COMPARING ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND COMPARING ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY,...

download COMPARING ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND COMPARING ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND

of 31

  • date post

    17-Mar-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    1
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of COMPARING ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND COMPARING ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY,...

  • COMPARING ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND GENERATION

    ACEEE Energy Efficiency as a Resource, September 26, 2011

    David Juri Freeman Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 303/494-1178 email: skumatz@serainc.com ©SERA2010, Internally fundedE

    mailto:skumatz@serainc.com

  • SERA

    TOPICS

    What we know already GHG emissions Programs analysis

    Normalized results

    Other considerations Implications

  • WHAT WE KNOW…

    … if cost per kWh were the only consideration.

  • SERA

    RELATIVE COST PER kWh

    Source: ACEEE, NRDC, SERA, and others

    Normalized coal=1

  • IF GOAL IS MTCE …

    …… at least partly…

  • SERA

    US GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SOURCES - CONVENTIONAL

    Source: USEPA, 2005

    Waste 3%

    Electricity 34%

    Transportation 28%

    Industry 16%

    Commercial 6%

    Agricultural 8%

    Residential 5%

    Electricity, building energy use responsible for about 1/3 of GHG emissions

  • SERA

    US GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SOURCES - REVISED

    Source: USEPA 2009

    Provision of Goods & Materials

    38%

    Food 12%

    Inter-city Passenger Transport

    7%

    Building Energy Use 31%

    Local Passenger Transport

    12%

  • SERA

    GOAL – REDUCE MTCE

    Historic takeaways – Prioritized actions in energy efficiency (EE), transportation

    But are all kWh equal? On what terms? cost hierarchy? other factors? …Move beyond B/C ratio

  • SERA

    ENERGY PROGRAMS ANALYZED

    Residential Weatherization (Res EE)

    Commercial Lighting (Coml EE)

    Solar

    Wind

  • SERA

    ANALYSIS STEPS Data on costs, energy savings, peak & base generation fuels, other Modeled

    associated MTCE, MTCO2e) emissions reductions (base case “generation”) job creation, output impacts (same base case)

    Computed costs / MTCE, jobs / MTCE Results “normalized” for policy focus Purpose NOT to highlight / criticize specific programs…

  • MTCE RESULTS

  • SERA

    RELATIVE COST PER MTCE

    Source: Phase 1 draft figures, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) Superior, CO. All rights reserved. May be used with permission of author.

    Normalized Comm’l Light=1

  • SERA

    COST / MTCE RESULTS

    EE programs are relatively cheaper per MTCE Variations from:

    Program costs Local generation mix

    Does anyone care about GHG- What matters now?

  • SERA

  • RELATIVE JOB IMPACTS

  • SERA

    JOB CREATION ALSO DIFFERENTIATES PROGRAMS

    Direct install, broad programs create more jobs Fewer jobs from appliance programs

    No installation Equipment not all made in US or the relevant state

    Recession…

    0

    200

    400

    600

    800

    1000

    1200

    Weatheriz Appliance

    CA WI Nat'l

  • SERA

    RELATIVE JOBS PER MTCE

    Source: Phase 1 draft figures, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) Superior, CO. All rights reserved. May be used with permission of author.

    Normalized Comm’l Light=1

  • SERA

    RELATIVE COST & JOBS PER MTCE

    Source: Phase 1 draft figures, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) Superior, CO. All rights reserved. May be used with permission of author.

    Normalized Comm’l Light=1

  • SERA

    RELATIVE COST JOBS / $1M

    Source: Phase 1 draft figures, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) Superior, CO. All rights reserved. May be used with permission of author.

    Normalized coal=1

  • OTHER PERSPECTIVE / CONSIDERATIONS

    City / County point of view…

  • SERA

    MULTIPLE WAYS TO ACHIEVE GHG REDUCTIONS

    Cities / counties may also consider recycling, transportation, other strategies Conducted similar analysis of recycling programs

  • SERA

    PROGRAMS MODELED

    Solid waste: 1. Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) 2. Residential curbside recycling (CS Recy.) 3. Yard waste (composting not AD)

  • SERA

    CALCULATION APPROACH Collected data on impacts and costs

    Tons kWh

    GHG Modeling approaches Base (landfilling)

    Results “normalized” for policy focus

  • SERA

    RELATIVE COST MTCE

    Source: Phase 1 draft figures, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) Superior, CO. All rights reserved. May be used with permission of author.

    Normalized Comm’l Light=1

  • SERA

    RELATIVE COST, JOBS PER MTCE FOR RECYCLING & ENERGY

    Source: Phase 1 draft figures, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) Superior, CO. All rights reserved. May be used with permission of author.

    Normalized Comm’l Light=1

  • SERA

    RELATIVE COST, JOBS PER MTCE FOR RECYCLING & ENERGY

    Source: Phase 1 draft figures, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) Superior, CO. All rights reserved. May be used with permission of author.

    Normalized Comm’l Light=1

  • SERA

    US GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (REVISED)

    Food 12%

    Inter-city Passenger Transport

    7%

    Building Energy Use 31%

    Local Passenger Transport

    12% Provision of

    Goods & Materials

    38%

    Source: USEPA, from Allaway (ORDEQ)

  • SERA

    OTHER PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS

    How do behavior based programs stack-up

  • CONCLUSIONS / IMPLICATIONS

  • SERA

    CONCLUSIONS / IMPLICATIONS

    Other considerations Generation mix, region, ramp-up, behavior, EUL

    GHG objectives Move beyond B/C and consider optimization

    Measurable, variable results for different programs –

    GHG, Job performance

  • SERA

    CONTACT INFORMATION

    David Juri Freeman Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D.

    Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027

    Phone: 303/494-1178 Email: skumatz@serainc.com

    Web www.serainc.com

    mailto:skumatz@serainc.com http://www.serainc.com/

    COMPARING ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND GENERATION TOPICS WHAT WE KNOW… RELATIVE COST PER kWh IF GOAL IS MTCE … US GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SOURCES - CONVENTIONAL US GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SOURCES - REVISED GOAL – REDUCE MTCE ENERGY PROGRAMS �ANALYZED ANALYSIS STEPS MTCE RESULTS RELATIVE COST PER MTCE COST / MTCE RESULTS Slide Number 14 RELATIVE JOB IMPACTS JOB CREATION ALSO DIFFERENTIATES PROGRAMS RELATIVE JOBS PER MTCE RELATIVE COST & JOBS PER MTCE RELATIVE COST JOBS / $1M OTHER PERSPECTIVE / CONSIDERATIONS MULTIPLE WAYS TO ACHIEVE GHG REDUCTIONS PROGRAMS MODELED CALCULATION APPROACH RELATIVE COST MTCE RELATIVE COST, JOBS PER MTCE FOR RECYCLING & ENERGY RELATIVE COST, JOBS PER MTCE FOR RECYCLING & ENERGY US GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (REVISED) OTHER PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS CONCLUSIONS / IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSIONS / IMPLICATIONS CONTACT INFORMATION