1. Energy Efficiency Lessons and Plans from California Delhi & Mumbai March 2009 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 Does Anyone See A Problem With This Picture?

3. 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. 3

4. 4 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.

5. 5 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

6. 6

7. 7

9. 9 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

10. 10 Source: David Goldstein ~ 1 Ton CO2/year~ 100 gallons Gasoline/year

11. 11 = 80 power plants of 500 MW each In the United States

12. 12 In the United States

13. 13

14. 14 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

15. 15

16. 16 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

17. White Roofs 17

18. Temperature Rise of Various Materials in Sunlight 0.00.20.40.60.8 1.0 50 40 30 20 10 0 Temperature Rise (°C) Galvanized Steel IR-Refl. Black Black Paint Green Asphalt Shingle Red Clay Tile Lt. Red Pain Lt. Green Paint White Asphalt Shingle Al Roof Coat. Optical White White Paint White Cement Coat. Solar Absorbance 18

19. 19 White is ‘cool’ in Bermuda

20. 20 and in Santorini, Greece

21. and in Hyderabad, India 21

22. 22 Cool Roof Technologies flat, white pitched, white pitched, cool & colored Old New

23. 23 Cool Colors Reflect Invisible Near-Infrared Sunlight

24. White Roofs In California and a growing number of US states, white roofs are required for new buildings, and re-roofing to reduce air conditioning load and “smog”(O 3 ). But a new concept is that white roofs also cool the world directly. 24

25. Effect of Solar Reflective Roofs and Pavements in Cooling the Globe ∆ Solar Reflectivity CO 2 Offset by 100 m 2 CO 2 Offset Globally White Roof0.4010 tons Average Roof0.256.3 tons24 Gt Cool Pavement0.154 tons20 Gt Total Potential44 Gt Value of 44 Gt CO 2 at $25/t ~ $1 Trillion (Source: Akbari, Menon, Rosenfeld. Climatic Change, 2008) White Roof will be “diluted” by cool colored roofs of lower reflectivity, and roofs that can not be changed, because they are long-lived tile, or perhaps they are already white. Compare 10 tons with a family car, which emits ~4 tons/year. * * ** 25

26. 26 CO 2 Equivalency of Cool Roofs World-wide (Tropics+Temperate) Cool Roofs alone offset 24 Gt CO2 Worth > €600 Billion To Convert 24 Gt CO2 one time into a rate Assume 20 Year Program, thus 1.2 Gt CO2/year Average World Car Emits 4 tCO2/year, equivalent to 300 Million Cars off the Road for 20 years.

27. 100 m 2 of a white roof, replacing a dark roof, offset the emission of 10 tons of CO 2 Akbari et al. Main Finding 27

28. To be published in Climatic Change 2008. Global Cooling: Increasing World-wide Urban Albedos to Offset CO2 July 28, 2008 28 Hashem Akbari and Surabi Menon Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA H_Akbari@lbl.gov Tel: 510-486-4287 Arthur Rosenfeld California Energy Commission, USA Arosenfe@energy.state.ca.us Tel: 916-654 4930 A First Step In Geo-Engineering Which Saves Money and Has Known Positive Environmental Impacts

29. Conservation Supply Curves and Carbon Abatement Curves 29

31. PG&E Electric Supply Curve Summary of Previous Slide 200 Projects costing at or below 12 cents /kWh average retail price Total Potential Savings of 18,000 GWh for these projects This represents about 20% of total electric sales for PG&E in 2008

32. TechnologySector Levelized Supply Cost Levelized Supply Cost with Programs Technical GWH 2016 S04_0515INC00.0054.549 S01_0515INC00.00513.356 WWT_PDWINC0.0020.0070.08 CRm_ExOpINC0.0050.010.41 CRm_HEChINC0.0050.014.52 S36_HEVCINC0.0050.010.729 Fans_ASD_(6-100_hp)Existing Industrial0.0050.01227.33 Comp_Air_ASD_(6-100_hp)Existing Industrial0.0050.01231.33 Pumps_ASD_(6-100_hp)Existing Industrial0.0050.01254.46 CRm_UASINC0.0050.013.01 WWT_DesINC0.0060.0111.83 CRm_POHPINC0.0060.0111.31 CRm_PrPlINC0.0060.0113.75 CRm_EfFSINC0.0060.0112.02 Fans_OMExisting Industrial0.0060.01411.94 Compressed_AirSizingExisting Industrial0.0060.01449.29 Pumps_OMExisting Industrial0.0060.01495.2 C_CFL_Over24WExisting Commercial0.0070.035305.09 CRm_PACRINC0.0070.0127.89 Compressed_Air-OMExisting Industrial0.0080.015172.52 CRm_VACSINC0.0080.0131.45 S36_ACrSINC0.0080.0131.16 CRm_LPDFINC0.0080.0132.43 WWT_VFDINC0.0080.01312.4 S04_0510INC0.0080.0130 CRm_PrPmINC0.0090.0140.42 CRm_PMEVINC0.0090.0140.3 CRm_PMEWINC0.0090.0140.21 C_CFL_Under15WExisting Commercial0.0090.04151.16 C_T12_Delamping_4FtExisting Commercial0.0210.027123.76 C_Ref_EvapFan_ECMExisting Commercial0.0220.027238.21

33. 33

34. 34

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

36. 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 36

37. 37 8%17%25%33%42%50%58% 37

38. 38 Source: Pat McAuliffe, pmcaulif@energy.state.ca.us

39. 39 Source: Pat McAuliffe, pmcaulif@energy.state.ca.us

40. 40 Backup Slides on Cool Colored Roofs, Pavements and Cars

41. Solar Reflective Surfaces Also Cool the Globe Source: IPCC 41

42. 42 Methodology: Energy and Air-Quality Analysis

43. 43 Cool and Standard Brown Metal Roofing Panels Solar reflectance ~ 0.2 higher Afternoon surface temperature ~ 10ºC lower Courtesy BASF Coatings

44. Designing Cool Colored Roofing cool clay tile R ≥0.40 Courtesy MCA Clay Tile cool metal R ≥0.30 Courtesy BASF Industrial Coatings Courtesy American Rooftile Coatings +0.37+0.29+0.15+0.23+0.26+0.29 cool concrete tile R ≥0.40 standard concrete tile (same color) solar reflectance gain = cool fiberglass asphalt shingle R ≥0.25 Courtesy Elk Corporation 44

45. Cool is Cool: From Cool Color Roofs to Cool Color Cars and Cool Jackets Toyota experiment (surface temperature 10K cooler) Ford is also working on the technology Courtesy: BMW ( http://www.ips- innovations.com/solar_reflective_clothing.htm ) 45

46. Cool Paving Materials: 46

47. 47 Reflective Pavements are Cooler Fresh asphalt Albedo: 0.05 Temperature: 123°F Aged asphalt Albedo: 0.15 Temperature: 115°F Prototype asphalt coating Albedo: 0.51 Temperature: 88°F

48. 48 Temperature Effect on Rutting 507RF: 50°C 512RF: 40°C failure criterion 50°C (122°F) 40°C (104°F) 0 Repetitions (thousands) 40 80 120 160 20 16 12 8 4 0 Rut Depth (mm) Source: Dr. John Harvey, UC B Civil Engineering, Inst. Transpo. Studies

49. 49 Simulated Meteorology and Air-quality Impacts in LA

50. 50 Potential Savings in LA Savings for Los Angeles –Direct, $100M/year –Indirect, $70M/year –Smog, $360M/year Estimate of national savings: $5B/year