With widespread and well-publicized incidents, such as huge forest fires, more severe storms, and draught and destruction, many countries and private entities are implementing actions or putting pressure on others to address Climate Change in advance of the annual global United Nations COP 26 discussions in November 2021.

220 financial institutions with assets over US$29 trillion have asked 1,600 companies worldwide to urgently set science-based emissions reduction targets in line with a 1.5°C scenario, ahead of the major COP 26 meeting in November in Glasgow, Scotland.

The companies targeted are thought to account for more emissions than the annual total of the US and EU combined.

Companies are being urged to set emissions reduction targets through the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) to ensure that their climate targets are independently verified, credible and robust. Studies have shown that companies with science-based targets in place have typically cut emissions by 6.4% per year, well above the average rate needed for alignment with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

The 2021 SBT Campaign is being coordinated by non-profit CDP (formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project) which runs a well-known carbon and environmental reporting system.

A number of large corporates with key global supply chains and US$500 billion in annual procurement (including L’Oréal, Renault, AstraZeneca and HP) have also joined financial institutions in asking for science-based targets.

In an announcement that portends substantial regulatory changes, the head of the US EPA Chemicals Office announced a shift in policy to further regulate chemicals within manufactured goods or finished products. The change would mean that importers, manufacturers, and processors will need to know the chemicals in manufactured or finished goods and assess whether the US EPA restricts those chemicals.

The US EPA announced these changes during remarks to the Product Stewardship Society on September 28, 2021. The US EPA already viewed chemicals in manufactured or finished goods as subject to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), shifting years of policy in which the agency carved out exemptions for certain products.

Since the beginning of the Biden Administration, regulatory actions by the US EPA on persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals show how the agency may impose this new view on regulating articles under TSCA.

• In January 2021, the US EPA issued regulations for five PBT chemicals, which restricted the presence of some of these chemicals in products or articles, starting in 2021, with some compounds receiving an extension as certain industries were not given enough notice to find substitutions.
• In June 2021, the US EPA issued a proposed rule that would require reporting from importers of articles containing polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, known as “forever” chemicals. The rule would require manufacturers and importers of articles that contain at least one listed PFAS chemical in any year since January 1, 2011, to report on PFAS uses, production volumes, disposals, and hazards.

These actions indicate that the US EPA under the new Administration is taking environmental impacts and public health very seriously.

Please note that this article is not a legal discussion about these rules and policies. If you are considering taking action based on any of these items, you must discuss it thoroughly with a qualified legal professional.

CCES has the technical experts to help your company and operations reduce its chemical- or health-based impacts on workers and neighbors, avoiding potential fines and enforcement penalties. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

In the absence of federal legislation to address Climate Change and to improve the reliability of delivery of different energy sources (infrastructure), a number of states and cities are passing legislation. While any action is better than inaction on these matters, this is also resulting in a “quilt” of different requirements all intended to address primarily local issues affecting those states and cities.

Texas

Remember the big winter storm much earlier this year that led to zero-degree temperatures throughout Texas and power plants to fail because of freezing? It got lost in the next news cycle, but in response to it, the Texas Legislature passed several bills to address energy-related issues, including imposing weatherization requirements on electric generation and transmission assets and on some of natural gas infrastructure, and a redesign of the electric market to ensure grid reliability.

All that said, officials are also working to help Texas increase energy generation to respond to growth and have adequate energy reserves. This includes encouraging implementation of electric generation resources that can respond within 30 minutes and provide uninterruptible power for 24 hours and encouraging investment (incentives) for new thermal generation.

Boston

On October 5, 2021, Boston enacted an amendment of its current ordinance called Building Energy Reporting and Disclosure (BERDO), imposing greenhouse gas emissions performance standards on existing buildings, with the goal of achieving zero emissions from large buildings by 2050. Now they along with New York City (Local Law 97) and Washington, D.C. have such performance standards on buildings.

BERDO now contains greenhouse gas emissions standards that applicable buildings must meet beginning in 2025, measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per square foot. All energy usage for a building must be accounted for, excluding emergency backup power and EV charging. BERDO has some flexibility for compliance. For example, certain owners can apply for an “Individual Compliance Schedule”, that must ultimately plan for emission reductions of at least 50% by 2030 and 100% by 2050. Owners may also qualify for a “Hardship Compliance Plan” for those with financial hardships, certain affordable housing, historic buildings, and those with long-term, pre-existing energy contracts.

BERDO presents potential compliance strategies, besides energy efficiency and fuel switching, to achieve the required GHG emissions reductions, such as renewable energy measures, such as Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) Class I eligible Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with non-CO2e emitting renewable sources. Fines for excessive emissions ($234 per metric ton of CO2e exceedance will be placed into an “Equitable Emissions Investment Fund” to support local emissions reduction projects within Boston.

Oregon

On September 25, 2021, a sweeping climate change rule for retail electricity generation in Oregon went into effect. H.B. 2021 sets aggressive GHG emission reductions targets for electricity sold to Oregonians, including 100% GHG-free electricity by mid-century.

HB 2021 has interim targets, such as 80% non-GHG emitting by 2030 and 90% by 2035. Non-GHG emitting includes hydropower and nuclear. Provisions encourage community-based renewable energy projects and encourage environmental justice.

Oregon is now one of 17 states to severely restrict usage of GHG-emitting energy sources for electricity generation by mid-century.

Please note that this is not a legal evaluation of these new laws, but one written by an engineer. Therefore, making any decisions based on these new rules, please consult a qualifying legal professional.

CCES has the technical experts to assess your company’s equipment and operations and significantly reduce your GHG emissions and maximize the financial benefits for you. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

OK. You need to cut back on energy usage for any of several reasons (cost savings must be realized, new regulations, general upkeep). Switching to LED lights is one of the “low hanging fruits” of energy efficiency. LED bulbs and tubes are fantastic in energy efficiency and longevity with a payback often of two years or less and cost savings lasting many more years, with a decrease in O&M, too. However, which LEDs to install, how, and where are critical questions to determine the success of your upgrade project.

Let’s assume that funds are not there to replace all lights, but only some. Which fixtures should be replaced to get the greatest gain? The best payback will occur when LEDs replace less efficient types of lighting, such as halogen and incandescents bulbs, where LEDs can reduce electric usage by over 75%. Electric use reduction of compact fluorescents or T8/T12 tubes is solid, but not as large as for the others. If performance or O&M is important, then you may wish to prioritize upgrading to LEDs in critical or in hard-to-reach areas, such as for security or in parking lots or on high ceilings or outdoors. LEDs last longer than other types, meaning less frequent replacements would be needed, including in cold, rain/snow, or other uncomfortable conditions.

It is critical to consider your current fixtures and whether they are compatible with LED lights. An old, ineffective ballast can reduce the electric savings of LEDs and potentially damage the new LEDs, endangering their warranty. While it will cost more upfront, it may be in your financial and mental interest to remove old ballasts and retrofit the fixtures or purchase all new fixtures to accommodate and get the best out of new LEDs.

Another consideration of where to prioritize LEDs is the area of use. Incandescents, CFLs, fluorescents, etc. generate significant heat, necessitating them to be placed in glass. LED bulbs, because they generate much less heat, can and typically are encased in shatterproof plastic, making them the better choice for places where light fixtures may be hit, such as in schools and gyms.

I have just given you some tips on where you may wish to prioritize if you cannot change all of your lights to LEDs at once. However, I hope you can initiate a complete upgrade to LEDs to get the maximum financial and operational benefits sooner. One more consideration to implement the entire change at once is incentives. In many parts of the country, the local utility or state offers incentives to re-pay you part of the upfront cost of the LED and fixture upgrade. However, the benefits of switching to LEDs illustrated here, particularly the cost savings, and the fact that the cost of LEDs has been coming down has gotten some agencies to wonder whether incentives are necessary any more. LEDs is such a good deal even without incentives. It is thought that more and more utilities and government entities will reduce and potentially eliminate such incentives and rebates in the next couple of years. Thus, now is the time to take advantage to get the greatest return from an upgrade to LED lights.

CCES has the experts and experience to assess your facility and determine how to maximize the financial and operational benefits of switching to LEDs for your specific facility and needs. Reduce energy costs significantly and improve productivity, too. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.