1. Efficient Use of Energy in California Power Electronics Conference Long Beach, CA Oct. 25, 2006 Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission (916) 654-4930 ARosenfe@Energy.State.CA.US http://www.energy.ca.gov/commission/commissioners/rosenfeld.html or just Google “Art Rosenfeld”

2. 2 1949

3. 3

4. 4

5. 5 How Much of The Savings Come from Efficiency? uEasiest 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 ~$200 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 uCommercial Aviation improvements save another $50 Billion per year uAppliances and Buildings are more complex –We must sort out true efficiency gains vs. structural changes (from smokestack to service economy).

6. 6 How Much of The Savings Come from Efficiency (cont’d)? uSome examples of estimated savings in 2006 based on 1974 efficiencies minus 2006 efficiencies uBeginning in 2007 in California, reduction of “vampire” or stand-by losses –This will save $10 Billion when finally implemented, nation-wide uOut 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.

7. 7 A supporting analysis on the topic of efficiency from Vice-President Dick Cheney u“ 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” u“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

8. 8

9. 9 ∆ = 4,000kWh/yr = $400/capita

10. 10 Carbon Dioxide Intensity and Per Capita CO2 Emissions -- 2001 (Fossil Fuel Combustion Only) 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00 intensity (tons of CO2 per 2000 US Dollar) Tons of CO2 per person Canada Australia S. Korea California Mexico United States Austria Belgium Denmark France Germany Italy Netherlands New Zealand Switzerland Japan

11. 11

12. 12 Comparison of Fuel Economy – Passenger Vehicles

13. 13

14. 14

15. 15

16. 16 Source: Stabilization Wedges: Pacala and Socolow, Science Vol 305, page 968 Growth = 1.5%/yr

17. 17 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 197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006 Year Index (1972 = 100) Effective Dates of National Standards = Effective Dates of State Standards = Refrigerators Central A/C Gas Furnaces SEER = 13

18. 18 Source: David Goldstein

19. 19 Source: David Goldstein

20. 20

21. 21

22. 22

23. 23 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 19471949195119531955195719591961196319651967196919711973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009 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)

24. 24 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 3 Gorges 三峡 Refrigerators 冰箱 Air Conditioners 空调 TWh 2000 Stds 2005 Stds If EnergyStar 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

25. 25 Annual Peak Savings from Efficiency Programs and Standards 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 1975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996 1997199819992000200120022003 MW Appliance Standards Building Standards Utility Efficiency Programs at a cost of ~1% of electric bill ~ 22% of Annual Peak in California in 2003 i.e. 22% in 30 years

26. 26 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

27. 27

28. 28

29. 29

30. 30 Standards for EPS will eventually result in $189 million per year in national electricity savings

31. EPS Energy Savings Impact US savings year 1: $189 M or 1.9 billion kWh, about half from no-load, half from active mode. u By the 5 th year (including growth), we will be saving annually $1 B or 10 BkWh u This is the equivalent annual output of 4 typical 500-MW power plants, or taking 1 million cars off the road. u Payback time (SPT)– No-load, 1 mo. or Zero; Active mode, ~1 year.

32. 32 Electronics Research funded by CEC/PIER leading to developing California Standards. 1– at Ecos Consulting Topics: –External and internal ac-dc power supplies –Dc-dc power supplies; many of them, tiny but inefficient. –Battery-charging supplies; standards work starts late ’07. –Computers, servers, data centers –Televisions, set top boxes and other consumer electronics; develop test procedures –Plug load studies Information: www.EfficientPowerSupplies.org www.EfficientProducts.org Contact: –Chris Calwell - ccalwell@ecosconsulting.com

33. 33 Electronics Research funded by CEC/PIER 2--- at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab uTopics: –Power-efficient Ethernet and FireWire links –Reducing network-induced consumption –Efficiency specs for network products –Consumer electronics inter-device controls –Efficient set-top boxes –Reducing energy use of hard-wired and builder-installed equipment in new homes uDecember 2006 to December 2008 uContact: –Bruce Nordman - BNordman@lbl.gov

34. 34

35. 35 Illuminating Space vs. the Street

36. 36 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

37. 37

38. 38 AutoDR - Results 202 33 45 219 71 78 61 18 111 52 Avg kW Savings 15% 10% 12% 10% 25% 16% 21% 5% 2% 20% Avg % Savings $4,5103 (1)46Chabot $12,000 $3,312 $375 $5,050 $7,500 $3,620 $2,000 $1,614 $12,824 Setup Cost 4 (1)56Target 0 (2) 265 USPS 1 (0)65Oracle 4 (1)208Gilead 2 (0)272IKEA 4 (3)110Echelon 1 (3)922530 Arnold 4 (4)8550 Douglas 3 (4)227B of A 4 (0)84ACWD events (2003-4/2005) Max kW Saving Company Summary95113.4% $57.62 / kW * * Note: Average setup cost for AC load control is approximately $250.00 / kW

39. 39 Small Customer Demand Response, Retail Pricing Pilot, and Advanced Metering Infrastructure uCPUC and CEC have been testing the impact of “CPP” (Critical Peak Pricing) on demand –Two summers of tests ($10 M experiment). uResults 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. uPG&E and SDG&E will install advanced meters soon, SCE will follow, starting 2008. Starting late 2008, ALL new bldgs. must have advanced meters and Programmable Communicating Thermostats (PCTs)

40. 40 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 88.5 0 ) CPP rates – Load Impacts

41. 41 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? Definitely Probably 95% 69% 65% 73% 61% 69% 22% 30% 20% 26% 17% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Total TOU CPP-F CPP-V Info Only 1 1 91% 93% 87% 86% 43% 39% 46% 41% 21% 28% 17% 23% 22% 0%20%40%60%80% TOTAL TOU CPP-F CPP-V Info Only 1 1 64% 67% 63% 64% 63% 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.

42. 42. uThis talk available on my web page uJust Google “Art Rosenfeld”

43. 43 Source: Stabilization Wedges: Pacala and Socolow, Science Vol 305, page 968 Growth = 1.5%/yr