Category Archives: Uncategorized

Is An Energy Management System Right For You?

Some building managers think that buying, installing, and operating an ultramodern energy management system (EMS) will solve all their occupants lighting and comfort problems and at the same time lead to great energy cost savings. It’s not so simple. An EMS needs professional management and maintenance for it to perform seamlessly as intended and to save you aggravation, time and money. Before buying an EMS, you should understand some of the maintenance issues that may come up and occupy your time, despite the responsive, ultramodern system. If these are difficult, you may want to consider alternative ways to reduce energy usage and costs without EMS. Here are some EMS issues that your building may face and that you and your staff must address:

• Proper sensor location: A modern EMS system can work less effectively than you expected if the sensors are located improperly. Sensors should be located near where people are present to truly indicate the level of comfort and lighting desired. A sensor located in an out-of-the-way location may relay incorrect information and not truly serve those intended, costing the building money. A sensor should also not be receiving supply air directly. This may turn off an HVAC prematurely and cause occupants to be uncomfortable, which in turn may cause other components to overcompensate.
Bottom line: Ensure that your sensors are located in optimal areas, reflecting the use of various rooms or sections. Periodically, note if there are changes in occupancy or needs or if complaints can be rectified by moving the sensor. It is often worth the extra cost of electricians and all to move sensors to more logical locations.

• Assure proper maintenance: Sometimes building managers are so amazed by all the wizardry (as told by a sales person) of a modern EMS that they think that maintenance is unnecessary. “The system can take care of itself.” Well, that’s wishful thinking that will ultimately cost a building money, time, and the effectiveness of the EMS. Regular maintenance and checking of an EMS’s effectiveness and value must be performed to assure that settings are appropriate and that the proper controls are working. Even if the EMS is performing well, it is also important to check its settings as the needs of occupants can change over time. For example, if a new tenant moves into one portion of a building and has different or unique heating/cooling needs or occupancy schedules, then the EMS algorithms may become outdated. Even less drastic changes may have the same effect.
Bottom line: So it is important to review building operations, occupancy, and needs on a regular basis and ensure that the EMS is properly responding to any changes. Otherwise, change the settings and programs. Not doing so will take away a lot of the energy efficiency cost gains you expected and paid for in procuring the EMS.

• Manual program overrides: An EMS is pre-programmed to provide building occupants with the perceived needed lighting and comfort needed, while saving energy use, too. However, because building managers must address lighting and comfort complaints by occupants at any time, an EMS must allow manual overrides of system settings to quickly respond to any complaint. Because a complaint can happen at any and at odd hours, the building manager or those trained in operating the EMS may not be present and a less- or untrained worker may need to manually override the system, potentially affecting controls over other areas of the buildings and other times and affecting long-term savings. There are certainly many cases where occupants themselves frustrated with too much or too little heat or cooling will try to alter settings themselves. But they cause major errors or problems and only care about their own comfort and not that of others or of energy efficiency. Therefore, make sure that an EMS thermostat or occupancy sensor is locked or otherwise out of the reach of an untrained occupant, although this will add to the cost and are more keys to carry around.
Bottom line: make sure more workers receive recurring training on EMS operation to intelligently respond to complaints without affecting others comfort or lighting and without sacrificing much in energy cost reductions. If there are frequent complaints, catalog them, determine trends and reasons, and perhaps “permanently” change settings.

• Alarms: Some EMS systems are so complex and measure so many parameters that they sound alarms for nearly anything that is abnormal. Some of these are critical and need to be addressed rapidly, such as an electrical or a pump failure. But, many EMS alarms are for less critical items, such as a dirty filter, an imbalance in air flow rate, or a change in occupancy rates. While important to be informed about, such issues need not be addressed right away. Over time, when alarms sound too frequently, workers become insensitive to them. They may even shut some alarm systems off or do not react to them, including some critical ones.
Bottom line: Determine which parameters are most critical and reprogram your EMS to sound alarms only for the most critical malfunctions that must be addressed quickly. Inform maintenance staff in less intrusive ways (reports) for the more routine or less critical problems that an EMS detects.

With this said, you may ask the question of whether it makes sense to even purchase an EMS system for your building. Certainly, advanced technology that automatically adjusts parameters to what is best for building occupants or a specific situation in an efficient manner is a good thing for comfort and to save money. But planning to install thermostats, sensors, and a control system means understanding that an EMS system will not be productive without major input from you and staff. All the “headaches” will not go away and some of the expected savings may not occur, as well. You have to invest labor and time to maintain and use properly an EMS system. Or you should consider implementing other energy upgrades without an EMS system, of which there are plenty.

CCES has the technical experts to help you assess EMS systems, whether they are right for you, what alternatives will serve you well without an automated system, and what parameters, alarms, notices, and controls should be included should you decide to procure an EMS. We can perform meaningful energy upgrades for your building with or without an EMS. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Countering Excuses To Ignore Sustainability–Part 1

Despite the strong business benefits – shown in real life – to become more sustainable, most businesses either do not develop or do not address seriously sustainability goals or treat them as if checking off a box. In some literature, many excuses are given. In this first of many parts, I will examine such a business claim and provide evidence to show that each is not valid for a successful sustainability program developed smartly.

There are no accepted metrics to measure sustainability, so there is no end goal. Also, those that exist are too complex to understand.

Metrics are important in any business program. One cannot manage what does not get measured. Goals without measureable and respected metrics become difficult to achieve or demonstrate that you are achieving. Sustainability initiatives can be difficult to measure because some affect outside society, and may have only minor benefits for the company and employees.

But in response to this, there are a number of metrics and measuring systems that exist to help companies measure their sustainability. Among the more popular ones are the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and life-cycle assessments, for which there is an approved ISO procedure (14025) to determine impacts at different levels of a product’s life cycle (from infrastructure and raw materials to consumer use and end-of-life).

In fact, there are so many options that it is important to devote time to determining which ones best suits your business. Which sustainability metric system will provide the most definitive information to your stakeholders and can be integrated with your current business metrics? One must think through which metrics are best suited for a particular industry or size and diversity of entity. Some focus on energy, some on carbon, some on water, and some a combination. Which are most important to your organization?

You need time and thought to invest time to decide which metrics and reporting tools will help you the most benchmark, provide unassailable data and conclusions concerning your operations, allow you to compare reasonably with other similar companies, and identify the areas that need specific improvement.

The bottom line is that there is no simple answer to the right sustainability metrics for you, but that options exist and time and resources should be invested upfront to select the approach best suited for your characteristics and to provide meaningful information.

CCES has the experts to help you research and establish the best sustainability program for your needs that is meaningful and will provide you both useful information and definitive business benefits. Contact Marc Karell today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Overcoming The Fear of Energy Investments

According to the USDOE, over 4.2 million commercial buildings waste an average 30% of their energy, causing a cumulative estimated excess cost of $60.7 billion in 2007. Given an 8% capitalization rate, the cumulative loss of real estate value is $750 billion.

A simple example applied to an individual building (from Energy Star): A 200,000 sf office building pays $2/sf in energy. Energy reductions resulting in a 10% decrease in energy costs translates into $40,000 in additional net operating income annually. Energy Star believes that common energy recovery opportunities range from 20%-40%.

Given this opportunity to turn wasted energy into newfound income and asset value, why aren’t all property owners and managers investing in energy efficiency upgrades? A Deloitte survey, reSources 2012, found that 90% of companies surveyed had energy management goals; and over two-thirds identified reducing energy costs as their main rationale. Yet, the survey also found that few companies had actually developed and implemented significant energy efficiency improvements. Many property owners and managers have one or more of the following impressions about energy upgrades:

• Improving energy efficiency is a complex, mysterious and unreliable process.

• Investing in energy efficiency is almost always expensive.

• Pursuing energy efficiency is risky business (due to overpromise and under delivery).

Each assumption has been shown to be incorrect based on real life examples. So, how can these fears be overcome? Be organized and address the following:

1. Perform a site-specific energy assessment led by an experienced professional. Make sure that data (energy usage data, bills, information about operations and equipment) is thorough and properly collected. Data quality is of prime importance. I once prepared an energy survey for the managers of facilities to submit to obtain such data. For groups of similar facilities, I expected a bell-shaped curve; instead I got some facilities that were listed as extremely efficient and others very inefficient. I was suspicious that errors or misunderstandings occurred during data entry. When I spoke to the client manager of the need to invest time to verify the data collected from the outliers, he started yelling at me that we must accept all data as submitted. He did not understand data collection. They invested money into energy reducing strategies at facilities that did not need it! The bottom line is that good, quality information reduces the fear that some may have.

2. Focus on your highest energy activities; identify multiple solutions. To reduce the fear of risk in energy upgrade strategies, it is critical to focus on big energy consumers and determine costs, reductions, and paybacks of multiple potential solutions. Obtain multiple bids and identify the best combination of solutions based on financial analysis.

3. Put all matters in writing. It is important to be transparent in the evaluation and calculations. Prepare professional memos or reports along the way, and don’t hide any data or reasoning for decisions.

Proposing this approach will reduce the fear that many C-level executives have about performing energy assessments and investing in energy waste reduction strategies.

CCES has the technical experts to help you prepare energy evaluations and audits to maximize your energy and cost reductions and gain the greatest business benefits in a reliable, programmatic, transparent way. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

A Look Into Why People Buy “Green” Products

Here’s an article to share with your sales group. Understanding why people choose to “go green” and buy environmentally-friendly products can help companies decide how to maximize the benefits of their own “green” program and improve the bottom line. Why do people go out of their way to find and purchase recycled paper towels rather than non-descript ones, energy-saving appliances, and hybrid cars? According to the authors of a published paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 98, No. 3, March 2010), green purchases are made primarily for status. Customers will more likely buy such products – even at inflated prices – when they know other people will notice.

The researchers conducted 3 experiments, using more than 400 participants, to determine the roles that price, quality, and social reputation play in determining whether and why customers opt for environmentally-friendly products. The authors found that people’s purchasing attitudes and choices differed if they shopped online alone at home vs. in a store. People indicated a preference to purchase more expensive green products in public in stores because others would witness them making the purchase. In fact, a higher price would make a statement that the buyers who wanted to show they were willing to sacrifice for the environment. When deciding between two equally priced vehicles, one a luxury car loaded with features and the other an environmentally-friendly one with fewer high-end features, 55% of participants who were asked to consider their public status chose the green car vs. only 37% of participants in the control group, who were told to disregard reputation.

In the marketplace, the hybrid Toyota Prius is an example of this phenomenon. The Prius is openly advertised as better for the environment. Despite the fact it costs more than other conventional but highly fuel efficient non-hybrid cars, a newspaper story reported that Prius owners ranked environmental concerns last on a list of five reasons they bought the car. Their top reason for purchasing the hybrid was that it “made a statement about me.”

The bottom line is that the key to successful sales of green products is status, including ensuring that their products are sold in public spaces. Customers are looking to enhance their reputation.

CCES has the technical experts to help your company develop a “green” program to maximize financial benefits, both internally (energy cost savings) and externally (advancing sales). Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Ways to Manage Your Company’s Climate Change Risks and Garner Support

In the last couple of years, the public and governments have understood and accepted the importance of addressing climate change adaptation. If potential climate change impacts on your company – both physical and business – are not addressed, it can be an existential issue. If key facilities lose power, suffer damage to key processes, cause database information to be lost, and impact your supply chain and markets, it can affect your company forever. While climate change adaptation is not guaranteed to avoid all disasters, a viable program to lessen impacts and allow you to bounce back to normal quicker can be implemented. Another problem is how to get internal support for a program that has no immediate financial payback, but is of great value (risk reduction).

Getting Decision Makers and Managers To Take Climate Change Risk Seriously

Climate change risk cannot be assessed and incorporated into corporate decision making until it is taken seriously as the critical business parameter it is, as a discipline and with benefits. Remember, those in the C-Suite are probably older and likely did not learn about climate change in B School; uncharted territory. Managers, who take their cues from the C-Suite, may also resist, thinking of this as just another responsibility to add on to their others, and a doomsday scenario, too, with little financial reward at the end. Here are tips to engender internal support for addressing climate change risk.

• Document losses that have already happened related to climate change. Has your company suffered losses that may be related to severe storms? Perhaps from Hurricane Sandy or a prolonged drought? While it has not yet been established that these events were “caused” by climate change, most of the scientific community believes that climate change did exacerbate and worsen such severe events. Quantify the financial losses from the event(s), and determine what future losses may be if these were to repeat.

• What critical facility or corporate operations may be impacted by climate change in the future? Examine your operation and supply chains for critical elements that may be impacted by severe storms, water shortages, temperature rise, etc. One former client assessed that the agricultural product it needs as a raw material for their main product may not be able to be produced by its currently-contracted farmers 10-20 years in the future, and therefore contingencies should start to be planned before it may be too late or too expensive to change suppliers.

• Quantify and personalize risks of climate change hazards. Once key operations or facilities are identified, determine potential impacts on your company’s viability and profits if long-term damage due to a storm or extreme heat or other effect occurs and the operation becomes non-functional for a significant amount of time. How much money might the company lose short- and long-term? May market share be lost permanently? Present the risk of such an event happening, particularly if it has changed from, say, a once in a lifetime, to a once per decade.

• Determine preliminary risk-averse strategies and rough costs for the most vulnerable elements. For a couple of vulnerable processes or assets, determine preliminary strategies, such as installing flood control measures, moving key equipment up from low lying floors, etc. What are the preliminary upfront and maintenance costs? How do these stack up to the potential short- and long-term costs and losses should the assets not be protected?

Ultimately, most C-Suite executives are swayed by numbers and the fear of substantial, existential risk. Presenting preliminary risk and cost estimates should convince them of the importance of tackling climate change risk now. This is likely an iterative process, so updating existing and showing new examples will help convince more executives and managers the business sense of a professional program to identify and address climate change risk. It is an argument that will likely take some time to win.

Approaches to Begin a Corporate Climate Change Risk Program

• If your company has multiple facilities, it is important to have corporate-wide climate change adaptation policies with specific goals covering all assets. However, it is also important to recognize that one strategy does not fit all facilities, given specific local issues each faces (i.e., operations conducted, local climate). Thus, a balance of consistency, yet addressing local needs is critical.

• “Do the science.” Amazingly, in established areas, such as the Northeast, there is a wealth of accurate information about flood zones and risk – many originating over a century ago. They have stood the test of time – until now. Climate change-caused rises in both the height of water bodies and moisture content of the atmosphere (confirmed by measurement) now raises the frequency of destructive storms damaging buildings and processes. Revisit those calculations and plan and modify to minimize adverse impacts from the more frequent storms.

• Make sure that your climate change risk program does not only focus on the physical effects of severe storms. The program should also look at business-related changes, such as shifting markets and availability of resources. If you produce a product dependent on a raw material from a supplier, may climate change effects eventually risk the scarcity or price stability of the raw material? Any raw material from farming may be vulnerable if your supplier cannot produce it anymore (or at a lower yield). Perhaps long-term rising temperatures will reduce demand for your main products; perhaps it will enhance demand. This is critical for corporate managers to understand and keep track of.

CCES has the technical experts to help you develop a climate change adaptation program, assessing and addressing risk for your maximum financial benefit. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Documented Business Benefits of Going Green

Some companies and municipalities think about becoming more sustainable. At some, motivated employees bring this up at meetings. However, only a small percentage of US entities are taking the serious steps to go “green”. Why so few? In most cases, there is fear. What may go wrong and what will it cost? Will this process be difficult to control? Are there financial benefits? If so, are they worth the cost? What about liabilities/risks?

However, many entities have successfully gone “green”. Yes, there were upfront costs, education of managers and staff, and some workplace changes. But in so many cases the programs have worked successfully and have brought great financial benefits: not just direct dollars and cents, but also other indirect benefits that save hard cash.

It has been well documented that a robust, well-organized “green” program will save energy costs. The centerpiece of the program is a professional energy audit resulting in energy efficiency and conservation. Energy costs are saved and risk reduced. It is easy to identify and implement low hanging fruits with fast paybacks and use these initial savings to fund just-as-important, but perhaps more long-term, future energy savings.

But robust benefits do not end there. In a good sustainability program, use of other resources, such as water and necessary chemicals are often reduced, as well, saving more costs. And when water and other chemical usages are reduced you have, by definition, saved time and expenses for cleanup, waste management, and, indirectly, agency spotlight and liability. This further decreases energy costs and makes managing your manufacturing or other processes simpler. You make a higher-quality, more reliable product or successful operation, all contributing to a better bottom line.

And then there are the social benefits. It has been well documented that an entity with a meaningful “green” program has a more motivated labor force. Employees are more loyal, productivity increases, and are less likely to leave. The latter represents a major cost savings, as finding and training the right replacements is very cumbersome and expensive. A good example of increased productivity is a client of mine that switched fuels from No. 6 fuel oil to cleaner natural gas. Every time an oil truck came on site, a couple of employees had to stop their work to help load the oil into the storage tanks. With several hundred annual truck deliveries eliminated by using gas, these employees were freed up for their regular duties. Plus, they had much fewer areas to clean up. And then there are the neighbors. “Green” facilities emit fewer odors and air pollutants than others. While the public sometimes comes around slowly, they eventually do, and friendly neighbors also add to the bottom line and to future growth potential.

CCES has the experience and the experts to help you get similar results. We can help you implement a successful sustainability program to give you maximum business benefits. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

USEPA Announces 2013 Enforcement Results

Here are some highlights from the USEPA’s fiscal year 2013 enforcement efforts (http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/enforcement-annual-results-fiscal-year-fy-2013):

• USEPA cases resulted in criminal sentences requiring violators to pay more than $4.5 billion in combined fines, restitution and court-ordered environmental projects that benefit communities, and more than $1.1 billion in civil penalties.

• The USEPA’s efforts for justice for Gulf Coast residents through the Deepwater Horizon cases resulted in over $3.7 billion benefitting those impacted by the spill.

• Required Walmart to commit to cutting edge hazardous waste handling systems, as well as compliance and training programs that will protect employees and nearby residents. Walmart also paid over $80 million in fines and penalties for mishandling pesticides and hazardous waste.

• The USEPA was behind a landmark settlement. AVX Corporation committed to pay over $366 million to clean up contamination in New Bedford Harbor (MA), the largest single-site cash settlement in Superfund history. The USEPA emphasizes that polluters must be responsible to clean up and pay for damages they cause.

• The USEPA is implementing a strategy targeted at reducing air toxic emissions from industrial flares at refineries and chemical plants. A recent Clean Air Act settlement with Shell Deer Park (TX) requires continuous monitoring of benzene emissions and vehicle retrofits to reduce diesel emissions.

• Another USEPA target is air emissions from coal-fired power plants, requiring plants to reduce emissions and promote energy efficiency. Example settlements include Wisconsin Power and Light, Dominion Energy and Louisiana Generating.

• The USEPA shared lessons learned from some communities to help others reduce discharges of raw sewage and contaminated stormwater into waters through integrated planning, green infrastructure and other approaches. Recent settlements include Seattle and King Co., WA, Wyandotte County, KS, San Antonio, TX, and Jackson, MS.

CCES can help your facility chart current and projected future air and other environmental regulations and enforcement trends. Our experienced professionals (including former USEPA engineers) can perform technical air compliance audits to assess your potential compliance status of federal and state rules, and devise reliable, cost-effective strategies to return to or maintain compliance. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

GHG Emission Regulation Updates

USEPA Publishes Proposed Rule to Regulate New Power Plant GHG Emissions

The USEPA’s re-proposed a rule for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new power plants, published in the Federal Register on Jan. 8, 2014. See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-01-08/pdf/2013-28668.pdf. The agency’s 2012 attempt to regulate GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs) was very controversial, resulting in over 2 million public comments. But given President Obama’s recent emphasis on climate change, such rules are more critical.

GHG emission limits in the proposed rule (for new power plants only) are as follows:

• Oil-fired utility boilers and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) units:
o 1,100 lb CO2/MWh gross over each 12-operating month period, or
o 1,000-1,050 lb CO2/MWh gross over an 84-operating month (7-year) period

• Proposed natural gas-fired stationary combustion units:
o 1,000 lb CO2/MWh gross for large units (> 850 mmBtu/hr)
o 1,100 lb CO2/MWh gross for small units (≤ 850 mmBtu/hr)

While there are many similarities between this and the previous 2012 proposed rule, there are several notable differences, such as higher emission limits for boilers and IGCC units. The comments deadline on the new proposed rule is set for Mar. 10, 2014.

RGGI States Reduce GHG Emission Cap By 45%

The 9 northeastern states of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) set its 2014 emission cap at 91 million tons — a 45% reduction from last year’s cap – and will decline 2.5% additionally each year from 2015 to 2020. By 2020, power plant GHG emissions in the RGGI states are estimated to be half of its 2005 levels. This change was prompted by the ease in which power plants met existing caps and the depressed market price for GHG credits. A reduction in cap size was felt to both be an impetus to resuscitate the market and a low cost opportunity to reduce GHG emissions further.

The first GHG auction under the new cap will take place on March 5, with 18.6 million CO2 allowances available with a reserve price of $2.

CCES has the technical expertise to advise you on how to comply with federal and state GHG and other energy and emission regulations for reliable compliance and to come out ahead by saving considerable money, as well. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

New Rules Focused On Energy Efficiency in 2014

2014 will likely continue the momentum of energy efficiency goals being brought about by regulation, with more government legislatures looking to impose such rules. Federal legislation seems possible (of course, with Congress as it is, who knows?) and further presidential dictates are expected. Municipalities and states, given the early success of existing mandatory programs, are expected to actively produce legislation in 2014 that will impact many different types of companies and facilities.

In Congress, the proposed Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (ESIC) was chock full of common-sense provisions. It was endorsed by them all: Republicans, Democrats, business, labor and environmental groups. Yet, only a small portion of it, mainly portions directing federal agencies to collect data or reduce barriers to deploy energy efficiency technologies, are in effect. These various groups have asked both Houses to address the rest of the provisions, which will reward businesses for implementing energy efficiency technologies and provide more American jobs.

Among other things, ESIC would create a Supply Star program in the USDOE to boost the efficiency of industrial supply chains, increase industrial research, allow on-site technical assessments to identify opportunities for maximizing energy efficiency, and establish rebate programs for facilities procuring upgraded energy efficient equipment.

The IRS’s Energy Policy Act rule (EPAct) expired on Dec. 31, 2013, meaning buildings reducing their energy usage can no longer qualify for a federal tax deduction. Last year, a bi-partisan group wanted to extend and strengthen EPAct to provide greater potential tax savings. However, Congress being Congress, it did not pass. There is hope that the extension will pass in the first months of this year and be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2014.

The USDOE is expected to publish rules on battery chargers and external power supplies, potentially setting efficiency standards equal to those of California. Amended DOE standards for residential room air conditioners will become mandatory on June 1, 2014 and for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers on Sept. 14, 2014. The USDOE has published a notice of proposed rulemaking for standards for various commercial and industrial electric motors with a Feb. 4, 2014 deadline for comments.

DOE is expected to consider drafting efficiency rules for other products in 2014, such as commercial packaged boilers; commercial refrigeration equipment; walk-in coolers and freezers; automatic commercial icemakers; ellipsoidal reflectors, bulged reflectors, and small diameter incandescent reflector lamps; new and renovated federal buildings; solar hot water heaters; and manufactured housing. The USDOE is expected to decide some time in 2014 whether to regulate the energy efficiency of computers and servers.

This brings up the question of what bases will the USDOE use to set minimum energy efficiency standards on any type of equipment. How will the agency balance availability of technology with cost and specific local concerns? Will the agency use the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) in its standards rulemakings? SCC is expected to result in stricter minimum efficiency standards in future rules than not using SCC, and this may trigger a political battle. The Office of Management and Budget will likely get involved in SCC.

The Energy Star program, a voluntary program operated jointly by the USDOE and USEPA, is expected to undergo changes this year. The USEPA has issued new Energy Star criteria for different types of computers, effective on June 2, 2014, and is reviewing several potential amended Energy Star specifications for televisions; clothes washers; central and room air conditioners and air-source heat pumps; and boilers.

A number of states and municipalities are expected in 2014 to act aggressively on energy efficiency rules to save consumers costs, reduce infrastructure upgrade needs, and reduce GHG emissions. For example, California is expected to promulgate robust energy efficiency rules in 2014 for consumer electronics (computers, displays, game consoles, network equipment, and set-top boxes); lighting (fluorescent dimming ballasts, LEDs, and multifaceted reflector lamps); faucets, toilets, urinals, and water meters; commercial clothes dryers; and other appliances. California authorities are also expected to establish administrative processes to enforce these and existing equipment energy efficiency standards, including procedures for assessing penalties for violations.

Cities, such as New York City, Seattle, and San Francisco, have in recent years established mandatory benchmarking and/or energy auditing standards. In New York City, all buildings larger than 50,000 sf must benchmark energy bills (electric, gas, and oil), and perform ASHRAE Level II and retro-commissioning studies once every ten years. The results of the energy audit, which normally contain potentially expensive strategies to reduce energy use, are not required to be implemented. However, the results of retro-commissioning, usually no or low-cost operational upgrades of existing equipment, are required to be implemented. Seattle requires benchmarking, while San Francisco requires benchmarking plus energy audits every five years. A number of other municipalities, such as Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Boston, and states are reviewing the early results of these rules to determine the amount of energy reduced, the reduction in GHG emissions they have achieved, the cost savings and other secondary benefits (reduced traffic, reduced infrastructure needs, building and business growth, etc.), and how such rules may be implemented in their areas.

CCES has the experts to help you keep track of energy efficiency legislation – federal, state, and municipal – to help you stay ahead of the game, and to maximize your financial benefits from these rules or incentives. For example, for the New York City rules, CCES has the certified energy professionals the law requires to perform the various elements, and the experience to perform these technical assessments to ensure compliance and long-term cost savings. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Recent CAA Settlement Requires Payment for Outside Air Reductions

In September of 2013, HA Industries of Oregon, IL, a manufacturer of coatings and resin-coated sands, settled charges that it violated the Clean Air Act. No big deal here. This happens all the time. Like many such companies, this settlement requires HA Industries to install advanced technologies to reduce the facility’s emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by about 92% and PM emissions. They will also pay a $100,000 civil penalty. Again, nothing unusual here. Very typical.

However, what makes this settlement unique is that the USEPA is also requiring HA Industries to invest an additional $100,000 in environmental projects at outside local facilities, including over $50,000 at two schools that were impacted by their emissions.

Oregon High School and the Creston School will have their heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems upgraded so that there will be improved energy efficiency and reduced emissions of asthma triggering compounds paid for by HA International.

Following complaints from Oregon area residents about a persistent odor from HA International, the USEPA inspected the facility and required testing of emissions from the company’s production lines. Test results showed that emissions of VOCs, primarily the hazardous air pollutants phenol and formaldehyde, exceeded applicable limits and that formaldehyde, a probable human carcinogen, presented a potential health risk.

While the USEPA could have just issued the civil penalty and required the facility to demonstrate that it met all applicable air emission and health-based limits, the agency went further, requiring HA Industries to pay reparations to the impacted local population by investing in emission reductions at other local facilities, such as the schools, benefiting children particularly potentially impacted by the formaldehyde and PM emissions. In addition, the entire region (school taxpayers) benefit from the upgrade in energy efficiency and reduction in emissions from the school buildings.

Some companies reach out to the community and assist other facilities as being a good neighbor. But rarely has it been mandated before. This is being followed and may be a new trend in enforcement. While HA Industries cannot be pleased to spend extra money in this way, they can eventually take credit for positive community outreach once any level of local anger dissipates.

CCES has the experience and experts to help you determine whether your facility potentially violates any Clean Air Act rules. We can determine the most reliable and economic way to reduce emissions and lessen any potential health impact. Contact us at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.