Efficiency Energy for the Future Sustainable Development Reducing Energy Intensity by 2% Per Year Energy PMP International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies Erice, Italy Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission (916)

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 2 United States Refrigerator Use v. Time Annual drop from 1974 to 2001 = 5% per year Average Energy Use per Unit Sold (kWh per year) Refrigerator volume (cubic feet) Energy Use per Unit Refrigerator Size (cubic feet) 1978 Cal Standard 1990 Federal Standard 1987 Cal Standard 1980 Cal Standard 1993 Federal Standard 2001 Federal Standard

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 3 United States Refrigerator Use (Actual) and Estimated Household Standby Use v. Time 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)

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 4 Electricity Generating Capacity for 150 Million Refrigerators + Freezers in the US at 1974 efficiencyat 2001 efficiency GW capacity saved capacity needed

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 5 Electricity Use of Refrigerators and Freezers in the US compared to Generation from Nuclear, Hydro, Renewables, Three Gorges Dam and ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) Billion kWh per year 150 M Refrig/Freezers at 1974 effat 2001 eff Nuclear Conventional Hydro 3 Gorges Dam Existing Renewables 50 Million 2 kW PV Systems Saved Used

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 6 The Value of Energy Saved and Produced. This is previous figure re-stated in dollars with generation worth $.03/kWh and savings worth $.085/kWh) Billion $ per year Dollars Saved from 150 M Refrig/Freezers at 2001 efficiency Nuclear Conventional Hydro Existing Renewables 50 Million 2 kW PV Systems 3 Gorges Dam ANWR

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 7 3 Gorges Dam vs. added Appliances in Gorges: 18 GW x 3,500 hours/year = 63 TWh at wholesale Source: David Fridley - LBNL Conclusion: Optimum appliances could save 35 TWh/year, about one-half of 3 Gorges generation in Savings at retail at least twice as valuable as wholesale, so economically equivalent to the entire 3 Gorges project.

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure Year Index (1972 = 100) Effective Dates of National Standards = Effective Dates of State Standards = Refrigerators Central A/C Gas Furnaces Impact of Standards on Efficiency of 3 Appliances Source: S. Nadel, ACEEE, in ECEEE 2003 Summer Study, 75% 60% 25%

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 9 Annual Usage of Air Conditioning in New Homes in California Annual drop averages 4% per year ,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3, kWh/YEAR Source: CEC Demand Analysis Office 1992 Federal Appliance Standard California Title 20 Appliance Standards Initial California Title 24 Building Standards Estimated Impact of 2006 SEER 12 Standards 100% 33%

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 10 Estimated Power Saved Due to Air Conditioning Standards ( ) (cont’d) uPeak Power for United States Air Conditioning ~ 250 GW uBut standards cover only residential and rooftop units ~ 200 GW uAvoided GW: 67% of 200 GW = 135 GW uComparisons: –California Peak Load ~ 50 GW –United States Nuclear Plants net capability ~ 100 GW uCooler roofs will save another 10% of 200 GW –Flat roofs, new or replacement, should be white To be required in 2005 California Building Standards –Sloped roofs, new or replacement, can be colored but cool –Each strategy saves 10%, so 20 GW total uJust switching a-c equipment located outside to white should save another 1%, or 2 GW

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 11

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 12 Source: Mike Messenger, CEC Staff, April 2003 GWH Impacts from Programs Begun Prior to ,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40, GWH Utility Programs Building Standards Appliance Standards ~ 14% of Annual Use in California in 2001

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 13 Electricity Efficiency and Renewables in California Goals of California Energy Action Plan 2003 uCalifornia kWh per capita is already flat compared to U.S. climbing 2%/yr. uNew California goal is to reduce kWh per capita by 1% per year uRenewable Portfolio Standard: add 1% of renewables per year uAdditional peak reduction of 1% per year by Demand Response when power is expensive or reliability is a problem uIn total, goals aim to reduce electricity growth, increase renewables, and grow demand response

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 14 The Transition to a Sustainable Future uPast investments in efficiency have reduced growth and saved money uIn addition, future investments could significantly reduce world energy demand and carbon emissions uWe now turn from a discussion of electricity to primary energy

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 15

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 16

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 17

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 18 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% IEA dataEIA data - 2.7% Average = - 0.7% - 3.4%

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 19 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% Average = -1.0% -4.5% -3.9%

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 20 Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for Europe IEA (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) for European Union and Western Europe EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate) -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% IEA dataEIA data - 1.2% Average = - 1.3% - 1.4%

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 21 Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for China IEA (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) and EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate) -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% IEA dataEIA data - 4.8% Average = - 5.0% - 5.3%

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 22 Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for the World IEA (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) and EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate) -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% IEA dataEIA data note: Russia not included until 1992 in IEA data and 1993 in EIA data - 1.3% Average = - 0.7%

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure The “Conservation Bomb” (World Primary Power or Energy) TWa  = -1%/yr  = -2%/yr  = -3%/yr 6 billion 2 kW = 12 TW 10 billion 5 kW = 50 TW Year  = Annual % growth in Energy/GDP Quads/yr  = 0%/yr GWP = $ 25 Trillion GWP = $ 250 Trillion

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 24 Gross World Product, from IPCC IS 92a 9 fold growth in 100 years; ~ 2% year Trillion US 1990 $

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 25 Improved efficiency case = IS 92a with E/GDP at -2%/yr EIA International Energy Outlook 2003 Like Improved Case starting with World at current EU E/GDP 1990 to 2000 Actuals from EIA - 0.8% until 2020 then - 1.0% % from 2000 until 2100 Average TW

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 26

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 27 Annual Rates of Change 2000 to Energy Intensity vs. GWP Source: IPCC Special Report on Emissons Scenarios 2001, Appendix VII -3.0% -2.5% -2.0% -1.5% -1.0% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5% Annualized Growth of GWP Annualized Growth of E/GWP Conservation Bomb IS 92a

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 28 Change over Century (2000 to 2100) of Primary Energy vs. GWP GWP 2100 / GWP 2100 Primary Energy 2100 / Prmary Energy 2000 Conservation Bomb IS 92 a

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 29

Efficiency Energy for the Future Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 30