New Mexico Energy Efficiency Workshop, Santa Fe

December 4, 2006

Pat McAuliffeCalifornia Energy Commission

(916) 654-4937

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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).

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

United States Refrigerator Use v. Time

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

rage

Ene

rgy

Use

per

Uni

t Sol

d (k

Wh/

yr)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Ref

riger

ator

vol

ume

(lite

rs)

Energy Use per Unit

Refrigerator Size (liters), Right Scale

Refrigerator Price in 1983 $

$ 1,270

$ 462

11

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000Year

Inde

x (1

972

= 10

0)

Effective Dates of National Standards

=

Effective Dates of State Standards

=

Refrigerators

Central A/C

Gas Furnaces

Impact of Standards on Efficiency of 3 Appliances

Source: S. Nadel, ACEEE, in ECEEE 2003 Summer Study, www.eceee.org

75%

60%

25%

12

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

13

Annual Usage of Air Conditioning in New Homes in CaliforniaAnnual drop averages 4% per year

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

kWh/

YEAR

Source: CEC Demand Analysis Office

1992 Federal Appliance Standard

California Title 20 Appliance Standards1976-1982

Initial California Title 24 Building Standards

Estimated Impact of 2006 SEER 13 Standards

100%

33%

14

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)

15

Figure 7Summary of Cost Effectiveness by Sector for PG&E, SCE and SDG&E

for Program Years 2000-2004

1.8

3.7

3.2

3.7

1.1

2.3

1.2

1.21.8

1.5 1.4

4.5

3.4

2.6 2.7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Program Years

cent

s/kW

h

Residential Non-Residential New Construction

16

Electricity Conservation Supply Curve 220 MeasuresCalifornia in 2011 -- Levelized Cost and kWh saved

$0.00

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

$0.25

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000GWh saved per year (and % of 2011 California Load)

Source: California’s Secret Energy Surplus: The Potential For Energy Efficiency, Rufo and Coito, 9/2002

$ pe

r kW

h (le

veliz

ed in

201

1 $)

Area = Net Benefit ( $3.4 Billion/year)

Area = Cost ( $1.7 Billion/year)(14%)(7%)

17

Electricity Conservation Supply Curve 220 Mesurestranslated to Carbon Dioxide Reduction curve

California in 2011 -- (1 kwh reduction saves 1 pound of CO2)

-$300

-$200

-$100

$0

$100

$200

$300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Million Metric Tonnes Saved per year

cost

of c

onse

rved

CO

2 $

per t

onne

Area = Net Benefit ( $3.4 Billion/year)

Area = Cost ( $1.7 Billion/year)

18

$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

Milli

ons

of $

2002

per

Yea

r

$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

Milli

ons

of $

2002

per

Yea

r

Forecast

Profits decoupled from sales

Performance Incentives

Market Restructuring

Crisis

IRP2% of 2004

IOU Electric Revenues

Public Goods Charges

California IOU’s Investment in Energy Efficiency

19

20

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

45,00019

7519

7619

7719

7819

7919

8019

8119

8219

8319

8419

8519

8619

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

03

GW

h/ye

ar

Appliance Standards

Building Standards

Utility Efficiency Programs at a cost of

~1% of electric bill

~15% of Annual Electricity Use in California in 2003

21

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/

22

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

23

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

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

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

24

Accounting for Per Capita Electricity Use Differences

• 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.

US and Cal compared in 2005 Per Capita Electricity ConsumptionUnited States (kWh/person)

California (kWh/person)

Difference (kWh/person) % of Difference

Residential 4,586 2,369 2,216 42%Commercial 4,302 3,253 1,048 20%Industrial 3,438 1,391 2,048 39%Total 12,326 7,013 5,312 100%

25

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 cost-

effective 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• www.ClimateChange.ca.gov

26

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018

Mill

ion

Met

ric T

ons

Car

bon

Dio

xide

Equ

ival

ent

Historical

Projected Business as Usual

To Meet AB 32 Goal

27

Emissions of Carbon Dioxide in 2004 by End-UseTotal ~490 Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalents

Non-Combustion (net)15%

Industry Petroleum

8%

Transportation Petroleum

41%

Buildings natural gas7%

Industry electricity

6%

Industry natural gas7%

Buildings electricity

16%22%

14%

28

Energy Efficiency, 17%

Renewable Energy, 10%

Cleaner Power Plants, 9%

Clean Cars, 28%

Renewable Fuels, 2%

Smart Growth, 15%

Water Efficiency, 1%

Forestry, 20%

Other Strategies , 4%

Strategies for Meeting California’s CO2 Goals in 2020

Total Reductions = 174 Million metric Tons CO2 equivalent

29

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

Renewables

More Efficient Combustion

Less or Cleaner Coal

30

75

85

95

105

115

125

135

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Mill

ion

Met

ric T

ons

of C

O2

eq.

Triple EE Programs

Doubling Standards

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