Clear The Air Energy Blog Rotating Header Image

Clear The Air

Green Groups Push For CO2 Caps in Scheme of Control

Nishika Patel

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Six green groups have accused the government of not doing enough to curb greenhouse gas emissions, saying the new scheme of control will not force power companies into line.

Staging a protest at the Environment Bureau yesterday, members of the alliance urged authorities to cap carbon dioxide emissions for power plants and deduct their profits if the targets are not met.

Greenpeace said CLP Power and Hong Kong Electric are responsible for emitting 70 percent of carbon dioxide in the SAR and are the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions

The groups are angry that the government only regulates emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and respirable suspended particulates, but not the chief greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide .

“While countries around the world are actively fighting global warming, the SAR government simply allows carbon dioxide emissions to damage the climate without regulation. The government should not shirk its responsibility,” Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Frances Yeung Hoi-shan said.

The alliance also wants a new scheme of control to set targets to reduce energy consumption and sanctions imposed if the power firms fail to meet the targets.

“Energy saving is the most cost- effective means to control greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. However, the government has suggested offering incentives to power plants to improve energy saving and demand-side management which, however, are not compulsory and only serve as foil,” Yeung said.

The groups included Friends of the Earth, Greeners Action, Green Sense, WWF Hong Kong and Clear the Air, along with Carbon Dioxide Foundlings.

Power Plant Emission Figures

The following statistics were gatherered from both China Light and Power and HK Electric Holdings in reference to the total electricity sent out and the resulting emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrous Oxides (NOx) and Particulates emitted.

Year 2006

CLP

HK Electric Holdings

Total/Year

Daily Amount

Total Electricity Sent Out 2006 (Gwh)

25,024

12,199

37,223,000 Mwh

101,980.82 MwH

C02 emitted – Kilo Tonnes (Kt)

17,990

9,850

27,840,000 tonnes

76,273.97 tonnes

S02 emitted (Sulphur Dioxide) Kt

36

30

66,000 tonnes

180.82 tonnes

N0x emitted (Nitrous Oxides) Kt

24.5

17.3

41,800 tonnes

114.52 tonnes

Particulates emitted Kt

1.5

1.3

2,800 tonnes

7.67 tonnes

2006 emissions by HK Power plants Source:

https://www.clpgroup.com/SocNEnv/SER/Performance/KeyPerofrmance/Pages/default.aspx
https://www.clpgroup.com/Abt/Res/Pub/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.heh.com/NR/rdonlyres/031CA156-3A44-447D-B598-7866268825F7/0/13InPursuitofExcellence.pdf

The following letter was sent by James Middleton on behalf of Clear The Air Hong Kong, to the Director for Environmental Protection:

Dear Sir,

I refer to a letter in another local English language daily last week ‘Naive view of HK pollution’ by Angela Jackson which refers to the administration chief’s intention to match Hong Kong with London’s and New York’s pollution levels by 2005. For this we must now read ‘2010’.

The Hong Kong Government has frequently stated that most of Hong Kong’s pollution emanates from the Pearl River Delta. I think they have been watching too many ‘Yes Prime Minister’ shows and tried to copy the antics. Strange then that on major chinese public holidays when the factories over the border were shut that Hong Kong was still in pea soup air.

If one follows the weblinks on the two local power company websites to audited emission figures provided by the coal burning local polluters it shows that the two between them emitted 76,576 tonnes of pollutants and greenhouse C02 gas into Hong Kong’s air on average every day of the year in 2006 (yes that is three thousand one hundred and ninety tonnes per hour) – then we have the old diesel buses, trucks and PLB roadside pollution and ship emissions in the harbour on top of this number and that’s before anyone smokes tobacco.

Having raised this with the EPD we received the following reply:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your messages addressed to this department on 15 and 16 November 2007.

Curbing emissions from power plants is one of the top environmental agenda of the HKSAR Government. Under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance, power plants are classified as specified processes requiring licensing control and the use of the most advanced control technology to prevent the emissions and ensure the meeting of the relevant air quality objectives.

Also, from 1997, we have established the policy that all new generating units have to be natural gas-fired plants which emit virtually no sulphur dioxide and particulates, 80% less of nitrogen oxides and about half of the carbon dioxide emissions.

To improve air quality, the Hong Kong SAR Government reached a consensus with the Guangdong Provincial Government in April 2002 to reduce the emission of SO2, NOx, RSP and volatile organic compounds by 40%, 20%, 55% and 55%, respectively by 2010 compared to 1997 levels. Both power companies are required to cap their emissions progressively during their licence renewals to achieve the 2010 emission reduction targets.

Please be assured that the HKSAR will continue its best efforts to ensure the maximum reduction of power companies’ emission for protecting the public from any adverse health effects. On carbon emissions disclosure, you may have noted that the two power companies have provided CO2 emissions data of their power plants in Hong Kong at their corporate websites.

Yours faithfully,

Louis Chan for Director of Environmental Protection

Reduce Pollution by Using Ceiling Fans

The 500lb Gorilla in the room

Are you totally frustrated with the Hong Kong Government’s lack of action on air pollution? Do you think they should be moving faster and taking action now? Do you think they and big business are really doing all they can to reduce energy consumption to reduce the major cause of air pollution in Hong Kong, namely, local power companies burning coal. Do you attribute and put all the blame for pollution on the Hong Kong Government and big business?

Now ask your self this: Have you done all you can to reduce your own electricity consumption (see following
questions)? If the answer is no, then you are part of the pollution problem in Hong Kong.

  1. What percentage of lamps in your home are energy saving Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL)? (100/75/50/25/0 %)
  2. How much energy (watts) does a typical CFL consume? (200/100/50/20/10 watts)
  3. How many of your rooms have aircon units (split, wall etc)? (All/most/some/none)
  4. How much energy does a typical aircon unit consume? (50/100/300/2000 watts)
  5. At what room temperature do you normally set your aircon to? (20/22/25.5/27/30 DegC)
  6. Do you switch the aircon off every time you leave a room? (Always/most/some/never)
  7. What amount of time is your aircon on but no one is in the room? (100/75/50/25/0 %)
  8. How many of your rooms have you fitted ceiling fans? (All/most/some/none)

Some replies

A typical CFL in a room will rated at about 15 watts and this is equivalent to 80 watts for an inefficient incandescent lamp – therefore an excellent incentive to replace incandescents and save energy.

However, a typical aircon unit in a room when running can consume over 1500 watts – 100 times more energy than the Compact Fluorescent Lamp. Hence the aircon unit is the 500lb gorilla in the room that nobody is talking about.

Hint: Leaving an aircon running for 1 hour with no one in the room is equivalent to leaving the light on continuously for 4 days.

It puts things slightly in perspective doesn’t it!

The Problem

In the heat of summer we all need the aircon on – it is almost impossible to live comfortably without it. The question therefore is: how can we avoid or reduce this huge source of energy consumption?

The Potential Answer?

Studies (Florida)* have shown that using ceiling fans can potentially result in electricity savings of 14% per annum
for 1 DegC (approx) increase in the aircon thermostat setting and still provide good comfort levels.

* http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/html/FSEC-PF-306-96/index.htm

Ceiling Fan Energy Savings

However, there is a catch (isn’t there always). The studys’ conclusion finds that the overall results, as far as energy
savings are concerned, are mixed. This was due to 2 main factors;

a. ceiling fans and aircon left running in unoccupied rooms
b. aircon setpoint not adjusted upwards.

The Possible Solution?

The Florida study also concludes that future work was required and hence the, ‘Spanking the 500lb Gorilla’ Project was
born. The objective of this project is to prove the hypothesis that a typical Hong Kong home’s electricity bill could be reduced by up to 30% with a payback target of approximately two years by using ceiling fans and a Smart Thermostat Controller system.

The Project in Action

Until recently, trying to do this has been expensive and complicated. The following shows the present setup and how
this can be achieved with minimum expense and simplicity using a presence detecting temperature control system.

Smart Thermostat Controller

  • room presence detection – PIR*
  • on/off and 3 speed control for wall panel type ceiling fans
  • on/off aircon control
  • tamper proof set points
  • auto or manual control and or timer controllable
  • standalone +/or network to Smart Metering

*PIR = Passive Infra Red Presence Detector Smart Thermostat system courtesy
of www.ioncontrols.com

Smart Thermostat Controller

The first system was installed mid April07 and to date (01Jul07) three rooms have now been completed. And so it was
with bated breath that the arrival of the power utilities bimonthly bill for May and June07 was anticipated (go figure).
The following shows the results so far ..

Power Utilities Bimonthly Bill

We can see that even with an uncompleted system, the energy savings are quite remarkable and on track for the
target of 30% reduction in overall electrical consumption.

And this has been achieved with no loss of comfort. In fact, the impression and feedback from family members has
been that the reduction in the use of aircon has made for a fresher, more healthy living environment.

The implications of this on Hong Kong’s present pollution (and energy policy) will be profound if many more people
install these systems.

It is beholden of each of us at Clear The Air and other activists to lead the way and to show that the power of change does not lie with government but with the people and that by maximizing our potential to save energy we can all have a direct
effect on the environment.

Mark Hunter MSc

Chair – Energy Committee, Clear The Air.

CLP Exxon Mobil Emission Stats

Posted by David Wheeler & Kevin Ummel on the CARMA (Carbon Monitoring For Action) Blog on the 16th of November 2007:

Transparency is central to CARMA’s objective of reducing carbon emissions through public disclosure. So when the CLP Group in China approached us about our figures for their Castle Peak power plant in Hong Kong, we took notice and responded promptly. Indeed, it is CARMA’s policy to replace our data if high-quality, plant-specific, independently verified emission reports are available.

Although not all of CLP’s verified emission reports were plant specific, the company came forward with some previously unavailable data that allowed us to revise our original information for a handful of the company’s plants. In the case of Castle Peak, our original figure was revised downward. In the case of the Yallourn plant, our original estimate was revised upward. The net effect of these changes and others was to adjust CLP Group’s total present emissions from 75.3 million to 67 58.9 million tons. They also pointed out that we had incorrectly included a very small plant in the database that was no longer operational — we have removed it.

We also made adjustments after receiving verified emissions data from two small, related Polish companies (Dalkia Lodz and Dalkia Poznan). The net effect of those changes was to revise their aggregate CO2 emissions from 6 million to 4.5 million tons. We applaud both companies for bringing their independently verified emission reports to our attention, and, in the case of CLP Group, making available information that had not previously been public. We believe they set an excellent example for the rest of the power sector, and we hope more companies open up their plants to independent audits and subsequent posting on CARMA.

Clear The Air also have the figures from CLP Exxon Mobil – 13.3 million tonnes of CO2 are pumped into the air per year in Hong Kong. This is 36,438.36 tonnes of C02 per day / 1,518.26 tonnes per hour / 25.3 tonnes per minute/ or 422 kgs of C02 per second into the HK and adjoining atmosphere.

That’s only tossing 1,401 loaded 40′ x 26 tonne containers of carbon into the air per day or 58.3 per hour, far faster than they can manage in the biggest port in the world.

From their website they also managed in 2006 from Castle Peak alone :

  • 98.63 tonnes of Sulphur Dioxide a day
  • 61.64 tonnes of Nitrous Oxides a day
  • 3.83 tonnes of particulate soot a a day (they do not specify the extremely harmful PM2.5 that our noses cannot filter)

Folly of the Soko gas plant

Published in the SCMP on the 24th of February 2007:

AIR QUALITY Christian Masset

Folly of the Soko gas plant

Much has been said about the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal proposed for South Soko Island by ExxonMobil and CLP Power. So it is necessary to clarify whether the options being considered will achieve the original purpose – namely, improving our air quality.

CLP Power has said that it was not possible to commit to a clear objective in reducing the burning of coal at the CLP Castle Peak station, even assuming the LNG terminal was in operation. In plain English, this means that ExxonMobil- CLP will offer no guarantee that it will pollute less if the terminal is built.

To reduce coal pollution in our air significantly, we have three options: a very cost-effective one; a bold and highly effective option; and one filled with high risks and uncertainties.

The first involves no additional costs for the Hong Kong electricity user. It has three steps: first, complete as soon as possible the installation of flue gas desulfurisation systems on all coal-fired turbines in Hong Kong operated by our electricity suppliers. This will reduce sulfur dioxide pollution, a major cause of poor visibility, by over 95 per cent.

Both CLP Power and Hongkong Electric say these are highly expensive investments, but they can afford them thanks to their massive earnings under the scheme of control.

The second step is to limit CLP Power’s electricity sales to Guangdong. They have increased from 600 units in 1997 to 4,500 units in 2005. Those exports account for about 18 per cent of total sales yet produce over 40 per cent of coal related pollution from power generation, since that electricity is produced in the highly coal-reliant Castle Peak plant.

The third step is to finalise and implement as soon as possible the emissions tabletrading framework on thermal plants reached last month by the Hong Kong government and authorities from the Pearl River Delta.

The second option – the bold and highly effective one – would be to accompany the above measures with a comprehensive energy-saving policy. Then, to have energy savings translate into less air pollution and stable prices, we need to revise or adapt radically the scheme of control. Bear in mind that, in its present form, the scheme defeats all effective and standard demand-side energy saving policies.

Prolonging the scheme of control in its present form encourages two major flaws. One, individual users who reduce their power consumption are likely to be charged at a higher rate, since utilities are unlikely to seek more revenue from corporate clients. Two, it leads to everhigher and unnecessary investments paid for by Hong Kong citizens, the overconsumption of electricity and projects that are impossible to justify – such as the Soko LNG terminal.

The third option is the proposed LNG terminal. We won’t even consider, here, the environmental degradation that the plant would cause, on land and in the sea. But the project offers no guarantee of better air quality, or stability in electricity costs to the users, corporate or individuals.

LNG shipments in Asia are currently about 50 per cent more expensive than the gas piped into Hong Kong from the Yacheng field on Hainan Island. And surging global demand for LNG will inevitably cause a price increase on the world market. So, we can expect the cost of electricity to go up.

For these reasons, the Soko LNG project doesn’t meet any of the promises offered: it doesn’t guarantee clean air or stable energy costs, and it encourages an unhealthy dependence on a single, vertically integrated foreign corporation able to influence the supply of raw material, and the production, transmission and distribution of electricity.

A sustainable energy policy for Hong Kong has to break the duopoly of Exxon-Mobil-CLP and Hongkong Electric. Deregulation in energy, similar to that in the telecommunications sector, has to happen as soon as possible. That would encourage the offering of cleaner energy, cost-effective energy distribution and price competition – from a range of reliable and innovative sources.

In this way, Hong Kong can achieve the goal of a return to the blue skies that all its residents yearn for – and which the administration has repeatedly promised.

Christian Masset is the immediate past chairman of Clear The Air

Castle Peak Power Objection

PRESS RELEASE – January 25, 2007

Clear The Air objects to Exxon/Mobil attempt to take over Soko Island

Yesterday, Clear The Air submitted its objection to the Castle Peak Power Environmental Impact Assessment for the building of a facility to store methane gas.

Methane is a major greenhouse gas. It is called liquefied natural gas or LNG when chilled.

Exxon/Mobil is the majority shareholder of Castle Peak Power.

Our submission shows that we can meet our energy needs and reduce pollution significantly without this facility. (graph shown on our submission). Exxon/Mobil has the following options:

a. Stop burning coal to create electricity to sell to China
b. Eliminate the 50% discount for large users to encourage energy savings
c. Start practicing proper demand management to reduce energy use by 30% using techniques that have been successful in Thailand, South Korea and the US.

The following options are also available for LNG supply

1. Extend the existing contract with the Chinese company CNOOC so they can drill new gas wells to provide methane beyond the current contract period. CNOOC has indicated in the press that they are willing to do so.
2. Use ships that warm up the methane on-board instead of on land.
3. Invest in proven “clean coal” technology
4. Use the Chinese company SINOPEC as a methane supplier as they have shown interest in supplying Hong Kong from an LNG facility they are planning to build on Huangmao Island. (map included in submission).

LNG Receiving Terminal by Castle Peak Power Company

Date: 22 January 2007

To : Environmental Protection Department

Re: Environmental Impact Assessment under Study Brief No. ESB-126/2005 for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Receiving Terminal by Castle Peak Power Company

Clear The Air Response to EIA based on objectives of the study brief

1. Proposed capacity

“The objectives of the EIA study are as follows:

(ii) to provide information on the intended uses of the LNG and justify the proposed capacity of the facilities;”

Clear The Air

Clear The Air submit that there is no justification for the proposed capacity. Below is a graph of the “fuel mix” as used by CLP in 2004 and a proposed “fuel mix” by Clear The Air for 2013. The need for proposed LNG capacity can be eliminated because the existing gas supply can be extended by the fuel mix below which will also significantly reduce air pollution.

CLP Power can:

a. Eliminate electricity sales to China
b. Eliminate the 50% discount for large users to encourage less energy use
c. Start practicing proper demand management to reduce energy use by 30% using techniques that have been successful in Thailand, South Korea and the US.
c. Invest in renewable energy through
– large scale renewable energy projects
– small scale electricity generation reducing the total annual need for natural gas

Fuel Mix Used by CLP in 2004 and proposed fuel mix by Clear The Air for 2013

2. LNG carrier route

(iv) “to identify and describe the elements of the community and environment to be affected by the Project, including any loss of natural coastline, rocky or sandy shore, the population close to the LNG carrier route, and/or to cause adverse impacts to the Project, including both the natural and man-made environment and the associated environmental constraints;”

Clear The Air:

CLP Power provided an incorrect carrier route. LNG ships going to and from the Black Point site can use existing shipping lanes and the Tong Gu Channel (under construction) If this Channel is extended into Hong Kong waters, as was originally proposed, the route would not be close to any population centres.

3. Alternatives

(v) “to consider alternatives including, but not limited to, location, size of reclamation, scale of development, design layout, with a view to avoiding and minimizing the potential environmental impacts on marine waters and the ecological sensitivity areas and other sensitive uses; to compare the environmental benefits and dis-benefits of each of the different options; to provide reasons for selecting the preferred option(s) and to describe the part of environmental factors played in the selection;

Clear The Air

Clear The Air submit the following alternatives that are not included in the EIA:

  • Extend the existing contract with the Chinese company CNOOC so they can drill new gas wells to provide methane beyond the current contract period. CNOOC has indicated in the press that they are willing to do so.
  • Pursue the energy demand reduction plan shown above.
  • On-board Re-Gasification of LNG instead of terminals – a more flexible and significantly less destructive technology than building terminals.
  • Invest in proven “clean coal” technology
  • Use the Chinese company SINOPEC as a methane supplier as they have shown interest in supplying Hong Kong from an LNG facility they are planning to build on Huangmao Island.

4. Options
(xiv) to compare the environmental merits and demerits of the Soko and/or Black Point Option with other options;

Clear The Air

The merits and demerits of the Black Point Option should have included extending the dredging of the Tong Gu channel in Hong Kong waters so that LNG ships can get to and from Black Point

Clear The Air note that In May 2003, the EPD issued a study brief for the Shenzhen Port Tonggu Channel Developing Office so that they could write an EIA. In March 2005, The Director of the EPD ruled that the EIA submitted for the Tong Gu Channel section in Hong Kong waters did not meet the study brief requirements. In June 2005, just three months later, the study brief for the LNG terminal was released.

With the full knowledge, therefore, of the issues regarding dredging near Black Point, we believe that the EPD is aware that extending the dredging of the Tong Gu channel is an alternative and therefore, we are surprised that this EIA has not been rejected by the EPD as also not meeting its study brief requirements.

5. Methane (LNG) global environmental damage

(vi) to identify and quantify emission sources and determine the significance of impacts on sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;
(xi) to identify the risk due to the transportation and storage of LNG and to propose measures to mitigate the impact;
(xii) to identify the risk to environmental sensitive receivers, including the marine and terrestrial habitats, due to LNG leakage and the consequential fire hazard and to propose measures to minimize the potential risk;

Clear The Air

As a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, China (and therefore Hong Kong) is responsible for measuring the entire global impact of shipping and using methane (LNG) one of the six greenhouse gases addressed by the treaty. Methane that is lost through the original liquefaction process, evaporation during transhipment from the host country and transfer to the LNG facility, and loss during re-gasification should be included in the EIA. Since the origin of the LNG is unknown, a range of figures need to be supplied given the best and worst scenarios available today.

Furthermore, since many countries shipping methane are in or near areas of civil unrest, the impact to the environment if the LNG supplies should not arrive because of political reasons – compared to sourcing methane from China, should be included.

End of submission

Gradual Reduction Approach For Emission Caps

Good caps & a good penalty to get the blue sky back

The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) is going to renew the process license for the Lamma Island power plants of Hongkong Electric Company (HEC) very soon. It will also be the first time for the EPD to include emissions caps for the 3 air pollutants in the license. Greenpeace and Clear The Air urge the EPD to make good use of this renewal process to hold HEC accountable for their major role in Hong Kong’s air pollution, by setting yearly emission caps from now till 2010, and raise the penalty of excess emissions to a level that can deter non-compliance.

HEC is the second largest air polluter in Hong Kong. HEC supplies electricity to only 20% of Hong Kong’s population, but it emits 40% of SO2 in the power sector. (Note: appendix 1) Gloria Chang, Greenpeace campaigner, emphasized that, “It is high time for our government to set more stringent emission caps and raise penalty so as to push HEC to clean up our sky.”

Greenpeace and Clear The Air propose a gradual reduction approach for emission caps. The license for power companies should include a set of yearly emission caps that can ensure a decrease in emissions from now up to 2010. This approach can enable Hong Kong people’s ‘right to know’ the progress of planned reductions, whether the power companies are successfully approaching the overall 2010 reduction target and make sure that power companies cannot delay their actions to reduce emissions at the expense of society.

Furthermore, Greenpeace and Clear The Air demand that the EPD raise the penalty of excessive emissions to a level that is high enough to impact shareholder profits, not only to pressure the power companies to reduce air pollutants at a faster pace, but also to cover the social and health costs brought by air pollution.

Greenpeace and Clear The Air support the financial penalty as proposed in the “Future Development of the Electricity Market in Hong Kong: Stage II Consultation”, in which the permitted rate of return of power companies would be reduced if they fail to meet the statutory emission caps. This measure will be much more effective than the existing penalty as stated in “Air Pollution Control Ordinance” which is [a fixed fine of] HKD 100,000. (Chapter 311, Section 10, Claust 7b)

Also, Greenpeace and Clear The Air suggest that the EPD consider the penalty imposed on power companies under the US government’s “Clean Air Act”, where HEC would be fined US $2,000 per tonne of SO2 emission that exceeds the cap. If we use this level of penalty together with our gradual reduction approach, the penalty of HEC last year is estimated to be HKD 70 million. (Note: Appendix 2). Even this penalty would only amount to less than 2% of the total profit of HEC last year.

From 1997 to 2004, SO2 emissions in Hong Kong did not show the slightest decrease, but actually increased hugely – by 50%. (Note: Appendix 3) Only if the government is taking real action to tighten up the emission caps and penalty of power companies, can we have a chance to get the blue sky back.

Appendix 1: HK air pollutants emissions (1997- 2005) – HEC and CLP
Appendix 2: Gradual reduction approach and penalty
Appendix 3: HK air pollutants reduction progress, impacts of air pollution to health

AmCham Energy Audit program

Doing our part to reduce pollution – Clear The Air project plan for

The American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong

AmCham Energy Audit program

Do you want results – now?

Turning the thermostat up one degree will save 3% on your energy bill and reduce the need to generate power from burning coal. Three more simple solutions are 1. Caulk, 2. Weatherstripping and 3. Demand Management.

Let’s start by doing our part to reduce pollution from electricity. Then take our experience and our new found education to our subsidiaries and suppliers in China.

Below are the steps following the best US management techniques to make sure the program is a success in both the short and long term – and is self sustaining.

Define the problem:

Do an energy audit with an internationally approved system like LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (appendix A)

Educate:

Make sure everyone involved is educated, from top management and the building facilities manager down to and including your subcontracted cleaning service.

Address staff psychological needs e.g. “cooler is healthier” – “wearing short sleeved shirts is immodest”.

Implement

Have the project team install the hardware, or just turn on the control systems that already exist. Show how the control systems work, move the office furniture for optimum air flow and work flow.

Measure

Show how the energy bill has changed. Show the changes in indoor air quality. Solicit feedback from the staff.

Report

Display the savings real time in the office if possible. Report the results to top management, put it in the annual report, and send out a press release.

Review

Did you get the result you expected? Start again at Define the Problem

Have a party – this is supposed to be fun !

Where to start:

1. The AmCham offices – an example of a – typical Grade A office space
2. The American Club – where so many AmCham members hold debentures and it is currently planning unaudited renovations – typical leisure facility with multiple retail functions like Food and Beverage.

Don’t overlook the psychological barriers to change

Getting staff buy-in is a fundamental US management principle. They can be your greatest ally or your biggest obstacle. Find out what worries them, solve their problem, address their concerns and you have a better chance at success.

Some common psychological barriers in Hong Kong

• Colder is healthier.
• I want to wear my nice winter clothes.
• I don’t like short sleeved shirts, they make me look skinny.
• I don’t like looking at men’s hairy arms in short sleeved shirts.
• I refuse to sweat.
• I need to set the thermostat to low so it will cool down faster.
• I need to cool off fast when I come indoors.
• I’ll get into trouble if I don’t leave the machine on.
• I don’t want to wait for the computer to boot up.
• Leaving just one machine on does not use that much energy

Ideally, setting your control systems correctly will actually improve the indoor climate and work environment for your employees so they will not notice any change. Instead they will feel better and breathe more easily at work.

All of these are real obstacles that need to be addressed to succeed. The way you do it can make or break your energy saving campaign.

Shave the Peak

At Hongkong Electric as soon as we use over 1,300 megawatts of energy they turn on their oldest, dirtiest coal turbines (see the graph below). The old ones pump out up to ten times the pollution because they have no pollution control equipment at all.

The goal is to “shave the peak” i.e. change habits to use electricity at non peak times – and keep those turbine turned off.

Hong Electric Allowed Pollution by Turbine - 2004

Summary:

Do an Energy Audit to define the problem and find solutions. Use the best practices of a certification system like LEED to direct the project and ensure success. Educate the staff on any operational changes and get their buy-in. Implement the changes, measure the results and report them – to the staff, to top brass here and in the US. Have a beer bust. Give out “green stars”.

Clear The Air will – at no cost – help co-ordinate and advocate the process, and help you keep it on track.

Regards,

Annelise Connell
Charirperson – Clear The Air

Appendix A

Certification schemes

Can we do better, and if so, how?

All certification schemes tell you how well or how badly you are doing against a benchmark that is widely accepted. Some things you may not even know are even possible, let alone crucial. Others you would chalk up to common sense. The certification is to educate you on what is possible, and how well you are achieving it. LEED is the most widely recognized system in the US.

Here is an example of the checklist.

Frequently Asked Questions

LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System® is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings.

What is LEED for Commercial Interiors?

LEED for Commercial Interiors (LEED-CI) addresses tenant improvement of spaces primarily in office, retail and institutional buildings. It is part of a comprehensive suite of LEED assessment tools under development by the USGBC to promote green design, construction, and operations practices in buildings nationwide. A companion rating system for Core & Shell developments (LEED-CS) is currently under development. Together, LEED-CI and LEED-CS will establish green building criteria for commercial office real estate for use by both developers and tenants.

I am trained as an interior designer and don’t have the training to handle the energy- and HVAC-related credits. What do I do?

Successful LEED projects begin with a fully integrated design team in which all the professional disciplines work together toward the project goals. While each needs to be aware of the other’s contributions and participate in the decision making, none can or will have the knowledge and experience to complete a project unassisted.

Can interior designers become LEED Accredited Professionals?

Yes. Anyone wishing to seek accreditation can sit for the exam.

Source: www.usgbc.org

What kind of things are analyzed?

Do you know that carbon monoxide monitoring to see what your air quality is like is important? Does your space, or your building even conform to the minimum energy performance benchmark? Have you ever heard of “thermal comfort”?

Here are two key categories of the LEED checklist