energy efficiency: the first and most profitable way to delay climate change law seminars...
TRANSCRIPT
Energy Efficiency: The first and most profitable way to delay Climate Change
Law Seminars InternationalENERGY IN CALIFORNIA
Sept. 22, 2008
Arthur H. Rosenfeld, CommissionerCalifornia Energy Commission
(916) [email protected]
http://www.energy.ca.gov/commissioners/rosenfeld.html
or just Google “Art Rosenfeld”
2
California Energy Commission Responsibilities
Both Regulation and R&D
• California Building and Appliance Standards– Started 1977– Updated every few years
• Siting Thermal Power Plants Larger than 50 MW• Forecasting Supply and Demand (electricity and fuels)• Research and Development
– ~ $80 million per year• CPUC & CEC are collaborating to introduce communicating electric
meters and thermostats that are programmable to respond to time-dependent electric tariffs.
3
Energy Intensity (E/GDP) in the United States (1949 - 2005) and France (1980 - 2003)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005
tho
usa
nd
Btu
/$ (
in $
200
0)
If intensity dropped at pre-1973 rate of 0.4%/year
Actual (E/GDP drops 2.1%/year)
France
12% of GDP = $1.7 Trillion in 2005
7% of GDP =$1.0 TrillionIn 2005
4
Energy Consumption in the United States 1949 - 2005
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
19491951195319551957195919611963196519671969197119731975197719791981198319851987198919911993199519971999200120032005
Quads/Year
$ 1.7 Trillion
$ 1.0 Trillion
New Physical Supply = 25 Q
Avoided Supply = 70 Quads in 2005
If E/GDP had dropped 0.4% per year
Actual (E/GDP drops 2.1% per year)
70 Quads per year saved or avoided corresponds to 1 Billion cars off the road
In 2005
5
How Much of The Savings Come from Efficiency
• Some examples of estimated savings in 2006 based on 1974 efficiencies minus 2006 efficiencies
• Beginning in 2007 in California, reduction of “vampire” or stand-by losses– This will save $10 Billion when finally implemented, nation-
wide
• Out of a total $700 Billion, a crude summary is that 1/3 is structural, 1/3 is from transportation, and 1/3 from buildings and industry.
Billion $
Space Heating 40Air Conditioning 30Refrigerators 15Fluorescent Tube Lamps 5Compact Floursecent Lamps 5Total 95
Two Energy Agencies in California
• The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) was formed in 1890 to regulate natural monopolies, like railroads, and later electric and gas utilities.• The California Energy Commission (CEC) was formed in 1974 to regulate the environmental side of energy production and use. • Now the two agencies work very closely, particularly to delay climate change. • The Investor-Owned Utilities, under the guidance of the CPUC, spend “Public Goods Charge” money (rate-payer money) to do everything they can that is cost effective to beat existing standards. • The Publicly-Owned utilities (20% of the power), under loose supervision by the CEC, do the same.
6
7
California’s Energy Action Plan
• California’s Energy Agencies first adopted an Energy Action Plan in 2003. Central to this is the State’s preferred “Loading Order” for resource expansion.
• 1. Energy efficiency and Demand Response• 2. Renewable Generation,• 3. Increased development of affordable & reliable conventional
generation• 4. Transmission expansion to support all of California’s energy
goals.
• The Energy Action Plan has been updated since 2003 and provides overall policy direction to the various state agencies involved with the energy sectors
8
Per Capita Electricity Sales (not including self-generation)(kWh/person) (2006 to 2008 are forecast data)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1960196219641966196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008
United States
California
Per Capita Income in Constant 2000 $1975 2005 % change
US GDP/capita 16,241 31,442 94%Cal GSP/capita 18,760 33,536 79%
2005 Differences = 5,300kWh/yr = $165/capita
9
Annual Energy Savings from Efficiency Programs and Standards
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
19751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003
GWh/year
Appliance Standards
Building Standards
Utility Efficiency Programs at a cost of
~1% of electric bill
~15% of Annual Electricity Use in California in 2003
10
Impact of Standards on Efficiency of 3 Appliances
Source: S. Nadel, ACEEE,
in ECEEE 2003 Summer Study, www.eceee.org
75%60%
25%20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
Ind
ex (
1972
= 1
00)
Effective Dates of National Standards
=
Effective Dates of State Standards
=
Refrigerators
Central A/C
Gas Furnaces
SEER = 13
11Source: David Goldstein
New United States Refrigerator Use v. Time
and Retail Prices
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
1947 1952 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002
Ave
rag
e A
nn
ual
En
erg
y U
se(k
wh
) o
r P
rice
($)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Ref
rig
erat
or
volu
me
(cu
bic
fee
t)
Energy Use per Refrigerator(kWh/Year)
Refrigerator Size (cubic ft)
Refrigerator Price in 1983 $
$ 1,270
$ 462
~ 1 Ton CO2/year~ 100 gallons Gasoline/year
12
Annual Energy Saved vs. Several Sources of Supply
Energy Saved Refrigerator Stds
renewables
100 Million 1 KW PV systems
conventional hydro
nuclear energy
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Billion kWh/year
= 80 power plants of 500 MW each
In the United States
13
Value of Energy to be Saved (at 8.5 cents/kWh, retail price) vs. Several Sources of Supply in 2005 (at 3 cents/kWh, wholesale price)
Energy Saved Refrigerator Stds
renewables
100 Million 1 KW PV systems
conventional hydro
nuclear energy
0
5
10
15
20
25
Billion $ (US)/year in 2005
In the United States
14
Air Conditioning Energy Use in Single Family Homes in PG&E The effect of AC Standards (SEER) and Title 24 standards
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Annual kWh per new home for central AC
If only increases in house size -- no efficiency gains
Change due to SEER improvements
SEER plus Title 24
15
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
3 Gorges三峡
Refrigerators冰箱
Air Conditioners 空调
TWh
2000 Stds
2000 Stds
2005 Stds
2005 Stds
If Energy Star
If Energy Star
TW
H/Y
ear
1.5
4.5
6.0
3.0
7.5
Val
ue
(bil
lio
n $
/yea
r)
Comparison of 3 Gorges to Refrigerator and AC Efficiency Improvements
Savings calculated 10 years after standard takes effect. Calculations provided by David Fridley, LBNL
Value of TWh
3 Gorges三峡
Refrigerators 冰箱
Air Conditioners
空调
Wholesale (3 Gorges) at 3.6 c/kWh
Retail (AC + Ref) at 7.2 c/kWh
三峡电量与电冰箱、空调能效对比
标准生效后, 10年节约电量
16
Annual Energy Savings from Efficiency Programs and Standards
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
19751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003
GWh/year
Appliance Standards
Building Standards
Utility Efficiency Programs at a cost of
~1% of electric bill
~15% of Annual Electricity Use in California in 2003
17
California IOU’s Investment in Energy Efficiency
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
1976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006200820102012
Millions of $2002 per Year
Forecast
Profits decoupled from sales
Performance Incentives
Market Restructuring
Crisis
IRP2% of 2004
IOU Electric Revenues
Public Goods Charges
20
CO2 Equivalency of Cool Roofs and Pavements
• 44 GT CO2 is over one year of the world 2025 emission of 37 GT CO2
• At a growth rate of 1.5% in the world’s CO2 -equivalent emission rate, 44 GT CO2 would offset the effect of the growth in CO2-equivalent emissions for 11 years
21
Equivalent Value of Avoided CO2
• CO2 emissions currently trade at ~$25/tonne
• 44 GT worth $1100, for changing albedo of roofs and paved surface
• Cooler roofs alone worth $600B
• Cooler roofs also save air conditioning (and provide comfort) worth several times $600B
Reducing U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?
Reducing U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?
US Greenhouse Gas Abatement Mapping Initiative
December 12, 2007
Abatement cost <$50/ton
U.S. mid-range abatement curve – 2030
Source:McKinsey analysis
0
30
60
90
-120
-220
-30
-60
-90
3.20
CostReal 2005 dollars per ton CO2e
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.00.2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.01.60.4 0.6 0.8
-230
Residential electronics
Commercial electronics
Residential buildings – Lighting
Commercial buildings – LED lighting
Fuel economy packages – Cars
Commercial buildings – CFL lighting
Cellulosicbiofuels
Industry – Combined
heat and power
Existing power plant conversion efficiency improvements
Conservation tillage
Fuel economy packages – Light trucks
Commercial buildings – Combined heat and power
Coal mining – Methane mgmt
Commercial buildings – Control systems
Distributed solar PV
Residential buildings – Shell retrofits
Nuclear new-build
Natural gas and petroleum systems management
Active forest management
Afforestation of pastureland
Reforestation
Winter cover crops
Onshore wind – Medium penetration
Coal power plants – CCS new builds with EOR
Biomass power – Cofiring
Onshore wind –High penetration
Industry – CCS new builds on carbon-intensive processes
Coal power plants – CCS new builds
Coal power plants – CCS rebuilds
Coal-to-gas shift – dispatch of existing plants
Car hybridi-zation
Commercial buildings – HVAC equipment efficiency
Solar CSP
Residential buildings – HVAC equipment efficiency
Industrial process improve-ments
Residential water heaters
Manufacturing – HFCs mgmt
Residential buildings – New shell improvements
Coal power plants– CCS rebuilds with EOR
PotentialGigatons/year
Commercial buildings – New shell improvements
Afforestation of cropland
Onshore wind –Low penetration
23
25
Source: Pat McAuliffe, [email protected]
Possible Strategies to Reduce Electricity Sector Carbon Emissions in California, ignoring ramp up times and other implementation issues -- The ELECTRICITY Perspective
240,000
260,000
280,000
300,000
320,000
340,000
360,000
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
GWH
Triple EE Programs
Doubling Standards
20% Renewables
More Efficient Combustion
Less or Cleaner Coal
26
Source: Pat McAuliffe, [email protected]
75
85
95
105
115
125
135
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Million Metric Tons of CO2 eq.
Triple EE Programs
Doubling Standards
20% Renewables
More Efficient Combustion
Less or Cleaner Coal
Possible Strategies to Reduce Electricity Sector Carbon Emissions in California, ignoring ramp up times and other implementation issues -- The CARBON Perspective