Category Archives: Renewable Energy

Can California Become Carbon Negative?

On September 10, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown set California on an ambitious clean energy path signing Senate Bill 100 (SB 100), which requires that by 2045, 100% of California’s electricity be generated from carbon-free sources. In addition, Governor Brown signed off of a new statewide goal to reduce California’s overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to zero by 2045 and then go negative thereafter. SB 100 also requires that its implementation does not increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and does not permit resource shuffling, a limitation that effectively prevents California from relying on fossil fuel generation from outside the state to serve the state’s electricity needs.

SB 100 makes California the world’s largest economy to commit to generating 100% of its power from clean energy. California has been steadily increasing its renewable portfolio standards, from an initial goal of 20% by 2017 to 60% by 2030, to the 100% by 2045. SB 100 does give California some flexibility. While hydropower and nuclear power do not qualify as renewable energy under renewable portfolio standards, these likely will qualify under SB 100, as they are “zero-carbon”. SB 100 also leaves open the possibility for other carbon-reducing innovations such as carbon capture and sequestration technology should it ever become practical.
SB 100 requires all California state agencies to incorporate this policy into all relevant planning and to issue joint report to the California legislature by January 1, 2021, and every four years thereafter discussing progress toward the goals.

Many opponents of the bill do not believe California can meet these goals unless it joins a larger regional market to have access to carbon-free energy from outside the state. This will mean entering into agreements with these other neighboring states to develop their own large renewable energy projects from which California can use the energy in its grid. It may be difficult to convince some of these states to replace traditional fossil fuel plants with more renewable power. If they can do so, then California may be able to reach a goal of negative carbon emissions in the future.

CCES can help your firm understand your electric bill and your sources of electricity to enable you to be most economic in your energy use and most efficient. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Insurance Industry Urged To Divest From Fossil Fuel Activities and Firms

A coalition of NGOs, including the Sierra Club, the Waterkeeper Alliance, the Rainforest Action Network, and Greenpeace, has been putting pressure on certain industries to encourage renewable energy and end support of the fossil fuel industry for some time. The latest industry to be targeted is insurance based on the logic that while attempting to protect us from catastrophic risk, supporting the dirtiest fossil fuel industries is, instead, adding to worldwide climate change adverse risk.

These NGOs sent letters to the CEOs of 22 major US insurance companies, urging them to stop insuring projects of and to start divesting from companies that produce coal and those that extract and transport tar sands. These US insurers hold hundreds of billions of dollars in coal, oil, gas and electric utility stocks and bonds. Similarly, the letter requested that these major insurance companies underwrite and invest in more clean energy companies and projects.

In addition, these NGOs recommended that these insurance companies insist that all insured quantify the carbon footprint of their projects as a prelude to being insured. Campaign leaders claimed that several insurance companies have divested about $30 billion from coal companies and stopped or limited insuring the coal industry in recent years.

Climate change-caused or -enhanced incidents pose great risk to insurance companies. More than 10,000 claims were filed from the Carr and Mendocino fires, whose intensity were said to be contributed to by climate change, totaling $845 million in insured losses.

Insurance industry leaders, regulators, and business leaders acknowledge that climate change is a major strategic issue for the industry, and are beginning to be addressed in terms of their business model. As we see with the intense recent storms of Florence and Michael in the US, not to mention recent very deadly storms, tsunamis, and typhoons in Indonesia, the Phillipines, and India, there is an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms, and in particular, more rain, which has caused widespread flooding and destruction. The insurance industry is being hit hard by this increase in destruction and is being urged to take more steps to both add climate change to their risk equations and to take an active part in investing in a future to mitigate climate change.

CCES has the experience to help your firm cope with climate change, evaluate risk and protections for your business and asset, and reduce your carbon footprint. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

The Positive and Negative Impacts of Solar Energy

by Arthur Smith, LEDwatcher  http://www.LEDwatcher.com

Solar energy can be a vast source of power that can provide clean, sustainable electricity. We are now able to use solar panels in all types of weather. It used to be that if it was cloudy the panels would quit charging. But now, with newer technology, solar power can be generated even on snowy and cloudy days. And as we focus more on cleaner power, solar energy is making its way further into our daily lives. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10701064/British-scientists-develop-solar-panels-which-work-better-on-a-cloudy-day.html

Of course, solar energy isn’t perfect. Just like everything else in life it has its positives and negatives. And one of the biggest downfalls of solar energy is its negative effect on the environment. So in this article we will look at both the negative and the positive impacts of solar energy, so you can judge for yourself whether solar energy could be beneficial for your home or business how environmentally-friendly and good solar power actually is.

The Negatives

• Taking Up Space. The more electricity that needs to be produced, the more solar panels you will need. And the more panels are needed, the more space they will take up. Because of this, large solar farms will need to be set up to meet solar energy demands. Rendering this land useless. How to counteract this? By setting up the solar power plants on land that otherwise can’t or isn’t used. This would make the acreage beneficial again, and would mean that no farmland needs to be sacrificed to generate more solar energy.

• Pollution. Although solar panels have the reputation of being pollution-free, pollution is produced while the panels are being manufactured and installed. Hazardous products are used in the manufacturing process of solar panels. The transportation and installation of the panels also emit greenhouse gasses. How to make solar panels a completely pollution-free technology? By creating greener ways of producing the panels, as well as employing electric cars to transport them to the place of installation.

The Positives

• Electricity Savings. Harnessing solar energy and using it to power your home will lower your energy bills. By how much? That will depend on the size of your solar system and your electricity usage. But the good news is that in some countries if you produce more electricity than you consume, you can sell the surplus to your electricity supplier letting you not only save but actually earn money from your solar panels.

• Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The more energy that we can create with solar power the less fossil fuels we will be burning and the smaller amount of greenhouse gasses we will release into the atmosphere. Solar energy is an amazing way to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and live greener lives.

• Sustainability and Resilience. Solar energy is also a renewable resource,whereas fossil fuels are not. As long as the sun is shining in the sky we will always have access to solar energy. So solar power is an unlimited energy source, which will be there to meet the energy needs of generations to come.

• Low Maintenance. After installation, solar technology is low-maintenance. Therefore, they are great for rural areas that are off the grid and can’t be accessed easily, and don’t require as much man-power to maintain.

• Cost Advantages. The source of solar energy is free and is in great abundance. Which means that as long as there are discount schemes to help with the solar panel costs, they can also be a great help to people in more remote areas that might not have access to electricity, due to the lack of infrastructure to bring in electricity or fuel or a power plant.

• Energy Independence and National Security.  Finally, relying on fossil fuels can exacerbate many technical, political, and financial issues. We can better safeguard ourselves by collecting our own energy and not being dependent on others. Wars and natural disasters can also put a heavy strain on the existing fuel supplies leading to very high prices. This makes solar power that much more a cost-efficient solution.

For many locations, buildings, and regions, the benefits of solar energy far outweigh its negative effects. Solar should be seriously considered by businesses as not only a cost-effective energy management strategy, but part of the way to a greener, more sustainable future.

Arthur Smith is the lead editor of LEDwatcher, a blog that focuses on solar and LED lighting. With years of experience working in both solar and lighting industries, Arthur has turned to blogging and writing guest articles for different websites to help others learn more about these technologies as well.  See    http://LEDwatchter.com.

Paving Roads With – Eh, Solar Panels?

French and Chinese companies are experimenting with new technologies that would revolutionize the solar industry, producing solar panels that can be placed on our roads to make electricity. The appeal of “solar roads”, solar panels installed in place of asphalt, is clear. Generating electricity from already developed areas, like highways and streets, rather than from fields could conserve a lot of land.

By producing electricity on roads in and around cities, the electricity can be transmitted relatively shorter distances with less lost in transmission, as opposed to electricity from solar panels in rural fields. And procuring the land is essentially free because roads are needed anyway. Durable solar panels could reduce the cost of road maintenance, too.

Generating electricity on roads themselves could have other advantages, such as melting snow that falls on them or embedding them with lights for better illumination. There has been experimentation of using solar roads to re-charge electric vehicles.

The surface of experimental solar panels is composed of a complex polymer that has slightly more friction than a conventional road surface. Developers are trying to modify manufacturing procedures to ensure a tire’s grip on it is equivalent to asphalt.

A number of challenges exist for this technology before it is widely used. For example, a solar road is currently about 3 to 4 times the cost of a conventional asphalt road, although solar roads produce a sellable commodity, electricity. Based on current costs of electricity, the payback for the increased cost of a solar road is about 15 years. This payback can decrease if the solar panels can be made more efficient in producing electricity, as they lie flat and are occasionally blocked by vehicles.

One critical question left unanswered is how well solar panels can take the pounding of huge numbers of tires daily for many years. Most U.S. roads are made primarily with asphalt, which can buckle or shift under the weight of many cars, potentially damaging the solar chips that produce the electricity. European and Chinese roads have more concrete to absorb the flow, compared to U.S. roads. In addition, solar panels on roads might be stolen, leaving large potholes in the road and reducing productivity.

CCES can use our technical and economic experience to help your company or building assess a wide array of renewable energy options and which make the most sense for your specific building and circumstance. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Recent Decisions On Major Gas Expansion Projects

Decisions made by state utility commissions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) have much influence on both our energy future and that of responding to climate change. Two contrary decisions in June are described here.

FERC denied the rehearing of its order authorizing construction and operation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project in West Virginia and Virginia and a related project that would connect to Pennsylvania. Among the arguments rejected by the majority of FERC commissioners were that FERC should have evaluated whether energy demands could be met with “non-transportation alternatives” such as energy conservation or renewable energy resources, that FERC failed to adequately analyze climate change impacts of the end use of natural gas transported by the project, and that FERC’s consideration of climate change in the context of evaluating the public interest under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) was inadequate. The FERC majority said greenhouse gas emissions from the downstream use of natural gas did not fall within the definition of indirect or cumulative impacts, and also concluded that the Social Cost of Carbon tool could not meaningfully inform decisions on natural gas transportation projects under NGA. FERC said it continued to believe the Social Cost of Carbon tool was “more appropriately used by regulators whose responsibilities are tied more directly to fossil fuel production or consumption.” Two commissioners wrote dissents. In re Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, No. CP 16-10-001 (FERC June 15, 2018).

On June 26, 2018, the California Public Utilities Commission issued its final decision denying a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a new 47-mile natural gas pipeline to replace an existing pipeline. The proposed decision found that the applicants had failed to demonstrate a need for the project and had not shown “why it is necessary to build a very costly pipeline to substantially increase gas pipeline capacity in an era of declining demand and at a time when the state of California is moving away from fossil fuels.” The decision indicated that based on Commission precedent, the Commission could deny a proposed gas pipeline or transmission project based on insufficient need without completed CEQA analysis. The Commission directed that the preparation of a draft environmental impact report be halted. In re San Diego Gas & Electric Co., No. A1509013 (Cal. PUC June 26, 2018).

CCES is a technical firm and the information provided here should not be used in any way to make any decision on the fuel usage of your facility. Information from legal, business and other professionals should be used in making such final decisions. CCES does have the engineering knowhow to help you assess energy source options and technologies that can save your facility significant energy costs. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Should I Be More Energy Efficient or Should I Go For Renewable Energy?

Building owners and managers are seeing more and more evidence of the growing costs of energy and realize these costs must be managed and lowered. But how does one most effectively do this? Does one evaluate the current systems that use energy (HVAC for comfort, lights for lighting, plug load) and make smart upgrades to improve its efficiency (do the same or more using less electricity or gas/oil)? Or does one invest and implement renewable energy to bypass the local utility and take advantage of the free resource generating energy (solar, wind, geothermal)?

Certainly being more energy efficient is a good thing financially for your building. It is in your interest to operate your equipment – for which you paid a lot of money – properly and efficiently; you want to get your money’s worth. If a system (an area of lights, a rooftop unit, a boiler, some PCs) is wasting energy day after day, it is in your interest to replace or upgrade it with equipment that works as well, but uses less energy. On the other hand, renewable energy is all the “rage”, with prices declining. There is certainly security; we know, if designed right, solar, wind, etc. work reliably. Being less dependent on your local utility is a good thing. Which one should a smart building owner/manager lean toward?

Well, it is best to optimize both strategies, but in a particular order. It is tempting to install solar panels or a wind turbine right away. It’s a great “show” piece for stakeholders, incentives are available in many places, and prices are coming down. But it is best to emphasize energy efficiency first. Have a thorough energy audit performed by an experienced, certified (P.E., CEM, or CEA) professional. That auditor will undoubtedly identify multiple smart strategies to save energy, with numbers demonstrating that each potential strategy will pay back the initial costs for the strategy in a reasonable amount of time, taking into account local incentives. Do not take the numbers literally. For example, if a payback of a certain strategy is listed as 3.2 years, it may end up being a little shorter or longer because factors involved in the audit and calculations are changeable. However, in a well-performed audit, the real payback is usually close to the predicted. Seriously consider and implement one or more listed strategies in the audit report that your company is comfortable addressing. Measure and note the decline in electricity or gas/oil usage. Remember that most energy efficiency projects have other benefits that renewable energy does not confer, such as improved productivity and reduced O&M costs and efforts. So you are getting these confirmed financial advantages relatively early.

Now that energy usage has been reduced and efficiency improved, you can consider alternative sources of energy. Solar panels and wind turbines are improving in effectiveness and reducing in price in time, so a slight delay in their procurement is probably in your favor. But more important, with energy usage minimized, now you can design the proper sized and placed system, reducing the upfront costs. If you bring down your electricity usage, say 20% because of improved efficiency (better lights, plug load, improved weatherization, upgraded HVAC), that could reduce the number of solar panels or wind turbines needed to reach your goals, reducing the capital costs you would need to get from Financial or any type of loan you may take out. And this will reduce the labor needed to install the equipment and leave you room on your roof or property for other things.

Sources estimate that currently energy efficiency typically costs one-third to half the full cost of rooftop solar. Therefore, it makes sense to prioritize efficiency before sizing a rooftop system, reducing the number of panels needed. For example, if a 40 kW commercial solar system can be reduced to 30 KW because of reduced need for power (improved efficiency), then the upfront cost for the panels can be reduced by $15,000 or more, a financial incentive to optimize energy efficiency first. It would not be good to install a large system and then after implementing energy efficiency projects find out that such a large system was not needed after all for the long-term future. Obviously, the exact numbers may vary based on efficiency and renewable energy incentives available.

CCES has the experts to perform a thorough and useful energy audit of any building type, providing normally multiple smart strategies to reduce energy usage effectively and at a reasonable payback. We can project manage the strategies you select to ensure that you get the maximum benefits (on top of utility cost savings) of the selected upgrade. And then we can help you decide on which renewable energy source is right for your building and work with established vendors to ensure that a good system is installed, providing you with maximum benefits and is smooth to operate. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6820.

Congress Votes for Clean Energy with Omnibus Bill

On March 23, 2018, President Trump signed the much ballyhooed 2018 Omnibus Spending Bill contained spending and resources for many industries and groups, including for energy efficiency. The Consolidated Appropriations Act (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4417591-FY-2018-Omnibus.html) passed by Congress disregarded major cuts in spending proposed by the administration and instead raised funding in many areas that Congress favored, including federal programs that help consumers and businesses save energy. President Trump reluctantly signed the bill, enabling several programs to be re-established.

Overall, the bill increases funding for energy efficiency programs at the USDOE and maintains funding levels for such programs at the USEPA. The bill maintains current funding levels for ENERGY STAR® and other programs that give consumers and businesses information to select energy-efficient products. The USEPA’s laboratory, where vehicle certification testing and research occurs, was not cut.

There had been concern that funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy would be cut. Instead, the USDOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy will see an overall increase in funding of 11%. The Building Technologies and Vehicle Technologies Offices will each receive an increase of 10% more funding. The Bill also includes a 10% increase for the Weatherization Assistance Program. It should be noted that the USDOE’s Equipment and Building Standards Program was cut by 7%.

It is ironic that Republicans in Congress strongly supported such programs that are also supported by environmentalists and by those wishing to fight Climate Change. However, Republicans supported these programs because they represent “clean energy” and cost savings, something they recognize the US needs to stay in the lead at globally. Several Republicans whose states stand to gain from these technologies, such as Ohio, which has several wind turbine manufacturing plants, supported these measures.

In addition to the funding, the Bill also addressed financial incentives for energy projects. For example, the combined heat and power (CHP) market will get a boost from the extension of the federal tax credit for such projects. The tax credit can benefit the owner or an operator of its CHP system or a 3rd party owner selling power to the utility through a power purchase agreement. It is anticipated that more investors will take an interest in microgrids and CHP, including utilities, to spread the risk of power delivery. This would be an interesting development as utilities for quite some time fought hard to discourage microgrids as unfair competition against their large grid service.

Finally, the Bill reinstates the IRS tax deduction for energy efficient upgrades of buildings called EPACT (Section 179D), going back to January 1, 2017 and is valid through December 31, 2018. EPACT provides a potential tax deduction up to $1.80 per square foot for certain energy upgrades.

CCES has the experts and experience to assist you in performing energy efficiency evaluations and implementing the projects with the maximum financial benefits for the building owner and manager, including getting the greatest incentives from appropriate agencies and tax deductions. Contact us at karell@CCESworld.com or 914-584-6720.

Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rise for 1st Time in 3 Years

The International Energy Agency (IEA) announced that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions rose by 1.4% in 2017, the first rise in three years. GHG emissions have reached a historic high of 32.5 gigatonnes (Gt), a resumption of growth after three years of global emissions remaining flat. See https://www.iea.org/geco/. The increase in CO2e emissions, however, was not universal. While most major nations saw rises, some others experienced declines, including the U.S., United Kingdom, Mexico and Japan. The biggest decline came in the U.S., mainly because of growing installation of renewable sources of energy.

Improvements in global energy efficiency slowed down in 2017. The rate of decline in global energy intensity, the energy consumed per unit of economic output, slowed to only 1.6% in 2017, lower than the 2.0% decline in energy intensity seen in 2016.

The greatest growth in global energy demand was in Asia. China and India together represented over 40% of the increase. Energy demand in all advanced economies contributed over 20% of global energy demand growth, although their share in total energy use continued to fall.

Notable growth was also registered in Southeast Asia (which accounted for 8% of global energy demand growth) and Africa (6%), although per capita energy use in these regions still remains well below the global average.
In November 2017, the US EIA projected that growth in global CO2e emissions from energy-related sources will slow to 0.6% per year through 2040 despite increased energy consumption.

CCES has the experts to help your firms understand the technical aspects of all climate change rules and to help you organize a successful Climate Change or Energy program for diverse company types. We have helped others benefit! Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Future of US Energy Debated Between Industry Pros and Federal Government

The Trump administration has proposed several new rules, repeal of existing rules, and other policies in order to promote coal as a fuel for power plants and to promote nuclear energy. One of their arguments is that the US grid is in a crisis and the more sources of energy the greater the resiliency and reliability of the grid, which will help the economy grow. For example, the U.S. Department of Energy requested that older power plants receive federal subsidies to continue to operate and to enable others to store up to 90 days of fuel on site to enhance reliability given problems with the grid.

In the latest budget proposal, the Trump Administration recommended a decrease in federal funding of renewable energy from about $2 billion to about $0.5 billion, by 72%. Most of this decline would be sharp reductions in research spending, including an 82% cut to research on fuel efficient vehicles, an 82% cut on research into bioenergy technologies, and a 78% cut for solar energy technology research. Congress must approve this for it to go into effect. The Administration proposed a similar large cut in renewable energy programs in the previous year, but it was rejected by Congress.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), many members the president had appointed, rejected the arguments about grid reliability. In January, FERC voted down the idea of subsidies for coal-firing, saying that keeping alive older and less efficient plants would not improve reliability. Promoting such energy sources would put the US and its businesses at a disadvantage compared to other countries which promote more competitive energy sources, such as green energy and natural gas, to their businesses.

FERC argued that the grid is not facing a crisis, and that subsidies or preferred treatment for coal or nuclear plants would hurt a competitive electricity market and drive up costs for businesses and consumers. FERC went on to say that it should not favor any market that is costly and non-competitive. FERC also said that current US problems with the grid do not originate from sources of fuel, but, rather, from transmission shortcomings, such as downed power lines. The commission did go on to say that there is room for improvement of the nation’s grid and asked regional transmission organizations and independent system operators for their ideas on improvement.

The Trump Administration has been working to repeal many Obama-era environmental regulations that would hurt coal-fired power plants, combat climate change, and reduce subsidies for renewable power. In many cases, they have succeeded. However, many major US businesses support not only the Clean Power Plan, which President Trump is attempting to repeal but also the Paris Climate Agreement, which the President has announced the US will withdraw from. Such major firms include Alcoa, Berkshire Hathaway, DowDupont, EMC Corp., and General Motors.

CCES can help your firm become both energy efficient and more flexible in terms of the fuel sources it uses to benefit your bottomline. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Trump Administration Repeals Obama-era Fracking Rules

The Trump Administration’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published in the Federal Registry on December 29, 2017 a revision to reverse a 2015 rule that contained strict standards for how one performs hydraulic fracking on public lands.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/29/2017-28211/oil-and-gas-hydraulic-fracturing-on-federal-and-indian-lands-rescission-of-a-2015-rule

For the Administration, this is part of their ongoing effort to rollback regulations and to encourage domestic energy production that will reduce energy costs for businesses.
This final rule is a rescission of most of the Obama-era rule whose effective date was June 24, 2015, which contained standards for fracking operations on public lands, including identifying the chemicals and the nature of the mixture of water, sand and chemicals injected to loosen shale oil and gas from rocks where it has adhered. It also contains standards to reduce the chance of contact between the mixture and underground supplies of drinking water.
This brings the debate about fracking back to the fore.

While oil and gas companies and their supporters want greater freedom to perform fracking operations, environmentalists were split. Some wanted an absolute ban on fracking, as they desire a carbon-free future and have an energy future dominated by renewable energy. Others understood that promoting natural gas, which emits greenhouse gases at about half the rate of coal, and enabling it to be plentiful and cheap in order to displace coal, leading to progress in meeting climate change goals and eventually be replaced by renewables as its costs decline in the future. Obama Administration leaders took this latter tack, encouraging fracking to reduce energy prices, yet protecting the environment and public health, too.

In opposition to this, oil and gas developers argued their fracking processes were continually improving over time and there was little evidence of harming drinking water supplies. These groups sued to stop the 2015 fracking regulation without success. With the new administration more sympathetic to oil and gas company concerns, it was a matter of time until the Obama rule would be repealed or altered. Oil and gas companies understood that many states had its own regulations protecting drinking water supply and the local environment, and were willing to comply with each state’s rules as they work in those states.

CCES has the experts to keep you up-to-date with technical interpretations of federal and state and city rules on energy and make sure you get the best information. Marc Karell, P.E., Principal of CCES will speak about recent new New York City energy rules at the New York State Bar Association Annual Meeting on Thurs., Jan. 25 at 9:20 am. See http://www.nysba.org/am2018/ for more details.