Carbon-Pros Analyst Blog

One of the projects I took on during my sabbatical was a low density condo complex in northern Michigan (theBirchesCondos.com). It's by no means a LEED accredited project, but we got a lot of the details right. The project is located in a retirement community surrounded by lakes, golf courses, and open space. Our site plan emphasized open space over developed land with 15 acres developed and 22 acres untouched and permanently protected. The duplex design has a common wall to increase energy efficiency while still giving the feeling of a stand-alone home. The building envelope is tight and most of the units face south. The walls are insulated to R-24 with better than R-36 in the ceiling. We used low-E glass with fixed and casement openings, minimizing air infiltration. Every unit included a 90% efficiency gas furnace with central air conditioning, programmable thermostats, 100% Energy Star appliances, fully insulated and drywalled garages with insulated overhead doors. Perhaps most important, we used local builders who gave us great craftsmanship and tightened up the project at every step. We added many so-called “green features” at standard construction costs. We absolutely had to keep the costs down since we were targeting the $200K market for 2-4 bedroom condos. The residents absolutely love their homes. Even in the tough Michigan market, the condos are still selling. This project proved to me that if you start with a good design and get the details right, you can build a green product at or below standard construction costs. --JCB

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 09:56 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In measuring carbon emissions, we typically begin by defining a relevant scope, boundary, and base year. Since business value chains are complex and overlapping, it can be difficult to draw the lines. For companies covered under federal legislation, the law will define the scope. For others, the scope will subject to management judgment given the objectives of the carbon inventory. We generally start by including all direct emissions by the business and any related organizations it controls. Direct emissions include all internal operations but exclude all emissions from suppliers and customers. While direct emissions give you a starting point, they often fail to provide a fair assessment of the businesses' impact on carbon released into the atmosphere. In the old days of vertical integration where all functions were performed internally, counting direct emissions would have been sufficient. In the current era built around specialization and core-competencies, many formerly core activities are now accomplished through suppliers, thus we typically count indirect emissions. For example, if a company uses computers, paper, and toner in its operations, the carbon footprint of these materials is typically counted even though provided by outside suppliers. If the company retains a janitorial service that uses toxic cleaners with high levels of offgassing, these “emissions” should be counted even though provided by your supply chain. In the carbon inventory for a service business, we typically count the following direct and indirect sources:

• Energy services: heating, cooling, electricity, gas, propane, oil, etc.
• Transport fleet: company cars, trucks, etc.
• Business travel: auto mileage, airline miles, rail miles, etc.
• Products/services consumed: office supplies, furniture, janitorial, etc.
• Fugitive emissions from wastewater, trash, and landfill.
• Employee commute method, distance, and frequency.
• With additional components from the supply chain depending on the situation.

Once sources are identified and data are collected, we enter the details into a tracking system, calculate carbon emissions, and privately report the results. The fun begins with benchmarking, analysis, and making ongoing carbon reductions. This helps the environment, saves you money, and strengthens your position in the marketplace.

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 09:14 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As much as I'd like to get our condo in Crested Butte Colorado to NZE (net zero energy); it's not going to happen. For starters, our roof orientation and structure is not suitable for the production of solar or wind power. Our property lines are too tight to fit ground-mount solar. And the homeowners association does not allow solar panels on our decks. The condo was built in 1980 and suffers from the weak energy efficiency requirements in building codes back in the bad old days. Luckily for me, the condo has some positives we can work with. It is situated on the ground floor with the north and east walls below grade, the west wall and ceiling are warmed by adjacent units, and the south wall is fully exposed to radiant heat from the sun. Therefore heat-loss is minimized compared to having fully exposed walls and roof. Still, this little 1200SF all-electric home consumes 16,000 kWh/year in a locale with 14,000 heating degree days. My home in Boulder is twice the size and uses half the energy (but only 6,000 heating degree days). The condo's energy situation is not good, but there are many things I have done to slash my energy usage: 1) switch most of the lighting to CFLs (cost $150), 2) weatherstrip any and all leaks including electrical outlets (cost $50), 3) insulate the crawl space (cost $100), 4) buy 100% green power from my electrical provider; 90% wind and 10% solar (incremental monthly cost $7), 5) wrap the hot water heater with insulation blanket (cost $20), 6) install a switch on the electric hot water heater so it can be turned off when the unit is vacant (electrician cost $120), 7) replace the room thermostats with digital ones with manual setbacks (cost for 9, $100), 8) put a few well-placed signs out reminding guests to conserve energy (cost $0), and eventually, the biggie I will tackle in the future 9) replace the aging windows and doors with new high-efficiency ones (cost $14,000). You might be in a similar situation, where NZE is not going to happen without moving into a new purpose-built house. But you can still make a big difference and slash your energy bills saving money, helping the planet and improving our energy security. With 100% green power, I can say I'm “carbon neutral” on electricity, but more important, I've reduced my electrical load by 25% with an investment of $550 and a modicum of time and attention. The payback period on my investment is less than two years. The feeling of making a small difference is immeasurable. --JCB

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 08:35 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Back in 1977 my wife and I were living in Fairbanks. I was working on the University of Alaska campus on one of the most advanced computer networks in the world. The "UACN" linked Alaska's three universities and ten community colleges via landlines, microwave, and satellite links into a unified computer network. I was a young computer scientist and loved living in the far north and working on state-of-the-art technology. My wife and I decided to make our home in Alaska. Even though we didn't know much about building, many of our friends had “owner-built” homes and we were intrigued with the idea of building our own. We bought some south-facing acreage a few miles from campus. Our plan was to build a log cabin; it would be so charming in the woods. WRONG! I took some building classes at the university extension service, one of which covered super-insulated home construction. This was a new concept in 1977, but in Fairbanks, a climate with 14,000 heating degree days, it was compelling. I learned everything I could about passive-solar, double-wall construction, triple glazing, radiant barriers, vapor barriers, heat-exchangers, and the like. It was difficult to find green-building information back then. Working weekends and summer evenings, it took us (and our friends) two years to hand-build the 1600 SF, 3 BR house. The walls were just over a foot thick with multiple layers of insulation and barriers. We achieved approximately R-60 in the walls and R-68 in the floor and ceiling (the house was built on pilings to keep the permafrost frozen). We bought the smallest wood stove offered by Vermont Castings and heated the house in 50-below winters with 1-2 cords of elder and aspen. That house was incredibly efficient and comfortable. The home heating index (HHI), a measure of energy used in heating normalized for square footage and degree days, was 1.50 with anything below 2.00 considered highly efficient. In our sub-arctic climate, it was so comfortable sitting in the living room for hours with the temperature never varying by more than one degree. Thirty years later, I've learned so much more about green building. But one thing has not changed despite our new knowledge and advanced technologies. To get to NZE in cold climates, your best strategy is to build a super-insulated envelope and put in a very small heater. In contrast, my current home in Boulder (also built in 1977), was constructed with 2x4 walls (R-11) and minimal concern for energy-efficiency. This has left me with a real challenge in retrofitting it to NZE! --JCB

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 03:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Pursuing a regulatory path, the EPA is gearing up to take action on the premise that carbon emissions endanger public health and welfare. The idea that carbon is a type of pollution and therefore subject to control by the EPA is no longer in question having been affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2007. In the coming months, the EPA will be soliciting public comment with the stated intent to implement new regulations covering carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. On the regulatory path, affected industries and businesses will be given very little flexibility. They will be forced to reduce their carbon emissions (at whatever cost) or face stiff penalties. The full scope to be encompassed by EPA regulations is unknown. After starting with the largest CO2 emitters (automobiles and utilities), the EPA would likely ratchet down the initial caps while broadening their scope to include additional industries. On the positive side, regulatory caps will eventually achieve the desired reductions. That's the nature of caps. On the negative side, the reductions may be very costly and could be damaging to the US economy. After all, let's not meet US emissions targets by reducing the economy by 20%. Pursuing a legislative path, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is in the midst of hearings on a proposed cap and trade program. At present, the bill leaves out crucial details such as whether the carbon permits will be auctioned or whether a certain amount would be given freely to affected companies. Despite Democratic majorities, the bill will have to balance many competing political interests to have any chance at passage. Following the legislative path, the US will certainly provide more flexibility for business. They might also be able to address critical questions about how to get comparable carbon reductions from China and other countries. Under “cap and trade,” companies in a position to cut emissions at the lowest cost will do so because they will be able to sell their excess carbon permits to companies that face higher costs of mitigation. This approach uses market forces to achieve reductions through the most cost-effective means. A weakness is that the compromises required for congressional approval may undermine the effectiveness of the legislation. The law could end up with so many exceptions that it won't meet the goal of 20% carbon reductions by 2020. Despite the inevitable shortcomings, we think the legislative path is the most likely outcome of the policy debate and the best option for the US economy. Operational flexibility is a valuable thing in business. Today we face so many unknowns on the carbon front that we will need some flexibility to make the most cost-effective and deepest reductions possible. 

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 04:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Carbon may be experiencing some media hype right now, but deservedly so. Three major developments are bringing US carbon policy into sharp focus. First, the EPA released its long-expected official statement last week that “greenhouse gases (GHGs) endanger public health and welfare.” Now operating under Lisa Jackson, this is the agency's first step toward implementing carbon regulation under the Clean Air Act. Second, President Obama is not backing off his campaign promise to reduce US carbon emissions. In a public address on Friday, he argued for carbon reduction as part of a national energy framework. He said the US needed to move quickly in order to lead the world's clean-tech revolution. He views GHG reduction as part of a strategy to generate the green-collar jobs needed to revive the economy. Third, House Representative Waxman is in the midst of public hearings on proposed legislation mandating a 20% CO2 reduction by 2020. The 600+ page bill proposes a cap and trade program rather than a carbon tax. If it passes, the law will drive requirements for “carbon accounting” deep into the economy. And if it does not pass in 2009, the EPA will have moved forward with regulations. The EPA will begin to roll out regulatory caps starting with automobiles and utilities, seen as two of the leading “carbon polluters.” As the US decides which path to follow, these three drivers (regulatory, executive, and congressional) will keep “carbon” in the weekly business news for the balance of 2009. But long term, we don't see the talk about carbon going away. Next year, talk about carbon policy will be replaced by talk about carbon mitigation. Carbon is not just hype; it's a new part of the business vocabulary. In the years ahead, doing business without factoring in carbon will be as rare as doing business without factoring in the Internet; which as you might recall was once upon a time also subject to claims of hype. 

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 03:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

You probably understand the basic idea of a carbon footprint. It has been formally defined as “the total set of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event or product” (UK Carbon Trust, 2008). Your business' carbon footprint can be measured through a GHG emissions inventory summing all the sources of carbon emissions in your organization and it's supply chain. This includes the carbon dioxide (and equivalents) that are emitted through consumption of energy, use of office supplies, production of products, delivery of services, employee travel, and everything else that involves the release of CO2. In calculating emissions, you can use cross-sector approaches and/or sector-specific approaches. Some types of emissions can be measured directly (e.g. in a factory setting) others can be estimated using available data (e.g. airline miles traveled). For companies subject to a cap or selling credits, third-party verification of data sources and calculations are required. Once the size of your carbon footprint is known, it can also be benchmarked against industry norms and compared with best practices. After the initial measurement, a strategy can be devised to reduce your footprint. There is no doubt that carbon measurement and tracking is the best way to manage CO2 emissions over the long-term. Your carbon accounting should aim for completeness, consistency, and accuracy. The good news is that similar to measuring other key performance indicators, the modest cost of measuring and tracking carbon is typically paid back many times over by expense reduction and revenue enhancement.  

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 07:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Back in 2002 we took our first significant step in creating a net zero energy (NZE) home without even realizing that NZE was to be a future goal. We were remodeling our 1977 conventionally built home in Boulder Colorado (a location with about 6000 heating degree days and 700 cooling degree days). We simply wanted to make sure that our remodeling resulted in more comfortable living and lower utility bills. It turns out that tightening the building envelope is the best place to start your efficiency improvements. It's generally the most cost effective way to shrink your energy bills and reduce your carbon footprint. In our case, we replaced our leaky 1977 aluminum windows with low-E, wood-clad casement windows. And since our siding needed to be replaced, we added 1” foam panels between the old siding and the new. The foam added R-4 to the walls giving us a total of R-16 which gave us the performance of a 2x6 wall. Let's face it, we were not going to rebuild the house with 2x6s. The foam provides a thermal break in the 2x4 framing eliminating the “cold spots” where the framing comes through the wall. Rather than installing a separate infiltration barrier, we taped the foam panels together and taped the panels to the window frames. This cut air infiltration by 90% and increased comfort levels inside the house. Much to our delight it also cut down on outside noise. Finally, we replced our aging gas forced-air furnace with a 95% efficient model with sealed combustion, variable speed blower, and a programmable thermostat. The net effect of these changes was a tight, comfortable, and efficient home. The home heating index (an efficiency factor) is down to 2.31 which is pretty good for a 1977 home. We have saved a lot of money on energy bills since the 2002 remodel. Plus it made our house much more comfortable in winter and in summer. We thought we were done making changes. In 2006, however, we took another, this time conscious, step toward NZE. I'll cover it in an upcoming post. --JCB

Read about NZE Step 2.

Posted by Carbon-Pros at 02:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)