National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Attachment C Committee Meetings and Presentations Received
Suggested Citation:"Attachment D Key Findings of 1999 RAND Study and 2005 Gard Analytics Study." National Research Council. 2009. Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE Building Appliance Energy-Efficiency Standards: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12670.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Attachment D Key Findings of 1999 RAND Study and 2005 Gard Analytics Study." National Research Council. 2009. Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE Building Appliance Energy-Efficiency Standards: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12670.
×
Page 20

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Attachment D Key Findings of 1999 RAND Study and 2005 Gard Analytics Study In 1999, the Rand Corporation conducted a study of the DOE’s appliance program at the request of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The study resulted in a report (Ortiz and Bernstein, 1999) that investigated certain consequences of measuring energy use at either the site or the source. The results of Rand’s comparison of site versus source energy consumption are as follows: 1. Analysis does not support the claim that site-based measurement used to promulgate minimum efficiency standards for water heaters favors electric units over natural gas units. 2. There is no statistical difference in the market share of electricity between states with source- based residential energy codes or codes that are fuel specific as a group and states with site- based residential energy codes as a group. The claim that the measurements of energy used to comply with residential energy codes adversely influences the broader market for natural gas and electricity is unsupported. 3. There is preliminary evidence that states that use source-based energy codes or codes that are fuel specific, as a group, are more efficient with respect to energy use per capita than other states. Another study, commissioned by the American Gas Foundation, resulted in a report by GARD Analytics (2005). That report had four major findings: 1. Real Energy1 analysis is the best method for measuring energy efficiency and the impact of energy consumption on the environment. While Energy Cost analysis at times can be an acceptable alternative, regional pricing variations and non-cost based utility pricing structure impair the accuracy of this approach. 2. Most federal energy efficiency policies use Site Energy as their criteria. As a result, many federal energy efficiency policies actually encourage the use of less efficient appliances. Not only does this result in higher total energy consumption, it increases total pollution. The activities associated with providing energy to the customer, particularly electricity generation and transportation, often emit substantial amounts of CO2 and other gasses associated with global warming. 3. Modifying a number of current and proposed efficiency policies that utilize Site Energy criteria to incorporate Real Energy efficiency approach could cause market shift away from less overall efficient technologies. This is particularly true if policies promoted more efficient electric and gas technologies compared to electric resistance applications. At a minimum, these energy policies could utilize a combination of approaches, similar to the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) policy for analyzing government energy efficiency projects. FEMP requires government agencies to choose the lowest life cycle cost option while reducing Site Energy use per square foot, and any increases in Site Energy can be offset by decreases in Real Energy. 4. Numerous barriers impede federal policy use of Real Energy efficiency standards. Political and legal barriers pose the greatest challenges to changing policies. Market and technical barriers could be more easily overcome with sufficient education and resources. 1 The AGA reference defined “real energy” as site energy plus all upstream energy consumption. This definition corresponds closely to the committee’s definition of full-fuel-cycle energy. 19

REFERENCES GARD Analytics. 2005. Public Policy and Real Energy Efficiency: Assessing the effects of federal policy on energy consumption and the environment. Prepared for the American Gas Foundation. Ortiz, D.S., and M.A. Bernstein. 1999. Measures of Residential Energy Consumption and Their Relationships to DOE Policy. Report No. MR 1105.0-DOE. Rand Science and Technology Policy Institute, Santa Monica, Calif. November. 20

Next: Attachment E Written Material Provided Directly to the Committee »
Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE Building Appliance Energy-Efficiency Standards: Letter Report Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Currently, the Department of Energy (DOE) sets appliance efficiency standards using primarily "site" (or point-of-use) measurements, which reflect only the energy consumed to operate the appliance. Site measurements allow consumers to compare energy efficiency among appliances, but offer no information about other energy costs involved. This congressionally mandated report from the National Research Council recommends that DOE consider moving over time to the use of a full-fuel-cycle measure of energy consumption for assessment of national and environmental impacts. Using that metric would provide the public with more comprehensive information about the impacts of energy consumption on the environment, the economy, and other national concerns. This volume discusses these matters and offers several related findings and recommendations together with supporting information.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!