Green Guru Network

Bonnie Hagen

More and more industrial, commercial, and institutional facility owners and managers are embarking upon energy efficiency projects for their buildings as they start to realize that going “green” saves “green” (money) if done right. Such programs often pay back the initial upfront costs of upgrades at rates better than spare capital can make in investments. However, in these tough economic times the upfront costs for these types of projects may be a major barrier to implementing them. The incorporation of financial incentives can make energy efficiency investments more alluring to facility managers and owners, particularly by lowering inhibitive upfront costs.

Throughout the US, there are many financial incentive programs available to help offset the capital expenses for various types of energy efficiency projects. They often cover measures such as installing energy-efficient lights, heating and cooling systems, motors, controls, building management systems, renewable energy systems, and, sometimes, custom improvements. Since approximately three quarters of commercial buildings in the US are more than twenty years old, their owners and managers are in need of these critical upgrades yet dependent on such programs to bring such retrofits into fruition.

Some financial incentive programs are offered by the federal government, state governments and local municipalities, while others are available through non-profit organizations, economic development groups or utilities. Incentives offered are generally in the form of grants, rebates, loans, tax deductions and tax credits. Details of the programs vary widely, but the incentives can be worth 50% or more of a project’s upfront cost.

Besides the heightened awareness of energy efficiency’s financial payback amongst facility owners and managers, there are also additional, indirect, but real benefits, such as increased property values and positive publicity, leading to a rise in facility owners and managers depending on energy management to drive operational efficiency – especially as they are addressing aging and inefficient buildings.

New incentive programs come out all the time. Existing programs close, get extended, or modified in some way. Some programs are short-term and have a specific deadline, while others are ongoing. Keeping track of the programs and their details requires a lot of time and persistence. Applying and securing the incentives can be a lengthy, time-consuming, and frustrating process, often laden with bureaucracy and red-tape. It is prudent for facilities to learn the requirements of the incentive programs before embarking on the projects to help drive the details of project implementation. Too often, facility managers and owners apply for the incentive after the project is done, only to be rejected because a minor detail was not incorporated into the retrofit. To ensure their facility receives the maximum financial benefit for their energy efficiency improvements, smart facility managers and owners outsource this important function in the project design phase to an experienced company specializing in securing funds for energy efficiency projects. While the company will pay a fee or percent of the financial gain to the specialty company, it is still beneficial as the company is ensured of the best efforts to achieve maximum financial gain.

Bright Energy Services, a division of All HVAC Service Company, Inc. is an award-winning environmental consulting firm, spanning a wide range of disciplines providing commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings with energy and environmental improvements as well as securing maxi

Changing one’s ways or implementing new initiatives is difficult. It’s inconvenient. This seems especially true in the U.S. in recent years. Thus, the reluctance to implement smarter, cleaner strategies. Businesses in other nations have demonstrated that clean approaches – in operations and also in business strategies – have been successful in meeting the challenges of the global recession. Now there is a U.S. industry that can be a model for companies across the business spectrum to add value while addressing sustainability concerns, and that is the automobile industry.

For decades “Big Auto” did things the same old way, ignoring the fact that technology and consumer preferences were changing and that more people no longer wanted to drive gas guzzlers, whether because of rising gasoline prices or concern with the environment. Perhaps they thought they can affect consumer attitudes with advertising.

The results for U.S. auto makers were disastrous. By failing to be more sustainable, U.S. automakers weakened their bottom line and lost their lead position in global sales. GM was rescued from potentially going totally out of business by a federal bailout with oversight that insisted the company make the type of cars that people had requested for years. Chrysler, besides getting bailout money, was taken over by a European buyer, infusing their sustainability experience. While Ford was not bailed out, they were on the verge of bankruptcy and also began to build more fuel-efficient cars that they had been fighting for decades. Although some Americans are unsure about climate change, Big Auto finally learned that addressing sustainability helps consumers get more value from their car, which everyone supports. All 3 firms have improved sales and the bottom line. Even SUV sales have improved recently, but for models with better gas mileage.

Which other U.S. industries have not addressed changing technologies and consumer preferences and can use the U.S. auto industry as a model? One that comes to mind is the power industry, as major electricity producers have fought new regulatory initiatives and renewable energy. Power companies have the opportunity to gradually replace their oldest, dirtiest power plants with cleaner energy, but many appear reluctant to do so.

An example is the new draft mercury rules for power plants. The US EPA, after listening to industry and environmental sectors, crafted new rules with an economic analysis that estimates both avoided deaths and emergency room visits that could be caused by this rule, based on current scientific knowledge, and the overall national economic gain. Instead, power companies are lobbying against this bill and even pushing Congress to pass a bill preventing the US EPA from passing new rules. Some have intimated that plants may shut down and perhaps potentially deprive areas of electricity.

It may seem counterintuitive, but smart federal rules that represent compromises between industry and environmental groups and based on current health-based, scientific knowledge and economic analysis, may be the best thing for the power and all industries. Such efforts result in a “level playing field” for all companies and a more satisfied public, both in terms of health cost savings, energy independence, energy source choices and risk, and environmental concerns. With all the debate in the last few years about federal health care legislation and record health insurance costs, it is certainly non-partisan and in everybody’s interest to enact laws that can reduce factors that lead to fatalities and the need for health care, based on current knowledge.

There is also the case of “unwanted consequences” by squelching smart legislation. An example for all industries is federal climate change or “carbon” legislation, which did not pass Congress. Failure to enact uniform legislation does not mean that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are not regulated. Instead they are regulated in a “quilt” of rules in different states, regions, and even cities. The Northeast U.S. has the “RGGI” rule for GHG emissions from power plants there, while California’s new AB-32 has demanding rules for many industries. And then there are rules that only indirectly affect carbon emissions, such as “green building” rules and renewable energy standards. Even federal GHG rules are not gone. First, the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 98) requires a variety of industries to report (not reduce) their direct emissions. Finally, the US EPA will be required to pass legislation to reduce GHG emissions through the Clean Air Act (CAA). Required? Yes. Several courts have ruled that GHGs are a “pollutant”, and the CAA requires the US EPA to regulate all pollutants. But, the CAA is not the ideal way to legislate reductions of compounds with no direct, health-based effects. Rules based on the CAA may impact some industries harder than others compared to specific GHG-based rules (theory of “square peg in a round hole”).

The writing is on the wall for many U.S. industries, including the power industry. Change positively with the times, seek consumer preferences, and work with new technologies and together with the government and there is a chance to benefit from the available transition to clean energy and benefit the bottom line. A New Year’s Wish for 2012.

New York State has the greatest and largest state park system in the nation, from Montauk to Niagra and the Big Apple to the Adirondacks. 

New York’s state parks are under financial duress, exacerbated by the state’s budget shortfalls. Yet, the need for public, affordable recreation and outdoor enjoyment facilities has never been greater. 

Simultaneously, New York is on the forefront in rolling out clean technology initiatives. Why not combine the need for cost-savings and reinvestment in the state's 178 parks with the state's need for demonstration and deployment sites for cost-saving clean energy technologies? 

For example, the renewable energy potential–principally solar electricity–at Jones Beach is very large with an estimated annual net energy output in excess of 26,662 megawatt-hours (MWh) per year. If we install solar electric carports to cover 40% of the parking lots at Jones Beach, the resulting 2,700 to 2,900 MW capacity would be greater than the generation capacity at Indian Point's two nuclear plants.  

In 2010, New York state parks hosted nearly 57 million visitors, an increase of one million visits over 2009.

Park funding prospects had become so dire that the Open Space Institute teamed up with experienced former state officials to form the Alliance for New York State Parks. In

November 2010, the Alliance, in conjunction with Parks and Trails New York, issued a key report, “Protect Their Future: New York’s State Parks in Crisis,” highlighting the funding

and infrastructure support needed to ensure our state parks’ future.

Simultaneously, New York has adopted an aggressive goal of obtaining 30 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015–referred to as 30x15. The state enumerates this goal by means of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).

Read a bit more about the Empire State Park Power Initiative. 

Thoughts? 

Find funding for your restaurant equipment upgrade!

Thinking of upgrading your restaurant equipment? Check out NYSERDA's Focus on Hospitality:

http://www.nyserda.org/commercialkitchens/default.asp

NYSERDA wants to help restaurant owners and managers of non-profits to find ways of reducing energy costs. They offer funding for capital purchases that reduce energy and water use and costs.

Photo by: matiasromero