Jonathan Koomey, Ph.D. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Environmental Energy Technologiesenergystartalk.ppt

Designing Voluntary Pollution Prevention Programs in the Real World: Some Stories from the Front Lines

Jonathan Koomey, Ph.D.Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

[email protected], 510/486-5974, http://enduse.lbl.gov/

Talk is on the web at

http://enduse.lbl.gov/shareddata/energystartalk.ppt

Presented at the Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management

Colloquium

UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA

May 17, 1999


Types of voluntary programs Energy labeling/Eco-labeling (FTC

appliance energy labels, Green Seal)

Manufacturer-focused (Energy Star products, Energy Star Homes)

End-User-focused (Green Lights, Energy Star Commercial Buildings, industrial agreements)

Government procurement


ENERGY STAR-labeled products

Clothes Washers Dishwashers Refrigerators Room Air Conditioners TVs, VCRs, Audio

Equipment Home Heating and Cooling

Products New Homes Windows Residential Lighting

Fixtures Roof Products Insulation

Exit Signs Office Equipment Transformers Roof Products Insulation Commercial Buildings

Residential Commercial

See http://www.energystar.gov/ for more details


Key considerations for designing successful voluntary programs

Build brand recognition and help make profits for program partners

Measurable savings (need test procedures)

Significant savings based on off-the-shelf technologies (need data for negotiations)


Standby power for TVs

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Standby Power (W)

0 5 10 15 25

Energy Star Limit(3 Watts)

33% 67%

N=365

20

Source: Karen Rosen, LBNL, May 1999, [email protected]

Sh

are

of

un

its

mea

sure

d


Key considerations (continued) Mass production easiest, custom systems

(homes and commercial buildings) harder

Industry and market structure (concentration, foreign vs. domestic, owned vs. leased equipment [e.g., vending machines])

Labeling products vs. labeling/certifying institutions (industry agreements)


More key considerations Government purchasing/procurement

can be important

The international context (EU, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Brazil, etc)

Need data for implementation (see map)


GIS Analysis


Designing the Multifunction Device (MFD) Office Equipment Program

Process— create a draft— respond to written comments, revise and go

back to first step eight (!) times— meet with key manufacturers— have a big meeting to finalize— revise— find out that some manufacturers still don’t

agree,though they said they did in the meeting


Designing the Program (cont.)

Process (continued)— have a drink with your EPA program

manager (after work hours, of course)— revise— finalize MOU and sign up partners— launch program— create amendments to address overlooked

issues

Manufacturer’s roles


Designing the Program (cont.) Defining MFDs

— first tried copying and printing plus either faxing or scanning (or both), but settled on copying plus either printing or faxing

— integrated vs. single piece— upgrades in the field— large format

Loopholes


If energy efficiency is such a good idea, why don’t people do it anyway?

Engineering-economic analysis Engineering-economic analysisplus transaction costs

Results with policy or program that reduces transaction costs

Source: Adapted from Katrin Ostertag Transaction costs of raising energy efficiency. Working paper, May 1999. Presented at the IEA International Workshop on Technologies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Engineering-Economic Analyses of Conserved Energy and Carbon. Washington, DC. 5-7 May 1999. This example assumes that the energy efficient technology delivers the exact same service as the standard technology.

Standard

Technology

Energy

Efficient

Technology

Costs

Direct

Costs

Standard

Technology

Energy

Efficient

Technology

Costs

Direct

Costs

Transaction

Costs

Standard

Technology

Energy

Efficient

Technology

Costs

Direct

Costs

Transaction

Costs

Program

Costs


Industrial Sector Voluntary Agreements by Companies

Company Sector Focus of Agreement Target/Period

British Petroleum Oil GHG Emissions 10% below 1990 in 2010

BHPSteel, Mining, OilGas GHG Emissions Hold 2000 emissions to 1995 level

Conoco Oil Energy15% improvement in energy useper pound of product between1990 and 2000

Dow Chemicals Energy20% reduction in energy use perpound of product by 2005

DuPontPetroleum Refining,Chemicals GHG Emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2000

Royal Dutch Shell Oil, Chemicals GHG Emissions 10% below 1990 levels by 2002


Conclusions Data on current efficiency and future

potentials are critical to — negotiations with industry— implementation of programs

Voluntary programs create champions within companies who promote energy efficiency inside the institution

Voluntary programs reduce transaction costs and allow consumers to capture cost-effective savings (pollution prevention at a profit)

Documents

Jonathan Koomey, Ph.D. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory