Consumer Tastes Are Changing To Eco-friendly

One item that will surely dictate how we address Climate Change and other environmental issues is public sentiment. If such sentiment at the ballot box and at the store favors environmentally-friendly candidates and products, the message will have gone out to politicians and companies and moves will be made to, for example, combat Climate Change. If the “same old” candidates win elections and products are purchased in stores, then no significant change will likely happen.

Consumers have been slowly prioritizing sustainability choices. In a 2019 Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PwC) Global Consumer Insights Survey, 35% of respondents said they chose sustainable products to help protect the environment and 41% said they avoided the use of plastic when they could. The COVID-19 pandemic has given people a lot of time to ponder and time home to absorb their environment. PwC’s June 2021 Global Consumer Pulse Survey concluded that a higher percentage, about half of all global consumers surveyed, say they’ve become even more eco-friendly in their choices. There are differences world-wide, as Asian and Middle Eastern consumers were said to be more eco-friendly in consumer behavior than those in other regions. In the US, it was about 15% of consumers surveyed who said they buy primarily from companies who are perceived to be supportive of the environment. In addition, younger consumers (under 32 years old) are more eco-friendly than other age groups.

Another recent study by Visual GPS and YouGov also indicates a shift during the pandemic, finding that 81% of people polled expect companies to be environmentally conscious in their advertising and communications, and 69% of respondents said they were doing everything possible to minimize their carbon footprint.

However, while eco-consumerism is clearly on the rise, the recent PwC survey showed that such consumers have not fully embraced sustainable shopping. A large number of consumers, while sympathetic to environmental concerns, still rank convenience and price as major factors in making decisions on products.

Is this a temporary increase in awareness and effort due to the pandemic or is eco-friendly consumerism here to stay? PwC suggests that it is here to stay. A growing number of companies are offering consumers a growing array of eco-friendly alternatives and sales data show they are performing well.

Such a rise in interest in such a short time and this unique appears to indicate that people spending more time at home gave them more time to think, learn, contemplate, and explore alternative life choices, such as greater proof of environmental friendliness in products purchased.

With the growing number and severity of incidents of extreme conditions cataloged and on the news in recent days (record breaking heat in the US Northwest, historic flooding in Europe), it is very possible that this trend toward eco-consumerism will only increase, resulting in companies accelerating their focus on innovative products and more sustainable practices to please consumers which will be good for their bottom line, too.

CCES has the technical experts to advise your company on determining your carbon footprint and other sustainability measurements and to help your company design and implement a sustainability program to save expenses and inform consumers of your accomplishments. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Potential New Air Toxic Rules for EtO, Formaldehyde?

On June 17, 2021, the USEPA agreed to reconsider the August 2020 NESHAP: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (the “MON Rule”). The MON rule is the first USEPA rule to use the 2016 toxicity values from IRIS. Responding to five petitions, the USEPA granted reconsideration that more stringent standards are required for the MON sector, particularly for ethylene oxide (EtO), given more data that EtO may result in a greater carcinogenic risk than previously thought.

EtO is a flammable, colorless gas used to sterilize medical equipment and common in the chemical industry in manufacturing many common products. The revised 2016 IRIS risk assessment for EtO characterized the chemical as a more potent carcinogen for humans by inhalation than previously understood. However, critics claim that the USEPA used improper statistical modeling that resulted in an overestimation of the risk of EtO exposure. Texas, home to many chemical industries, performed an in-depth review of the 2016 assessment and claimed scientific deficiencies and that EtO is a less potent carcinogen than the USEPA estimated in its 2016 report.

The USEPA declared that it would use 2016 IRIS risk values for future rulemaking, including for the December 2019 proposed MON Rule and an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making: NESHAP: Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization and Fumigation Operations. The MON Rule was finalized in August 2020 with the USEPA not addressing comments regarding the validity of the 2016 IRIS values. The USEPA will now do a more formal review of the generation of the 2016 IRIS risk values and modify the MON Rule accordingly, if necessary.

Besides the effects on EtO emission regulations, the USEPA’s actions on EtO may suggest how the agency will proceed on other outstanding chemical and toxics issues, such as formaldehyde, a naturally occurring chemical found in a variety of products, such as construction materials, insulation, glues, paints, and in plywood and particleboard used in consumer products like cabinets, flooring, and furniture. Formaldehyde is also used as a preservative in medical laboratories and mortuaries.

Like with EtO, the USEPA issued an IRIS risk assessment for formaldehyde in 2010. It underwent much scientific criticism. 11 years later, the USEPA has still not addressed the formaldehyde IRIS criticisms and confirmed or updated its level of toxicity.

2016 amendments to TSCA require the USEPA to conduct risk evaluations for certain high-priority chemicals to determine whether each presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, under the conditions of common use. The USEPA must exclude cost considerations and base decisions on the weight of scientific evidence.

Last year, the Trump Administration issued final TSCA risk evaluations for the first 10 high-priority chemicals. In February 2021, the Biden Administration announced that it will revisit the final TSCA risk evaluations for these 10 chemicals.

CCES has the technical experts to help you assess the quantity and toxicity of air emissions from your various processes and facility. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Many Factors Make Electric Heat Pumps a Good Alternative for Heating and Cooling

Heating and cooling expenses are often the highest energy costs most businesses have to pay for each year. So in these times of looking for ways to both reduce expenses and welcome back employees into the office and customers in your space comfortably and safely, one strategy to consider is investing in electric heat pumps for both your heating and cooling needs. Heat pumps are a cost-effective, energy efficient, and reliable way to reduce your building’s energy bills and also assure your employees and customers are comfortable. It will improve your carbon footprint and existing air quality, too.

When properly installed, heat pumps are efficient in delivering heat to a space. Why? Because a heat pump moves heat rather than converts it from a fuel like combustion heating systems do. Heat pumps have been around for a long time but have gotten a boost in recent years due to improvements for working better in sub-freezing weather.

Here are some basic facts about heat pumps.

How they work. Yes. Although they are called “heat pumps”, they provide both space heating and cooling. Heat pumps are called that because they draw heat from the environment and move it indoors when it’s cold outside or can move heat from rooms outdoors when cooling is needed in your building.

Different types. There are two types of heat pumps – air source or ground source (geothermal), depending on how heat is transferred. Depending on your facility and property features, a qualified contractor will recommend which type is best for you.

In terms of how they are placed in the building, there are ducted and ductless systems. Ductless systems go in an exterior wall and need just a relatively small hole to connect the outdoor condenser and indoor heads. They are good for individual spaces. If a building already has duct work, a heat pump can use the existing duct system.

They’re better for the environment. Unlike conventional heating systems (furnaces or boilers), heat pumps use electricity. Thus, there is no combustion of fossil fuels onsite and, thus, no carbon monoxide emissions to worry about. There is also less need for natural gas lines or storage/delivery of oil. In most parts of the country, depending on how electricity is produced, switching from gas or oil combustion to electric heat pumps results in lower greenhouse gas emissions.

They’re built to last. Heat pumps last longer than conventional furnaces and cooling units and require less maintenance, meaning you’ll spend less money on O&M and can devote your maintenance staff to other matters. Combustion by its nature is a complex, high temperature process that strains a system and will damage components over time.

Others will pay for them. In most parts of the country (and in New York), utilities and governments encourage heat pumps to lessen the costs of upgrading gas distribution lines and to reduce oil truck traffic. Many utilities and agencies have direct incentive programs to pay part of the cost of installing heat pumps in most qualified buildings. Learn about these programs and take advantage. Remember, these incentive funds come from funds in your electric or tax bills, so you are getting your money back.

CCES has the technical experts to assess your heating and cooling system and determine whether heat pumps could be feasible to reduce your energy expenses and, at the same time, provide reliable heating and cooling in the building. We can estimate the costs and savings for your specific space and set up or determine other ways to reduce energy costs. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Health & Safety: Did You Know That a Tan is Your Skin’s Way of Protection?

By Donna Mintz, Donna J Skincare

Being someone who, for most of her life, was in search of the perfect tan, and being old enough to remember the days before SPF even existed, learning what a tan really is kind of blew my mind. I can’t even wrap my brain around the damage that I’ve done to my skin that may show up in the next few years.

Using sunscreen can dramatically reduce your chances of skin cancer and protects your skin against the aging effects of the sun, especially when for your workers who are outdoors all day.

There are two different types of sunscreens, physical sunscreen and chemical sunscreen.

Physical sunscreen, a.k.a. mineral sunscreen, sits on top of the skin and reflects the sun’s rays. The minerals titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are the main active ingredients in these physical blocks. Physical sunscreen protects against UVA (aging rays) and UVB (burning rays) – see broad spectrum and SPF below – and starts its protection as soon as it is applied. Physical sunscreen is less irritating and better for sensitive skin, it’s more moisturizing to skin and may leave a whitish or tinted film on the skin depending on the brand.

Chemical sunscreen absorbs into the skin, absorbs the UV rays, converts them into heat, and releases it from the body. The active ingredients in chemical sunscreens include octinoxate and oxybenzone which have been shown to enter our bodies, pulling unhealthy chemicals with them and disrupting hormones. These 2 chemicals have also been tied to damaging coral reefs. Chemical sunscreen protects against UVA and UVB rays, needs time to absorb, and can be more water- and sweat-resistant than physical sunscreen, although it may be harsh for sensitive skin.

The sunscreen you choose should be broad spectrum. This means it will protect against both UVA and UVB, which is important as both can do damage. The proper sunscreen should be fragrance-free because the term “fragrance” or “parfum” is an umbrella term for chemicals, some of which can be toxic to the body.

Sun Protection Factor, a.k.a. SPF, is a measure of how well a sunscreen protects skin from UVB rays, a.k.a. burning rays, the ones that damage skin and contribute to skin cancer. SPF does not take into consideration UVA rays.

There is a basic equation that is used to figure out how much time you can spend in the sun with a certain SPF before you start to burn. This is especially important if you send employees for significant periods outdoors.

1. Take the time you would normally burn in the sun without protection, this is usually 15-20 minutes, less if you have fair skin.

2. Multiply this number by the SPF of your product to get a rough estimate of the minutes one can stay in the sun without burning.

For example, if you’re using an SPF of 15 multiply by the above number, 15 x 15 = 225 minutes or 3 3/4 hours that you can stay in the sun without burning.

Please note that this equation is not perfect because the amount of UV light that reaches us depends on a number of factors, including cloud cover, time of day, reflection of UV rays off the ground, water, sand, etc. (even snow and ice during the winter reflect UV rays), and if you have applied your sunscreen properly.

Yes, one often sees “if applied properly”. Believe it or not, most of us do not apply sunscreen properly, or often enough. Here are some tips to help you get this right and to pass on to staff.

1. Apply at least a shot glass full of sunscreen to ALL exposed areas. If using chemical sunscreen this should be done at least 15 minutes before going out in the sun.

2. Reapply every 2 hours for general use. If you are at the beach or working in the sun, reappling sunscreen is essential. Reapply even in the presence of water, snow, and sand. They reflect UV rays, increasing your chances of burning.

3. Use a lip balm with an SPF of 30.

4. Reapply sunscreen after swimming or sweating, water resistant doesn’t mean waterproof. No sunscreen is completely water resistant.

5. Don’t use expired sunscreen or sunscreen left in a hot car, it loses effectiveness.

6. If wearing sunscreen clothing, keep in mind you still need to apply at least a shot glass full of sunscreen as previously mentioned.

Now go out there and work or enjoy yourself in the sun, but reduce your risk and protect your beautiful skin!

Donna Mintz is the creator and owner of Donna J Skincare, an all-natural, anti-aging skincare company that believes your skincare should care for the health of your skin.

You can find Donna J Skincare at: www.DonnaJSkincare.com

US Govt Approves On-site Wave Energy Research

Renewable energy, of course, is growing in acceptance. Solar panels on people homes have become ubiquitous. Solar “farms” are growing in popularity as people and governments see this is a clean way to generate electricity from land that may not otherwise have commercial value. And now wind turbines are growing in popularity, as the source of power is a little bit more constant. An offshore wind project off the Massachusetts coast that would create 800 MW of electricity (enough to power 400,000 homes) was approved by the federal government. The Vineyard Wind project would be the first utility-scale wind power development in federal waters.

Other sources of clean energy exist and one form, which has worked experimentally, got a boost recently to see if it can create clean power “in the field”. Or rather, the water. It is ocean waves. Wave action, as anybody who has spent time on an ocean beach or sailing in the ocean, is relentless. Those constantly rocking waves, which brings nausea and other problems for some people, can also result in electricity generation. Given the large quantity of ocean and if harnessed properly, wave action may yield a significant yield of electricity. While solar and wind have issues (the sun is not always shining and wind speeds vary and often subside), wave action off most ocean coasts never stops.

On March 1, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted Oregon State University the first license in the US for an ocean wave energy testing facility. A cable will be installed to connect an offshore location with a testing facility and the local power grid. As many as 20 technologies will be installed and tested to determine their capability to and efficiency of producing electricity, as well as each one’s reliability over time, ability to scale up, reactions to changing conditions in the ocean and atmosphere, and any impacts each may have on the ocean, the fishing industry, and aquatic life.

The goal is to be able to narrow down the potential wave technologies and assess the most successful ones by 2023.

Of course, even if successful, wave technology has its limitations. Geographically, if operable, it can only serve the US coasts, as the costs of and losses through transmission of electricity to inland sections of the country are high. But if wave action can be a useful source of clean, cheap, reliable, and consistent electricity for large states like California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, and others, then it will be a benefit for all.

A related source of renewable power is tidal, the power of underwater tides to push turbines and make electricity. Here is an article about research being done in Scotland: https://slate.com/technology/2021/06/orbital-marine-power-scotland-ocean-energy.html

CCES has the experts to help your firm determine which source of renewable power can be best for your operations and to help make your operations more energy efficient to reduce your energy costs and to scale down a future needed system. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

A Silent Source of Emissions We Pay For

Many of us are concerned about Climate Change and do whatever is reasonable to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We buy more energy efficient lights and equipment. Perhaps we drive a little less (and walk more). We consider candidates who care about Climate Change.

However, there are many ways that we contribute to greenhouse gas emissions that we do not realize. Like all Americans, we buy things. Whether it is grocery shopping, some paint to spruce up the house, some toys for our granddaughter’s visit, and a few plants for the yard, each of these items probably got from the places they were made or grown to warehouses and to the stores by being transported by a heavy-duty truck. This is even more true today, as we buy from companies that deliver goods directly to your home.

According to Businessinsider.com, 70% of freight is carried by trucks in the US. Trucks dominate because they are fast, safe, and take goods right to where they need to go. But trucks are not fuel-efficient and thus, are heavy GHG emitters. According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA.gov), the average fuel efficiency of a heavy-duty truck is 6.6 miles per gallon of fuel, which is 27% worse than trucks achieved in 1950 (9.0 mpg)! Trucks, of course, burn a lot of diesel fuel; a truck may use as much fuel as about 50 new passenger cars.

According to The Truckers Report, fuel is the greatest cost for the truck owner, nearly 4 times higher, per mile travelled, than driver’s salary.

Thus, the Obama administration passed guidelines to raise minimum fuel standards for trucks to as high as 30 mpg for light trucks by the late 2020’s. The Trump administration rolled back those standards, with business support, as too expensive to consumers. But one can state that the lack of mileage standards are themselves very expensive for the American consumer. One estimate states that the average US household pays $1,100 per year to fuel heavy trucks and this does not include the indirect environmental costs (both Climate Change and direct toxic emissions from diesel fuel combustion).

The Biden administration is considering re-establishing mileage standards for passenger cars and an array of trucks.

Therefore, consumers and businesses would benefit from new truck efficiency standards, with freight costs dropping markedly. The Obama standards would have caused a reduction of 270 million tons of GHG emissions annually in the US, cut emissions of air toxics from fuel production and combustion, and reduced oil consumption by 1.4 million barrels a day, more than we currently export from Saudi Arabia.

Americans should examine silent operations that we pay for that contribute significantly to Climate Change and try to implement ways to reduce them (buy fewer products, only those most important) and lobby for fair rules to reduce their numbers and impact.

CCES has the technical experts to identify and estimate the emissions of greenhouse gas and toxic emissions from different applications, analyze the implications on cost and your business, and develop smart ways to reduce it. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

President Issues Executive Order On Climate-Related Financial Risk

On May 20, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order with a goal of increasing disclosure of climate-related financial risk in both the public and private sectors. As a result, disclosure and reporting obligations regarding climate-related risks will likely increase. The Order called for a comprehensive consideration of climate change-related financial risks, and how they should be communicated to the public and investors.

The Order directs federal policymakers to develop a strategy for identifying and disclosing climate-related financial risk to government programs, assets, and liabilities, including identifying public/private financing needed to reach economy-wide, net-zero emissions by 2050 to limit further temperature rise per the Paris Climate Agreement.

The Order also requires the Financial Stability Oversight Council to assess climate-related financial risk to the federal government and overall U.S. financial system. The Council is tasked with assessing the necessity of greater climate-related disclosure by certain entities to mitigate risk to the stability of the financial system and new regulations for identifying and mitigating such risks.

The Order directs the Dept of Labor to identify regulatory actions to assess the threats that climate risk may have to savings and pension plans. This includes reconsidering rules that prohibit investment firms from considering environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in investment decisions related to workers’ pensions.

The Order also requests recommendations for incorporating climate-related financial risk into federal management and reporting, including potential new accounting standards for reporting of such risks. The Order also requests changes to rules that would require that major federal suppliers publicly disclose GHG emissions and climate-related financial risk and set reduction targets. Similarly, lending and grant agencies like Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs are to consider integrating such risk assessment into their lending policies and programs.

The Order also requests the federal government develop regulatory standards for misleading advertising and claims about climate change and sustainability (“greenwashing”) that may result in enforcement actions.

After signing the Executive Order, President Biden included in his FY 2022 budget to Congress $44.0 million in new funding to the Dept of Justice “to advance environmental justice, tackle climate change, and enhance environmental stability.”

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve has established two committees to evaluate climate-related financial risk, examining how climate change affects individual banks.

Please note that this is not a legal analysis of the Executive Order. Consult with qualified legal professionals before pursuing actions or policies concerning this Executive Order. CCES has the technical experts to help you determine your status concerning GHG emissions and sustainability. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Climate Change Laws and Strategies in New York City

New Laws Are Taking Effect

Two laws pertaining to energy efficiency and climate change that were promulgated in 2019 are now sinking in and causing many buildings to change their ways. This could be a portend of things to come in other cities and nationally affecting many businesses.

Local Laws 133 and 95 assign energy grades to large buildings in NYC. These grades are based on Portfolio Manager ratings for which buildings are already required to upload total energy data annually. Buildings are required to post these grades in their front lobbies prominently. Like a restaurant with a grade based on cleanliness, these grades are based on energy usage per sq. ft. And NYC is a tough grader. Even buildings that would qualify for an Energy Star award from the USEPA could get only a B in the NYC system. Even being slightly above the median would give one a D. I have already gotten projects of buildings ashamed of their grades, looking for a better one.

Local Law 97 was promulgated in 2019. While it does not go into effect until 2024, it is beginning to shake up the NYC real estate world now. Initial studies show that buildings that are even in decent shape when it comes to energy efficiency are potentially liable for high annual fines (6 figures) and they only have 2½ years to implement upgrades to comply. Some upgrades may be major construction projects. Therefore, NYC buildings need to assess their energy usage, plan, and begin to implement very soon. Remember that a building’s total energy usage is assessed, even of your tenants who you may have no control over. Therefore, an understanding of their energy usage is critical.

Here are a couple of examples. I reviewed the historic energy usage and equipment of a subject, but relatively small, office building in a poor section of NYC. The temperature the day I visited was about 70⁰F, a pleasant day. Yet, the building’s boiler was on and radiators were hot to the touch. It was so hot in the tenant spaces that several were operating their air conditioners! Think of that: simultaneous heating and cooling when neither should be on (a beautiful day). And the building was full of T12 fluorescent tubes, the most inefficient tubes available. I plugged in their recent historic energy usage and calculated that if they used the same energy in 2024, they would pay a fine of $62,000 that year. This is a building with a lot of small, family-owned businesses; ownership cannot have a high revenue. A $62,000 annual fine would impact them greatly.

On the other end of the spectrum, I reviewed the historic energy usage and equipment of a subject, large office building in the financial district of NYC. Although they went through a major renovation of their heating system, they faced a $132,000 per year fine if their current energy usage continued in 2024. We developed several potential strategies, ranging from modest to robust in impacts. The property manager was wise enough to realize that just meeting their limit was not sufficient. They had to go well below it. What if there is a very severe winter or summer in 2024 and they have to give more heat or cooling that year than in the base year? They realized they had to give themselves a buffer to take into account an unpredictably severe season and are working to install smart strategies to get well under the limit.

NYC PACE Financing

The NYC PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) Financing Program has finally released its program guidelines and is beginning to take shape. The program was officially approved in New York City on June 16. This is critical as building owners need to work toward complying with Local Law 97 soon, requiring large capital expenditures for which affordable financing is critical. The NYC PACE Program will provide building owners with low-interest (usually around 6%), long-term (usually 20-30 year) financing for energy efficiency retrofits and renewable energy projects resulting from professional energy audit study recommendations. PACE financing will also result in significant mortgage tax savings.

In summary, new NYC laws are mandating many buildings upgrade their energy usage and equipment to be more efficient, burn cleaner fuels, and consider renewable energy sources with the threat of major fines and embarrassing grades which could affect rentability and asset value for not meeting standards. Yet the tools are coming into place to pinpoint the problems of energy waste, determine smart solutions, and financing to allow implementation sooner, rather than later to avoid Local Law 97 fines.

CCES has the technical expertise to determine your Local Law 97 compliance status and potential fine for non-compliance in 2024. If you provide CCES with complete, concise full-year energy usage, CCES can tell you your LL 97 status FREE of charge. CCES also performs energy audits and project management to provide you the information about numerous smart strategies to comply with LL 97 and improve your energy grade and to implement the strategies most effectively. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Energy Efficiency – A Very Controllable Operating Expense

I was looking at some old articles and found one about energy efficiency from 2014. The principles are still true – even more true than then – given we are getting out of the pandemic and businesses want to return to normal. For many businesses, revenues may not return to pre-pandemic levels for some time. Therefore, a critical way to continue to survive is to reduce expenses. Energy costs are sometimes thought of as uncontrollable. One gets one’s utility bill and pay it and that’s it. No, energy is quite controllable and, if done smartly, can result in major savings in operating costs, while making staff and customers comfortable.

Why is doing something about energy efficiency a great financial investment?

1. $$$$ or, in other words, the return. If done right, an energy efficiency project often leads to returns of 20%, 30% or more per year. The reduction of your payments of energy bills is just like having more revenue. Investing money upfront to get such savings – year after year after year, from one such project – is worth it.

2. Others will pay for it. Reducing energy use is not just good for your company, but also for other entities, such as utilities who need to delay major infrastructure projects by reducing peak demand and cities and states who wish to make certain carbon goals. So very healthy incentive programs and tax breaks exist for qualifying energy efficiency projects. Just one example is the re- and permanent- authorization of Part 179D of the federal tax code which provides tax incentives to those who actually implement energy efficiency projects. Now, incentives will not pay the full cost of a project, but can subsidize a significant portion. What other program that you have to do is subsidized by others in such a way?

3. Lack of risk. Energy efficiency projects, using upgraded technologies are not risky. They are warrantied and guaranteed to work and meet certain criteria. The manufacturer takes the risk. And there is reliability. If you replace a 60-watt light bulb with a 30 watt bulb, you are saving 30 watts or 50% – period! There is no variability that the light won’t work or not be 30 watts. Your projects will work.

4. Borrow the money needed. Given what’s written above – the high return, the support by utilities and government, and the low risk – and the current historic low interest rates, you can get the energy efficiency upgrade and not pay a cent upfront. There are institutions that only give loans for energy efficiency projects. And even for those bigger lenders, they love to lend funds for projects with known high returns and low risk; so lenders will fight to lend for projects like this – to your benefit, in terms of lower interest rates.

5. Greater reliability, reduced maintenance. In general, upgraded products and technologies make your whole system more reliable which means fewer disruptions to tenants or customers, which is better for business. And these products almost always result in reduced maintenance. One example is LED lights replacing fluorescent lights. Fluorescent tube lights often burn out and have to be replaced every couple of years. LED equivalents are warrantied for 7 or more years, meaning less work for your Maintenance staff to stop important projects to replace bulbs elsewhere, pleasing tenants. And that also means fewer trips up and down your ladders, reducing falls and related risks.

6. Positive cash flow. Unlike some projects where one must wait around before beginning to get the financial benefits, energy efficiency projects begin to benefit the bottom line right when it is installed and “turned on.” Quite literally during the first utility bill, ones sees cost reduction and financial benefits.

With all of these reasons and given the fact that many businesses will have a slow go to return to pre-pandemic revenue, reducing costs is critical and doing so in energy with smart energy efficiency projects is so reliable and beneficial.

CCES has the technical experts to allow you to plan and implement a smart and effective energy efficiency project to maximize the cost benefits for your business with the least disruption. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

USEPA Moves To Phase Out HFCs

On May 3, 2021, the USEPA released a notice of proposed rulemaking to institute a major phasedown in production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), used in refrigeration and air conditioning systems. The USEPA estimates the phasedown will yield total climate-related economic benefits of $283.9 billion through 2050.

HFCs were encouraged to replace chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which are listed as ozone-depleting substances, and ultimately banned globally for that purpose. However, research determined that HFCs are powerful greenhouse gases (GHGs), with global warming potentials (GWPs) thousands of times greater than CO2. While HFCs are not as ubiquitous as CO2, their potency represents a major global climate change risk.

The USEPA’s proposed rule’s goal is to achieve an 85% overall reduction in HFC production and consumption in 15 years. The USEPA would administer an allowance allocation and trading program, assigning GWP values to individual HFCs and allocating production (producers), consumption (importers), and application-specific allowances. Six HFC use types would qualify for application-specific allowances:

• propellants in metered-dose inhalers,
• defense sprays, such as bear spray,
• structural composite preformed polyurethane foam for marine use and trailer use,
• etching of semiconductor material or wafers and the cleaning of chemical vapor deposition chambers within the semiconductor manufacturing sector,
• mission-critical military end uses, and
• on-board aerospace fire suppression.

The USEPA has not yet listed the specific number of allowances in each application-specific use, but proposed overall numbers of allowances, including for production and consumption (million metric tons, CO2 equivalents; percents are of baseline), as follows:

• 2022-2023: 90% (296.1 consumption, 337.5 production)
• 2024-2028: 60% (179.4 consumption, 225.0 production)
• 2029-2033: 30% (89.7 consumption, 112.5 production)
• 2034-2035: 20% (59.8 consumption, 75 production)
• 2036: 15% (44.9 consumption, 56.3 production)

The USEPA intends to revisit its allowance allocation procedures before 2024.

What is a plant manager to do to replace HFCs? For refrigerant systems, one can use “natural” refrigerants, such as propane, isobutane, ammonia, and CO2. CO2? Yes, it is a GHG, but its GWP is 1, much lower than HFCs, whose GWPs are in the thousands, so thus, beneficial. For air conditioning, viable alternatives include installing heat pumps, which transfer heat to or from a large reservoir (ground or air), or systems that use less refrigerant, such as those with variable refrigerant flow systems. Some of these use the same refrigerants as above and many can function well using water to transfer heat.

It may take several months to go through publication and public comment before it becomes the law, but expect this to be promulgated and, if you use HFCs, expect to deal with allowances and, therefore, restrictions and higher costs. Plan now to change your refrigeration or cooling systems to those that do not use HFCs.

CCES has the technical experts to help you manage your operations to minimize your environmental impacts. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or karell@CCESworld.com.