ENERGY EFFICIENCY POLICY – PAST AND FUTURE · state lamps (light-emitting diodes, LEDs) are expected to become 10 times as efficient as an incandescent lamp (Azevedo et al., 2009;

ENERGY EFFICIENCY POLICY – PAST AND FUTURE Maxine Savitz, Ph.D. November 19, 2012 Carnegie Mellon University

Historical Energy Policy Context In the United States energy policy is largely a derivative

policy with its roots in economic, national security, and environmental policies and with shifting priorities over time among those policies.

2

economic vitality

national security

climate change Energy Policy

National Energy Policies: 1933-1969

3

Roosevelt, Franklin D., 1933-45: 1939 presidentially appointed National Resources Planning Board recommended support of research to promote "efficiency, economy, and shifts in demand to low-grade fuels” and that a “national energy resources policy” should be prepared that to look beyond policy directed at specific fuels.”

Truman, Harry, 1945-53. 1950-52 presidentially appointed Materials Policy Commission (known as the Paley Commission after its Chairman William S. Paley) concluded that the U.S. did not possess all material and mineral resources necessary and called for an assessment and scientific plan for utilization of natural resources.

Eisenhower, Dwight, 1953-61. 1955 Report from the Cabinet Advisory Committee on Energy Supplies and Resources Policy.

Kennedy, John F., 1961-63. 1961 National Fuels and Energy Study (commissioned by the U.S. Senate).

Johnson, Lyndon, 1963-69. 1964 “Resources Policies for a Great Society Report to the President by the Task Force on Natural Resources.”

Post 1973 Oil Embargo National Energy Policies

4

Nixon, Richard, 1969-74. 1974 “Project Independence Blueprint.”

Ford, Gerald, 1974-77. 1975 Energy Resources Council report reflected in the President’s omnibus proposal, “The Energy Independence Act of 1975.”

Carter, Jimmy, 1977-81. 1977 “National Energy Plan.”

Reagan, Ronald, 1981-89. 1987 “Energy Security” report.

Bush, George H.W., 1989-93. 1991 “National Energy Strategy.”

Clinton, William J., 1993-2001. 1997 President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, “Federal Energy R&D for the Challenges of the 21st Century.”

Bush, George, 2001-2008. 2001 Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, “Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future.”

Obama, Barack, 2009-Present. Obama-Biden New Energy for America Plan, January 2009.

Key Forces Shaping U.S. Energy Situation •  Increasing world energy demand, particularly in developing nations,

especially China, tightens world energy markets.

•  New sources of unconventional gas and oil resources are fundamentally changing U.S. supply picture, especially in electric power, and to a degree the world outlook as well.

•  Structural change in the U.S. economy continues apace.

•  Energy price volatility remains and continues to complicate market decisions and affect world energy markets.

•  Continuing concerns about global change remain a significant factor in energy decisions, especially outside the U.S.

•  U.S. oil imports increased from 40% in 1990 to 60% in 2005 and has fallen to 45% in 2012

•  U.S. Energy infrastructure is massive and slowly adapts to change and is increasingly vulnerable to natural disasters and terrorism. 5

Then: Total Energy Use Projections for Selected Countries: 2006 and 2009 Projections

6 Source: Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook (2006 and 2009)

Now: Total Energy Consumption for U.S., China and India as a Percentage of Total World Energy Consumption

7

Source: Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook (2010 and 2011)

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 20350

5

10

15

20

25

30

Per

cent

age

of T

otal

Wor

ld E

nerg

y C

onsu

mpt

ion U.S.

China

India

2011 projection2010 projection

China=U.S. in 2027, 2014, 2009

Now: Energy Intensity of the U.S. Economy Relative to 2005 Levels

8

Source: EIA, AER and AEO, 2012

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 20300.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2Historical Projection

Electricity (GDP)

Total Energy (GDP)

Total Energy (per capita)

Ene

rgy

and

Ele

ctric

ity In

tens

ity (2

005=

1)

Changing Energy Structure of the U.S. Economy

9

• Energy efficiency improvements, largely coupled to increasing price and regulation, accounts for about 2/3 of drop in total energy intensity.

• Economic structural change, following an eroding energy intensive U.S. industry base being replaced by a services base, accounts for about a 1/3 of drop in total energy intensity.

•  Increasing imports of energy-intensive products amounts to ”elsewhere energy consuming and pollution emitting production.”

Total U.S. Energy Use By Sector, 2010

10

Residential Buildings 21%

(22.2 quads)

Commercial Buildings

19% (18.2 quads)

Industry 31%

(30.1 quads)

Transportation 27%

(27.5 quads)

Energy Consumption By End Use 1975-2010

11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1975 1985 1995 2010

Transport Industry Buildings

Qua

ds

U.S. Total Energy Consumption by End Use Sector and Fuel Type, 2007

12

13

America’s Energy Future: Technology Opportunities, Risks, and Tradeoffs September 2009

October 2008 November 2009

http://www.nationalacademies.org/energy

May 2009 June 2009

AEF “Global” Conclusion

14

The nation’s energy challenges can only be met by a sustained effort to transform the manner in which the U.S. produces and consumes energy.

Transforming the Energy Sector

The AEF committee carefully considered most of the critical technological options (including their costs and limitations) that might be deployed in pursuing a transformation of the energy sector that would meet key economic, environmental and national security concerns.

Key Major Transformations Required

15

• Efficient use of energy, e.g., buildings (lighting, heating and cooling), cars and trucks, and industry.

• Sources of energy for producing electricity that emit less CO2—natural gas, nuclear, coal with CO2 removed and stored, solar, wind, and geothermal.

•  Transportation fuels that derive from alternatives to petroleum, e.g., liquids from biomass, coal, electricity, and natural gas.

A recurring theme: all issues considered, the major challenges are “Coal and Cars”

16

•  U.S. energy use (2008): 101 quads •  EIA projected U.S. energy use (2030): 118 quads •  Energy efficiency savings potential: 35 quads saved •  Net U.S. 2030 energy use: 83 quads •  35 quads/yr savings potential by 2030, saving money &

energy

U.S. Energy Efficiency Potential (Quadrillions of Btus [quads])

Barriers to Adopting Energy Efficient Technologies

17

•  Price of energy •  Lack of information •  Capital availability •  Fiscal and regulatory policies •  Ownership •  Technical risk •  Human and psychological factors

Policy Instruments Can Be Complimentary

• Price • Standards/Regulations • Incentives • R & D • Information

18

Potential Electricity Savings in Commercial and Residential Buildings, 2020 and 2030

19

U.S. Trends in Refrigerator Appliance Efficiency

20

1978 CA * 1980 CA *

1987 CA *

1993 NECA * 2001 DOE *

* Standards

Re

frig

era

tor

Vo

lum

e (

cu

bic

fee

t)

Savings from Existing and Potential Equipment Efficiency Standards

21

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031

Electricity

con

sump0

on (T

Wh)

Electricity consump8on without exis8ng standards (with decay rate)

Projected electricity consump8on (EIA 2011)

Electricity consump8on with poten8al new standards

Potential includes: Res. Air handlers Res. Boilers Res. Water heaters Comm. Ice-makers Comm. Pkgd AC Comm. Furnaces Comm. Refrigeration Walk-ins Comm. Unit heaters Plus 27 non-AHRI products

A Brief History of Commercial Codes

22 Source: DOE.

Commercial State Energy Code Status as of January 1, 2012

23 Should there be a national building code?

Cost of Conserved Energy: Residential and Commercial Electricity

24

Annual Electricity Use for Lighting (TWh)

25

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States

31Energy Use in Context

BOX 1.2 The Benefits of More Efficient Products: An Illustration

Appendix E of this report provides information on how to calculate the net costs and benefits of energy savings. Figure 1.2.1 illustrates that the overall energy effi-ciency of providing light using incandescent lamps—starting from the burning of coal to produce electricity and continuing through to the production of visible light—is about 1.3 percent: about two-thirds of the energy in the coal is lost in generating electricity, about 9 percent is lost in transmitting and distributing the electricity, and an incandescent lightbulb’s efficiency in transforming electricity to visible light is only 4 percent (Tsao et al., 2009).

In comparison, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) are about four times as efficient in transforming electricity to light as is an incandescent lamp (Azevedo et al., 2009; Tsao et al., 2009). Across the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, a switch from incandescent lighting to CFLs today would save nearly 6 percent of the total amount of electricity generated in the United States today.1 With further R&D, solid-state lamps (light-emitting diodes, LEDs) are expected to become 10 times as efficient as an incandescent lamp (Azevedo et al., 2009; Tsao et al., 2009).2

Across the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, a switch from incandes-cent lighting to CFLs today would save approximately 228 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year relative to today’s consumption, or nearly 6 percent of the total amount of electricity generated in the United States.

Assuming that the LEDs become twice as efficient (on average) as CFLs and other types of currently efficient lamps in 5 years, replacing all lamps with LEDs at that time would save an additional 230.5 TWh. Based on the current average carbon diox-ide (CO2) emissions rate for the U.S. electricity sector, about 650,000 metric tons of CO2 per TWh consumed, the switch from incandescent lighting to CFLs would reduce U.S. CO2 emissions by about 148 million metric tons per year (about 2 percent). If all fluorescent and other lighting were subsequently converted to LEDs at twice the energy efficiency of fluorescent and other high-intensity discharge lamps and fixtures on average, an additional 56 million metric tons of CO2 emissions would be avoided annually.3

All of the above calculations use 2001 data from Navigant Consulting, Inc. (2002) (see also Table 1.2.1). The residential sector used 208 TWh of electricity in 2001, 10 percent of which went to fluorescent lights. Because of the growing adoption of CFLs, the panel’s analysis assumes that the fluorescent share in 2008 was 15 percent and the incandescent share 85 percent. Thus, the amount of electricity consumed by incandescent lamps was about 176.8 TWh. Shifting to fluorescent lighting would reduce electricity use by 75 percent to 44.2 TWh. Together with the 15 percent of lighting that is already fluorescent, the 2008 usage would have been 75.4 TWh if all lights were efficient. If CFLs and other fluorescent lamps are replaced with LEDs in, say, 5 years, half as much electricity, or 37.7 TWh, would be used. Table 1.2.1 has the other calculations.

1The calculation is based on data in Navigant Consulting, Inc. (2002).2The purchase price of a CFL is higher than that for an incandescent lamp, and the cost of

an LED lamp is still higher. While both the CFL and LED save money and energy, compared with the incandescent lamp, whether the LED saves money compared with the CFL is sensitive to the number of hours each year the lamp is used, the purchase price, and the discount rate.

3The United States emitted 5.89 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2006 as a result of all energy consumption.

TABLE 1.2.1 Annual Electricity Use for Lighting (TWh)

Estimated 2008 Electricity Use for Lighting

Electricity Use for Inefficient Incandescent Lighting

Electricity Use for Fluorescent and Other Efficient Lighting

Electricity Use for Formerly Inefficient Lighting If Replaced by CFLs

Total 2008 Electricity Use for Lighting If All Lamps Were Efficient

Electricity Use for Lighting If All Lamps Are Later Replaced with LED Lamps

Residential 208 176.8 (85%) 31.2 44.2 75.4 37.7Commercial 391 125.1 (32%) 265.9 31.3 297.2 148.6Industrial 108 2.2 (2%) 105.8 0.6 106.4 53.2 Total 707 304.1 (43%) 402.9 76.1 479.0 239.5

Saved TWh 228.0 467.5

Public Policy for Lighting •  1973 - Oil Embargo. President Nixon ordered government

buildings (requested private sector) reduce Lighting levels to 50:30:10

•  1974 – Federal Government RD&D Lighting program initiated, on-going •  Light sources •  Lighting applications •  Lighting impacts •  Prizes

• Major successes •  Electronic ballasts •  Compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) •  Solid State Lighting

26

•  1987 National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA 87)

•  1992 Energy Policy Act (EPACT 92) •  2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 05)

•  Standards •  Phase out inefficient bulbs •  Labeling required •  Recognized energy star •  Expanded tax deductions

•  2007 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 07) •  Lighting standards •  Standards for federal buildings

27

Federal Legislation

•  Federal Voluntary Programs

•  1991 EPA Green Light Program

•  1992 Energy Star Program

• State and Local Activities

•  International Activities

• Utility Programs

28

Public Policy for Lighting

Lighting Facts Label

29

Public Policy for Lighting !"#$%&&'#$'()&*+,-(.%#'(/01(/23/(456(789(:;(<=9(>6!(?>)(<=9(85@A)(8<?<9(@AB=<A>B(!5CCA<<99(5>@;(

)5(>5<(D75<9(56(!A<9(((

6-21

1

Figure 3 Example lighting facts label 2

EISA 2007 provided an authorization of $10 million for each of the Fiscal years 2009 to 3

2012 for public awareness. It appears that this money has not been appropriated however to help 4

the education process. 5

Finding: The move to new lighting is changing the entire vernacular used for lighting. It 6

is going to be critical to label the products in a clear way and educate retailers, consumers, 7

lighting designers and contractors on the opportunities and challenges with these new lighting 8

technologies. To this end EISA law of 2007 authorized $10 million a year to advance public 9

awareness; but this money has not been appropriated. 10

Recommendation: DOE and industry should work together to ensure that consumers are 11

educated about new technology options that must be understood to select appropriate 12

replacement lamps.. 13

Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings



53Energy Efficiency in Residential and Commecial Buildings

TABLE 2.6 Shipments of Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

Year

Number of Magnetic Type Shipped (million)

Number of Electronic Type Shipped (million)

Electronic Market Share(%)

1986 69.4 0.4 11988 74.6 1.1 11990 78.4 3 41992 83.7 13.3 141994 83.5 24.6 231996 67 30.3 311998 63.9 39.8 382000 55.4 49.3 472001 46.9 52.5 532002 40.7 53.8 572003 35.2 54.4 612004 30.5 59.2 662005 22.2 61.3 73

Source: DOE/EERE, 2007.

TABLE 2.7 Growth in the Use of Energy Efficiency Measures in Commercial Buildings

Percentage of Floorspace with Measure

Efficiency Measure 1992 2003

HVAC economizer cycle 27 33HVAC variable air volume system 21 30Energy management and control system 21 24Compact fluorescent lamps 12 43Electronic lamp ballasts NAa 72Specular light reflectors 22 40Multipaned windows 44 60Tinted or reflective window glass 37 59Daylighting sensors NAa 4

aNA, not available.Source: Energy Information Administration, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Building Characteristics Tables and Commercial Buildings Characteristics 1992, both available on the EIA website.

30




TABLE 2.6 Shipments of Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

Year

Number of Magnetic Type Shipped (million)

Number of Electronic Type Shipped (million)

Electronic Market Share(%)

1986 69.4 0.4 11988 74.6 1.1 11990 78.4 3 41992 83.7 13.3 141994 83.5 24.6 231996 67 30.3 311998 63.9 39.8 382000 55.4 49.3 472001 46.9 52.5 532002 40.7 53.8 572003 35.2 54.4 612004 30.5 59.2 662005 22.2 61.3 73

Source: DOE/EERE, 2007.

TABLE 2.7 Growth in the Use of Energy Efficiency Measures in Commercial Buildings

Percentage of Floorspace with Measure

Efficiency Measure 1992 2003

HVAC economizer cycle 27 33HVAC variable air volume system 21 30Energy management and control system 21 24Compact fluorescent lamps 12 43Electronic lamp ballasts NAa 72Specular light reflectors 22 40Multipaned windows 44 60Tinted or reflective window glass 37 59Daylighting sensors NAa 4

aNA, not available.Source: Energy Information Administration, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Building Characteristics Tables and Commercial Buildings Characteristics 1992, both available on the EIA website.

Driving Lumen Affordability with Technology

31

Per Capita Electricity Consumption in California, New York, and U.S. (1990-2006)

32

Per Capita Consumption of Electricity(not including on-site generation)

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

kWh/

pers

on

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%

New York

Policies and Programs Can Overcome Barriers

Light and Heavy Duty Vehicles Dominate U.S. Transportation Fuel Consumption Through 2035

33

U.S. transportation energy consumption million barrels per day oil equivalent

•  Source: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2012

63%

Rail Air

Projections History

Heavy-duty vehicles

Light-duty vehicles

2010

5%

66%

9%

18% 21%

9%

2% 2%

Marine

Light Duty Vehicles Available Next Decade

•  Power Train: Internal Combustion, Hybrid, PHEV, EV, Fuel Cell

•  Fuel: Gasoline, Diesel, Hydrogen, Natural Gas, Sun, Battery Biofuel

34

Google Car: Auto vison

Fuel Economy of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles and Trucks (1975-2005)

35 Source: American Physical Society (2008)

Class 6 to 8 trucks

Energy Price Volatility: A Recent Illustration

36

Financial Policies for Energy Efficiency •  Federal tax credits for households, businesses and

vehicles • Grants to weatherize low income homes • Gasoline tax increases •  Loan guarantees • Property Assessed Clean Energy financing (PACE) • Utility on-bill financing • Energy Service Companies (ESCO)

37

U.S. DOE Energy RD & D Plus Deployment Spending

38

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2008 2009 2009 ARRA 2010 2011 2012 Enacted 2013 Request

mill

ion

2005

$

U.S. DOE Energy RD&D Plus Deployment Spending FY2008-FY2013 Request in 2005$

Fission Fusion Efficiency Renewables Fossil including CCT demo Electricity T&D Hydrogen (EERE) ARPA-E Deployment BES and Environmental and Biological R&D

Gallagher, K.S. and L.D. Anadon, "DOE Budget Authority for Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Database," Energy Technology Innovation Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, February 29, 2012.

Composition of DOE Efficiency ERD&D

39

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Mill

ion

2005

$

Composition of DOE Efficiency ERD&D (FY1978-FY2013 Request)

Congressionally directed projects Biomass (FY02-04)

Distributed (FY03-on)

Multi Sector

Buildings

Industry

Utilities

Transportation

Note: FY05-on, biomass included in renewables


Estimates of Energy Savings from Major Energy-Efficiency Policies and Programs

40

Policy or program

Electricity savings (TWh/yr)

Primary energy savings

(Quads/yr) YearCAFÉ vehicle efficiencystandards -- 4.80 2006Appliance efficiencystandards 196 2.58 2006PURPA and other CHPinitiatives -- 1.62 2006ENERY STAR labeling andpromotion 132 1.52 2006Building energy codes -- 1.08 2006Utility and state end-useefficiency programs 90 1.06 2006DOE industrial efficiencyprograms -- 0.40 2005Weatherization assistanceprogram -- 0.14 2006Federal energy managementprogram -- 0.11 2005

TOTAL -- 13.32 --

PCAST Consider the Federal Role in Energy

• Recommendations to Accelerate the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies Through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy

•  Recommendations to Administration and Department of Energy:

•  Establish a full interagency Quadrennial Energy Review (QER) led by the Executive Office of the President.

•  Develop and implement the DOE component of the full interagency Quadrennial Energy Review promptly.

41


•  Recommendations to Administration:

•  Increase annual energy RDD&D funding to about $16B. •  Generate $10 of the $16 billion through new revenue streams. •  Realign energy subsidies and incentives. •  Enhance the Federal Government’s ability to advance energy

technology innovation through its purchasing power. •  Reestablish the Committee on International Science, Engineering,

and Technology within the National Science and Technology Council. 42



•  Recommendations to Department of Energy:

•  Direct $12 billion of the $16 billion to Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) funding, with an emphasis on DOE competitive programs.

•  Exercise authorities to align internal processes and organization with energy objectives.

•  Establish a DOE training grant program. •  Initiate a multidisciplinary social science research program. 43


Meeting with PCAST & OSTP Senior Staff (11-04-2010)

44

Status of Recommendations • DOE Issued QTR – September 2011

•  Framed six strategies to address national energy challenges

45

Budget requests FY 2012-13 reflect rebalance of R & D portfolio based on QTR

Policy Outlook for 2012-2013

46

•  Causes for Optimism –  Public awareness remains high –  Remains a high Administration priority (after health

care) –  The three energy policy dimensions mostly aligned:

security, environment, and economy

•  Causes for Pessimism –  Economic issues remain overwhelming –  Scale of energy challenges is enormous –  Easy to underestimate cost and complexity of

transformational change

Important for Scientists and Engineers to Participate in Public Policy

• Volunteer to advise some element of government

• Spend sabbatical in Federal or State Government

• Participate on advisory bodies; committee studies

• AAAS Fellows; CCST Fellows

• Women in Clean Energy Initiative

47

President Obama Has Been Reelected; He Asks Your Advice Regarding Energy Efficiency Policy Initiatives

• Can be initiated in first 100 days

• Long term actions

48

BACK UP SLIDES

49

Energy Usage in U.S. Residential & Commercial Sectors

50

Growth in Energy Usage in Buildings Could be Reduced 30 Percent from Projected Increase by 2030 (APS Finding 1)

Source: American Physical Society (2008), U.S. DOE, EERE, Energy Data Book (2007)

U.S. Transportation Energy Consumption by Mode

51 Source: American Physical Society (2008)

Summary of Overarching Findings

52

1.  Deployment of energy efficiency technologies is the nearest term and lowest cost option.

2.  Savings in electricity from buildings could eliminate the need to add to electricity generation through 2030.

3.  Barriers to improving energy efficiency are formidable, need sustained initiative, experience from states.

4.  Long-lived capital stock and infrastructure can “lock in” pattern of energy use for decades.

Overall Efficiency for Conversion of Chemical Energy to Light Energy

53



Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States30

BOX 1.2 The Benefits of More Efficient Products: An Illustration

Appendix E of this report provides information on how to calculate the net costs and benefits of energy savings. Figure 1.2.1 illustrates that the overall energy effi-ciency of providing light using incandescent lamps—starting from the burning of coal to produce electricity and continuing through to the production of visible light—is about 1.3 percent: about two-thirds of the energy in the coal is lost in generating electricity, about 9 percent is lost in transmitting and distributing the electricity, and an incandescent lightbulb’s efficiency in transforming electricity to visible light is only 4 percent (Tsao et al., 2009).

In comparison, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) are about four times as efficient in transforming electricity to light as is an incandescent lamp (Azevedo et al., 2009; Tsao et al., 2009). Across the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, a switch from incandescent lighting to CFLs today would save nearly 6 percent of the total amount of electricity generated in the United States today.1 With further R&D, solid-state lamps (light-emitting diodes, LEDs) are expected to become 10 times as efficient as an incandescent lamp (Azevedo et al., 2009; Tsao et al., 2009).2

Across the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, a switch from incandes-cent lighting to CFLs today would save approximately 228 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year relative to today’s consumption, or nearly 6 percent of the total amount of electricity generated in the United States.

Assuming that the LEDs become twice as efficient (on average) as CFLs and other types of currently efficient lamps in 5 years, replacing all lamps with LEDs at that time would save an additional 230.5 TWh. Based on the current average carbon diox-ide (CO2) emissions rate for the U.S. electricity sector, about 650,000 metric tons of CO2 per TWh consumed, the switch from incandescent lighting to CFLs would reduce U.S. CO2 emissions by about 148 million metric tons per year (about 2 percent). If all fluorescent and other lighting were subsequently converted to LEDs at twice the energy efficiency of fluorescent and other high-intensity discharge lamps and fixtures on average, an additional 56 million metric tons of CO2 emissions would be avoided annually.3

All of the above calculations use 2001 data from Navigant Consulting, Inc. (2002) (see also Table 1.2.1). The residential sector used 208 TWh of electricity in 2001, 10 percent of which went to fluorescent lights. Because of the growing adoption of CFLs, the panel’s analysis assumes that the fluorescent share in 2008 was 15 percent and the incandescent share 85 percent. Thus, the amount of electricity consumed by incandescent lamps was about 176.8 TWh. Shifting to fluorescent lighting would reduce electricity use by 75 percent to 44.2 TWh. Together with the 15 percent of lighting that is already fluorescent, the 2008 usage would have been 75.4 TWh if all lights were efficient. If CFLs and other fluorescent lamps are replaced with LEDs in, say, 5 years, half as much electricity, or 37.7 TWh, would be used. Table 1.2.1 has the other calculations.

1The calculation is based on data in Navigant Consulting, Inc. (2002).2The purchase price of a CFL is higher than that for an incandescent lamp, and the cost of

an LED lamp is still higher. While both the CFL and LED save money and energy, compared with the incandescent lamp, whether the LED saves money compared with the CFL is sensitive to the number of hours each year the lamp is used, the purchase price, and the discount rate.

3The United States emitted 5.89 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2006 as a result of all energy consumption.1.2.1 Efficiency

Coal

Power PlantE1 = 0.35

Transmission LinesE2 = 0.90

LightE3 = 0.04

OverallEfficiency

= 1.3%

Overall Efficiency forConversion of Chemical Energy

to Light Energy= E1 ! E2 ! E3= 0.35 ! 0.90 ! 0.04 = 0.013

FIGURE 1.2.1 Example of how end-use efficiency influences overall fuel conversion efficiency. In this example, the efficiency of converting the chemical energy stored in coal to the electricity entering a building is about 32 percent (0.35 ! 0.9). But after accounting for the low efficiency of the incandescent lightbulb, the efficiency of converting chemical energy to light energy is only 1.3 percent. (All values are approximate.) Source: Adapted and updated from Hinrichs and Kleinbach, 2006.

Shipments of Compact Fluorescent Lamps




Significant energy efficiency gains have also been made in lighting. The sales and use of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), which use about 75 percent less electricity per unit of light output relative to incandescent lamps, have increased greatly in the past decade. As shown in Figure 2.6, CFL shipments (based on data on imports, since all CFLs are imported into the United States) increased from about 21 million units in 2000 to 185 million units by 2006. But as a result of various factors—growing state, regional, and utility energy efficiency programs, along with a federal procurement program aimed at reducing the size and improv-ing the quality of CFLs; stepped-up marketing efforts by some large retailers; and national promotion campaigns led by the federal ENERGY STAR® program—CFL shipments jumped to about 400 million units in 2007. This means that CFLs represented about 20–25 percent of all screw-in lightbulbs (incandescent and fluo-rescent) sold in 2007. Given that CFLs last 5 to 10 times longer than incandescent lamps, CFLs actually accounted for the majority of the total “light service” (i.e., lumen-hours) sold in 2007. CFLs do have some drawbacks, such as their use of mercury and difficulty with dimming. However, the small amount of mercury released to the environment if a CFL is disposed of in a landfill is much less than

Num

ber S

hipp

ed (M

illio

n)

Electricity(including losses)PetroleumNatural GasCoalRenewables

From Electricity ConsumptionFrom Direct FossilFuel Combustion

Oil

Natural Gas

Coal

Nuclear

Hydropower

Biomass

Other Renewables

Solar

Fossil Fuels

Wind

Fossil Fuels

Electricity

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

02000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

2.6 Efficiency

FIGURE 2.6 Shipments of compact fluorescent lamps.Source: U.S. Department of Commerce data obtained from USA Trade Online, available at https://orders.stat-usa.gov/on_sam.nsf/fsetOrder/UTO.

54

55

Driving Lumen Affordability with Technology

$1

$10

$100

$1,000

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

OEM

Lam

p Pr

ice

($/k

lm)

Log

Scal

e

Year

Cool White

Warm White

Compact Fluorescent Lamp (850 lm, 13W)

MYPP Projection

Total DOE Energy RD & D Investments

56

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1978

19

79

1980

19

81

1982

19

83

1984

19

85

1986

19

87

1988

19

89

1990

19

91

1992

19

93

1994

19

95

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

20

01

2002

20

03

2004

20

05

2006

20

07

2008

20

09

2009

AR

RA

2010

20

11

2012

Ena

cted

20

13 R

eque

st

mill

ion

2005

$

Total DOE Energy RD&D Investments FY1978-FY13 Request (2005$)


Why Have U.S. Energy Policy Initiatives Often Been Frustrated?

57

•  Competing values. Honest differences over the role of energy in society.

•  Short time horizon. Both political and economic systems focus on short time horizons.

•  Energy choices heavily influenced by price. Even with many costs of energy use not reflected in market prices, price & uncertainty about price dominate decisions.

•  Poor public awareness of energy issues. Example: 1991 Gallup poll—45% of US public unaware that imports oil.

•  Disagreement about role of government. Activist government in 1970s, to laissez-faire in the 1980s, to modest intervention in 1990s, to an aggressive role now.

•  U.S. political system inertia. Favors status quo, rending change difficult with competing values and interests.

•  Weak political parties. In energy, many splintered coalitions: regional and other interests often transcend traditional political parties.

Documents

ENERGY EFFICIENCY POLICY – PAST AND FUTURE · state lamps (light-emitting diodes, LEDs) are expected to become 10 times as efficient as an incandescent lamp (Azevedo et al., 2009;