Category Archives: Sustainability

Rooftop Gardens As A Sustainability Strategy

Some entities understand the financial benefits and would like to be more sustainable, but are under some pressure to have a “showcase” project that is more interesting and picturesque than energy efficiency or upgrading sophisticated equipment. If you are in that situation, consider rooftop gardens as an effective way to be more sustainable, gain benefits, and have a great “photo op.” Particularly in urban areas, rooftop gardens bring some greenery and an area for relaxation into a “concrete” space.
Rooftop gardens are essentially backyards atop one’s building, bringing “nature” into an otherwise sterile space. Rooftop gardens can be either vertical or horizontal and is an effective way to reduce the heat load on your AC system, saving on energy bills.

Rooftops are, by nature, urban heat islands, absorbing the sun’s radiation and giving off energy slowly, resulting in massive pockets of hot air. In an urban environment of many dark-colored roof tiles and concrete streets, cities are particularly prone to higher than normal summer temperatures because of heat islands, which contributes to worse air quality and mental and physical health concerns. In addition, energy being kept in and close to buildings raises the demand for air conditioning and other cooling equipment, making it work harder and for longer causing a significant rise in energy usage and putting a strain on the local energy grid, which some utilities have trouble maintaining. In addition, the building owner pays for the urban island effect big time as more utilities put a premium charge on high peak demand during the cooling season (summer). Even if a building has one 15-minute period in a month of very high cooling demand, it will be charged a very high amount for this single short-term spike in demand. In addition, heat islands damage roofing material, requiring the building owner to upgrade it more often than if a rooftop garden is installed and maintained to protect the building’s materials.

Rooftop gardens can mitigate this effect because the plants absorb the sun’s radiation, not the roof shingles or underneath part and the shade offered by plants reduces heat transport, resulting in cooler temperatures and improved air quality.

A recent study found that an exposed roof can get as hot as 158⁰F on a sunny day while an identical roof with a rooftop garden covering most of the roof stayed relatively stable at a temperature of 77⁰F (https://www.thespruce.com/green-benefits-of-a-roof-garden-1708536). In addition to providing natural cooling, rooftop gardens can provide a natural sound barrier, delay stormwater runoff, and provide filtered rainwater.

It is critical that the building owner bring in an experienced qualified roof garden designer and installer, who can check about any local permits and regulations that must be adhered to in your jurisdiction. Be sure that the designer assesses your building to determine whether it can hold a rooftop garden, that it can be waterproofed, or whether normal temperature extremes in your area may damage a roof garden or roof. It is crucial to choose the right types of plants depending on your local climate, such as winds and temperature extremes. If this is an office building with periods of inactivity, it may make sense to include low-maintenance plants, needing little water or pruning.

The cost of a rooftop garden will depend on many factors, such as size, plants selected, and construction materials used. A rule of thumb range of initial cost is $15-$40 per square foot of space. However, you should quickly begin to save money on energy bills and a payback in a reasonable time is likely, plus it should advance the building’s asset value and attractiveness for other potential tenants.

CCES does not perform rooftop garden design or landscaping. But we can manage professionals in these fields to do the proper work to install one to maximize your benefits. In addition, we can perform a sustainability assessment of your buildings, company, or assets to determine which strategies are most effective to become more sustainable and to optimize the financial benefits. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or karell@CCESworld.com.

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.

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.

High Efficiency Transformers – A Demand Side Strategy for NetZero Projects

by Lisa Westerfield, Technical Group Services

The most popular energy efficiency measures to reduce demand side loads include high-performance envelopes, daylighting, glazing, passive solar heating and then some. People often overlook the fact that power losses supplied by inefficient transformers can increase a building’s energy costs by as much as 6-12%.

Locked away in an electrical closet for the life of a building, transformers take high voltage power from the grid and convert it to lower voltage power that can be used by everything that runs on electricity in homes, offices, and manufacturing facilities.

The process of converting (stepping down) voltages involves some waste in the form of heat. Common examples of transformers that step-down power to even smaller voltages, that cell phones and laptops use, are at the cubes located at the ends of chargers. After they’ve been plugged in for a while, they warm up. That warmth is electricity that’s being lost in the form of waste heat.

Prior to 2007, efficiency requirements were non-existent for transformers. Recognizing the impact that inefficient transformers have on the built environment, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was enacted. The policy required all dry type transformers rated 600V or less to meet NEMA TP-1 requirements by January 2007. In 2016, the DOE amended 10 CFR 431 (DOE 2016). By decreasing losses from 29-36% depending on the size of the transformer, the DOE estimated that that the new energy efficiency standard will save consumers up to $12.9 billion for equipment sold from 2016 – 2045.

While the DOE 2016 standard is a step in the right direction, those looking to do better, lower energy costs, and design NetZero projects need every edge they can get to reduce the demand side load and the renewable footprint. Transformers that are more efficient than the DOE standard exist.to help.

Powersmiths makes transformers with an additional 30-50% less losses than the DOE 2016 standard. These efficiencies are achieved by using a higher grade of steel for the core, using copper for the windings, offering models in each kVA size that are optimized for the application load, and offering more kVA sizes so that the whole system does not need to be oversized. The additional reduction in losses translates into an additional reduction in energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions by 6-12%. Put into perspective – On a NetZero project estimated to use 100 panels, would need 6-12 less panels.

To learn more about “Powersmiths Solutions for NetZero Buildings” go to https://www.powersmiths.com/netzero/

For more information, contact Lisa Westerfield, LEED AP, Technical Group Services at 609-947-1960 or at lisa@tgs-inc.com

US EPA To Classify Wood Burning as Carbon Neutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hospitals Is An Industry Making Minor Progress On Energy Efficiency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applying AI To Drinking Water Management

There has been much literature about how global demand for water will exceed our fresh water supply by 2030, that in a number of communities residents are provided with drinking water that does not meet safe health standards (Flint, MI and more), and that an estimated quarter of a million US water mains break, leaking over two trillion gallons of treated drinking water annually. Our infrastructure is crumbling and water management can use improvement; all during a time when fresh water sources are declining. Yet governments have less resources to spend for upgrades. What can be done to economically improve our water management systems?

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates fixing US water infrastructure issues (pipes, pumps, treatment, etc.) will cost close to $1 trillion. While this is important to maintain and upgrade, can smart water grid management address distribution and safety issues, saving money in the long-term?

While electric utilities and transportation systems are beginning to embrace and implement “smart” and more efficient generation, distribution, and management, the same approach applied to drinking water has not yet gained much momentum. The US needs smart water grid systems to efficiently and reliably manage safe drinking water.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology is available to conduct regular testing of such potential contaminants as lead (a major concern for child development), copper, arsenic, chlorine, dissolved oxygen, silica, and nitrites. The relative safety of water along the supply and treatment chain can be detected and trends identified, resulting in better management of what the proper treatment of water is and where it should take place, ultimately providing safer water and managing and minimizing costs.

Similarly, AI should be able to regularly traverse even a complex set of pipes, pumps, tanks, and reservoirs, and detect changes in pressure and leaks and send appropriate alarms to pinpoint where the leak occurs for the utility to repair, again, saving taxpayer money and water costs.

A major concern is that most water utilities are local in scope, just covering a city, district, or county. Many technology fixes are expensive to procure, install and operate. Larger entities, such as states or regions, can bring together several water utilities to share and minimize upfront costs and allow consistent AI and approaches to implement interactive, smart water management systems with networks of sensors communicating with each other and management to deliver warnings of potentially unsafe water supply and of the actual or potential presence, degree, and location of leaks in real time. Trained professionals can then divert and treat water appropriately to bring a supply back to standard and can pinpoint where repairs should take place, avoiding major upheavals of the entire system.

The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act and America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 is a throwback to supplying more money to fix immediate problems. Let’s hope utilities and governments think more forward and use AI for long-term improvements in supply and reliability of our critical drinking water supply.

CCES can help your company assess your entire portfolio, including water, air and greenhouse gas emissions, waste, and other impacts. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or karell@CCESworld.com.

Talking Points: Green Buildings

Part of a series taking important new concepts and wording it so you can pass basic information to your colleagues and contacts.

Background

With growing public awareness and concern about climate change and environmental peril, upgrading buildings is becoming of greater importance. Buildings play a significant role in our everyday human life. We spend so much of our time inside buildings. They must not only serve our purposes and be comfortable but have a minor impact on our environment. How can we design and operate buildings in this way to be “green”?

What Is “Green Building”?

There is no specific, universal standard for a “green building”, and, sadly, some claims are controversial. The USGBC has a green building standard called Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED). Any building meeting LEED standards and certified by the USGBC as thus, can certainly claim to be “green”. But meeting strict LEED standards is expensive and takes time, a hardship for some. Owners can benefit from incorporating at least some green building features. Any building improvement resulting in energy efficiency, reduced water usage, better indoor air quality, reduced waste formation (and/or greater recycling rates), and incorporation of innovative technologies, such as green roof systems and renewable power, are positive steps toward being “green”, will likely result in financial benefits, and is worth talking about.

The Many Financial Benefits of Green Building

It is important to understand that implementing strategies in some or all of these areas will result in positive financial benefits. Here are some.

• It’s Not So Expensive. Conventional thinking is that adding “green” features to an upgrade will make the project prohibitively expensive. Not true. Most “green” technologies have dropped in price because there is more competition. Also, many utilities and governments have reason to encourage “green” upgrades and will pay part of the upfront cost directly to you in rebates or tax incentives.

• Reduced Costs. Key phrase: if done properly, a green upgrade will reduce your operating costs, such as electricity, fuel, and/or water enough over the lifetime of the change to pay back the initial investment and much more. ROIs equivalent to 20, 30, or 40% or more per year have been achieved. What many people don’t realize is that, for example, for technologies to reduce electricity usage (improved lights, better HVAC, improved insulation), you pay for it one time, but get the cost savings year after year. (It’s not like you are going to yank out the efficient lights and re-install the old ones!) In fact, if you determine that you save, say, $10,000 per year in electricity costs the first year after changes, the savings will not only be another $10,000 the next year, but actually more, as savings are based on your utility rate, and that only rises in time (have you seen a utility lower its electric rates?). This is why such projects – again, if done smartly – should not be thought about as cute or “cool”, but as a very good financial investment, too. According to the California Sustainable Building Task Force (https://www.thespruce.com/benefits-of-green-buildings-1708553), a 2% invest-ment in green building design will save over 10 times that investment in the long run. A $20,000 investment in green features of a $1 million project, will typically result in $200,000 in actual cost savings over 20 years. A question I like to ask: what bank or Wall St. investment pays a return like that?! And with no risk?

• Reduced O&M. Many “green” upgrades result in reduced O&M costs compared to previous. For example, LED lights do not “burn out”. Many LED lights are warrantied for 7 to 10 years, unlike most fluorescents which typically last about 2 years. This means less time for Maintenance to change light bulbs, freeing them to focus on high-priority projects and also reducing accident risk (fall off a ladder).

• Higher Rents, Better Tenants. Having a certified “green” building is known to attract more high-end tenants who want/need the association, allowing the owner to charge higher rates. The resale value of certified “green” buildings is higher because potential buyers know that costs (energy, water, waste) will be lower.

• More Satisfied Tenants (Less Turnover). There is enough experience now that studies have shown that working in a certified green building is good for both physical and mental health, improving the productivity of the tenant company and resulting in the desire to renew the lease for the long-term. Lower tenant turnover and having successful businesses as tenants is good for the building owner. Investment by an owner in such features as better ventilation, no VOC carpets and furniture, no toxic pesticides, green roofs can result in this. A building owner can go further and invest in upgrades for gyms, more bike racks, better furniture, upgrading staircases, etc. to boost the health and well-being of building users. A new standard from the USGBC called WELL codifies such changes. One major study (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/study-certified-green-companies-238203) showed that employees who work in green buildings were 16% more productive than those who work in traditional buildings. Another one (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/urban-expeditions/green-buildings/surprising-ways-green-buildings-improve-health-sustainability/) showed that employees in green buildings were better at making decisions, reaching goals, and completing tasks. Some “green” features helped circadian rhythms, allowing workers to sleep better at night and be more alert.

• Finally, Environmental Progress. While this article has focused on financial benefits, let’s not forget that “green” building results in indisputable environmental benefits, too. By moving toward “green” building, your firm can demonstrate to stakeholders progress which can be tracked through the amount of greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved.

CCES has the experts to help you assess your buildings and determine which green features will provide you with the most direct financial benefits, whether it be a full LEED certification or just upgrading with select features. We can assure you that the features will be incorporated correctly and provide the maximum financial benefits. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

AI Used For Improved Energy Efficiency

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is all the rage. Can a machine be built to use its intelligence to replace or even exceed the “natural” intelligence of humans? Can machines reliably and correctly process and interpret external data, learn from such data, and use it to achieve specific goals? The media is full of news of new AI discoveries and ways to use “robots” to displace workers in many fields. Can AI help society become more energy efficient?

Metro de Madrid, in conjunction with Accenture, developed and implemented a self-learning AI-based ventilation system to mini¬mize energy costs and ensure commuter comfort in metro stations. See https://www.energymanagertoday.com/artificial-intelligence-platform-firm-0177074/ Metro de Madrid claims to have reduced its ventilation energy costs by 25% and cut CO2 emissions by 1,800 tons annually.

To help passengers stay cool inside stations on hot summer days, Metro de Madrid operates 891 ventilation fans, consuming as much as 80 GWh of electricity annually.

Madrid Metro and Accenture Applied Intelligence developed a system that used an optimization algorithm leveraging data to explore every possible combination of air temperature, station architecture, train frequency, passenger load and electricity price. Both historic and simulated data were used. The algorithm used machine learning; the system improved its prediction of the optimal balance for each train station over time.

The system also includes a simulation and maintenance module, allowing for, among other things, tracking for failures in the fans’ operation. This enables Metro de Madrid to not only predict and monitor energy consump¬tion, but also identify and respond to potential system deficiencies and pro¬actively order equipment maintenance.

Teaching systems to find and use historic data to more accurately predict needs in the future is a way AI can help a system run better and more energy efficiently, too.

CCES is not an expert on AI, but we can use our extensive experience to help your entity be more energy efficient and productive and bring in AI experts, if necessary. We can give you options to determine the best direction forward of producing your product reliably and efficiently. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

DOE Moves To Rescind Lighting Energy Efficiency Standards

The US Department of Energy (DOE) published its intention to rescind two 2017 rules which expanded energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. See https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/02/f59/withdrawal-of-gsl-definition-nopr.pdf. The DOE claimed that the plan misconstrued existing law and can no longer go forward.

The DOE’s Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles covers most major household appliances, including general service lamps (GSLs), The rule directs the DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles, one to include incandescent lights within the definition of GSL and the other to evaluate energy conservation standards for GSLs. January 2017 rulemaking addressed these 2 issues. The new energy conservation standards, which incandescent bulbs would have problems meeting, were to go into effect in January 2020.

Rescinding the rule would cost consumers billions of dollars and also increase emissions of GHGs and toxic compounds. Most of the American public and businesses have already addressed the standards, in terms of caldelabras, reflectors, sockets, and bulb performance. About 3 billion sockets in US homes alone would be impacted.

An analysis of the rule and its potential roll back estimates that rescinding the rules will:

• cost American households $22 billion in 2025, about $180 per household.

• US electricity use would increase by 80 billion kWh per year — about the combined usage of all households in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

• This relaxing of standards would cause more power plant activity (fossil fuel combustion) which would produce pollution harming the environment and contributing to health problems like asthma. Annual emission increases would include an extra 19,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, 23,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 34 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2025 — the latter equal to that of over 7 million cars.

The potential rescinding of the rules would also stifle innovation, eliminating a robust incentive for businesses and homeowners to purchase or invest in energy-efficient LED light bulbs.

The draft rule is currently open for public comment. A public hearing on this issue will be held on February 28, 2019.

Rule or no rule, CCES has the experts to help you invest in the most energy efficient lights possible to maximize your cost and other savings and to design and install them to optimize productivity and reduce O&M. Contact us today 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.