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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Energy efficiency is increasingly being interconnected (coordinated and integrated) with other areas that are not covered in this paper, for example, water efficiency, distributed generation, green buildings, LEED buildings, and sustainable communities.
Resource plans encompass integrated resource plans, default supply plans, long-term procurement plans, least-cost resource plans, and electric supply plans.
The other utilities projected a more moderate role for energy-efficiency programs: e.g., four other utilities expected energy efficiency programs to offset 30 to 50% of forecasted load growth. And for three utilities, energy-efficiency programs proposed in the resource plans were expected to play a very minor role (0% to 7% of projected load growth).
Other states (Illinois and Vermont) have established voluntary standards, whereas still others are considering enacting obligatory RPS policies. A RPS policy has also been considered (but not adopted) by the US Congress.
The Kyoto Protocol includes two project-based mechanisms for activities across countries. Article 6 of the Protocol allows for joint implementation (JI) projects between developed (Annex I) countries: i.e., project-level trading of emissions reductions can occur among countries with GHG emission reduction commitments under the Protocol. Article 12 of the Protocol provides for a CDM that allows legal entities in the developed world to enter into cooperative projects to reduce emissions in the developing world for the benefit of both parties. Developed countries will be able to use certified emissions reductions from project activities in developing countries to contribute to their compliance with GHG targets. The Kyoto Protocol also provides for an emissions trading (ET) scheme (Article 17). The CDM rules are the most advanced of the three provisions, as the design of JI and ET is still being developed.
In energy efficiency projects, it is possible that the reductions in energy use are undertaken by participants who would have installed the same measures if there had been no project. These participants are called “free riders.” The savings associated with free riders are not truly “additional” to what would occur otherwise.
A protocol has been developed for evaluating renewable energy as part of the IPMVP (see below), the California Public Utilities Commission is in the process of developing an evaluation protocol for demand response, ISO New England has developed a manual for the evaluation of demand response programs (ISO-NE 2007), and a protocol is being developed for the evaluation of climate change mitigation programs (USEPA 2007).
Earlier versions of the IPMVP were sponsored by the US Department of Energy. The Efficiency Valuation Organization (EVO) is now responsible for maintaining and updating the IPMVP (www.evo-world.org).
Stipulated data may be taken from engineering energy savings analyses, efficiency program work-papers, secondary research, engineering references, manufacturers’ catalog data, and/or on-site survey data.
Another example is determining avoided cost-related issues across multiple proceedings, where methods and inputs for specific applications of avoided costs need to be consistently applied.
Although not discussed in this paper, another area receiving increased regulatory attention is the inclusion of “embedded energy savings” from water efficiency projects (by conserving water, using less energy-intensive water, or making current delivery and treatment systems more efficient) in utility EE programs and goals. As a result of a recent decision by the California Public Utilities Commission, California IOUs are planning pilot projects to explore the potential for future programs to capture water-related embedded energy savings (CPUC 2007b).
Some states (like California) have externality values reflecting environmental attributes that are used for resource procurement decisions. This currently does not include the monetary value of carbon reductions or credits.
Twenty states have established public benefit funds to pay for public benefit programs; see aceee.org/energy/pbf.htm.
References
Anderson, R., Hammon, R., & Keesee, M. (2007). Maximizing the benefits of zero-energy homes. Home Energy (Solar & Efficiency Special Issue), 42–47.
Barros, C. & Segerstrom, C. (2007). The California solar initiative. Home energy (Solar & Efficiency Special Issue), 6–8.
California Independent System Operator [CAISO] (2007). 2007 Summer loads and resources operations assessment. Folsom, CA: CAISO.
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.
California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC] (2007a). Order instituting rulemaking, Rulemaking 07-01-041, Jan. 25, 2007. San Francisco, CA: California Public Utilities Commission.
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.
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.
Clean Development Mechanism, Executive Board [CDM] (2004). Sixteenth Meeting (Oct. 21, 2004) Report. CDM-EB-16. Retrieved from cdm.unfccc.int/index.html.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis, summary for policymakers. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
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.
ISO New England, Inc. [ISO-NE] (2007). Manual for measurement and verification of demand reduction value from demand resources. Holyoke, MA: ISO New England.
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.
Kushler, M., York, D., & Vine, E. (2005). Energy-efficiency measures alleviate T&D constraints. Transmission and Distribution World, 57(4), 32–41.
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.
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).
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.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council [NPPC] (2005). The Fifth Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Plan. Portland, OR: Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council [NPPC] (2007). Issues for the Sixth Pacific Northwest Power and Conservation Plan. Portland, OR: Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
Pacala, S., & Socolow, R. (2004). Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science, 305, 968–972.
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.
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.
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.
Reed, J., Jordan, G., & Vine, E. (2007). Impact evaluation framework for technology deployment programs. Washington, DC: US Department of Energy.
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.
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.
Vang, S., & Hammon, R. (2007). Energy efficiency and solar electricity go hand in hand. Home Energy (Solar & Efficiency Special Issue), 30–35.
Vine, E. (2003). Opportunities for promoting energy efficiency in buildings as an air quality compliance approach. Energy, 28(4), 319–341.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development [WRI & WBCSD] (2005). GHG protocol for project accounting. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vine, E. Breaking down the silos: the integration of energy efficiency, renewable energy, demand response and climate change. Energy Efficiency 1, 49–63 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-008-9004-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-008-9004-z