Category Archives: Renewable Energy

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.

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.

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.

Massachusetts’ New Comprehensive Energy Plan

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

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

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

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

1. Improve electric charging infrastructure

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

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

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

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

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

New Climate Change Disclosure Litigation

This year, the New York State Attorney General filed a lawsuit in NY State Supreme Court against Exxon Mobil alleging the firm violated the securities fraud provisions of a 1921 New York statute called the Martin Act in connection with their public disclosures of the future costs of complying with climate change regulations, as well as the future of the company’s existing energy processes. The Attorney General alleged that Exxon misrepresented to stockholders climate change risks by excluding its public estimates of climate change costs, substituting lower internal estimates when evaluating business risks. The AG stated that this maneuver gave investors the impression that Exxon was a safer investment than it may be and caused its stock price to be overvalued.

Public corporations are required to disclosure fully to its investors complete and accurate available data of all matters related to the business’s viability. Recent rulings include risk pertaining to climate change, even if hard numbers are not attainable. While projecting business impacts from physical, business, and regulatory risks of climate change is not definitive, the NY AG believes Exxon knowingly misled the public.

Climate change business risk is focused on the oil and gas industry, as climate change may make their very business obsolete or too costly, not to mention the means it must endeavor to get oil and gas (more physically difficult). Another risk that Exxon did not disclose but is of growing importance to the oil and gas industry is the growing global movement for carbon taxes, which would hit this industry hardest.

While Exxon will, no doubt, vigorously defend itself against this lawsuit, the pending litigation does portend the future importance of changing regulations, sound data gathering, risk assessment, and clear communication by public companies now applied to climate change.

This is a non-legal assessment of developments. If you have further interest, please engage qualified legal professionals. CCES has the experts to help your entity assess the technical and physical aspects of climate change and advise on technical policy to address these issues. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Recent U.S. DOE Report Shows Positive Signs for Wind Market

In August 2018 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued its 2017 Wind Technologies Market Report (https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/downloads/2017-wind-technologies-market-report). The report tracks trends in installation, technology performance, cost, and price of wind power. Overall, the DOE report shows strong current growth and predicts this would continue into the next decade.

In 2009, power purchase agreements (PPAs) for wind power peaked at a price of $70/MWh. However, improvements in technology and implementation have lowered the price to about $20/MWh in 2017. The “wind belt” of the Great Plains has a lower average PPA price than the rest of the country. It follows that most wind power projects and the lowest prices would occur there, having the nation’s highest and most consistent wind speeds. DOE believes the PPA price will not drop significantly in the foreseeable future.

As a whole, U.S. wholesale electricity prices have declined in the last decade due, in part, to the overall decline in natural gas prices. Therefore, the wholesale energy market value of wind has followed along this major market indicator and declined similarly. Another factor influencing the cost of wind power is the decline in turbine prices as demand for wind grows and manufacturers devote more effort to production.

Due both to incentives from federal, state, and some utility players and to the decline in the price of wind energy, the wind power market in the U.S. has grown. The federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) has been cited by developers as a large motivator. Security is important, and investors and developers know that the PTC will be in place at least through 2021, encouraging wind farm development. There is concern that PTC will be phased out at that time, but many factors, including politics, will come into play as we get to 2021.

Even if the PTC is phased out, the wind market is likely to continue in the U.S. due to market forces, such as the low prices of PPAs. As there is economic growth and population shifts within the country, power is needed. Wind farms are certainly competitive cost-wise with building a new traditional gas or oil-fired power plant. In addition, wind may vary in the short-term, but if placed right it should provide a hedge against any future uncertainties about availability and price of natural gas.

CCES has the expertise to provide technical background to determine whether your building or company can benefit from generating your own power from renewable sources, like wind or solar. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How To Avoid Acrimony When Talking About Environmental (and Other) Matters

Not that long ago we could have discussions with family, friends, colleagues, and clients about many topics in a civil way. Unfortunately, nowadays many such conversations are fraught with politics and anger. These conversations are still necessary for us as a country, a civil society and, specifically, environmental and energy discussions to serve our clients. How can we have such conversations without someone blowing up, making an uncomfortable scene, and perhaps losing a friend or client?

Whether it’s getting together with family for the holidays or talking about environmental, energy, or other policies with colleagues and clients, here are several approaches that should result in a meaningful exchange of views, avoiding acrimony, leading to respect.

1. Ask open-ended, nonjudgmental questions. Try to inquire how a situation impacts that person personally or how the company operates, and/or its bottom line. As an example, ask a person how a certain rule or availability of a fuel impacts their lives or company. Remember, that even the best-intentioned rules that you agree with may have a harsh impact on certain others.

2. Listen carefully to that person’s answer, even if you disagree with it. Even if you feel that this person is too sensitive to the impacts or you believe he or she is exaggerating them, remember it is still important to that person or company. Therefore, listen with respect, so that you expand your understanding of the family member, friend, or client. Don’t presume you know every situation, even if you know the person or company well.

3. Echo back to this person their viewpoint; summarize back the person’s answer or concerns. Upon hearing it from somebody else, he or she may think about it and modify the stance. At a minimum, the person will have to acknowledge they are being listened to, a feeling missing in the current polarized world. Many times I have done this with others and see genuine smiles of gratitude on their faces.

4. Find and verbalize any areas where you agree with this person. Avoid verbalizing disagreements; at least initially. State where you agree with this person’s point of view; show sympathy. State that you understand that a certain rule may have an outsized impact on that person or firm, that they are doing their best to comply, and that you wish the rule can be tweaked to make things easier for the person or firm. At this point, you could begin to gently provide your view about the overall good of the rule, mention other impacts of the rule that the person may not realize are beneficial, or suggest ways to lessen the perceived negative impacts.

5. Story-telling is a good way to engender a civil conversation. Share your thoughts by telling a real story about a similar experience that happened to you in your personal life or with a prior project or client. I have done this a number of times to show I understand and to let this person know that he or she is not alone, that others are impacted, too, and that there are ways to minimize such impacts.

You never know. Such an approach might lead to exploring opportunities to improve the person or firm’s life; a chance for a new, beneficial project. I have worked with many clients over the decades whose views toward energy and environmental rules are fundamentally different from mine. While these five tips are no guarantee of success, these can go a long way toward having healthy family interactions and foster positive, long-term business and client relationships, too.

CCES has the experience to help you evaluate and make the best of environmental and energy rules that impact your company. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Clean Energy Is Growing, But Maybe Not Enough

Usually around this time, I do some research for a blog article I write most Decembers summarizing the year and forecasting where energy and environmental items may go in the future. In November, a very well-written article came out in the NY Times that essentially did the job for me. Here is a link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/climate/global-energy-forecast.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

Despite the US government being antagonistic to renewable power and trying to favor traditional “dirty” fuels, such as coal, the world’s markets have spoken and clean energy is competitive with traditional power plants worldwide. Coal is declining in its biggest user country, China, and in the US, too, despite government efforts to the contrary. Over the past 5 years, the average cost of solar power has declined 65% and onshore wind by 15%, with further declines predicted in the future. For many locations and situations, it is now cheaper to build and operate a solar or wind farm than a fossil fuel-driven power plant.

But there is a problem: The International Energy Agency recently published its annual World Energy Outlook (https://webstore.iea.org/world-energy-outlook-2018) which has forecast that despite robust growth of clean energy, it will not meet the GHG emission reduction goals scientists developed to reduce the grave physical threats of climate change. While the agency predicts that by 2040 renewable power will supply 40% of the world’s electricity and China will be close to abandoning coal combustion, the decrease in GHG emissions will not be sufficient to prevent the temperature rise that is likely to result in great damage. Many coal and oil-fired power plants are fairly young and not likely to be replaced by solar until the utilities have gotten their share of the investment.

Similarly, GHG emissions from the transportation sector is predicted to peak in the mid-2020’s as countries strengthen fuel-economy standards and electric vehicles become more acceptable. However, oil use, a large GHG emitter, will still be high as it will continue to be used for space heating and manufacturing plastics and other chemicals.

However, with all these projected gains, the report predicts that GHG emissions will not decline, but continue to rise slowly until 2040. Projected population and economic growth will simply mean more vehicles on the road, plastics in use, etc.

The paper indicates that governments will need to play a key role to bring down GHG emissions. The report notes that the world invests $2 trillion annually in energy infrastructure. Incentives to develop and/or implement clean energy in place of coal and oil will need to expand beyond this to prevent catastrophic effects of climate change.

CCES has the expertise to help your firm or entity evaluate ways to benefit from converting to clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency to improve your climate change or sustainability program and bring many financial benefits. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.