California Progress in Energy-Efficient Buildings The Long View: 1974 – 2030

August 5, 2008

Arthur H. Rosenfeld, CommissionerCalifornia Energy Commission

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

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: H_Akbari@LBL.gov

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