Enviance Blog

Enviance returns to EUEC with (Kindle) Fire!

It’s that time of the year again! Today, we head back to Phoenix, AZ to kick things off at the Energy, Utility & Environment Conference, January 30 through February 1—and we’ve got a ton of exciting things going on!

Super Bowl XLVI is right around the corner! So stop by our booth #616 at the exhibitor’s hall and tell us who you think will take home the Vince Lombardi trophy this year. If you guess correctly, you’ll be entered to win an Amazon Kindle Fire.

Four different Enviance executives will be featured at the conference discussing a variety of critical environmental and sustainability topics. Make sure you don’t miss their presentations:

• Greg Gasperecz, Enviance VP of EH&S, will present “Enduring the Environmental Legislative Roller Coaster,” in the Climate Policy & Energy Sustainability track on Monday, January 30, from 3:30-5:30 p.m. in room #222C.
• Lawrence Goldenhersh, Enviance CEO, will present “The New Era and Impact of Envirofinance,” in the Planning & GHG Reporting track on Monday, January 30, from 3:30-5:30 p.m. in room #225A.
• Graeme Dykes, Enviance Sales Manager, will present “The Changing Paradigm of Sustainable Business,” in the Compliance Technologies & Strategies track on Monday, January 30, from 3:30-5:30 p.m. in room #229A.
• Graeme Dykes will also present “Cloud Based Compliance: The New Age of Business Performance”, in the EHS & Risk Management track on Tuesday, January 31, from 3:30-5:30 p.m. in room #229A.

See you all in Phoenix – and good luck in the contest!

Take a sneak peek at the Enviance 2012 E-Book

Over the last few years, Enviance has helped innovative companies around the world reach their environmental compliance goals while saving them time, money and resources in the process. To capture some of these case studies, and show how these companies were able to achieve success and gain confidence in their compliance reports, we compiled our 2012 E-Book featuring clients such as American Electric Power, Boral, Fujifilm and many more.

Find out how companies like Tucson Electric Power and Valero were able to address their complex environmental regulatory requirements while saving time and money with the Enviance system.

Preview our 2012 E-Book here!

3 Questions with... Jennifer Woofter, Strategic Sustainability Consulting

It’s time for another installation of our 3 Questions series, where we ask industry experts about their organization’s environmental programs, perspectives on environmental policy, and how they reduce their own environmental footprint.

This week we interviewed Jennifer Woofter, founder and president of Strategic Sustainability Consulting (SSC). She’s been doing sustainability strategy consulting for seven years, and before that had a career in socially responsible investing (SRI). Jennifer has a master’s degree in Strategic Leadership Towards Sustainability from the Blekinge Institute of Technology in Karlskrona, Sweden.

Q: Are we doing enough to encourage the use of renewable energy through subsidies and incentives?

A: I would like to see a stronger emphasis on feed-in tariffs, and stronger net metering options for small-scale producers. However, I think one of the most powerful things that we could do is to reduce subsidization of fossil fuels. By artificially suppressing the cost of oil and gas (and all the industries that rely on fossil fuels), we are perpetuating the idea that fuel should be cheap.

Q: In your opinion, which industry sector has the greatest opportunity to impact the future of sustainable business?

A: Currently, I think that retail has the biggest role to play—simply because of their huge supply chain impacts. When a large retailer implements vendor sustainability standards, that action ripples out to impact hundreds, thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of other businesses. It’s an awesome sustainability echo chamber.

I’ve also come to realize that business—not government—is the real change-agent for sustainability. My opinion is that protesting in the streets about government policy is a waste of time. I’d rather work from within the system, where I can accomplish something more than holding a sign and chanting.

Q: What do you think the determining factor is in a consumer’s decision to buy green?

A: I think that it is ridiculous to try and categorize consumers into different levels of “green”. People will prioritize environmental aspects depending on the product category (e.g. food vs. automobiles), their current situation (e.g. financial stability, birth of a new baby, etc.), and their receptiveness to advertising.

The real message that I think green marketers need to understand is that “green” has to be icing on the cake. Their products have to meet the quality, price, service, sexiness and durability of a non-green product. Most people are not (and should not be) making a purchasing decision solely on the “green” factor.

Have a question for Jennifer? Feel free to leave one in the comment section below or on Twitter @jenniferwoofter!

 

EPA’s new site identifies biggest GHG emitters

Have you ever wondered what happens to all of the data collected as a result of the EPA’s Green House Gas (GHG) Mandatory Reporting Rule (MRR)?

It looks the EPA has put it to good use to help us get a better idea of where emissions are coming from—they’ve launched a new website that allows you to enter a location and see the top GHG emitters in your area. For the first time, the EPA is sharing data on the amount of CO2 and other pollutants emitted from over 6,700 utilities, factories and refineries in the U.S.

To find out what’s going on in your city, and see how it compares to others, visit the EPA site to get started. We were surprised by some of our results, will you be too?

 

Will we be breathing easier in 2012? EPA releases new air pollution regulations

As you may have seen, the U.S. EPA signed a rule on December 16, 2011 to reduce air pollution from power plants. Many are against the new directives, while others are applauding the EPA’s initiative to drastically reduce harmful emissions from industrial emitters. Regardless of your position, it is imperative that we all learn more about the new ruling and its effects on many industries.

Here’s a quick breakdown of the new rule:

The U.S. EPA signed a rule to reduce mercury and air toxics emissions from power plants, and also signed revisions to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for fossil-fuel-fired EGUs. This NSPS revises the standards that new coal- and oil-fired power plants must meet for particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule (MATS) applies to Emission Generating Units (EGUs) larger than 25 megawatts (MW) that burn coal or oil for the purpose of generating electricity for sale and distribution through the national electric grid to the public.  These include investor-owned units, as well as units owned by the Federal government, municipalities and cooperatives that provide electricity for commercial, industrial and residential uses.  The EPA estimates that there are approximately 1,400 units affected by this action – approximately 1,100 existing coal-fired units and 300 oil fired units at about 600 power plants.

The final MATS identifies two subcategories of coal-fired EGUs, four subcategories of oil- fired EGUs, and a subcategory for units that combust gasified coal or solid oil (integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) units) based on the design, utilization and/or location of the various types of boilers at different power plants. The rule includes emission standards and/or other requirements for each subcategory.

For all existing and new coal-fired EGUs, the rule establishes numerical emission limits for mercury, PM (a surrogate for toxic non-mercury metals), and HCl (a surrogate for all toxic acid gases).  For existing and new oil-fired EGUs, the standards establish numerical emission limits for PM (a surrogate for all toxic metals), HCl, and HF.  EGUs may also show compliance with the HCl and HF limits by limiting the moisture content of their oil.

The rule establishes alternative numeric emission standards, including SO2 (as an alternate to HCl), individual non-mercury metal air toxics (as an alternate to PM), and total non-mercury metal air toxics (as an alternate to PM) for certain subcategories of power plants.  The standards set work practices, instead of numerical limits, to limit emissions of organic air toxics, including dioxin/furan, from existing and new coal- and oil-fired power plants. Because dioxins and furans form as a result of inefficient combustion, the work practice standards require an annual performance test program for each unit that includes inspection, adjustment, and/or maintenance and repairs to ensure optimal combustion.  The standards also set work practices for limited-use oil-fired EGUs in the continental U.S.

Hopefully this overview clarifies some of the EPA’s new emissions regulations. Have an opinion on the new rule? Feel free to comment below!