Efficiency Energy for the Future Modeling Energy and Sustainable Growth: Lessons from California...

Efficiency

Energy for the Future

Modeling Energy and Sustainable Growth:Lessons from California

April 22, 2005City Club of Berkeley

Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner

California Energy Commission

(916) 654-4930

[email protected]

http://www.energy.ca.gov/commission/commissioners/rosenfeld.html

Arthur Rosenfeld, page 2

Efficiency


California Peak Power Demand:Planned in 1974, and Actual to 1984

Goldstein and Rosenfeld, at Calif. Energy Commission, Dec. 1975


Efficiency


California Peak Demand 1965 - 2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

19

65

19

67

19

69

19

71

19

73

19

75

19

77

19

79

19

81

19

83

19

85

19

87

19

89

19

91

19

93

19

95

19

97

19

99

20

01

20

03

year

GW

at 5% growth rate

Actual (2.2% year)

120

55

65

0


Efficiency


Total Electricity Use, per capita, 1960 - 2001

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

19

60

19

62

19

64

19

66

19

68

19

70

19

72

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

KW

h

12,000

8,000

7,000

California

U.S.

kWh

Californians have a net savings of $1,000/family


Efficiency


Per Capita Electricity Consumption

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

year

kW

h/p

ers

on

United States

California

New York

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_use/total/csv/use_csv


Efficiency


Per Capita Electricity Consumption

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

year

kW

h/p

ers

on

Red States 2004 ElectionUnited StatesBlue States 2004 ElectionCalifornia


Efficiency

Energy for the Future Source: David Goldstein

United States Refrigerator Use v. Time

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

Ave

rag

e E

ner

gy

Use

per

Un

it S

old

(kW

h/y

r)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ref

rig

erat

or

volu

me

(cu

bic

fee

t)

Refrigerator Size (cubic ft)

Energy Use per Unit(KWH/Year)

1st Federal Stds ‘92


Efficiency

Energy for the Future Source: David Goldstein

United States Refrigerator Use v. Time

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

Ave

rag

e E

ner

gy

Use

or

Pri

ce

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ref

rig

erat

or

volu

me

(cu

bic

fee

t)

Energy Use per Unit(KWH/Year)

Refrigerator Size (cubic ft)

Refrigerator Price in 1983 $

$ 1,270

$ 462


Efficiency


The Value of Energy Saved and Produced(production @ .03 and savings @ .085 $/kWh)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Bill

ion

$ p

er y

ear

Energy Saved from150 M Refrig/Freezersat 2001 efficiency

Nuclear

Conventional Hydro

Existing Renewables

ANWR @10,000 Btu/kWh

100 Million Rooftop

PV System @ 1kW


Efficiency


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

EER = 13

Impact of Standards on Efficiency of 3 Appliances

Source: S. Nadel, ACEEE,

in ECEEE 2003 Summer Study, www.eceee.org

75%

60%

25%


Efficiency


Annual Usage of Air Conditioning in New Homes in CaliforniaAverage drop of 3% per year while House size grew 1% per year

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,50019

75

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

kW

h/Y

EA

R

Source: CEC Demand Analysis Office

Federal Appliance Standards

Initial California Title 24 Building Standards

California Title 20 Appliance Standards

100%

38%

SEER 10

SEER 13


Efficiency


After Saturation (16 years)Impact of Standards on Residential Central A/C

and Roof Top A/C Units in the United States

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 2006Year

Ind

ex (

1972

= 1

00)

EER = 13

300 GW

200 GW

100 GW of U.S. Nuclear Power Stations


Efficiency


Costs and Pollution Saved by Avoiding a 50% expansion of California Electric System.

Avoids 18 Million tons/year of Carbon Equivalent to getting 12 million cars off the road,

– along with their NOx, CO, and particulate emissions. California has ~25 million motor vehicles,

– avoided 50% more equivalent pollution. The Pavley bill, starting in model year ’09, should start to reduce

another 30%.

California annual electric bill in 2004 ~ $30 Billion Avoided ~$16 Billion of bills, but net saving is only

~$12Billion/year, i.e. $1000/family.


Efficiency

Energy for the Future Public Interest Energy Strategies –CEC #100-03-12F

GWh Impacts from Programs Begun Prior to 2001

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

GW

H

Utility Programs: at a cost of ~1% of Electric Bill

Building Standards

Appliance Standards

~ 14% of Annual Use in California

Utility Programs $ 250 Million ~18,000 GWHStandards $ 10 Million ~18,000 GWH

Program Costs and Savings in 2004


Efficiency


United States Refrigerator Use (Actual) and 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)


Efficiency


United States Energy Consumption 1949 to 2001Source: Table 1.5 Annual Energy Review; data for 2001 is preliminary

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

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

Qu

adri

llio

n B

tus


Efficiency


Energy Consumption Per Person 1949 to 2001Source: Table 1.5 Annual Energy Review; data for 2001 is preliminary

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

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

Mill

ion

Btu

sUnited States


Efficiency


Energy Intensity in the United States Energy Consumption Per $ of Gross Domestic Product 1949-2001

0

5

10

15

20

25

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

Th

ou

sa

nd

Btu

s p

er

Ch

ain

ed

19

96

$

Source: Table 1.5 Annual Energy Review; data for 2001 is preliminary

Energy Costs = 6% of GDP in 1999

or $6000/family


Efficiency


Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for the United States International Energy Agency (IEA) and EIA (Energy Information Agency)

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

IEA data EIA data

- 2.7%Average = - 0.7%- 3.4%


Efficiency


Annual Rate of Change in Energy/Gross State Product for California(Sources: EIA and California Department of Finance)

-7.0%

-6.0%

-5.0%

-4.0%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

Average = -1.0% -4.5% -3.9%


Efficiency


World Primary Energy Consumption1980 to 2001

Source: EIA

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Qu

ad

s (

10^

15

BT

Us

)

20-year annual growth was 1.7%


Efficiency


Source: Stabilization Wedges: Pacala and Socolow, Science Vol 305, page 968

Growth = 1.5%/yr


Efficiency


$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

Public Interest EnergyResearch (PIER). ~50% to

Efficiency

Emerging TechnologyCoordinating Council

Energy Efficiency andDemand Response

Mill

ion

$ p

er

Ye

ar

Electricity

Natural Gas

EE funding

"Procurement" = Integrated Resource Planning

Proposed Ramp Up to $25 MM

Emerging Technologies Whitepaper January 24, 2005 Arthur Rosenfeld, Commissioner, California Energy Commission Nancy Jenkins, PIER Buildings Program Manager, California Energy Commission Robert Shelton, Managing Director, Navigant Consulting

Figure 4: Public Goods and Procurement Funding for Efficiency


Efficiency


Demand Response and Interval Electricity Meters

Currently large customers have interval meters, mandatory time-of-use pricing, and limited participation in interruptible programs

Starting Summer 2006, these customers expected to be put on default Critical Peak Pricing (CPP) tariffs in IOU areas

Also in 2006, PG&E and SDG&E expect to begin installation of interval meters for electricity customers and will relay gas use and will offer CPP to customers will meters

Installation to take several years during which time SCE plans to follow suit

CEC will define communicating thermostats which can be programmed to response to CPP and for grid protection


Efficiency


Time dependent valuation (TDV) prices vary over the year Although TDV prices in some hours exceed 50 ¢/kWh, annual average TDV

price equals ~15 ¢/kWh

TDV: Climate Zone 13 (Fresno), Annual

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 876 1752 2628 3504 4380 5256 6132 7008 7884 8760

Hour

TD

V (

cen

ts/k

Wh

)


Efficiency


Cost of Conserved Energy (CEE) can also be used to evaluate designs

yearper

AC

kWh

CRRCCE

$

CEE = Cost of Conserved EnergyΔ$AC = Consumer price increase due to hot/dry

AC designCRR = Capital recovery rate; set at 10% per

yearΔkWhper year = Annual energy savings due to hot/dry

AC designTDV (CZ 13, Aug 6) comparison to Design CCEs

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

TD

V a

nd

CC

E(c

en

ts/k

Wh

)

TDV

CCE Design 3

CCE Design 2

CCE Design 1


Efficiency


The California Clean Energy Fund (CalCEF)

– Non-profit, public benefit, evergreen fund

– Established as a result of the Settlement Agreement between PG&E and the California Public Utilities Commission

– Mission is create an investment vehicle that serves as a catalyst to advance California’s clean energy agenda

– Board of Directors blends public policy makers, investment professionals, and science and technology experts

A new $30 million fund formed to make equity investments in clean energy technology companies in California


Efficiency


Board of Directors Michael R. Peevey (Chairman)

– President, California Public Utilities Commission.

Ralph Cavanagh

– Co-Director, Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) energy program. Member U.S. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, 1993-2003.

Jonathan Foster

– General Counsel/VP Corporate Development, Atempo. Former deputy director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Tom Jacoby

– Founder/President Columbia Consulting Company; Director, Homeland Energy Resources Development Corp., Director, Environmental Entrepreneurs.

Mark Levine

– Director, Environmental Energy Technologies Division (EETD), LBNL

Nancy E. Pfund

– Managing Director, JPMorgan. Co-head JPMorgan’s $75M Bay Area Equity Fund.

Arthur Rosenfeld, PhD

– Commissioner, California Energy Commission; Emeritus Professor of Physics, UC Berkeley

Mason Willrich

– Board of Governors, Cal-ISO, Former Nth Power partner; director of Evergreen Solar, founder and chairman of EnergyWorks LLC.

John Woolard

– Vice President of Strategy and Business Development of Itron, Inc. Co-founded and former CEO of Silicon Energy.


Efficiency


Experienced Investment Managers

VantagePoint Venture Partners

• Active multi-stage investor with more than $2.8 billion in capital under management

Draper Fisher Jurvetson*

• Early stage venture capital firm pursuing clean energy investment strategy

Nth Power*

• Dedicated exclusively to high potential investments resulting from the restructuring of the global energy industry

*Investment manager matching turns $30 million into $50 million


Efficiency


Broad Future Objectives

– Grow Fund. Raise additional equity in current fund. Add strategic partners.

– Earliest Stage Investment Catalyst. Find creative mechanisms for supporting high risk but promising clean energy investments. Partner with universities to create an environment of excellence.

– Use Convening Power. Promote leadership in clean energy technology. Attract additional investment to California.

– Project Finance. Create new solutions and new partnerships to address clean energy project finance.

Efficiency Energy for the Future Modeling Energy and Sustainable Growth: Lessons from California...

Documents

Transcript of Efficiency Energy for the Future Modeling Energy and Sustainable Growth: Lessons from California...