Monthly Archives: January 2019

Prescriptive Vs. Performance Energy Incentive Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sustainability Grows in the Apparel Industry

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

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

Reducing Solid Waste

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

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

Hemp As A Sustainable Apparel Material

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

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

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

Dyeing and Finishing

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

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

“Re-Commercing”

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

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

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

Surprise: US Water Use Is Declining!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CCES can help you develop and implement a robust water conservation program within your Sustainability program, maximizing benefits and flexibility. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Massachusetts’ New Comprehensive Energy Plan

In December 2018, the Massachusetts Dept of Energy Resources released a new Comprehensive Energy Plan. (https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/12/11/CEP%20Report-12122018_0.pdf).

It may serve as a model for other states or regions of the country. Massachusetts’ two-fold goal is to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions consistent to what is called for by the United Nations and reduce energy usage substantially. It calls for the state to both electrify and to conserve energy usage as much as possible.

According to the Department, in 2016, only 17% of Massachusetts’ energy demand of over 1 quadrillion BTUs was from the electric sector. Transportation uses 44% of its energy and buildings (thermal) use about 39%. Therefore, significant upgrades need to be made in these two areas.

To achieve progress in transportation, the Plan recommends the following 3 changes:

1. Improve electric charging infrastructure

2. Establish a “goal” to require all new cars, light duty trucks, and buses sold in Massachusetts beginning in 2040 to be electric or have equivalent emissions

3. Establish a RGGI-style reduction credit trading system for transportation GHG emissions with other Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.

As for buildings (thermal), many buildings are switching fuels to natural gas, which results in solid GHG emission reductions. However, to meet the necessary climate change goals, a significant portion of buildings must do better. Because it is not likely in the foreseeable future that thermal load will become decarbonized, reductions can only work by reducing amount of fuel needed to be combusted. In other words, improve energy efficiency. The Plan has numerous references to improved efficiency, such as frequent testing and upgrading of boilers, improved insulation, smarter building, etc. But just as important, it has recommendations to get the information out and incentivize building owners and tenants to invest in energy and carbon reduction.

Together, this Plan could well be a model for what other states select as their way to reduce energy usage within their state and of GHG emissions in the future.

CCES has the experts to help your firm reduce energy usage in a smart way, to reduce costs and GHG emissions. Economical strategies, for you to get the best payback possible and to maximize other benefits, such as improved equipment and worker productivity, reduced O&M costs, no/minimal disruptions, etc. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.