The European Parliament recently issued a directive to allow designation of certain projects involving natural gas and/or nuclear energy as “green”; or put another way, to not automatically label certain natural gas and nuclear energy projects as non-green. Certain proposed projects using natural gas as the fuel of choice or the building of nuclear power plants may be labelled “green” and “environmentally-friendly”, potentially qualifying them for hundreds of billions of euros in grants or subsidized loans. Perhaps, as important, this action gives cover for developers of some proposed projects which some may criticize as environmentally unfriendly or unfriendly for Climate Change impacting the Earth.

The EU, like the US, wishes to minimize “greenwashing”, the practice of exaggerating the positive environmental impacts of a project. The EU’s decision to allow certain projects using natural gas, a fossil fuel, to consider itself “environmentally friendly” and building a nuclear power plant to consider itself “sustainable” because it emits no or minimal greenhouse gases (GHGs) has led to much criticism from the European environmental community which wants to see the complete end of fossil fuel usage as soon as possible and the end of nuclear power as an option.

This decision by the EU was probably influenced by global politics, the aggressive effort to have Europe be independent as soon as possible from Russian oil and gas. If locally-produced natural gas can quickly replace oil (mainly from Russia), that is a good thing in the fighting in Ukraine. The problem is that natural gas is still a fossil fuel and emits GHGs. Once allowing such a project, it would be hard to displace it with a true sustainable replacement because of the initial investment in the natural gas technology. Same thing with nuclear power to generate electricity independent of Russian natural gas. The huge investment in a nuclear plant makes it difficult to pivot to a renewable, but non-nuclear replacement, soon after the war in Ukraine is over. The EU has drawn the line, however, with natural gas and nuclear power; non-Russian coal and Middle Eastern oil are not considered “green.”

CCES has the technical experts to help your US-based facility become truly more “green” and “sustainable” given sources available in the US and get incentives to partially pay the upfront costs. Likely save energy costs and reduce GHG emissions, too. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

As has written in this newsletter and other places, improving a building’s energy efficiency leads to:
• significant energy cost savings
• more reliable systems
• happier and more comfortable residents and users
• higher resale value
• lower O&M costs.

A problem for many, however, is finding the funds to implement the strategies to improve energy efficiency. Funding particularly affects people in poorer neighborhoods, living in older homes. While, this can be overcome, in part, by low-interest loans by organizations such as C-PACE, there are other issues disproportionally impacting owners of older buildings, issues of mold, asbestos and other hazards. One cannot implement an upgrade if a hazard keeps a contractor from doing the work. Yet many energy efficiency programs do not compensate building owners for these ancillary, but important and necessary, cleanups. A new program in Connecticut has created funding to help homeowners address those barriers.

Connecticut’s Statewide Weatherization Barrier Remediation Program (https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Energy/Conservation-and-Load-Management/Weatherization-Barrier-Mitigation) will pay for the cleanup of mold, asbestos and other health and safety issues that can prevent homeowners from pursuing weatherization projects.

The state’s utilities acknowledge that 25% to 30% of low-income customers cannot take advantage of energy efficiency incentive programs just because of health and safety issues in their homes which must be cleaned up before contractors can, for example, do a blower-door test to check for air leaks or seal up air leaks. However, remediation is unaffordable to many, forcing them to pay higher energy bills for the inefficiencies that cannot be corrected. While existing weatherization programs pay contractors a fee for their time and materials of their projects, homeowners receive no funding for the necessary remediation to allow the project to move forward.

One firm which does some remediation work estimates that costs in small homes average about $6,400 for asbestos removal, $11,000 for mold, and more for buildings with multiple issues.

The new program, with initial funding of over $8 million, is expected to cover the cost of remediating hazardous conditions for up to 1,000 income-eligible households over the next 3 years, drawn from a list of homes that could not participate in state energy efficiency programs due to these issues. After remediation, buildings will have energy efficiency upgrades done through either free or low-cost state or utility weatherization programs, sealing air leaks and installing low-flow showerheads. The State acknowledges that the list of households needing remediation far exceeds the initial funding and certain homes will get higher priority.

CCES has the experts to help you – wherever you are located – determine which energy upgrades would be more effective in reducing your energy usage and costs. We can navigate the systems in your state to get maximum financial incentives to perform the upgrades and can bring in the energy and remediation experts to have the remediation and energy upgrade done properly and reliably. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Say you are a landlord or manager of several or many buildings and electricity is not sub-metered (is your responsibility, not your tenants). The recent huge rise in electricity costs is really hurting you, given that most of your tenants are in long-term leases with low annual rent increases and that you probably have not upgraded your buildings to be more energy efficient. How can you save electricity costs under these circumstances?

1. Lighting.  There is no longer any doubt. Light emitting diodes (LEDs) produce the same amount or more light but use less than half of the electricity of fluorescent or incandescent bulbs. Years ago, there were some question about their viability. But all concerns have been addressed. Clearly, cutting your lighting electric usage by more than half will save you money and not impact operations. Go for it! If that were not enough, LEDs last longer than fluorescents or incandescents (LEDs do not “burn” anything), and thus, stopping work to replace a non-functioning LED is rare, freeing up your Maintenance staff to do other things tenants may be demanding. While LED prices are higher than fluorescents, the difference is narrowing and electric cost savings more than make up for it. LED upgrades commonly have a simple payback of under 1 year. Since LED lights often last 7, 10, or more years before needing replacement, that’s a lot of savings in your budget (“gravy”) after Year 1. LEDs for common areas and cost sharing with tenants who pay their own electric will benefit you.

Bonus tip:  Most utilities and states offer incentives for switching to LEDs. Take advantage of these. However, LEDs is such a good buy, that many utilities are beginning to reduce or even end financial incentives for LEDs. So don’t wait; upgrade to LEDs now – this year – before incentives disappear.

• Appliances.  Given their frequent use, appliances in buildings can be significant contributors to energy usage. Refrigerators are the biggest ones. While a user may open and close a refrigerator only a few times a day (for meals), we forget that it is on using electricity to cool or freeze food 24/7, even when away on vacation. It is a big electricity user. Other common devices can be “electricity” or “gas” guzzlers, too (clothes washers and dryers, computer equipment, even coffee makers and microwaves). Many manufactures make lines of appliances that have built in features to minimize the amount of electricity or natural gas needed (for example, the “sleep” mode of a laptop). At a minimum, you should procure appliances with the ENERGY STAR label, as they have been shown to reduce energy usage by 20% or more compared to average models due to their built in features. You don’t have to do anything. Just buy and operate them. Or you can go further and research specific models that will do the job you want and use minimum amounts of energy; manufacturers of such equipment highlight them on their websites. While energy-saving equipment may be more expensive upfront compared to average brands, the energy cost savings will make up the difference in a short time, usually under 2 years. If the typical refrigerator, etc. operates 15-20 years, that is also a lot of “gravy” for you.

Bonus tip:  Work with your Procurement Department on this. Guide them to research and find the most energy efficient models of necessary equipment. And let them work their magic to find bargains or buy efficient equipment in bulk so that the energy saving equipment may cost the same as “average” models.

• Heat Pumps.  What are these? These are devices that move heat from one place to another. In the winter, it takes heat from the outside and moves it into a room (yes, there is heat outdoors, even on a freezing day!). In the summer, it takes heat from a room and moves it outside. This takes electricity to achieve, but heat pumps use less energy than, say, a boiler combusting natural gas. It is easier to move heat than to produce it! Heat pumps have now been perfected to work effectively even in cold climates. Heat pumps can help a building become all electric, which is cheaper, better for the local air, and needs less maintenance than combusting a fuel. Manufacturers are developing low-cost, easy-to-install heat pumps for easy, reliable building retrofits within a standard window frame. For a large, multifamily building, installing many such units will save significant energy and O&M costs of a boiler.

Bonus tip:  Look up and contact your local utility or state or county energy agency. They are aware of heat pumps and likely have programs to answer your questions and provide financial incentives for installing heat pumps. They also may have a list of experienced, vetted vendors. Look through their information as you are doing your homework.

According to the DOE, buildings account for nearly 40% of the nation’s energy usage and that 75% of the 130 million buildings in the US will still be standing in 2050. Thus, upgrading existing buildings to be more energy efficient will be necessary to keep up with and manage rising energy costs. Start with these options to get off to a good start and save energy costs at the same time.

CCES has the technical experts to perform a full energy audit to determine a host of strategies to reduce your energy waste and costs, while maintaining current operations of your building. We provide site-specific technical advice to help building owners of many types and locations to reduce their energy costs and waste. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

In late June, the US Supreme Court overturned the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that had invalidated the 2019 Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule and reinstated the 2015 Clean Power Plan (CPP). The Supreme Court ruled that USEPA overstepped its authority, granted by Congress when it enacted the ACE and attempted to regulate not only the amount of emissions emanating from individual coal and natural gas power plants using Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), but also whether coal and natural gas power plants should continue to operate at all. The Court found USEPA’s admitted attempt to shift the way power is generated in the U.S. from coal, oil, and natural gas to “renewables” to be a decision of economic policy and public health that is outside USEPA authority, which is to limit emissions. Only Congress can regulate or delegate to others such matters. The Supreme Court went further finding that the CAA does not contain an explicit delegation of regulatory power to USEPA. While this ruling is a setback for regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the short-term, this ruling may result in new claims against the USEPA and other federal agencies that they are without power to regulate other major questions, affecting many areas of American life, from drug safety to banking.

Delegating rules to specialized agencies is the way many federal government functions have occurred for nearly 100 years. When the country was born, life was much simpler. America was an agrarian country with regulations also needed for business and transportation, as well. This was something that the Founding Fathers thought was sufficient being done through Congress and the President. However, as new issues and technologies sprung up, it became apparent that technical matters beyond the understanding of Congress necessitated agencies run by specialists in needed fields to create and enforce specific rules that would take Congress a long time to promulgate. Thus, agencies such as the SEC and FDA and others were formed to specifically regulate the stock market, food and drug safety, etc. Items that were not impacting the US in its early days. Congress would provide guidance to the agencies on how to proceed and develop and enforce rules, but Congress would not be concerned with day-to-day matters. However, this ruling, while focused on how the USEPA regulates GHGs also calls into question the whole authority of agencies over many other matters.

Getting back to the ruling, the USEPA believed it has two ways of regulating GHG emissions through the CAA, one is to require a certain level of control technology to require the power plant to reduce its GHG emission rate. The other approach is to select an allowable GHG emission rate so onerous that certain types of power plants (coal-fired, oil-fired) would be unable to meet that emission rate limit and thus have to shift to another source, such as renewables. This is what the Supreme Court ruled was beyond the authority of the USEPA as an environmental agency, being an agency that enacts economic-altering decisions.

Congress passed the CAA with guidance on how the USEPA were to pass air pollution laws in the CAA. Sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the CAA direct USEPA to establish standards of performance taking into account factors, such as technologies for emission reduction which have been demonstrated and develop emission limits that reflect that.

According to the Supreme Court, the emissions limit established in the ACE for existing power plants was stricter than the cap imposed on new power plants. USEPA’s own modeling concluded that the ACE would result in billions of dollars in compliance costs, including higher energy prices, require the closing of dozens of coal-fired power plants, and elimination of many jobs. A regulation that would have such monumental effects beyond just reducing emissions is beyond what an agency should be responsible for without specific authority from Congress. The USEPA can regulate GHG emissions, but not in such a way to change the economic system of an industry.

The immediate impact of the decision is that the Trump era CPP would be the standard for GHG emission regulation, bringing relief from certain requirements in the ACE. As this is written, it is unclear how the USEPA will respond, but certain new GHG regulations conforming to the CAA will likely be crafted, focusing specifically on reducing GHG emissions and not centered on power plant operations.

As noted earlier, this precedent may be used to vacate decisions made by other agencies, such as OSHA vaccination requirements without authority from Congress.

Please note that this evaluation of a court decision is written by a non-attorney. Please do not act on anything written here. Please retain experienced legal counsel to decide on actions related to this ruling and how it potentially affects your company.

CCES has the technical experts to help you evaluate your GHG emissions and help you establish a beneficial program to reduce GHG and save energy costs. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.