Opponents to Natural Gas Pipeline Rally to Grow Public Interest

A planned natural gas pipeline in Connecticut and neighboring states brought protesters out in Suffield and East Granby, calling attention to potential adverse environmental impacts. Kinder Morgan’s natural gas project, Connecticut Expansion, is scheduled to begin construction in Suffield and East Granby shortly, according to the Connecticut Sierra Club, which organized the protest and has been conducting a public education initiative opposing the plans. The People Over Pipelines March, held Saturday, mirrors similar efforts held in Massachusetts, aimed at drawing attention the ratepayer subsidized gas pipeline expansion.  Participants followed the Kinder Morgan pipeline route in Suffield and East Granby.  Co-sponosrs of the effort included 350 CT, Toxics Action Center, Bethlehem Ecodefense and Berkshire Environmental Action Team.

At  an accompanying rally, Sierra Club’s Martha Klein said, “We’re here today to fight for the future of our planet, but the real reason to oppose this new pipeline is that it’s expensive, unneeded and what’s worse we’re paying for it!” The high pressure, large diameter fracked gas pipeline is being built in three states Sierra Club officials point out, noting that methane (natural gas) causes global heating that is 100 times worse than carbon dioxide in the near term.

Diane Lentakis of 350 CT added, “I’m marching here today to oppose a new taxpayer-funded pipeline because natural gas presents many of the same problems as oil and coal: toxic emissions, huge transport costs, and huge risks of accidents. I want Connecticut to be a leader in our country’s transition to clean energy.  We can take a major step towards this goal by opposing this costly pipeline and instead investing in renewable and clean energy. “

Sierra Club officials explain that Connecticut residents have been paying for the expansion of fracked gas in the state through ratepayer increases on their electric bill since 2013, as a result of state lawmakers approving a “Comprehensive Energy Strategy.”  In 2015, the General Assembly passed a law that mandated future ratepayer subsidies for multi-state gas pipeline projects, which will lead to ratepayers subsidizing the construction of interstate gas pipelines.

The state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP)  “is the agency in the state that both procures large natural gas projects, and also issues permits for aspects of the construction. The aim of the State energy plan is to create thousands of new gas customers, through advertising and ratepayer subsidies. Only the two large corporations, Eversource and Iberdrola, will benefit from the expansion.  They have a monopoly on gas distribution in the area,” Sierra Club pointed out in a news release highlighting the issue.  Eversource owns Yankee Gas; Iberdrola owns Connecticut Natural Gas and Southern CT Gas.

Sierra Club officials indicate that it is “not likely” that Connecticut citizens will benefit from the pipeline, stating that “Natural gas is not cheaper, cleaner or safer than other fuels. Gas, which is methane, is currently more expensive than heating oil in Connecticut and according to the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), worse for the environment than oil or coal. Methane extraction (fracking), use, and transport produce significantly more greenhouse gas emissions causing worse climate change than other fossil fuels.”

Studies show that there is no unmet demand for natural gas in Connecticut, opponents of the planned pipeline said, stressing that gas pipelines are routinely only half full now and electricity demand in New England has remained virtually flat over more than 10 years.  Proponents have stated otherwise.

According to DEEP, there are approximately 590 miles of transmission pipeline in Connecticut, including 16 miles in Long Island Sound.  These pipelines range in size from 2” to 36”. Pressures range from 750 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 1,440 psig. There are 5 compressor stations in Connecticut with a total of approximately 110,300 horsepower. The pipelines currently in place:

• Algonquin Gas Transmission (AGT - Spectra Energy Corporation) originates in New Jersey where it connects to Texas Eastern and runs from Danbury northeasterly to Thompson, with major spurs to North Haven and New London.
• Iroquois Gas Transmission System (IGT) starts at the Canadian border, enters Connecticut at Sherman and runs southeast through Milford, then offshore to Long Island.
• Tennessee Gas Transmission (TGP -Kinder Morgan) starts in the Gulf, enters Connecticut in Greenwich, runs northeasterly leaving Connecticut in Suffield, with a spur from Massachusetts to Torrington.

The Sierra Club will be conducting a public education session on the pipeline at Quinebaug Valley Community College on Thursday, Sept. 29 at 1 p.m.

LED Street Lights Being Installed in CT Towns Even As Health Concerns Are Raised

The American Medical Association’s new policy stand “against light pollution and public awareness of the adverse health and environmental effects of pervasive nighttime lighting,” comes as municipalities across Connecticut and the nation are replacing longstanding lighting systems with LED lights in an effort to save money and improve safety.  The AMA however, is warning that the rapid pace of change could bring long-term detrimental health and safety effects. The AMA has noted that “it is estimated that white LED lamps have five times greater impact on circadian sleep rhythms than conventional street lamps. Recent large surveys found that brighter residential nighttime lighting is associated with reduced sleep times, dissatisfaction with sleep quality, excessive sleepiness, impaired daytime functioning and obesity.”

The organization noted earlier this month that “approximately 10 percent of existing U.S. street lighting has been converted to solid state LED technology, with efforts underway to accelerate this conversion.” The AMA’s Report of the Council on Science and Public Health on “Human and Environmental Effects of Light Emitting Diode (LED) Community Lighting” cautioned that “white LED street lighting patterns also could contribute to the risk of chronic disease in the populations of cities in which they have been installed. Measurements at street level from white LED street lamps are needed to more accurately assess the potential circadian impact of evening/nighttime exposure to these lights.

The AMA recommendations were developed to “assist in advising communities on selecting among LED lighting options in order to minimize potentially harmful human health and environmental effects”:

• an intensity threshold for optimal LED lighting that minimizes blue-rich light
• all LED lighting should be properly shielded to minimize glare and detrimental human health and environmental effects,
• consideration should be given to utilize the ability of LED lighting to be dimmed for off-peak time periods.

The concerns are not new, but they are receiving greater attention in the wake of the AMA’s formal community guidance and policy position, adopted at the organization’s annual conference in Chicago in mid-June.

Communities in Connecticut that have taken steps to switch to LED lighting include New London, Berlin, Plainville, East Hartford, Rocky Hill, Stamford, Southington, and Cheshire, according to published reports.  An article authored by UConn professor of Community Medicine and Health Care Richard G. Stevens, highlights red flags being raised by the AMA regarding the safety of LED lighting being installed in cities around the country.  The article first appeared on an international website, theconversation.com, and has since appeared on sites including CNN.  Stevens, an expert on the health impact of electric lighting, has raised concerns for more than a decade.

The Illuminating Engineering Society, founded in 1906 and based in New York, noted in a position statement that “exposure to optical radiation affects human physiology and behavior, both directly (acute effects including melatonin suppression, elevated cortisol production, increased core temperature) and indirectly (resetting the internal circadian body clock). There is no confirmation that typical exposures to exterior lighting after sunset lead to cancer or other life‐threatening conditions.” The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) is described as “the recognized technical authority on illumination.” The IES website indicates that the organization was “not represented in the deliberations leading to [the AMA document]. We intend to contact the AMA and work with them to ensure that any lighting related recommendations include some discussion with the IES.”

ANSES, the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, has published a report entitled (in English): " Lighting systems using light-emitting diodes: health issues to be considered," which focuses squarely on potential problems caused by LED lighting.  The LEDs Magazine website indicates that the full report is available in French only, but the report summary (in English) says that risks have been identified concerning the use of certain LED lamps, raising potential health concerns for the general population and professionals.

"The issues of most concern identified by the Agency concern the eye due to the toxic effect of blue light and the risk of glare," says the report, adding that the blue light necessary to obtain white LEDs causes "toxic stress" to the retina.

Back in 2011, a comprehensive report by Carnegie Mellon University’s Remaking Cities Institute (RCI) on the city of Pittsburgh’s transition to LED street lighting indicated that “Glare is an issue with LED street lighting. The RCI research team’s literature review and interviews with manufacturers and municipal agencies in cities with LED replacement projects indicate that the emphasis is being placed almost entirely on energy savings, to the exclusion of visual quality issues. The substantial glare caused by LEDs is not typically included as a measurable criteria in evaluation processes, and when it is, the tools of measurement are inadequate. As a result, glare persists as an issue.”

That report also noted that “the public is informed that LEDs save energy told that they are better in quality (often false) and that more accurate in color (often false).” In addition, the 113-page report indicated that “While the use of bright lights is believed to reduce accidents, it actually creates dangerous conditions for drivers, especially when night vision is affected by sharp differences in illumination. Bright lights are particularly hazardous for older persons because the human eye’s accommodation reflex slows with age.”

Regarding health concerns that have been raised, the report indicates that “Bright white light suppresses melatonin, the hormone that regulates tumors. Blue light wavelengths are to blame, because they ‘reset’ the circadian clocks of humans, animals, and plants even at very low levels of blue light. This might account for the significantly higher rates (30-60%) of breast and colorectal cancer in night shift workers.”

Some have compared the growing controversy regarding LED lighting to the ongoing debate in towns around the country regarding the use of crumb rubber from recycled tires as fill for sports turf fields.  Federal, state, and municipal governments have weighed in on the discussion, but even as health concerns continue to be raised, fields using the materials continue to be installed and used by youth in Connecticut and across the country.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently launched a research project aimed at providing better answers on that safety question.

CT is Most Expensive Energy State in the Nation, Analysis Says

With an average monthly energy bill of $404 per consumer, Connecticut is the most energy expensive state in the nation, according to a new analysis. Using a formula that accounts for residential energy sources including electricity, natural gas, motor fuel and home heating oil, analysts at WalletHub compared the average monthly energy bills in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.  Connecticut ranked at the top of the list, with other New England states close behind.  The 10 most expensive states in the analysis, after Connecticut, were Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Georgia, North Dakota, Maine, New Hampshire, Indiana and Mississippi.  Among the least expensive energy states for consumers were Oregon, Colorado and Washington, where the average monthly energy bill was $218.

The monthly consumer costs in Connecticut average $155 for electricity, $104 for home heating oil, $100 for motor fuel and $44 for natural gas.

Connecticut ranked third in the price of home heating oil and second highest in the nation for home heating oil consumption per consumer, for an overall ranking as highest in the nation for home heating oil costs.

Regarding electricity consumption, as a relatively small state, Connecticut ranked 37^th.  However, for the price of electricity it ranked third, for an overall ranking of seventh when the two stats were combined for the overall Monthly Electricity Cost category.

"Connecticut ranked as the most energy expensive state mainly due to its high retail prices for energy,” analyst Jill Gonzalez told CT by the Numbers.  “The state has the third highest retail price for electricity and heating oil at $0.20 per kWh and almost $4 per gallon, respectively. Natural gas isn't cheap either, ranking 14th highest, at $14 per thousand cubic feet. These prices paired with high heating consumption in the winter months put Connecticut on top of these rankings."

The website notes that energy costs account for between 5 and 22 percent of families’ total after-tax income, with the poorest Americans, or 25 million households, paying the highest of that range.

Sources used to create the rankings, according to WalletHub, were collected from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report.

The report was issued this month, as July typically produces the highest energy bills for consumers.

AMA Policy, UConn Professor Raise Concerns About Municipal Conversions to LED Lighting

An article authored by UConn professor of Community Medicine and Health Care Richard G. Stevens, which highlights red flags being raised by the American Medical Association regarding the safety of LED lighting being installed in cities around the country, is gaining notice.  The article first appeared on an international website, theconversation.com, which features articles researched and written by college faculty from the U.S. and around the world.  The site’s tagline, “Academic rigor, journalistic flair,” reflects its approach.  The article has since been re-published on the CNN website, and it gaining traction on dozens of other internet sites. The article revolves around a policy statement issued by the AMA this month that suggests “conversions to improper LED technology can have adverse consequences.” Stevens, who has written about the health risks of electric lighting for more than two decades,  indicates that the policy statement comes "in response to the rise of new LED street lighting sweeping the country.” 

The new "white" LED street lighting which is rapidly being retrofitted in cities throughout the country has two problems, according to the AMA, Stevens highlights. “The first is discomfort and glare. Because LED light is so concentrated and has high blue content, it can cause severe glare, resulting in pupillary constriction in the eyes. Blue light scatters more in the human eye than the longer wavelengths of yellow and red, and sufficient levels can damage the retina. This can cause problems seeing clearly for safe driving or walking at night.” The AMA goes on to point out that blue-rich LED lighting can decrease visual acuity and safety, resulting in concerns and creating a road hazard.

In addition to its impact on drivers, the AMA notes that blue-rich LED streetlights operate at a wavelength that most adversely suppresses melatonin during night. It is estimated that white LED lamps have five times greater impact on circadian sleep rhythms than conventional street lamps, the AMA indicated. Recent large surveys, according to the AMA, found that brighter residential nighttime lighting is associated with reduced sleep times, dissatisfaction with sleep quality, excessive sleepiness, impaired daytime functioning and obesity.

The AMA points out that “converting conventional street light to energy efficient LED lighting leads to cost and energy savings, and a lower reliance on fossil-based fuels. Approximately 10 percent of existing U.S. street lighting has been converted to solid state LED technology, with efforts underway to accelerate this conversion.”

Although no comprehensive list is available, among the communities in Connecticut making the switch to LED lighting are Stamford, Plainville, East Hartford, Southington, and Berlin, according to published reports. Cheshire launched a streetlight replacement program earlier this year, indicating that “the new LED fixtures will provide the appropriate amount of lighting for locations across the town and will focus light directly downward on the sidewalks and roadway.  The fixtures have a ten-year product warranty, but are anticipated to have a much longer life. The project is expected to be completed in July 2016.”

"Despite the energy efficiency benefits, some LED lights are harmful when used as street lighting," AMA Board Member Maya A. Babu, M.D., M.B.A. "The new AMA guidance encourages proper attention to optimal design and engineering features when converting to LED lighting that minimize detrimental health and environmental effects."

The AMA encourages communities to minimize and control blue-rich environmental lighting by using the lowest emission of blue light possible to reduce glare. Stevens, however, says that “the AMA's recommendation for CCT below 3000K is not quite enough to be sure that blue light is minimized. The actual spectral irradiance of the LED -- the relative amounts of each of the colors produced -- should be considered, as well.”

Stevens concludes that “there is almost never a completely satisfactory solution to a complex problem. We must have lighting at night, not only in our homes and businesses, but also outdoors on our streets. The need for energy efficiency is serious, but so too is minimizing human risk from bad lighting, both due to glare and to circadian disruption. LED technology can optimize both when properly designed.”

The Hartford Courant reported last year that ESCO Energy Services is working with the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities to implement its municipal Street Light LED Conversion Program to buy the current streetlights from utilities and replace them with more efficient LED fixtures.

Stevens proposed in 1987 what was then seen as a radical new theory that use of electric lighting, resulting in lighted nights, might produce "circadian disruption" causing changes in the hormones relevant to breast cancer risk, according to the UConn Health website. Accumulating evidence has generally supported the idea, the site indicates, and it has received wide scientific and public attention. For example, his work has been featured on the covers of the popular weekly Science News (October 17, 1998) and the scientific journal Cancer Research (July 15, 1996). His most recent paper, “Shift work as a harbinger of the toll taken by electric lighting,” was published in Chronobiology International, The Journal of Biological and Medical Rhythm Research, in January 2016.

The Conversation website is a collaboration between editors and academics to provide "informed news analysis and commentary that’s free to read and republish." It launched as a pilot project in the U.S. in October 2014 after starting in Australia in March 2011 and​ the UK in May 2013. Boston University’s College of Communication is are hosting the operation in the U.S.

PHOTO:  Traditional street lighting (left) vs. LED lighting (right).

CT Is National Microgrid Leader, Seeking Electricity Resiliency

The cover story in this month’s edition of State Legislatures magazine, published by the National Conference of State Legislatures, examines new technologies that are keeping the lights on when disasters strike the electric grid.  And it turns out that New England – especially Connecticut – is showing the way for states across the country in one of the new approaches, the electricity microgrid. The sit-up-and-take-notice event that has sent state legislature scurrying to act was SuperStorm Sandy, which knocked out power to nearly 8 million people across 15 Eastern states, including wide swaths of Connecticut.  One of the primary responses aimed at making the electric system more resilient has been the development of microgrids, and Connecticut has been swifter than most in seizing the technological advance. 

Microgrids are an example of how state legislators are seeking to make the electrical grid more reliable and resilient through strategies that strengthen infrastructure and shorten the time it takes to restore power, reporter Dan Shea explained in the article.  The whole idea is to minimize the damage and disruption of a disaster.

The article was drawn from research for the NCSL report, State Efforts to Protect the Electric Grid, published in April.  The report points out that nearly 40 percent of the U.S. population—over 123 million people—live in coastal shoreline counties, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

“We had Irene. We had Sandy. We had a snowstorm that went on forever. We had people in the dark, substations threatened by flooding and power out for eight, 10, 12 days,” Connecticut State Representative Lonnie Reed (D-Branford) told the publication. “We began to see just how vulnerable the whole interconnected system is.”

Many Northeastern states have taken action on microgrids, but the Connecticut General Assembly has been the most active legislative body, Shea reports, passing or updating microgrid-inclusive bills in each of the past four years (2012-2015). These laws offer a range of options for potential microgrid developers—and could even incentivize distributed generation developers to expand their projects to incorporate microgrid technologies.

The three main incentives are:

• A microgrid grant and pilot program;
• The Connecticut Green Bank’s commercial sustainable energy program;
• And municipal energy improvement districts.

The Connecticut General Assembly passed legislation enacting a microgrid pilot program in 2012 – the first in the nation according to the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP). Initially, the program granted $18 million to nine projects. The initiative was later extended and given an additional $30 million to expand microgrid deployment, Shea reports.

Eligibility was extended to municipalities, electric distribution companies, municipal electric companies, energy improvement districts and private entities. On March 6, 2014, Wesleyan University in Middletown became the first of the CT microgrid projects to come online, according to the DEEP website.

The State Legislatures article reports that in 2015, lawmakers in 17 states, including New York and New Jersey, introduced more than two dozen bills on microgrids, six of which have been enacted. Several pending bills direct state agencies to study microgrids, while at least six states are considering legislation that would offer grants, loans or other incentives to develop them. Microgrids, although growing most rapidly in the Northeast, are taking root elsewhere, including California, State Legislatures reports.

In addition, a growing number of businesses and organizations are also investing in resilient systems that allow them to operate independently whether the grid is up or down.

“You’re really talking about having an economic leg up if you have the capacity to stay open and operational when others aren’t,” Reed told State Legislatures.

The state legislature has also directed the Connecticut Green Bank to include microgrid projects within its definition of “energy improvements” that the bank is authorized to make appropriations and issue bonds or other obligations to help finance.

The legislature has also authorized any municipal government to establish an energy improvement district by vote of its legislative body. The state statute outlines how the district’s affairs will be managed and authorizes a board to fund the development of energy improvement projects within the district.

Nationally, more than a dozen states introduced legislation in 2015 that calls for greater diversity in power sources—from expanding renewables to supporting nuclear and fossil fuels.  The State Legislatures report indicates that those efforts are likely to intensify in the years ahead, as weather events are predicted to become more frequent and more severe.

Eight CT Companies Among the Fastest Growing Tech Companies in North America

The Technology Fast 500 is a closely watched annual listing of the fast-growing tech companies, businesses that are releasing new, emerging technologies from the U.S. and Canada worldwide.  The latest ranking includes eight Connecticut companies, including one, operating in Stamford, that reached the top 100. Combining technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and rapid growth, Fast 500 companies—large and small, public and private—are located in cities all across North America and are “disrupting the technology industry,” according to consulting firm Deloitte, which has compiled the annual list for two decades.

Fast 500 award winners on the current list were selected based on percentage fiscal year revenue growth during the period from 2011 to 2014.  Companies must own proprietary intellectual property or technology that is sold to customers in products that contribute to a majority of the company’s operating revenues in order to be considered for inclusion on the list, according to Deloitte.

The lone Connecticut company to crack the top 100 was Milford medical device manufacturer SurgiQuest, which was number 100.  The company’s growth was pegged at 877 percent.  It was incorporated in 2006, with a focus on laproscopy technology.

Not far behind, at number 119, was Revolution Lighting Technologies, a manufacturer based in Stamford.  The analysis placed the company’s growth at 755 percent.  Revolution Lighting Technologies Inc. engages in the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of light emitting diode (LED) lighting solutions in the United States, Canada, and internationally.  The company’s customers include the U.S. military.

Madison-based Clarity Software Solutions, Inc., with 298 percent growth, placed at number 247 on the top 500 fastest growing technology companies in North America.  Clarity Software Solutions, Inc. helps health insurance clients optimize customer relationships-and save time and money-by enhancing flexibility and control over document management and communications delivery, according to the company’s website.

Also making the list were Evariant of Farmington, a software developer, at number 272, and HP One, a software company in Trumbull at number 307.  Biopharmaceutical company Alexion, in the midst of moving its headquarters from Cheshire to New Haven, was ranked at number 349, and etouches, a Norwalk software company ranked at number 357.  Rounding out the Connecticut companies on the list is Wallingford oil extraction technology company APS Tecnhology, at number 466.

“Amid a fierce business climate, there seems to be no shortage of new and established companies that are unlocking a seemingly unlimited potential for growth and advancement through technology’s continued disruption and proliferation across industries,” said Sandra Shirai, principal, Deloitte Consulting LLP and US technology, media, and telecommunications leader.

“It is inspiring to witness the innovative ways companies are incorporating emerging technologies for business gains, be it cognitive computing, or the Internet of Things. We congratulate all those ranked on the Fast 500 and look forward to seeing their continued growth into 2016.”

Revolution Lighting Technologies ranked eighth among energy tech companies, and SurgiQuest Inc. ranked sixth among medical device companies.

Overall, 283 of the 500 companies were in the software sector, and 67 percent of the 500 companies have received venture capital funding at some point in their company’s history.  Topping the list was StartApp, with a growth rate of 21,984 percent from 2011 to 2014. Based in New York and founded in 2010, StartApp provides a free monetization and distribution platform that integrates with applications on mobile devices.

Two-thirds of the companies are private, and 33 percent are public.  The average growth rate of the top 500 companies was 850 percent, with individual company growth on the list ranging from 21,984 percent to 109 percent.  Broken down by region, 20 percent of the companies are based in the San Francisco Bay Area, 14 percent in the New York Metro Area, 7 percent in New England, and 6 percent in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

GE Leaves Wisconsin for Canada, Blames Government; Cuts Thousands of Former Alstom Jobs Across Europe

Virtually unnoticed amidst the attention given to the months long saga of GE’s decision to move its corporate headquarters from Fairfield was another relocation by the company – this time not only leaving a state, but the United States.  And in that instance as well as the latest decision, government was cited as a reason for the departure. Less than four months ago, GE announced it was leaving Waukesha, Wisconsin for Canada, and moving 350 jobs north of the border.  GE closed a long-time engine manufacturing plant in Wisconsin and announced plans to invest $265 million to build a new one in Canada in order to take advantage of Canadian export credit financing.  The new plant was expected to be completed in 20 months and was described by GE as “a flexible production facility that can expand over time and also support manufacturing requirements for other GE businesses.”

The company said the new state-of-the-art plant in Canada and will be a flexible facility that can expand over time and also support manufacturing requirements for other GE businesses. GE notified employees in Waukesha and more than 400 U.S. suppliers of its plans. In Wisconsin alone, suppliers generated almost $47 million in revenue from the plant, GE said at the time.

“We know these announcements will have regrettable impact not only on our employees but on the hundreds of U.S. suppliers we work with that cannot move their facilities, but we cannot walk away from our customers,” said John Rice, Vice Chairman, GE, when the Wisconsin move was announced.

canada

The blame, according to a GE news release, rested on Congress, which allowed the nation’s Export-Import Bank to cease functioning.  Last week, in an effort to break a political logjam in the Republican-controlled Congress, the White House announced it would nominate a Republican to lead the agency.

When the company announced its decision to leave Wisconsin for an unnamed Canadian city, it pointed the finger squarely at Congress:

“GE is currently bidding on $11 billion of projects that require export financing. While more than 60 other countries have export credit agencies (ECAs) that support domestic manufacturing for export, the US does not. The authorization for the U.S. export credit agency – the Export-Import Bank, or Ex-Im – lapsed on July 1. For the last year, exporters and suppliers have called upon Congress to reauthorize the U.S. Export-Import Bank to support manufacturing jobs and level the playing field for U.S. companies that compete globally. Most countries are hungry for manufacturing and export jobs. The U.S. remains the only major economy in the world without an export bank.”

The headquarters move to Boston was not GE’s only major announcement this week.  The company also announced plans to cut 6,500 jobs in Europe as it moves to integrate Alstom SA’s power business and push through cost savings from the acquisition, made last year.  The acquisition included facilities in Windsor and Bloomfield in Connecticut, including about 1,000 jobs.  No word on whether cuts may be coming there as well.  Published reports indicated that GE has not yet announced how many jobs it could eliminate in the Americas, Africa and Asia, where it is also working to integrate Alstom’s operations with its own power business.

roads

CT is a Top-10 State in Energy Efficiency, Recent Growth of Solar Power Capacity

An annual ranking from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) rated Connecticut among the top ten energy-efficient states in the country along with Massachusetts, California, Vermont, Rhode Island, Oregon, Maryland, Washington, and New York, with Minnesota and Illinois tied for 10th place. Connecticut was noted for its financial incentives and energy efficiency investments. The state  ranked 6th in the 2015 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, the same position it held in 2014. The state also earned the same number of points as it did in 2014, totaling 35.5 points out of 50.

According to the report, “Connecticut’s leadership is committed to pursuing policies that encourage energy efficiency within the state, although processes like building code adoption have moved relatively slowly in recent years. Connecticut has put significant resources behind the launching of its green bank. While there are signs of early success, these projects will need to be closely tracked as other states look to Connecticut as an example. Connecticut will need to realize even higher levels of savings in the future in order to remain in the top tier and meet state energy savings targets.”

Connecticut earned 15 out of 20 points for its utility policies and programs, 6 points out of a possible 10 points for transportation policies, 5 points out of 7 for its building energy code stringency and compliance efforts, earned 3 points out of 4 for its combined heat and power policies and programs, 5.5 out of 7 points for state-led energy efficiency initiatives, and 1 point out of 2 for appliance standards.

At the bottom of the list were Mississippi, South Dakota, Louisiana, Wyoming and North Dakota.

The ACEEE also developed a similar rating system for the nation’s largest cities, ranking the top 50.  Leading the list were Boston, New York City, Washington, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Minneapolis, Portland, Austin and Denver.  The only Connecticut city to crack the top 50, Hartford, ranked at number 45.  Connecticut’s Capitol City earned 23 points out of a possible 100, in an analysis that included local government operations, community-wide initiatives, building policies, energy & water utilities, and transportation.

The report noted that “policymakers, regulators, and citizens are increasingly recognizing that energy efficiency is a crucially important resource. States and localities are leading the way when it comes to implementing energy-efficient policies and programs.”

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization, acts as a catalyst to advance energy efficiency policies, programs, technologies, investments, and behaviors. The organization believes that “the United States can harness the full potential of energy efficiency to achieve greater economic prosperity, energy security, and environmental protection for all its people.”

Another  recent study, “Lighting the Way III: The Top States that Helped Drive America’s Solar Energy Boom in 2014,” by the research and policy arm of Environment Connecticut finds Connecticut ranks 10th nationally for solar power capacity per capita installed in 2014, with 13 watts of solar electric capacity per person installed last year. Nevada led all of the states in 2014, with 119 watts per capita, according to the study. Part of this success is credited to supportive state policymaking.  The organization points out that “solar power has tripled in the U.S. in the last two years, with another American family or business going solar every four minutes.  That’s in part because the price of solar has dropped more than 50 percent since 2011.”

They add that “research shows the cities and states with the most solar power aren’t necessarily the ones with the most sunshine; they also include states with smart pro-solar policies.  States like Connecticut have outpaced sunnier locales like Florida because of policies that allow increasing numbers of homeowners, businesses, communities and utilities to go solar.”

olar power in Connecticut has grown 221 percent per Capita since 2012, ranking the state 13th in the nation, the report points out. The top solar growth states in the nation, like Connecticut, have adopted renewable energy requirements, strong laws allowing solar customers to sell their excess power to the electric grid, and other policies encouraging growth of the industry, the report indicates.  The industry is also adding jobs much faster than the overall economy, employing 1,600 people in Connecticut last year, according to www.solarstates.org

“Demand for solar power in Connecticut is growing exponentially,” said Bryan Garcia, President and CEO of the Connecticut Green Bank. “Consumers continue to demand solar power despite a 70 percent reduction in state incentives. In fact, increased private investment has enabled the market to offer lease and loan products that deliver immediate positive cash flow to consumers. This makes solar PV a cleaner, cheaper and more reliable alternative."

Bipartisan legislation signed by Governor Malloy earlier this year lays a foundation for continued growth of solar power, and jobs, in Connecticut, Environment Connecticut points out, citing the stated goal of building enough residential solar systems to power over 40,000 homes in the state by 2022.

Innovative Efforts Receive Spotlight at Inaugural Ceremony Highlighting Energy Efficiency, Conservation

The Stamford 2030 District’s inaugural Change Makers Awards were presented this month, honoring projects and organizations excelling in four distinct areas: innovation in energy, water, transportation and sustainable technology. The awards ceremony captured some of the most innovative local project involving energy efficiency improvements, water retention methods and the promotion of safe multi-modal transportation. The award winners were:

• 400 Atlantic St. (The Landis Group) for Innovation in Energy;
• The Mill River Park and Greenway (Mill River Park Collaborative) for Innovation in Water;
• The Sharrow Network (city of Stamford and People Friendly Stamford) for Innovation in Transportation;
• Living Wall Project (JM Wright Technical School) for Innovation in Sustainability; and an honorable mention to 9 W. Broad St. Property LLC (Forstone) for its work with the C-PACE program.

The Stamford 2030 District is a collaborative, nationally recognized, but local community of high performance buildings in downtown Stamford that aims to dramatically reduce energy and water consumption and reduce emissions from transportation, while increasing competitiveness in the business environment and owners' returns on investment.

”We launched this program in October last year and it’s been amazing to see the commitment from the local community to start implementing changes," said Megan Saunders, Stamford 2030 executive director. "We went from zero to 34 members and have benchmarked six million square feet of their buildings. I’m excited to see what we’re able to collectively accomplish in the next year.”

The awards reception featured a keynote address by Brian Geller, founder of the first 2030 District and currently senior vice president, corporate sustainability, Citibank.  The evening also featured a tribute to the Stamford 2030 District’s first year of accomplishments and a sneak peek at next year’s plans.  Stamford 2030 is a collaboration between Connecticut Fund for the Environment, the Business Council of Fairfield County and a coalition of professional and community organizations.

“I would like to congratulate all of the members of Stamford 2030 for joining together to make vital changes for our community," said Stamford Mayor David Martin. "The partners in Stamford 2030 have really stepped up for the success and sustainability of our city and the surrounding area. And they are not alone. For our part, the city is committed to improving storm resiliency and moving forward with the Energy Improvement District. We believe these efforts are tied to our economic development and ability to attract people to Stamford while conserving important natural resources, all necessary for sustained growth and prosperity.”

The Stamford 2030 District is an interdisciplinary public-private-nonprofit collaborative working to create a groundbreaking high performance building district in downtown Stamford. With the Architecture 2030 Challenge providing property performance targets, the Stamford 2030 District seeks to prove that high performing buildings are the most profitable buildings in Stamford. District Members will do this by developing realistic, measurable, and innovative strategies to assist district property owners, managers, and tenants in meeting aggressive goals that keep properties and businesses competitive while operating buildings more efficiently, reducing costs, and reducing the environmental impacts of facility construction, operation, and maintenance.

2030 Districts are also operating in the cities of Seattle, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Denver, San Antonio, San Francisco, Dallas, Toronto and Albuquerque.

https://youtu.be/mRMr88y8TMI

https://youtu.be/9s9yyI1_zdg

CT Ranks 35th in Economic Clout of Women-Owned Businesses

Connecticut ranks 35^th in the economic clout of women-owned businesses over the past 18 years, according to a newly released analysis.  Women now run more than 9.4 million businesses in the United States, 30 percent of the nation’s businesses, with just over 100,000 of them in Connecticut Between 1997 and 2014, the number of women owned businesses in Connecticut grew by 42.1 percent, ranking the state 43^rd in the nation.  Total revenue growth of 80.2 percent ranked Connecticut 28^th, and employment growth of 20.9 percent among women owned business placed the state 22^nd among the 50 states. 

Nationwide, the number of women-owned firms grew from 5.4 million in 1997 to an estimated 9.4 million this year, an increase of 73 percent over the nearly two decades.  Employment in those businesses grew by 12 percent and sales by 78 percent, nationally.  The number of women-owned firms is increasing at a rate 1.5 times the national average.

In Connecticut, the number of businesses owned by women climbed from 72,393 in 1997 to 102.900 by this year.  Employment increased from 78,598 to an estimated 95,000, and sales grew from just over $9 million to nearly $17 million.

The industries with the highest concentration of women-owned firms nationally are healthcare and social assistance (53 percent of firms in this sector are women-owned, compared to a 30 percent share overall), educational services (45 percent), other services (42 percent), and administrative support and waste management services (37 percent).

The states with the fastest growth in the number of women-owned firms during the 18 year period are Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, North Dakota and New York.  The slowest growth has taken place in Alaska, West Virginia, Iowa, Kansas and Maine.

Since 1997, the number of female-run businesses has grown by 74 percent, well above the national growth rate of 51 percent for all firms. In 2014, women opened the doors of 887 new businesses every day, on average, up from 602 in 2011.

Women of color contributed to more than half of that growth last year, opening on average nearly 500 businesses daily, according to the new 2015 State of Women-Owned Businesses Report, prepared with U.S. Census data by Womenable, a research organization supporting women's entrepreneurship, and commissioned by American Express OPEN.

Of the nation’s women-owned businesses, African-American women own 1.3 million, Latinas 1 million, and Asian women more than 700,000. Businesses owned by women of color tend to be smaller in terms of their average employment and revenue, the report indicated. But their growth, both in numbers and in their economic clout—the combined average of their growth, revenue, and employment—continues to outpace that of their white peers, the data indicates.

“Back in 1997, there were just under one million firms owned by non-Caucasian women, representing one in six (17 percent) women-owned firms. Now, there are an estimated 3.1 million minority women-owned firms, representing one in three (33 percent) women-owned firms,” pointed out Julie Weeks, President and CEO of Womenable.  “The growing diversity of women-owned firms is one of the most remarkable trends of the past decade.”