Download The Case for Energy Efficiency

The Economic Case for
Energy Efficiency
by Ross Pumfrey
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Conference on the Economics of Energy Efficiency
McAllen, Texas
May 26, 2009
“Energy efficiency is generally the largest,
least expensive, most benign, most quickly
deployable, least visible, least understood,
and most neglected way of providing energy
services.”
Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
Energy and the U.S. Economy
• 35 years ago it was assumed that energy
consumption and economic output moved in
lockstep – a 10% increase in output required
10% more energy input
• From 1975 to 2000, energy intensity (primary
energy consumption per dollar of real gross
domestic product) dropped 39% in the U.S.
Transportation
• From 1975 to 1985, when U.S. GDP rose 27%,
total U.S. oil imports declined 42%
• This was largely due to increasing productivity
of oil use:
– Most importantly, new American-made cars
improved by 7 miles per gallon
We Can Do (Much) Better
• More efficient technologies are continually
being developed (think about cars)
• Studies show a significant potential for
efficiency improvements in specific industries,
for specific end uses, and also for system
synergies show dramatic possibilities
• These possibilities can result in net economic
savings
Four Things to Remember
1. Are you Interested in on-site renewable
energy systems on the supply side? Optimize
your efficiency first.
2. In assessing efficiency, use a systems
approach – look at energy use throughout
your process
Four Things, cont.
3. Beyond energy savings, there may be
other positive benefits (e.g., productivity)
4. Remember to use life-cycle costing
Buildings
• Numerous kinds of design features, upgrades,
and retrofits have been shown to result in
significant energy savings that lead to very
attractive rates of return on investment
• Dr. Manteufel will give us examples of these
• Let’s look at some non-energy by-products of
such improvement
Buildings:
Efficiency and Productivity Gains
• Efficient buildings (light, less noise, less air
pollution, more comfort) have been shown to
increase productivity by 6-16 %
• If labor costs are 100 times energy costs (not
unusual), then even a 1% increase in productivity
will save money equal to the entire energy bill
Buildings Efficiency and Productivity:
Case Study of a Post Office
• The Reno, Nevada post office was renovated
to become a “minimum energy user”
• Architectural firm lowered the ceiling in the
warehouse-type building, changed the lighting
system, and made some other improvements
• Lighting was less harsh and used more
efficient bulbs, and the building was easier to
heat and cool
Reno Post Office, cont.
• Lowered ceiling also reduced maintenance
costs
• Energy and maintenance savings indicated a
six-year payback ( a decent ROI)
• Productivity gains – this post office became
the most productive, and most error-free,
post office in the western U.S.
• Productivity gains made the payback period
less than a year
Buildings, Daylighting,
and Increased Sales
“Our data show that over a six-month period,
stores in the same districts with daylighting,
selling the same products, showed a 25%
increase in sales.”
Gregg Ander, chief architect for Southern California
Edison
Case Study of Daylighting:
Wal-Mart
• Wal-Mart experimented with daylighting on
half the roof of a store in Kansas in 1993
• As expected, they saved a significant amount
of energy
• ALSO, they noticed that sales per square foot
in the daylit departments were higher than in
other departments and higher than the same
departments in other Wal-Marts
Wal-Mart, cont.
• Store in Industry, California was built with 180
skylights, taking up 5% of total roof space
• Energy savings had a 3-year payback
(Southern California Edison incentive
shortened that to one year)
• Sales are better per square foot than other
stores
Efficiency, including Daylighting,
in Schools
• A school district in Johnson County, North
Carolina hired a firm to install extensive
daylighting in three schools, and other lightrelated innovations
• Reduced lighting loads, accompanied by reduced
cooling need, resulted in a one-year payback
• ALSO, a multi-year comparison study of daylit and
non-daylit schools indicated an average 14%
better performance on standardized tests
Motors
According to Romm:
• In the U.S., motors consume about half of all
electricity and about 70% of all industrial
electricity
• DOE audited 12 retrofits of motor systems
around the country and found an average
energy savings of one-third with a payback of
a year and a half
Motors, cont.
• Many companies have never analyzed their use of
motors; when they do, they find that many of
them, if not most, are inefficient and oversized.
• The use of controls (such as variable speed
drives) is very important
• It can be very important to do a systems analysis
of the entire process of which the motors are a
component
Motor-Driven Systems:
Compressed Air
• 200,000 plants in the U.S. use compressed air
• A subsidiary of Boeing in Portland, Oregon,
reduced air-compressor energy use by 50% -two-year payback (not counting maintenance
savings)
• Oregon State developed software tool for
auditing compressor systems; audits of seven
plants generated an average 49% saving –
average payback period of a half year
Workshop on Compressed Air Systems
May 28
With funding from EPA, the TCEQ is funding a
workshop organized by UT Austin’s Texas
Industries of the Future:
“The Fundamentals of Compressed Air Systems”
Thursday, May 28
UT Brownsville/TSC ITEC Center
Workshop on Compressed Air Systems
Interested in attending?
Website: http://texasiof.ces.utexas.edu/
Contact: Kathey Ferland
at Texas Industries for the Future
512-232-4823
Conclusion
• There are ample ways to increase energy
efficiency in a cost-effective manner
• That means that a lot of emissions, including
carbon dioxide, could be reduced at a net
savings to the economy
• In any particular organization, it takes some
dedicated attention, and that attention can be
very rewarding
State Energy Conservation Office
Assistance for Local Government and Schools
• Loan Programs
• Preliminary Energy Assessments
Website: http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us
Contacts: Stephen Ross at 512-463-1770
Glenda Baldwin at 512-463-1731
Texas Commision on
Environmental Quality
Site Assistance Visit Plus (SAV+) Program
Facility owners or operators can get help
generating innovative strategies; identifying
performance issues; and getting site-specific,
pollution prevention tips on air, water, and waste
issues.
Website: [email protected]
Thank you!
Ross Pumfrey
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
512-239-6132
[email protected]