CEC 999 2007 001

Power Assoc. of Northern CaliforniaClimate Change (and energy bills)The Problems are the US and ChinaA Partial Solution is California : 

Power Assoc. of Northern California Climate Change (and energy bills) The Problems are the US and China A Partial Solution is California Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission (916) 654-4930 ARosenfe@Energy.State.CA.US http://www.energy.ca.gov/commission/commissioners/rosenfeld.html

Slide2: 

1949

How Much of The Savings Come from Efficiency?: 

How Much of The Savings Come from Efficiency? Easiest to tease out is cars In the early 1970s, only 14 miles per gallons Now about 21 miles per gallon If still at 14 mpg, we’d consume 75 billion gallons more and pay $225 Billion more at 2006 prices But we still pay $450 Billion per year If California wins the “Schwarzenegger-Pavley” suit, and it is implemented nationwide, we’ll save another $150 Billion per year Commercial Aviation improvements save another $50 Billion per year Appliances and Buildings are more complex We must sort out true efficiency gains vs. structural changes (from smokestack to service economy).

How Much of The Savings Come from Efficiency (cont’d)?: 

How Much of The Savings Come from Efficiency (cont’d)? Some examples of estimated savings in 2006 based on 1974 efficiencies minus 2006 efficiencies Beginning in 2007 in California, reduction of “vampire” or stand-by losses This will save $10 Billion when finally implemented, nation-wide Out of a total $700 Billion, a crude summary is that 1/3 is structural, 1/3 is transportation, and 1/3 is buildings and industry.

A supporting analysis on the topic of efficiencyfrom Vice-President Dick Cheney: 

A supporting analysis on the topic of efficiency from Vice-President Dick Cheney “Had energy use kept pace with economic growth, the nation would have consumed 171 quadrillion British thermal units (Btus) last year instead of 99 quadrillion Btus” “About a third to a half of these savings resulted from shifts in the economy. The other half to two-thirds resulted from greater energy efficiency” Source: National Energy Policy: Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, Dick Cheney, et. al., page 1-4, May 2001 Cheney could have noted that 72 quads/year saved in the US alone, would fuel one Billion cars, compared to a world car count of only 600 Million

Slide15: 

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 Index (1972 = 100) Effective Dates of National Standards = Effective Dates of State Standards = Refrigerators Central A/C Gas Furnaces SEER = 13

Slide16: 

Source: David Goldstein

Slide17: 

Source: David Goldstein

Slide21: 

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 Average Energy Use per Unit Sold (kWh per year) 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)

Slide22: 

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 TWH/Year 1.5 4.5 6.0 3.0 7.5 Value (billion $/year) Comparison of 3 Gorges to Refrigerator and AC Efficiency Improvements Savings calculated 10 years after standard takes effect. Calculations provided by David Fridley, LBNL Value of TWh 3 Gorges 三峡 Refrigerators 冰箱 Air Conditioners 空调 Wholesale (3 Gorges) at 3.6 c/kWh Retail (AC + Ref) at 7.2 c/kWh 三峡电量与电冰箱、空调能效对比 标准生效后，10年节约电量

Illuminating Space vs. the Street: 

Illuminating Space vs. the Street

Slide27: 

Figure 8 Comparison of EE Program Costs to Supply Generation Costs 0.029 0.058 0.118 0.167 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.160 0.180 Average Cost of EE Programs for 2000-2004 Base Load Generation Shoulder Generation Peak Generation $/kWh Demand Supply Options

California IOU’s Investment in Energy Efficiency: 

California IOU’s Investment in Energy Efficiency Forecast Profits decoupled from sales Performance Incentives Market Restructuring Crisis IRP 2% of 2004 IOU Electric Revenues Public Goods Charges

Critical Peak Pricing (CPP)with additional curtailment option: 

Critical Peak Pricing (CPP) with additional curtailment option 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Price (cents/kWh) Standard TOU Critical Peak Price Standard Rate Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Extraordinary Curtailment Signal, < once per year CPP Price Signal 10x per year ? Potential Annual Customer Savings: 10 afternoons x 4 hours x 1kw = 40 kWh at 70 cents/kWh = ~$30/year

Demand Response, Retail Pricing Pilot, and Advanced Metering Infrastructure: 

Demand Response, Retail Pricing Pilot, and Advanced Metering Infrastructure CPUC and CEC have been testing the impact of “CPP” (Critical Peak Pricing) on demand Two summers of tests ($10 M experiment). 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. PG&E and SDG&E will install advanced meters soon

Slide32: 

Source: 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 day Control vs. Flat rate vs. CPP-V Rate ( Hot Day, August 15, 2003, Average Peak Temperature 88.50) CPP rates – Load Impacts

Slide33: 

Fraction of Customers on CPP Rates with Lower bills in 2004 and 2005- Residential and Small Commercial

Slide34: 

Customer 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? 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.

Slide35: 

Source: Webster, et. al, Science Vol. 309

Slide36: 

Source: Stabilization Wedges: Pacala and Socolow, Science Vol 305, page 968 Growth = 1.5%/yr