Sieben Blog

"Carbon Nation" Nominated for Environmental Media Award

Sarah Barnes — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 02:11:00 GMT

A nominee for best documentary at the Environmental Media Awards, “Carbon Nation” is a film very close to Sieben Energy Associates. CEO Craig Sieben was a producer on the film which was released in February 2011. The Environmental Media Association (EMA) advocates for environmental responsibility in the entertainment industry. EMA’s annual Environmental Media Awards honors films and television programming that demonstrates achievements in delivering effective green messages. “Carbon Nation” discusses the issues and the solutions surrounding climate change through interviews with a diverse group of people combating climate change. The film documents how a low-carbon economy would provide not only solutions to climate change, but also address current pressing social and economic problems; including job creation, public health, and national security. The EMA presents their awards October 15, 2011.

Energy Star Unveils Residential High-Rise Program

Liz Brady — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:18:00 GMT

Energy Star has announced a new program focusing on multifamily residential high-rise buildings. According to the program website, this new designation for multifamily high-rises (dubbed “MFHR”) is intended for “new or substantially renovated” buildings. Energy Star aims to incorporate energy efficient design elements such as high-performance insulation and windows, efficient HVAC equipment, and Energy Star rated appliances into these new residential spaces. These elements not only minimize the building’s energy consumption, they also create a comfortable (and less costly) environment for tenants. The EPA highlights the ability of high-efficiency design and properly-installed systems and insulation to ensure temperatures and indoor air quality stay optimal despite temperature and weather shifts. Especially in a climate with significant seasonal changes like, say, autumn in Chicago, an energy efficient high-rise is designed to keep energy usage and costs to a minimum while keeping its tenants warm in the winter and cool in the summer. The EPA also stresses the significant role that energy efficient buildings play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The MFHR program builds on Energy Star’s existing “New Homes” program, available for new single-family homes and units in low-rise buildings. Existing multifamily residential buildings can also pursue an Energy Star rating through the existing building program. Across the board, rating and certification systems such as Energy Star and LEED are diversifying their offerings, an acknowledgement of the distinct energy usage characteristics and operating requirements for residential buildings. With the advent of LEED for Homes and LEED for Neighborhood Development, the new Energy Star MFHR label, and increasingly detailed space types available in Energy Star’s Portfolio Manager, buildings are getting more specialized treatment. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) also announced a $25 million pilot program to spur energy efficiency projects in multi-family residential buildings.

The more nuanced space designations, program requirements, and resource investment will encourage sustainable design and building operations that are distinct to the needs of the space. In this case, meeting requirements of programs such as LEED ND, LEED for Homes, or Energy Star for multifamily high-rise will mean that sustainable practices and energy efficiency requirements represent the building as not just a building, but a place where people live. For energy efficiency and sustainability advocates, not to mention tenants in favor of clean air and lower electric bills—this is excellent news.

Energy Efficiency as an Energy Source

Sarah Barnes — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 13:08:00 GMT

We know energy efficiency to be a solid cost-saving strategy and a smart way to minimize one's carbon footprint; but it’s also one of America’s greatest energy sources. Reframing the debate about energy efficiency into one about energy resource and fossil fuel independence could generate it national attention and ultimately a national standard. The research surrounding Energy Efficiency Resource Standards explains energy efficiency as America’s cleanest, cheapest, fastest and most reliable energy resource. Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) are policies enforced by public utilities commissions mandating reduced energy use upon retail electricity and natural gas providers. EERS have been successfully implemented in 26 states; the first initiative was in Texas in 1999.

Illinois’ first EERS, SB1592, was signed into action in 2007. SB1592 requires electric utilities to reduce energy use by 0.2% through advancements in efficiency by 2009 and a further 2.0% by 2015. Illinois’ second EERS, SB1918, demands state gas utilities reduce their energy use 0.2% by 2012 and 1.5% by 2015. EERS are performing beyond expectations in states that have adopted them; more than half have met and exceeded their efficiency goals - and all have been creating new jobs, dropping household and business utility bills, and improving environmental conditions. Energy efficiency requires no power lines, no pipelines, emits no pollution, and can be assembled in a fraction of the time it takes new fossil fuel or nuclear facilities.

A 2005 study from the Energy Information Administration showed that the U.S. economy has been saving 90 quadrillion Btu’s per unit GDP since a similar study in 1973. This savings comes mostly from improvements in energy efficiency. With that staggering statistic, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) determined that because 90 quadrillion Btu’s is more than the United States’ own domestic energy production (from coal, oil, and gas combined) “energy efficiency can rightfully be called our largest energy source.”

A national EERS proposal was submitted to the House of Representatives in 2009. HR889, the “Save the American Energy Act” set out to amend the 1974 Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act and put in place “standards at levels reflecting the maximum achievable level of cost-effective energy efficiency potential.” America’s national agenda cites energy independence as a high priority and reframing the debate to include energy efficiency as an immediate solution for energy independence will only strengthen the chances of achieving that goal.

Energy Efficiency: The Recession’s Silver Lining?

Liz Brady — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 22:55:00 GMT

There is no denying the so-called “Great Recession” has not been kind to state budgets, federal budgets, many businesses, international markets, prospective student-loan recipients, job seekers, and countless others. But, according to the Department of Energy and numerous environmental organizations, it has been kind to something: the planet.

"Recession Special: Cleaner Air" in Saturday’s New York Times cites analysis by the US Department of Energy and several environmental research groups that the economic downturn has led to a marked decrease in carbon emissions throughout the United States. Efforts to cut costs through energy efficient appliances, lighting, and building systems are “all justified as saving money over their lifetimes [and] also save carbon.”

The efficiency push has also led to cleaner power generation. A smaller, more service-based economy has created less demand for electricity, causing utilities to use the most cost-effective means of power generation: more efficient, lower-emitting plants. A legislative and industry push for cleaner technology in coal plants, as well as lower natural gas prices and subsidies for renewable energy have also led to decreased emissions and a shift in the energy economy that experts hope signals long-term change.

While the piece acknowledges that its scope is limited (U.S. emissions are down, but global trends may prove to be different), the good news is that U.S. businesses, utilities, and individuals are taking advantage of the financial benefits of energy efficiency in a tough economy. And reducing carbon emissions. If there is a silver lining in “The Great Recession,” a cleaner energy economy just might be it.

Latest US Senate Energy Bill Only Lasted a Week

Todd Edwards — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:17:00 GMT

Last month (July 2010) Dan Bailey at Sieben Energy Associates created a matrix titled, "Major Energy and Climate Legislation of the 111th Congress" that outlines the various proposed energy and/or climate bills in 2009-2010. This is found at the following link: http://www.siebenenergy.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=2xBuNhlLGvk%3d&tabid=73&mid=676.

Since the time that this document was written, there have been additional attempts to garner the support needed to pass energy/climate legislation in the US Senate. The most recent bill was unveiled on July 28, 2010, which was absent a price on carbon. Instead the July 28^th bill focused largely on offshore drilling and to a lesser extent domestic energy efficiency. This bill did not receive the backing needed to pass and was considered shot down within the first week of August. However, a number of articles written within the past two weeks suggest that Senate majority leader Harry Reid is still confident that an energy and/or climate bill will pass in September before the mid-term elections.

Senate to Cut Carbon Out of Bill

Todd Edwards — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:08:00 GMT

A slimmed down energy bill is expected to be introduced in the US Senate possibly today. The focus is on off-shore drilling and transportation fuel shifting to natural gas for heavy trucks. A section on a price-on-carbon is missing because the democrats could not get support for the 60 votes needed.

In regards to a climate bill:

“Reid said Congress could revisit climate legislation in September but lawmakers and analysts doubt there will be much appetite ahead of the mid-term elections in November.” To learn more, see the Reuters article at the link below:

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN2515434420100726

Expected Energy Debate in the Senate

Todd Edwards — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 05:05:00 GMT

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has planned an energy bill debate for the week of July 26. He suggests that a “rough draft” of the proposed legislation will focus on carbon dioxide pollution cuts from the utility sector. In addition to curbing carbon emissions, the debate will likely address the BP oil spill, efforts to boost renewable energy use, and energy-related job creation. You can find a good review of the energy bill movement on the Hill in the July 13, 2010 article, “Energy Bill May Cut Power-Plant Pollution, Reid Says” from Bloomberg Businessweek.

The Oil Question

Dan Bailey — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:04:00 GMT

In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal last week, R. James Woolsey, chairman of Woolsey Partners and a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, outlined four strategies to reduce demand for oil. In the U.S., fuels derived from petroleum account for 95% of transportation needs but only 2% of electricity generation. Under the heading “How to End America’s Addiction to Oil,” Woolsey focused on strategies that are already available today:

Improve internal combustion engine electronics to better regulate fuel consumption within automobiles.
Switch to relatively inexpensive and domestically abundant natural gas for bus and interstate trucking fleets.
Begin to add compatible alternative liquid fuels (such as from waste and algae) that do not require engine modification into gasoline and diesel.
Expand and encourage the use of all-electric vehicles.

Our initial response, Woolsey says, should be to depend more heavily on electricity, natural gas, and biofuels for transportation. All of these seek to reduce our domestic demand for oil, because Woolsey believes that matters of supply are largely out of our hands, with most of the world’s oil controlled by OPEC nations. Given OPEC’s large reserves and cheap extraction costs, even a significant increase in drilling within the U.S. (which will require ever more expensive techniques) simply will not produce enough to make much of a difference in our daily petroleum diet. Woolsey also believes that cap-and-trade would not have much impact on personal behavior, as his figures suggest that an allowance price of $20 per ton of carbon dioxide means only an extra 20 cents per gallon of gasoline.

Woolsey summarizes his here-and-now recommendation in the final paragraph: “We can get a long way using existing vehicles, existing technology and affordable natural gas. As other improvements become practical…they can be adopted.”

While the focus of Woolsey’s editorial is reducing our dependence on oil for transportation, the second through fourth strategies above do not necessarily reduce carbon emissions. Alternative liquid fuels and natural gas still produce carbon dioxide when burned. And without the infrastructure to enjoy power from relatively carbon-free renewable sources (e.g., wind, solar, nuclear), electricity for vehicles still often comes from fossil fuels, principally coal in many areas of the country.

Also, while it is true that successful, economical drilling for natural gas in shale deposits throughout the country has increased our domestic reserves of the fuel, the price of natural gas could certainly rise. Whether through widespread use as a fleet fuel or as a preferential choice to replace coal in a carbon-constrained economy, natural gas is affordable today because our supply (including Canadian and other imports) is relatively easily able to satisfy demand. If demand for natural gas increases substantially, will it remain as inexpensive as it is today?

The nation is heavily dependent on its critical networks of electric transmission lines and natural gas pipelines. What effects would a major natural or man-made disruption in natural gas refinement and transportation have throughout the country? Depending heavily on any one fuel, even it can be produced in large quantities domestically, opens up oneself to additional risk. While natural gas is a clear early choice to help treat our oil addiction, it is not a long-term solution.

Yet Woolsey’s idea of a portfolio approach to replacing and reducing oil is a good one, as it highlights how a complex problem requires a variety of solutions working in tandem. Ending America’s addiction to oil will not only stem the flow of money overseas; it will also, by necessity, improve our transportation system, advance our technological leadership, and help create jobs here in the U.S. rather than abroad.

Senate Sizes up Cap-and-Trade

Todd Edwards — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:39:00 GMT

It is the Senate’s turn to evaluate climate change legislation and carbon pricing mechanisms. On June 26, 2009 The House of Representatives narrowly passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act, with a vote of 219 to 212. The bill was co-sponsored by Representatives Henry Waxman (D–Cal) and Ed Markey (D–Mass); it is often referred to as Waxman-Markey. Title III of Waxman-Markey articulates a carbon pricing structure through a cap on emissions of the nation’s largest emitters using emission allowance permits. The trading of permits is intended to develop a market for efficiently reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

(For more information on H.R. 2454 read, “The Road Ahead for Energy and Climate Policy: An Overview of Possible Directions and Their Impact on Business,” by Dan Bailey at Sieben Energy Associates.)

Nearly 10 months after H.R. 2454 and following a riveting debate on healthcare, the Senate now has the opportunity to turn their attention toward climate legislation. Yet the environment is becoming muddled by both lingering and recent events in Washington.

The national economy is still in flux from one of the nation’s deepest recessions. Job creation is on the minds of many. On April 9, 2010 U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he plans to retire this summer. The process for replacing him will compete with various bills for the limelight on the Senate floor. And, the November 2010 elections will arguably have a hefty influence on how Congress votes; incumbents are likely to tread cautiously around controversial issues.

With an already foggy path to date for climate legislation, it is not encouraging that the expected champions for such a bill, Senators John Kerry (D-Mass), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn), currently do not have a proposal. However, the much anticipated document is expected to be released soon – April 26^th according to climateprogress.org. The question is how will they (re)envision putting a price on carbon?

It is anticipated that a proposal will include a slight divergence from the cap-and-trade outlined in H.R. 2454. Taking into account the economy and jobs, many are anticipating that the proposed legislation will regulate only electric utilities in the short-term and will later cover other large direct stationary emitters, with some exceptions.

Opponents to the prospective legislation insist that it will have a negative impact on the economy regardless of anticipated modifications to lighten any perceived burden in the short-term. However, an article, “Don’t think that cap-and-trade is over” by James Kanter on April 11, 2010 in the International Herald Tribune and reposted by the World Business Council on Sustainable Development excels at combating such an attack. The article is not a comprehensive defense of cap-and-trade, but it provides a compelling case to acknowledge the ability to raise additional funds as a key motivator for governments to adopt cap-and-trade. “That means carbon trading should soon look like manna from heaven for cash-strapped treasuries.” The take-away message, based on empirical attestations, is that cap-and-trade is not likely to fall into the recycling-bin any time soon based on fiscal concerns.

To supplement Kanter’s oberservations, I ask the question, “Does a price on carbon affect the bottom line for companies not just the government?”

After leading a recent scenario analysis for Sieben Energy Associates on the affects of carbon-pricing for a Fortune 100 corporation using data from the DOE: Energy Information Administration, our analysis determined that a cap-and-trade mechanism requiring electric utilities to purchase allowances in the short run with the addition of other larger emitters in later years will have an insignificant effect on corporate energy budgets. The increased cost passed through to the end-user could be mitigated with relatively low or no cost energy efficiency measures. Such measures even have the potential to reduce future costs below potential costs with a price on carbon. Additionally, with a price on carbon, energy efficiency projects are even more attractive with an improved internal rate of return (IRR), thus making it possible to proceed with projects that were previously on-the-fence.

So, a price on carbon via cap-and-trade (with electric utilities regulated first) equals more funds in the government coffers. It will have an insignificant increase to corporate energy budgets. With strategic energy management, a corporation could use this opportunity to leverage additional energy efficiency projects to flatten their energy cost curve and gain a competitive advantage. And perhaps more importantly, a corporation implementing new energy efficiency projects will also help to create new jobs.

To learn more or show support for cap-and-trade and/or a price on carbon, read more about the two organizations found below. Let the Senate know what you think they should do.

US-CAP, United States Climate Action Partnership www.us-cap.org
BICEP, Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy www.ceres.org/bicep

Sieben Energy Associates is a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange and has been carbon neutral since 2004.

Pew Center Conference Review

Jerry Burin — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:45:00 GMT

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change held an energy efficiency conference in Chicago on April 6 and 7. This year it was entitled From Shop Floor to Top Floor: Best Business Practices in Energy Efficiency and coincided with their release of a report on the best practices in corporate energy efficency.

Interesting keynote and luncheon speakers ranging from Suzanne Malec-McKenna, the City of Chicago’s Commissioner of its Department of Environment to John Rowe, Chairman and CEO of Exelon Corporation, to former Senator John Warner, helped set the context for the conference—that the world is changing, and that fossil fuel-generated carbon emissions will surely become an economic factor within our society—with an associated cost borne by consumers.

Sustainability and environmental representatives of household name companies such as Toyota, IBM, Best Buy, PepsiCo, Johnson & Johnson, Hewlett Packard, Coca Cola and the Mars Candy described their companies’ efforts to establish and attain sustainability goals. A significant focus of their respective strategies was reducing energy consumption through energy efficiency—the notion of optimizing energy use in everything from heating and cooling of buildings to product manufacturing processes.

Several notable takeaways:

Establish big reduction goals—even if you don’t know how they’ll be met. Big goals inspire people.
Increasingly carbon will be measured as part of the manufacturing and delivery process of bringing a product to market—lots of carbon is embedded in the supply chain—expect to see carbon indices on consumer products as commonly as we see the ingredients of food products listed on their packaging labels.
Electric utilities will be big drivers of energy efficiency to offset the need to build more power plants—increasingly utilities will de-couple their profit motive from the sale of power and find the means to remain profitable as they reduce power sales.

Over the course of two days, speaker after speaker took the opportunity to demonstrate how their organization was focusing on energy efficiency to help meet sustainability goals. The conference served as a wake-up call for companies that, to date, have failed to heed the signs that sustainability, and by inference energy efficiency, is a mega trend at our doorstep.