1. Energy Efficiency: The first and most profitable way to delay Climate Change Law Seminars International ENERGY IN CALIFORNIA Sept. 22, 2008 Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission (916) 654-4930 ARosenfe@Energy.State.CA.US http://www.energy.ca.gov/commissioners/rosenfeld.html or just Google “ Art Rosenfeld ”

2. 2 California Energy Commission Responsibilities Both Regulation and R&D California Building and Appliance Standards –Started 1977 –Updated every few years Siting Thermal Power Plants Larger than 50 MW Forecasting Supply and Demand (electricity and fuels) Research and Development –~ $80 million per year CPUC & CEC are collaborating to introduce communicating electric meters and thermostats that are programmable to respond to time- dependent electric tariffs.

3. 3

4. 4 In 2005

5. 5 How Much of The Savings Come from Efficiency 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 from transportation, and 1/3 from buildings and industry.

6. Two Energy Agencies in California The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) was formed in 1890 to regulate natural monopolies, like railroads, and later electric and gas utilities. The California Energy Commission (CEC) was formed in 1974 to regulate the environmental side of energy production and use. Now the two agencies work very closely, particularly to delay climate change. The Investor-Owned Utilities, under the guidance of the CPUC, spend “Public Goods Charge” money (rate-payer money) to do everything they can that is cost effective to beat existing standards. The Publicly-Owned utilities (20% of the power), under loose supervision by the CEC, do the same. 6

7. 7 California’s Energy Action Plan California’s Energy Agencies first adopted an Energy Action Plan in 2003. Central to this is the State’s preferred “Loading Order” for resource expansion. 1. Energy efficiency and Demand Response 2. Renewable Generation, 3. Increased development of affordable & reliable conventional generation 4. Transmission expansion to support all of California’s energy goals. The Energy Action Plan has been updated since 2003 and provides overall policy direction to the various state agencies involved with the energy sectors

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10 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

11. 11 Source: David Goldstein ~ 1 Ton CO2/year~ 100 gallons Gasoline/year

12. 12 = 80 power plants of 500 MW each In the United States

13. 13 In the United States

14. 14

15. 15 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

16. 16

17. 17 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

18. 18 Source: NRDC; Chang and Wang, 9/26/2007

19. 1000 ft 2 of a white roof, replacing a dark roof, offset the emission of 10 tonnes of CO 2 19

20. 20 CO 2 Equivalency of Cool Roofs and Pavements 44 GT CO 2 is over one year of the world 2025 emission of 37 GT CO 2 At a growth rate of 1.5% in the world’s CO 2 -equivalent emission rate, 44 GT CO 2 would offset the effect of the growth in CO 2 -equivalent emissions for 11 years

21. 21 Equivalent Value of Avoided CO 2 CO 2 emissions currently trade at ~$25/tonne 44 GT worth $1100, for changing albedo of roofs and paved surface Cooler roofs alone worth $600B Cooler roofs also save air conditioning (and provide comfort) worth several times $600B

22. Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost? US Greenhouse Gas Abatement Mapping Initiative December 12, 2007

23. Abatement cost <$50/ton U.S. mid-range abatement curve – 2030 Source:McKinsey analysis 0 30 60 90 -120 -220 -30 -60 -90 3.2 0 Cost Real 2005 dollars per ton CO 2 e 1.01.21.41.82.00.22.22.42.62.83.01.60.40.60.8 -230 Residential electronics Commercial electronics Residential buildings – Lighting Commercial buildings – LED lighting Fuel economy packages – Cars Commercial buildings – CFL lighting Cellulosic biofuels Industry – Combined heat and power Existing power plant conversion efficiency improvements Conservation tillage Fuel economy packages – Light trucks Commercial buildings – Combined heat and power Coal mining – Methane mgmt Commercial buildings – Control systems Distributed solar PV Residential buildings – Shell retrofits Nuclear new- build Natural gas and petroleum systems management Active forest management Afforestation of pastureland Reforestation Winter cover crops Onshore wind – Medium penetration Coal power plants – CCS new builds with EOR Biomass power – Cofiring Onshore wind – High penetration Industry – CCS new builds on carbon- intensive processes Coal power plants – CCS new builds Coal power plants – CCS rebuilds Coal-to-gas shift – dispatch of existing plants Car hybridi- zation Commercial buildings – HVAC equipment efficiency Solar CSP Residential buildings – HVAC equipment efficiency Industria l process improve- ments Residential water heaters Manufacturing – HFCs mgmt Residential buildings – New shell improvements Coal power plants– CCS rebuilds with EOR Potential Gigatons/year Commercial buildings – New shell improvement s Afforestation of cropland Onshore wind – Low penetration 23

24. 24 8%17%25%33%42%50%58% 24

25. 25 Source: Pat McAuliffe, pmcaulif@energy.state.ca.us

26. 26 Source: Pat McAuliffe, pmcaulif@energy.state.ca.us

27. The End For More Information: http://www.energy.ca.gov/commission/commissioners/rosenfeld.html or just Google “ Art Rosenfeld ” 27