Category Archives: Sustainability

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.

Prescriptive Vs. Performance Energy Incentive Programs

More utilities and local governments are creating and implementing incentive programs to get buildings to be more energy efficient. Energy infrastructure is aging and expensive to replace. There is concern in many large cities that during a peak demand period, such as a hot summer afternoon, needed electricity will not be able to be provided throughout a utility zone, affecting citizenry, businesses, and quality of life. It is not only in the utility’s interest, but in the government’s, as well, to encourage energy efficiency, so that a peak demand can be met. One way to incentivize the procurement and usage of energy-saving technologies and strategies is to reduce its cost. More and more entities offer rebates for the implementation of certain technologies, which otherwise may be costly. Of course, if public money is going to be given out, it must be accounted for; it must go to owners who actually upgraded their buildings for energy efficiency. This can lead to significant bureaucracy, which itself is costly and takes away from the pool of money available to incentivize. Therefore, the simplicity of an incentive program is very important, as well.

With this in mind, there are two major philosophies used to design incentive programs for those to become more energy efficient, prescriptive vs. performance. Each has certain advantages to different groups of people.

Prescriptive energy incentive programs try to minimize bureaucracy, be simple for the building owner and manager, and emphasize installing the technology. A typical prescriptive program allows the participant to purchase and install the technology and reap the rewards fairly quickly, irrespective of the final results (energy savings). Prescriptive incentives typically pay out a certain percentage of the upfront cost of a technology so that the user can plan the expenditure and what it will get back.

For example, a New Jersey prescriptive lighting program pays the building owner a certain cost per LED light. It may be $5 per tube for replacement of tube fluorescents with LED tubes, $15 per fixture for replacement of high bay lumineres with LEDs, $15 per fixture for task lights, $100 per fixture for stairwell lights, etc. The building owner simply counts the number of lights that are replaced with the LED equivalents, multiplies by the incentive factors, and now can determine what the simple payback is. Once the lights are demonstrated to be installed, the calculations can be confirmed and the incentive check issued.

In a prescriptive program, it does not matter precisely how many watts the new LED lights are or the wattage of the lights being replaced. The effectiveness of the exercise (total kWh or KW load reduced) is not important for this incentive program. A prescriptive energy efficiency program is a reward for installing improved technology.

The other type of energy incentive program is performance, basing financial incentives on the achieved energy reduction of the strategies. For each light replaced by an LED, the before and after wattages of the lights must be computed and, together with the estimated usage (hours per year) of each group of lights, the total kWh or kW reduction is computed. The rebate tied to the reduction in electricity usage and demand is what a performance incentive program is all about. Such programs give the building owner a certain money (typically $0.10 per kWh or $1.00 per therm reduced or peak kW reduced). This is used for lighting incentive programs, as wattages can be compared.

However, for other technologies, it is more difficult to determine accurate gains and performance. For example, if one upgrades HVAC equipment to something more modern and efficient, the exact energy savings cannot be predicted because it depends on the outside weather which differs from year to year. One may get a huge reduction in kWh from one year to the next. However, it may be due at least in part to a milder summer in the year the technology is installed, as much as the efficiency improvement. One way to get around this is to have a performance incentive program use computer energy modeling holding the weather as a constant to predict energy usage with old and new equipment conditioning the indoor air.

Performance incentives, therefore, require a lot more information before the incentive is issued compared to prescriptive. This means more time spent on the computer and more labor hours that needs to get paid for before the incentive is earned. However, the effort will likely result in a document that reports what the energy reduction due to the new equipment is likely to be. And utilities and governments often wish to provide rebates based on the actual degree of efficiency or usage reduced achieved as opposed to merely upgrading technology which may not be that effective to demonstrate significant energy usage reduction.

CCES can help manage the energy incentive programs in your area and advise you on which ones are more relevant and profitable to your business at whatever stage you are at. We can do the testing, complete the incentive paperwork and answer questions of the regulators. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or karell@CCESworld.com.

Sustainability Grows in the Apparel Industry

Sustainability has grown as an area of concern in the apparel industry. Years ago the emphasis was on child labor and fair pay. More recently sustainability reviews have focused on the use and treatment of raw materials through manufacturing and shipment processes to retail. The potential careless use and management of toxic chemicals and the fate of garments and material not sold are being scrutinized and is leading many in the industry to change practices.

Spurred by Walmart and other partners, fashion industry heavyweights, including Gap, H&M, and Nike recently started a “Make Fashion Circular” initiative to change the “throw away” mentality and create business models to keep clothes in use longer, utilize safer, renewable materials, and implement operations to turn used clothes into new ones.

Reducing Solid Waste

A major sustainability issue affecting the apparel industry is solid waste. An estimated 75% of all fashion chain materials are disposed of and end up in landfills or equivalent. Less than 1% is recycled or re-purposed. The value of switching raw materials to those that can have other uses or are more easily recyclable is being communicated.

Earlier this year, several major clothing lines announced new programs addressing this issue, ranging from using a new organic wool clothing line to the growing use of sustainably sourced cotton to promoting a closed material cycle. In addition, other new programs being established emphasized recycling, such as re-use of discarded cotton and polyester fabrics and eliminating the use of virgin plastic.

Hemp As A Sustainable Apparel Material

With the legalization of cannabis across the U.S., people are taking another look at the hemp plant for its wide variety of uses, not just medicinal. Hemp has been cultivated for industrial purposes by many civilizations for well over 10,000 years. Hemp fiber was and is one of the strongest and most durable of all natural textile fibers. Hemp was the desired fiber used to manufacture clothing as well as other things including building materials, paper, rope, and canvas, until alternative textiles and synthetics for these purposes were discovered. But hemp is making a comeback in the apparel industry.

In terms of lifecycle, hemp doesn’t wear out, it wears in – holding its shape and stretching less than any other natural fiber — the ultimate when it comes to reducing waste. Since hemp is porous, it is very water absorbent and will dye and retain its color better than any other fabric. Hemp apparel is naturally cool to wear in warm weather and warm in cool weather. It is mildew resistant, is resistant to ultraviolet light, and softens with age. Apparel made from hemp incorporates all the beneficial qualities and will likely last longer and withstand harsh conditions. Hemp blended with other fibers easily incorporates the desirable qualities of both textiles. Not only is it an excellent yarn for clothing, but also an excellent yarn for bed and bath linens, and table linens.

Hemp is a renewable material, producing 250% more fiber than cotton and 600% more fiber than flax using the same amount of land. Hemp’s root system is strong, anchoring and protecting the soil from runoff, building and preserving topsoil and subsoil structures as seen in forests. Hemp leaves the soil in excellent condition for succeeding crops.
With such sustainable qualities like durability and the potential to be produced cheaply, hemp textiles are the wave of the future!

Dyeing and Finishing

Another major sustainability issue in this industry is use of chemicals in dyeing and finishing processes, which form highly-polluting and toxic gases which can adversely affect health of residents downwind of manufacturing facilities. The problem is that manufacturers do not want to change their chemicals or procedures lest the product change its appearance and be less attractive (and sell less) or the substitute chemicals or procedures be more expensive, a difficult cost to bear in a competitive market.

Despite these concerns, some firms have seen reducing or changing usage as an opportunity to save costs. Several firms have implemented new technologies to use much fewer chemicals in the dyeing or treatment process for jeans and other clothes.

“Re-Commercing”

A final growing sustainable movement in the apparel industry is re-commercing, taking clothing that does not sell, returning them to distribution or manufacturing centers to either wait until it may grow in demand or to modify them or use parts to manufacture other sellable apparel. Several major brands are instituting such programs.

CCES has the experts to help your firm develop economic and creative ways to improve your sustainability. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

And for more information about hemp and how its use can help you in apparel and in many other applications, contact Ms. Bonnie Hagen of Bright Energy Services at 347- 470-7090 or at bonnie@brightenergyservices.com.

Surprise: US Water Use Is Declining!

The US Geological Survey latest study on US water use in 2015 showed that US water use was 322 billion gallons per day (bgd), a 9% decrease from 2010 levels. Water withdrawal in the US grew from 1950 to 1980, hitting a peak of 430 bgd. Withdrawal levels remained relatively constant through 2005, when they began to drop.

Thermoelectric power generation, irrigation and public drinking supply make up 90% of water use in the US. Of all categories, thermoelectric power use decreased the most, down 18% from 2010. Industrial water use has consistently declined in the last 30 years; 2015 estimates are about 43% less than in 1985. This may be contributed by the slowdown in the economy in the early 2010’s, as well as industries moving overseas.

The 9% decline in withdrawals for public supply between 2010 and 2015 was unexpected, given an increase in total US population of 4% during that time. Per capita use declined from 88 gallons per day in 2010 to 82 gallons per day in 2015.

These short- and long-term results go against conventional thinking as the US population increased and water infrastructure continued to age, resulting in more lost water from our supply. Add on to this climate change effects on weather patterns (greater dry periods and more severe storms where water cannot be effectively captured), and the measured reduction of water use was surprising.

As happens often, patterns of change occur led by individual municipalities and states in need implementing innovative water conservation programs. Advanced purification technology from Israel and other nations that treat sanitary sewage water and turns it directly into drinking water has been shown to be effective and is being implemented by a number of municipalities, the largest of which being El Paso, TX.

Progress is also made by competition. Recently, New York City launched a Water Challenge to Universities. The six participating universities will work to reduce their campus-wide average water consumption by at least 5%, which would be a savings of approximately 1.3 million gallons of water per month. Not only is that a beneficial result in itself, but this is practical training the future engineers and professionals for how to implement and administer these and other innovative programs.

Of course, demand for water relative to supply is a major driver of conservation. California allocates resources to find creative strategies to manage their water resources. In Arizona, a draft contingency plan to save water from Lake Mead in order to address shortages from the Colorado River appears to be finalizing.

Water conservation for “green” or cost-saving purposes certainly sells. Therefore, companies are investing in innovative water management strategies, for industrial or irrigation use. Manufacturers of home appliances are designing more products that conserve water, as they sell. There is a growing number of WaterSense-labeled and Water Smart-certified homes, saving an estimated 1.4 billion gallons of water annually.

CCES can help you develop and implement a robust water conservation program within your Sustainability program, maximizing benefits and flexibility. 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.

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.

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.