Transcript Rosenfeld at ACEEE 2007

New Mexico Energy Efficiency Workshop,
Santa Fe
December 4, 2006
Pat McAuliffe
California Energy Commission
(916) 654-4937
Overview of CEC
• Created in 1975 to be California’s energy policy agency:
–
–
–
–
–
Power plant licensing
Efficiency standards for buildings and appliances
Energy supply and demand assessments
Public Interest Energy Research ($80 M/yr)
Renewables ($220 M/yr)
• 5 commissioners appointed by the Governor
• 450 staff, $360 million budget
• Website: www.energy.ca.gov
2
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
3
California’s appliance standards
• Standards are minimum efficiency requirements for appliances
that are offered for sale in the state.
• Criteria: standards must be feasible and cost-effective based on
life cycle costs.
• Enforcement: manufacturers must certify that their appliances
meet the standards.
– CEC maintains on-line databases of certified equipment:
energy.ca.gov/appliances/appliance
• Update standards about every three years.
• CEC standards became federal standards in 1988.
– State standards are preempted for “covered products”
– State standards for products not covered by federal
standards are not preempted
4
Regulated appliances – adopted 1978-84
•
•
•
•
•
•
IIDs
refrigerator
room AC
central AC
heat pumps
furnaces
• boilers
• wall heaters
• plumbing fittings (showerheads,
faucets)
• ballasts
• large AC (65-135 KBtu).
5
Regulated appliances – adopted 2002
•
•
•
•
•
central AC (EER)
commercial AC
vending machines (lighting)
commercial frigs
exit signs
• traffic signals
• torchieres
• domestic and coin-op clothes
washers
• distribution transformers
6
New standards – adopted 2004
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
very large AC
evaporative coolers
commercial frigs
walk-in frigs
vending machines
ice makers
refrigerated water dispensers
pedestrian traffic signals
•
•
•
•
•
•
pool pumps
portable spas
pre-rinse spray valves
fluorescent ballasts
audio and video consumer
electronics, including digital TV
adaptors
external power supplies
7
Activities in other states
• Why are states adopting standards?
– Reducing energy use and pollution are important
– Non-federally covered products are becoming more
important in terms of energy use
– Inactivity by US Department of Energy
• ASAP: Appliance Standards Awareness Project
– Andrew deLaski, Executive Director
www.standardsASAP.org
8
Future California activities
• Investigation of battery charger efficiency opportunities,
development of test procedure, and possible efficiency
standard for BCs
– www.efficientproducts.org/bchargers/test_dev.html
• Include “hardwired” standby in CEC’s building efficiency
standards
• CEC research in standby and networking
– $3M PIER project with LBNL for research in electronics
9
United States Refrigerator Use v. Time
700
1,800
600
1,600
1,400
Refrigerator
Size (liters),
Right Scale
500
$ 1,270
1,200
400
1,000
300
800
600
200
Energy Use per Unit
400
Refrigerator Price
in 1983 $
200
$ 462
0
1947
Refrigerator volume (liters)
Average Energy Use per Unit Sold (kWh/yr)
2,000
100
0
1952
1957
1962
1967
1972
1977
1982
1987
1992
1997
2002
10
Impact of Standards on Efficiency of 3 Appliances
110
=
Effective Dates of
National Standards
=
Effective Dates of
State Standards
100
90
Index (1972 = 100)
Gas Furnaces
80
75%
70
60%
60
Central A/C
50
40
30
20
1972
Refrigerators
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
25%
2000
Year
Source: S. Nadel, ACEEE, in ECEEE 2003
Summer Study, www.eceee.org
11
Building Standards
• Follow the same logic as appliance standards
• We try to use the same set of “avoided costs”
• These are time-differentiated
• Standards allow for various methods of compliance
– Just need to meet a “performance” standard
– See http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/index.html
12
Annual Usage of Air Conditioning in New Homes in California
Annual drop averages 4% per year
3,000
Initial California Title 24
Building Standards
100%
California Title 20
Appliance Standards
1976-1982
2,000
Estimated Impact of
2006 SEER 13
Standards
1,500
1,000
33%
1992 Federal Appliance
Standard
500
Source: CEC Demand Analysis Office
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
0
1970
kWh/YEAR
2,500
13
Utility Programs
• Utilities offer many different types of energy efficiency programs
– From weatherization beginning in the 1970s
– To technical assistance with automated controls
– And rebates on everything in-between.
•
•
•
•
Generally, very cost-effective compared to supply (see next slide)
Lots of study put into assessing potential for energy efficiency
Results in conservation supply curves (two slides later)
These can be converted into CO2 reduction curves (three slides
later)
14
Figure 7
Summary of Cost Effectiveness by Sector for PG&E, SCE and SDG&E
for Program Years 2000-2004
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
3.7
3.4
3.5
cents/kWh
3.7
3.2
3.0
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.3
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.4
1.0
1.1
1.2
0.5
0.0
2000
2001
Residential
2002
Program Years
Non-Residential
2003
2004
New Construction
15
Electricity Conservation Supply Curve 220 Measures
California in 2011 -- Levelized Cost and kWh saved
$0.25
$ per kWh (levelized in 2011 $)
$0.20
$0.15
$0.10
Area = Net Benefit ( $3.4 Billion/year)
$0.05
Area = Cost ( $1.7 Billion/year)
(7%)
(14%)
$0.00
0
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
GWh saved per year (and % of 2011 California Load)
Source: California’s Secret Energy Surplus: The Potential For Energy Efficiency, Rufo and Coito, 9/2002
10,000
16
Electricity Conservation Supply Curve 220 Mesures
translated to Carbon Dioxide Reduction curve
California in 2011 -- (1 kwh reduction saves 1 pound of CO2)
$300
cost of conserved CO2 $ per tonne
$200
$100
$0
0
5
15
10
20
25
-$100
Area = Net Benefit ( $3.4 Billion/year)
-$200
Area = Cost ( $1.7 Billion/year)
-$300
Million Metric Tonnes Saved per year
17
California IOU’s Investment
in Energy Efficiency
$1,000
$800
Performance
Incentives
Profits
decoupled
from sales
$600
IRP
Market
Restructuring
2% of 2004
IOU Electric
Revenues
$700
$500
$400
$300
$200
2012
2010
2008
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
$0
2006
Public Goods Charges
$100
1976
Millions of $2002 per Year
$900
Forecast
Crisis
18
19
Annual Energy Savings from Efficiency Programs and Standards
45,000
~15% of Annual Electricity Use in California in 2003
40,000
35,000
25,000
Utility Efficiency
Programs at a cost of
~1% of electric bill
20,000
15,000
Building Standards
10,000
5,000
Appliance Standards
20
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
0
1975
GWh/year
30,000
Measurement and Evaluation
•
•
•
Just as lots of assessments are
done regarding the potential, lots
of evaluations are conducted
Traditionally 7% of energy
efficiency budget has been set
aside for measurement and
evaluation
For all the details, see the
CALifornia Measurement
Advisory Council (CALMAC)
web page at
http://www.calmac.org/
21
EE Goals and Moving Beyond Decoupling
•
•
•
Just now setting new energy efficiency goals for both investor-owned
utilities and municipal utilities
Essentially to identify cost effective efficiency and establish targets/goals
for energy efficiency and demand response over the next few years
See http://eega2006.cpuc.ca.gov/Default.aspx for examples of these goals
and other details
22
Per Capita Electricity Sales (not including self-generation)
(kWh/person) (2006 to 2008 are forecast data)
14,000
12,000
United States
2005 Differences
= 5,300kWh/yr
= $165/capita
10,000
8,000
California
6,000
4,000
Per Capita Income in Constant 2000 $
1975
2005
% change
2008
2006
2004
94%
79%
2002
2000
1998
31,442
33,536
1996
1992
16,241
18,760
1990
1988
1986
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
1968
1966
1964
1962
1960
0
1984
US GDP/capita
Cal GSP/capita
1994
2,000
23
Accounting for Per Capita Electricity Use
Differences
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Total
US and Cal compared in 2005 Per Capita Electricity Consumption
United States
California
Difference
(kWh/person)
(kWh/person) (kWh/person) % of Difference
4,586
2,369
2,216
42%
4,302
3,253
1,048
20%
3,438
1,391
2,048
39%
12,326
7,013
5,312
100%
• 39% of difference due to industrial sector
• In residential sector, California has higher electricity prices, fewer
cooling degree days, more residents per home, and very few electric
hot water heaters.
24
Governor Schwarzenegger’s and California’s Efforts
• June 2005 Executive Order on Climate Change
– Reduce greenhouse gases:
• to 2000 levels by 2010
• to 1990 levels by 2020
• to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
• AB 32 – the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
– Confirms the Governor’s Executive Order
– Adopt regulations to achieve maximum feasible and costeffective GHG reductions
– Adopt market mechanisms, such as cap and trade
– Establish mandatory reporting of GHG emissions by major
industries
– Adopt a statewide GHG emissions limit for 2020 matching 1990
emissions
25
• www.ClimateChange.ca.gov
700
Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
600
Projected Business as Usual
Historical
500
To Meet AB 32 Goal
400
300
200
100
0
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
26
Emissions of Carbon Dioxide in 2004 by End-Use
Total ~490 Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalents
Non-Combustion
(net)
15%
Buildings natural Buildings
gas
electricity
7%
16%
22%
14%
Industry
electricity
6%
Transportation
Petroleum
41%
Industry
Petroleum
8%
Industry natural
gas
7%
27
Strategies for Meeting California’s CO2 Goals in 2020
Total Reductions = 174 Million metric Tons CO2 equivalent
Other
Strategies , 4%
Energy
Efficiency, 17%
Forestry, 20%
Renewable
Energy, 10%
Water
Efficiency, 1%
Cleaner Power
Plants, 9%
Smart Growth,
15%
Renewable
Fuels, 2%
Clean Cars,
28%
28
Possible Strategies to Reduce Electricity Sector Carbon Emissions in California, ignoring
ramp up times and other implementation issues -- The ELECTRICITY Perspective
360,000
340,000
Triple EE Programs
GWH
320,000
Doubling Standards
300,000
Renewables
280,000
More Efficient Combustion
260,000
Less or Cleaner Coal
240,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
29
Possible Strategies to Reduce Electricity Sector Carbon Emissions in California, ignoring
ramp up times and other implementation issues -- The CARBON Perspective
135
125
Million Metric Tons of CO2 eq.
Triple EE Programs
115
Doubling Standards
105
Renewables
More Efficient Combustion
95
Less or Cleaner Coal
85
75
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
30