Monthly Archives: July 2018

Recent Decisions On Major Gas Expansion Projects

Decisions made by state utility commissions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) have much influence on both our energy future and that of responding to climate change. Two contrary decisions in June are described here.

FERC denied the rehearing of its order authorizing construction and operation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project in West Virginia and Virginia and a related project that would connect to Pennsylvania. Among the arguments rejected by the majority of FERC commissioners were that FERC should have evaluated whether energy demands could be met with “non-transportation alternatives” such as energy conservation or renewable energy resources, that FERC failed to adequately analyze climate change impacts of the end use of natural gas transported by the project, and that FERC’s consideration of climate change in the context of evaluating the public interest under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) was inadequate. The FERC majority said greenhouse gas emissions from the downstream use of natural gas did not fall within the definition of indirect or cumulative impacts, and also concluded that the Social Cost of Carbon tool could not meaningfully inform decisions on natural gas transportation projects under NGA. FERC said it continued to believe the Social Cost of Carbon tool was “more appropriately used by regulators whose responsibilities are tied more directly to fossil fuel production or consumption.” Two commissioners wrote dissents. In re Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, No. CP 16-10-001 (FERC June 15, 2018).

On June 26, 2018, the California Public Utilities Commission issued its final decision denying a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a new 47-mile natural gas pipeline to replace an existing pipeline. The proposed decision found that the applicants had failed to demonstrate a need for the project and had not shown “why it is necessary to build a very costly pipeline to substantially increase gas pipeline capacity in an era of declining demand and at a time when the state of California is moving away from fossil fuels.” The decision indicated that based on Commission precedent, the Commission could deny a proposed gas pipeline or transmission project based on insufficient need without completed CEQA analysis. The Commission directed that the preparation of a draft environmental impact report be halted. In re San Diego Gas & Electric Co., No. A1509013 (Cal. PUC June 26, 2018).

CCES is a technical firm and the information provided here should not be used in any way to make any decision on the fuel usage of your facility. Information from legal, business and other professionals should be used in making such final decisions. CCES does have the engineering knowhow to help you assess energy source options and technologies that can save your facility significant energy costs. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Is Your Building “Smart” or “Well-Managed”?

We all see the expression “Smart Building” a lot. What really is the definition of a “smart” building? Is any building using a BMS a “smart” building? Can a well-managed building (with simpler technology or a good manager) still be “smart” or is it its own category?

There are no established answers; definitions are a matter of degrees. A BMS is simply a series of thermostats or meters that allow adjustment of parameters based on pre-programmed inputs. Even if thermostats are primed from the building manager’s mobile device, is that really “smart”? Most BMSs include sequences to respond to needs and energy efficiency (turn off when unneeded), so they are at least a little smart.

Some people define a “smart” system as one integrating data to predict needs and adjust accordingly. Here are two examples. A smart system will recognize that a certain rooftop HVAC unit is not working properly (exit air temperature is too high) and provides the building manager with a list of potential issues that may be causing this; perhaps even self-investigating and resolving the problem itself, saving time and energy.

Second, a specific employee enters the building’s garage and the smart system knows which particular office will be occupied in X minutes by which hallway, so the necessary lights and HVAC loops are activated ahead of time. Both of these examples show the functionality and energy saving capability of a smart system.

New smart building technologies not only improve equipment operation and efficiency, but also address the daily habits and experience of the occupants. Traditional BMS systems were programmed to give optimal results for building management, while today’s smart technologies try to optimize the comfort of each occupant.

The question comes down to whether you need a “smart” building and whether the extra cost is worth it. If all employees arrive and leave at about the same time, then the capability to react to an employee’s unique arrival is not useful. Since there will probably always be a custodian on staff, are the extra “bells and whistles” of self-repair really necessary? Might a good alarm system (found in conventional BMSs) communicating a problem be sufficient? On the other hand, “smart” technology that makes employees more productive is worth quite a bit in terms of what the company pays its professionals and for the quality of the product it produces, and might justify such an investment.

CCES has the experts to help you make your building more energy efficient and your workers more productive, whether it be as a “smart” building or utilizing something simpler. We want to help you improve your business! Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Growing Demand For Green Building Materials

Many building owners want to be more “green”, but among the reasons some hesitate to do so is they feel it may be a hassle to buy and maintain. They don’t want to expand building maintenance staffs or spend more money to ensure “green” solutions work. But if “green” strategies can be made a part of the building itself, has tangible benefits and does not need special or increased maintenance, then that concern goes away.

There is a growing industry exactly working toward that end. Paints and glues that are solvent (VOC)-free are available that are just as attractive and effective (attach the parts, water-resistant, etc.) as those that contain solvents, and will not leach out and risk exposing workers or residents. In other words they meet “green” and WELL health standards. Carpets, steel, lumber, and insulation using recycled materials have been formulated and successfully tested to be just as attractive and hearty as those using virgin materials.

The movement for using green building materials in renovating or building a new structure is a growing business segment worldwide, as the “green” replacements are just as effective as the conventional ones.

One report projected that the global green building materials market will grow on average 12.5% annually between 2013 and 2019. Insulation accounted for the largest product segment, and is a welcome new home for recycled materials in the recycling industry which has a growing amount of recycled materials to find use for.

In addition, the “green” movement is also influencing and growing several conventional industries that were feared to be slowing down. For example, the growing interest in green roofs (vegetation) will drive demand for roofing application materials.

CCES has the experts to help provide advice on new technologies and approaches to building “green”, whether it is a new building or a renovation to save you costs, improve comfort for your tenants and workers, and/or be more innovative and reliable. The technologies are there, proven, and quite beneficial. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.