Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission (916) 654-4930
-
Upload
kadeem-bell -
Category
Documents
-
view
22 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission (916) 654-4930
Energy Efficiency in California
Climate Group BreakfastPreceding Gov. Schwarzenegger's
Climate SummitNov. 18, 2008
Arthur H. Rosenfeld, CommissionerCalifornia Energy Commission
(916) [email protected]
http://www.energy.ca.gov/commissioners/rosenfeld.html
or just Google “Art Rosenfeld”
2
Does Anyone See A Problem With This Picture?
Sundarbans Region
To find this story, Google "Sundarbans Refugee Camp"
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.
5
6
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
7
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 15
Fluorescent Tube Lamps 5Compact Fluorescent Lamps 5Total 95
8
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
9
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
14,0001
96
0
19
62
19
64
19
66
19
68
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
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 = $165/capita
10
Annual Energy Savings from Efficiency Programs and Standards
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,0001
97
5
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
GW
h/y
ear
Appliance Standards
Building Standards
Utility Efficiency Programs at a cost of
~1% of electric bill
~15% of Annual Electricity Use in California in 2003
12Source: David Goldstein
New United States Refrigerator Use v. Time
and Retail Prices
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
1947 1952 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002
Ave
rag
e A
nn
ual
En
erg
y U
se(k
wh
) o
r P
rice
($)
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
13
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
Bil
lio
n k
Wh
/yea
r
= 80 power plants of 500 MW each
In the United States
14
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
Bill
ion
$ (
US
)/ye
ar
in 2
00
5In the United States
15
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
An
nu
al
kW
h p
er n
ew
ho
me
fo
r ce
ntr
al
AC
If only increases in house size -- no efficiency gains
Change due to SEER improvements
SEER plus Title 24
16
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
17
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
45,0001
97
5
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
GW
h/y
ear
Appliance Standards
Building Standards
Utility Efficiency Programs at a cost of
~1% of electric bill
~15% of Annual Electricity Use in California in 2003
Energy Efficiency, Innovation, and Job Creation in California
David Roland-Holst
October 2008
Center for Energy, Resource, and Economic Sustainability (CERES)
Accessible on the Next 10 Web Site: http://www.nextten.org/research/research_eeijc.html
Energy Efficiency Creates Jobs
• Using the BEAR econometric model
• Estimates of Job Creation since 1972:
• Energy Efficiency Measures have created 1.5 Million Jobs out of 18 million total Jobs in CA
20
California IOU’s Investment in Energy Efficiency
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,00019
76
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Mill
ions
of
$200
2 pe
r Y
ear
Forecast
Profits decoupled from sales
Performance Incentives
Market Restructuring
Crisis
IRP2% of 2004
IOU Electric Revenues
Public Goods Charges
21
Source: NRDC; Chang and Wang, 9/26/2007
• To be published in Climatic Change 2008.
• Global Cooling: Increasing World-wide Urban Albedos to Offset CO2
July 28, 2008
22
Hashem Akbari and Surabi MenonLawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, [email protected]: 510-486-4287
Arthur RosenfeldCalifornia Energy Commission,
Tel: 916-654 4930
• A First Step In Geo-Engineering Which Saves Money and Has Known Positive Environmental Impacts
100m2(~1000 ft2) of a white roof, replacing a dark roof, offset the emission of
10 tonnes of CO2
23
Solar Reflective Surfaces Also Cool the Globe
Source: IPCC
24
25
CO2 Equivalency of Cool RoofsWorld-wide (Tropics+Temperate)
• Cool Roofs alone offset 24 Gt CO2• Worth > €600 Billion• To Convert 24 Gt CO2 one time into a rate• Assume 20 Year Program, thus
1.2 Gt CO2/year• Average World Car Emits 4 tCO2/year,
equivalent to 300 Million Cars
off the Road for 20 years.
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
27
28
8% 17% 25% 33% 42% 50% 58%
28
29
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
GW
H
Triple EE Programs
Doubling Standards
20% Renewables
More Efficient Combustion
Less or Cleaner Coal
30
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
Mil
lio
n M
etri
c T
on
s o
f C
O2
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
The End
For More Information:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/commissioners/rosenfeld_docs/index.html
or just Google “Art Rosenfeld”
31