How to measure Energy Use for individual users in a shared business

[Randy]

Thanks for putting up a valid remark. I fully agree with your statement. The idea behind saving a kWh is to convey that a kWh saved, indirectly conserves coal and/or water (if it was generated in a coal based Thermal Power Plant) somewhere on the planet.

Best regards,

Then the objective needs to relate to coal or water or GHG or some other valid environmental performance improvement. As a 3rd party auditor I do not blindly accept kWh as a stand-alone. The org had better be able to show me a real environmental perfomance indicator whether diect or indirect kWh or BTU's otr Therm's don't and won't cut it.

 

[BradM]

Then the objective needs to relate to coal or water or GHG or some other valid environmental performance improvement. As a 3rd party auditor I do not blindly accept kWh as a stand-alone. The org had better be able to show me a real environmental performance indicator whether direct or indirect kWh or BTU's otr Therm's don't and won't cut it.

Ok.. now this thread has evolved from something of simply allocating energy.

Thanks for chiming in, Randy. If we are talking about satisfying standards, why is it necessary to continuously show reduction/improvements? I would think after a while you would reach diminishing returns, and it's no longer feasible to reduce energy consumption.

Also, say you graphed the electric bill of this facility. If every year it is increasing (or even steady), you enacted some initiatives, and the bill significantly dropped, that would not be sufficient evidence?

 

[Randy]

Ok.. now this thread has evolved from something of simply allocating energy.

Thanks for chiming in, Randy. If we are talking about satisfying standards, why is it necessary to continuously show reduction/improvements? I would think after a while you would reach diminishing returns, and it's no longer feasible to reduce energy consumption.

Also, say you graphed the electric bill of this facility. If every year it is increasing (or even steady), you enacted some initiatives, and the bill significantly dropped, that would not be sufficient evidence?

Nope, and here's why...straight from ISO 14001:2004

3.9 - environmental objective
overall environmental goal, consistent with the environmental policy (3.11), that an organization (3.16) sets itself to achieve

3.11 - environmental policy
overall intentions and direction of an organization (3.16) related to its environmental performance (3.10) as formally expressed by top management

3.10 - environmental performance
measurable results of an organization's (3.16) management of its environmental aspects (3.6)

NOTE In the context of environmental management systems (3.8), results can be measured against the organization's (3.16) environmental policy (3.11), environmental objectives (3.9), environmental targets (3.12) and other
environmental performance requirements

3.6 - environmental aspect
element of an organization's (3.16) activities or products or services that can interact with the environment (3.5)

NOTE A significant environmental aspect has or can have a significant environmental impact (3.7).

3.7 - environmental impact
any change to the environment (3.5), whether adverse or beneficial, wholly or partially resulting from an organization's (3.16) environmental aspects (3.6)

Now if one can show how a measurement of electrical consumption like a kWh can effect the environment I'll give it to them...It those things related to the generation of electricty, prior to, during and after that have the environmental effect and not the kWh.

 

[BradM]

Thanks, Randy.

So you're saying that the specification is highly related to environment. Thus, there is a weaker relationship between "energy" and "environment".

Correct?

 

[Randy]

Yep, think about it....People are sources of energy, our bodies generate it and the amount that we generate can be broken down in kWh (I'm trying to find the equation).

Dry cell batteries generate energy (electricity) how does that generation effect the environment?

I see the kWh reduction thing used all the time, and when it's presented to me I ask "How does the kWh itself impact the environment?" "Does it pollute the air, or water? Does the kWh deplete a natural resource or create a GHG? Does it kill fish or cause cancer in people downstream or downwind? What does the kWh do?" See what I mean?

This is not intended to be a hardas* approach or my way of interpretation (I don't interpret), I need to know what is being done to improve upon environmental performance and whether or not the plan to do so is effective.

This is actually one of the unique things about the objective and target requirement for an EMS that a QMS doesn't have clearly defined for it, the area of performance improvement. When you look at the ISO definitions of Quality and Environment (the ones we're stuck with and have no choice about) you'll see that Environment is defined more precisely...

Here are the definitions...

3.1.1 - quality
degree to which a set of inherent characteristics (3.5.1) fulfils requirements (3.1.2)

NOTE 1 The term “quality” can be used with adjectives such as poor, good or excellent.

NOTE 2 “Inherent”, as opposed to “assigned”, means existing in something, especially as a permanent characteristic.

3.5 - environment
surroundings in which an organization (3.16) operates, including air, water, land, natural resources, flora, fauna, humans, and their interrelation

NOTE Surroundings in this context extend from within an organization (3.16) to the global system.

See what I mean? While Quality is defined, we still need to figure out what characteristics are and what requirements are, whereas environment leaves little room for misunderstanding. So when we talk about environmental impact we're looking at air, water, land, flora (plants), fauna (vertabrates and invertabrates), natural resources, human beings and how they can all interrelate (positive or negative) Therefore objectives have to be related to improvement of impact (positive or negative) upon these things and the kWh doesn't do that as I stated before, it's the creation or aftermath of kWh creation that has the impact.

Now a big 'gimme' is that organizations can claim either direct or indirect impact related objectives and this flows back to the environmental aspect stuff in 4.3.1... (a) to identify the environmental aspects of its activities, products and services within the defined scope of the environmental management system that it can control and those that it can influence , and of course the definition of aspect provided previously. While an organization may not directly control the generation of energy (electricity) it does have indirect influence by reducing or increasing its use of it.

See the relationship?

I just did an audit last week and the organization using its objective to reduce energy use and its target of X% from a baseline year showed that it had reduced consumption in 2008 (using the environmental program established to do so) was able to make this claim...."reduced electrical consumption by 1,477,678 kWh (reducing the consumption of approximately 739 tons of coal and the emissions of approx 2113 tons of CO2)"

So we had a reduction of kWh (cost) and a claim of indirect reduction of natural resource use (less coal burned) and an indiect redution of the emission of a GHG....Environmental performance improvement!

 

[BradM]

Thanks, Randy.

 

[samsung]

Then the objective needs to relate to coal or water or GHG or some other valid environmental performance improvement. As a 3rd party auditor I do not blindly accept kWh as a stand-alone. The org had better be able to show me a real environmental perfomance indicator whether diect or indirect kWh or BTU's otr Therm's don't and won't cut it.

Absolutely correct. kWh reduction is only a means by which reduction in resource depletion or GHG emission (i.e. the real Objective) can be achieved and the impact (Global Warming & depletion of non-renewable resources in this instance) on the global system can be minimized.

Yep, think about it....People are sources of energy, our bodies generate it and the amount that we generate can be broken down in kWh (I'm trying to find the equation).

Dry cell batteries generate energy (electricity) how does that generation effect the environment?

I see the kWh reduction thing used all the time, and when it's presented to me I ask "How does the kWh itself impact the environment?" "Does it pollute the air, or water? Does the kWh deplete a natural resource or create a GHG? Does it kill fish or cause cancer in people downstream or downwind? What does the kWh do?" See what I mean?

This is not intended to be a hardas* approach or my way of interpretation (I don't interpret), I need to know what is being done to improve upon environmental performance and whether or not the plan to do so is effective.

This is actually one of the unique things about the objective and target requirement for an EMS that a QMS doesn't have clearly defined for it, the area of performance improvement. When you look at the ISO definitions of Quality and Environment (the ones we're stuck with and have no choice about) you'll see that Environment is defined more precisely...

Here are the definitions...

3.1.1 - quality
degree to which a set of inherent characteristics (3.5.1) fulfils requirements (3.1.2)

NOTE 1 The term “quality” can be used with adjectives such as poor, good or excellent.

NOTE 2 “Inherent”, as opposed to “assigned”, means existing in something, especially as a permanent characteristic.

3.5 - environment
surroundings in which an organization (3.16) operates, including air, water, land, natural resources, flora, fauna, humans, and their interrelation

NOTE Surroundings in this context extend from within an organization (3.16) to the global system.

See what I mean? While Quality is defined, we still need to figure out what characteristics are and what requirements are, whereas environment leaves little room for misunderstanding. So when we talk about environmental impact we're looking at air, water, land, flora (plants), fauna (vertabrates and invertabrates), natural resources, human beings and how they can all interrelate (positive or negative) Therefore objectives have to be related to improvement of impact (positive or negative) upon these things and the kWh doesn't do that as I stated before, it's the creation or aftermath of kWh creation that has the impact.

Now a big 'gimme' is that organizations can claim either direct or indirect impact related objectives and this flows back to the environmental aspect stuff in 4.3.1... (a) to identify the environmental aspects of its activities, products and services within the defined scope of the environmental management system that it can control and those that it can influence , and of course the definition of aspect provided previously. While an organization may not directly control the generation of energy (electricity) it does have indirect influence by reducing or increasing its use of it.

See the relationship?

I just did an audit last week and the organization using its objective to reduce energy use and its target of X% from a baseline year showed that it had reduced consumption in 2008 (using the environmental program established to do so) was able to make this claim...."reduced electrical consumption by 1,477,678 kWh (reducing the consumption of approximately 739 tons of coal and the emissions of approx 2113 tons of CO2)"

So we had a reduction of kWh (cost) and a claim of indirect reduction of natural resource use (less coal burned) and an indiect redution of the emission of a GHG....Environmental performance improvement!

This is a great explanation especially the way it was explained how 'QMS' differs from 'EMS' in it's approach. This shows how thoroughly you have studied & understood the subject, the standard and the concept of Environment in its entire length, breadth & depth. This does give me new directions for thinking beyond the organizational boundaries from where the environment "extends to the global system".

I am curious to know "4.3.1... (a) to identify the environmental aspects of its activities, products and services within the defined scope of the environmental management system that it can control and those that it can influence " what can be other aspects (other than generation of electricity) over which an organization has little or no control but are attributed to its own activities. Do these aspects need to be looked into or atleast identified ?

One example I can recall is the packaging of products. What happens to the packaging material once it leaves the factory premises, do one need to think about it within the purview of 14001 ?

Best regards Sir,

 

[Randy]

I am curious to know "4.3.1... (a) to identify the environmental aspects of its activities, products and services within the defined scope of the environmental management system that it can control and those that it can influence " what can be other aspects (other than generation of electricity) over which an organization has little or no control but are attributed to its own activities. Do these aspects need to be looked into or atleast identified ?

One example I can recall is the packaging of products. What happens to the packaging material once it leaves the factory premises, do one need to think about it within the purview of 14001 ?

Best regards Sir,

You're pretty much right on. I now see where many organizations will tell suppliers to only use recyclable materials/shipping containers/pallets, etc. Influence

I had one site I visited that has lots of sales people on the road all the time, so they require their folks to stay at eco-friendly/green hotels. Influence and control

Employee personal vehicles are another area. My very 1st personal client for consulting is located in the Los Angeles/South Coast Air Quality Management District area and they identified how their 1300+ employees helped to contribute to exhaust emissions (CO2, NOx, CO, and the others) so the company started a volunteer car pool program. They estimated the car pooling indirectly reduced emissions by thousands of tons and also reduced gas consumption...This is something they had "influence" over.

 

[Tim Folkerts]

Yep, think about it....People are sources of energy, our bodies generate it and the amount that we generate can be broken down in kWh (I'm trying to find the equation).

hmmmm .... it should be something like ....

A typical person eats 2000 Cal in one day
= 2,000,000 cal
= 8,400,000 J
= 8,400,000 W*s
= 8,400 kWs
= 2.3 kWh of energy each day

That would also be 97 W continuously. So a person requires the same energy as a 100 W lightbulb. If you were on a diet and eating only 1200 Cal, that would be about 60 W.

For that much electricity, you might pay about $0.25. For that much food you would pay considerably more. Which is one big reason we use electricity instead of people for physical tasks whenever possible.

 

[Randy]

hmmmm .... it should be something like ....

A typical person eats 2000 Cal in one day
= 2,000,000 cal
= 8,400,000 J
= 8,400,000 W*s
= 8,400 kWs
= 2.3 kWh of energy each day

That would also be 97 W continuously. So a person requires the same energy as a 100 W lightbulb. If you were on a diet and eating only 1200 Cal, that would be about 60 W.

For that much electricity, you might pay about $0.25. For that much food you would pay considerably more. Which is one big reason we use electricity instead of people for physical tasks whenever possible.

Sure, but workforce reduction can be converted to energy reduction (think of the GHG's directly produced by people)