{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.039493293591654245, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03278688524590164, 'mean_word_length': 5.217592592592593, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of pollution prevention assessments for the facilities with and without energy star certification

The objective of this paper is to determine and compare the energy efficiency, energy savings, and pollution prevention for the two hypothetical facilities in USA, “XY”, and “BC”, with and without Energy Star® certification (Statement of Energy Performance [SEP]), respectively. Three different tools—Energy Assessment Spreadsheet (EAS), Economic Input Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIOLCA), and P2 calculators were used in assessing the energy usage and pollution prevention. The energy assessment survey was conducted using the EAS to determine the reduction in energy use and to perform the cost‐benefit analysis (CBA). A change in environmental impacts due to use of energy efficient lighting was assessed by the EIOLCA. The P2 was used in estimating the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy savings. Analysis showed a reduction of 58 MTCO2e (metric tons of CO2 equivalents) GHGs with a savings of $6878 for the facility “XY” and 493 MTCO2e GHGs with a savings of $55,089 for facility “BC”. The energy savings calculated with respect to square feet of area were observed to be 0.18 and 20.00 kWh/year, respectively, for XY and BC facilities. © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 33: 1366–1372, 2014