Fermi Award Talks June 21 & 22, 2006

Arthur H. Rosenfeld, CommissionerCalifornia Energy Commission

(916) 654-4930ARosenfe@Energy.State.CA.US

http://www.energy.ca.gov/commission/commissioners/rosenfeld.html

2

1949

3

Energy Intensity in the United States 1949 - 2005

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

19491951195319551957195919611963196519671969197119731975197719791981198319851987198919911993199519971999200120032005

thousand Btu/$ (in $2000)

If intensity dropped at pre-1973 rate of 0.4%/year

Actual (E/GDP drops 2.1%/year)

4

Energy Consumption in the United States 1949 - 2005

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

19491951195319551957195919611963196519671969197119731975197719791981198319851987198919911993199519971999200120032005

Quads

$ 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)

5

How Much of The Savings Come from Efficiency?

Easiest to tease out is cars– In the early 1970s, only 14 miles per gallons– Now about 21 miles per gallon– If still at 14 mpg, we’d consume 75 billion gallons more and pay

$225 Billion more at 2006 prices– But we still pay $450 Billion per year– If California wins the “Schwarzenegger-Pavley” suit, and it is

implemented nationwide, we’ll save another $150 Billion per year Commercial Aviation improvements save another $50 Billion per year Appliances and Buildings are more complex

– We must sort out true efficiency gains vs. structural changes (from smokestack to service economy).

6

How Much of The Savings Come from Efficiency (cont’d)?

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 transportation, and 1/3 is buildings and industry.

Billion $Space Heating 40Air Conditioning 30Refrigerators 15Fluorescent Tube Lamps 5Compact Floursecent Lamps 5Total 95

7

A supporting analysis on the topic of efficiencyfrom Vice-President Dick Cheney

“Had energy use kept pace with economic growth, the nation would have consumed 171 quadrillion British thermal units (Btus) last year instead of 99 quadrillion Btus”

“About a third to a half of these savings resulted from shifts in the economy. The other half to two-thirds resulted from greater energy efficiency”

Source: National Energy Policy: Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, Dick Cheney, et. al., page 1-4, May 2001

8

Energy Intensity -- California and the United States

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003year

Intensity (thousand Btus per $ measured in year 2000 $)

US down to 54% of 1973 intensity

California down to 46% of 1973 intensity

54%

46%

9

Per Capita Electricity Sales (not including self-generation)(kWh/person)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

19601962196419661968197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004

CaliforniaUnited States

10

Carbon Dioxide Intensity and Per Capita CO2 Emissions -- 2001 (Fossil Fuel Combustion Only)

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00intensity (tons of CO2 per 2000 US Dollar)

Tons

of C

O2

per p

erso

n

Canada Australia

S. Korea

California

Mexico

United States

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

France

Germany

Italy

Netherlands

New Zealand

Switzerland

Japan

11

(1) dotted lines denote proposed standards(2) MPG = miles per gallon

MPG

-Converted to CAFE Test Cycle

12

Index (1972 = 1.00) of U.S. Energy Use, GDP, Energy Intensity and Carbon Dioxidelast 10-year CO2 growth = 1.3% per year

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

19491951195319551957195919611963196519671969197119731975197719791981198319851987198919911993199519971999200120032005

e/gdpquadsgdpCO2 (combustion)

1.37

2.71

1.33 (est.)

13

Per Capita Electricity Consumption

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000year

kWh/person

United StatesCaliforniaNew York

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_use/total/csv/use_csv

14

Per Capita Electricity Consumption

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

196019621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000year

kWh/person

Red States 2004 ElectionUnited StatesBlue States 2004 ElectionCalifornia

15

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 2006Year

Inde

x (1

972

= 10

0)

Effective Dates of National Standards

=

Effective Dates of State Standards

=

Refrigerators

Central A/C

Gas Furnaces

SEER = 13

16 Source: David Goldstein

New 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

Average Energy Use per Unit Sold (kWh/yr)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Refrigerator volume (cubic feet)

Refrigerator Size (cubic ft)

Energy Use per Unit(kWh/Year) 71% reduction in 28 yrs

= 4.4% year

1st Federal Standard 1992

17 Source: 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

18

New Refrigerator Energy Use: 71% will be saved when stock completely turns over to 2001 Standards

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

At 1974 Efficiency At 2002 Efficiency

Billion kWh per Year

Energy Needed

Energy Needed

Energy Saved

19

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

20

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

21

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

Ene

rgy

Use

per

Uni

t Sol

d (k

Wh

per

year

)

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)

220

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

TWH

/Yea

r

1.5

4.5

6.0

3.0

7.5

Valu

e (b

illio

n $/

year

)

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

23

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

24

Annual Peak Savings from Efficiency Programs and Standards

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

19751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

MW/year

Appliance Standards

Building Standards

Utility Efficiency Programs at a cost of

~1% of electric bill

~ 22% of Annual Peak in California in 2003

25

26

Illuminating Space vs. the Street

27

Figure 8Comparison of EE Program Costs to Supply Generation Costs

0.029

0.058

0.118

0.167

0.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

0.120

0.140

0.160

0.180

Average Cost of EE Programsfor 2000-2004

Base Load Generation Shoulder Generation Peak Generation

$/kW

h

Demand

Supply Options

28

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 $

2002

per

Yea

r

Forecast

Profits decoupled from sales

Performance Incentives

Market Restructuring

Crisis

IRP2% of 2004

IOU Electric Revenues

Public Goods Charges

29

Energy Action Plan

The Energy Action Plan is driven by the Loading Order contained in the multi-agency Energy Action Plan. Since its enactment in 2003, the Loading Order has been integrated into the major CPUC decisions governing energy policy and procurement. Energy resources are prioritized as follows:

1. Energy Efficiency/Demand Response 2. Renewable Generation, including renewable DG 3. Increased development of affordable & reliable conventional

generation 4. Transmission expansion to support all of California’s energy

goals.

30

Critical Peak Pricing (CPP)with additional curtailment option

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Pric

e (c

ents

/kW

h)

Standard TOUCritical Peak PriceStandard Rate

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Extraordinary Curtailment Signal, < once per year

CPP Price Signal

10x per year

?

Potential Annual Customer Savings:

10 afternoons x 4 hours x 1kw = 40 kWh at 70 cents/kWh = ~$30/year

31

Climate Zone 4 (Very Hot Areas) on CPP Days

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24hour ending

kW

Control

CPP - F

TOU

32

The Rosenfeld Fund at the Energy Foundation

Interests that I’d like to pursue with the Fermi Prize $375,0001. In the Developing World: appropriate technology which also reduces

carbon emissions Replacing Kerosene Lamps with LEDs and PV arrays Ultra violet water purification systems Efficient cook stoves for the Darfur refugee camps

2. Worldwide: Robust Building Technology Seismic resistant insulated panel construction White and cool-colored roofs Cool Communities

3. Support for Graduate Students in fields related to Energy Efficiency

www.EF.org

33

34

LEDs Powered with Photovoltaics

Evan Mills at LBNL points out the following: If 1 billion people could replace kerosene lamps with LEDs, emissions would drop by the equivalent of 1 million barrels of petroleum per day

http://eetd.lbl.gov/emills/PUBS/Fuel_Based_Lighting.html

35

UV Water Purification

36

Ashok Gadgil at LBNL points out if UV treatment replaces boiling 10 tons of water per day, each system avoids 4 tons of CO2 per day

Meet / exceed WHO and US EPA criteria Energy efficient: 60 watts disinfects 1 ton / hour Low cost: 4 cents disinfects a ton of water Reliable, Mature components Can treat un-pressurized water Rapid throughput: 12 seconds Low maintenance: once every three months http://www.waterhealth.com/

Ultra Violet Water Purification for Villages in Developing World

37

In Nov.-Dec. 2005, he visited Darfur camps, and showed that with a $10 metal stove, and training to use it, only half the fuelwood is needed.

The stove saves fuelwood worth $160 annually for a refugee family

Since that time, Ashok Gadgil has improved stove efficiency by another factor of two

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/878538-hMpqN3/878538.PDF

Dr. Ashok Gadgil’s Darfur Cookstove Project

38

Residence after 1999 earthquake near Istanbul

39

Apartments after Earthquake

40

Adhesive

Cement (Hardie Board)

EPS (‘Styrofoam’)

Fiber

Cement Board in 3 thicknesses 7/16” to 3/4” Used for roofing, flooring, interior and exterior walls EPS cores from 3.5” to 11.25”

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

Truck Supported by Panels(6” expanded polystyrene clad with plywood. Pickup supported by 2 panels each 4’ x 24’)

42

Afghan Refugee Housing, 2002