Changing one’s ways or implementing new initiatives is difficult. It’s inconvenient. This seems especially true in the U.S. in recent years. Thus, the reluctance to implement smarter, cleaner strategies. Businesses in other nations have demonstrated that clean approaches – in operations and also in business strategies – have been successful in meeting the challenges of the global recession. Now there is a U.S. industry that can be a model for companies across the business spectrum to add value while addressing sustainability concerns, and that is the automobile industry.

For decades “Big Auto” did things the same old way, ignoring the fact that technology and consumer preferences were changing and that more people no longer wanted to drive gas guzzlers, whether because of rising gasoline prices or concern with the environment. Perhaps they thought they can affect consumer attitudes with advertising.

The results for U.S. auto makers were disastrous. By failing to be more sustainable, U.S. automakers weakened their bottom line and lost their lead position in global sales. GM was rescued from potentially going totally out of business by a federal bailout with oversight that insisted the company make the type of cars that people had requested for years. Chrysler, besides getting bailout money, was taken over by a European buyer, infusing their sustainability experience. While Ford was not bailed out, they were on the verge of bankruptcy and also began to build more fuel-efficient cars that they had been fighting for decades. Although some Americans are unsure about climate change, Big Auto finally learned that addressing sustainability helps consumers get more value from their car, which everyone supports. All 3 firms have improved sales and the bottom line. Even SUV sales have improved recently, but for models with better gas mileage.

Which other U.S. industries have not addressed changing technologies and consumer preferences and can use the U.S. auto industry as a model? One that comes to mind is the power industry, as major electricity producers have fought new regulatory initiatives and renewable energy. Power companies have the opportunity to gradually replace their oldest, dirtiest power plants with cleaner energy, but many appear reluctant to do so.

An example is the new draft mercury rules for power plants. The US EPA, after listening to industry and environmental sectors, crafted new rules with an economic analysis that estimates both avoided deaths and emergency room visits that could be caused by this rule, based on current scientific knowledge, and the overall national economic gain. Instead, power companies are lobbying against this bill and even pushing Congress to pass a bill preventing the US EPA from passing new rules. Some have intimated that plants may shut down and perhaps potentially deprive areas of electricity.

It may seem counterintuitive, but smart federal rules that represent compromises between industry and environmental groups and based on current health-based, scientific knowledge and economic analysis, may be the best thing for the power and all industries. Such efforts result in a “level playing field” for all companies and a more satisfied public, both in terms of health cost savings, energy independence, energy source choices and risk, and environmental concerns. With all the debate in the last few years about federal health care legislation and record health insurance costs, it is certainly non-partisan and in everybody’s interest to enact laws that can reduce factors that lead to fatalities and the need for health care, based on current knowledge.

There is also the case of “unwanted consequences” by squelching smart legislation. An example for all industries is federal climate change or “carbon” legislation, which did not pass Congress. Failure to enact uniform legislation does not mean that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are not regulated. Instead they are regulated in a “quilt” of rules in different states, regions, and even cities. The Northeast U.S. has the “RGGI” rule for GHG emissions from power plants there, while California’s new AB-32 has demanding rules for many industries. And then there are rules that only indirectly affect carbon emissions, such as “green building” rules and renewable energy standards. Even federal GHG rules are not gone. First, the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 98) requires a variety of industries to report (not reduce) their direct emissions. Finally, the US EPA will be required to pass legislation to reduce GHG emissions through the Clean Air Act (CAA). Required? Yes. Several courts have ruled that GHGs are a “pollutant”, and the CAA requires the US EPA to regulate all pollutants. But, the CAA is not the ideal way to legislate reductions of compounds with no direct, health-based effects. Rules based on the CAA may impact some industries harder than others compared to specific GHG-based rules (theory of “square peg in a round hole”).

The writing is on the wall for many U.S. industries, including the power industry. Change positively with the times, seek consumer preferences, and work with new technologies and together with the government and there is a chance to benefit from the available transition to clean energy and benefit the bottom line. A New Year’s Wish for 2012.

Get more useful information in our blog: www.CCESworld.com/blog
———————————————————————————————–
This Environmental News for You is meant to provide background on draft rules. CCES experts can assist you in strategizing to comply reliably with these new and other regulatory standards.

On Dec. 2, 2011, the USEPA released for public comment draft changes of final rules for reconsideration for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers under the MACT Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) program. These will be 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD (“5 D’s”) for boilers at major sources for HAPs and Subpart JJJJJJ (“6 J’s”) for boilers at area (non-major) sources. The difference between the two rules is that major sources are generally industrial sources already emitting significant quantities of HAPs from other sources, while area sources, such as office buildings, shopping malls, hotels, universities, churches, apartment buildings, etc., emit little HAPs from other sources.

The revised draft rules continue the requirement that hundreds of thousands of oil-fired boilers ≥10 mmBtu/hr maximum heat input conduct regular tune-ups and meet emission limits. The draft rule adds temporary, residential, and electric boilers to the 6 J’s exempt list and states that boilers at dwellings of farms and of universities are residential.

A tune-up that meets federal Boiler MACT requirements is composed of the following:

(1) Inspect the burner, and clean or replace any components of burner as needed.
(2) Inspect the flame pattern, as applicable, and adjust the burner as necessary to optimize flame pattern, consistent with manufacturer’s specifications.
(3) Inspect the air-to-fuel ratio system; ensure its proper function and calibration.
(4) Optimize CO emissions consistent with manufacturer’s specifications. Measure effluent concentrations of CO and O2, before and after adjustments are made.
(5) Maintain onsite a biennial report summarizing the information above.

The due date of the initial tune-up of a subject boiler has been delayed 1 year to March 21, 2013. Seasonably-operated and oil-fired boilers ≤5 mmBtu/hr may perform tune-ups every 5 years, instead of every 2. New boilers no longer require an initial tune-up.

The required one-time energy assessment must include:

(1) A visual inspection of the boiler system,
(2) An evaluation of the facility’s energy needs, inventory and specifications of systems using energy from boilers, and O&M procedures,
(3) A review of available architectural and engineering plans, facility operation and maintenance procedures and logs, and fuel usage,
(4) A list of major energy conservation measures, their energy savings potential, cost, and return on investment.

The new draft rule pushes back the energy assessment due date to March 21, 2014.

Some proposed emission limits have changed, too. For coal-fired boilers in 6 J’s, the CO emission limit was raised from 400 to 420 ppm; for mercury from 4.8 to 22 lb/TBtu.

How will this affect your boiler operations? While the rule’s implementation will be delayed, the USEPA has not changed their approach, meaning your company may need a new method to operate your boiler equipment. If you don’t use this already, it will be critical to put in writing and develop standard operating procedures (SOPs) for your boilers, based on manufacturer’s specifications, instead of doing “what makes sense” or “what we’ve always done”. Training of personnel to follow the SOPs will be important. Recordkeeping of operating parameters, changes and upgrades will need to be clear.

This may mean forging a relationship with your boiler manufacturer’s rep., who can help you develop your SOP and training and troubleshoot to improve your boilers’ efficiency. Of course, this is good news, as this will save your firm fuel use and, of course, money.

And this means that if you do not have an experienced energy professional in-house, then you will need to find a reliable company to perform the biennial audits and the one-time energy assessment. There is a growing number of professionals in the energy engineering area, as rules and incentives exist to become more energy efficient. A good place to start is with the Association of Energy Engineers (www.aeecenter.org). They have certification programs for Certified Energy Managers (CEM) and Certified Energy Auditors (CEA) who have the training to perform tune-ups and energy audits.

USEPA will take comments on the proposed rules for 60 days from Federal Register publication, and believes that final Boiler MACT rules will be published by April 2012.

See more about Congressional efforts to slow down implementation of the Boiler MACT in this blog from another organization:  http://hub.am/rO5qw3

Get more useful information in our blog: www.CCESworld.com/blog
———————————————————————————————————————

This Environmental News for You is meant to provide background on the draft amended Boiler MACT rule. CCES experts can assist you in strategizing to comply with these new standards and in performing the required tune-ups and energy assessments.

November 22, 2011

Thanksgiving and the year-end holidays are a time for big meals, family, etc. But we should always keep the thanks in Thanksgiving. Here are some statistics to drive home the importance of sustainability and for Thanksgiving. You probably heard the news story about a month ago that the Earth’s population has just reached the 7 billion mark. But there is another statistic that did not make the news even more sobering. According to the IPCC, of the 7 billion people a little over 1 billion live “like us”. That is, we eat 3 full meals a day, own our own car (and maybe more than 1 and a boat, too), have a roof over our heads where we can easily burn fuel or use electricity with a click of a button to control the temperature, go on vacation, and use many “things” to make life easier (i.e., TVs, smartphones, laptops, etc., etc.). And even if some of these billion plus people do not physically have all of these, it is only by choice. Yes, we in the U.S., Canada, Western and Central Europe, Japan, Australia, and parts of other countries are all high resource and energy users. This is not a guilt trip. We have been given this opportunity to have access to these. They are affordable, so we consume and use.

But this statistic leads to two important points. According to several demographers, the expected world population in 2050 – less than 40 years from now – is expected to be 9 billion. OK, what’s a couple of billion more mouths to feed, particularly if most will live on subsistence diets, will not own cars or climate-controlled homes, take vacations, etc.? But the kicker is that it is believed that by 2050 the number of people who will be “like us” will increase from a little over one billion to 3 billion! 2 billion additional people will live in bigger homes, drive cars, use laptops, refrigerators, clothes washers, TVs, smartphones, etc. This will occur mainly in the “BRIC” countries as they grow and people move to the middle class. We are already seeing many people in China giving up their bicycles and buying their first automobiles, where both the infrastructure (the roads) and the environment (the air) are not ready for this big increase in automobile usage. Therefore, sustainability is a must for us. How can we refuse these additional 2 billion people having seen how “we” live to live “like us”, too? But how can we provide the extra energy, water, and resources for all of these new items for these additional 2 billion people? We must redouble our efforts to be sustainable or our natural resources will be so scarce as to put us in another recession (or worse) or lead to war or protests.

And, how does that initial statistic relate to Thanksgiving? If you are reading this article, you are most likely in the one billion out of 7 who live a high energy lifestyle. No matter what may be troubling you (and I am sure that it’s legit), always be thankful that you have access to 3 full meals a day, a comfortable home, means of transportation, access to the Internet, TV, and gadgets galore, etc. Be thankful that you are not part of the 85% of the world’s population that do not have access or cannot afford all of these pleasures.

Happy Holidays to you and your family from CCES.

November 2011

According to the USEPA, energy use in commercial and industrial buildings costs U.S. companies about $200 billion per year. And for many businesses, energy costs (with unit prices rising every year) are among their largest expenses. Therefore, the direct financial benefits of reducing energy use should drive all companies – even non-“smoke stack” facilities – to establish a program. So what is holding up many U.S. organizations from devoting themselves to reduce energy? For many, it is the lack of standards. What constitutes a proper, effective effort to reduce energy use? How can my company achieve reductions and yet not overspend upfront? What are my competitors doing?

Earlier this year, the ISO organization published final energy management certification standards: ISO 50001 (http://www.iso.org/iso/energy_management_system_standard). This follows other ISO standards (ISO 9001, 140001), and applies to energy management.

ISO 50001 takes a holistic approach to energy management and not mearly to “check off” the boxes or on one-time achievements. ISO 50001 requires the facility to establish an energy baseline and from this develop realistic energy goals and strategies (i.e., improve energy efficiency and conservation). Once energy strategies are implemented, ISO 50001 requires monitoring and recordkeeping to ensure that selected technologies and strategies continue to work toward intended energy goals and that management oversight of energy is part of the corporate or facility “culture”.

ISO 50001 focuses on long-term improvement in energy management, not just meeting some short-term goals and stopping there. One of the criticisms of the LEED green building program is that it is perceived to focus on meeting a goal (LEED certification at some level), implementing strategies to meet the goal, and potentially stopping there and not necessarily ensuring that the strategies work optimally long term. ISO’s continuous improvement emphasis ensures the best return on investment for the facility, as well as long-term reduction in energy usage, expenses, and greenhouse gas emissions.

One unique feature of ISO 50001 is the requirement for 3rd party review of energy management systems. This is intended to raise the pressure on those that pursue ISO 50001 certification to do it properly and to do so to prosper in the long terms.

Energy savings, as discussed in earlier Environmental News for YouTM, is the most successful strategy for those looking to be more sustainable and achieve economic gains in the quickest timeframe given its measureable metrics (reduced kwh electricity or gallons of oil or cf of natural gas) and the fact that unit energy prices (cost per kwh electricity or per gallon of oil) are at record levels and in the long-term will likely continue to grow as there are only finite sources of fossil fuels.

Those companies looking to garner financial gains in 2012 should look into energy savings. Planned, site-specific energy audits followed by implementation of reasonable findings are virtually guaranteed to pay for themselves and more. According to the US Dept of Energy, 40-50% reductions in energy use (and concurrent reduction in energy expenses) within 5 years of beginning the process were shown to be typical and fairly consistent across type (office building, retail, etc.) and U.S. region (arid vs. wet, cold vs. warm). Remember the power of energy savings from a business point of view. Saving energy expenditures is money “in the bank”, directly raising profits. The alternative way to make a profit, increasing sales or revenues, takes a large investment (sales staff, ads, etc.), is not guaranteed, and can change from year to year. Energy savings continue with no additional changes and grow (as unit costs grow) in the future.

Now that there are new respected energy standards from ISO (as so many companies have met ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and other ISO standards), any hesitation based on not being sure how to implement an energy program should disappear.

What is the future for ISO 50001? As a voluntary standard, will it have much impact? It is possible that major companies that already collect information or set standards for their supply chain, such as Walmart and IBM, will request their suppliers to address and potentially certify under ISO 50001 in order to continue to do business. When Walmart began requesting greenhouse gas life cycle information, suppliers rigorously began to determine their carbon footprint. A similar request from Walmart on the energy side will likely cause a similar reaction. Besides pleasing customers and investors, significant cost savings should merit a systematic upgrade in the energy usage area. ISO 50001 now provides a valid roadmap and standard to validate pursuit by all types of companies and gives security that an internationally-accepted standard is being met.

Get more useful information in our blog:

www.CCESworld.com/blog
————————————————————————————————–

This Environmental News for You is meant to provide background on the new ISO energy standards. CCES experts can assist you in implementing these standards and showing how you can improve efficiency and financially benefit from this and other sustainability programs.

Sept. 6, 2011

The roles of the renewable energy and green manufacturing sectors, the so-called “Clean Economy”, are set to be major issues in next year’s national elections and perhaps even sooner.

While some, such as the Tea Party and other conservatives attack anything to do with climate change and environment (funny, those two concepts appear in my company’s name!), they are more accepting of the “clean” economy, even though it derives from good climate change and environmental practices. Economists of all parties acknowledge that the clean economy is already a fast-growing piece of our attempted economic recovery and that if managed the right way, the US could be world leaders in the field and be able to make more money and develop jobs. Political candidates have been and will continue to have photo-ops in front of US solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing plants. But are currently policies optimizing the growth of the clean economy and its economic and environmental benefits?

We may not have to wait long for an answer. The so-called “Super Committee” which must come up with federal spending cuts by December to head off larger, across-the-board cuts, will need to address energy and clean economy policy issues. First, many environmental groups are lobbying hard to eliminate all energy subsidies or certainly subsidies to industries working in fossil fuel areas and keep and expand incentives for renewable fuels. However, many in the political arena oppose subsidies for renewable fuel development, stating that the federal government should not “pick winners and losers” in the business sphere and, of course, because they favor fossil fuel companies. In the atmosphere of cutting federal spending and heavy lobbying, it will be interesting to see what the Super Committee will recommend in spending cuts affecting the fossil fuel and renewable energy industries.

In fact, the clean economy and energy policy goes to the heart of the matter of the role of federal government. Developing policies to change our entire country’s energy profile from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy is an enormous task with tremendous potential impacts if done poorly (unemployment, pollution, cost, energy shortages, etc.). This begs for government involvement and reaching out to industry, academics of all types (energy experts, economists, environmentalists, etc.), environmental groups, citizen groups, etc. But we also live in an era where many are calling for less government involvement and have the US take a chance on “the market” to settle what our future energy profile should be. This is a scary thought to not use our best intellectuals to analyze options and to make the best long-term decisions based on the available information.

July 5, 2011

I hate to bring up this issue on Independence Weekend when we should celebrate the many great things about America. But we are falling behind the rest of the world in one area of great importance to us, and that is, clean energy and energy efficiency.

The U.S. has an estimated 120 million homes, but most of them can improve energy-wise. This is not only a great business opportunity, but with proper policy and incentives a great way to effectively reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions without ominous regulations. Yet partisan politics has stopped progress. Much of Europe has already achieved massive home upgrading, thanks to incentives, supported by even right wing parties. Although few Europeans are climate skeptics, even they understand the added value of energy upgrades (reduction in costs, dependence on foreign oil, etc.).

In addition, many European and Asian governments encourage companies to develop new energy efficient, renewable power, and GHG reducing technologies thanks to direct investment, tax breaks, and regulations. And now they have a new market to continue growth: the U.S.! A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that the clean technology sector was stagnant here because of policy uncertainties in Congress, as the debate over climate change distracts it from setting policies and creating incentives.

Despite some positive measures in the U.S., there is still too much uncertainty, upfront costs, and risk to attract U.S. capital to invest in areas like “smart” technologies, energy-efficient appliances, insulation, or renewable energy, despite the need and large potential market. Not only is this an opportunity to grow a many billion dollar clean energy industry, but also to grow associated work areas, such as banks and legal.

So how should we encourage energy efficiency? There is a healthy debate. Some say we should mimic the European model above. Daniel Esty, the new Commissioner of the Connecticut Dept of Energy & Environmental Protection, recently stated that because government has a bad track record of picking winners, it should stay out of investing in new technologies (lest such picks also be dictated by politics and special interests) and only encourage or mandate demand from the public instead for successful technologies.

On this Independence Day holiday, as we celebrate so much that is good about the U.S., let’s take some time to work toward bettering ourselves. To work toward greater awareness of clean and efficient energy and push to make this country incentivize more basic research in renewable energy and energy efficiency and the public to implement such technologies for our betterment and to grow our economy and produce jobs.

CCES technical professionals can help your company perform an energy evaluation to determine cost-effective energy-saving strategies for your maximum benefit.

May 2011

OK. You’ve heard the business arguments for going green (see our website!). You know you can save your company real money, savings that can last many years. You also know that a green program can attract new revenue and satisfy stakeholders, like customers and employees. But there’s still some hesitancy. You want to implement a program, but want to keep it low-key for now until you can show those more cautious its benefits and potential. What are some steps you can do to demonstrate benefits that can begin a green program and at the same time not overwhelm your company?

One possible way to make such “green” changes is to work with your Purchasing Dept and establish sensible purchasing policies that involve green products. For example, a major study by McKinsey showed that the most cost effective way to reduce your energy usage and, therefore, your carbon footprint is to replace aging equipment (i.e., computers, printers, refrigerators, etc.) with those having the Energy Star label. This has been shown to usually have the shortest Return on Investment (ROI) as the cost difference between an Energy Star-labeled product and comparable one that is not (which by the way, is shrinking over time) can be made up in energy savings in a fairly short time; for many. Establish a purchasing policy that Energy Star-labeled products have preference and measureable inroads (reduced electricity bills) will result.

Another area to work with Purchasing is the composition of your transportation fleet (autos, trucks, etc.). With gasoline over $4/gallon and likely to stay that way for awhile, it should not take much convincing of Purchasing and Financial to convert your fleet to units with higher mpg ratings. One simple area is to offer your managers or salespeople a choice. Just offering a hybrid will elicit many positive responses. They will be satisfied having made the choice and your company’s carbon footprint and energy costs will be reduced at the same time. The auto will still get the employee where he/she must go. Carbon reduction and cost savings are achieved with no pain or change.

A third area is the growing use of “green building products”. A growing number of products performs as well as traditional products, but contain no or fewer hazardous substances, VOCs, etc. There are several directories of green building products available. However, it should be understood that there is no standard, accepted definition of what qualifies a product as a “green building product.”

Ideally, we would like a clear understanding of complete life cycle environmental impacts to determine which product is “better” from an environmental standpoint. But given how subtle, yet complex these impacts are, it is hard to compare. How does one compare a product with high supply chain impacts to one with high manufacturing or trucking impacts (i.e., trucked a long distance vs. made locally) to one with high indoor air quality impacts (i.e., high VOC content)?

With this in mind, here are a few ideas for potential green building products to “quietly” provide benefits to your company and to your environmental and carbon footprint.

Origin of products. Being able to reuse a product instead of buying a new one (even from recycled materials) saves on resource use and energy. Many salvaged building materials (millwork, framing lumber, plumbing fixtures) are sold locally in salvage yards. Of course, using material with a significant content of recycled material is beneficial, too.

Durable or low maintenance products. Such products are also financially beneficial because they need to be replaced less often and have lower maintenance. Not only is this positive in terms of direct cost of replacing or repairing the product, but also in the reduced labor and risk (i.e., fewer trips by Maintenance up the ladder to replace light bulbs). Therefore, purchasing products that meet these standards not only reduces GHG emissions, but also can quietly reduce your costs and accident risks.

Reduced hazardous materials. There is a growing list of materials without hazardous materials that achieve the same performance as others with such materials which employees or customers can be exposed to, including cleaning fluids, furniture, paints, and carpeting. Not only is there no drop in performance, but they provide a better working environment for your employees, reducing sick time, an economic benefit.

This is just the “tip of the iceberg” of materials and strategies that can help you start a “green” program, provide measureable business benefits, and yet function quietly and smoothly. CCES can help you package an entire program with real, reachable goals.

Get more useful information in our blog: www.CCESworld.com/blog

—————————————————————————————–

This Environmental News for You is meant to provide background on ways to make your operations more “green”. Be sure to obtain professional, source-specific technical advice before implementing strategies. CCES experts have the experience to assist you in the strategic and technical tasks needed to develop a “green” program to meet your goals cost-effectively.

As I write this newsletter, the price of crude oil has exceeded $110/barrel level, affecting costs ranging from gasoline to electricity. This is now a barrier for business and will affect our recovery from our recent rough economic times. Energy now is a prime factor in business growth. In many cases, energy now consumes 20% or more of business costs. Therefore, using less energy in buildings, manufacturing plants, and in fleets will now have major financial upside; not just reducing costs (which adds directly to your company’s bottom line), but also getting a competitive edge, reducing business risk (not being able to make or transport product), increasing building asset value, and improving overall financial value. And this goes with the environmental value of reducing impacts.

How can Environmental help in corporate energy matters? By putting this in terms of reducing energy waste. Certainly, everyone believes in reducing waste of any kind, and especially in tough times when it will save the company significant money. This also provides better recognition to Environmental.

If there is any doubt, how do you convince senior company officials that this is a serious matter that needs to be addressed right away? Benchmark your facilities’ energy use compared to others, and show the difference. The DOE’s Energy Information Agency and EPA’s Portfolio Manager have available much information about energy demand and costs for industrial and commercial buildings.

Overview on a Robust Energy Approach

In a nutshell, here are just a few basic energy tips to focus on that should give you good “bang for the buck.” Of course, each facility and building has its own unique opportunities to reduce energy waste.

1. Develop a serious energy strategy. Every company has strategies for business, risk, marketing. Given its growing cost, why not an active energy strategy? Devote serious resources to not just the saving of money through such a program, but in reducing the risks involving energy shortages or unplanned rise in energy prices for critical operations or even energy non-availability.

2. When replacing equipment, purchase Energy Star-labeled products. A McKinsey & Company study showed that this is the most cost-effective way to reduce energy use. As you are replacing personal computers, appliances, video equipment, etc., have Purchasing use as a condition of purchase the new model must have the Energy Star label. It will use less electricity than non-Energy Star models. But the base cost for most items is little more than a non-Energy Star model, reducing the return on investment and lengthening the amount of money over time you will save. Similarly, convert your fleet to hybrid or other technologies that raise gas mileage. Depending on how long you operate your fleet, with rising gasoline prices, the savings can be great.

3. A new building does not necessarily mean a low-energy building. Just because a building is new does not mean that it minimizes energy waste or exceeds code. In fact, unnecessary equipment (i.e., fancy fountains, conveyers, etc.) may cost you as a tenant or owner more in wasteful energy costs. Benchmark your existing and prospective new buildings against others using available guides.

4. Perform a lighting study. This is a close second to Energy Star in terms of return on investment. New lighting technologies reduce electricity usage by as much as 80% and are longer lasting, saving you on labor (climbing up the ladders to change bulbs), too. But in addition to upgrading bulbs and ballasts, take a long hard look at your whole lighting strategy. Are you using too much light that is unnecessary in some areas? Too little in other areas? Several retailers have actually increased lighting in some areas, putting more light on their products, and have realized increased sales.

5. Don’t be conned by a new building having the latest technologies. Make sure that it is commissioned and operates properly. Building or moving into a new building with modern technology sounds great, but even excellent plans are not constructed as designed or operated properly to minimize energy use. Remember, it’s not the design that affects your ultimate electricity bill, but its operation and implementation of energy saving technologies. Remember, buildings can earn the Energy Star label and represents the top 25% nationwide.

These are just a few of many tactics. But don’t forget the main goal: develop an active system to manage and minimize energy use. This is critical not only because of potential cost savings, but also because of other business benefits. Given the growing concern throughout the U.S. and the world about high energy prices, companies with robust energy strategies will be at the forefront of growth, such as creating low energy products and services that will help nervous consumers save money and reduce their energy consumption, and putting yourself in a more competitive position.

The mindset is changing. Energy is growing in perception as a limited and precious commodity, unlike when we were growing up and it was plentiful and barely earned a thought. Successful companies will be the ones that use less and cleaner energy which will provide competitive standing, significant cost savings, reduced risk, and provide innovation. To the cleanest and most energy efficient companies go the spoils. We in the Environmental area should be a part of that!

Get more useful information in our blog: www.CCESworld.com/blog
———————————————————————————————————————————————-

This Environmental News for You is meant to provide background on energy efficiency and conservation. Be sure to obtain professional, source-specific technical advice before implementing strategies. CCES experts have the experience to assist you in the strategic and technical tasks needed to develop a useful program.

January 25, 2011

Last week in my blog, I discussed the growing issue of energy risk. It is almost a certainty that we will have future energy price volatility and overall cost increases, as we see this winter with gasoline prices and news reports of more accidents (i.e., Deepwater Horizon) and potential impacts on the environment of obtaining fuels (i.e., Marcellus Shales). Last week’s blog discussed the issue of what happens if energy is unavailable or at a great cost. Nothing is more important for a company than reliability in making a product and getting it to market. Keeping funds or credit in reserve to address lack of reliability or cost volatility is a costly endeavor. Companies highly dependent on energy (i.e., airlines, steel) already understand, quantify, and implement energy risk strategies. But other companies, less dependent on energy, will need to do the same in the future.

Besides following the energy market and hedging one’s bets with long-term contracts, there are ways to design and plan your plants and operations to lessen your energy dependency and have greater energy diversification to lessen risk.

The first approach is to lessen your overall energy dependence. Improving your energy efficiency means less energy needed to pay for, to store, to use, saving you money (and reducing your carbon footprint). Initially, your total corporate BTU energy demand will decrease. If total BTU eventually rises in the future, it is only because your company is making and selling more “widgets”, allowing increased revenue to pay for the energy increase. Thus, upgrading process equipment, reducing losses, and following green building principles will not only lessen your energy costs, but reduce energy risk, too.

A second approach is energy diversification. Your company needs to take a look at your fuel sources and attempt to increase your flexibility. A boiler that can burn several different fuels can save your company money by allowing you to purchase the fuel that becomes less expensive. Often a relatively inexpensive upgrade, such as a new burner and onsite storage equipment, can allow such diversification.

An example is a project I worked on several years ago for a company looking to build two new industrial plants in Thailand. Both needed to produce a steady and large quantity of steam for their manufacturing process. I was on a team evaluating a number of potential fuel sources to eventually design the boilers. Which fuels were both highly available in Thailand and likely to be most plentiful in the foreseeable future and, therefore, have the least potential future volatility? Reviewing publicly-available models and other documents, we determined that coal, fuel oil and wood waste (biofuel) were most available and stable. However, a concern for coal was the potential future need to procure large amounts of carbon credits, resulting in some monetary risk of future coal dependence. The boilers were ultimately designed to be able to combust all three fuels.

CCES experts can help your company lessen your energy dependence, saving you money, lessening your risk, and reducing your carbon footprint. Contact me at Karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720 for more information.

January 18, 2011

Some companies are unwilling to devote the time and effort to reduce their energy usage because of the initial cost (which is coming down as technologies improve) or the thought of investing in something “green” during an economic recession. Well, investing in energy savings is a core business issue with many benefits. One that is well accepted around the world and only slowly being recognized by U.S. businesses is the issue of energy risk. As we all see at the “pump”, gasoline and all energy prices are rising lately, which is counterintuitive because of the winter weather and reduced driving and demand. Yet gasoline prices are rising nonetheless. In the longer term future, as the number of (fossil fuel) energy sources is reduced and it gets more expensive to obtain fuel for power plants, heat, and transportation, we are entering a period of energy volatility. While no one has a crystal ball, it is likely a long period of volatility.

How will that affect most businesses? Companies unprepared for such volatility will need to introduce buffers for cash flow to prepare for price spikes. They won’t be able to reliably make their products or bring them to market without it. And without reliability to meet product demand, stock price will go down and even the viability of the company is at risk. This would mean keeping more cash aside uninvested or raising credit to prepare for an energy shortfall, both costly and inefficient options of handling corporate capital. How can a business cope with this? Well, passing on the added cost to the customer is one way. But that would put some companies at a cost or credit availability disadvantage compared to others who have properly planned their energy risk. And if this leads to cash flow volatility, well, this could become a major drain for a company.

So what should a company really do long term to lessen Energy Risk? First, companies that are energy-dependent should devote resources to understanding and keeping track of energy risk, whether it be hiring a risk manager or devoting time among current staff to follow the energy market. Companies can profit from understanding short-term and long-term energy trends. Ideally, market and other energy availability and cost risks should be quantified based on best available information. Short-term and long-term trends should be evaluated. If your company operates a fleet of trucks or airplanes or is dependent on heat or steam to make your product, you need to make sure that fuel is present for the short-term (this week) to make product, but know that the right fuel is available to be bought in the long-term to confidently know you’ll reliably produce or deliver your product. It may make sense to hedge your bets and enter into long-term contracts with suppliers to ensure availability.

There are ways to design and plan your plants and operations to lessen your energy dependency, have greater energy variability, and, therefore, lessen risk. Next week’s blog will cover some of these tips and issues.

CCES experts can help your company lessen your energy dependence, saving you money, lessening your risk, and reducing your carbon footprint. Contact me at Karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720 for more information.