So, how do you know if your company is already performing up to, or maybe even surpassing, “environmental standard”?  How do you know exactly which areas of your business could use some “greening” and which areas are doing just fine?  Is there a general sense that, as you recycle more and improve lighting and insulation you and your employers start to feel closer to nature?

Well, these days, it is much more precise than that.  As environmental managers Timothy Larson and Howard Brown wrote in the journal Environmental Quality Management, “If you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it” (August 2006).  Yes, there are numerous ways you can measure and quantify the environmental impacts you need to manage.

Whether you run a bakery or a pharmacy, whether your company manufactures windshields or door frames; or, distributes beverages or toy parts, there are numerous methods for tracking your product’s environmental impacts, for capturing data, and for setting up complete environmental management systems.  Leading Green Business experts Daniel Esty and Andrew Winston, both of Yale University, call this area Eco-Tracking.  For me, such “Eco-Tracking” can even include such metrics as keeping tabs on your local pizzeria’s lighting bills and delivery miles driven and, then, examining ways to increase efficiency and reduce costs in those areas.

Other, more extensive Eco-Tracking endeavors require dedication, time, and far-reaching research from a small team of managers and employees.  Developing complete “Life-Cycle Assessments” (LCA) for your company’s products and services is an Eco-Tracking measure that is rebounding greatly in popularity. This is particularly true with the U.S. EPA’s new mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from diverse industries, the recently released Wal-Mart Sustainability Index we have been discussing, and other reporting initiatives.  We touched on the LCA concept with the ‘Cradle to Cradle’ entry on this blog.  In their highly respected text, Green to Gold, Esty and Winston explain that the “Life Cycle Assessment tracks the environmental impacts of a product from its raw materials through disposal at the end of its useful life.”

Conducting an LCA is not easy.  It may require the assistance of an external environmental and LCA consultant. However, if your company decides to perform most of the work on its own, have no fear, there are many benefits.  Working on such a cooperative “green” project has proven to bring employees together, inspiring them to work hard for a positive, innovative undertaking.  Also, companies that develop Green initiatives like an LCA prove to attract and retain a more talented workforce.

Besides the LCAs, businesses, in recent years, have begun quantifying their greenhouse gas emissions across the board of their operations.  This is no simple task either, but, with a new proposed EPA regulation in March 2009, the reporting of GHG emissions may very soon become mandatory for all “large sources (of such emissions) in the United States.”  In fact, the EPA currently provides direct assistance for small business/low emitters with their “Climate Change Management Tools for Low Emitters” website.  Don’t worry.  You do not have to figure out all the algorithms and chemical testing of what materials or combustion sources emit more CO2 or methane or nitrous oxide than others.  Actually, no one has to anymore.  The EPA site includes a “Climate Leaders Inventory Calculator” and you just have to figure out what to put into the calculators.  The same could be said for the widely, globally used GHG Protocol developed by the World Resources Institute and WBCSD, or the California Climate Action Registry’s General Reporting Protocol, or the ISO’s new 14064 reporting protocols for sector-specific GHG emissions reporting.

The websites of the protocols from these organizations provide some guidance, as well as their numerous Excel charts, descriptions, etc. that are available free for download.  (The only exception is with the ISO 14064 GHG Standard of which you have to pay a fee for access.)  Again, for most small businesses, as of now, reporting greenhouse gas emissions in the various processes of your company’s operations – including heating and cooling of buildings, fleet of vehicles, industrial processes, and even employee travel – is still voluntary.  However, it is strongly recommended to get started on GHG quantification as soon as possible – for your own overall risk management, for achieving competitive advantage with insights into improving one’s own efficiency, and for greatly improving your company’s readiness for a “carbon constrained future,” as they say.

We will get into further detail of GHG reporting issues and methods soon in this blog.  In the coming entries, I would also like to discuss other environmental metrics that are out there for small businesses to take advantage of, including the reporting of released toxins or total water use.  Some of these are mandatory; some are optional, where you could position yourself as an “environmental leader.”  We will also cover the software available out there, which greatly facilitate a small business’ measurements of emissions and other environmental issues.

This post was initially published on Source and Resource. To read more, please visit the original post at Putting Numbers to your Company’s Environmental Footprint.

It wasn’t too long ago when CFL bulbs were all the rage. Even though they contain small amounts of mercury, they were and are still one of the easiest ways to reduce energy consumption. According to the EPA, if every American home replaced just one incandescent bulb with a CFL, Americans would save enough energy to light 3 million homes, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars. Federal legislation passed in 2007 effectively banned incandescent bulbs after 2014. It seems that the CFL bulb has won the battle against the mighty, yet now antique incandescent bulb, but is there another battle looming on the horizon? CFL bulbs are still the darling of many in the environmental movement, but is there honeymoon nearing an end?

The competitor is the LED, or light-emitting diode, which was first conceived in Russia in the 1920’s, but are only now beginning to be available for a variety of business and residential applications. Although LEDs have their own problems that need to be worked out, they have some clear advantages over CFLs. First, they don’t contain any mercury. Second, the light they emit is more similar to incandescent bulbs than CFLs, which is usually a plus to most consumers. Third, on average, they use less energy than a CFL and can last up to twenty years. And fourth, they can be used in large scale applications where CFL installation is difficult. Simply put, as Energy Star states, “LED lighting is more efficient, durable, versatile and longer lasting than incandescent and fluorescents lighting.”

On top of all that, recent studies have confirmed that the production process for LEDs uses less energy than production of CFLs, which seems to tip the argument undeniably in favor of LEDS… except for the fact that they can cost anywhere from $5-50.  LEDs seem to be in the same debacle that CFLs were a decade ago. They are incredibly expensive, but the amount of energy they save is enormous, even compared to CFL’s advantage over incandescent bulbs.

A recent New York Times article highlights the advantages of LEDs for large-scale business applications. Sentry Equipment Corporation in Oconomowoc, Wis., was in the process of lighting one of their new factories last year and eventually chose LEDs for the majority of their outside and inside lighting. Although Sentry spent $18,000 total, $12,000 more than they would have with traditional lighting, they save $7,000 a year in lighting costs, which will have a return of investment in just two years.

Not everyone is convinced that LEDs will dominate the lighting market in the future. In the same New York Times article, Mark Rea, director of the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, said, “L.E.D.’s will gain dominance in downlighting, outdoor and track lighting… I do not see a major step toward change in general illumination without transforming the infrastructure. To say L.E.D.’s will change everything, I don’t buy it. I think a lot of it is hype.”

Regardless of whether LEDs will dominate the market, it is clear that businesses and municipalities interested in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and cutting costs at the same time will be on the lookout for LED technology. It seems unlikely that LEDs will be a huge presence in the residential lighting market, but who knows what future technological advances will bring.

For more information on how you and/or your business can benefit from LED lighting, check out Energy Star’s guide to the LED.

This post was initially published on Source and Resource. To read more, please visit the original post at Are LED Lights the Future?.

According to the report, a “holistic approach executed at scale” would yield gross energy savings worth more than $1.2 trillion, more than double the amount needed upfront for investment in these energy efficiency measures. This program is estimated to “reduce energy consumption by 2020 by 9.1 quadrillion BTUs, roughly 23 percent of projected demand, potentially abating up to 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gases annually.”

The report seeks to simultaneously pinpoint the barriers of unlocking the potential for energy efficiency while also reviewing solution strategies. If a directed and comprehensive strategy in the United States was implemented, companies involved in all areas of energy efficiency could reap huge benefits. Manufacturers of energy-efficiency related products, energy auditors, builders, and contractors, among others, could see business skyrocket. But even if a comprehensive plan is not initiated, the report can be used by companies heavily invested in the energy efficiency field to focus their efforts towards areas with the most potential.

According to the report, a comprehensive strategy addressing energy efficiency opportunities would need to:

1.    Recognize energy efficiency as an important energy resource that can help meet future energy needs while the nation concurrently develops new no- and low- carbon energy sources.
2.    Formulate and launch at both national and regional levels an integrated portfolio of prove, piloted, and emerging approaches to unlock the full potential of energy effiency.
3.    Identify methods to provide the significant upfront funding required by any plan to capture energy efficiency.
4.    Forge greater alignment between utilities, regulators, government agencies, manufacturers, and energy consumers.
5.    Foster innovation in the development and deployment of next-generation energy efficiency technologies to ensure ongoing productivity gains.

The report identifies and maps “in detail the complex and persistent set of barriers that have impeded capture of energy efficiency at the level of individual opportunities.” As noted earlier, significant gains have been made in energy efficiency in the United States, but decisive barriers still exist. For instance, most energy efficiency measures require significant upfront investment, which deters many. “Efficiency potential,” the report says, is highly fragmented as a result of more than 100 million locations and billions of devices used in residential, commercial, and industrial settings. “This dispersion,” the report says, “ensures that efficiency is the highest priority for virtually no one.” And lastly, quantifying amounts of energy not consumed (potential savings) can be extremely difficult.

These hurdles can be overcome, but the solutions must be implemented in a holistic, rather than piecemeal fashion. Most simply, the report lists four categories of “proven, piloted, and emerging” solutions: (following is quote)

1.    Information and education. Increasing awareness of energy use and knowledge about specific energy-saving opportunities would enable end-users to act more swiftly in their own financial investment. Options include providing more information on utility bills or use of –in-building displays, voluntary standards, additional device- and building-labeling schemes, audits and assessments, and awareness campaigns.

2.    Incentives and financing. Given the large upfront investments needed to capture efficiency potential, various approaches could reduce financial hurdles that end-users face. Options include traditional and creative financing vehicles (such as on-bill financing), monetary incentives and/or grants, including tax and cash incentives, and price signals, including tiered pricing and externality pricing.

3.    Codes and Standards. In some clusters of efficiency potential, some form of mandate may be warranted to expedite the process of capturing the potential, particularly where end-user or manufacturer awareness and attention are low. Options include mandatory audits and/or assessments, equipment standards, and building codes, including improving code enforcement.

4.    Third-party involvement. A private company, utility, government agency, or non-governmental organization could support a “do-it-for-me” approach by purchasing and installing energy efficiency improvements directly for the end-user, thereby essentially addressing most non-capital barriers. When coupled with monetary incentives, this solutions strategy could address the majority of barriers, though some number of end-users might decline the opportunity to receive the efficiency upgrade, preventing capture of the full potential.

For these initiatives to be completely successful, close collaboration needs to occur between governments, businesses, and non-profits. But regardless of whether a comprehensive nationwide approach is implemented, businesses of all sizes in the energy-efficiency field can pinpoint solutions outlined in the study and work on those in their local communities. They should work with their local utility companies and governments to start awareness campaigns that provide simple and user-friendly information for the public and business, while at the same time working with those same utility companies to provide tax credits or grants. Businesses should also work with local municipal governments and state governments to instate mandatory energy efficiency requirements such as audits and building codes. California has the highest standards for energy efficiency in the country and energy-efficiency related businesses prospered as a result.

These are just a few of the opportunities for energy-efficiency related businesses, but as you can see, the possibilities seem endless.

This post was initially published on Source and Resource. To read more, please visit the original post at Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy.