california progress in energy-efficient buildings the long view: 1974 – 2030 august 5, 2008
DESCRIPTION
California Progress in Energy-Efficient Buildings The Long View: 1974 – 2030 August 5, 2008. Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission (916) 654-4930 [email protected] http://www.energy.ca.gov/commissioners/rosenfeld.html or just Google “ Art Rosenfeld ”. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
California Progress in Energy-Efficient Buildings The Long View: 1974 – 2030
August 5, 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
– ~ $80 million per year• California is introducing communicating electric meters and
thermostats that are programmable to respond to time-dependent electric tariffs.
3
Energy Intensity (E/GDP) in the United States (1949 - 2005) and France (1980 - 2003)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005
tho
usa
nd
Btu
/$ (
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.
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
Average Energy Use or Price
0
5
10
15
20
25
Refrigerator volume (cubic feet)
Energy Use per Unit(kWh/Year)
Refrigerator Size (cubic ft)
Refrigerator Price in 1983 $
$ 1,270
$ 462
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
United States Refrigerator Use, repeated, to compare with
Estimated Household Standby Use v. Time
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
Ave
rage
En
ergy
Use
per
Un
it S
old
(k
Wh
per
yea
r)
Refrigerator Use per Unit
1978 Cal Standard
1990 Federal Standard
1987 Cal Standard
1980 Cal Standard
1993 Federal Standard 2001 Federal
Standard
Estimated Standby Power (per house)
2007 STD.
170
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Lumens
Lumens/Watt
Improving and Phasing-Out Incandescent Lamps
CFLs (and LEDs ?) – Federal (Harmon) Tier 2 [2020], allows Cal [2018]
Nevada [2008]
Federal (Harmon) Tier 1 [2012 - 2014]
California Tier 2 [Jan 2008]
Best Fit to Existing Lamps
18
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
19
20
Source: NRDC; Chang and Wang, 9/26/2007
“Decoupling Plus”
21
Part 2Cool Urban Surfaces and Global Warming
Hashem AkbariHeat Island Group
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Tel: 510-486-4287Email: [email protected]
http:HeatIsland.LBL.gov
International Workshop on Countermeasures to Urban Heat Islands August 3 - 4, 2006; Tokyo, Japan
22
Temperature Rise of Various Materials in Sunlight
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
50
40
30
20
10
0
Tem
pera
ture
Ris
e (
°C)Galvanized
Steel
IR-Refl. Black
Bla
ck P
ain
t
Gre
en
Asp
halt
S
hin
gle
Red
Cla
y
Tile
Lt.
Red
P
ain
t
Lt.
Gre
en
P
ain
t
Wh
ite A
sp
halt
Sh
ing
leW
hit
e A
sp
halt
Sh
ing
le
Al R
oof
Coat.
Op
tical W
hit
eO
pti
cal W
hit
e
Wh
ite P
ain
tW
hit
e P
ain
t
Wh
ite C
em
en
t C
oat.
Wh
ite C
em
en
t C
oat.
Solar Absorptance
23
Direct and Indirect Effects of Light-Colored Surfaces
•Direct Effect-Light-colored roofs reflect solar radiation, reduce air-conditioning use
•Indirect Effect-Light-colored surfaces in a neighborhood alter surface energy balance; result in lower ambient temperature
24
and in Santorini, Greece
25
Cool Roof Technologies
flat, white
pitched, white
pitched, cool & colored
Old New
26
Cool Colors Reflect Invisible Near-Infrared Sunlight
27
Cool and Standard Color-Matched Concrete Tiles
• Can increase solar reflectance by up to 0.5
• Gain greatest for dark colors
cool
standard
∆R=0.37 ∆R=0.29∆R=0.15∆R=0.23∆R=0.26 ∆R=0.29
CourtesyAmericanRooftile
Coatings
28
Cool Roofs Standards
• Building standards for reflective roofs
- American Society of Heating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE): New commercial and residential buildings
-Many states: California, Georgia, Florida, Hawaii, …• Air quality standards (qualitative but not quantitative credit)
- South Coast AQMD
- S.F. Bay Area AQMD
- EPA’s SIP (State Implementation Plans)
29
From Cool Color Roofs to Cool Color Cars
• Toyota experiment (surface temperature 18F cooler)
• Ford, BMW, and Fiat are also working on the technology
Cool Surfaces Also Delay Global Warming“White Washing Our Green House”
• Forthcoming:“Global Cooling: Increasing Worldwide Global Albedos” Hashem Akbari, Surabi Menon, Arthur Rosenfeld, submitted to Journal of Climatic Change (2008).
• Conclude that cool roofs and pavements, worldwide, would offset 40 Gt of CO2, which is the same as one years production today !
• The 40 GtCO2 could be achieved over say 20 years, at 2 GtCO2 per year.
30
31
100 Largest Cities have 670 M People
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 10 20 30 40
Population (M)
Area Density
(m2/person
)
Mean = 560 m2/p
Med = 430 m2/p
Tokyo
Mexico CityNew York CityMumbaiSão Paulo
32
Dense Urban Areas are 1% of Land
• Area of the Earth = 511x1012 m2
• Land Area (29%) = 148x1012 m2 [1]• Area of the 100 largest cities = 0.38x1012 m2 = 0.26% of Land
Area for 670 M people• Assuming 3B live in urban area, urban areas = [3000/670] x
0.26% = 1.2% of land• But smaller cities have lower population density, hence, urban
areas = 2% of land• Dense, developed urban areas only 1% of land [2]• 1% of land is 1.5 x 10^12 m2 = area of a square of side s. s = 1200 km or 750 miles on a side. Roughly the area of the
remaining Greenland Ice Cap (see next slide)
33
34
Cooler cities as a mirror
• Mirror Area = 1.5x1012 m2 [5] *(0.1/0.7)[δ albedo of cities/ δ albedo of mirror]= 0.2x1012 m2 = 200,000 km2 {This is equivalent to an square of 460 km on the side}= 10% of Greenland = 50% of California
35
Equivalent Value of Avoided CO2
• CO2 currently trade at ~$25/ton
• 40Gt worth $1000 Billion = $1 Trillion for changing albedo of roofs and paved surface
• Cooler roofs alone worth $500 B
• Cooler roofs also save air conditioning (and provide comfort) worth ten times more
• Let developed countries offer $1 million per large city in a developing country, to trigger a cool roof/pavement program in that city
36
California cool urban surfaces and AB32
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
38
39
McKinsey CO2 Abatement Curves
• McKinsey provides the first graph we’ve seen that offers a balanced graphical comparison of– Efficiency as a negative cost or profitable investment– Renewables as costing > 0
• Two properties of these Supply Curves
1. The shaded areas are proportional to annualized savings or costs -- the graph shows that efficiency (area below x-axis) saves about $50 Billion per year and nearly pays for the renewables (area above x-axis)
The ratio is about 40:60
2. The Simple Payback Time (SPT) can be estimated directly from the graph, if we know the service life of the investment
40
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Energy_Resources_Materials/A_cost_curve_for_greenhouse_gas_reduction_abstract
McKinsey Quarterly
With a Worldwide Perspective
41
8% 17% 25% 33% 42% 50% 58%
-5,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000
Incremental Cost of Efficiency Measures and PVs in $
Annual kWh(eq) including heating load with natural gas
converted at 10,000 Btu/kWh
Premier Gardens
Wheat Ridge
Armory Park del Sol
Smith Passivhaus
Lakeland
kWh
eq
. (el
ectr
icit
y p
lus
gas
)
-5,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000
Incremental Cost of Efficiency Measures and PVs in $
Annual kWh(eq) including heating load with natural gas
converted at 10,000 Btu/kWh
Premier Gardens
Wheat Ridge
Armory Park del Sol
Smith Passivhaus
Lakeland
Indifference
Indifference
Indifference
Indifference
kWh
eq
. (el
ectr
icit
y p
lus
gas
)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Premier Gardens
Wheat Ridge
Armory Park del SolSmith PassivhausHathaway House
Livermore Lakeland
$/kWh eq saved
$/kWh eq of efficiency investment
$/kWh of PV
$/kWh eq including both efficiency and PV
Part 3 – Demand Response
• Thermal Mass• Thermal Storage• Operable Shutters• Cool Roofs
45
46
California is VERY MUCH a Summer Peaking Area
California Daily Peak Loads -- 2006
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Jan-06 Mar-06 May-06 Jul-06 Sep-06 Nov-06
MW
Residential Air Conditioning
Commercial Air Conditioning
47
Time dependent valuation (TDV) prices are also used to calculate bills
• TDV prices are incorporated into California appliance standards (Title 20) and building standards (Title 24)
• TDV prices, or avoided costs, are independent of the idiosyncrasies of utility tariffs• TDV prices incent efficient air conditioners
TDV: Climate Zone 13 (Fresno), August 6
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
TDV (cents/kWh)
48
Demand Response and Advanced Metering Infrastructure
• Began 6 years ago during California electricity crisis– All large customers (>200kW) received digital meters and were
required to move to Time-of-Use rates • In 2003, we established a Goal of 5% price responsive demand by 2007• We have been testing the demand response of “CPP” (Critical Peak
Pricing, which is the California version of French “Tempo”)• Results for residential customers
– 12% reduction when faced with critical peak prices and no technology
– 30% to 40% reduction for customers with air conditioning, technology, and a critical peak price.
• For larger customers, the Demand Response Research Center at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has been testing Automated Demand Response with the same type of “CPP” tariff– Customer Response in the range of 12% during events– And response is “pre-programmed” and can be automatic
• Highly customer specific (process load, lighting, HVAC)
49
Critical Peak Pricing (CPP)with additional curtailment option
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Pri
ce (
cen
ts/k
Wh
)
Standard TOUCritical Peak PriceStandard Rate
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Extraordinary Curtailment Signal, < once per year
CPP Price Signal10x per year
?
Potential Annual Customer Savings: 10 afternoons x 4 hours x 1kw = 40 kWh at 70 cents/kWh = ~$30/year
50Source: Response of Residential Customers to Critical Peak Pricing and Time-of-Use Rates during the Summer of 2003,
September 13, 2004, CEC Report.
Residential Response on a typical hot dayControl vs. Flat rate vs. CPP-V Rate( Hot Day, August 15, 2003, Average Peak Temperature 88.50)
kW
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Noon 2:30 7:30
Controllable Thermostat with CPP-V Rate
Controllable Thermostat with Flat Rate
Control Group
Midnight
CPP Event
CPP rates – Load ImpactsCPP rates – Load Impacts
Most customers (~ 80%) Saved Money and Most (~60%) thought all customers should be offered this type of rate.
51
Fraction of Customers on CPP Rates with Lower bills in 2004 and 2005- Residential and Small Commercial Fraction of Customers on CPP Rates with Lower bills in 2004 and 2005- Residential and Small Commercial
73.1%
80.3%
84.0%
80.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
CPP Residential CPP Commercial
% of all participants in pilot
2004
200520042004 2005 2005
Average residential savings= $38/year
Average small commercial savings-$1300/yr
52
Customer Acceptance of CPP ratesCustomer Acceptance of CPP rates
Should all customers be placed on a dynamic rate and given an option to switch to another rate?
Should dynamic rates be offered to all customers?
DefinitelyProbably
95%
69%
65%
73%
61%
69%
22%
30%
20%
26%
17%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Total
TOU
CPP-F
CPP-V
Info Only
1
1
91%
93%
87%
86%
43%
39%
46%
41%
41%
21%
28%
17%
23%
22%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
TOTAL
TOU
CPP-F
CPP-V
Info Only
1
1
64%
67%
63%
64%
63%
Residential participants express a strong interest in having dynamic rates offered to all customers.
Source: Statewide Pricing Pilot: End-of-Pilot Customer Assessment, December 2004, Momentum Market Intelligence.
53
Just some of the proposed systems for PCTs and demand response in the residential and small commercial/industrial sectors.
Part 4California Greenhouse Reduction Goals: AB 32
54
55
And California
56
Non-Combustion (net)15%
Industry Petroleum
8%
Transportation Petroleum
41%
Buildings natural gas7%
Industry electricity
6%
Industry natural gas7%
Buildings electricity
16%
22%
14%
Emissions of CO2 in California by End Use in 2004Total Emissions = 490 Million metric tons CO2 equivalent
57
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 2020Total Reductions = 174 Million metric Tons CO2 equivalent
58
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 (~30% below BAU!!)
• to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050AB 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
59
Comparison of Fuel Economy – Passenger Vehicles
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
MPG Converted to CAFE Test Cycle
Japan
EU
China
Canada California (Pavley)
US (1) dotted lines denote proposed standards(2) MPG = miles per gallon
Australia
~
liters/100kilometer
9.4
4.7
5.2
7.8
5.9
6.7
60
Renewable Electricity Generation in California (not including large hydroelectric, > 30 MW)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005year
GWH
Geothermal
Biomass
Wind
Solar
11% of Generation in 2005
Small Hydro <30 MW