Successes of Energy Efficiency: The United States and California

National Environmental Trust

May 2, 2007

Arthur H. Rosenfeld, CommissionerCalifornia Energy Commission

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

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

or just Google “Art Rosenfeld”

2

Energy Intensity in the United States 1949 - 2005

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

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

thou

sand

Btu

/$ (i

n $2

000)

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

Actual (E/GDP drops 2.1%/year)

12% of GDP = $1.7 Trillion

7% of GDP =$1.0 Trillion

3

Energy Consumption in the United States 1949 - 2005

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

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

Qua

ds/Y

ear

$ 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

4

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).

520

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

MPG

Con

vert

ed to

CA

FE T

est C

ycle

Japan

EU

China

Canada California (Pavley)

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

Australia

~

Comparison of Fuel Economy – Passenger Vehicles

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 from transportation, and 1/3 from buildings and industry.

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

7

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

8

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 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00intensity (tons of CO2 per 2000 US Dollar )

Tons

of C

O2

per p

erso

n

CanadaAustralia

S. Korea

California

Mexico

United States

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

France

Germany

Italy

Netherlands

New Zealand

Switzerland

Japan

IndiaChina

9

Per Capita Electricity Sales (not including self-generation)(kWh/person) (2005 to 2008 are forecast data)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,00019

60

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

CaliforniaUnited States

2005 Differences

= 5,300 kWh/yr

= $165/capita

10 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

Ave

rage

Ene

rgy

Use

or P

rice

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ref

riger

ator

vol

ume

(cub

ic fe

et)

Energy Use per Unit(kWh/Year)

Refrigerator Size (cubic ft)

Refrigerator Price in 1983 $

$ 1,270

$ 462

11

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

Bill

ion

kWh/

year

12

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

Bill

ion

$ (U

S)/y

ear i

n 20

05

130

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

14

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

77

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

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

15

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

CO2 Emissions in California: Historical and Projected

16

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

17

Source: Stabilization Wedges: Pacala and Socolow, Science Vol 305, page 968

Growth = 1.5%/yr