Prevention is Cheaper than Cure - Avoiding Carbon Emissions through by xfo14057


									Prevention is Cheaper than Cure
- Avoiding Carbon Emissions
through Energy Efficiency


An initiative forming part of the Australian national Framework for
Energy Efficiency and the new Zealand national Energy Efficiency
and Conservation Strategy

JAnuARy 2009
PO Box 934 Newtown NSW 2042 Sydney Australia
Tel /Fax (+61 2) 9565 2041 e-mail:
Summary                                                     4

Glossary                                                    6

INTRODUCTION                                                7

      BACKGROUND                                            7

      DATA SOURCES AND METHODS                              8


      KEY DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS                              11

            Ensuring Consistency                            11
            Greenhouse Gas Intensities                      11
            Energy and Carbon Prices                        14

ENERGY AND GREENHOUSE IMPACTS                               15

      SELECTED PRODUCT CATEGORIES                           15

            Refrigerators and Freezers                      15
            Electric Water Heaters                          17
            Lighting                                        20
            Air Conditioning                                22
            Television, Computer and Electronic Equipment   23
            Gas Appliances                                  26

      SAVINGS OF E3 PROGRAMS BY SECTORS                     28

            Residential                                     28
            Non-Residential Sectors                         30
            Combined                                        30

      GREENHOUSE IMPACTS                                    33

      SAVINGS BY JURISDICTION                               35

COSTS AND BENEFITS                                          37

      General References                                    42
      Product and Program Specific References               43

This analysis of the projected impacts of the Equipment Energy Efficiency Program over the period 2000-2020 updates
the impacts analysis published in 2005.1 It takes into account the latest information on programs implemented, and
those still to be implemented over the next 3 years, as described in the E3 Program’s work plan for 2008-2011.

Residential Energy Savings                                        Non-residential Energy Savings
In the residential sector, energy savings are projected           Electricity savings below BAU are projected to reach
to be nearly 22,000 GWh per annum by 2020. Water                  about 10,300 GWh per annum by 2020 in the non-
heating represents over 33% of the projected savings              residential sector. This is slightly less than projected
from 2009 to 2020 (mostly from the phaseout of electric           for the non-residential programs in the 2005 Impacts
resistance water heaters), and refrigerators and freezers         Study, as a result of delays in implementing regulatory
will account for 29%. The other major contributors to             proposals. Lighting products will account for nearly
projected electricity savings are televisions and set top         30% of the projected electricity savings between
boxes (10%), lighting (8%) and air conditioners (8%).             2009 and 2020, followed by transformers (21%),
Until 2008, refrigerators dominated the energy savings            air conditioning products (20%), motors (13%) and
among electrical appliances.                                      computers and electronic devices (9%).

E3 measures already implemented will reduce                       Total electricity savings from all sectors targeted by the
household electricity use in 2020 by about 13%                    E3 Program are projected to exceed 32,000 GWh per
compared with business as usual (BAU), and measures               annum by 2020. The Program is still focussed on the
currently planned could bring about a further reduction           residential sector, which will account for more than two
of nearly 15%.                                                    thirds of total energy savings. Almost 80% of the energy
                                                                  savings will come from pure MEPS programs, and the
For residential sector electricity demand to be held              other 20% from labelling or labelling combined with
constant while population grows, the average                      MEPS.
consumption of household electricity per capita must
decline. ABARE projects that BAU household electricity
use per capita will increase at about 1.0% per annum.
However, the E3 Program could lead to a reduction of
0.8% per annum.

    When you keep measuring it, you know even more about it: Projected Impacts 2005-2020, April 2005

Greenhouse Impacts                                          Costs and Benefits
The 2005 Impact Study estimated that emissions              For Australian energy users as a whole, the entire E3
avoided due to E3 Programs over the period 2000-            Program is projected to return net benefits of $22,437
2020 would be 207.3 Mt. The present Study estimates         million (NPV in 2008, at a discount rate of 7.5%) over the
250.2 Mt over the same period, or 218.2 Mt if electricity   16 years 2009-2024. This gives an overall benefit/cost
emissions intensity falls, under the influence of a         ratio of 2.9. As a point of comparison to past studies,
‘10% reduction’ carbon cap. By 2020, greenhouse             the program will save the community $5,200 million (net
abatement from the Program will be in the order of 19.5     present value) in the year 2020 alone.
Mt per annum, about two thirds from greater efficiency
                                                            Unlike previous studies, the benefit (not cost) of each
of energy use and the rest from declining emissions
                                                            tonne of CO2-e avoided by the E3 Program needs to be
                                                            adjusted to account for the share of emissions avoided
Looking forward over the period 2009-2020, it is            that will come from projected falls in the intensity of
estimated that about 34% of total program savings will      electricity supply brought about by the Carbon Pollution
occur in NSW, 24% in Queensland, 20% in Victoria,           Reduction Scheme (CPRS).
9% in WA and the remaining 13% in the other four
                                                            Even with this adjustment, the Program will save
                                                            energy users about $56 per tonne of emissions
The greenhouse emissions avoided in each jurisdiction       avoided (at a 7.5% discount rate) – about twice the
depend on the emissions intensity of the electricity        corresponding estimate in 2005, and nearly back to
supplied changing these percentages slightly. NSW           the levels estimated in 2003. This indicates that the E3
would account for about 36% of total emission avoided       Program is even further from exhausting cost-effective
over the period 2009-2020, Queensland for 25%,              opportunities to increase energy-efficiency, now that the
Victoria for 22%, WA for 8% and the others for 9%.          value of savings has been increased by the CPRS.

    AGO       Australian Greenhouse Office (merged into DEWHA, early 2008)
    ANZ       Australian and New Zealand
    AS        Australian Standard
    AS/NZS    joint Australian and New Zealand standard
    BAU       Business as Usual
    CBA       Cost-benefit analysis
    CO2-e     Carbon dioxide equivalent
    COP       Coefficient of Performance
    CPRS      Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
    DEWHA     Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (Australia)
    E3        Equipment Energy Efficiency (Program)
    EECA      Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (New Zealand)
    EER       Energy Efficiency Ratio
    ELV       Extra low voltage (halogen gas-filled incandescent lamps)
    GLS       General lighting service (ie incandescent lamps intended for bayonet or screw sockets)
    HE        High Efficiency
    HH        Household
    MCE       Ministerial Council on Energy
    MEPS      Minimum Energy Performance Standards
    GAEEEP    Gas Appliance and Equipment Energy Program
    NAEEEP    National Appliance and Equipment Energy Program (predecessor of the E3 Program)
    NAEEEC    National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee
    NFEE      National Framework for Energy Efficiency
    NPV       Net Present Value
    OBPR      Office of Best Practice Regulation
    PAC       Packaged Air Conditioner
    RIS       Regulatory Impact Statement
    WELS      Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards
    WH GEMS   Water Heater Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards

                                                                          The great majority of E3 measures have taken effect, or
Background                                                                are expected to take effect, between 2000 and 2011.
This document estimates the impacts (historical and
projected) of the Equipment Energy Efficiency (E3)                        The value to energy users of the energy saved through
Program on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions                        E3 measures can be calculated by multiplying the
in Australia and New Zealand.2 It also estimates the                      energy saved by the energy prices which users pay.
value of energy saved and compares this with the cost                     Similarly, the greenhouse benefit of measures can
of the Program to energy users.                                           be calculated by multiplying the energy saved by the
                                                                          greenhouse intensity of the energy delivered (eg kg
The history, structure and scope of the E3 Program,                       CO2-e/kWh for electricity).
which is an initiative of the Ministerial Council on
Energy3, are described in a number of documents,                          Both energy prices and greenhouse gas intensities vary
including the annual Achievements reports (2008/03).4                     over time as well as from State to State, so differences
                                                                          in the projections used in different studies affect the
This is the fourth Impacts Study. Table 1 summarises                      comparability of estimates. A further complication is
the dates and key characteristics of the earlier studies.                 the discount rate used to calculate the net present
The ‘physical modelling period’ is the period over which                  value (NPV) of expected future costs and benefits. The
the energy impacts of each measure are compared with                      most accurate way to compare two measures is to
the ‘business as usual’ (BAU) case, which is generally                    use the same discount rate, the same accumulation
the estimated energy use of that product or sector in the                 period for cost and benefits, and the same time point
absence of the measure.                                                   of comparison. For example, the apparent benefit/
                                                                          cost ratio of a measure to be implemented in, say, 2011
For measures which commenced before the start of the                      will appear different if the point of evaluation (or ‘point
modelling period (eg the energy labelling of refrigerators,               of decision’) is mid 2008 than if the point of decision
which became mandatory in 1986), only impacts during                      is mid-2010, even if the same energy price projections
the modelling period are estimated. Energy impacts                        and the same discount rates is used. This complicates
before 2000 or after 2020 are not taken into account.                     comparisons of the projections in the four studies in
                                                                          Table 1, especially the cost-benefit ratios.

Table 1 Previous Impact Studies

                            Published Document           Physical Modelling          Cost-benefit Accumulation
                                 Reference                     Period                      Period (16 yrs)

    First Study, 2000            GWA (2000)                    2000-15                         2000-15
    Second Study, 2003            2003/02                      2000-20                   2003-18, 2005-20(a)
    Third Study, 2005             2005/05                      2000-20                         2005-20
    Fourth Study, 2008         [This document]                 2000-20                         2008-24

(a) The second accumulation period was modelled in the subsequent study in order to calibrate the findings of the Third and Second
    Studies. Although the length of the accumulation period is the same (16 years) shifting the starting point changes the Net Present Value
    (NPV) calculations.

      In this report references to the E3 Program as a whole are capitalised, while individual measures are sometimes also called
      ‘programs’ in lower case. This report covers Australia only.
      The E3 Program forms part of the Australian National Framework for Energy Efficiency (NFEE) and the New Zealand National
      Energy Efficiency and Conservation (EECA) Strategy.
      E3 publications which can be accessed at are called up by their library refer-
      ence numbers. Direct weblinks are included in the References. References given by author and year precede the E3 numbering
      system, but may also be found on the E3 website.

Data Sources and Methods                                                 Products, Programs and
The implementation of each E3 measure generally                          Measures Covered
follows the same sequence:
                                                                         Successive Work Plans and Impacts Studies have
     •	 The E3 Committee commissions a ‘product’:                        described and grouped products and programs in a
        this generally includes a preliminary estimate of                number of different ways, which creates the risk of either
        the current and projected energy consumption                     omitting or double-counting impacts in the present
        of that product and the potential for reducing it                study. As the variety of equipment and the complexity
        through measures such as energy labelling or                     of product energy use increases, it is becoming
        MEPS;                                                            common for different aspects of product energy use to
                                                                         be targeted by different measures. For example, there
     •	 If the E3 Committee then considers that                          are global initiatives, in which Australia participates, to
        the measure warrants further evaluation,                         reduce the standby power consumption of all electrical
        it commissions a Draft Regulation Impact                         equipment. There may also be MEPS for the on-mode
        Statement (RIS), which includes a full cost-                     energy use of some of the same products, as well as
        benefit analysis (CBA) based on the best                         an energy label which ranks products according to their
        available projections of BAU energy use and                      total energy use, both standby and on-mode.
        with-measures energy use.
                                                                         Table 2 lists the products and measures that will be
Once approved by the Office of Best Practice                             covered by the E3 Program by the completion of
Regulation (OBPR) the Draft RIS is released for public                   the 2008-11 Work Plan (assuming measures still in
consultation. It is modified as necessary in the light                   the planning stage are approved by Ministers and
of any comments received, and then finalised for                         implemented by the target dates). The commencement
submission to Ministers for decision.                                    year for each measure is given. The second dates
                                                                         for MEPS programs indicate when more stringent
If the measure is implemented there may be follow-up
                                                                         standards take effect. ‘Label enhancements’ indicate
studies to monitor its effectiveness. To date, there
                                                                         a re-scaling of the star label, when products previously
has been only one full scale post-evaluation study, on
                                                                         rated at 5*, say, are re-rated to about 3* to renew
energy labelling and MEPS for refrigerators and freezers
                                                                         the commercial incentive for suppliers to further
                                                                         increase product efficiency.5 Re-ratings are sometimes
The present report estimates the impact of each                          accompanied by minor changes in the energy tests
measure by drawing on the best available data: the RIS                   and in label design and the content, which are intended
if one has been prepared, or failing that, the product                   to maintain buyer motivation to seek out more energy-
profile. A list of the documents used for each product                   efficient products and to ensure that label rankings
and measure is included in the references.                               continue to reflect actual product energy use.

The E3 measures already implemented, and those for                       As Table 2 indicates, the impact of some programs
which implementation dates have been fixed, are listed                   is wholly or largely confined to the residential sector,
at The                         while other programs target non-residential energy
latest of these (for External Power Supplies and Set                     use. Some programs have significant impact across all
Top Boxes) are due for implementation in December                        sectors because the target products may be installed in
2008 (Australia) and April 2009 (New Zealand). The E3                    homes, commercial buildings or factories. Lamps and
Program is organised in 3-year Work Plans, and at the                    computer equipment are obvious examples.
time of writing, the Work Plan for the July 2008 to June
                                                                         The last two measures in Table 2 are not strictly
2011 triennium was being finalised. All the measures in
                                                                         speaking part of the E3 Work Plan, but their energy
the draft Work Plan have been included in the present
                                                                         impacts have been modelled because they interact so
study, on the assumption that they will meet their target
                                                                         closely with E3 measures. Water Heater Greenhouse
implementation dates.
                                                                         and Energy Minimum Standards (WH GEMS) is based

    The impacts of the proposed introduction of a 7* to 10* optional extension scale for the standard 6* label have not been
    separately modelled, as it is difficult to estimate the number of models that might become eligible for the higher ratings, and if so
    whether their suppliers will choose to take advantage of the label extension option or to continue to label with 6* on the standard

on an undertaking by the Commonwealth Government            There are many factors influencing estimates and
to set greenhouse standards for water heaters installed     projections. For several measures, later studies
in new dwellings and, eventually, all water heaters sold    have led to either increases or reduction in impact
in Australia. These would have the effect of excluding      projections. For others, the impact projections are more
conventional electric resistance water heaters in single-   or less unchanged, but later studies have increased
family dwellings, in favour of solar-electric, heat pump,   confidence in these projections. The lighting and
LPG or (where natural gas is available) gas or solar-gas.   standby programs are in this category.

The final program is Water Efficiency Labelling and         Some programs are unchanged in scope but have been
Standards (WELS), which is administered by DEWHA.           delayed in their implementation. For these programs the
This impacts on the water use efficiency of clothes         impacts will be lower in 2020 than previously projected.
washers and dishwashers, beyond the effects of energy
labelling alone, and hence further reduces their demand     Some programs have been recast and recombined in
for energy to heat water. The reduction in water use        complex ways, and the more recent analyses cover a
from WELS also reduces the demand for pumping by            different scope from the earlier analyses. This applies
water and sewerage utilities, and for energy use from       especially to air conditioners intended for household use
future desalination plant (beyond those already under       (including some 3-phase models).
                                                            Some programs fill in the detail for ‘omnibus’ programs
The previous Impacts study identified 27 distinct           (eg standby energy). However, some are now likely to
programs in the 2005-08 Work Plan. These are listed         deliver savings beyond what was previously projected
in Table 9, along with 5 additional programs identified     (eg measures for set top boxes and external power
in the 2008-11 Work Plan. The two Work Plans were           supplies will deliver on-mode energy reductions as well
analysed with the aim of:                                   as standby mode reductions). Some programs will
                                                            have higher impacts than previously envisaged because
   •	 Identifying programs which have been                  growth in that end use of energy is now projected to be
      implemented as intended, delayed or otherwise         higher (eg televisions).
                                                            Finally, the impacts of some measures already
   •	 Identifying new programs; and                         implemented (ie labelling and MEPS for refrigerators and
                                                            freezers) have been re-evaluated.
   •	 For programs in the previous Work Plan,
      comparing the latest documents (RISs, CBAs,
      product profile, fact sheets etc) with those used
      to compile the previous Impacts Study.

Table 2 Products and measures covered by E3 Program

             Product or product group                                      Measure                     Residential   Other
                                                                   Energy labelling 1986
 Household refrigerators & freezers                          Label enhancements 2000, 2008                 ✓
                                                                    MEPS 1999, 2005
 Electric storage water heaters (large)                                   MEPS 1999                        ✓✓
 Electric storage water heaters (small)                                   MEPS 2005                        ✓✓
 Electric storage water heaters (miscellaneous)                           MEPS 2005                        ✓✓
                                                                  Labelling 1986, 1990
 Clothes washers, dishwashers, clothes dryers                                                              ✓
                                                                Label enhancements 2000
                                                                  Energy labelling 1986
 Household air conditioners                                  Label enhancements 2000, 2010                 ✓
                                                                    MEPS 2004-2010
 Packaged air conditioners                                          MEPS 2001, 2010                                   ✓
 Chillers                                                                 MEPS 2009                                   ✓
 Close control air conditioners                                           MEPS 2009                                   ✓
                                                                         Labelling 2009
 Televisions                                                                                             ✓ (a)
                                                                          MEPS 2010
 Set top boxes                                                            MEPS 2009                      ✓ (a)
 External power suppliers                                                 MEPS 2009                        ✓          ✓
 Icemakers                                                                MEPS 2009                                   ✓
 Refrigerated drinks vending machines                                     MEPS 2006                                   ✓
 Commercial refrigeration                                                 MEPS 2006                                   ✓
 Fluorescent lamp ballasts                                                MEPS 2003                        ✓          ✓
 Linear fluorescent lamps (tri-phosphor)                                  MEPS 2005                        ✓          ✓
 Incandescent lamps                                                       MEPS 2009                        ✓          ✓
 Motors (3 phase)                                                   MEPS 2001, 2006                                   ✓
 Power supply transformers                                                MEPS 2004                                   ✓
 Standby energy (range of products)                                       MEPS 2012                        ✓
 Swimming pool & spa equipment                                            MEPS 2010                      ✓ (a)
 Gas water heaters                                                        MEPS 2009                        ✓
 Gas space heaters                                                        MEPS 2010                        ✓
 Gas ducted heaters                                                       MEPS 2010                        ✓
 Personal computers & monitors                                            MEPS 2010                        ✓          ✓
 Water heaters                                                 Greenhouse Standards 2010                 ✓ (a)
                                                     Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards 2006 –
 Clothes washers, dishwashers, showers, taps                                                             ✓ (a)        ✓
                                                                      energy impacts

(a) These programs not included in Residential Sector study (EES 2008)

                                                            were consistent with the estimates for the residential
Key Data and Assumptions                                    sector as a whole. This enables the combined impact
                                                            of E3 measures targeting the residential sector to be
Ensuring Consistency                                        expressed as a percentage of what energy use would
The product studies and RISs listed in the References       be if the E3 programs were not implemented.
were prepared over a period of nearly 15 years, and
about 10 separate consultancy firms were involved           The impacts of the E3 measures already implemented
(most carried out more than one study). Although            and some of those still to be implemented have already
each RIS follows guidelines published by the Council of     been taken into account in Energy Use in the Australian
Australian Governments (COAG), there is considerable        Residential Sector, 1986-2020, so their effect should
latitude in interpretation, in modelling approaches         not be double counted. The measures not already
and in key assumptions such as energy prices and            included are indicated in Table 2.
greenhouse gas intensities.

After the 2005 Impact Study, it became apparent that
                                                            Greenhouse Gas Intensities
there was a need for greater consistency between RISs,      At the time of the 2005 Impacts Study, Australia had
partly to streamline their assessment by OBPR and           not ratified the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations
partly to enable their projected impacts to be combined     Framework Convention on Climate Change and there
more transparently and accurately. A Guide to               was no prospect of a national cap on greenhouse gas
Preparing RISs (2005/19) was published as a template        emissions or a scheme to allocate (or auction) tradeable
for consultants. It also includes sets of population,       permits to emitters. Energy prices were projected on
household numbers, energy price and greenhouse gas          the assumption that they would not include a price for
intensity projections for each State and a format for       emission permits, and although emissions reductions
common output tables, so that CBA data from all RISs        from E3 measures were calculated, they were not given
can be combined.                                            a monetary value in the cost-benefit analyses.

Although this has greatly improved RIS consistency,         The Commonwealth Government has now ratified
it has been necessary to update the input values from       the Kyoto Protocol, so Australia is committed to its
time to time, as energy prices and greenhouse gas           Kyoto target of keeping average emissions over the
intensities have changed. The following procedure was       5 year period 2008-2012 to no higher than 108% of
therefore followed in order to ensure consistency in the    1990 emissions. The Government is also committed
present Study:                                              to the implementation of a Carbon Pollution Reduction
                                                            Scheme (CPRS) which will include a declining cap on
   •	 All program impacts have been expressed in            emissions and a system of tradeable emissions permits,
      energy terms (eg GWh of electricity or PJ of          to take effect from July 2010 (DCC 2008). However, the
      natural gas saved each year);                         Government has not yet indicated the rate at which the
                                                            emissions cap will decline, the rules for permit allocation
   •	 A common set of energy prices and greenhouse
                                                            and possible compensation of affected parties, the
      gas intensities has been applied to all programs;
                                                            rules for linking the CPRS with similar schemes in other
   •	 The projected increases in product costs were         countries, and many other details which together will
      retained from the original RISs where possible.       determine the price of permits and hence the likely
                                                            response of emitters.
Therefore, the greenhouse impacts and benefit-cost
ratios for each program reported in this Study may be       The Garnaut Climate Change Review has
slightly different from those in the RISs from which they   recommended that, if other countries also take action,
are drawn.
                                                               ‘Australia’s target…should be to reduce emissions
In the past, the RIS authors have had to make their            net of international trading by 10 per cent from
own estimates of the projected BAU energy demand of            2000 levels by 2020 (30 per cent per capita), and
the equipment types they were considering. As these            80 per cent by 2050 (90 per cent per capita). This is
were done in isolation and without regard to the energy        a reduction of 17 per cent (27 per cent per capita)
use of other classes of equipment, they differed slightly      from the levels that are expected in 2012, at the end
– in some cases significantly – from those in a recent         of the Kyoto period’(GCCR, 2008).
study of energy use in the residential sector as a whole
                                                            A recent study by ACIL Tasman projects that with a
(EES 2008). Therefore it was necessary to scale the
                                                            national cap which restricts national emissions in 2020
sector estimates down (and sometimes up) so that they

to 10% below 2000 levels – the trajectory endorsed by                   If the CPRS is to be successful in capping and then
Garnaut – permit prices would rise from $20/tonne in                    reducing national emissions, then the marginal intensity
2010 to $45 in 2020 (ESAA, 2008). There would need                      of generation will have to be very low. Figure 1 indicates
to be a dramatic fall in not just the emissions intensity of            that, for an overall 10% reduction in national emissions,
electricity delivered, but in the absolute emissions from               the national average intensity of electricity delivered
generation. For Victoria, which has the highest intensity               would need to be no higher that 0.60 kg/kWh delivered
power stations, this would mean the closure of ‘3 out of                by 2020. Given the large number of existing coal fired
the 4 major brown coal generation plants in the Latrobe                 power stations that will survive through the period,
Valley’. The projected average greenhouse gas intensity                 even if most brown coal power stations are closed,
of electricity delivered in each State with and without a               the marginal intensity of new generation will have to
CPRS is illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2. A national                be significantly lower than the average intensity. A mix
weighted average is also shown, as well as the average                  of, say, 50% gas-fired generation and 50% renewable
intensity used in 2005 Impacts Study.                                   sources would have a combined intensity of between
                                                                        0.2 and 0.3 kg/kWh delivered.6
The average greenhouse gas intensity of electricity
supplied in any year is calculated by dividing total annual             These issues are relevant in assessing the greenhouse
emissions by total electricity delivered. However, if                   benefits of E3 Programs. In the past, before a national
electricity demand rises, and/or older power stations                   CPRS was envisaged, it was assumed that new
are retired, new sources of generation need to be                       generation would be somewhat less greenhouse
commissioned. The marginal greenhouse gas intensity                     intensive than existing generation, because of increases
is the emissions from the new sources of generation                     in new black coal generation efficiency and a small
only, divided by the additional energy they supply.                     shift to natural gas and renewable generation brought
                                                                        about by State government programs such as the NSW

Figure 1          Projected emissions intensity of electricity delivered, with CPRS

                                               Source: Derived by author from ESAA (2008)

      In theory, coal fired power stations with carbon capture and storage (CCS) could have an intensity of 0.2 to 0.3 kg CO2-e/kWh,
     but these are not expected to be commercial within the projection period. ESAA (2008) concluded that: ‘By 2020 we assume
     that carbon capture and storage is still in a demonstration phase, as is integrated gasification and combined cycle generation’.

Figure 2        Projected emissions intensity of electricity delivered, without CPRS

                                             Source: Derived by author from ESAA (2008)

Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme (GGAS) and the                        In fact, it is projected that the current suite of E3
Queensland ‘13% gas’ generation requirement, and                      measures is likely to hold electricity use steady, in the
the Commonwealth Mandatory Renewable Electricity                      residential sector at least, so no new generation would
Target (MRET). Therefore, the greenhouse impact of                    be needed to supply the sector. Therefore it can be
individual E3 measures was calculated at the marginal                 argued that the marginal intensity for E3 measures
greenhouse gas intensity that reflected the expected                  targeting the residential sector intensity would be
mix of new generation, as indicated by the broken line                identical to the average intensity, which is currently
in Figure 1 and Figure 2, which trends down to 0.8 kg/                about 1.0 kg CO2-e/kWh (Figure 1). It could further be
kWh in 2020.                                                          argued that a reduction in demand is a pre-condition
                                                                      for the retirement of the most greenhouse intensive
Applying the same approach now would mean using a                     power stations (ie the brown coal power stations), so
marginal intensity of 0.2 to 0.3 kg/kWh, which means                  the marginal benefit of each kWh saved would be about
that by 2020, a kWh saved by the E3 Program would                     1.4 kg CO2-e.
appear to have only about a third of the greenhouse
benefit it had before the CPRS was envisaged. This                    It is obviously difficult to definitively establish the
would be a false conclusion, because it presupposes                   greenhouse benefit of each kWh avoided in this period
that all the required greenhouse reductions will be                   of transition to a regime where national emissions are
achieved in the energy supply system or in the non-                   capped, but at a level still to be decided. Given that the
energy part of the economy, whereas in reality a large                plausible range for marginal intensity is anywhere from
part – potentially the majority – will be achieved by a               about 0.2 to 1.4 kg CO2-e/kWh, the projected average
reduction in energy demand (accelerated by the ability                intensity trends in Figure 1 will be used for each State:
of E3 measures to overcome failures in the market for                 a sales-weighted national average of 1.0 kg CO2-e/kWh
energy services).                                                     delivered in 2008, falling to about 0.6 in 2020.7 This

    Impacts are aggregated from State data using State-specific energy prices and intensities, so national averages are derived at
    the end of the calculations, not used as the basis for calculations.

is about 0.1 kg/kWh higher than the marginal intensity                   Figure 3 illustrates the national weighted average value
used in the previous Impacts Study for 2008, but about                   of electricity saved by E3 Programs over the period
0.2 kg/kWh lower in 2020. Therefore, the average                         2006 to 2020. This covers both the residential sector
emissions avoided per kWh saved over the period 2008                     and the non-residential sectors, where average prices
to 2020 is roughly similar in both studies.                              are slightly lower. The underlying average price of 15.0
                                                                         c/kWh in 2008 is projected to rise to 16.5 c/kWh in 2020
                                                                         (excluding the effects of inflation).
Energy and Carbon Prices
Energy prices faced by energy users in each State are                    If the price of emissions permits is passed through
projected without carbon emission permit prices, and                     without markup and emissions intensity falls only as
then permit costs are calculated from the greenhouse                     indicated in Figure 2, average electricity price in 2020
intensity of that State’s electricity supply (as illustrated             would be about 20.7 c/kWh, or about 26% higher than
in Figure 1) and natural gas supply and the projected                    the BAU (no permit) price. However, if the greenhouse
carbon price. Underlying (ex-carbon) retail energy                       intensity of electricity supply declines under pressure of
prices are projected to increase at a real rate (excluding               a 10% national emissions reduction target, as illustrated
inflation) of 0.5% per annum over the projection period.8                in Figure 1, the number of permits required to meet
                                                                         electricity emissions would fall. The price impost in
The price path for emission permits, taken from                          2020 would be 3.2 c/kWh, or about 20% higher than
ESAA (2008), is assumed to be $20/tonne in the                           the BAU (no permit) price.
first year of the CPRS, rising to $45/tonne by 2020.

Figure 3 Projected electricity prices and emissions permit prices, Australia

     The overall benefit/cost ratio of the E3 program is fairly insensitive to the assumed rate of increase in ex-carbon energy prices.
     Doubling the rate to 1.0% per annum, for example, only increases the overall benefit/cost ratio from 2.6 to 2.7 (at 7.5% discount

Energy and greenhouse Impacts
                                                         about 650 kWh/yr, or 48% less than in 2005. This is
Selected Product Categories                              about 38% lower than if E3 measures had not been
This section discusses energy consumption and energy     implemented.
savings in the key technology groups, some of which
                                                         In fact, the rate of increase in energy efficiency has
extend across non-residential as well as residential
                                                         exceeded the rate of increase in population and
sectors. It does not cover each of the measures in
                                                         in household numbers, so total electricity used in
Table 2 in detail.
                                                         household refrigeration has declined. The quantity
                                                         of cold space per household has remained fairly
Refrigerators and Freezers                               constant: while the ownership of stand-alone freezers
                                                         has been falling, the average number of refrigerators
Household refrigerators and freezers have been
                                                         per household and their average volume has been
covered by the E3 Program and its predecessors for
                                                         increasing. The quality of refrigeration service has
nearly 22 years. The impacts are well documented,
                                                         also been increasing, in that a growing share of the
having been subject to thorough post-evaluation
                                                         refrigerators in use are now frost-free, with better
                                                         temperature control and no need for manual defrost.
Figure 4 illustrates the total electricity consumption   Therefore the effective increase in energy efficiency has
of household refrigerators and freezers in Australia     been even greater than indicated.
compared with a BAU case in which no labelling or
                                                         Figure 5 illustrates the energy saved per year from
MEPS measures had been implemented. It is estimated
                                                         separate E3 measures for refrigerators and freezers.
that even in the BAU case, the average energy used in
                                                         Historically, the majority of energy savings have come
household refrigeration would have declined by about
                                                         from energy labelling because the measure has been in
16%, from about from 1250 kWh/yr per household in
                                                         place for so long, but it is projected that about two thirds
1985 to 1050 kWh/HH in 2020. However, accelerated
                                                         of the savings in the period 2009 to 2020 will come from
efficiency improvements brought about by energy
                                                         MEPS, which were implemented in 1999 and made
labelling and two rounds of MEPS will have reduced
                                                         more stringent in 2005.
refrigeration energy requirement per household to

Figure 4   Historical and projected energy use by household refrigerators and freezers, Australia

Figure 5   Historical and projected energy savings by E3 Programs for refrigerators and freezers,

Electric Water Heaters                                        80 litres and above) by 30%. Figure 6 illustrates the
                                                              impact of these measures on the total heat loss of
                                                              electric storage water heaters. Heat loss from the entire
Reductions in Heat loss                                       stock gradually falls as older units are replaced and
Electric resistance storage water heaters are present in      stabilise at 30% below BAU. Without the intervention of
about half of Australian households, although this ratio is   MEPS, average heat loss levels would almost certainly
falling as the market share of natural gas, solar and heat    have remained unchanged, because the only previous
pump water heaters increase. All electric resistance          instances of reduced heat loss were in response to
water heaters convert electricity to heat with near 100%      quasi-regulatory measures adopted by the electricity
efficiency, but all lose some heat from the hot water in      utilities (these powers were removed in the mid 1990s
the storage tank. These ‘standing heat losses’ have to        during the restructuring of the electricity supply
be made up by additional electric heating even if no hot      industry).
water is actually used, and so are largely independent of
the volume of hot water drawn off.                            The fact that BAU energy use is trending down in
                                                              Figure 6 reflects a decline in the number of electric
To date, the E3 Program has focussed on reducing the          storage water heaters in use, rather than any underlying
heat loss of electric water heaters. MEPS, (expressed         expectation of further efficiency improvement. Figure
as maximum daily rates of heat loss), introduced in           7 illustrates the relative magnitude of estimated heat
1999, immediately reduced the rate of heat loss in new        loss savings from large, small and miscellaneous water
mains pressure electric storage water heater (volume          heaters.

Figure 6       Historical and projected heat loss by large household electric water heaters, Australia

Figure 7       Historical and projected energy savings by E3 Programs for electric water heaters,

Water Heater greenhouse and Energy                             produce over twice as much useful heat as
                                                               the electrical energy they use, because they
Minimum Standards (WH gEMS)
                                                               concentrate ambient heat) for resistance
The Water Heater Greenhouse and Energy Minimum                 elements instead (which produce only as much
Standards program is based on an undertaking by                heat as electricity consumed).
the Commonwealth Government to set greenhouse
standards for water heaters installed in new dwellings      •	 It would increase the total consumption of
and, eventually, all water heaters sold in Australia.          natural gas for household water heating,
These would have the effect of excluding conventional          because a greater share of new water heater
electric resistance water heaters in single-family             purchases would be natural gas;
dwellings, in favour of solar-electric, heat pump, LPG or
                                                            •	 It would reduce the future energy savings from
(where natural gas is available) gas or solar-gas water
                                                               heat loss MEPS for electric water heaters,
                                                               because very few electric water heaters would
This would have the following impacts:                         be purchased (generally only where exemptions
                                                               are necessary for apartments or other special
     •	 It would greatly reduce the total electricity          cases);
        used to heat water in households, through the
        substitution of solar energy and natural gas,       •	 Conversely, it would magnify the impact of MEPS
        and by the substitution of heat pumps (which           for gas water heaters;

     •	 It would increase the average purchase price                  Figure 8 illustrates the projected impact of the proposed
        for new water heaters, because most of the                    WH GEMS program on both electricity and natural gas
        alternatives would cost more than an electric                 use. The electricity savings from phasing out electric
        resistance water heater providing the same                    water heaters are net of the savings foregone from the
        service; and                                                  declining impact of heat loss MEPS, which will of course
                                                                      have no additional effect once electric water heaters are
     •	 It would reduce the average running costs of                  phased out (although the energy savings from heat loss
        water heaters.                                                MEPS for electric water heaters installed prior to that
                                                                      time will persist as long as those water heaters remain in
For each instance where a natural gas water heater is
substituted for an electric resistance water heater, total
energy use goes up slightly, because gas water heaters                Figure 8 also illustrates the projected additional gas
typically convert 60 to 80% of the energy content of the              consumption, and the net energy savings (electricity
gas to useful hot water, compared with 80 to 90% for                  saved less additional gas used). The net greenhouse
electric resistance water heaters (taking into account                savings are discussed in a later section.
both conversion and standing heat losses for both
types). However, because the greenhouse gas intensity
per unit of electricity delivered is typically about 5 times
as high as natural gas, the greenhouse impact will drop
by about two thirds.

Figure 8        Historical and projected annual energy savings by E3 Programs for electric water heating,

     Strictly speaking the projected heat loss savings in Figure 8 should be reduced and the savings from the electric water heater
     phaseout increased. This will be done in future modelling – however, the projected net impact is accurately shown.

MEPS for fluorescent lamp ballasts have been in place
since 2003, and efficacy standards for linear fluorescent
lamps have been in place since 2007. It has been
proposed to introduce efficacy standards for both
General Lighting Service (GLS) lamps for bayonet and
screw fittings, and for extra low voltage (ELV) halogen
lamps. MEPS for ELV converters or transformers are
also proposed (2008/08).

Increased efficacy means more lumens per Watt. The
proposed 30% increase in efficacy for GLS and ELV
lamps could lead, at the one extreme, to 30% more
light for the same energy use, and at the other extreme,
to 30% energy savings for the same light levels. In
practice, the benefit is likely to be realised partly as
energy and partly as illumination. Higher MEPS levels
for ballasts, ELC converters and transformers translate
directly into energy savings.

Figure 9 illustrates the estimated energy impact by
linear fluorescent lamps (including their ballasts) and by
incandescent lamps (including ELV converters), with
and without E3 measures. The energy impact includes
both direct energy use and the energy associated
with removing the heat produced by lighting in air
conditioned buildings. Figure 10 illustrates the electricity
savings (both direct and indirect) from E3 measures
targeting lighting. The magnitude and rapid build up of
projected savings from incandescent lamps (both GLS
and ELV) reflects their shorter life, more rapid turnover,
widespread use and the greater percentage efficacy

Figure 9    Historical and projected energy use by key lighting technologies, Australia

Figure 10   Historical and projected energy savings by E3 Programs for lighting, Australia

Air Conditioning                                             5). The great majority of savings are projected to come
                                                             from progressively more stringent MEPS for household
Figure 11 illustrates the energy impacts of the various      and packaged air conditioners up to 65 kW cooling
E3 Programs targeting air conditioning equipment.            capacity, and the rest from proposed MEPS for chillers
Although energy labelling for smaller air conditioners has   (used in large building air conditioning installations) and
been in place since 1986, its impact has been far more       close control air conditioners (used for computer and
modest than refrigerator and freezer labelling (Figure       data centres).

Figure 11     Historical and projected energy savings by E3 Programs for air conditioning, Australia

Television, Computer and Electronic                        13). Personal (desktop) computer ownership averaged
                                                           0.87 per household in 2005, but is projected to reach
Equipment                                                  1.25 in 2020. Laptop computer ownership averaged
Televisions are the fastest growing sector of household    0.50 in 2005 and is projected to reach 0.65 in 2020.
energy use (Figure 12). This is being driven by an         Ownership of specialised games consoles is also
increase in the size of flat screens displays, and the     rising. However, the number of computers and related
fact that over the next decade, most households            equipment in household use is overshadowed by the
are expected to acquire a new television and a set         number in business use (Figure 14).
top box (or its equivalent as part of the TV itself), as
                                                           The number of ‘peripherals’ serving computers is also
digital broadcasting completely replaces the present
                                                           rising. Apart from printers, this includes broadband
analogue system. Average power consumption is
                                                           modems and internet routers, which are generally left
projected to increase from 100W in 2005 to 230W in
2020. Operating hours per screen are also expected to
increase as the TV display becomes a communications        Figure 15 illustrates the projected impact of the
and internet hub in its own right. Figure 12 illustrates   proposed adoption of the US Energy Star V4.0
the projected energy impacts of the proposed energy        standards for off-mode, sleep-mode, standby mode
labelling and MEPS programs for TVs.                       and on-mode power consumption as a mandatory
                                                           requirement for all computers, servers and computer
Computers and electronic equipment also represent a
                                                           monitors sold in Australia (2007/12).
rapidly growing sector of household energy use (Figure

Figure 12   Historical and projected energy use and energy savings by E3 Programs for televisions and
            set top boxes, Australia

Figure 13   Historical and projected energy use by computers and peripherals installed in households,

Figure 14   Number of computers in use in household and businesses, Australia, 2000-2006

Figure 15   Historical and projected energy use and energy savings by E3 Programs for computers and
            monitors, Australia

Gas Appliances
The E3 Program also covers gas appliances. Figure
16 illustrates the consumption of natural gas in
household space heating and water heating, together
with the combined impacts of proposed E3 measures
(2008/07). The level of cost-effective increases in gas
appliance energy efficiency tends to be somewhat
lower than for electrical appliances, because the price
of a unit of gas is significantly lower than the price of
an energy equivalent amount of electricity. The cost
differential in favour of gas will probably be widened by
the incorporation of emission permit prices into energy

Figure 17 illustrates the projected gas savings at a
larger scale, and also the projected increase in gas
consumption expected from the WH GEMS program.
Although the total energy savings from E3 gas programs
are now projected to be higher than in the previous
Impact Study, the expected shift from electric to gas
water heating will be of about the same magnitude.
Therefore, the combined effect of all E3 measures
impacting on household natural gas use will be close to

Figure 16     Historical and projected natural gas consumption, household space and water heating

Figure 17   Projected additional household natural gas use and gas savings by E3 Programs, Australia

                                                                  similar to the 2005 projection. While several new measures
Savings of E3 Programs by                                         have been added to the Work Plan (eg televisions) other
Sectors                                                           programs have been delayed or abandoned in favour of
                                                                  new approaches. In some cases, a more detailed analysis
                                                                  has reduced the projected impacts compared with initial
Residential                                                       expectations. There has also been a major increase in the
The projected reduction in residential sector electricity         historical savings estimate, due to the post-evaluation of
use due to E3 Programs is illustrated in Figure 18. Until         the refrigerator and freezer measures.
2008, the savings have been dominated by the original
                                                                  Figure 20 illustrates the trend in total residential
energy labelling programs and MEPS for refrigerators
                                                                  electricity use from 2000 to 2020. The top line (black)
and electric water heaters. About half the projected
                                                                  indicates the trend as it would have been had the E3
savings between 2009 and 2020 will come from the
                                                                  Program not been introduced. The second line (red)
continuation and enhancement of existing measures,
                                                                  indicates the current trajectory of household electricity
and half from new measures.
                                                                  demand given the E3 measures already in place. The
Water heaters will account for over 33% of the projected          third line (green) indicates that the addition of the new
savings from 2009 to 2020 (mostly from WH GEMS),                  E3 measures proposed in the 2008-11 Work Plan
and refrigerators and freezers for 29% in Figure 19. The          could actually stop growth in household electricity use
other major contributors to projected electricity savings         altogether. E3 measures already implemented will
are televisions and set top boxes (over 10%), lighting            reduce household electricity use in 2020 by about 13%
(over 8%) and air conditioners (nearly 8%).                       compared with BAU, and measures currently planned
                                                                  could bring about a further reduction of nearly 15%.
The red trend line in Figure 20 indicates the total residential   The relative magnitude of savings from ‘old’ and ‘new’
sector electricity savings estimated in the 2005 Impacts          measures is shown at the bottom of the diagram.
Study. Apart from WH GEMS, the 2008 projection is very

Figure 18       Historical and projected impacts of E3 Programs on residential sector electricity use,

Figure 19   Share of projected residential sector electricity savings, 2009-2020

Figure 20   Projected total electricity use in the residential sector

Figure 21        Projected per capita electricity use in the residential sector

Figure 21 illustrates the trends in electricity use in the            Non-Residential Sectors
residential sector on a per-capita basis. For residential
sector electricity demand to be held constant while                   The projected reduction in electricity use from E3
population grows, the average consumption of                          measures outside the residential sector are illustrated
household electricity per capita must decline. ABARE                  in Figure 22. Up to 2008, the savings have been
projects that BAU household electricity use per capita                dominated by the motors, transformers and packaged
will increase at about 1.0% per annum. However, the                   air conditioner Programs. Because these and other
E3 Program could lead to an annual rate of reduction of               products covered by non-residential measures are used
0.8%.                                                                 widely in manufacturing, mining, utilities and commercial
                                                                      buildings, it is very difficult to allocate savings to specific
The impacts of residential sector E3 measures on                      sectors of the economy.
household natural gas use are indicated in Figure 17.
The impacts on household LPG use would be similar,                    Electricity savings below BAU are projected to reach
but have not been separately modelled.                                about 10,300 GWh per annum by 2020 (compared with
                                                                      nearly 22,000 GWh per annum in the residential sector).
                                                                      This is slightly less than projected for the non-residential
                                                                      programs in the 2005 Impacts Study (indicated as the
                                                                      red trend line in Figure 22).

                                                                      Lighting products will account for nearly 30% of the
                                                                      projected electricity savings between 2009 and 2020,
                                                                      followed by transformers (21%), air conditioning
                                                                      products (20%), motors (13%) and computers and
                                                                      electronic devices (9%), as seen in Figure 23.10

      The estimates for transformers may be conservative, because the impacts of a proposed increase in MEPS levels have not been
     included. Energy losses from transformers vary dynamically with load and the impacts of particular MEPS levels are difficult to

Figure 22   Historical and projected impacts of E3 Programs on non-residential sector electricity use,

Figure 23   Share of projected non-residential sector electricity savings, 2009-2020

Combined                                                      curve indicates about a one year average delay in the
                                                              implementation of individual measures.
Figure 24 illustrates the historical and projected
electricity savings from the entire E3 Program, and           The contribution of measures of various types – energy
compares these with the corresponding savings                 labelling only, MEPS only, and programs where the
projected in the 2005 Impacts Study. Although they are        effects cannot be separated – are illustrated in Figure 25.
substantially higher, the difference is due entirely to the   Over the full modelling period (2000-2020) it is estimated
WH GEMS Program (which has not yet been endorsed              that about 78% of the energy savings will come from
as a formal E3 measure). Also, the shape of the impact        MEPS programs, 11% from labelling programs and 11%
                                                              from combined programs (Figure 25).

Figure 24      Projected electricity savings, all E3 measures, Australia

Figure 25     Projected electricity savings by type of E3 measure, Australia

                                                                 from emissions ‘on paper’, which could be the outcome
Greenhouse Impacts                                               of a poorly designed scheme), it is difficult to establish a
For the reasons detailed in the section Greenhouse               causal link between energy efficiency, fuel substitution
Gas Intensities, it is difficult to definitively establish the   and other possible measures that may all contribute to
greenhouse benefit of each kWh avoided in this period            the reduction from BAU required to achieve the cap.
of transition to a regime where national emissions are
                                                                 Part of the uncertainty is the share of the reduction effort
capped, but at a level still to be decided. The likely
                                                                 that will be made at the level of electricity generation
adoption of an emissions cap also changes the effect
                                                                 and the share made at the point of end use. Figure 26
of the energy saved by E3 Programs from ‘greenhouse
                                                                 indicates the weighted national average of the State and
savings’ to ‘greenhouse emissions avoided’.
                                                                 Territory intensities illustrated with a 10% reduction cap
‘Greenhouse savings’ would be physical reductions
                                                                 and no cap. The weighted national average intensity
from a BAU trend line. However, under a regime in
                                                                 used in the 2005 Impacts Study is also indicated.
which actual physical emissions are capped (as distinct

Figure 26       Weighted average State and Territory greenhouse gas intensities

Figure 27 illustrates the trend in annual emissions             Table 3 also indicates that, over the period 2009-2020,
avoided as calculated in the 2005 Impacts Study and             about 83% of the ‘emissions avoidance effort’ will
in the present Study, with and without cap. Table 3             come from E3 Programs, and 17% from reductions
summarises the emissions avoided over the full period           in electricity supply intensity. In other words, the E3
modelled (2000-2020), the Kyoto commitment period               Program will reduce emissions from energy use in
(2008-2012) and looking forward only (2009-2020). The           the targeted end uses by nearly 5 times as much as
2005 Impact Study estimated that emissions avoided              reductions in the emissions intensity of the electricity.
due to E3 Programs over the period 2000-2020 would
be 207.3 Mt. The present Study estimates 250.2 Mt
over the same period, or 218.2 Mt if electricity emissions
intensity falls, under the influence of a ‘10% reduction’
carbon cap.

Figure 27      Emissions avoided at various greenhouse gas intensities

Table 3 Emissions avoided over key time periods

                                        2000-2020    2008-2012     2009-2020      In 2020
                                         Mt CO2-e   Kyoto period    Mt CO2-e      Mt CO2-e
 2005 Study – no emissions cap            207.3         47.9         188.6          21.0
 2008 Study – no emissions cap            250.2          51.1        221.4          26.2
 2008 Study – with 10% reduction cap      218.2         50.0         189.5          19.5
 Reductions due to cap                    31.9           1.1          31.9           6.6
 Reductions due to E3 Program impacts     186.3         48.8         157.5          12.9
 E3 Program impacts/emissions avoided     85%           98%           83%           66%

                                                          Because the WH GEMS program leads to a shift from
Savings by Jurisdiction                                   electric resistance water heating to gas and other
The State and Territory shares of projected electricity   types, net gas consumption increases by 1.9 over
savings from E3 Programs are illustrated in Figure 28.    the period 2009-2020. Victoria has a net saving of
Looking forward over the period 2009-2020, it is          24.2 PJ, because it starts with a low stock of electric
estimated that about 34% of total program savings will    water heaters and benefits most from E3 measures to
occur in NSW, 24% in Queensland, 20% in Victoria,         improve gas appliance efficiency. WA (1.4 PJ) and the
9% in WA and the remaining 13% in the other four          ACT (1.8PJ) also have net gas savings. NSW has a net
jurisdictions.                                            increase of 15.0 PJ in gas use, Queensland 6.9 PJ and
                                                          SA 6.3 PJ.

Figure 28     Projected electricity savings by State and Territory

The greenhouse emissions avoided in each jurisdiction     including the impacts of increased or reduced gas use,
depend on the emissions intensity of the electricity      if any, in each jurisdiction). In both cases, NSW would
supplied. Figure 29 illustrates the projected breakdown   account for about 36% of total emission avoided over
of national emissions avoided with no emissions cap,      the period 2009-2020, Queensland for 25%, Victoria for
and Figure 30 illustrates the breakdown with a 10%        22%, WA for 8%, and the others for 9%.
emissions cap. (Total net emissions avoided are shown,

Figure 29     Projected emissions avoided by State and Territory – no emissions cap

Figure 30    Projected emissions avoided by State and Territory – with emissions cap

Costs and Benefits
The monetary benefit of each E3 measure is the Net             However, it does demonstrate that new efficiency
Present Value (NPV) of the projected energy savings            standards which are within the realms of current
compared with the BAU case. The cost of each                   technological limits can be introduced at almost no
measure is the NPV of the sum of the following:                marginal cost where industry has sufficient notice of
                                                               the requirements and time to plan their transition in
   1. The cost of energy efficiency testing of the             an orderly fashion’ (2006/14).
      product by manufacturers and suppliers, for the
      purpose of registration for energy labelling and/     It is consistent with the general conservatism of the
      or demonstrating compliance with MEPS (unless         E3 Program to assume that even though previous
      such testing is already required, in which case       measures for a particular product had no apparent
      the marginal cost is zero);                           impact on average price, there should be some
                                                            provision for future costs as efficiency levels are pushed
   2. The cost to suppliers of physical labelling, where
                                                            higher. Also, it is possible that the lack of apparent price
                                                            increase might mask hidden costs, such as reductions
   3. The increase in average product price due to          in quality or elimination of existing (or potential) features,
      buyers preferring more energy efficient models        even though there is no evidence of these occurring in
      (through labelling), or being forced to buy more      response to past E3 measures.
      efficient products (through MEPS);
                                                            The costs, benefits and benefit/cost ratios of E3
   4. The costs to government of program                    measures are also influenced by the discount rates
      administration. Given there is already an             and time period for projection of costs and benefits.
      established E3 administrative framework of            In the following section, four discount rates are used:
      Commonwealth and State officers, the marginal         0% (‘undiscounted’), 5% and 10%, which were also
      costs of incorporating new measures are low; and      used in the 2005 Impact Study, and 7.5%, which has
                                                            since been adopted as the ‘headline’ rate for RISs. The
   5. The cost to government of checktesting and            10% rate was formerly used as the headline rate (ie the
      compliance enforcement.                               highest discount rate at which cost-effectiveness had
                                                            to be met), but it was lowered to indicate increasing
In almost every RIS, a third of the above cost              confidence in the methods of analysis and growing
components dominates the cost-benefit analysis.             evidence that measures were achieving higher benefits
However, the relationship between product price and         and lower costs than initially projected.
energy efficiency is rarely direct. Product pricing tends
to be influenced far more by attributes such as build       A number of different time periods can be used to
quality, features and finishes and the premium that         accumulate future cost and benefits:
prestige brand names command than by technical
energy efficiency. Nevertheless, all RISs build in an          •	 Full period 2000-2020: this picks up all cost
assumption that product prices will increase (or that             and savings incurred in each of the 21 years.
some other features will be foregone because suppliers            Logically, only undiscounted accumulation
will be forced to concentrate more design resources               should be used, because some costs and
on energy efficiency). Therefore they err on the                  benefits are already in the past;
conservative side.
                                                               •	 Forward-looking ‘full service life’ period: this
The post-evaluation of the impact of E3 measures on               picks up all costs from products to be sold
refrigerators and freezers concluded that:                        between 2009 and 2020, and the savings from
                                                                  the full service life of those products. This means
   ‘…prices for refrigerators and freezers are continuing         some of the cohort of products purchased
   to decline despite increases in average volume,                in 2020 will still be in use as late as 2040 (for
   larger share of frost free product on the market               15 year average service life products, which
   and massive reductions in energy consumption,                  progressively retire between 10 and 20 years
   particularly in the lead up to MEPS 2005.’                     from purchase). This is the usual mode of
                                                                  accumulation for RISs;
   ‘Evidence from the implementation of MEPS 1999
   for refrigerators shows no impact on price. This was        •	 Forward-looking 2009-2020: this picks up all
   true even for MEPS 2005 which had a substantial                costs from products to be sold between 2009
   energy impact on new products. However, this does              and 2020, and savings over the same period;
   not mean that efficiency levels can be increased
   indefinitely with no impact on industry or prices.

     •	 Forward-looking 16 year period 2009-2024:                        Table 4 summarises the overall benefit/cost ratios for
        this picks up all costs from products to be sold                 the E3 Program estimated in the present Study and
        between 2009 and 2024, and savings over the                      compares them with previous Impacts Studies. The
        same period. A 16 year period was used in                        estimated benefit/cost ratio has increased somewhat
        previous Impacts Studies, and has been retained                  compared with the 2005 Study, partly because real
        for comparability.                                               energy prices are now projected to increase more
                                                                         rapidly due greenhouse gas emission permit costs, so
Table 4 to Table 8 illustrate the costs and benefits of                  increasing the value of energy savings. At the same
E3’s impact on energy use in Australia.                                  time, increases in energy efficiency are now expected to
                                                                         have a more moderate impact on the price of products
Table 5 summarises the cost and benefits over some
                                                                         than previously thought. (It should be remembered
of these accumulation periods, and the benefit/cost
                                                                         that cost impacts in RISs are generally biased to the
ratios for ‘the full service life’ and 16 year periods.
                                                                         conservative, so the benefit/cost ratios are likely to be
For Australian energy users as a whole, the entire E3
                                                                         higher than those indicated in Table 4 rather than lower).
Program is projected to return net benefits of $22,437M
(NPV in 2008, at discount rate of 7.5%) over the 16 years                Finally, Table 4 indicates the cost of each tonne of
2009-2024. This will give an overall benefit/cost ratio of               CO2-e projected to be saved by the E3 Program. Unlike
2.9 (Table 7).                                                           previous studies, this value needs to be adjusted to
                                                                         account for the share of the savings that will be due to
On these criteria, all measures are cost-effective, with
                                                                         projected falls in the intensity of electricity supply to be
the exception of energy labelling for clothes washers,
                                                                         brought about by the CPRS. Even with this adjustment,
dishwashers and clothes dryers. This is because
                                                                         the E3 Program will save energy users about $56 per
some of the energy benefits are shared with the WELS
                                                                         tonne avoided (at 7.5% discount rate), or $45 per tonne
Program. However, if water and energy benefits are
                                                                         (at 7.5% discount rate) – about twice the corresponding
combined, the joint impact of E3 and WELS on those
                                                                         estimate in 2005, and back to the levels estimated in
products will deliver a positive result. The total impact
                                                                         2003. This indicates that the E3 Program is even further
for gas measures also appears less than effective given
                                                                         from exhausting cost-effective opportunities to increase
the negative cost benefit result that can be attributed to
                                                                         energy efficiency that it was previously, now that the
the WH GEMS. However, preliminary estimates indicate
                                                                         value of savings has been increase by the CPRS.
that the WH GEMS program as a whole appears to be
cost effective, even though average water heater prices
will increase significantly as electric resistance water
heaters are phased out.

Table 4 Summary of costs and benefits, and comparison with previous studies

                                                              Benefit/cost ratio                     $ cost per tonne CO2-e saved
                                       16-yr         0%       5%      7.5%     10%       0%       5%      7.5%     10%
                                      Periods     discount discount discount discount discount discount discount discount
                                                    rate     rate      rate    rate     rate     rate      rate    rate
 NAEEEP 2000 (First Study)            2000-15       3.5         2.9         NA         2.4      ✓ -$135     ✓ -$62       NA        ✓ -$31
 NAEEEP 2003 (Second Study)           2003-18       3.1         2.7         NA         2.4       ✓ -$84     ✓ -$47       NA        ✓ -$28
 NAEEEP 2003 (Second Study)           2005-20       3.7         3.2         NA         2.9      ✓ -$109     ✓ -$62       NA        ✓ -$37
 NAEEEP 2005 (Third Study)            2005-20       2.3         2.0         NA         1.7       ✓ -$81     ✓ -$43       NA        ✓ -$23
 E3 2008 (This Study)                 2009-24       3.1         3.0        2.9         2.9      ✓ -$170     ✓ -$104     ✓ -$84     ✓ -$68
 E3 2008 (adjusted for CPRS)(b)       2009-24                                                    ✓ -$113    ✓ -$69      ✓ -$56     ✓ -$45

Note: Negative values for costs indicate net benefits per tonne avoided. (b) It is estimated that about a third of the projected emissions
   reductions from E3 measures can be attributed to a reduction in the greenhouse gas intensity of electricity supplied due to the Carbon
   Pollution Reduction Scheme.

     Table 5 Projected costs and benefits, Australia, E3 measures impacting electricity use (7.5% discount rate)

                                       Undisc       Undisc      Total      Disc       Disc       Net      Benefit/             Mt CO2-e saved              Disc    Disc    Net    Benefit/
                                       saving       saving     saving     saving      cost      benefit     Cost                                          saving   cost   benefit  Cost
                                      2000-08      2009-40    2009-40    2009-40    2009-20    2009-20    2009-40    2000-08 2009-20   2000-20   In 2020 2009-24 2009-24 2009-24 2009-24
     Refrigerators & freezers            $2,096    $16,436    $18,532      $7,217      $668     $6,549      10.8     13.0      31.6     44.6      2.4      $6,101     $764 $5,337      8.0
     CW, DW, CD                            $266       $702       $968        $319      $348        -$28      0.9      1.7       1.4       3.1     0.1        $274     $424    -$150    0.6
     WH MEPS                               $472      $5,127    $5,599     $2,434       $191     $2,243      12.8      4.2     13.4      17.6      1.0      $2,161     $225   $1,936    9.6
     Air conditioners                      $327      $5,415     $5,742    $2,238       $628      $1,610      3.6      1.9       9.2      11.1     0.9      $1,839     $760   $1,080    2.4
     TVs & STBs                               $-     $9,811     $9,811    $3,757     $2,095      $1,662      1.8      0.0     12.6      12.6      2.3      $3,013   $2,565     $448    1.2
     External Power Supplies                  $-      $985       $985       $482       $129       $353       3.7      0.0       2.3       2.3     0.3       $462      $161     $301    2.9
     PCs, monitors                            $-      $635       $635       $290       $193         $97      1.5      0.0       1.3       1.3     0.2       $275      $236      $38    1.2
     Lighting                                $3     $3,795     $3,797     $2,086       $209      $1,877     10.0      0.0      11.5      11.5     0.9     $2,086      $257   $1,829    8.1
     Standby                                  $-    $2,444     $2,444      $1,125      $109      $1,016     10.3      0.0       5.1       5.1     0.7      $1,072     $117     $956    9.2
     Swimming pools & spas                    $-      $752       $752       $286       $109       $177       2.6      0.0        1.1       1.1    0.1       $225      $131      $94    1.7
     WELS savings (WH)                      $14      $1,898     $1,912      $732          $-      $732       NA       0.1       2.7       2.8     0.3       $578        $0     $578    NA
     WH GEMS                                  $-   $15,349    $15,349     $6,201     $3,001     $3,201       2.1      0.0      31.2      31.2     4.4      $5,143   $3,647   $1,496    1.4
     Total Residential Savings           $3,177    $63,350    $66,528    $27,167     $7,678    $19,489       3.5     20.9    123.5     144.4     13.5    $23,230    $9,286 $13,944     2.5
     Air conditioners                      $445     $5,706      $6,151    $2,424       $137     $2,286      17.7      2.7     10.2      13.0      0.9      $2,018     $167   $1,851   12.1
     Chillers                                 $-     $1,497     $1,497      $569       $140       $429       4.1      0.0       2.1       2.1     0.3       $446      $171     $274    2.6
     Close control Acs                        $-      $807       $807       $323        $32       $291      10.1      0.0       1.3       1.3     0.1       $262       $37     $225     7.1
     External Power Supplies                  $-      $696       $696       $340        $91       $248       3.7      0.0       1.7       1.7     0.2       $326      $115     $211    2.8
     PCs, monitors                            $-    $2,003     $2,003        $919      $585       $334       1.6      0.0       4.1       4.1     0.6       $872      $742     $130    1.2
     Icemakers                                $-        $95        $95        $44       $10         $33      4.2      0.0       0.2       0.2     0.0         $38      $12      $25    3.1
     Vending machines                        $1         $53        $55        $21        $3         $18      7.3      0.0       0.1       0.1     0.0         $17       $3      $14    5.0
     Commercial refrigeration               $40       $843       $883       $358        $77        $281      4.6      0.2       1.5       1.7     0.1       $297       $91     $206    3.3
     Incand lamps                             $-    $3,778     $3,778      $2,119       $67     $2,052      31.4      0.0      11.8      11.8     0.9      $2,119      $83 $2,036     25.5
     Ballasts & linear fluoros             $133     $2,932     $3,066      $1,532       $93      $1,439     16.5      0.8       7.8       8.6     0.6      $1,482     $115   $1,367   12.9
     WELS (WH)                               $2       $155       $157         $62         $-        $62      NA       0.0       0.2       0.3     0.0         $49       $0      $49    NA
     WELS (pumping)                          $4       $866       $870       $326          $-      $326       NA       0.1       2.4       2.5     0.3       $253        $0     $253    NA
     Motors                                $243     $2,801     $3,044      $1,399      $233      $1,166      6.0      2.0       9.0     10.9      0.5      $1,267     $285     $982    4.4
     Transformers                          $171     $4,468     $4,639      $1,804      $275      $1,530      6.6      2.1     13.9      15.9      1.4      $1,460     $332   $1,129    4.4
     Total Business Savings              $1,039    $26,700    $27,739    $12,239     $1,744    $10,495       7.0      7.9     66.3      74.2      6.0    $10,908    $2,155 $8,754      5.1

     All $ values are millions of 2008 dollars
     Table 6 Projected costs and benefits, Australia, E3 measures impacting residential natural gas use (7.5% discount rate)

                                     Undisc       Undisc     Total     Disc       Disc      Net      Benefit/             Mt CO2-e saved               Disc    Disc    Net    Benefit/
                                     saving       saving    saving    saving      cost     benefit     Cost                                           saving   cost   benefit  Cost
                                    2000-08      2009-40   2009-40   2009-40    2009-20   2009-20    2009-40    2000-08 2009-20   2000-20    In 2020 2009-24 2009-24 2009-24 2009-24

     Water heater MEPS                    $1       $782      $783      $326        $88      $239          2.7      0.0      1.4        1.4      0.2      $275      $104     $188     2.6
     Space Heater MEPS                     $-     $1,319    $1,319      $510       $75      $436          5.8      0.0      2.2       2.2       0.4      $413       $92     $338     4.5
     WELS (WH)                            $4       $523      $527      $220         $-      $220          NA       0.0      0.9       0.9        0.1     $185        $0     $185      NA
     Extra gas use - WH GEMS               $-    -$2,820   -$2,820    -$1,160       $-     -$1,160        NA       0.0     -4.8       -4.8      -0.8    -$972        $0    -$972      NA
     Total Gas Savings                    $5       -$197     -$192     -$104      $162      -$266        -0.6      0.0     -0.3       -0.3      0.0      -$99      $196     -$261    -0.5

     All $ values are millions of 2008 dollars

     Table 7 Projected costs and benefits, Australia, E3 Program as a whole (7.5% discount rate)

                                     Undisc       Undisc     Total     Disc       Disc      Net      Benefit/             Mt CO2-e saved                 Disc    Disc    Net    Benefit/
                                     saving       saving    saving    saving      cost     benefit     Cost                                             save     cost   benefit  Cost
                                    2000-08      2009-40   2009-40   2009-40    2009-20   2009-20    2009-40    2000-08 2009-20   2000-20    In 2020   2009-24 2009-24 2009-24 2009-24

     All Measures                    $4,221      $89,854   $94,075   $39,303    $9,585    $29,718         4.1     28.8    189.5     218.2      19.5    $34,039   $11,636   $22,437     2.9
     Ex WELS                          $4,212     $88,310   $92,522   $38,696    $9,585    $29,111        4.0      28.7    185.9     214.6      19.0    $33,551   $11,636   $21,949     2.9
     GEMS (Net)                            $-    $12,529   $12,529    $5,041    $3,001    $2,040          1.7      0.0     26.5      26.5       3.7     $4,171   $3,647      $524      1.1

     All $ values are millions of 2008 dollars
     Table 8 Projected costs and benefits by State and Territory (16 year accumulation period, 2009-2024)

                               Mt CO2-e avoided                 $M (0% discount rate)              $M (5% discount rate)             $M (7.5% discount rate)               $ (10% discount rate)
      Region             2009-20 2009-24                   Saving    Cost     Benefit   B/C   Saving    Cost     Benefit   B/C   Saving    Cost     Benefit    B/C   Saving     Cost      Benefit    B/C
     NSW        Res            47.5        75.7     5.5 $17,298      $6,508 $10,790     2.7   $10,790   $4,301    $6,488   2.5    $8,712   $3,580    $5,132    2.4    $ 7,131   $ 3,021    $ 4,111 2.4
                Other         20.9         23.2      2.1   $5,907    $1,129    $4,778   5.2    $3,810    $ 738    $3,072   5.2    $3,128    $ 612    $2,516    5.1    $ 2,603     $514    $ 2,089 5.1
                Total         68.4         98.9      7.6 $23,205     $7,637 $15,568     3.0   $14,600   $5,040    $9,560   2.9   $11,840   $4,191    $7,648    2.8    $ 9,734   $ 3,535    $ 6,199 2.8
     Vic        Res           23.4         33.5      2.1   $9,381    $3,337    $6,044   2.8   $5,834    $2,200    $3,633   2.7    $4,703   $1,829    $2,873    2.6    $ 3,843   $ 1,542    $ 2,301 2.5
                Other         16.0         18.5      1.1    $4,915    $ 930    $3,984   5.3    $3,161    $ 608    $2,553   5.2    $2,591    $ 503    $2,088    5.1    $ 2,153     $423     $ 1,730   5.1
                Total         39.4         52.0      3.1 $14,295     $4,267 $10,029     3.4   $8,994    $2,808    $6,186   3.2    $7,294   $2,333    $4,961    3.1    $ 5,996   $ 1,965    $ 4,031   3.1
     Qld        Res            31.2        50.7     3.6    $9,540    $3,929    $5,611   2.4   $5,949    $2,587    $3,362   2.3    $4,803   $2,149    $2,654    2.2    $ 3,931   $ 1,811    $ 2,120 2.2
                Other         16.8         18.5      1.7   $4,826     $ 950    $3,876   5.1   $3,084     $ 616    $2,468   5.0    $2,520    $ 508    $2,012    5.0    $ 2,087     $425     $ 1,662 4.9
                Total          47.9        69.2     5.3 $14,367      $4,879    $9,487   2.9   $9,033    $3,202    $5,830   2.8    $7,323   $2,657    $4,666    2.8    $ 6,018   $ 2,236   $ 3,782 2.7
     SA         Res             6.4         8.4     0.5    $3,941    $1,181    $2,760   3.3   $2,470     $ 777    $1,693   3.2    $1,999    $ 645    $1,354    3.1    $ 1,641     $543     $ 1,098 3.0
                Other           2.8         3.3      0.1    $1,347    $ 243    $1,104   5.5     $ 872    $ 159     $ 712   5.5     $ 717    $ 132     $ 585    5.4      $598      $111       $486 5.4
                Total           9.2        11.7     0.6    $5,288    $1,424    $3,864   3.7    $3,341    $ 936    $2,405   3.6    $2,716    $ 777    $1,939    3.5    $ 2,239     $654     $ 1,584 3.4
     WA         Res             9.6        16.3      1.1    $3,418   $1,356    $2,062   2.5    $2,135    $ 892    $1,243   2.4    $1,725    $ 741     $ 984    2.3    $ 1,413     $624       $789 2.3
                Other           6.8          7.4    0.7    $2,097     $ 439    $1,659   4.8    $1,340    $ 285    $1,055   4.7    $1,095    $ 235     $ 860    4.7      $907      $197       $710 4.6
                Total         16.4         23.7      1.8    $5,516   $1,795    $3,721   3.1   $3,475    $1,177    $2,298   3.0   $2,820     $ 976    $1,844    2.9    $ 2,321     $821     $ 1,499 2.8
     Tas        Res             1.9         3.2     0.3     $1,321    $ 555     $ 766   2.4     $ 822    $ 366     $ 455   2.2     $ 662    $ 304     $ 358    2.2      $541      $257       $285    2.1
                Other           0.3         0.4     0.0     $ 622     $ 133     $ 489   4.7     $ 405     $88      $ 317   4.6     $ 334     $73      $ 261    4.6      $280       $62       $218 4.5
                Total           2.3         3.5     0.3     $1,943    $ 688    $1,255   2.8    $1,227    $ 454     $ 773   2.7     $ 997    $ 378     $ 619    2.6      $821      $319       $502 2.6
     NT         Res             1.1         2.0      0.1     $ 416    $ 162     $ 254   2.6     $ 261    $ 107     $ 154   2.4     $ 211     $89      $ 122    2.4      $173       $76        $98 2.3
                Other           1.2          1.3     0.1    $ 437      $76      $ 360   5.7     $ 281     $50      $ 232   5.7     $ 231     $41      $ 190    5.6      $192       $35       $158 5.5
                Total           2.3         3.3     0.3     $ 852     $ 238     $ 615   3.6     $ 542    $ 157     $ 385   3.5     $ 442    $ 131     $ 312    3.4      $366      $110       $255 3.3
     ACT        Res             2.1         3.6     0.3      $ 631    $ 261     $ 370   2.4     $ 392    $ 172     $ 219   2.3     $ 316    $ 144     $ 172    2.2      $258      $121       $137    2.1
                Other           1.6          1.7    0.2     $ 552      $93      $ 459   5.9     $ 356     $60      $ 295   5.9     $ 292     $50      $ 242    5.8      $242       $42       $201 5.8
                Total           3.6         5.3     0.4     $1,183    $ 354     $ 829   3.3     $ 747    $ 233     $ 514   3.2     $ 607    $ 194     $ 414    3.1      $500      $163       $337    3.1
     Aust       Res          123.2        193.4     13.6 $45,946 $17,289 $28,657        2.7   $28,651 $11,404 $17,247      2.5   $23,131   $9,481 $13,649      2.4   $ 18,933   $ 7,994 $ 10,938 2.4
                Other         66.3         74.2     6.0 $20,703      $3,992 $16,710     5.2   $13,309   $2,604 $10,706     5.1   $10,908   $2,155    $8,754    5.1    $ 9,062   $ 1,810    $ 7,252 5.0
                Total        189.5        267.6     19.5 $66,649 $21,281 $45,367        3.1   $41,960 $14,007 $27,953      3.0   $34,039 $11,636 $22,403       2.9   $ 27,994   $9,804    $ 18,191 2.9

     All $ values are millions of 2008 dollars
General References
GWA (2000) National Appliance and Equipment Energy
Efficiency Program: Combined Impacts, George
Wilkenfeld & Associates, for Australian Greenhouse
Office, March 2000

2003/02 National Appliance and Equipment Energy
Efficiency Program: Projected Impacts 2000-2020
(When you can measure it, you know something about
it!), June 2003

2005/05 National Appliance and Equipment Energy
Efficiency Program: Projected Impacts 2005-2020
(When you keep measuring it, you know even more
about it!), April 2005

2005/19 Guide to preparing Regulation Impact
Statements for the National Appliance and Equipment
Energy Efficiency Program (NAEEEP), May 2005

2008/03 Equipment Energy Efficiency Program:
Achievements 2007, September 2008 http://

DCC (2008) Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green
Paper, Department of Climate Change, July 2008

EES (2008) Energy use in the Australian Residential
Sector, 1986-2020, Energy Efficient Strategies for
DEWHA, June 2008

ESAA (2008) The impact of an ETS on the energy supply
industry: Modelling the impacts of an emissions trading
scheme on the NEM and SWIS, ACIL Tasman for
Energy Supply Association of Australia, July 2008

GCCR (2008) Targets and Trajectories: Supplementary
Draft Report, Garnaut Climate Change Review,
September 2008

Product and Program Specific                              Lighting
References                                                2008/08 RIS Consultation draft: Proposal to phase-out
                                                          inefficient incandescent light bulbs, September 2008
Refrigerators and Freezers                      
GWA (2001b) Draft for Public Comment: Regulatory
Impact Statement: Revised minimum energy
performance standards for household refrigerators and     Electricity Distribution Transformers
freezers, George Wilkenfeld and Associates with Energy    2007/17 Distribution Transformers: Proposal to
Efficient Strategies, for Australian Greenhouse Office,   Increase MEPS Levels Final Report, October 2007
October 2001

2006/14 Retrospective Analysis of the Impacts of          Commercial Refrigeration, Icemakers &
Energy Labelling and MEPS: Refrigerators and Freezers,    Storage bins
EnergyConsult Pty Ltd, for Australian Greenhouse Office
                                                          2004/01 Regulatory Impact Statement: Minimum
Equipment Energy Efficiency Program, October 2006
                                                          Energy Performance Standards and Alternative       Strategies for Commercial Refrigeration Cabinets,
meps-rf-fz.pdf                                            February 2004
2008/04 Proposed revisions to the method of test and
energy labelling algorithms for household refrigerators
and freezers, June 2008
                                                          2004/10 Minimum Energy Performance Standards: Ice       makers & storage bins, October 2004
Other large appliances
                                                          2008/10 Minimum Energy Performance Standards and
2006/05 Proposal to include standby power in the          Alternative Strategies for Refrigerated Beverage Vending
energy ratings of clothes washers & dishwashers:          Machines, September 2008
Regulatory Impact Statement, May 2006

                                                          Electric Motors
Air Conditioning equipment
                                                          2003/11 Minimum Energy Performance Standards
2007/16 Consultation RIS: Minimum energy                  for Electric Motors: Regulatory Impact Statement,
performance standards and alternative strategies for      December 2003
chillers, December 2007

EnergyConsult (2008) Draft Consultation RIS: Minimum      Electric water heaters
energy performance standards and alternative
                                                          2003/09 Revised Regulatory Impact Statement:
strategies for chillers, June 2008
                                                          Revised Minimum Energy Performance Standards and
2008/09 RIS consultation draft: Revision to the Energy    Alternative Strategies for Small Electric Storage Water
Labelling Algorithms and Revised MEPS levels and          Heaters, August 2003
Other Requirements for Air Conditioners, September
2008                                                      riswaterheaters.pdf

Standby                                                  External Power Supplies      Latest data source:
Australia’s Standby Power Strategy 2002-2012
                                                         (Punchline Energy Feb 2007)
Televisions                                              (Punchline Energy Dec 2007)
factsheet-tv.pdf                                         factsheet-eps.pdf
meps-labelling.pdf                                       Set Top Boxes
                                                         Latest data source:
Water dispensers                               
Previous data source:                                    cost-benefit-analysis-stb.pdf      (EnergyConsult April 2007)
(MEA Oct 2004)                                           ris-stbs.pdf
                                                         (EnergyConsult October 2007)
Swimming Pool Equipment      Computers & Monitors
mepspools.pdf                                            2007/12 Analysis of the Potential for Minimum Energy
                                                         Performance Standards for Computers and Monitors,
gas Products                                             September 2007
2008/07 RIS Consultation Draft: Proposal to introducer
a Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Gas           computers-monitors.pdf
Water Heaters, August 2008
                                                         Computers and Monitors: the case for Minimum Energy
                                                         Performance Standards; E3 Fact Sheet October 2007

Table 9 Work Plan 2008-11: Summary of equipment types and program elements covered, compared
        with 2005 Impacts Study

                                                                             Original target
Program                                                                                           Changes in      Changes in
        Products covered                        Measure                         dates for
number                                                                                         2008-11 Work Plan 2020 savings
   1    Refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, Mandatory appliance                 1986          Refs regrading 2009 Small increase
        single phase air conditioners, clothes labelling and revised       1999 (revised label) ACs regrading 2009
        washers, clothes dryers                labelling
        Refrigerators, freezers, electric       Initial MEPS                     1999
        storage water heaters
   2    Refrigerators, freezers                 Revision of MEPS levels       2005; 2006              2011             Unchanged
   3    Single phase air conditioners           Initial MEPS;          2004, 2006, 2007          Delayed to 2009        Reduced
                                                Accelerated & Enhanced
   4    Packaged (3 phase) air conditioners     Initial MEPS                     2001                                  Unchanged
   5    Packaged (3 phase) air conditioners     Revision of MEPS levels          2007                 2010              Reduced
   6    Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts               Initial MEPS                     2003                                  Unchanged
   7    Linear fluorescent lamps                Initial MEPS (efficacy           2007                                  Unchanged
   8    Electricity Distribution Transformers   Initial MEPS                  2004, 2010                               Unchanged
   9    Commercial refrigeration, icemakers     Initial MEPS                  2004, 2006         Delayed to 2010      Small increase
        and storage bins
  10    Small electric storage water heaters    Revision of MEPS levels,         2005                                  Unchanged
                                                with LE/HE labelling
  11    Electric motors                         Initial MEPS                     2001                                  Unchanged
  12    Electric motors                         Revision of MEPS levels          2006                                  Unchanged
  13    Large electric storage water heaters    Revision of MEPS levels          2005              Abandoned          Reduced to 0
  14    Miscellaneous electric water heaters    Initial MEPS                     2005                                  Unchanged
  15    Standby                                 One Watt program for             2004                 2010             Unchanged
                                                standby consumption
  16    All lamps, lighting transformers,       ‘Greenlights’ measures           2005                                  Unchanged
  17    Televisions – On-mode                   MEPS and labelling               2006            Delayed to 2009        Increased
  18    Water dispensers                        HE labelling                     2007            Delayed to 2010        Reduced
  19    Chillers                                MEPS                             2007          Delayed to July 2009     Reduced
  20    Close Control Air Conditioners          MEPS                             2007          Delayed to July 2009     Reduced
  21    Heating mode of ACs - household         Information and MEPS             2006                                   Reduced?
  22    Heating mode of PACs - business         Information and MEPS             2006                                   Reduced?
  23    Swimming pool equipment                 Information and MEPS             2006            Delayed to 2009        Reduced
  24    Gas Water Heaters (GAEEEP)              MEPS and labelling               2005            Delayed to 2009        Reduced
  25    Gas Space Heaters (GAEEEP)              MEPS and labelling               2005            Delayed to 2009        Reduced
  26    Gas savings from water efficiency       Energy impact of water           2005           Additional savings    Small increase
        labelling                               efficiency labelling

                                                                     Original target
 Program                                                                                  Changes in      Changes in
         Products covered                  Measure                      dates for
 number                                                                                2008-11 Work Plan 2020 savings
     27   Electricity savings from water   Energy impact of water        2005           Additional savings   Small increase
          efficiency labelling             efficiency labelling
     28   External power supplier          MEPS and labelling            2008           1 December 2008        Additional
     29   Set Top Boxes                    MEPS and labelling            2009           1 December 2008        Additional
     30   Computers & monitors             MEPS and labelling            2010             October 2010         Additional
     31   Additional GAEEEP coverage       MEPS and labelling            2010                                  Additional
     32   Greenhouse Standards for Water   MEPS                          2010                                  Additional


To top