Cover Image

HARDBACK
$99.95



View/Hide Left Panel

Page 201

21
Residential and Commercial
Energy Management

The buildings sector—both residential and commercial—is the largest end-user of electricity in the United States, using more electricity than either the industrial or the transportation sectors. The buildings sector consumed a full 62 percent of the 2634 billion kilowatt hours (BkWh) generated by U.S. electric utilities in 1989 (Rosenfeld et al., 1991). The buildings sector also uses coal, oil, and natural gas for heating and appliances. In 1989 the buildings sector accounted for 36 percent of total U.S. primary energy consumption (U.S. Department of Energy, 1989b; Rosenfeld et al., 1991; see Figure 21.1).

Recent Trends

Energy use in the United States has not increased in a linear fashion. The 1973 OPEC oil embargo created a powerful incentive to conserve energy. Figure 21.2 compares primary energy use in all sectors to gross national product (GNP), noting that, in the 1960 to 1973 period, energy use and economic production were increasing at nearly the same rate. However, from 1973 to 1986, while GNP grew by 35 percent, total energy use remained nearly constant, and oil and gas use decreased 1.2 percent annually (Rosenfeld et al., forthcoming). As a result, 25 exajoules1 (EJ) of anticipated energy usage worth $165 billion was avoided annually. In 1989, GNP projected primary energy use was 118 EJ, but only 86 EJ was actually consumed, representing a savings of 33 EJ, or 38 percent of the actual amount consumed. The average net annual savings (cost of efficiency measures less energy cost saved) during this period (1973 to 1986) from efficiency amounted to $100 billion.

Even greater savings were realized for electricity. Figure 21.3 compares



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 201
Page 201 21 Residential and Commercial Energy Management The buildings sector—both residential and commercial—is the largest end-user of electricity in the United States, using more electricity than either the industrial or the transportation sectors. The buildings sector consumed a full 62 percent of the 2634 billion kilowatt hours (BkWh) generated by U.S. electric utilities in 1989 (Rosenfeld et al., 1991). The buildings sector also uses coal, oil, and natural gas for heating and appliances. In 1989 the buildings sector accounted for 36 percent of total U.S. primary energy consumption (U.S. Department of Energy, 1989b; Rosenfeld et al., 1991; see Figure 21.1). Recent Trends Energy use in the United States has not increased in a linear fashion. The 1973 OPEC oil embargo created a powerful incentive to conserve energy. Figure 21.2 compares primary energy use in all sectors to gross national product (GNP), noting that, in the 1960 to 1973 period, energy use and economic production were increasing at nearly the same rate. However, from 1973 to 1986, while GNP grew by 35 percent, total energy use remained nearly constant, and oil and gas use decreased 1.2 percent annually (Rosenfeld et al., forthcoming). As a result, 25 exajoules1 (EJ) of anticipated energy usage worth $165 billion was avoided annually. In 1989, GNP projected primary energy use was 118 EJ, but only 86 EJ was actually consumed, representing a savings of 33 EJ, or 38 percent of the actual amount consumed. The average net annual savings (cost of efficiency measures less energy cost saved) during this period (1973 to 1986) from efficiency amounted to $100 billion. Even greater savings were realized for electricity. Figure 21.3 compares

OCR for page 201
Page 202 electricity use to GNP and shows that, like primary energy, electricity and economic production grew at the same rate during the 1960 to 1973 period. However, from 1973 to 1989 the growth in electricity did not keep pace with GNP. In 1989, GNP projected electricity use was 4300 BkWh, but only 2634 BkWh was actually consumed, representing a savings of 1666 BkWh, or 63 percent of the actual amount consumed. U.S. electricity revenues on sales of this 2634 BkWh were $175 billion in 1989, representing annual gross savings (i.e., avoided cost) of $100 billion and an electrical savings equivalent to the annual output of 320 base load power plants (Rosenfeld et al., 1991). Because electricity has consistently accounted for two-thirds of all primary energy consumed in buildings and three-quarters of building energy image FIGURE 21.1 U.S. primary electricity and fuel use by economic sectors (1989). SOURCES: Energy data—U.S. Department of Energy (1989c).Residential and commercial buildings data, estimated based on shares of 1987 end use—U.S.Departmen of Energy (1989a). Price data—extrapolated from U.S. Department of Energy (1989d).

OCR for page 201
Page 203 image FIGURE 21.2 Total U.S. primary energy use: actual versus gross national product projection (1960 to 1989). SOURCES: Rosenfeld et al. (1991) and Energy Information Administration (U.S.Department of Energy, 1989c). bills, reductions in this sector's electric demand have made an important contribution to total U.S. electricity savings. Figure 21.4 shows pre-1973annual growth rates of 4.5 percent and 5.4 percent for residential and commercialuse, respectively; during the 1973–1986 period, residential energy use remained level, whereas commercial use increased at only 1.6 percent per year. Space heating intensity in new commercial buildings also declined significantly after 1973, as illustrated by Figure 21.5 (Rosenfeld etal., 1991). In addition, efficiency measures during this period avoided an increase of approximately 50 percent in emissions of CO2,SO2, and NO2.Without these measures, coal use would have doubled (Rosenfeld et al.,1991). Nevertheless, the buildings sector's need for energy—particularly electricity—is expanding. The DOE base-case forecast projects that U.S. electricity demand for all sectors will grow by nearly 33 percent before the end of the century, an average annual increase of 2.3 percent (Edmonds et al., 1989).

OCR for page 201
Page 204 image FIGURE 21.3 Total U.S. electricity use: actual versus gross national product projection (1960 to 1989). The GNP-electricity curve as been adjusted by 3 percent per year to account for increasing electrification. SOURCES: Rosenfeld et al. (1991) and Energy Information Administration (U.S. Department of Energy, 1989c). Efficiency Potential Recent Studies A consensus is emerging in the engineering, utility, and regulatory communities that, even when past efficiency gains and projected population and economic expansion are considered, an additional, significant reduction can be made in U.S. residential and commercial electricity consumption. This reduction is not expected to sacrifice comfort levels and will cost less—in many cases, substantially less—than the purchase of new sources of power or of power at marginal production costs. Potential efficiency measures are varied; taken singly, each may realize only a relatively small gain. Nonetheless, their aggregate effect can be

OCR for page 201
Page 205 image FIGURE 21.4 Primary energy use in U.S. buildings (1960 to 1989). SOURCES: Data are from Energy Information Administration (U.S. Department of Energy, 1989c,f). substantial. Recently, various studies have estimated the aggregate impact of applying these technologies to both new and existing uses in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors: • The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)—which is supported by the nation's electric industry—recently concluded that, by implementing existing efficiency technologies, total projected electricity use in the U.S. residential sector for the year 2000 could be reduced by 27.1 percent to 45.5 percent, with a similar reduction of 22.5 percent to 48.6 percent in the commercial sector (Electric Power Research Institute, 1990). • Lovins (1986) found cost-effective annual electric demand savings of 73 percent in the Austin, Texas, municipal utility service territory, at an average cost of 0.87 cent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) (against a conservatively derived 2.7 cents/kWh avoided cost of operating existing plants).
2

OCR for page 201
Page 206 image FIGURE 21.5 Space heating intensity for new U.S. buildings. SOURCES: For new homes and new commercial buildings, U.S. Department of Energy (1989g); for new office buildings, Pacific Northwest Laboratory (1983). • Usibelli et al. (1983) and Miller et al. (1989), in studies commissioned by DOE and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, estimated potential electrical savings from efficiency at 37 percent for the Pacific Northwest and 34 percent for New York. • An American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) study in New York State found that more than one-third (34.3 percent) of projected residential sector growth in demand for electricity use, and nearly half (47.1 percent) of projected commercial sector growth in demand for electricity, could be eliminated (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 1989). The ACEEE study relied on several restrictive assumptions, taking into account only near-term technologies and basing its estimates only on existing buildings (generally, savings are greater when efficiency measures are implemented during the construction process).

OCR for page 201
Page 207 Calculating Efficiency Potential on Supply Curves Figure 21.6 is a compilation of nine conservation supply curves that depict the technical potential for electricity savings in U.S. buildings by the year 2000. Supply curves describe, in a more rigorous manner, the way in which large-scale efficiency gains and consequent dollar and carbon emission savings are aggregated from individual energy efficiency measures. The curves relate energy savings achieved by implementing a given efficiency measure to that measure's ''cost of conserved energy" or CCE (Meier et al., 1983). Conservation supply curves are discussed in greater detail in Appendix C. image FIGURE 21.6 Potential conservation supply curves for residential and commercial electricity. SOURCE: Rosenfeld et al. (1991).

OCR for page 201
Page 208 TABLE 21.1 "Prices" of Electricity at the Meter   Price (cents/kWh) 1.  Residential price (seen by consumer) 7.5 2.  Industrial price 4.7 3.  All-sector average price 6.4 4.  Marginal cost of operating a coal plant and delivering 1 kWh to the meter 3.5 5.  Line 3 plus externality cost: 1 to 3 cents/kWh (New York has chosen 1.4 cents/kWh for the worst coal plant) 7.4–9.4 Conserved energy may be considered a resource and plotted on a supply curve because it is liberated to be "supply" for other energy demands. Each of the energy prices described in Table 21.1 can be drawn as a horizontal line across a supply curve. All steps located below a selected price line are cost-effective, and the rational investor should take each of these steps (which are additive in effect), stopping where the staircase crosses the line. Of course, different price assumptions drastically alter estimates of dollar savings. It should be noted that estimated savings (plotted on the x-axis) also present uncertainties. They are illustrated in Table 21.2, which compares the unit energy consumption of an average new 1990 refrigerator (1000 kWh/yr) on line 1 with the consumption of an optimal refrigerator (200 kWh/yr) on line 4. Although an engineer might assume potential savings to be 800 kWh/yr, to a utility forecaster or program manager, line 3 is more realistic and reflects a sales-weighted average of refrigerator efficiency that is below the optimum. The studies on which the supply curves are based were undertaken by diverse groups and compiled at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Rosenfeld et al., 1991). Electricity savings for the nine conservation supply curves in Figure 21.6 are calculated based on "frozen efficiency" (Table 21.2). The individual studies assumed real discount rates of 3 to 5 percent to calculate the cost of conserved electricity, but all nine have been corrected to 6 percent. Because the EPRI curve represents the approximate midrange of these curves, it has been highlighted in Figure 21.6 and will be the focus of the discussion below. It is replotted in Figure 21.7 for four different discount rates. The EPRI curve is also consistent with a new National Research Council study (National Research Council, 1990); however, the analysis presented there is too coarse to compile as a supply curve. That study estimates a near-term retrofit potential savings of 30 percent and a long-term

OCR for page 201
Page 209 retrofit potential of 50 percent (National Research Council, 1990, Table 4.12). These potential savings nicely bracket the EPRI potential savings of 45 percent. Figure 21.7 is a sensitivity analysis showing that investing up to 7.5 cents/kWh—the average U.S. price of electricity in the residential and commercial sectors—will produce aggregate electricity savings of 45 percent for all "social" discount rates: 3, 6, and 10 percent. Potential savings are insensitive to the differences among 3 percent, 6 percent, and 10 percent, but at a 30 percent discount rate, savings drop from 45 to 30 percent. At the short-term marginal cost of providing electricity from an existing base TABLE 21.2 Unit Energy Consumption for a New Refrigerator   Base (k Wh/yr) Target (k Wh/yr) 1.  Average new 1990 refrigerator consumption "frozen" until year 2000a 1000 — 2.  Anticipated efficiency resulting from the 1993 National Appliance Standards for refrigeratorsb 700 — 3.  Better efficiency in year 2000 achieved by 1980s-type utility efficiency programs — 600 4.  Most efficient refrigerator in year 2000, including all technical improvements with cost of conserved energy (CCE) less than 6 cents/k Whc — 200 aThe average refrigerator sold in 1990 must meet the National Appliance Standards of about 1000 kWh/yr as mandated by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-12). bThe 1993 appliance standards will require that the average refrigerator use no more than about 700 kWh/yr (refer to 10 CFR Part 430, Vol. 54, No. 221, 11/17/89, p. 47918). cTechnical potential of about 200 kWh/yr for an 18-ft3 adjusted volume) top-mounted, auto-defrost refrigerator-freezer, at an average CCE of less than 6 cents/kWh (based on estimated incremental cost of $720 (1990 dollars), compared to the 1990 standard of about 1000 kWh/yr, using a real discount rate of 3 percent and 20-year life). Earlier analysis by DOE gave a technical potential of only 490 kWh/yr for the same size and type refrigerator-freezer, and an average CCE of less than 5 cents/kWh (based on an estimated incremental cost of $400 (1990 dollars) and the same assumptions as above). (See U.S. Department of Energy, 1989e, p. 3–37, Table 3.17.) For discussion of why 200 kWh/yr is selected for the technical potential, as opposed to the proposed standard of 700 kWh/yr, see discussion household appliances in this chapter, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (1986, p. 3–8, Table 1), and Rosenfeld et al. (1991).

OCR for page 201
Page 210 image FIGURE 21.7 The EPRI curve for the buildings sector, sensitivity to real discount rate. Source: Rosenfeld et al. (1991). load power plant (3.5 cents/kWh), the 10 percent discount rate reduces energy savings to 30 percent, and at the 30 percent rate savings drop to 20 percent. However, for any price equal to or higher than the all-sector(residential, commercial, and industrial) average avoided cost of 6.4 cents/kWh (see Table 21.1), variations in discount rates below 10 percent have little effect. Aggregate Annual Savings: $10 Billion to $37 Billion Figure 21.8 displays the costs and technical potential of the 11-step EPRI conservation supply curve (which includes technologies that are commercially

OCR for page 201
Page 211 image FIGURE 21.8 Cost of conserved electricity for buildings. available or that have been developed and tested), with an additional first step for white surfaces/vegetation to save air conditioning. The 12 steps, identified in Table 21.3, encompass a cumulative savings of 734 BkWh (at 7.5 cents/kWh avoided cost), which is 45 percent of 1989 residential and commercial buildings sector use of 1627 BkWh. At 3.5 cents/ kWh avoided cost, savings decline to 667 BkWh, which is 41 percent of buildings sector use. Table 21.3 lists the cost per kilowatt hour of each of the EPRI measures (plus white surfaces/vegetation) and notes that each of these measures would save energy and atmospheric carbon at a net negative cost—that is, while saving money as well. Three cases representing different annual net savings in billions of dollars are shown in Figure 21.8.

OCR for page 201
Page 237 for International Development, 1988); by contrast, in 1988, total installed generating capacity in the United States was 658 GW (Cambridge Energy Research Associates and Arthur Andersen and Company, 1989). A recent analysis of the developing world concluded that efficiency improvements could reduce total generating capacity needs by more than half, with annual savings of $15 billion to $50 billion (U.S. Agency for International Development, 1988). The buildings sector efficiency measures described in this chapter may be particularly important in view of the fact that, throughout the 1980s, electricity consumption in residential and commercial buildings significantly outpaced growth in total electricity consumption in many developing countries; this trend is expected to intensify (U.S. Agency for International Development, 1990). Two major efficiency opportunities are lighting, which accounts for 20 percent of U.S. electricity consumption and nearly that in many developing nations (e.g., 17 percent in India), and large commercial buildings, which consume large amounts of electricity and do not significantly vary in design worldwide. Despite the apparent existence of promising energy efficiency opportunities in the developing world, major sources of seed capital have yet to make a significant commitment to this potential. The World Bank, for example, continues to support major power supply projects at the expense of energy efficiency. In 1990, it was estimated that a mere 1 percent of the bank's energy loans were conservation-related. In one of the few practical attempts to apply the concepts described earlier in this chapter to conditions in a developing nation, the Conservation Law Foundation, Inc., a Boston-based environmental organization, is currently working with the Jamaica Public Service Company, that island nation's government-owned utility, to design and implement comprehensive energy efficiency measures of the type now in place in New England. A recent study performed in Jamaica reaches the following conclusions: 1.  For less than the avoided cost of producing power, Jamaica could save more than 20 percent of projected system load during the next 10 to 15 years; long-term savings could reach 40 percent of projected demand. The cost during the next 15 years would be about $80 million (1990 net present value dollars discounted at 10 percent). 2.  The project would reduce the cost of providing power by about $277 million, reduce imports by about $188 million, and avoid environmental damage valued at about $476 million (Conservation Law Foundation, Inc., 1990). Other Benefits and Costs Although not included in the cost-benefit calculations that appear in this report, other significant positive effects may result from the efficiency strategy

OCR for page 201
Page 238 described in this chapter. These are in addition to the benefits realized from mitigation of greenhouse warming and may not be taken into account in the direct price of energy or its inputs. Nonetheless, they are real and should be considered during the process of designing an optimal policy "mix" directed at reducing carbon emissions. They include the following: • Power costs and reliability: The cost of stretching existing supplies by investing in efficiency averages half (or less than half) the cost of building new power plants. This means that an energy-efficient economy will produce more competitive products, increase disposable consumer income, and reduce capital outflows for expensive plant construction and imported fuel (an especially important advantage for developing countries). End-use efficiency also makes power systems more reliable by dampening the demand swings that can be caused by extreme weather and economic cycles, and it makes utility planning less volatile by allowing incremental investments rather than massive power additions. • Other environmental benefits: Greenhouse warming is far from the only major environmental threat posed by electricity production. Fossil fuel power plants in the United States account for about two-thirds of the major acid rain precursor—SO2; one-third of the major smog precursor—NO2; and a variety of toxic pollutants. Large-scale hydroelectric projects can destroy precious plant and animal habitat, displace native populations, and dramatically degrade water quality. Nuclear power plants generate substantial quantities of high-level radioactive waste, whose disposal to data has proved technically debatable and politically intractable. In addition, land use problems can be avoided because of the reduced need to site new energy generation and disposal facilities. All of these impacts are mitigated to the extent efficiency displaces supply. • Local economic development: Efficiency investments are highly labor intensive and typically employ labor that is available locally. The materials required for large-scale efficiency programs also can often be produced locally. • Energy independence: Recent events in the Persian Gulf have again emphasized the importance of this factor. In addition, energy independence would avoid the domestic economic cost of price shocks such as those that occurred during the 1973 OPEC embargo. Research and Development Needs Existing technology is capable of producing major efficiency gains. However, it is apparent that large additional savings could be obtained by perfecting and introducing experimental technologies, backed by further research. The government should consider substantially increasing research and development funding, particularly for research designed to overcome engineering

OCR for page 201
Page 239 barriers that inhibit the commercial availability of promising new technologies. Specific research activities identified by the National Research Council's Alternative Energy Research and Development Committee (1990) include the following: • develop advanced insulation materials for building walls, windows, and roofs; • develop nongreenhouse-gas foams and evacuated-panel technology; • develop controls, expert systems, diagnostics, and feedback systems to minimize energy use in the construction, commissioning, and operation of buildings; and • implement existing technologies with carefully planned and monitored demonstrations and research on energy-related motivation and decision making. For most of the 1980s the federal government, through DOE, played only a limited role in supporting research and development of energy-efficient technologies and approaches. Of the $2.8 billion national energy technology research and development budget in 1988, 9 percent was devoted to energy efficiency, and 53 percent to more capital-intensive fossil fuel, fusion, and nuclear research (Hirst, 1989b). Between 1974 and 1988, DOE spent $4 billion on energy efficiency research and development, whereas between 1954 and 1968, the federal Atomic Energy Commission spent $22 billion on nuclear reactor research and development (Hirst, 1989b; Hirst and Brown, 1990). It is important to recognize, however, that different types of energy require different levels of capital investment. In addition, more information is needed on the effectiveness of different energy efficiency policy measures. Here, also, the federal government has greatly restricted its activities and support. Yet one of the major barriers to the implementation of comprehensive electricity efficiency programs is lack of knowledge about their design, implementation, and effectiveness. Conclusions Policies designed to substitute broad-based, comprehensive energy efficiency programs for large-scale central generation of power and use of fossil fuels serve two goals: reduction of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, and economic efficiency. Overall, the means chosen to overcome the substantial market barriers that inhibit realization of these goals depend on considerations of policy and political reality. Nonetheless, one policy option holds considerable merit: regulatory reform designed to give utilities an incentive to conserve energy. Specific conclusions include the following:
11 • If all technically feasible electricity efficiency measures were applied to building end uses in the commercial and residential sectors, U.S. carbon emissions from the generation of electricity could be reduced by nearly half, to about 500 Mt CO2/yr. This reduction could be achieved at an average cost of -$57/t CO2.

OCR for page 201
Page 240 • Electricity efficiency measures applied to commercial and residential buildings in the United States currently have the potential to save about 50 percent of the electricity used by this sector. More than half of these savings can be achieved at a cost of 2.5 cents/kWh or less, and all of the savings can be obtained at negative "avoided" cost—that is, for less than 7.5 cents/kWh, which is the average price of U.S. electricity supplied to the buildings sector. The average net cost of these savings is -5 cents/kWh. • The technology to realize these reductions is either commercially available or has been developed and tested. However, market imperfections and in some cases consumer resistance greatly impede the implementation of efficiency measures and, consequently, the realization of more than a fraction of the potential monetary and environmental savings. Specifically, commercial and residential electricity users demand short-payback periods for their investments in efficiency measures—typically no more than 2 years. However, electric utilities accept payback periods that are considerably longer. • Through regulatory reform, particularly at the state level, government can provide utilities with a strong incentive to develop effective, broad-based energy efficiency programs. This can be done by ensuring, through the rate-making system, that purchase by a utility of all cost-effective energy efficiency from its customers represents the most financially attractive option. • Other policy options that attempt to overcome market barriers and realize available cost-effective savings include direct governmental programs, governmental subsidies for efficiency investment, appliance efficiency standards, more stringent building codes, and revenue-neutral tax measures such as variable hookup fees for buildings. • In addition to electricity savings of 500 Mt CO2, a combination of fossil fuel efficiency programs and fuel switching from electricity to natural gas or fuel oil could produce further savings of 374 Mt CO2/yr at a cost of -70/t CO2 equivalent for fuel savings and -$92/t CO2 equivalent for fuel switching. These savings, summarized on Table 21.7, could be brought about through the same policy options applicable to electric utilities. Additional research is necessary to realize the full scope of the savings that may be available. To summarize, the total potential savings from this combination of electricity and fuel efficiency measured in the commercial and residential sector is 890 Mt CO2/yr at an average cost of -$63/t CO2. This chapter has illustrated the policy options and research needed to achieve these savings.

OCR for page 201
Page 241 Notes 1. One exajoule (1018 joules of primary energy) equals 1/1.054 quadrillion (1015) Btu which also equals 85 BkWh of electricity. One exajoule (EJ) or 1 quadrillion Btu is often referred to as 1 quad. 2. Avoided cost or avoided price of electricity is the cost (usually expressed as an average or marginal cost in cents per kilowatt-hour) of the electricity rendered unnecessary by implementation of one or more energy efficiency measures. 3. It should be noted that the base load capacity represented by this price is coal-fired, the most damaging from an environmental standpoint. If environmental externalities were to be internalized, the price could more than double. 4. Throughout this report, tons (t) are metric; 1 Mt = 1 megaton = 1 million tons; and 1 Gt = 1 gigaton = 1 billion tons. 5. A natural question is whether lighter surfaces are a significant disadvantage in winter. In fact, they make relatively little difference in the temperature because daily solar radiation is much reduced. Thus on a clear December day in New York, solar gain is only 25 percent of its June daily value, and cloudier average weather reduces this by one-fourth to one-eighth. There is indeed the inconvenience that on a clear winter day in New York, thin patches of ice melt more slowly on a lighter-colored roadway, but this is more than offset by the summer reduction of smog. Dark surfaces contribute about two-thirds of summer heat islands, which in turn cook smog faster. In Los Angeles, the heat island is responsible for about one-third of the smog episodes. 6. See Table 21.2 for similar data, developed by Rosenfeld et al. (1991). 7. This is based on the assumption that natural gas contains 14.5 kg C/MBtu and that oil contains 20.3 kg C/MBtu (Edmonds et al., 1989). 8. It is estimated that if 33 percent of its hot water heating customers and 80 percent of its space heating customers were to convert to alternative, on-site fuels (oil, natural gas, and propane), Central Vermont Public Service, Vermont's largest utility (410-MW total system capacity in 1989), would be required to generate 3,000,000 MWh fewer over a 20-year period, an annual savings of 150,000 MWh (5.2 percent of total generation) (A. Shapiro, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Burlington, Vermont, memorandum, September 12, 1990). 9. In New England, fuel switching measures tend to displace electricity generated by oil, so fuel security is an important consideration. 10. Such efforts must also include correction of major market imperfections and other barriers to efficiency. For example, in India, a compact fluorescent lamp subject to import fees would retail for $35; thus CFLs are virtually unavailable there. Nonetheless, CFL plants are about 100 times less expensive than the power plants they replace. Data developed as part of the BELLE (Bombay Efficiency Lighting Large-scale Experiment)—a collaboration between the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and the Bombay utility—show that an Indian CFL plant, which would cost $7.5 million to build, could be expected to produce about 2 million 16-W CFLs per year and after 6 years to save 1000 MW of capacity and avoid about 1 BkWh/yr—worth about $100 million per year (enough to purchase another CFL plant every month) (Gadgil and Rosenfeld, 1990).

OCR for page 201
Page 242 A second example involves coal in China, which (like electricity in many less-developed countries) is heavily subsidized by the government. However, building insulation is not. As a result, new homes in Peking—a city with a mean temperature lower than Boston's—are not insulated. Nonetheless, insulation measures with a payback period of 6 years could be installed at a cost of conserved coal of 50 cents/MBtu, 66 percent lower than the $1.50/MBtu price of coal on international markets (Huang et al., 1984). 11. All calculations use a 6 percent discount rate. References A&C Enercom, Association of California Water Agencies, California Department of General Services, California Energy Coalition, California Energy Commission, California Large Energy Consumers Association, California/Nevada Community Action Association, California Public Utilities Commission Division of Ratepayer Advocates, Independent Energy Producers Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, and Toward Utility Rate Normalization. 1990. An Energy Efficiency Blueprint for California: Report of the Statewide Collaborative Process. Available from California Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco, Calif. Akbari, H., J. Huang, P. Martien, L. Rainer, A. Rosenfeld, and H. Taha. 1988. The impact of summer heat islands on cooling energy consumption and global CO2 concentration. In Proceedings of the ACEEE 1988 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 5:11023. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Akbari, H., K. Garbesi, and P. Martien. 1989. Controlling Summer Heat Islands: Proceedings of the Workshop on Saving Energy and Reducing Atmospheric Pollution by Controlling Summer Heat Islands. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Akbari, H., A. Rosenfeld, and H. Taha. 1990. Summer heat islands, urban trees, and white surfaces. ASHRAE Transactions: 90-24-1: January. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). 1986. Residential Conservation Power Plant Study, Phase I, Technical Potential. Report prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). 1989. The Potential for Electricity Conservation in New York State. Final Report prepared for New York State Energy Research and Development Authority et al. Energy Authority Report No. 89-12. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Anderson, K., N. Benner, and E. Copeland. 1988. The energy edge project: Energy efficiency in new commercial buildings. Paper presented at Solar Energy Division Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Denver, April 10–14, 1988. Banwell, P., C. Wake, and R. Harris. 1990. Trace Gas Emissions from Electric Utilities in New England: Potential Effects of Demand-Side Management. May

OCR for page 201
Page 243 17, 1990. Durham: Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space, University of New Hampshire. Barker, B. S., S. H. Galginaitis, E. Rosenthal, and Gikas International, Inc. 1986. Summary Report: Commercial Energy Management and Decision-making in the District of Columbia. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Electric Power Company. Benner, N. 1988. Investigation into the pricing and ratemaking treatment to be afforded new electric generating facilities which are not qualifying facilities. Testimony before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Docket No. 86-36, May 2, 1988. Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Boston. Bevington, R., and A. Rosenfeld. 1990. Energy for buildings and homes. Scientific American 263(3):76–86. Bonneville Power Administration. 1990. Backgrounder. March. Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) and Arthur Andersen and Company. 1989. Electric Power Trends. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Chernick, P. 1990. Proceeding to adopt an electrical energy plan for Commonwealth Edison Company. Testimony before the Illinois Commerce Commission, Docket No. 90-0038, May 25, 1990. Illinois Commerce Commission, Chicago. Churchill, A., and R. Saunders. 1989. Financing of the Energy Sector in Developing Countries. World Bank Industry and Energy Department working paper, Energy Series Paper No. 14. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Cohen, A. 1990. ''Least-cost doing": The New England collaborative experience. In Proceedings of the 1990 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Collette, C. 1989. Back east to the future. Northwest Energy News 8(5):18–22. Collette, C. 1990. California re-enters the conservation challenge. Northwest Energy News 9(3):25–29. Connecticut Light and Power Company (CL&P). 1990. Energy Alliance: Conservation and Load Management Programs Annual Report. Berlin, Conn.: Connecticut Light and Power Company. Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. (CLF). 1990. Power by Efficiency: An Assessment of Improving Electrical Efficiency to Meet Jamaica's Power Needs. Boston, Mass.: Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. DeCotis, P. 1989. Balancing shareholder and customer interests in incentive ratemaking. The Electricity Journal 2(10):16. Destribats, A., J. Lowell, and D. White. 1990. Dispatches from the front: New concepts in integrated planning. Paper presented at EPRI Innovations in Pricing and Planning Conference, Milwaukee, Wis., May 3, 1990. Edmonds, J., W. Ashton, H. Cheng, M. Steinberg. 1989. A Preliminary Analysis of U.S. CO2 Emissions Reduction Potential from Energy Conservation and the Substitution of Natural Gas for Coal in the Period to 2010. Report DOE/NBB-0085. Washington, D.C.: Office of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1990. Efficient Electricity Use: Estimates of Maximum Energy Savings. Final Report CU-6746. Research Project 2788. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 1987. Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption and Expenditures: April 1984 through March 1985. Report

OCR for page 201
Page 244 DOE/EIA-0321/1(84). Washington, D.C.: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 1988. Energy Conservation Indicators: 1986. Report DOE/EIA-0441(86). Washington, D.C.: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. Flavin, C. 1987a. Electrifying the third world. In State of the World, 1987, L. Brown, ed. New York: W. W. Norton. Flavin, C. 1987b. Reassessing nuclear power. In State of the World, 1987, L. Brown, ed. New York: W. W. Norton. Flavin, C. 1990. Yankee utilities learn to love efficiency. WorldWatch 3(2):5–6. Gadgil, A., and A. Rosenfeld. 1990. Conserving Energy with Compact Fluorescent Lamps. Berkeley, Calif.: Center for Building Science, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Geller, H. 1986. Electricity Conservation Potential in Brazil. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Heron, A. 1985. Financing electric power in developing countries. IAEA Bulletin (Winter), No. 4, 27:44(6). Hirst, E. 1987. Cooperation and Community Conservation. Final Report DOE/BP-11287-18. Portland, Oreg.: Hood River Conservation Project. Hirst, E. 1989a. Electric-Utility Energy-Efficiency and Load-Management Programs: Resources for the 1990s. Contract No. DE-AC05-84OR21400. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Hirst, E. 1989b. Federal Roles to Realize National Energy-Efficiency Opportunities in the 1990s. Contract No. DE-AC05-84OR21400. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Hirst, E., and M. Brown. 1990. Closing the Efficiency Gap: Barriers to the Efficient Use of Energy. Contract No. DE-AC05-84OR21400. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Huang, Y., A. Rosenfeld, A. Canha de Piedade, and D. Tseng. 1984. Energy efficiency in Chinese apartment buildings: Parametric analysis with the DOE-2.1A computer program. Energy 9(11–12):979–994. Investor Responsibility Research Center (IRRC). 1987. Generating Energy Alternatives at America's Electric Utilities. Washington, D.C.: Investor Responsibility Research Center. Kahn, E. 1988. Electric Utility Planning and Regulation. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Keepin, W. 1988. Greenhouse warming: Efficient solution or nuclear nemesis? Testimony before House Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agricultural Resources, and the Environment and Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology. Snowmass, Colo.: Rocky Mountain Institute. June, 29, 1988. Kempton, W. 1989. Cost-Effective Energy Conservation Feedback: Program Design and Evaluation of Behavioral Response, Volume II. Princeton University, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. September. Kempton, W., and L. Layne. 1989. The Consumer's Energy Information Environment. Princeton University, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. November. Kempton, W., and L. Montgomery. 1982. Folk Quantification of Energy. Energy 7(10):817–827.

OCR for page 201
Page 245 Krause, F., J. Brown, D. Connell, P. DuPont, K. Greely, M. Meal, A. Meier, E. Mills, and B. Nordman. 1988. End-Use Studies, Volume III: Analysis of Michigan's Demand-Side Electricity Resources in the Residential Sector. Report LBL-23026. April. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL). 1990. Compact Fluorescent Lamps. Energy Efficiency Note No. 2. Berkeley, Calif.: Center for Building Science, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Lee, G. 1989. Conservation: The Northwest's north slope. Northwest Energy News 8(4):9–12. Lovins, A. 1977. Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace. Washington, D.C.: Friends of the Earth. Lovins, A. 1986. Advanced Electricity-Saving Technology and the South Texas Project. Snowmass, Colo.: Rocky Mountain Institute. Lovins, A., and H. R. Heede. 1990. Electricity-Saving Office Equipment. Snowmass, Colo.: Rocky Mountain Institute. Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities. 1990. Order in Docket No. 89-194/195, In re: Massachusetts Electric Company, Boston, March 30. Meier, A., J. Wright, and A. Rosenfeld. 1983. Supplying Energy Through Greater Efficiency: The Potential for Conservation in California's Residential Sector. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. Miller, P., J. Eto, and H. Geller. 1989. The Potential for Electricity Conservation in New York State. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Moore, E., and G. Smith. 1990. Capital Expenditures for Electric Power in the Developing Countries in the 1990s. World Bank Industry and Energy Department working paper, Energy Series Paper No. 21. Washington, D.C.: Industry and Energy Department, World Bank. Moskovitz, D. 1989. Profits and Progress Through Least-Cost Planning. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Munasinghe, M., J. Gilling, and M. Mason. 1988. A Review of World Bank Lending for Electric Power. World Bank Industry and Energy Department working paper, Energy Series Paper No. 2. Washington, D.C.: Industry and Energy Department, World Bank. National Association of Home Builders Research Foundation, Inc. 1985. Final Report on an Assessment of Energy Consumption in New Homes. Rockville, Md.: National Association of Home Builders Research Foundation, Inc. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). 1989. Resolution adopted by the annual meeting, Boston, November 15, 1988. National Research Council. 1990. Confronting Climate Change: Strategies for Energy Research and Development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. New England Electric System (NEES). 1990a. Conservation and load management annual report. Filed with Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Docket No. 86-36, May 1, 1990. Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Boston. New England Electric System (NEES). 1990b. 1990 Conservation and load management incentive summary. On file at the Conservation Law Foundation, Inc., Boston. New England Electric System (NEES) and Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. 1989.

OCR for page 201
Page 246 Power by Design: A New Approach to Investing in Energy Efficiency, Volumes I and II. Westboro, Mass.: NEES. New England Energy Policy Council (NEEPC). 1987. Power to Spare: A Plan for Increasing New England's Competitiveness through Energy Efficiency. Boston: New England Energy Policy Council. New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission. 1990. Generic investigation of financial incentives for conservation and load management. Order in Docket No. DE89-187, August 7, 1990. Concord: New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission. Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC). 1987. A Review of Conservation Costs and Benefits: Five Years of Experience Under the Northwest Power Act. Portland, Oreg.: Northwest Power Planning Council. Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC). 1989. Assessment of Regional Progress toward Conservation Capability Building. Issue Paper 89-8. Portland, Oreg.: Northwest Power Planning Council. Pacific Northwest Laboratory. 1983. Recommendations for Energy Conservation Standards and Guidelines for New Commercial Buildings, Volume IV-C: Documentation of Test Results: Large Office Building, prepared for DOE under contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830. Richland, Wash.: Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Plunkett, J. 1988. Investigation into the pricing and ratemaking treatment to be afforded new electric generating facilities which are not qualifying facilities. Testimony before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Docket No. 86-36, May 4, 1988. Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Boston. Plunkett, J., and P. Chernick. 1988. The role of revenue losses in evaluating demand-side resources: An economic re-appraisal. In the Proceedings of the 1988 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Putnam, Hayes, and Bartlett, Inc. 1987. Supporting documents on conservation and load management. Prepared for the Boston Edison Review Panel. March. Cambridge, Mass. Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission. 1990. In re: Narragansett Electric Company conservation and load management adjustment provision. Report and Order in Docket No. 1939, May 16, 1990. Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission, Providence. Roe, D. 1984. Dynamos and Virgins. New York: Random House. Rosenfeld, A. 1988. Energy efficiency versus "draining America." Testimony before Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, U.S. House of Representatives, Oversight Hearing on Oil Development in ANWR and National Energy Policy, March 31, 1988. Washington, D.C. Rosenfeld, A., C. Atkinson, J. Koomey, A. Meier, R. Mowris, and L. Price. 1991. A Compilation of Supply Curves of Conserved Energy. LBL #31700. Berkeley, Calif.: Center for Building Science, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Russell, D. 1989. The power brokers. The Amicus Journal (Winter):31–35. Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI). 1981. A New Prosperity: Building a Sustainable Energy Future. Andover, Mass.: Brickhouse Publishing. U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID). 1988. Power Shortages in

OCR for page 201
Page 247 Developing Countries: Magnitude, Impacts, Solutions, and the Role of the Private Sector. A Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency for International Development. U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID). 1990. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Developing Countries: Strategic Options and the U.S. A.I.D. Response. A Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency for International Development. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1989a. Analysis and Technology Transfer Annual Report, 1988. Buildings and Community Systems. Report DOE/CH00016-H2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1989a. Analysis and Technology Transfer Annual Report, 1988. Buildings and Community Systems. Report DOE/CH00016-H2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1989b. A Compendium of Options for Government Policy to Encourage Private Sector Responses to Potential Climate Change. Report DOE/EH-0103. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1989c. Monthly Energy Review. Report DOE/ EIA-0035(89/12). Washington, D.C.: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1989d. State Energy and Price Expenditure Report 1987. Report DOE/EIA-0376(87). Washington, D.C.: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1989e. Technical Support Document: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products: Refrigerators and Furnaces. Report DOE/CE-2077. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1989f. State Energy Data Report: Consumption Estimates 1960–1987. Report DOE/EIA-0214(87). Washington, D.C.: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. April. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1989g. Energy Conservation Trends: Understanding the Factors That Affect Conservation Gains in the U.S. Economy. Report DOE/PE-0092. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. Usibelli, A., B. Gardiner, W. Luhren, and A. Meier. 1983. A Residential Conservation Database for the Pacific Northwest. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley and Buildings Energy Data Group for Bonneville Power Administration, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Vermont Public Service Board. 1991. Investigation into least-cost investments, energy efficiency conservation and management of demand for energy. Order in Docket No. 5270-CV-1, Order entered March 19, 1991, Vermont Public Service Board, Montpelier. Wald, M. 1988. Utility sets plan to cut power use. The New York Times, May 26:D1. Wiel, S. 1989. Making electric efficiency profitable. Public Utilities Fortnightly. July 6. World Bank. 1985. China: The Energy Sector. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.