Unlocking the Potential for Energy Efficiency
in North American Buildings
North American Insulation Manufacturers Association 27-28 November 2006
Energy Efficiency is the World’s • Cleanest • Cheapest • Quickest • Most Reliable • Renewable
Energy Source
Energy Demand Growth in Buildings Outstripping Supply
Total & Building Primary Energy Consumption by Sector
Projected Energy by Sector
140.0
Buildings 60
40.3 37.6
Energy - quads
120.0 100.0 Energy - Quads 80.0 19.7 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 1980 1990 2000 2003 2005 2010 2020 2025 32.2 10.6 15.9 31.9 17.1 20.5 17.5 21.3 17.9 21.7 20.3 23.5 24.3 22.4 34.6 32.2 33.7 35.5 26.8 26.6 27.2 28.6 38.2 39.5
50 40 30 20 10 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
32.0
13.3 17.0
25.6
26.7
Year Res Comm Total
Residential Bldgs
Year Commercial Bldgs
Industry
Transportation
Source: Energy Information Agency, 2005
Energy Saving Potential – Thermal Insulation
• US could reduce its electricity use 24% by accelerating energy-efficiency programs among businesses and homeowners. (ACEEE 2004) • If modest insulation retrofit recommendations were undertaken in residential, commercial and industrial sectors, insulation could provide the energy equivalent to supply 41 days of U.S. gasoline, 27 days electricity, or energy consumed by 1M households. (Green & Clean, ASE) Insulation currently in place in US residential buildings saves 15.4 quadrillion Btu annually. (Green & Clean, ASE)
Energy Saving Potential – Thermal Insulation
• A Reduction in Peak Demand in New Homes by Just 1 KW/Per Home over 30 Years Would Eliminate the Need for 200 Power Plants (ACEEE)
• Modest Insulation & Envelope Improvements Would Achieve 1 KW/Per Home Reduction
• From 1990 to 2003, Canada's residential energy efficiency improved by 19 percent or saved nearly 250.5 petajoules.
(Natural Resources Canada) • One petajoule is the amount of energy consumed by a small town of about 3700 people in a year for all uses( housing, transportation, local services & industry).
Energy Saving Potential – Thermal Insulation
• Average American home loses between 10 and 50 percent of its energy through inadequate insulation and inefficient lights and appliances. (President Bush, August 2005) • Annual energy savings of more than 800 Trillion Btu Could Be Realized Through Increased Insulation in Existing Homes (Harvard)
• Would Eliminate Need for 43 Power Plants (ACEEE) • Equals 1% of the Total US Electric Power Industry’s Installed Capacity (EEI)
Impact of Insulation
Insulation saves more than 600 times the energy of these other products combined each year
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Star Homes
Cost Effectiveness Potential
• Americans spend $1 million on energy every minute
(EIA/DOE)
• Building Energy Efficiency Codes deliver energy as a resource at a cost of $.04-.05 per kilowatt-hour versus new power production cost of $.08-$.10 per kilowatt-hour, including capital costs amortization. (Western Governors
Association CDEAC & ACEEE)
• Save nearly $20 Billion US Annually on Energy Bills
(NAPEE)
• Achieve Net Societal Benefits of More than $250 Billion US Over the Next 10 to 15 Years (NAPEE)
Cost Effectiveness Potential
• Added savings of $1.3 billion per year in averted costs such as health care (Harvard) • $5.9 billion per year in additional savings associated with reduced energy consumption (Harvard)
Emissions Saving Potential
Insulation Currently In Place In US Residential Buildings Saves 15.4 Quadrillion Btu and 267.2 Million Short Tons of Carbon Annually (Green & Clean, ASE)
− Equals the Annual Carbon Emissions of 103.6 Million Homes
Reduction of U.S. Emissions from Energy Use By More Than 200 Million Tons of CO2, 190,000 Tons of SO2, 3,100 Tons of Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) and 100,000 Tons of Nitrogen Oxides Annually GHG Emissions Are Rising in the US Because of Consumer Energy Consumption (i.e.“Bigger Homes”) (CEQ)
Water Savings
On Average, In United States Two Gallons Of Water Are Evaporated For Every Kilowatt-hour (KWh) Of Electricity Produced By Hydroelectric And Thermoelectric Stations.
(The Environmental And Energy Study Institute)
1.8 Trillion Gallons of Water Could be Saved (20052020) in the Implementation of Energy Efficiency Best Practices in the Region (Western Governors Association CDEAC)
Public Health Benefits
65% Of All US Homes Are Under Insulated If All Were Retrofitted To Meet The 2000 IECC The Annual Benefits Would Be: • • • • • • • • 790 Trillion BTUs Saved $5.9B in Economic Savings 100,000 Fewer Tons of NOx 62 Metric Fewer Tons of GHG 110,000 Fewer Restricted Activity Days 190,000 Fewer Tons of SOx 3,100 Fewer Tons of PM2.5 240 Fewer Premature Deaths
Source: Harvard University School of Public Health
Job Growth from Energy Efficiency
ACEEE Estimated That Aggressive Increases in Building Energy Codes Could Result in
− Increase of Nearly 1.1 Million US Jobs − Increase in Income of $28.5 Billion US − Decrease in Energy Use by 20.8 Quads
•
Rocky Mountain Institute Estimates Net Increase in U.S. Jobs of More Than a Million by 2025 Due to Efficiency Improvements Over All End Uses -- Transportation, Buildings & Industry
Barriers to Energy Efficiency
Decision making that does not value energy efficiency Split incentives (party designing, constructing, or purchasing building does not pay the operating costs) Energy prices that do not reflect the full costs of energy production & consumption (i.e. externalities) Lack of information by consumers about options Consumers & businesses lacking capital to invest in energy efficiency measures
Barriers to Energy Efficiency
Fiscal or regulatory policies that discourage energy efficiency investments Lack of knowledge by installers, advisers and others Lack of capacity by installers “Decentives” - negative incentives Traditions and inertia Timing – after refurbishment it’s too late Voluntary programs must balance funding versus efficiency gains (e.g. Energy Star) – limiting continuous improvement
● ● ● ● ● ●
Barriers to Energy Efficiency
“… consumers just don't care [about energy efficiency]” Robert Toll, Toll Brothers
● Institutional Resistance in Building Sector
● National Association of Home Builders’ Policy:
● Supports Only “Cost-Effective” Energy Code Changes ● Supports Voluntary Programs & Incentives ● Calculates Payback as First Cost, Not Cost of Ownership
● DOE Did Not or Could Not Support Energy Efficiency Changes & NAHB Successfully Rolled Back IECC Levels That Would Have Saved $7 Billion US and 500 Trillion BTUs over 30 Yrs (ACEEE)
"I think people still look at a granite countertop and say, 'Wow, I'd really like that,' as opposed to really having energy efficiency," Beazer Homes USA Chief Executive Ian McCarthy
Critical Pathways Toward Greater Energy Efficiency
State Energy Programs (SEP) Are Important
Each $1 of Federal SEP funding returned annual savings of 1.03 million source BTUs and a cost savings of $7.22. SEP funding and support contributed to a tremendous number and variety of outputs, including:
State adoption of 22 new and 20 non-residential building codes Retrofitting of 153 million square feet of building space Provision of approximately $46 million of tax credits, $30 million of loans, $21 million of rebates, and $12 million of grants
Each $1 of SEP funding leveraged $10.71 from nonfederal sources. Estimated annual energy savings from the activities performed by the states and territories during their 2002 program year totaled 47.6 trillion source BTUs and cost savings exceeded $333 million.
State Energy Programs (SEP) Are Important
State Energy Offices Aim to Achieve 25%+ Improvement in Energy Efficiency by 2012 Compared to 1990
US Government Projected Benefits of Energy Efficiency
US Government Projected Benefits of Energy Efficiency
Command and Control Efforts Building Energy Codes
Building Energy Efficiency Codes are the Most Powerful Tool Governments have to Save Energy in Buildings BUT… They Must Be Implemented and Enforced & There Must Be Training
Ontario Building Code R-Values 2007-2012
Building Element Exposed to Exterior or Unheated Space Current Code effective Dec. 31,06 Code Change effective Dec.31,08 (EGH 80) effective Dec.31,11 estimated from objective code R55 R28 R31 R12 full height +R11 exterior below grade
Ceiling below attic Cathedral Ceiling Wall above grade Foundation Wall
R31 R20 R17 R8 frost line
R40 R20 R19 R12 frost line
R40 R20 R19 R12 full height
State/Regional Climate Programs
Aggressive Programs Require Energy Efficiency To Reach Goals California
− Reduce Carbon Emissions to 1990 Levels by 2020 − Reduce by Another 80% by 2050
A Plan Will Be Developed for Mandatory Caps and Market Mechanisms to Achieve these Goals
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
− Model Rule Released in August 2006 requires a 25% allowance set-aside to fund energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. − Being Replicated in Others Areas
National Programs & Legislation
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (NAPEE)
Launched July 2006 Plan Developed By More Than 50 Leading Organizations In Pursuit Of Energy Savings And Environmental Benefits Through Electric And Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Contains Policy Recommendations For Creating A Sustainable, Aggressive National Commitment To Energy Efficiency Through Gas And Electric Utilities, Utility Regulators, And Partner Organizations. NAIMA Served on Leadership Group to Develop NAPEE
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (NAPEE)
Current US Department of Energy R-Value Recommendations
Below Code and Tax Credit Requirements In Some Areas
NAIMA’s Simplified R-Value Recommendations
Created Momentum for an Upgrade of Department of Energy R-Value Recommendations Through ORNL
Western Governors Association
Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative Governors Unanimously Adopted the Work of the Clean and Diversified Energy Action Committee (CDEAC) in June 2006 Goal of Energy Efficiency Task Force to Achieve 20% Reduction in Projected in Energy Demand Growth by 2020 Recommendation for Building Energy Code Upgrade and Implementation Among Top Items in Report Work on Implementation Now at Both the State Level and the Regional Level
One-Tonne Challenge
Launched in March 2004 Co-managed with Environment Canada along with other departments, such as Transport Canada. Canadians are challenged to use less energy, reduce waste and conserve water and other resources. Since the launch, over 10,000 Canadians have pledged on-line to take the One-Tonne Challenge.
US Federal Budget
US Department of Energy Requested Appropriations 2007
State Energy Program (SEP) Building Technologies Program: - Building Codes Training and Assistance - New Energy Efficiency Pilot Program - DOE Energy Star - Building America/Zero Energy Homes Industrial Technologies Program Energy Information Administration Federal Energy Management Program $5 million $5 million $6.4 million $23.8 million $51.6 million $93.0 million $18.9 million $49.5 million +
Energy Policy Act
Requested All EPACT Authorizations be Fully Appropriated
Section 128: State Building Codes $25M/each yr. 2006-2010 Section 123: State Energy Programs $100M 2006-2007 $125M 2008 Section 134: Energy Efficiency Education Initiative $90M/each yr. 2006-2010
Energy Policy Act
Potential Savings from Tax Incentives for Buildings
(By 2010)
New and Existing Homes
− .06 Quads − $464 Million US − 1.1 MMT Carbon
Commercial Building
− .04 Quads − $338 Million US − .8 MMT Carbon
Goal of Incentives is Permanent Market Transformation Rather Than LongTerm Subsidies
Summary Recommendations for Buildings
• Optimize Building Energy Codes (Include Training, Implementation, Enforcement) • Engage Builders by Providing Incentives That Favorably Influence Their Businesses (Permitting, Density, etc.) • Integrate Buildings Into Sustainable Development Process That Values Quality Energy Efficient Construction
• • • • • Acoustics Fire Safety Structural Stability Thermal Indoor Air Quality
Summary Recommendations for Buildings
• Capitalize on Potential in Existing Buildings
• e.g. Provide Report Card at Time of Sale • Deploy Audit and Retrofit Programs
• Fund State, Federal, Regional & Local Programs That Educate, Train and Provide a Framework for Achieving Quality, Sustainable Housing • Must Bring Builders, Realtors, Designers, Insurance and Financial People Into Process • Educate Consumers on Benefits of Energy Efficiency
Thank You
Kenneth D. Mentzer President and CEO kmentzer@naima.org