Energy Efficiency Good for the Worlds Economy; Good for the Nations Economy; and, Good for Yours !

Energy Efficiency   Good  for  the Worlds Economy;  Good for the Nations Economy; and,  Good  for  Yours ! slide 0
Download Energy Efficiency   Good  for  the Worlds Economy;  Good for the Nations Economy; and,  Good  for  Yours !

Post on 25-Feb-2016

43 views

Category:

Documents

3 download

DESCRIPTION

Energy Efficiency Good for the Worlds Economy; Good for the Nations Economy; and, Good for Yours !. Presentation by Kateri Callahan, President Charlotte Regional Partnership Investors Forum July 29, 2009. A Few Words About the Alliance Why Energy Efficiency? Why Now? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Energy Efficiency: Meeting the Challenge & Fueling A Better Built Environment

Energy Efficiency Good for the Worlds Economy; Good for the Nations Economy; and, Good for Yours!Presentation byKateri Callahan, PresidentCharlotte Regional Partnership Investors ForumJuly 29, 2009OverviewA Few Words About the Alliance Why Energy Efficiency? Why Now?Policy: Tapping the Full Potential of Energy EfficiencyRegional/State Leadership: Building Green Economies One by One Forecast for the Future: Energy Efficiency as the Foundation of a New, Green EconomyWhat is the Alliance to Save Energy? A unique NGO formed and still led by Members of Congress

Guided by a 37-Member, Elected Board of DirectorsLed by Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy Includes 9 Members of Congress Bi-Cameral; Bi-PartisanAlso includes environmental, consumer, and trade associations heads, state and local policy makers, corporate executives

Forging Alliances: Business, Govt. & Public Interests

Sponsorship and participation of more than 160 organizations Involvement by businesses in all economic sectors Initiatives underway in research, policy advocacy, education, technology deployment, and communications

Energy Efficiency: Faithful Friend

Energy Efficiency has been powering the U.S. economy for over 30 years! Enormous SavingsEnergy Efficiency AVOIDING roughly 2.5 billion tons of CO2 annually

Saving roughly $400 billion annually

Why Now? Energy Use is a Global Climate Issue

Source: Energy Information AdministrationWhy Now? Growing Energy Demand is Unsustainable Global demand grows by more than half over the next quarter of a century, with coal use rising most in absolute terms024681012141618198019902000201020202030billion tonnes of oil equivalentOther renewablesBiomassHydroNuclearGasOilCoal024681012141618198019902000201020202030billion tonnes of oil equivalentOther renewablesBiomassHydroNuclearGasOilCoalWhy Now? U.S. Growth in Energy Use Poses a National Security Threat

Why Now: Energy Efficiency is a Pocketbook Issue

Why Efficiency? Cheapest, Quickest, Cleanest.Annual world-wide investment of $170 billion in energy efficiency through 2020 could:

cut global growth in energy demand by !save $900 billion a year in avoided energy costs dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Source: The McKinsey Global Institute

Why EE? Enormous Potential for Savings in ALL Sectors

Source: McKinsey Global Institute

12The good news is that there is a very large opportunity to contain energy demand growth in an economically attractive way. By capturing the potential available from existing technologies with an internal rate of return of 10 percent or more, we could cut global energy demand growth by half or more over the next 15 years. In other words, global energy demand in 2020 would decline by an amount equal to almost 150 percent of the entire US energy consumption today. Why Efficiency? Local Benefits

Example: Appalachia Region (area covered includes NC and 1/5 SC)A study by Alliance sister organization, the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance, for the Appalachian Regional Commission shows that a bold energy efficiencyinitiative could cutconsumption by 11 percent to 8.2 quadsin 2020 and by 24 percent to 7.7 quads in2030.Energy Efficiency in Appalachia: How Much is Available, at What Cost, a13EE: Enormous Potential for Regional Job Growth

The same study reveals that cost-effective energypolicies can positively impact the larger Appalachia economy, creating 77,378 jobs regionally. The Challenge? Market DistortionsPrincipal Agent or Split IncentivesHome/Commercial builder versus buyerLandlord versus tenantUtility versus customerTransaction CostsLack of information on life-cycle cost for products and/or paybacks for upgradesLack of Investment in RD&D and EE ProgramsHow Do We Unlock the Potential of Energy Efficiency?

Five Tenants of Sound EE Public PolicyResearch, development and deployment (RD&D) Education and outreach

Incentives and Financing Mechanisms

Standards & Codes

Government Leadership by Example

A Big Year for Energy Efficiency in Public Policy Obamas election platformAmerican Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA, or Stimulus Bill) Presidents Fiscal Year 2010 budgetNEW! American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) Presidents new CAF standards2008/2009October 08MayMayMayJanuary 09JuneJuly House PASSES ACES (6/26)Ongoing appropriations in House and Senate climate & energy bills DOE: new lighting standardsReduce electricity use 15% by 2020Net-zero energy buildings by 2030Overhaul federal appliance standardsBy 2014, reduce energy use in new federal buildings 45%; 25% in existing federal buildingsFlip incentives for utilitiesInvest in a smart gridWeatherize 1 million homes/yearInvestment incentives for livable citiesShowed early commitment tolarge green energy component in the economic recovery billPresident Obama: Energy Efficiency Advocate

19American Recovery & Reinvestment Act: $65B Related to Energy Efficiency

Funding in Millions of US Dollars20ARRA: Built on the Five Pillars of Good Public Policy RD&D Smart Grid ($4.5 bill)DOE RD&D ($2.25 billion) Incentives and Financing ToolsExtension of tax incentivesPACE Bonds Codes & StandardsConditions State funding on strong building codesEducation & OutreachState Energy Star rebate programs ($300 million)Government Leadership by ExampleFederal High-Performance Green Buildings ($4.5 billion)

Funding RolloutEnergy Funds Slow to Unroll:1% of FY2009 awards90% of FY2009 awards go to health, transportation and educationFunding allotted in segments:For SEP & WAP:10% on initial app approval40% on comprehensive app approval Remaining 50% contingent on demonstrated success

Projected timing of all funds made available to states and localities.

http://www.recovery.gov/sites/default/files/GAO-09-580+Recovery+Act.pdfFY09 and FY12 funding for states and localities

Core Energy FundingObligation & Spending to dateSEPAppropriated: $3.1 billionObligated: $301.6 millionSpent: $9.4 millionEECBG Appropriated: $3.2 billionObligated: $0WAPAppropriated: $5 billionObligated: $553.4 millionSpent: $8.3 millionGreen JobsAppropriated: $500 millionObligated: $0Smart Grid Investment Grant ProgramAppropriated: $4.5 billionObligated: $0Smart Grid Demonstration ProjectsAppropriated: $615 millionAwarded: $4.7 millionSpent: $0HUDs EE Public Housing Capital FundsAppropriated: $4 billionAwarded: $0HUDs Green Retrofit ProgramAppropriated $250 millionObligated: $0$890 million of $18 billion awarded (.5%)23

ARRA Funding for EENorth Carolina:State Energy Program (SEP)Appropriated: $76 millionAwarded: $30.4 million (June 25)Weatherization Assistance Appropriated: $132 millionObligated: $53 million (June 18th)Weatherization goal: 23,500 homesEnergy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants*Appropriated: $ 58 millionSouth CarolinaState Energy Program (SEP)Appropriated: $51 millionAwarded: $20.2 million (June 25)

Weatherization Assistance Appropriated: $59 millionObligated: $24 million (June 18th)Weatherization Goal: 6,500 homesEnergy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants*Appropriated: $ 31 millionTotal Stimulus Funding for SEP, WAP, EECBG:NC: $266 millionSC: $139 millionState Energy ProgramNorth Carolina Awarded $30.4 million on June 25th (Appropriated $76 million)South Carolina Awarded $20.2 million on June 24th (Appropriated $51 million)Weatherization Assistance ProgramNorth Carolina Awarded $53 million on June 18th (Appropriated $132 million)South Carolina Awarded $24 million on June 19th (Appropriated $59 million)Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block GrantsEECBG funding is divided between state controlled funds (for the smallest municipalities) and local government funds. Only the State-controlled funds have been awarded. Local and country government applications are due August 10th. I couldnt find information on the state-controlled portion for either of these states. Presumably, they have been awarded but Im be sure.North Carolina - ??? (Appropriated $58 million)South Carolina - ??? (Appropriated $31 million)

24StateEnergy Efficient BuildingsFinancing MechanismsBuilding Code Compli- anceGreen Jobs TrainingEducation and OutreachTransport-ationPerformance ContractingResidentialIndustrialCommercialState Revolving LoansGrantsCreditsArizonaxxxCaliforniaxxxxxxColoradoxxxxxxxGeorgiaxxxxxxIowaxxxxMainexxxMassachusettsxxMinnesotaxxMontanaxNew HampshirexxxxxNew YorkxNorth CarolinaxxxxxxSouth CarolinaxxxxxxxWest VirginiaxxxxState Energy Program PlansUpdated regularly on our stimulus resources page: www.ase.org/stimulusresources

South Carolina:

Public Institution Energy Improvements: $40,000,000Issue grants and no-interest loans to public institutions for energy efficiency projectsReduce energy use by 1% per year for five years, with a goal of 20% reduction by 2020South Carolina Energy Efficiency Training Center Collaborative: $910,000Increase amount of energy-related training provided to the labor force of the stateSmall Business/Utility Partnership for Energy Efficiency Equipment: $50,000Ensure small business participation in market transformation accelerated by the ARRALow-Income Manufactured Housing Retrofit & Evaluation: $3,040,000Assess the efficacy of various energy conservation retrofits for low-income residents of manufactured housingWorks with South Carolinas WAP, Technical College System, Department of Commerce Workforce Program, and the Central Electric Cooperative of South CarolinaGoals:Weatherize 200 homesProvide efficient roof retrofits on 200 homesRetrofit 200 homes with efficient heat pumps and install ENERGYSTAR appliance upgrades in 200 homesSophisticated power monitors installed in 400 homes to assess the energy efficiency value in residencesSouth Carolina Clean Green Investment Incentives$3,000,000Assist new or expanding industrial or commercial businesses which are creating new jobs and providing additional capital investment in the state. Encourages manufacturers of energy efficiency and renewable energy products to locate in South Carolina and helps such existing industries remain in the state and/or expand.Competitive Renewable Energy Grants Program$3,000,000Encourage the development of renewable energy in the state, with preference going to NPOs which are not eligible for funding through other stimulus programs.Applicants expected to show a minimum return on investment of 2.5 to 25Uses of Funds:State Energy Programs PlansNorth Carolina:Support small business and industry through energy savings ($11.5 million)Grow North Carolinas green workforce- ($8.85 million)Foster renewable energy technology and resource innovation ($13.5 million)Improve energy efficiency in local and state government ($9.5 million)Promote residential energy efficiency and renewable energy ($10 million)Create an Energy Investment Revolving Loan Fund ($18 million)South Carolina:Improve energy efficiency in Public Institutions ($40 million)Create South Carolina Energy Efficiency Training Center Collaborative ($.9 million)Establish Small Business/Utility Partnership for Energy Efficiency Equipment ($50 thousand)Improve energy efficiency in Low-Income Manufactured Housing ($3 million)Establish Carolina Clean Green Investment Incentives ($3 million)Establish Competitive Renewable Energy Grants Program ($3 million)

South Carolina:

Public Institution Energy Improvements: $40,000,000Issue grants and no-interest loans to public institutions for energy efficiency projectsReduce energy use by 1% per year for five years, with a goal of 20% reduction by 2020South Carolina Energy Efficiency Training Center Collaborative: $910,000Increase amount of energy-related training provided to the labor force of the stateSmall Business/Utility Partnership for Energy Efficiency Equipment: $50,000Ensure small business participation in market transformation accelerated by the ARRALow-Income Manufactured Housing Retrofit & Evaluation: $3,040,000Assess the efficacy of various energy conservation retrofits for low-income residents of manufactured housingWorks with South Carolinas WAP, Technical College System, Department of Commerce Workforce Program, and the Central Electric Cooperative of South CarolinaGoals:Weatherize 200 homesProvide efficient roof retrofits on 200 homesRetrofit 200 homes with efficient heat pumps and install ENERGYSTAR appliance upgrades in 200 homesSophisticated power monitors installed in 400 homes to assess the energy efficiency value in residencesSouth Carolina Clean Green Investment Incentives$3,000,000Assist new or expanding industrial or commercial businesses which are creating new jobs and providing additional capital investment in the state. Encourages manufacturers of energy efficiency and renewable energy products to locate in South Carolina and helps such existing industries remain in the state and/or expand.Competitive Renewable Energy Grants Program$3,000,000Encourage the development of renewable energy in the state, with preference going to NPOs which are not eligible for funding through other stimulus programs.

North Carolina:Six focus areas for Recovery Act Funding:(from presentation of Larry Shirley, Director of State Energy Office, June 4, 2009)Support small business and industry through energy savings ($11.5 million)Identify and implement energy saving measures in small business and industryTarget Main Street communitiesCommercial renewable energy system grantsNonprofit energy management programGrow North Carolinas green workforce- ($8.85 million)Continuing education for building code inspectorsWorkforce Development Initiative: Renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels, technology training, using community colleges, the UNC system, high school and early college programsFoster renewable energy technology and resource innovation ($13.5 million)Alternative fuels and biofuels development ($3.5 million): Partner with the NC Biofuels center and others to award competitive grants for promising biofuels and alternative fuels projectsNC Green Business Fund ($10 million): Competitive grants for innovative energy projectsImprove energy efficiency in local and state government ($9.5 million)Develop energy assessments and strategic energy plansIdentify new projects: 270 energy projects at state agencies, universities and community colleges can be deployed immediatelySeek more proposals from public schools, local governments, and state agenciesPromote residential energy efficiency and renewable energy ($10 million)Promote energy efficiency in new affordable housing ($3 million): Energy Star manufactured homes, new affordable housing unitsEnergy Audits and implementation for existing homes ($7 million): matching funds and other incentives to owners of existing homes for energy audits and implementation of efficiency and renewable energy measuresCreate an Energy Investment Revolving Loan Fund ($18 million)Low and/or no interest loans to support energy efficiency and renewable energy projectsEligible parties include small businesses, industry, non-profits, local government, public schools, community colleges, and state agencies and universitiesUp to $1 million with terms up to 20 years

26Oversight and AdvocacyImmense problems of implementationsize and complexity; challenge of administration within limited time frame; political appointees not in place; demands on career appointeesCredibility of future energy efficiency initiatives depends on competent and effective implementationProblem of EM & V: How do we measure savings? Continuity of Programs: What happens when the funding goes away?

A Word on Federal Tax IncentivesNew Homes Builder tax credit - up to $2,000 if 50% more efficient compared to 2004 IECCC code; $1,000 for an Energy Star manufactured home. (Through 2009)Existing HomesHomeowner tax credit 10% of cost of installing building envelope components consistent with IECC 2000; capped at $1,500 (Through 2009)Commercial Buildings Deduction up to $1.80/sq.ft. for buildings designed to use 50% less energy than ASHRAE-90.1 (Through 2013)Public Buildings: Assignable deduction!28These incentives are available for 2006 and 2007 _______ 9/04/08 Brad P. says possible extension as Reid will bring it up after the Gang of 10 energy bill comes up (new energy reform act of 2008 Conrad (ND) and Saxby Chambliss (GA))

Existing home tax incentives expired in 2007Commerical Buildings expire at the end of 2008New Homes Expire at the end of 2008Appliances expired in 2007 A Word on Financing: PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy Bonds)Financing of commercial and residential EE and small REAuthority for municipal financing districts or finance companies to issue bondsBond proceeds loaned for EE and small RE retrofit investment Repaid through annual assessment on property tax billPotential market could exceed $500 billionDramatically improves economics

Advantages of PACE financeOur Nation:

Accelerates market and transitionVery low fiscal cost & high probability of successCreates jobs

Property Owner:

Improved return on investment/positive cash flow on retrofits (annual savings>cost)Lower energy bills and substantially reduced upfront costs for energy retrofits

States, Cities & Municipalities:

Obligation is liability of real estate ownerOpt in: Only those real estate owners who opt in pay for it

Lender:Virtually no risk of loss as property tax liens are senior to mortgage debt97% of property taxes are current & losses are less than 1%

Next Up? Energy and Climate LegislationIn the HouseACES (The American Clean Energy and Security Act, or Waxman-Markey)Status: Narrowly passed the House on June 26th by a vote of 219 to 212. In the SenateACELA (The American Clean Energy Leadership Act)Scope: Energy OnlyStatus: Approved by Energy Committee on June 27th

ACES:Cap is the crown jewel85% of US GHG emissions coveredCould be higherCovered emissions reduced 83% in 2050Defend and protect the cap!

ACES: Goals for Energy EfficiencyPolicies will no longer save more energy. Instead they will

Reduce cost of meeting carbon cap by

Addressing market barriers, especially among energy end-usersACES: EE ProgramsComplementary EE policiesCodes, standards, building labeling, electric efficiency resource standardsComplementary ProgramsEE in WM is 3-6% of allowance value$81 to $167b over 2012-2050 12.5% of allowance value could getAllowance prices 10% lower Electric, nat gas and petrol prices 1-3% lowerElectric and natural gas demand 3-7% loweraccording to EPA analysis April 20

Climate Outlook in SenateSenate EPW to release draft in SeptemberAt least six other committees have jurisdiction over climate legislation; Senator Reid has asked these Committees to conclude deliberations by Sept. 18Majority Leader Reid wants to bring comprehensive bill to the floor in the fall; we are hearing October for floor actionOpponents/Proponents in Pitched BattleACES: Where the Votes Are

States with majority of votes in the delegation for the Waxman-Markey bill are in green; states with majority opposing W/M are in redThe Challenges Can Be Overcome: Unleashing NC and SCs Potential! Unleashing the Power of Public Policy: A Prescription for SuccessWestern Governors CDEAC RecommendationsMigrate Best Practices to ALL western statesInstitute Electric & Natural Gas DSM ProgramsUpdate & Enforce New Building CodesGovernment Leadership in Facilities/PracticesFinancial IncentivesPricing Policies (Pay more for the more you use)Education & OutreachTechnology R&D and TransferForm Regional InitiativesFeasible to reduce electricity use 20% in 2020

38In 2004 Clean and Diversified Energy Advisory committee (CDEAC) identified non-mandatory, incentive-base approaches that would increase energy efficiency 20% by 2020 and bring 30,000 megawatts of clean energy online by 2015.Governors accepted plan in 2006 and as of June 2007, new clean energy generating capacity has increased nearly 20% annually in 2005 and 2006 and 8 Western states adopted energy conservation standards for public buildings. WGA also held a Energy Efficiency Buildings Workshop in July 2007 bringing together govt, industry and non-profit gropuls.

Leadership in the StatesCalifornia Cut Energy Use and Peak Demand

Flex Your Power Campaign Retail promotionsTV, Print & Radio Advertising

20/20 Utility Rebate Program Automatic EnrollmentSimple RequirementExecutive OrderAll Investor-owned Utilities

Results

Reduced energy consumption at peak by 14%32% of residents & businesses cut energy use by at least 20%Per capita energy use lower than any industrialized nationCost of savings lower than contract or spot market power purchases

39Unleashing the Power of Charlotte: Suggestions for SuccessNational Action Plan for Energy EfficiencyEEI, NARUC, EPA, DOEEPA Clean Energy-Environment Guide to Action

Western Governors Association Energy Efficiency Task Force ReportDOE, NARUC, NASEO, ASE, RAPState Energy Efficiency Policies: a Series of Briefs, pub. by the Alliance

40

EE Global 2010Monday, May 10 to Wednesday, May 12, 2010Washington DC Convention Center, Washington DC

EE Global 2010, will serve as the Davos of the energy efficiency community, drawing over 600 leaders from government, industry, NGOs, and media from 40+ countries together to share best practices and policies for global implementation of energy efficiency.

With over 80% of 2009 participants self-identifying as executive or management-level, participation in EE Global will provide access to energy efficiencys most notable leaders and decision makers.

Final WordsOur greatest national energy resource is the energy we currently waste. Former Energy Secretary Spence Abraham

Thank you!For More Information.

Kateri CallahanPresidentAlliance to Save Energy1850 M Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20036kcallahan@ase.orgwww.ase.org202.857.066643Chart10.75220702.46301103.61485408.414885023.365465-0.59797719.7526563.88723814.05044925.76713750.0512852470

Alliance to Save EnergyAugust 20082007 Domestic ProductionNet ImportsQuadsAmerica's Greatest Energy Resource Energy Efficiency and Conservation Improvements Since 1973 Have Reduced Annual Energy Consumption by 50 Quads3482324405049

2006 Only197320042006http://www.e-forecasting.com/US_Monthly_GDP.htmlQuads75.71100.5399.916963Source: EIA Monthly Energy Review October 2007, Table 1.8, p.16.Sep-0611,35911,376137,572GDP (Billion Chained 2000 $)4341.5010755.7011319.4Source: EIA Monthly Energy Review October 2007, Table 1.8, p.16.11,38211,427Thousand Btus/Chained Dollars17.449.358.83Source: EIA Monthly Energy Review January 2004, Table 1.8, p.16.11,400Percent decline46%49%Calculated11,39311,444Projected Quads based on 73 IntensityNA187.56197.39Calculated11,479Difference (EE and Structural)NA87.0397.47Calculated11,51311,567Energy Intensity Calculations11,60460% is EE (1973-1997)NA52.2258.48Murtishaw, S., and L. Schipper. 2001. Untangling Recent Trends in U.S. Energy Use.1162840% is structural and fuel switchingNA34.8138.99Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.66.6% is EE (1973-2000)NA57.9664.92"National energy intensity (energy use per unit of GDP) fell 42 percent between 1973 and 2000. About three-quarters of this decline is attributable to real energy efficiency improvements and about one-quarter is due to structural changes and fuel switchin33.4% is structural and fuel switchingNA29.0732.56according to ACEEE, http://www.aceee.org/energy/effact.htm, February 10, 2004.50% is EE (since 1973)NA43.5248.74This is the midrange estimate. Most people we spoke with -- e.g., Scott Murtishaw and Doug Norland -- think the50% is structural and fuel switchingNA43.5248.74energy efficiency percentage is higher.33.3% is EE (future projection)NA29.0732.56"two thirds of the expected change in delivered energy intensity for the[industrial] sector [for the 2002-2025 period] is attributable to structural shifts and the remainder to66.7% is structural and fuel switchingNA57.9664.92changes in energy intensity associated with projected increases in equipment and production efficiencies." (EIA, AEO 2004, p. 74, see also AEO 2002, p.53 where it says 2/3 of economy wide reduction in enegry intensity for 2020 will be structural.)46% is EE (1994-1998)NA34.8138.99IEA, in "30 Years of Energy Use in OECD Countries" (2004, p. 50) says "more than half of the 1.8% average annual reduction in energy per GDP between 1994. The datat was not included, but by measuring the graph, we get 46% energy efficiency share.54% is structural and fuel switchingNA52.2258.48and 1998 can be ascribed to the rapid growth in GDP relative to the demand for energys ervices, with the rest being the result of sub-sectoral energy intensities."70% is EE (1973-1998)NA60.9268.23IEA, in "30 Years of Energy Use in OECD Countries" (2004, p. 46) graph suggests energy efficiency component over 1973-98 period was about 70%. The relative share of energy efficiency has fallen and that trend continues as low-hanging fruit is picked.30% is structural and fuel switchingNA26.1129.24The data was not included so we measured the graph to get number.61% is EE (1973-2002)NA53.0959.46Extrapolations based on IEA data -- see calculations below and notes above.39% is structural and fuel switchingNA33.9438.01Energy Consumption by SourceQuadrillion BTUs2006Coal22.478085Natural Gas22.281878Petroleum39.958151Nuclear Electric Power8.208329Source EIA Monthly Energy Review October 2007, Table 1.3, p.7.Conventional Hydroelectric2.889403Revised from earlier versions per EIA revisionsWood, Waste, Alcohol3.300054Geothermal0.348636December Version: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/mer.pdfSolar and Wind0.328791Others0.123636Total (calculated)99.916963Assuming EE is 50% of ChangeAmerica's Energy SourcesQuadrillion BTUs2006 Consumption2006 Domestic Production2006 Net ImportsHydro Pumped Storage0.10.10Source: 2006: EIA Monthly Energy Review October 2007, Table 1.4a, and 1.4bGeothermal, Solar and Wind0.70.70Conventional Hydroelectric2.92.90Wood, Waste, Alcohol3.33.30Nuclear Electric Power8.28.20Natural Gas22.318.73.560705Coal22.522.8-0.357523Petroleum40.013.526.42Energy Efficiency and Conservation48.748.7011319.40.12%13.58328Petroleum Exports2.8659642.808378Petroleum, Excluding Ethanol, Imports6.97890828.9609226.094956-0.47488429.167763Calculation of Energy Efficiency Share of Total Reduction in Energy IntensityNatural Gas ExportsNatural Gas Imports2.750944based on IEA, "Oil Crises and Climate Challenges: 30 Years of Energy Use in IEA0.7886734.53870226.42Countries" (2004).3.75CumulativeAnnualPercentAnnual QuadsQuadShareShareShareYearReductionAdditionEfficiencyEfficiencyOther197300770.00.019742.812.81772.20.619755.612.81774.31.319768.422.81776.51.9197711.232.81778.62.6197814.042.817710.83.2197916.842.817713.03.9198019.652.817715.14.5198122.462.817717.35.2198225.272.817719.55.8198328.072.817721.66.5198430.882.817723.87.1198533.692.817725.97.7198636.502.817728.18.4198739.302.817730.39.0198842.112.817732.49.7198944.922.817734.610.3199047.732.817736.711.0199150.532.817738.911.6199253.342.817741.112.3199356.152.817743.212.9199458.962.814627.131.8199561.762.814628.433.4199664.572.814629.734.9199767.382.814631.036.4199870.192.814632.337.9199972.992.814633.639.4200075.802.814634.940.9200178.612.814636.242.4200281.422.814637.544.0200384.222.814638.745.5200487.032.814640.047.0Total1392.587.0823.3569.2Percent Share 1973-199859%41%Notes:73-98IEA says over the 73-98 period, energy efficiency was just over 70% of the difference in intensity.94-98IEA says over the 94-98 period, energy efficiency was 46% of the difference in intensity.73-02Assuming in years since, the efficiency share still averages 46%.

2006 Only1

Source: Alliance to Save EnergyTotal ConsumptionQuads (2002)America's Greatest Energy Resource:Energy Efficiency Improvements Since 1973

2007 Only

Alliance to Save EnergyNovember 20072006 Domestic ProductionNet ImportsQuadsAmerica's Greatest Energy Resource Energy Efficiency and Conservation Improvements Since 1973 Have Reduced Annual Energy Consumption by 49 Quads3382223404949

197320042007http://www.e-forecasting.com/US_Monthly_GDP.htmlQuads75.71100.53101.60Source: EIA Monthly Energy Review, July 2008, table 1.1: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/overview.htmlSep-0611,35911,376137,572GDP (Billion Chained 2000 $)4341.5010755.7011566.80Source: EIA Monthly Energy Review July 2008, Table 1.7. Energy Consumption per Real Dollar of Gross Domestic Product http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/overview.html11,38211,427Thousand Btus/Chained Dollars17.449.358.78Calculated11,400Percent decline46%50%Calculated11,39311,444Projected Quads based on 73 IntensityNA187.56201.70Calculated11,479Difference (EE and Structural)NA87.03100.10Calculated11,51311,567Energy Intensity Calculations11,60460% is EE (1973-1997)NA52.2260.06Murtishaw, S., and L. Schipper. 2001. Untangling Recent Trends in U.S. Energy Use.1162840% is structural and fuel switchingNA34.8140.04Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.66.6% is EE (1973-2000)NA57.9666.67"National energy intensity (energy use per unit of GDP) fell 42 percent between 1973 and 2000. About three-quarters of this decline is attributable to real energy efficiency improvements and about one-quarter is due to structural changes and fuel switchin33.4% is structural and fuel switchingNA29.0733.43according to ACEEE, http://www.aceee.org/energy/effact.htm, February 10, 2004.50% is EE (since 1973)NA43.5250.05This is the midrange estimate. Most people we spoke with -- e.g., Scott Murtishaw and Doug Norland -- think the50% is structural and fuel switchingNA43.5250.05energy efficiency percentage is higher.33.3% is EE (future projection)NA29.0733.43"two thirds of the expected change in delivered energy intensity for the[industrial] sector [for the 2002-2025 period] is attributable to structural shifts and the remainder to66.7% is structural and fuel switchingNA57.9666.67changes in energy intensity associated with projected increases in equipment and production efficiencies." (EIA, AEO 2004, p. 74, see also AEO 2002, p.53 where it says 2/3 of economy wide reduction in enegry intensity for 2020 will be structural.)46% is EE (1994-1998)NA34.8140.04IEA, in "30 Years of Energy Use in OECD Countries" (2004, p. 50) says "more than half of the 1.8% average annual reduction in energy per GDP between 1994. The datat was not included, but by measuring the graph, we get 46% energy efficiency share.54% is structural and fuel switchingNA52.2260.06and 1998 can be ascribed to the rapid growth in GDP relative to the demand for energys ervices, with the rest being the result of sub-sectoral energy intensities."70% is EE (1973-1998)NA60.9270.07IEA, in "30 Years of Energy Use in OECD Countries" (2004, p. 46) graph suggests energy efficiency component over 1973-98 period was about 70%. The relative share of energy efficiency has fallen and that trend continues as low-hanging fruit is picked.30% is structural and fuel switchingNA26.1130.03The data was not included so we measured the graph to get number.61% is EE (1973-2002)NA53.0961.06Extrapolations based on IEA data -- see calculations below and notes above.39% is structural and fuel switchingNA33.9439.04Energy Consumption by SourceQuadrillion BTUs2006Coal22.767488Natural Gas23.639894Petroleum39.817586Nuclear Electric Power8.414885Source EIA Monthly Energy Review July 2008, Table 1.3Conventional Hydroelectric2.463011Wood, Waste, Alcohol3.614854Geothermal0.352964Solar and Wind0.399243Others0.131822Total (calculated)101.601747Assuming EE is 50% of ChangeAmerica's Energy SourcesQuadrillion BTUs2007 Consumption2007 Domestic Production2007 Net ImportsHydro Pumped Storage0.10.10Source (Consumption): EIA Monthly Energy Review July 2008, Table 1.3 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/overview.htmlGeothermal, Solar and Wind0.80.80Conventional Hydroelectric2.52.50Wood, Waste, Alcohol3.63.60Nuclear Electric Power8.48.40Coal22.823.4-0.6Source (Imports): EIA Monthly Energy Review July 2008, Table 1.4a, and 1.4b, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/overview.htmlNatural Gas23.619.83.9Petroleum39.814.125.8Energy Efficiency and Conservation50.150.10Calculation of Energy Efficiency Share of Total Reduction in Energy Intensitybased on IEA, "Oil Crises and Climate Challenges: 30 Years of Energy Use in IEACountries" (2004).CumulativeAnnualPercentAnnual QuadsQuadShareShareShareYearReductionAdditionEfficiencyEfficiencyOther197300770.00.019742.812.81772.20.619755.612.81774.31.319768.422.81776.51.9197711.232.81778.62.6197814.042.817710.83.2197916.842.817713.03.9198019.652.817715.14.5198122.462.817717.35.2198225.272.817719.55.8198328.072.817721.66.5198430.882.817723.87.1198533.692.817725.97.7198636.502.817728.18.4198739.302.817730.39.0198842.112.817732.49.7198944.922.817734.610.3199047.732.817736.711.0199150.532.817738.911.6199253.342.817741.112.3199356.152.817743.212.9199458.962.814627.131.8199561.762.814628.433.4199664.572.814629.734.9199767.382.814631.036.4199870.192.814632.337.9199972.992.814633.639.4200075.802.814634.940.9200178.612.814636.242.4200281.422.814637.544.0200384.222.814638.745.5200487.032.814640.047.0Total1392.587.0823.3569.2Percent Share 1973-199859%41%Notes:73-98IEA says over the 73-98 period, energy efficiency was just over 70% of the difference in intensity.94-98IEA says over the 94-98 period, energy efficiency was 46% of the difference in intensity.73-02Assuming in years since, the efficiency share still averages 46%.YearCoal ExportsNatural Gas ExportsTotal Petroleum Exports(Quadrillion Btu)(Quadrillion Btu)(Quadrillion Btu)2007 Total1.5066480.8298472.933646YearCoal ImportsNatural Gas ImportsTotal Petroleum Imports (Excluding Ethanol)(Quadrillion Btu)(Quadrillion Btu)(Quadrillion Btu)2007 Total0.9086714.71708528.700783

Alliance to Save EnergyAugust 20082007 Domestic ProductionNet ImportsQuadsAmerica's Greatest Energy Resource Energy Efficiency and Conservation Improvements Since 1973 Have Reduced Annual Energy Consumption by 50 Quads3482324405049

Chart10.18879649150.0601572240.04364117790.04134815460.13007721170.3246849520.12955897940.081735809

Share of Global Energy-Related CO2 Emissions by Country (2005)

Sheet1US Buildings2304.4United States5,956.98United States21%US Other Sectors3,652.62All but Others19,038.981Total28,192.74China5,322.69China19%Russia1,696.00Russia6%Japan1,230.36Japan4%India1,165.72India4%Western Europe3,667.23Western Europe13%Others9,153.758Others32%US Other Sectors3,652.62US Other Sectors13%US Buildings2304.4US Buildings8%Total (Check)28,192.74Total Percent (Check)100%

Sheet1

Share of Global Energy-Related CO2 Emissions by Country (2005)

Sheet2

Sheet3