energy efficiency policies and market roi
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
1/16
Strategy Symposium
Final Paper
Transform the Environment.
Transform Your Wallet.
Jeff BishopNicholas Xu
-
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
2/16
Introduction
With the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, ideas became property and mans ability to harness
nature enabled dramatic productivity gains. But while it was easy to quantify and seek out the lowest
price for a manufactured widget, the degradation to the environment was not factored into the free
market, and externalities such as pollution went un-priced. Over the last 150 years, we have seen as the
parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere has gone from 300 to 400reaching a level not seen in over
3 million yearsand for when the oceans were 60-80 feet higher1. The world is being correspondingly
transformed: glaciers are shrinking worldwide, water stresses are now occurring for hundreds of millions,
and global areas affected by drought have increased2.
Although globally humanity is transforming the environment with carbon output, decreasing
carbon output does not have to be costly. In fact, McKinsey in a 2007 report, shows that it is possible to
saveconsumers money while abating considerable amounts of carbon. While McKinsey focused on the
abatement potential for buildings and appliances, transportation, industry, carbon sinks, and power, we
are limiting this paper to just the energy efficiency of buildings and appliances, where it is possible to
both nearly 40 billion dollars annually (see Appendix B) while eliminating nearly 10% of the USs annual
carbon emissions3. This paper is structured to two particular areas: 1) what choices Booth students should
know after they graduate with regards to energy efficiency, and 2) what broad policy options the US or
specific states should use to ensure that there is market efficiency.
Booth Specific Recommendations
We wanted to create a series of recommendations for our classmates, because we felt that our
message of energy sustainability through efficiency fit with the themes of our education at Booth,
1http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-
milestone.html?pagewanted=all&_r=02
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects3Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?. McKinsey Executive Report December 2007.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 -
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
3/16
combining a social mission with attractive investment returns. We realize that Booth is but a small slice of
society, but its surely a start and we hope youll implement some of these measures and even pass the
message on through your networks!
I. Survey ResultsWe found two main insights from the survey of Booth second years. First that the class generally cares
about these issues:
Another lesson we can draw here is that even for a highly educated audience like Booth, that
likely has read about rising carbon emissions, it simply is too nebulous of a concept to care too much
about. Further, carbon emissions are complicated by a lack of global coordination making it hard to
generate the political will to take an economic hit on carbon reduction in the US when we have no control
over the policies of other carbon-intensive countries (such as China). However, it is encouraging to see
that Booth students care above average on issues such as efficiency, sustainability, and environment.
Our second key insight is that Booth students were highly responsive to ROI data on light bulb
choices; this is not surprising given the emphasis on ROI as a decision making metric.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Carbon Emissions Energy Efficiency The Environment Sustainability
Importance
Neutral
-
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
4/16
In one survey question, we asked the class if they would prefer incandescent, compact fluorescent
lamps (CFL), or light-emitting-diode (LED) light bulbs. Then we presented them information on the total
cost of ownership information for each of these light bulbs, and asked them the same question. When
presented with total cost of ownership, the class moved significantly away from incandescent lights and
towards CFL and LED replacements. Therefore in making our recommendations we will focus on
presenting ROI metrics on various efficiency products and solutions.
II. Qualitative issues
The survey also allowed us to get some qualitative responses which we feel would be valuable to
address:
LED payback period
Some people responded that they were concerned about the longer payback period for LED
lights, and perhaps not being able to capture the full benefit before moving again for example. We
concede that LED prices are still high, and havent reached the scale of CFLs yet, meaning that it takes
longer to see a return. However in high cases of use or higher than average electricity costs these lights
can still represent a strong return and we encourage you to take your LEDs with you when you move to
take advantage of their long lifespan.
Incandescent CFL LED
Light Bulb Choice
No Info
ROI Info
-
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
5/16
LED/CFL breakage
These products, especially if certified by Energy Star have strict minimum warranty
requirements: 2 years for CFL bulbs and 3 years for LED bulbs. These required minimum guarantees
generally exceed industry standard practice and you often dont even need the original purchase
information to get a replacement.
LED Light Quality
Some people commented that they dont like the lighting hue of LEDs because they are not
warm. While this is a legitimate matter of taste, manufacturers are responding to it by warming up the
quality of light by adding materials such as phosphorus. LEDs objectively emit very high quality light;
the Rijksmusuem in Amsterdam for example has recently reopened with LEDs to light up their paintings
because they dont emit excess heat or UV rays4.
CFLs and Mercury
CFL bulbs do contain a small quantity of mercury, about 4mg. Manufacturers have been working
to reduce this and products are available with as low as 1mg. This does mean that you should take
additional care not to break the bulbs when handling and disposing of them, but the risk is minimal. In
terms of mercury pollution, most mercury pollution comes from electricity production, so reducing
electricity usage will lead to a net decrease in mercury.
4http://www.newscenter.philips.com/main/standard/news/press/2013/20130403-new-rijksmuseum-illuminated-
with-philips-led-lighting.wpd
-
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
6/16
Recycling programs for CFLs are expanding to safely dispose of them. But even in a worst case
if all 272 million CFLs sold in 2009 were landfilled, they would add 0.12% to the US mercury emissions,
before taking into the account the reduction in electricitywhich reduces the amount of mercury
associated with electricity generation5.
II. IRR Calculations
We show cash flows (defined as initial cost, then savings) for several efficiency products relative to
their conventional counterparts
Light Bulbs Case
5http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdfhttp://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdfhttp://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdfhttp://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf -
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
7/16
Assumptions:
$(20.00)
$(15.00)
$(10.00)
$(5.00)
$-
$5.00
$10.00
Savings by Year
CFL Savings
LED Savings
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 1 2 3 4 5
Cash Flows
CFL CF
LED CF
CFL 5 Yr IRR: 208%
LED 5Yr IRR: 11%
-
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
8/16
Average National Energy Cost: $0.115/kWh
3hrs/day of daily use
Source: EPA Research 2012
Conclusion:
At this time, CFLs represent a much better investment case than LEDs, primarily driven by the
high initial cost of LEDs. These returns can become even more attractive as costs of these new bulbs go
down, or if your use and electricity costs are above national averages.Note: these calculations are
different from the initial ones we showed in class, due to new data on average costs and residential usage
from the EPA study
Appliances Case
Assumptions:
Average National Energy Cost: $0.115/kWh
Average National Gas Cost: $1.08/therm
Average National Water Cost: $8.37/thousand gallons
Washer:
$(60.00)
$(40.00)
$(20.00)
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
Y0 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5
Cash Flows of Efficient Appliances
Washer
Dishwasher
Refrigerator
Washer 5 Yr IRR: 120%
Dishwasher 5Yr IRR: 81%
Refrigerator 5Yr IRR: 25%
-
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
9/16
o 6 loads/wko 3.10 cubic feeto 6.00 Water Factoro Additional cost of Energy Star model: $50
Dishwasher:o 4 cycles/wko Rated electricity/year: 295kWho Rated water/cycle: 4.25 gallonso Additional cost of Energy Star model: $10
Refrigerator:o 22.7 cubic feeto Rated electricity/year: 513kWho Additional cost of Energy Star model: $40
Source: EPA Research 2012
Conclusion:Its important to note that these benefits are measured when deciding to buy a new appliance and
deciding between the conventional model or a more expensive energy star model. The return case for
replacing an older model with a brand new model will be much more variable and complex given the high
initial cost of appliances and wide variety. In general we can see that it is worthwhile to pay for more a
more efficient device if making a new purchase decision. If you are making a replacement decision,
Energy Star provides calculators which allow you to manipulate variables and will give you ROI data,
which we also used for data in our calculations.
See: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/bulk_purchasing/bpsavings_calc/appliance_calculator.xlsx
III. Call to Action
We have presented a spectrum of solutions that have very high returns in addition to advancing a
worthy social cause. This list is by no means comprehensive, we avoided other solutions such as
insulation/HVAC which are highly project specific. However our main goal was to show everyone how
Efficiency Solution 5 Yr IRR
CFL 208%
Washer (new) 120%
Dishwasher (new) 81%
Refrigerator (new) 25%LED 11%
-
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
10/16
thinking about efficiency can have a high payoff. We believe that our peers at Booth represent a unique
group that is can understand and appreciate these ROI arguments, care about making a difference, and are
fortunate enough to generally have the income to afford the additional upfront cost of these investments.
Policy Mechanisms
Through classroom surveys, a qualtrics survey, academic research, and discussion with energy
efficiency experts, we identified five policy measures that have been effective in changing consumers
behavior to move towards energy efficiency. We particularly wanted to focus on agency issues. As
McKinsey describes it,
Agency issues complicate alignment of businesses and consumers toward desirable abatementoutcomes; the builder of a condominium, for example, is usually not responsible for paying theenergy bill. Put simply, the potential for energy efficiency is real and large, but without a changein policy or approach, this potential will remain out of reach.
The mechanisms that we examined were:
Policy Measure Explanation
Government Mandate Requiring at the federal, local or state level that utilities must save a certainpercentage of electricity demand through energy efficiency
Tax Credit/Rebate Incentivizing at the local, state or federal level through an upfront or delayed taxcredit or rebate that would steer consumers to making alternative buying decisionstowards areas that are more energy efficient
Educational Campaign Having the government fund either government agencies or non-governmentalorganizations to educate a targeted populace on the benefits of energy efficiency
Peer pressure Using peer networks to encourage changes in buying decisions towards moreenergy efficiency products or to use more energy efficiency in homes
Market mechanism Relying on the free market and assuming that buyers are rational
We focused on research on energy efficient light bulbs as they are easy to understand, have a
large amount of data, and almost everyone in America has them. There are three particular types of light
bulbs that were studied for this analysis (see previous section for full explanation on each light bulb):
incandescent, CFL and LED.
To document the efficiency of these light bulbs, we used the case study model.
-
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
11/16
I. Mandates: EU decided to phase out incandescent light bulbs by 20126
The EU endorsed regulation in December of 2008 to start a phase out from the European Union
market starting in 2009 and finishing in 2012. Starting with non-clear incandescent lamps being
phased out in September 2009, this automatically shifted consumers to CFLs, which save about 80%
of the energy of incandescent light bulbs.
For those customers using clear light bulbs (100W and above), the levels of outputs were made
consistently stricter from 2009 to 2012, with halogen clear light bulbs being on the market until 2016.
Special exemptions for special purpose incandescent light bulbs (such as those used in ovens or traffic
lights) were included.
The EU estimated this would negative affect (and make redundant) 2000-3000 of the 50,000
people producing light bulbs in the EU, compared to the 5 to 10 billion euros saved from energy bills
that can be invested in other economic activities.
II. Tax CreditIndividual utilities have given tax credits for energy efficiency programs
In 2007, the Illinois legislature passed a law requiring utilities to establish annual energy-savings
goals and to reduce energy delivered and peak demand. The utilities are required to meet this energy
efficiency reduction (see mandate above) but can spend up to 2.015% of the amount paid per kwh by
customers in 20077.
ComEd decided to meet the energy efficiency reduction partly by offering on-the-spot tax credits
in the first year of having energy efficiency requirements. ComEds goal was to change more than 11
6http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/ecodesign/doc/committee/2008_12_08_technical_briefing_household_la
mps.pdf7
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=IL19R&re=0&ee=1
-
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
12/16
million incandescent bulbs to CFLs in three years. 8 They did this through partnering with local
hardware stores (such as Ace or Lowes) to lower the cost of CFL light bulbs to the price of
incandescent, and giving the rebate directly to the hardware store and on-the-spot savings to
individual customers. Through May 2010, ComEd paid $9 million in incentives to reduce the light
bulb prices of 8 million light bulbs for energy savings of 145,650 MWh (roughly 6 cents/kwh)9.
One Illinois utility, Commonwealth Edison, gave away CFLs to small businesses. However, only
37% of customers had installed the CFLs within one month of receiving them, and about a third of the
CFLs that were installed went into homes (people took them home) reducing in reduced operating
hours and lower kwh10.
III. Educational campaignthe Department of Energy regularly funds energy efficiencycampaigns
The US Department of Energy, through the Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy division,
financially supports the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, which is designed
to deploy the cheapest, cleanest and most reliable technologies the US hasnamely energy efficiency
and conservationacross the country. Nearly half a billion of competitive grants were awarded,
which were used for energy efficiency and conservation programs, including education.
Half of this money was used for the Home Weatherization Assistance program, with a portion
dedicated to Consumer Education. While this program boasts savings of $437/house per year11, we
were not able to find any conclusive data on how effective the educational portion of this isand
8http://www.energycentral.com/enduse/energyefficiency/news/vpr/6080/Results-Exceed-ComEd-Expectations-
Six-Months-After-Launch-of-Smart-Ideas-for-Your-Home-Energy-Efficiency-Program9
http://ilsag.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/PY2_QTR_Four_without_financials.259111452.pdf10
http://meeaconference.org/fck_uploads/MES_2010_presentations/MES_2010_Melloch_1-13-2010.pdf11
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/wap.html
-
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
13/16
how consumers respond when shown the data on how much they save from energy efficiency
lighting.
We discussed with an Illinois energy efficiency expert from the Environmental Law and Policy
Center12, who advised that education was tricky, as even though consumers say they want more
information when faced with the data they still dont change their behavior. She advised that
mandates were the best way to change consumer behavior.
IV. Peer PressureWhat your neighbors are doing
Academic research, followed by new companies entering the market (most notably
OPOWER) are now sending in select markets letters to residential utility customers to compare their
energy usage versus those of their neighbors. At a study of 600,000 homes, the average program
reduces energy consumption by 2% -- the equivalent of increasing energy prices by 11 to 20% to
show the same reduction in demand13. Each user is shown how they are doing compared to their
efficient neighbors, as well as all neighbors, and are assigned a smiley face or a frowny face:
The cost effectiveness of this program, on average, is roughly 3.31 cents per kwh saved.
Conclusion
12Interview with Sarah Wochos, Environmental Law and Policy Center. June 4, 2013
13http://opower.com/uploads/library/file/1/allcott_2011_jpubec_-_social_norms_and_energy_conservation.pdf
-
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
14/16
Even in light of all the overwhelming evidence that efficiency solutions are market efficient and
will save consumers and businesses money, they face low market penetration due to various factors such
as the higher initial cost and apathy. It is estimated that as a percentage of sockets, CFLs have a roughly
20% saturation varying by state, with California having the max at 30%14. A lot of money and energy
savings are being left on the table. Based on the case studies, analysis and conversations with experts, we
feel that mandates are the best way to change consumer behavior towards energy efficiency. This does
two things: provides a clear market for producers; the certainty of a long-term market for energy
efficiency should allow more competitors to enter this space; and uses government levers to change
consumer behavior for their own benefit. We caution however that mandates have shown to be politically
unpopular in the US, and perhaps a state level approach is best because it takes into account local factors
such as energy prices. Instead of a direct mandate like Europe, in which the phasing out of incandescent
light bulbs is mandated, it might make more sense to have it gradually be done in the US per the
Environmental Protection Agency in higher and higher standards for lighting efficiency, to avoid the
unpopular policy of a direct mandate. Although of course for our classmates we feel like weve presented
a compelling investment case using only market mechanisms! We hope that armed with this knowledge
you might change your behavior and encourage others to join you.
14http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/downloads/CFL_Market_Profile_2010.pdf
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/downloads/CFL_Market_Profile_2010.pdfhttp://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/downloads/CFL_Market_Profile_2010.pdfhttp://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/downloads/CFL_Market_Profile_2010.pdfhttp://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/downloads/CFL_Market_Profile_2010.pdf -
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
15/16
Appendix A
-
7/28/2019 Energy Efficiency Policies and Market ROI
16/16
Appendix B
Tech Cost/
CO2 Ton
Potential CO2
abatement
Total US
savings
Challenges Opportunities
Lighting -$87/ton 240 Megaton of
carbon
$20.9 bn
annually
Ownership
issues; lifetime
payback
Substitution from
incandescent to LED
and CFL
Electronic
equipment
-$93/ton 120 Megaton of
carbon
$11.2 bn
annually
Education Conversion to
Energy Star or
similar
HVAC
equipment
-$45/ton 100 Megaton of
carbon
$4.5 bn
annually
Ownership
issues
Initial installation;
retrofits
Combined
Heat and
Power
-$36/ton 70 Megaton of
carbon
$2.5 bn
annually
How to
implement
New buildings
Building
shell
-$42/ton 50 Megaton of
carbon
$2.1 bn
annually
Ownership
issues
New buildings
* Over 21,300 Megatons of carbon are emitted each year into the atmosphere