253 could well be a model that others will emulate. Don’t just push this aside to another time or year. Look into this soon, be active, and take steps soon to comply, saving you money and raising your asset value. Watch out for more CCES blog articles on this rule and how to comply as the City of New York provides more details!

CCES has the experts in both energy engineering and greenhouse gas (“carbon”) emissions to help you assess your covered buildings and their compliance status, and can recommend smart and prudent steps to ensure compliance early on, saving you much money, improving asset value, and reducing the worry about compliance. 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.

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.