Energy Efficiency

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 49–63 | Cite as

Breaking down the silos: the integration of energy efficiency, renewable energy, demand response and climate change

Article

Abstract

This paper explores the feasibility of integrating energy efficiency program evaluation with the emerging need for the evaluation of programs from different “energy cultures” (demand response, renewable energy, and climate change). The paper reviews key features and information needs of the energy cultures and critically reviews the opportunities and challenges associated with integrating these with energy efficiency program evaluation. There is a need to integrate the different policy arenas where energy efficiency, demand response, and climate change programs are developed, and there are positive signs that this integration is starting to occur.

Keywords

Integration Energy efficiency Demand response Renewable energy Climate change Evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I want to thank the following people for providing comments on the ideas contained in this paper: Nick Hall, Jan Hamrin, Ken Keating, Bruce Mast, Rob Rubin, Steve Schiller, Elizabeth Titus, Dan Violette, and Carol White. I also appreciate the review comments provided by the three anonymous reviewers for the earlier version of this journal article.

References

  1. Anderson, R., Hammon, R., & Keesee, M. (2007). Maximizing the benefits of zero-energy homes. Home Energy (Solar & Efficiency Special Issue), 42–47.Google Scholar
  2. Barros, C. & Segerstrom, C. (2007). The California solar initiative. Home energy (Solar & Efficiency Special Issue), 6–8.Google Scholar
  3. California Independent System Operator [CAISO] (2007). 2007 Summer loads and resources operations assessment. Folsom, CA: CAISO.Google Scholar
  4. California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC] (2006). California energy efficiency evaluation protocols: Technical, methodological and reporting requirements for evaluation professionals. San Francisco, CA: California Public Utilities Commission.Google Scholar
  5. California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC] (2007a). Order instituting rulemaking, Rulemaking 07-01-041, Jan. 25, 2007. San Francisco, CA: California Public Utilities Commission.Google Scholar
  6. California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC] (2007b). Order approving pilot water conservation programs within the energy utilities’ energy efficiency programs, Decision 07-12-050, December 20, 2007. San Francisco, CA: California Public Utilities Commission.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, C., Wiser, R., & Bolinger, M. (2007). Weighing the costs and benefits of state renewables portfolio standards: A comparative analysis of state-level policy impact projections, LBNL-61580. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  8. Clean Development Mechanism, Executive Board [CDM] (2004). Sixteenth Meeting (Oct. 21, 2004) Report. CDM-EB-16. Retrieved from cdm.unfccc.int/index.html.
  9. Dowd, J., Jordan, G., Reed, J., & Vine, E. (2005). Are federal energy technology programs assessing the ‘Magic in the Middle’? Proceedings of the 2005 International Energy Program Evaluation Conference, Brooklyn, NY: International Energy Program Evaluation Conference.Google Scholar
  10. Geller, H. (2006). Catching up: Progress with utility energy efficiency programs in the Southwest. Proceedings of the 2006 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.Google Scholar
  11. Gregoire, C., Meissner, J., Gonzales, Pl., & Engel, V. (2007). New evaluation framework: Turning the silo on its side. Proceedings of the 2007 International Energy Program Evaluation Conference. Brooklyn, NY: International Energy Program Evaluation Conference.Google Scholar
  12. Holt, E., Wiser, R., & Bolinger, M. (2006). Who owns renewable energy certificates? An exploration of policy options and practice. Report LBNL-59965. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  13. Hopper, N., Goldman, C., & Schlegel, J. (2006). Energy efficiency in western utility resource plans: Impacts on regional resource assessment and support for WGA policies. Report LBNL-58271. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  14. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis, summary for policymakers. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
  15. International Energy Agency, Implementing Agreement on Demand-Side Management Technologies and Programmes [IEA] (2005). Evaluating energy efficiency policy measures & DSM programmes, Vol. 1, evaluation guidebook. Paris: International Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  16. ISO New England, Inc. [ISO-NE] (2007). Manual for measurement and verification of demand reduction value from demand resources. Holyoke, MA: ISO New England.Google Scholar
  17. Keating, K. (2007). What is the purpose of net savings? A northwest perspective. Paper presented at the 17th National Energy Services Conference, Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
  18. Kushler, M., York, D., & Vine, E. (2005). Energy-efficiency measures alleviate T&D constraints. Transmission and Distribution World, 57(4), 32–41.Google Scholar
  19. Michals, J., & Titus, E. (2006). The need for and approaches to developing common protocols to measure, track, and report energy efficiency savings in the Northeast. Proceedings of the 2006 ACEEE Summer Study, pp. 8–179 to 8–190. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.Google Scholar
  20. National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency[NAPEE] (2007). Model energy efficiency program impact evaluation guide. Piedmont, CA: Schiller Consulting, Inc (Prepared by Steven R. Schiller).Google Scholar
  21. National Commission on Energy Policy (2004). Ending the energy stalemate: A bipartisan strategy to meet America’s energy challenges. Washington, DC: National Commission on Energy Policy.Google Scholar
  22. Northwest Power and Conservation Council [NPPC] (2005). The Fifth Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Plan. Portland, OR: Northwest Power and Conservation Council.Google Scholar
  23. Northwest Power and Conservation Council [NPPC] (2007). Issues for the Sixth Pacific Northwest Power and Conservation Plan. Portland, OR: Northwest Power and Conservation Council.Google Scholar
  24. Pacala, S., & Socolow, R. (2004). Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science, 305, 968–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pew Center on Global Climate Change (2004). The 10–50 solution: Technologies and policies for a low-carbon future. Washington, DC: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.Google Scholar
  26. PIER Demand Response Research Center [PIER DRRC] (2007). Research opportunity notice DRRC RON-03: Understanding customer behavior to improve demand response delivery in California. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  27. Prindle, B., Eldridge, M., Eckhardt, M., & Frederick, A. (2007). The twin pillars of sustainable energy: Synergies between energy efficiency and renewable energy technology and policy. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.Google Scholar
  28. Reed, J., Jordan, G., & Vine, E. (2007). Impact evaluation framework for technology deployment programs. Washington, DC: US Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  29. Summit Blue Consulting, LLC & Quantum Consulting, Inc. (2006). Draft Version 1: Protocols for Estimating the Load Impacts from DR Programs. Prepared for Working Group 2 Measurement and Evaluation Committee, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (2007). Creating an energy efficiency and renewable energy set-aside in the NOx budget trading program: Evaluation, measurement, and verification of electricity savings for determining emission reductions from energy efficiency and renewable energy actions. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  31. Vang, S., & Hammon, R. (2007). Energy efficiency and solar electricity go hand in hand. Home Energy (Solar & Efficiency Special Issue), 30–35.Google Scholar
  32. Vine, E. (2003). Opportunities for promoting energy efficiency in buildings as an air quality compliance approach. Energy, 28(4), 319–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vine, E. (2007). Closing the loop between evaluators and implementers & innovation and experimental design. Presented at the Behavior, Energy, and Climate Change Conference, sponsored by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, the California Institute for Energy and Environment, and the Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency, Sacramento, CA, November 9, 2007.Google Scholar
  34. Vine, E., Kats, G., Sathaye, J., & Joshi, H. (2003). International greenhouse gas trading programs: A discussion of measurement and accounting issues. Energy Policy, 31(3), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vine, E., Kushler, M., & York, D. (2007). Energy myth ten - energy efficiency measures are unreliable, unpredictable, and unenforceable. In B. K. Sovacool & M. A. Brown (Eds.), Energy and American society – thirteen myths. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Vine, E., & Sathaye, J. (1999). An overview of guidelines and issues for the monitoring, evaluation, verification, and certification of energy-efficiency projects for climate change mitigation. LBNL-43083. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Violette, D., & Hungerford, D. (2007). Development of California protocols for estimating the load impacts from DR Programs and cost-effectiveness methods, Proceedings of the 2007 International Energy Program Evaluation Conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  38. Western Governors’ Association [WGA] (2004). WGA Policy Resolution 04–14: Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative for the West, June 22, 2004. Santa Fe, NM: Western Governors’ Association.Google Scholar
  39. World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development [WRI & WBCSD] (2005). GHG protocol for project accounting. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  40. York, D., Kushler, M., & Witte, P. (2007). Examining the peak demand impacts of energy efficiency: A review of program experience and industry practices. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Energy Technologies DivisionLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations