Monthly Archives: April 2019

US EPA To Classify Wood Burning as Carbon Neutral

The US EPA recently stated its plans to propose a rule that would classify combustion of forest biomass from power plants and other sources as carbon neutral.

The US EPA has struggled to develop an accounting framework for biogenic CO2 emissions for a decade as part of its effort to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act, as it must based on a Supreme Court ruling. The US EPA has modified Title V, New Source Review (NSR), and other programs accordingly. For example, NSR is triggered by net emission increases of proposed new or modified plants or operations and requires certain emission reductions. How does one count the CO2 generated from wood-burning equipment, given that the carbon given off comes from the ground and the CO2 generated can be absorbed by other biomass? The US EPA has performed a lengthy process to research and assess whether combustion of biomass is truly carbon neutral and whether such treatment of biogenic CO2 emissions is valid.

In 2011 and then again in 2014, the US EPA published draft technical reports containing frameworks for assessing biogenic CO2 emissions associated with biomass combusted for power generation at stationary sources based on a carbon lifecycle approach. Peer review of the second draft report has not been finalized due to accounting and calculation disagreements. Therefore, the answer to the question of how to account for GHG emissions from biomass combustion has not been settled until now.

On April 23, 2018, the US EPA issued a policy (stated as a non-scientific) statement (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-04/documents/biomass_policy_statement_2018_04_23.pdf) that future regulatory actions would treat as carbon neutral biogenic CO2 emissions from the combustion of biomass from managed forests at stationary sources for energy production. The policy statement intended to reduce environmental barriers and, thus, encourage the use of forest biomass for energy at stationary sources.

On April 2, 2019, US EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler told lawmakers that the agency intends to propose a new rule that would treat biogenic CO2 emissions from power plants as carbon neutral. The proposal is expected this summer and, if adopted, the rule will have implications for the power generation industry

Besides changes in emission accounting in NSR and similar air quality rules based on this potential rule change, this potential rule also has impacts on forest policy. Currently, there are few certifications that qualify a forest for federal procurement opportunities. However, if biomass combustion is considered carbon neutral and less negative compared to the past, then the number of forests that could participate in federal procurement opportunities could increase. In the private sector, this could make it easier for companies to claim sustainable environmental practices and meet established sustainability criteria.

Declaring biomass combustion as carbon neutral may provide states with more options to meet their Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). Nearly 40 states have their own RPS, which requires a specified percentage of saleable electricity to come from renewable sources. If biomass combustion is considered carbon neutral, it can be an additional option for a state planning to meet its RPS goal.

CCES has the experts to help your facilities manage your energy usage and to provide workable strategies to diversify your fuels and energy sources for greater future flexibility and meet your sustainability goals. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Hospitals Is An Industry Making Minor Progress On Energy Efficiency

According to a recent report from Grumman/Butkas Associates, hospitals has shown some, but not substantial progress in being more energy efficient over the past 20 years. See https://mailchi.mp/grummanbutkus.com/hospitalsurvey2018p1-1345361.

Comparing recent surveys by the firm, hospital greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2010 averaged 63 lbs CO2e/square foot(sf)-year, while in 2017, it dropped to 52 lbs CO2e/sf-year.

However, average site energy usage intensity dropped only 0.3% during that period. Total energy usage (electricity, gas/oil, steam) of participating hospitals was nearly 242,000 Btu/sf in 2017.

As far as costs are concerned, according to the 2018 benchmarking survey report, hospitals have reduced their energy costs per square foot from a peak of about $3.75/sf in 2008 to about $3.16/sf in 2017. However, given the note above that the industry made only minor progress in energy efficiency, most of this cost reduction was achieved by negotiating better supply prices, leveraging their large usage. And, most of this was on the natural gas side. These numbers are fairly similar to those developed during their first survey in 1999.

All of this data spells critical issues, and also opportunities for the hospital industry. A 2014 survey showed that 51% of hospital expenses was energy related, far exceeding staff costs. Thus, reducing energy usage can help control hospital costs, which, as we all know, is a major political issue, in terms of affordable health care for all.

One problem with attempting to reduce energy usage in hospitals is the culture of redundancy. One way to reduce energy usage and, thus, GHG emissions, too, is to reduce or eliminate redundancy. However, having extra equipment, ambulances, at the ready is an important part of how a hospital operates and thinks. A hospital cannot function thinking there is a risk to patient health due to a cutback that would “merely” save energy or GHG emissions. Therefore, investments in ensuring more reliable systems can reduce redundancy and, therefore, emissions.

I can share the story of a hospital that keeps an ambulance running on idle at all times (24/7) in its “bullpen” in case an emergency call comes in. It would certainly not be acceptable in the rare case of all the ambulances to not be able to start. Well, this policy turned into an environmental issue as the exhaust of the constantly-running ambulance got into the intake of a major hospital building and exhaust was detected in patients’ rooms (ironically, in a wing specific for patients with lung diseases). In rectifying the problem, the hospital replaced older ambulances with those with sufficient and charged batteries so that reliability was no longer an issue and they did not have to run an ambulance at all times.

CCES has the experts to help your facility – whether it be in health care or not – minimize your energy usage and carbon footprint with smart ideas or with new, proven technologies. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Despite Tech Advances, CO2 Emissions Soar in 2018

Global CO2 emissions from energy sources rose by 1.7% to 33 Gigatonnes (billion metric tons or Gt) in 2018, reversing a trend of a slow decline.

Despite the recent growth in renewable power projects (31% increase in solar alone) and the retirement of a growing number of coal and other fossil-fuel plants, world CO2 emissions grew in 2018. The main reason is the overall increase in global energy demand, by 2.3% in 2018, the greatest rise this decade. Analysts believe this was driven by a growing global economy and reaction to greater severe weather (increased heating and cooling needs) in some areas. While natural gas is a “cleaner” fuel than coal and oil, its use increased markedly in 2018, including new power plants, and accounted for 45% of the rise in energy consumption, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). While the 31% growth in solar last year was impressive, it is 31% increase of a small number compared to fossil fuels whose overall use rose, too.

Despite the decline in coal use and retirement of coal-fired power plants in Europe and the U.S, coal-fired power plants are still popular and growing in developing Asia, where many of these plants are relatively new and have decades of useful life remaining. Therefore, decreasing CO2 emissions in the future is problematic.

Renewables were a major contributor to this power generation expansion, accounting for nearly half of electricity demand growth. China remains the leader in renewables, both for wind and solar, followed by Europe and the U.S.

A significant contributor to the 2.3% increase in global energy demand in 2018, according to the IEA, is the increase in heating and cooling as average winter and summer temperatures as some regions approached or exceeded historical records.

Energy demand growth was led by the U.S. Together, China, the U.S., and India accounted for nearly 70% of the total global rise in energy demand.

Global natural gas demand rose 4.6% in one year; in the U.S., the rise was for natural gas alone was 10% last year, the U.S.’s largest increase since the beginning of IEA records in 1971. Gas demand in China increased by almost 18%. Oil demand grew 1.3% worldwide, with the U.S. leading the global increase due to strong growth in petrochemical and other industrial production and transportation.

This points to a need to improve our energy intensity (energy use per GDP) and energy efficiency to allow economic growth while stifling the growth and even decrease usage of energy sources to address the goals to reduce CO2 emissions. The technology is there, but the leadership from government is lacking.

Global issue or not, CCES can help your company improve your energy efficiency to save you costs, raise your asset’s value, and improve productivity at the same time. In addition, we work with a number of utility and government programs who will pay YOU to be more energy efficient and save money. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Effects of Customers Going Off-Grid in Near Term

According to a recent poll, 95% of global utilities executives agree that the rate of electricity customers making changes to go off the grid and only using it as occasional backup will increase significantly in the next two years. Implementation of distributed generation (DG) technologies, such as having one’s own generation unit and solar and battery power, is increasing greatly in recent years, changing long-term strategies for utilities in terms of building new grid capacity to handle increases in electric demand. Nearly half of the respondents said that parts or all of their grid will reach maximum capacity in three years or less.

Of course, this is what most utilities wanted when they encouraged customers (residential and commercial) to install solar or their own generation units in order to relieve their stress on the grid, particularly on peak demand days. It is beginning to bear fruit in terms of the amount of investment in expanded grid infrastructure.

Other reports estimate the proportion of total (residential and commercial customers) with rooftop solar photovoltaics could exceed 15% by 2036 in some markets, such as California, reducing future net electricity demand growth and the need to invest in new power plants or related infrastructure.

A challenge for any utility is to predict just what that growth will be. Accurate modeling can help a utility forecast more accurately what their long-term capital spending needs will be. Such accurate modelling can save a utility a lot of costs or interest from borrowing and, thus, can predict future rates better. This need was ranked as the second-highest cost-saving opportunity for utilities, behind only improved forecasting of materials and fuels (supply chain unit costs).

Utilities acknowledge that DG represents a challenge to distribution utilities, providing service to customers getting their electricity from a different source, as a backup only during failure. Utilities must maintain this infrastructure and deliver when required, even if they charge little for the service. Yet it is also an opportunity, as many utilities are moving into this area as a potential growth and profit center. More than half of the respondents globally identified an ownership stake in areas such as large- and small-scale DG and community and grid-connected storage.

CCES has the experts to help your firm control its energy usage and cost and provide technical services to determine if implementing DG is in your financial interest. We can also provide you with information on incentives for solar, wind, or your own generation in your specific area. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.