Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 41
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States 2 Energy Efficiency in Residential and Commercial Buildings The efficiency of the appliances and equipment used in homes and businesses has increased greatly over the past three decades. However, there is still much that can be done to reduce the amount and slow the growth of energy consumption in residential and commercial buildings. This chapter describes how energy is used in buildings today and discusses the factors that have driven the growth of energy use. It then identifies opportunities for improving energy efficiency in the near term (through 2020) as well as the medium term (through 2030–2035). The chapter presents conservation supply curves that show the amount of energy that could be saved as a function of the cost of the saved energy and describes how whole-building approaches can produce new buildings with very low energy consumption. It reviews the market barriers to improving energy efficiency in buildings and presents some factors that are helping to overcome the barriers. Finally, the chapter presents the findings of the Panel on Energy Efficiency Technologies with regard to the potential for greater efficiency in residential and commercial buildings. 2.1 ENERGY USE IN BUILDINGS In 2006, residential and commercial buildings accounted for 39 percent of the total primary energy used and 72 percent of the electricity used in the United States to supply power and fuel for heating, cooling, lighting, computing, and other needs. As Figures 2.1 (residential buildings) and 2.2 (commercial buildings) show, heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) consumed the most energy, followed by lighting.
OCR for page 42
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States FIGURE 2.1 Energy use in U.S. residential buildings by end-use, 2006. Note: *, Energy Information Administration (EIA) adjustment factor that accounts for incomplete data in EIA’s sampling and survey methodology. Source: Pew Center on Climate Change, based on data in DOE/EERE (2008), available at http://www.pewclimate.org/technology/overview/buildings. FIGURE 2.2 Energy use in U.S. commercial buildings by end-use, 2006. Note: *, Energy Information Administration (EIA) adjustment factor that accounts for incomplete data in EIA’s sampling and survey methodology. Source: Pew Center on Climate Change, based on data in DOE/EERE (2008), available at http://www.pewclimate.org/technology/overview/buildings.
OCR for page 43
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States On the residential side, this energy was used in approximately 80.8 million single-family homes, 24.8 million multifamily housing units, and nearly 6.9 million mobile homes in the United States as of 2006 (EIA, 2008b). On the commercial side, there were approximately 75 billion square feet (7 billion square meters) of floor space in 5 million commercial buildings as of 2006 (EIA, 2008b). The building stock is long-lived: homes can last 100 years or more, commercial buildings often last 50 years or more, and appliances and equipment used in buildings can last 10–20 years (IWG, 1997). Nonetheless, there have been significant changes in energy use and energy efficiency in buildings over the past 30 years. Energy use in buildings has increased over the past 30 years, but at a rate slower than the rate of increases in gross domestic product (GDP). As shown in Figure 2.3, in the residential sector over the period 1975–2005, delivered-energy FIGURE 2.3 U.S. residential energy use trends. Primary energy use (accounting for losses in electricity generation and transmission and distribution, and for fuels, such as natural gas, used on-site) has increased faster than delivered energy use (which does not account for such losses, but does include fuels used on-site) because use of electricity has increased faster than use of other fuels. Source: Data from EIA, 2007b.
OCR for page 44
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States use1 increased about 15 percent whereas primary energy use increased 46 percent. This difference is due to the growing electrification of energy use in homes. In 1975, direct fuel use in homes was four times that of electricity use in terms of end-use energy content, but by 2005 this ratio had fallen to about 1.4 to 1. Understanding the potential for improvements in building energy efficiency requires detailed energy-use data beyond those presented in Figures 2.1 and 2.2, because the sector potential is composed of a long list of appliance-specific and building-specific measures. Unfortunately, much of the available data on energy use in buildings is based on self-reporting or inferences rather than on direct measurement, and estimates of uncertainties around the data are seldom available. Expanded data gathering, particularly through direct measurement, would facilitate more rigorous evaluation of energy efficiency measures and would contribute to the accuracy and completeness of future studies. Growth in the use of a variety of electrical appliances is one factor contributing to the growth of energy use in buildings in recent decades. Figure 2.4 shows the penetration (the percentage of U.S. households having an appliance) of selected appliances in U.S. households between 1980 and 2005. During this period the percentage of households having central air-conditioning more than doubled, and the penetration of microwave ovens increased by more than a factor of six and that of dishwashers by 57 percent. Personal computer use was essentially nonexistent in 1980, yet by 2005, 68 percent of all U.S. households had a personal computer. In addition, 56 percent of households had cable television service, nearly 22 percent had a satellite dish antenna, and more than 27 percent of households had at least one large-screen television as of 2005 (DOE, 2009). Compared with the residential sector, the commercial sector experienced much faster growth in energy use over the period 1975–2005: delivered-energy use in the commercial sector increased approximately 50 percent, and primary energy use increased 90 percent (Figure 2.5). As in the residential sector, the growing electrification of energy use in the commercial sector led to a faster rise in primary energy use than in delivered-energy use (DOE, 2008a). Residential energy intensity, defined as energy use per square foot of living space, declined over the past 30 years in spite of the growing penetration of 1 “Delivered” energy refers to the electricity delivered to a site plus the fuels used directly onsite (e.g., natural gas for heating water). This measure does not account for the losses incurred in generating and transmitting and distributing the electricity. Delivered energy plus these losses is referred to as “primary” energy. See Box 1.4 in Chapter 1.
OCR for page 45
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States FIGURE 2.4 Household appliance penetration trends. “Penetration” is the percentage of U.S. households having the appliance specified. Data for personal computers are unavailable before 1990. Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Data through 2001 are from Regional Energy Profiles, Appliance Reports, Table 1: Appliances in U.S. Households, Selected Years, 1980–2001, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/appli/all_tables.html. Data for 2005 are from 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey—Detailed Tables, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/hc2005_tables/detailed_tables2005.html. appliances (see discussion below). However, the rate of decline depends on how energy intensity is measured. Total delivered-energy use per household fell 31 percent over the period 1978–2005, while primary energy use per household fell 16 percent (Table 2.1). Although household size in terms of square feet of floor area has been increasing, leading to a steeper decline in primary energy use per square foot of floor area (DOE, 2008a), the number of people living in a typical household declined from 2.8 in 1980 to 2.6 in 2001 (Battles and Hojjati, 2005). Thus primary energy use per household member remained relatively constant over the period 1980–2005. Smaller households use less absolute energy than larger households do, but more energy is used per person in the former. The 2005 residential
OCR for page 46
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States FIGURE 2.5 U.S. commercial energy-use trends. Primary energy use (accounting for losses in electricity generation and transmission and distribution and for fuels, such as natural gas, used on-site) has increased faster than delivered energy use (which does not account for such losses but does include fuels used on-site) because use of electricity has increased faster than use of other fuels. Source: EIA, 2007b. energy consumption survey showed that, on average, one-person households annually consumed 71 million Btu per capita; two-person households, 48 million Btu per capita; and three-person households, 35 million Btu per capita (DOE, 2009). A geographic shift in population (e.g., that from the northeastern and midwestern regions of the United States to the more temperate southern and western regions of the country) was one of the factors leading to the decline in residential energy intensity. Energy intensity tends to be lower in the latter regions, especially on a delivered-energy basis. Improvements in energy efficiency resulting from the adoption of efficiency standards for appliances and the offering of utility-sponsored and government-sponsored demand-side management (DSM) programs also helped reduce residential energy intensity (Battles and Hojjati, 2005).
OCR for page 47
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States TABLE 2.1 Residential Sector Energy Intensity Trends Year Delivered (million Btu/household) Primary (million Btu/household) Primary (1000 Btu/ft2) Primary (million Btu/household member) 1978 138 204 72 1980 114 176 101 63 1984 105 164 98 61 1987 101 163 94 63 1990 98 164 91 63 1993 104 172 92 66 1997 101 172 66 2001 92 164 79 64 2005 95 171 79 66 Note: Trend may look different depending on the metric used. Source: DOE, 2009, available at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/hc2005_tables/detailed_tables2005.html. TABLE 2.2 Household Energy Expenditures by Income Level in 2001 Household Incomea Percentage of Households Energy Expenditures (dollars)a Percentage of Income Spent on Energy Less than $9,999 10 1,039 16 $10,000 to $14,999 7 1,124 9 $15,000 to $19,999 8 1,290 7 $20,000 to $29,999 13 1,315 5 $30,000 to $39,999 13 1,398 4 $40,000 to $49,999 12 1,518 3 $50,000 to $74,999 20 1,683 3 $75,000 to $99,999 8 1,825 2 $100,000 or more 8 2,231 2 a2001 dollars. Source: DOE/EERE, 2007. Residential energy use varies by household income, as shown in Table 2.2. Upper-income households earning more than $100,000 annually in 2001 used about twice the energy used by lower-income households earning under $15,000 annually. But the energy burden (the fraction of income spent on energy) is much
OCR for page 48
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States higher for lower-income households compared with middle- or upper-income households. Commercial energy intensity measured in energy use per square foot of floor area declined over the 1979–1986 period but has fluctuated since 1986, as shown in Table 2.3. Commercial energy intensity has increased in particular types of buildings, such as health care and educational facilities. Efficiency improvements in lighting and air-conditioning have tended to reduce overall energy intensity, whereas greater use of amenities and devices such as computers and other plug loads have tended to increase it. Overall energy intensity in commercial buildings has declined in spite of a 45 percent increase in electricity use per square foot between 1983 and 2005 (Belzer, 2007). Energy use per square foot declined more on a delivered-energy basis than on a primary-energy basis during 1979–2003 owing to the increasing electrification of energy use. There is great diversity in energy intensity in different commercial building types, as shown in Table 2.4. On the basis of delivered-energy and primary-energy use, food sales and food services facilities use more than two times as much energy per square foot of floor area as is used by office, retail, education, and lodging facilities. Likewise, health care facilities tend to have high energy use per square foot of floor area. Table 2.5 presents a breakdown of energy end-use in residential and commercial buildings in 2005, as estimated by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). In housing, space heating represented about 48 percent of total energy TABLE 2.3 Commercial Sector Energy Intensity Trends Year Delivered (1000 Btu/ft2) Primary (1000 Btu/ft2) 1979 114.0 203.2 1983 97.5 187.1 1986 85.5 170.2 1989 91.6 180.4 1992 80.0 158.5 1995 90.5 180.1 1999 85.1 178.0 2003 91.0 191.0 Source: Energy Information Administration. Data through 1999 from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecs/cbecs_trends/intensity.html. Data for 2003 from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/detailed_tables_2003.html#consumexpen03.
OCR for page 49
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States TABLE 2.4 Commercial Sector Energy Intensity by Principal Building Activity, 2003 Principal Activity Delivered (1000 Btu/ft2) Primary (1000 Btu/ft2) Education 83 159 Food sales 200 535 Food service 258 523 Health care 188 346 Lodging 100 193 Mercantile and service 87 204 Office 93 212 Public assembly 94 180 Public order and safety 116 221 Religious worship 43 77 Warehouse 45 94 Other 164 319 Source: Energy Information Administration. Data from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/detailed_tables_2003.html#consumexpen03. use on a delivered basis and 31 percent on a primary basis. Water heating, space cooling, and lighting each represented 11–12 percent of total residential primary energy use. Electronic devices such as televisions, computers, and other types of office equipment represented about 8.5 percent of residential primary energy use in 2005, and this fraction increases as households acquire more and bigger electronic products. Space heating in commercial buildings in 2005 accounted for 24 percent of delivered-energy use and 14 percent of primary energy use, on average. Lighting accounted for about 17 percent of delivered-energy use and more than 25 percent of primary energy use, on average. Likewise, the end-use of space cooling and ventilation accounted for nearly 13 percent of delivered-energy use and 19 percent of primary energy use, on average. The end-use data should be viewed as approximate owing to the lack of metered data by end-use. “Other” energy use in Table 2.5 includes laboratory, medical, and telecommunications equipment; pumps; and fuel use for combined heat and power production.
OCR for page 50
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States TABLE 2.5 Energy End-Uses in Buildings, 2005 End-Use Residential Sector Commercial Sector Primary (quads) (%) Delivered (quads) (%) Primary (quads) (%) Delivered (quads) (%) Space heating 6.69 (30.7) 5.61 (48.2) (2.55) (14.2) 2.04 (24.0) Space cooling and ventilation 2.67 (12.3) 0.84 (7.2) 3.42 (19.1) 1.09 (12.8) Water heating 2.66 (12.2) 1.75 (15.0) 1.23 (6.8) 0.84 (9.9) Lighting 2.40 (11.0) 0.75 (6.5) 4.57 (25.5) 1.44 (16.9) Refrigeration 1.64 (7.5) 0.52 (4.4) 0.74 (4.1) 0.23 (2.7) Electronicsa 1.86 (8.5) 0.58 (5.0) 1.70 (9.5) 0.53 (6.2) Laundry and dishwashers 1.05 (4.8) 0.38 (3.2) NAb NAb Cooking 0.98 (4.5) 0.48 (4.1) 0.35 (2.0) 0.27 (3.2) Other 0.83 (3.8) 0.41 (3.5) 2.37 (18.2) 1.12 (13.2) Adjustmentc 1.02 (4.7) 0.32 (2.8) 0.98 (5.5) 0.92 (10.9) Total 21.78 (100) 11.63 (100) 17.91 (100) 8.49 (100) aElectronics include TVs, computers, and other office equipment. bNA, not available. cAdjustment to reconcile discrepancies between sources. Source: DOE/EERE, 2007. 2.2 ENERGY EFFICIENCY TRENDS Improvements in energy efficiency are a key factor in the decline in energy intensity in buildings over the past 30 years. Driven largely by research, development, and demonstration (RD&D), building energy codes, ENERGY STAR® labeling, and state and federal efficiency standards (see Chapter 5), the efficiency of new appliances has improved dramatically since the 1970s. For example, the average electricity use of new refrigerators sold in 2007 was about 498 kWh per year, 71 percent less than the average electricity use of new refrigerators sold 30 years earlier (AHAM, 2008). This is in spite of the fact that refrigerators have become larger and offer more features, such as automatic defrosting, ice makers, and through-the-door water and ice dispensers. Likewise, the average efficiency of other products, including air conditioners, gas furnaces, clothes washers, and dishwashers, has improved significantly over the past 30 years. Yet progress has been minimal for other products, such as water heaters. Less policy attention has been paid to the energy use of these other appliances and equipment, accounting in part for this divergence of trends in energy efficiency improvements.
OCR for page 51
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States Significant energy efficiency gains have also been made in lighting. The sales and use of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), which use about 75 percent less electricity per unit of light output relative to incandescent lamps, have increased greatly in the past decade. As shown in Figure 2.6, CFL shipments (based on data on imports, since all CFLs are imported into the United States) increased from about 21 million units in 2000 to 185 million units by 2006. But as a result of various factors—growing state, regional, and utility energy efficiency programs, along with a federal procurement program aimed at reducing the size and improving the quality of CFLs; stepped-up marketing efforts by some large retailers; and national promotion campaigns led by the federal ENERGY STAR® program—CFL shipments jumped to about 400 million units in 2007. This means that CFLs represented about 20–25 percent of all screw-in lightbulbs (incandescent and fluorescent) sold in 2007. Given that CFLs last 5 to 10 times longer than incandescent lamps, CFLs actually accounted for the majority of the total “light service” (i.e., lumen-hours) sold in 2007. CFLs do have some drawbacks, such as their use of mercury and difficulty with dimming. However, the small amount of mercury released to the environment if a CFL is disposed of in a landfill is much less than FIGURE 2.6 Shipments of compact fluorescent lamps. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce data obtained from USA Trade Online, available at https://orders.stat-usa.gov/on_sam.nsf/fsetOrder/UTO.
OCR for page 110
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States B.4 Many advanced technologies under development and likely to become commercially available within the next decade—including LED lamps, innovative window systems, new types of cooling systems, and power-saving electronic devices—will further increase the energy-savings potential in buildings. In addition, new homes and commercial buildings with relatively low overall energy use have been demonstrated throughout the country. With appropriate policies and programs, they could become the norm in new construction. B.5 Despite substantial barriers to widespread energy efficiency improvements in buildings, a number of countervailing factors could drive increased energy efficiency, including rising energy prices, growing concern about global climate change and the resulting willingness of consumers and businesses to take action to reduce emissions, a movement toward “green buildings,” and growing recognition of the significant nonenergy benefits offered by energy efficiency measures. 2.10 REFERENCES ACEEE (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy). 2007. The Potential for Electricity Conservation in New York State, September 1989. Prepared for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, and the New York State Energy Office. AHAM (Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers). 2008. Data compiled by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Washington, D.C.: AHAM. Available at http://www.aham.org. AIA (American Institute of Architects). 2007. As home energy costs remain high, residential architects report that sustainable design motivates homeowners. AIArchitect This Week. Volume 14. September 7. Available at http://info.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek07/0907/0907n_econres.cfm. Amann, J.T., A. Wilson, and K. Ackerly. 2007. Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings. 9th Edition. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Anderson, R., and D. Roberts. 2008. Maximizing Residential Energy Savings: Net Zero Energy Home (ZEH) Technology Pathways. NREL/TP-550-44547. Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. November. Apte, J., and D. Arasteh. 2006. Window-Related Energy Consumption in the U.S. Residential and Commercial Building Stock. LBNL-60146. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Available at http://gaia.lbl.gov/btech/papers/60146.pdf.
OCR for page 111
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States Arasteh, D., S. Selkowitz, J. Apte, and M. LaFrance. 2006. Zero energy windows. Proceedings of the 2006 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Ashdown, B.G., D.J. Bjornstad, G. Boudreau, M.V. Lapsa, S. Schexnayder, B. Shumpert, and F. Southworth. 2004. Heat Pump Water Heater Technology: Experiences of Residential Consumers and Utilities. ORNL/TM-2004/81. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. June. Available at http://www.ornl.gov/sci/engineering_science_technology/eere_research_reports/appliances/water_heaters/heat_pump_water_heaters/ornl_tm_2004_81/ornl_tm_2004_81.pdf. ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers). 2008. Advanced Energy Design Guides. Atlanta, Ga.: ASHRAE. Available at http://www. ashrae.org/technology/page/938. Azevedo, I.L., M.G. Morgan, and F. Morgan. 2009. The transition to solid-state lighting. Proceedings of the IEEE 97(3):481-510. Battles, S., and B. Hojjati. 2005. Two Decades of U.S. Household Trends in Energy-Intensity Indicators: A Look at the Underlying Factors. Washington, D.C.: Energy Information Administration. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/2005_IAEE.pdf. BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2008. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product. Washington, D.C.: BEA, Department of Commerce. February. Available at http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm. Accessed March 5, 2008. Belzer, D.B. 2007. Estimates of U.S. Commercial Building Electricity Intensity Trends: Issues Related to End-Use and Supply Curves. PNNL-16820. Richland, Wash.: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Brambley, M.R., P. Haves, S.C. McDonald, P. Torcellini, D.G. Hansen, D. Holmberg, and K. Roth. 2005. Advanced Sensors and Controls for Building Applications: Market Assessment and Potential R&D Pathways. PNNL-15149. Richland, Wash.: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Brooks, S., B. Elswick, and R.N. Elliott. 2006. Combined Heat and Power: Connecting the Gap Between Markets and Utility Interconnection and Tariff Practices (Part 1). Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. March. Brown, M.A. 2001. Market failures and barriers as a basis for clean energy policies. Energy Policy 29(14):1197-1207. Brown, M.A., F. Southworth, and T.K. Stovall. 2005. Towards a Climate-Friendly Built Environment. Arlington, Va.: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Brown, M.A., J. Chandler, M.V. Lapsa, and B.K. Sovacool. 2007. Carbon Lock-In: Barriers to Deploying Climate Change Mitigation Technologies. ORNL/TM-2007/124. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. November.
OCR for page 112
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States Brown, R., S. Borgeson, J. Koomey, and P. Biermayer. 2008. U.S. Building-Sector Energy Efficiency Potential. LBNL-1096E. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. September. Available at http://repositories.cdlib.org/lbnl/LBNL-1096E. Burns, S., M. Goggin, D. Hinrichs, and K. Lee. 2006. Technical and economic assessment of solar thermal absorption cooling systems in small commercial buildings. Presented at the 2006 World Energy Engineering Congress. Available at http://www.naturalenergytechnologies.com/resources/WEEC_Paper_Hinrichs.pdf. Carter, S. 2001. Breaking the consumption habit: Ratemaking for efficient resource decisions. Electricity Journal 14(10):66-74. CEC (California Energy Commission). 2004. California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Study. Final Report. CEC-400-04-009. Sacramento, Calif.: CEC. June. Christian, J.E., D. Beal, and P. Kerrigan. 2004. Toward simple affordable zero energy houses. Proceedings of the Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Buildings IX. Clearwater, Fla.: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. December. Craford, M.G. 2008. High power LEDs for solid state lighting: Status, trends, and challenges. Journal of Light and Visual Environment 32(2):58-62. Creyts, J., A. Derkach, S. Nyquist, K. Ostrowski, and J. Stephenson. 2007. Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost? McKinsey and Company. December. Curry, T.E., S. Ansolabehere, and H. Herzog. 2007. A Survey of Public Attitudes Towards Climate Change and Climate Change Mitigation Technologies in the United States: Analyses of 2006 Results. Cambridge, Mass.: Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. April. DeCanio, S.J. 1993. Barriers within firms to energy-efficient investments. Energy Policy 21(9):906-914. DeCotis, P.A., Lawrence J. Pakenas, J.M. Tarantino. 2004. Improving energy productivity: Successes and remaining potential. Proceedings of the 15th National Energy Services Conference and Exposition. Jupiter, Fla.: Association of Energy Service Professionals International. DOE (Department of Energy). 2004a. Whole-House Approach Benefits Builders, Buyers, and the Environment. Washington, D.C.: DOE. Available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/building_america/34867.pdf. DOE. 2004b. Cooling Technologies for Buildings. Washington, D.C.: DOE, Building Technologies Program. Available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/components/hvac/cooling.html. DOE. 2008a. Energy Intensity Indicators in the U.S. Washington, D.C.: DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/intensityindicators/trend_data.html.
OCR for page 113
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States DOE. 2008b. Solid State Lighting Research and Development Multi-Year Program Plan FY’09-FY’13. Washington, D.C.: DOE, Building Technologies Program. DOE. 2009. 2006 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey. Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/contents.html. DOE/EERE (Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy). 2007. Buildings Energy Data Book 2007. Washington, DC: DOE/EERE. Available at http://buildingsdatabook.eere.energy.gov/. DOE/EERE. 2008. Buildings Energy Data Book 2008, Section 2.1.5. Washington, D.C.: DOE/EERE. Available at http://buildingsdatabook.eere.energy.gov/. Dunn. S. 2007. High Performance Homes in the Southwest: Savings Potential, Cost Effectiveness and Policy Options. Boulder, Colo.: Southwest Energy Efficiency Project. November. Available at http://www.swenergy.org/hph/High_Performance_Homes.pdf. EETF (Energy Efficiency Task Force). 2006. Energy Efficiency Task Force Report. Prepared for the Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative, Western Governors’ Association, Denver, Colo. January. Available at http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/cdeac/Energy%20Efficiency-full.pdf. EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2007a. Annual Energy Outlook 2007, with Projections to 2030. DOE/EIA-0383(2007). Washington, D.C.: DOE, Energy Information Administration. February. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo07/index.html. EIA. 2007b. Annual Energy Review 2006. DOE/EIA-0384(2006). Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. EIA. 2008a. Annual Energy Outlook 2008, with Projections to 2030. DOE/EIA-0383(2008). Washington, D.C.: DOE, Energy Information Administration. February. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2008).pdf. EIA. 2008b. Annual Energy Review 2007. DOE/EIA-0384(2007). Washington, D.C.: DOE, Energy Information Administration. EIA. 2008c. Monthly Energy Review (April). DOE/EIA-0035(2008/04). Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Elliott, R.N., and A.M. Shipley. 2005. Impacts of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy on Natural Gas Markets: Updated and Expanded Analysis. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Energy Innovations. 1997. Energy Innovations: A Prosperous Path to a Clean Environment. Washington, D.C.: Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council, Tellus Institute, and Union of Concerned Scientists.
OCR for page 114
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States ENERGY STAR®. 2008. Information on Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) and Mercury. Washington, D.C.: ENERGY STAR® Program. June. Available at http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2007a. ENERGY STAR® Qualified Homes Market Indices for States. Washington D.C.: EPA, ENERGY STAR® Program. Available at http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=qhmi.showHomesMarketIndex. EPA. 2007b. Report to Congress on Server and Data Center Energy Efficiency—Public Law 109-431. Washington, D.C.: EPA, ENERGY STAR® Program. August 2. Available at http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/downloads/EPA_Datacenter_Report_Congress_Final1.pdf. EPA. 2008. National Awareness of ENERGY STAR® for 2007: Analysis of CEE Household Survey. Washington, D.C.: EPA, ENERGY STAR® Program. Available at http://www.energystar.gov/ia/news/downloads/nat_awareness_0408.pdf. Geller, H. 2003. Energy Revolution: Policies for a Sustainable Future. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Geller, H., and S. McGaraghan. 1998. Successful government-industry partnership: The U.S. Department of Energy’s role in advancing energy-efficient technologies. Energy Policy 26:167-177. Geller, H., A. de Almeida, B. Barkovich, C. Blumstein, D. Goldstein, A. Meier, P. Miller, O. de la Moriniere, A. Rosenfeld, and L. Schuck. 1986. Residential Conservation Power Plant Study. Phase 1—Technical Potential. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Goldstein, D.B. 2007. Saving Energy, Growing Jobs: How Environmental Protection Promotes Economic Growth, Profitability, Innovation, and Competition. Point Richmond, Calif.: Bay Tree Publishing. Goldstein, D.B. 2008. Extreme efficiency: How far can we go if we really need to? Proceedings of the 2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. August. Goldstein, D.B., and M.G. Hoffman. 2004. Forecasting an increasing role for energy efficiency in meeting global climate goals. Proceedings of the 2004 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. August. Golove, W.H., and J.H. Eto. 1996. Market Barriers to Energy Efficiency: A Critical Reappraisal of the Rationale for Public Policies to Promote Energy Efficiency. LBNL-38059. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Greene, D.L., and A. Schafer. 2003. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions for U.S. Transportation. Arlington, Va.: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
OCR for page 115
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States Griffith, B., N. Long, P. Torcellini, D. Crawley, and J. Ryan. 2007. Energy efficiency improvements that use the best available technologies and practices and integrated whole-building design approaches can, on average, reduce energy consumption by 43%. In Assessment of the Technical Potential for Achieving Net Zero Energy Buildings in the Commercial Sector. NREL/TP-550-41957. Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41957.pdf. Hall, N., C. Best, J. Roth, P. Jacobs, and L. Lutzenhiser. 2005. Assessing markets to design programs that more fully attack key market barriers and take advantage of market opportunities—Why do we continue to miss so many opportunities? Pp. 697-713 in Reducing Uncertainty Through Evaluation. Brooklyn, N.Y.: International Energy Program Evaluation Conference. August. Harrod, J., and L. Hain. 2007. Showerheads! Home Energy. November/December, pp. 40-41. Heschong, L., and R.L. Wright. 2002. Daylighting and human performance: Latest findings. Pp. 8.91-8.104 in Proceedings of the 2002 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Hoffman, A.J. 2006. Getting Ahead of the Curve: Corporate Strategies That Address Climate Change. Arlington, Va.: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. October. IEA (International Energy Agency). 2001. Things That Go Blip in the Night: Standby Power and How to Reduce It. Paris, France: International Energy Agency. IEA. 2006. Energy Technology Perspectives 2006 in Support of the G8 Plan of Action: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050. Paris, France: IEA. IEA. 2007. Mind the Gap: Quantifying Principal-Agent Problems in Energy Efficiency. Paris, France: IEA. Itron. 2008. California Residential Efficiency Market Share Tracking: Lamps 2007. Prepared for Southern California Edison. Rosemead, Calif.: Itron Inc. September 15. IWG (Interlaboratory Working Group). 1997. Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Technologies by 2010 and Beyond. LBNL-40533 and ORNL/CON-444. Prepared by the Interlaboratory Working Group on Energy-Efficient and Low-Carbon Technologies. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. September. Available at http://enduse.lbl.gov/projects/5lab.html. IWG. 2000. Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future. LBNL-44029. ORNL/CON-476. Prepared by the Interlaboratory Working Group on Energy-Efficient and Clean Energy Technologies. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. November. Available at http://www.ornl.gov/sci/eere/cef/.
OCR for page 116
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States Jaccard, M., and W. Montgomery. 1996. Costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the USA and Canada. Energy Policy 24(10):889-898. Jaccard, M., J. Nyboer, C. Bataille, and B. Sadownik. 2003. Modeling the cost of climate policy: Distinguishing between alternative cost definitions and long-run cost dynamics. Energy Journal 24(1):49-73. Jacoby, H. 1999. The uses and misuses of technology development as a component of climate policy. In Climate Change Policy: Practical Strategies to Promote Economic Growth and Environmental Quality—Proceedings of a Symposium sponsored by the American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research, National Press Club, Washington, D.C., September 23, 1998 (C. Walker, M. Bloomfield, and M. Thorning, eds.). Washington, D.C.: American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research. Jaffe, A.B., and R.N. Stavins. 1994. The energy efficiency gap: What does it mean? Energy Policy 22(10):804-810. Jiang, W., D.W. Winiarski, S. Katipamula, and P.R. Armstrong. 2007. Cost-Effective Integration of Efficient Low-Lift Base-Load Cooling Equipment. PNNL-17157. Richland, Wash.: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. December. Kats, G. 2006. Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits. Washington, D.C.: Capital E, LLC. Kinney, L. 2004. New Evaporative Cooling Systems: An Emerging Solution for Homes in Hot Dry Climates with Modest Cooling Loads. Boulder, Colo.: Southwest Energy Efficiency Project. Available at http://www.swenergy.org/pubs/Evaporative_Cooling_Systems.pdf. Koomey, J. 1990. Energy Efficiency Choices in New Office Buildings: An Investigation of Market Failures and Corrective Policies. Doctoral Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. Available at http://enduse.lbl.gov/info/JGKdissert.pdf. Koomey, J., and R.E. Brown. 2002. The Role of Building Technologies in Reducing and Controlling Peak Electricity Demand. LBNL-49947. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. September. Koomey, J.G., C.A. Webber, C.S. Atkinson, and A. Nicholls. 2001. Addressing energy-related challenges for the U.S. buildings sector: Results from the Clean Energy Futures Study. Energy Policy 29(14):1209-1222. LeBlanc, B. 2007. A Unique Survey Opportunity. Presentation by Bill LeBlanc, ESource, Boulder, Colo., September 27. Lovins, A. 1992. Energy-Efficient Buildings: Institutional Barriers and Opportunities. Boulder, Colo.: E-Source. December.
OCR for page 117
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States Lowenstein, A., S. Slayzak, and E. Kozubal. 2006. A zero carryover liquid-desiccant air conditioner for solar applications. Draft. ASME/SOLAR06. July 8-13, 2006, Denver, Colo. ISEC2006-99079. Available at http://www.ailr.com/PDF/ASME-Solar06%20LDAC%20ISEC2006-99079.pdf. Makower, J. 2008. State of Green Business 2008. Oakland, Calif.: Greener World Media, Inc. Available at http://stateofgreenbusiness.com/files/StateOfGreenBusiness2008.pdf. Meier, A., B. Nordman, J. Busch, C. Payne, R. Brown, G. Homan, M. Sanchez, and C. Webber. 2008. Low Power Mode Energy Consumption in California Homes. CEC-500-2008-035. Sacramento, Calif.: California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research Program. Messenger, M. 2008. The use of conservation supply curves in California planning and implementation: Comparing estimates of achievable savings versus reported program savings. Draft final paper prepared by Itron, Inc., for the National Academies. June. Miller, P.M, J.H. Eto, and H. Geller. 1989. The Potential for Energy Conservation in New York State. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Mills, E. 2009. Building Commissioning: A Golden Opportunity for Reducing Energy Costs and Greenhouse-gas Emissions. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. July. Available at http://cx.lbl.gov/2009-assessment.html. Mosenthal, P.R. R.N. Elliott, D. York, C. Neme, P. Chernick, and K. Petak. 2006. Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Resource Development Potential in New York. Albany, N.Y.: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. October 31. Available at http://www.nyserda.org/energy_Information/otherdocs.asp#NaturalGas. Nadel, S., and H. Geller. 2001. Smart Energy Policies: Saving Money and Reducing Pollutant Emissions Through Greater Energy Efficiency. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. September. Available at http://aceee.org/pubs/e012full.pdf. Nadel, S., R.N. Elliott, M. Shepard, S. Greenberg, G. Katz, and A.T. de Almeida. 2002. Energy-Efficient Motor Systems: A Handbook on Technology, Program, and Policy Opportunities. Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Nadel, S., A.M. Shipley, and R.N. Elliott. 2004. The technical, economic, and achievable potential for energy efficiency in the United States: A meta-analysis of recent studies. Proceedings of the 2004 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Navigant Consulting Inc. 2006. Energy Savings Potential of Solid State Lighting in General Illumination Applications. Final Report prepared for Lighting Research and Development Building Technologies Program Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, D.C.: DOE. December.
OCR for page 118
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States NBI (New Buildings Institute). 2008. Getting to Fifty Web site. White Salmon, Wash.: NBI. Available at http://www.newbuildings.org/gtf. Norton, P., and C. Christiansen. 2006. A Cold Climate Case Study for Affordable Zero Energy Homes. NREL- CP-550-39678. Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at http://www.nrel.gov/buildings/zero_energy.html. NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 2005. The Fifth Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Plan. Portland, Oreg.: NPCC. NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Energy Research at DOE: Was it Worth It? Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Optimal Energy, Inc. 2003. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Resource Development Potential in New York State. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, and Christine T. Donovan Associates. Report prepared for New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany, N.Y. August. Parker, D., and S. Chandra. 2008. Very Low Energy Homes in the United States: Perspectives on Performance from Measured Data. Cocoa, Fla.: Florida Solar Energy Center. Parker, D.S., J.P. Dunlop, S.F. Barkaszi, J.R. Sherwin, M.T. Anello, and J.K. Sonne. 2000. Towards zero energy demand: Evaluation of super efficient building technology with photovoltaic power for residential housing. Pp. 1.207-1.223 in Proceedings of the 2000 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric). 2006. Laboratory Evaluation of the OASys™ Indirect/Direct Evaporative Cooling Unit. Application Assessment Report #0510. Available at http://www.etcc-ca.com/database/docs/ETCC_ProjectDoc_7.pdf. PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory). 1997. Desiccant Dehumidification and Cooling Systems: Assessment and Analysis. PNNL-11694. Richland, Wash.: PNNL. Rasmussen, T., V. Goepfrich, and K. Horkitz. 2005. Drivers of CFL purchase behavior and satisfaction: What makes a consumer buy and keep buying? Pp. 897-910 in 2005 International Energy Program Evaluation Conference. Available at http://www.iepec.org/2005PapersTOC/papers/096.pdf. Romm, J.J. 1999. Cool Companies: How the Best Businesses Boost Profits and Productivity by Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Rosenfeld, A.H. 1985. Residential energy efficiency: Progress since 1973 and future potential. Pp. 92-121 in Energy Sources: Conservation and Renewables (D. Hafemeister, H. Kelly, and B. Levi, eds.). New York, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics. Roth, K., and K. McKenney. 2007. Energy Consumption by Consumer Electronics in U.S. Residences. Report No. D5525. Cambridge, Mass.: TIAX, LLC.
OCR for page 119
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States Rufo, M., and F. Coito. 2002. California’s Secret Energy Surplus: The Potential for Energy Efficiency. Report prepared by Xenergy, Inc., for the Energy Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation. San Francisco, Calif.: Energy Foundation. Sandahl, L.J, T.L. Gilbride, M.R. Ledbetter, H.E. Steward, and C. Calwell. 2006. Compact Fluorescent Lighting in America: Lessons Learned on the Way to the Market. PNNL15730. Richland, Wash.: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Sanstad, A.H., and R.B. Howarth. 1994. Normal markets, market imperfections, and energy efficiency. Energy Policy 22(10):811-818. Scheckel, P. 2007. The Home Energy Diet: How to Save Money by Making Your House Energy-Smart. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers. Spees, K., and L. Lave. 2007. Demand response and electricity market efficiency. Electricity Journal 20(3):69-85. Stabat, P., S. Ginestet, and D. Marchio. 2003. Limits of feasibility and energy consumption of desiccant and evaporative cooling in temperate climates. Proceedings of 2003 CIBSE/ASHRAE Conference. Available at http://www.cibse.org/pdfs/4dstabat.pdf. Stavins, R., J. Jaffe, and T. Schatzki. 2007. Too good to be true? An examination of three economic assessments of California climate change policy. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper No. 13587. Cambridge, Mass.: NBER, Inc. November. Suozzo, M. J. Benya, M. Hyderman, P. DuPont, S. Nadel, and R.N. Elliott. 2000. Guide to Energy-Efficient Commercial Equipment. 2nd edition. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Sutherland, R. 2000. “No cost” efforts to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S.: An economic perspective. Energy Journal 21(3):89-112. Thaler, R., A. Tversky, D. Kahneman, and A. Schwartz. 1997. The effect of myopia and1997. The effect of myopia and loss aversion on risk taking: An experimental test. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(2):647-661. Torcellini, P., S. Pless, M. Deru, B. Griffith, N. Long, and R. Judkoff. 2006. Lessons Learned from Case Studies of Six High-Performance Buildings. NREL/TP-550-37542. Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. June. Turner, C., and M. Frankel. 2008. Energy Performance of LEED for New Construction Buildings. White Salmon, Wash.: New Buildings Institute. Available at http://www. newbuildings.org/downloads/Energy_Performance_of_LEED-NC_Buildings-Final_3-408b.pdf. Wiser, R., M. Bolinger, and M. St. Clair. 2005. Easing the Natural Gas Crisis: Reducing Natural Gas Prices Through Increased Deployment of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. LBNL-56756. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
OCR for page 120
Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States This page intentionally left blank.