Optimization
US 20100257124Al
(19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2010/0257124 A1 (43) Pub. Date:
Srinivasan (54)
METHOD FOR INDUSTRIAL ENERGY AND
(52)
EMISSIONS INVESTMENT OPTIMIZATION
(76)
Inventor:
Oct. 7, 2010
us. c1. ..................................... .. 705/36 T; 705/348
(57)
ABSTRACT
Ramesh Srinivasan, San Jose, CA
The invention is an optimization method comprising of: (a)
(Us)
uniform and e?icient model and associated methods for com
puting the energy and emission impacts of each of a range of
Correspondence Address:
technological and commercial options, and (b) an integrated and e?icient optimization model for trading off the techno logical and commercial options against each other to arrive at a ?nancially optimal solution that complies With regulatory
RAMESH SRINIVASAN 7190 SILVER LODE LANE
SAN JOSE, CA 95120 (US)
caps on emission. The energy and emission impact model handles options such as energy ef?ciency measures, reneW
(21) Appl. No.:
12/798,617
(22) Filed:
Apr. 7, 2010
sets. In addition to handling the direct emissions, the model
Related US. Application Data
handles indirect emissions resulting from purchased electric ity or fuel. The integrated optimization model selects the
(60) Provisional application No. 61/212,197, ?led on Apr. 7, 2009.
solution that maximizes the total net present value of savings across the various technological and commercial options con
Publication Classi?cation
Well as the different levels of investments Within each project to choose from; this model performs this optimization over a
able energy projects, carbon capture projects and carbon off
(51)
sidering the location speci?c rates, prices and carbon caps as
series of time periods respecting capital budget and opera
Int. Cl.
G06Q 10/00 G06Q 99/00 G06Q 40/00
(2006.01) (2006.01) (2006.01)
tional budget constraints. The quantities of carbon offsets that must be purchased or sold are also determined as part of this
integrated model.
CapEx, OpEx Constraints Renew able Energy Projects ~
Energy E?icioncy Projects
Locations
Timing >Fixed Investment Costs >Variable Investment Costs
>Energy Reduction Potential )Emission Reduction Potential
Optimization Proiected Energy Reductions
Apply
Locations Processes
Location Speci?c Policies & Rules ‘
:A’l '1'.
ll—~'
Locations
Optimize Formulation
Processes
Fuels
Investment Costs
Carbon Offsets, Prices
Energy Cost Reductions Carbon Offset Costs
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 1 of9
US 2010/0257124 A1
2
3
4
5
I ‘v
k \I
I \
k I:
INPUTS:
INPUTS: ENTERPRISE
INPUTS:
‘INPUTS: EXTERNAL
ENTERPRISE SETUP DATA
INTERNAL RATES AND CONSTRAINTS
ENTERPRISE PROJECTS DATA
RATES
-
CUSTOMER
-
DISCOUNT RATE
.
-
-
MASTER LOCATIONS EMISSION SOURCES MATERIALS
-
ENERGY AND CARBON INTENSITY RATES DEPRECIATION LIFE C02 CAPS
-
MATERIAL
.
CAPEX BUDGET
EMISSION SOURCE MAP
-
OPEX BUDGET
.
-
.
.
STATE TAX RATE FEDERAL TAx RATE STATE TAX CREDIT RATE FEDERAL TAx CREADIT RATE ENERGY
-
CARBON
-
SOURCE-SITE
PROJECT
MASTER PROJECT LOCATIONS CAPEx REQUIRED OPEX REQUIRED
. . .
-
.
-
.
ENERGY AND
MATERIAL PLAN
PRICES
CARBON
INTENSITY
PRICES
CHANGE
RATIOS , ------------------------------ --
6
7
5
ENERGY AND
V
i
5:
INVESTMENT EMISSIONS
INPUTS INTERFACE I
E
COMPUTE FOR ALLENERGY TECHNOLOGICAL AND EMISSIONS PROJECTS IMPACT
'
5 ______OPTIMIZATI0N LOL
8
I COMPUTE OPTIMAL SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL PROJECTS AND COMMERCIAL OPTIONS
12
LP INTERFACE
11 OPTIMIZED SELECTION OF PROJECTS DATA FEED TO ENTERPRISE PROJECT PLAN
lS/v
CARBON OFFSET QUANTITIES TO BE PURCHASED / SOLD DATA FEED TO ENTERPRISE CARBON OFFSETS INVENTORY SYSTEM
PLANNED ENERGY AND EMISSION INTENSITIES DATA FEED TO PRODUCTION PLANNING
14
0-1 MATH EMATICAL
PROGRAMMING
FIG. 1
SOLVER
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 2 0f 9
US 2010/0257124 A1
5
16
i
T
I
:
COMPUTE ENERGY REDUCTION AND
:
i
EMISSIONS REDUCTION
5
17
i
REPEAT FOR EACH
COMPUTE GROSS ENERGY SAVINGS
i5 :
PROJECT PROJECT LEVEL
COMPUTE GROSS EMISSIONS SAVINGS
: E
19
COMPUTE NET ‘ SAVINGS
;
20
COMPUTE NET SAVINGS PRESENT VALUE OF
:
5E
Ii
LOCATION
8
Patent Application Publication
Total Costs
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 3 of9
Gross Energy Energy Use Savings Emission (GES) Reduction
(EUER)
US 2010/0257124 A1
Process By Product Emission
Reduction
(PER) Energy
Emciency
Renewable
Energy
(+)
(+)
(+/-)
(+/-)
(+)
(+/-)
(+)
(+/-)
(+)
H
H
(+)
(+)
(0)
(0)
(+)
Carbon
ca pture Carbon
offsets
FIG. 3
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 4 0f 9
US 2010/0257124 A1
Total Cost
Q)CReosulting
Investment
1
2
3
4
5
6
Energy Ef?ciency Investment ($) FIG. 4
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 5 0f 9
US 2010/0257124 A1
Total Cost
Q)CReosulting
1
2
3
4
5
6
Renewable Energy Investment ($)
FIG. 5
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 6 of9
US 2010/0257124 A1
Total Cost
(1)CReosulting
oncompliancc Cost Investment
1
2
3
4
5
6
Carbon Capture Investment ($)
FIG. 6
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 7 0f 9
US 2010/0257124 A1
A TotalCost
@ ‘6:’
0
9:0 ii
oncompiiancc Cost
0mm
3
6:’
Allowances l
I
i
1
2
l
l
1
l
3
4
5
6
I
I
I
I
>
Carbon Offsets ($)
FIG. 7
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 8 0f 9
US 2010/0257124 A1
CapEx, OpEx Constraints Renew able Energy Froiects ~
Energy Efficiency Projects )Fixed Investment
Costs
Optlmlzatlon
>Variable Investment
Proiected Energy Reductions
Costs
>Ener9y Reduction poieffuai _ >Em|ss|on Reduction
Apply
Localions Processes
Location Speci?c Policies & Rules
Potential
Optimize Formulation
Carbon Caps lnvesimsnt Costs
Carbon Offsets, Prices
Energy Cost Reductions Carbon O?ser Costs
FIG. 8
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 9 0f 9
US 2010/0257124 A1
21
DATABASE 22
/ ELECTRONIC PROCESSOR
\
'
DISPLAY
23
f
FIG. 9
Oct. 7, 2010
US 2010/0257124 A1
METHOD FOR INDUSTRIAL ENERGY AND EMISSIONS INVESTMENT OPTIMIZATION
plans independently. Even When they do Work together, this is usually restricted to looking at a single process improvement opportunity at a time.
[0001]
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0007]
This invention is in the ?eld of helping businesses
reduction must be considered simultaneously so as to trade one means against another to arrive at the least cost plan:
strike a balance betWeen corporate energy and emission reduction costs and the costs of environmental compliance. The energy costs are expected to continue to increase in the future. According to the estimates from the US. Environmen
tal Protection Agency, aggregated energy consumption across many of the manufacturing sectors is projected to increase by 20 percent from 2004 levels by 2020, and CO2e emissions (i.e. CO2 equivalent emissions for all the six green house emission gases) are projected to increase by 14 percent (“En ergy Trends in Selected Manufacturing Sectors: Opportuni
ties and Challenges for Environmentally Preferable Energy Outcomes”, US. Environmental Protection Agency, March 2007). The volumes of green house gas emissions are expected to continue to rise in the future. In California, for example, the emission levels are projected to groW from a
[0008] [0009]
The folloWing means for energy and emission
1. Energy E?iciency measures 2. Reducing GHG emissions through carbon avoid
ance and carbon capture strategies
[0010] 3. Purchasing additional emission alloWances/Car bon Offsets/Renewable Energy Credits [0011] The costs of the options above are different by loca tion and time period. Different combinations must be looked at for obtaining the least cost solution.
[0012] The existing Work addresses energy cost budgeting and management (US. Patent Application 20060161450 “Method and system for tracking and budgeting energy
usage”, Carey, Margaret M., Pfeister, Douglas L., Putnam, Christopher) and emissions trading (US. Patent Application 20060184445-“Systems and methods for trading emission
reductions”, Sandor, Richard, Walsh, Michael, Kanakasabai,
2004 level of 500 MMT CO2e to 600 MMT CO2e by 2020 unless neW actions are taken (2007 Integrated Energy Policy
Murali). Organized methods and systems for storing, retriev
Report, California Energy Commission).
have been proposed (Benedek, Z., Liang, J. and Wenegrat, J,
[0002]
“System for Providing Strategies to Reduce the Carbon Out put and Operating Costs of a Workplace”, US. Pat. No. 0,204,
Governments at the international, national and state
levels are Working on measures to curb such emissions.
Schemes that are being considered are: 1. Cap and Trade, 2.
Carbon Tax, 3. Hybrid of Caps and Carbon Tax, and several others. These schemes are aimed at reducing green house gas emissions by directly setting limits or caps on emissions or
indirectly by penaliZing emissions. [0003] As an example, California, as part of the Western Climate Initiative, has the folloWing time table for a Cap and Trade scheme (“Implementing a Quantitative Limit on the Use of Offsets in a Cap and Trade Program”, Mar. 23, 2009, California Air Resources Board): [0004]
The state cap establishes the limit on state CO2e
emissions and Will issue CO2e alloWances to emitting enti ties. The scope of entities planned by California is as folloWs: 2012-2014
In-State Electricity Generation Facilities (>25,000 MT COZe/
year) and Imported Electricity Large Industrial Facilities (>25,000 MT COZe/year) 2015-2020 ‘Upstream’ treatment of fuel combustion Where fuel enters into commerce covering
ing and interacting With energy and environmental programs
916, issued Aug. 13, 2009; Beaver, E., “Means for Incorpo rating Sustainability Metrics and Total Cost Bene?t Analysis in Decision-Making”, US. Pat. No. 0,222,307, issued Sep. 3, 2009; Esposito II, P. R., Harvey, C. M., Esposito, M. V., Thomas, G. K., Williams II, J. P., Gandee, J. E., Esposito SR., P. R., Locke, C. D., Wood, J. M., “Management Method, System and Product for Enterprise Environmental Pro grams”, US. Pat. No. 0,015,424, issued Jan. 19, 2006). HoW ever, optimiZing in an integrated manner energy costs and
GHG Emission Compliance costs across multiple projects and locations has not been addressed. This is the subject of the current invention.
[0013] Investment in energy e?iciency, clean energy, car bon reduction and carbon off-sets is fundamentally a business decision, and the success of strategies to promote environ
mentally preferable energy outcomes Will depend primarily on the business case for such investments.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
energy demands While also satisfying emissions limits and
[0014] The invention is an optimization method compris ing of: (a) uniform and e?icient model and associated meth ods for computing the energy and emission impacts of each of a range of technological and commercial options, and (b) an integrated and e?icient optimiZation model for trading off the technological and commercial options against each other to arrive at a ?nancially optimal solution that complies With regulatory caps on emission. The energy and emission impact model handles options such as energy ef?ciency measures, reneWable energy projects, carbon capture projects and car bon offsets. In addition to handling the direct emissions, commonly referred to as Scope 1 emissions, the model handles indirect emissions resulting from purchased electric ity or fuel, commonly referred to as Scope 2 emissions. The integrated optimiZation model selects the solution that maxi
regulations. The solution approaches that already exist deal With the energy requirements and GHG emission require
technological and commercial options considering the loca
Small industrial fuel use (for facilities
(19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2010/0257124 A1 (43) Pub. Date:
Srinivasan (54)
METHOD FOR INDUSTRIAL ENERGY AND
(52)
EMISSIONS INVESTMENT OPTIMIZATION
(76)
Inventor:
Oct. 7, 2010
us. c1. ..................................... .. 705/36 T; 705/348
(57)
ABSTRACT
Ramesh Srinivasan, San Jose, CA
The invention is an optimization method comprising of: (a)
(Us)
uniform and e?icient model and associated methods for com
puting the energy and emission impacts of each of a range of
Correspondence Address:
technological and commercial options, and (b) an integrated and e?icient optimization model for trading off the techno logical and commercial options against each other to arrive at a ?nancially optimal solution that complies With regulatory
RAMESH SRINIVASAN 7190 SILVER LODE LANE
SAN JOSE, CA 95120 (US)
caps on emission. The energy and emission impact model handles options such as energy ef?ciency measures, reneW
(21) Appl. No.:
12/798,617
(22) Filed:
Apr. 7, 2010
sets. In addition to handling the direct emissions, the model
Related US. Application Data
handles indirect emissions resulting from purchased electric ity or fuel. The integrated optimization model selects the
(60) Provisional application No. 61/212,197, ?led on Apr. 7, 2009.
solution that maximizes the total net present value of savings across the various technological and commercial options con
Publication Classi?cation
Well as the different levels of investments Within each project to choose from; this model performs this optimization over a
able energy projects, carbon capture projects and carbon off
(51)
sidering the location speci?c rates, prices and carbon caps as
series of time periods respecting capital budget and opera
Int. Cl.
G06Q 10/00 G06Q 99/00 G06Q 40/00
(2006.01) (2006.01) (2006.01)
tional budget constraints. The quantities of carbon offsets that must be purchased or sold are also determined as part of this
integrated model.
CapEx, OpEx Constraints Renew able Energy Projects ~
Energy E?icioncy Projects
Locations
Timing >Fixed Investment Costs >Variable Investment Costs
>Energy Reduction Potential )Emission Reduction Potential
Optimization Proiected Energy Reductions
Apply
Locations Processes
Location Speci?c Policies & Rules ‘
:A’l '1'.
ll—~'
Locations
Optimize Formulation
Processes
Fuels
Investment Costs
Carbon Offsets, Prices
Energy Cost Reductions Carbon Offset Costs
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 1 of9
US 2010/0257124 A1
2
3
4
5
I ‘v
k \I
I \
k I:
INPUTS:
INPUTS: ENTERPRISE
INPUTS:
‘INPUTS: EXTERNAL
ENTERPRISE SETUP DATA
INTERNAL RATES AND CONSTRAINTS
ENTERPRISE PROJECTS DATA
RATES
-
CUSTOMER
-
DISCOUNT RATE
.
-
-
MASTER LOCATIONS EMISSION SOURCES MATERIALS
-
ENERGY AND CARBON INTENSITY RATES DEPRECIATION LIFE C02 CAPS
-
MATERIAL
.
CAPEX BUDGET
EMISSION SOURCE MAP
-
OPEX BUDGET
.
-
.
.
STATE TAX RATE FEDERAL TAx RATE STATE TAX CREDIT RATE FEDERAL TAx CREADIT RATE ENERGY
-
CARBON
-
SOURCE-SITE
PROJECT
MASTER PROJECT LOCATIONS CAPEx REQUIRED OPEX REQUIRED
. . .
-
.
-
.
ENERGY AND
MATERIAL PLAN
PRICES
CARBON
INTENSITY
PRICES
CHANGE
RATIOS , ------------------------------ --
6
7
5
ENERGY AND
V
i
5:
INVESTMENT EMISSIONS
INPUTS INTERFACE I
E
COMPUTE FOR ALLENERGY TECHNOLOGICAL AND EMISSIONS PROJECTS IMPACT
'
5 ______OPTIMIZATI0N LOL
8
I COMPUTE OPTIMAL SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL PROJECTS AND COMMERCIAL OPTIONS
12
LP INTERFACE
11 OPTIMIZED SELECTION OF PROJECTS DATA FEED TO ENTERPRISE PROJECT PLAN
lS/v
CARBON OFFSET QUANTITIES TO BE PURCHASED / SOLD DATA FEED TO ENTERPRISE CARBON OFFSETS INVENTORY SYSTEM
PLANNED ENERGY AND EMISSION INTENSITIES DATA FEED TO PRODUCTION PLANNING
14
0-1 MATH EMATICAL
PROGRAMMING
FIG. 1
SOLVER
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 2 0f 9
US 2010/0257124 A1
5
16
i
T
I
:
COMPUTE ENERGY REDUCTION AND
:
i
EMISSIONS REDUCTION
5
17
i
REPEAT FOR EACH
COMPUTE GROSS ENERGY SAVINGS
i5 :
PROJECT PROJECT LEVEL
COMPUTE GROSS EMISSIONS SAVINGS
: E
19
COMPUTE NET ‘ SAVINGS
;
20
COMPUTE NET SAVINGS PRESENT VALUE OF
:
5E
Ii
LOCATION
8
Patent Application Publication
Total Costs
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 3 of9
Gross Energy Energy Use Savings Emission (GES) Reduction
(EUER)
US 2010/0257124 A1
Process By Product Emission
Reduction
(PER) Energy
Emciency
Renewable
Energy
(+)
(+)
(+/-)
(+/-)
(+)
(+/-)
(+)
(+/-)
(+)
H
H
(+)
(+)
(0)
(0)
(+)
Carbon
ca pture Carbon
offsets
FIG. 3
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 4 0f 9
US 2010/0257124 A1
Total Cost
Q)CReosulting
Investment
1
2
3
4
5
6
Energy Ef?ciency Investment ($) FIG. 4
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 5 0f 9
US 2010/0257124 A1
Total Cost
Q)CReosulting
1
2
3
4
5
6
Renewable Energy Investment ($)
FIG. 5
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 6 of9
US 2010/0257124 A1
Total Cost
(1)CReosulting
oncompliancc Cost Investment
1
2
3
4
5
6
Carbon Capture Investment ($)
FIG. 6
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 7 0f 9
US 2010/0257124 A1
A TotalCost
@ ‘6:’
0
9:0 ii
oncompiiancc Cost
0mm
3
6:’
Allowances l
I
i
1
2
l
l
1
l
3
4
5
6
I
I
I
I
>
Carbon Offsets ($)
FIG. 7
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 8 0f 9
US 2010/0257124 A1
CapEx, OpEx Constraints Renew able Energy Froiects ~
Energy Efficiency Projects )Fixed Investment
Costs
Optlmlzatlon
>Variable Investment
Proiected Energy Reductions
Costs
>Ener9y Reduction poieffuai _ >Em|ss|on Reduction
Apply
Localions Processes
Location Speci?c Policies & Rules
Potential
Optimize Formulation
Carbon Caps lnvesimsnt Costs
Carbon Offsets, Prices
Energy Cost Reductions Carbon O?ser Costs
FIG. 8
Patent Application Publication
Oct. 7, 2010 Sheet 9 0f 9
US 2010/0257124 A1
21
DATABASE 22
/ ELECTRONIC PROCESSOR
\
'
DISPLAY
23
f
FIG. 9
Oct. 7, 2010
US 2010/0257124 A1
METHOD FOR INDUSTRIAL ENERGY AND EMISSIONS INVESTMENT OPTIMIZATION
plans independently. Even When they do Work together, this is usually restricted to looking at a single process improvement opportunity at a time.
[0001]
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0007]
This invention is in the ?eld of helping businesses
reduction must be considered simultaneously so as to trade one means against another to arrive at the least cost plan:
strike a balance betWeen corporate energy and emission reduction costs and the costs of environmental compliance. The energy costs are expected to continue to increase in the future. According to the estimates from the US. Environmen
tal Protection Agency, aggregated energy consumption across many of the manufacturing sectors is projected to increase by 20 percent from 2004 levels by 2020, and CO2e emissions (i.e. CO2 equivalent emissions for all the six green house emission gases) are projected to increase by 14 percent (“En ergy Trends in Selected Manufacturing Sectors: Opportuni
ties and Challenges for Environmentally Preferable Energy Outcomes”, US. Environmental Protection Agency, March 2007). The volumes of green house gas emissions are expected to continue to rise in the future. In California, for example, the emission levels are projected to groW from a
[0008] [0009]
The folloWing means for energy and emission
1. Energy E?iciency measures 2. Reducing GHG emissions through carbon avoid
ance and carbon capture strategies
[0010] 3. Purchasing additional emission alloWances/Car bon Offsets/Renewable Energy Credits [0011] The costs of the options above are different by loca tion and time period. Different combinations must be looked at for obtaining the least cost solution.
[0012] The existing Work addresses energy cost budgeting and management (US. Patent Application 20060161450 “Method and system for tracking and budgeting energy
usage”, Carey, Margaret M., Pfeister, Douglas L., Putnam, Christopher) and emissions trading (US. Patent Application 20060184445-“Systems and methods for trading emission
reductions”, Sandor, Richard, Walsh, Michael, Kanakasabai,
2004 level of 500 MMT CO2e to 600 MMT CO2e by 2020 unless neW actions are taken (2007 Integrated Energy Policy
Murali). Organized methods and systems for storing, retriev
Report, California Energy Commission).
have been proposed (Benedek, Z., Liang, J. and Wenegrat, J,
[0002]
“System for Providing Strategies to Reduce the Carbon Out put and Operating Costs of a Workplace”, US. Pat. No. 0,204,
Governments at the international, national and state
levels are Working on measures to curb such emissions.
Schemes that are being considered are: 1. Cap and Trade, 2.
Carbon Tax, 3. Hybrid of Caps and Carbon Tax, and several others. These schemes are aimed at reducing green house gas emissions by directly setting limits or caps on emissions or
indirectly by penaliZing emissions. [0003] As an example, California, as part of the Western Climate Initiative, has the folloWing time table for a Cap and Trade scheme (“Implementing a Quantitative Limit on the Use of Offsets in a Cap and Trade Program”, Mar. 23, 2009, California Air Resources Board): [0004]
The state cap establishes the limit on state CO2e
emissions and Will issue CO2e alloWances to emitting enti ties. The scope of entities planned by California is as folloWs: 2012-2014
In-State Electricity Generation Facilities (>25,000 MT COZe/
year) and Imported Electricity Large Industrial Facilities (>25,000 MT COZe/year) 2015-2020 ‘Upstream’ treatment of fuel combustion Where fuel enters into commerce covering
ing and interacting With energy and environmental programs
916, issued Aug. 13, 2009; Beaver, E., “Means for Incorpo rating Sustainability Metrics and Total Cost Bene?t Analysis in Decision-Making”, US. Pat. No. 0,222,307, issued Sep. 3, 2009; Esposito II, P. R., Harvey, C. M., Esposito, M. V., Thomas, G. K., Williams II, J. P., Gandee, J. E., Esposito SR., P. R., Locke, C. D., Wood, J. M., “Management Method, System and Product for Enterprise Environmental Pro grams”, US. Pat. No. 0,015,424, issued Jan. 19, 2006). HoW ever, optimiZing in an integrated manner energy costs and
GHG Emission Compliance costs across multiple projects and locations has not been addressed. This is the subject of the current invention.
[0013] Investment in energy e?iciency, clean energy, car bon reduction and carbon off-sets is fundamentally a business decision, and the success of strategies to promote environ
mentally preferable energy outcomes Will depend primarily on the business case for such investments.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
energy demands While also satisfying emissions limits and
[0014] The invention is an optimization method compris ing of: (a) uniform and e?icient model and associated meth ods for computing the energy and emission impacts of each of a range of technological and commercial options, and (b) an integrated and e?icient optimiZation model for trading off the technological and commercial options against each other to arrive at a ?nancially optimal solution that complies With regulatory caps on emission. The energy and emission impact model handles options such as energy ef?ciency measures, reneWable energy projects, carbon capture projects and car bon offsets. In addition to handling the direct emissions, commonly referred to as Scope 1 emissions, the model handles indirect emissions resulting from purchased electric ity or fuel, commonly referred to as Scope 2 emissions. The integrated optimiZation model selects the solution that maxi
regulations. The solution approaches that already exist deal With the energy requirements and GHG emission require
technological and commercial options considering the loca
Small industrial fuel use (for facilities
