ETP 2012 data visualisationHow will the overall energy system evolve from now to 2050?
For the first time, the IEA releases interactive data and figures to highlight potential scenarios
This three-part interactive visualisation relies on the data and figures behind Energy Technology Perspectives 2012, the IEA’s flagship publication on energy technologies.
The infographics illustrate how the overall energy system will evolve from now to 2050.
- The Emissions Reduction visualisation allows you to quickly and easily see what impact countries, technologies and sectors may have on carbon dioxide emissions in the decades to come.
- The Energy Flows visualisation focuses on the transport, industry and buildings sectors, highlighting the different fuels (from oil to biofuels), sectors (from petrochemicals to residential) and end uses (from water heating to lighting) that will be affected in the years ahead.
- The transport visualisation lets you compare selected indicators – from annual roadway travel to roadway length – across countries and regions.
All three visualisations use the latest data from ETP 2012.
Scenarios
The 6°C Scenario (6DS) is largely an extension of current trends. By 2050, energy use almost doubles (compared with 2009) and total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions rise even more. In the absence of efforts to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of GHGs, average global temperature rise is projected to be at least 6°C in the long term.
The 4°C Scenario (4DS) takes into account recent pledges made by countries to limit emissions and step up efforts to improve energy efficiency. It serves as the primary benchmark in ETP 2012 when comparisons are made between scenarios. Projecting a long-term temperature rise of 4°C, the 4DS is already an ambitious scenario that requires significant changes in policy and technologies. Moreover, capping the temperature increase at 4°C requires significant additional cuts in emissions in the period after 2050.
The 2°C Scenario (2DS) is the focus of ETP 2012. The 2DS describes an energy system consistent with an emissions trajectory that recent climate science research indicates would give an 80% chance of limiting average global temperature increase to 2°C. It sets the target of cutting energy-related CO2 emissions by more than half in 2050 (compared with 2009) and ensuring that they continue to fall thereafter. Importantly, the 2DS acknowledges that transforming the energy sector is vital, but not the sole solution: the goal can only be achieved provided that CO2 and GHG emissions in non-energy sectors are also reduced.
11 June 2012
A host of new technologies is ready to transform the energy system, offering the potential to drastically reduce carbon emissions, enhance energy security and generate a huge investment return, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its flagship energy technology publication launched today.
The book, Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 (ETP 2012), explains how to enable and encourage technologies and behaviours that together will revolutionise the entire energy system and unlock tremendous economic benefits between now and 2050.
ETP 2012 builds on the IEA’s Tracking Clean Energy Progress report, issued in April, which said that despite some recent progress in deploying renewable energy, most clean energy technologies are not on track to make their required contribution to reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and thereby provide a more secure energy system.
“While our efforts to bring about a clean energy transformation are falling further behind, I want to stress the golden opportunity before us: If significant policy action is taken, we can still achieve the huge potential for these technologies to reduce CO2 emissions and boost energy security,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven.
“Now that we have identified the solution and the host of related benefits, and with the window of opportunity closing fast, when will governments wake up to the dangers of complacency and adopt the bold policies that radically transform our energy system? To do anything less is to deny our societies the welfare they deserve,” she said.
The technological revolution will not be cheap, but the long-term benefits far outweigh the costs. ETP 2012 presents an investment plan that more than pays for itself through fuel savings by 2025. And the savings would triple by 2050: An additional USD 36 trillion of investment would be required to overhaul the world’s current energy system by the middle of the century, but this would be offset by USD 100 trillion in savings through reduced use of fossil fuels.
ETP 2012 presents a 2°C Scenario, which lists the energy technology choices that can ensure an 80% chance of limiting long-term global temperature increase to 2°C. The plan leads to a sustainable energy system featuring diverse sources, low-carbon electricity and an expanded infrastructure. The system would be smarter, more unified and more integrated than today’s, and ETP 2012 assesses the increasingly sophisticated low-carbon technologies that get the most out of energy options, showing how the world can effectively and efficiently adopt solutions ranging from energy storage to flexible generation.
Improved energy efficiency offers the greatest potential for boosting energy security and reduced carbon emissions, and ETP 2012 includes a variety of technological and policy options that would cut the global economy’s per-unit use of energy by two-thirds before 2050.
Fossil fuels would not disappear, but their roles would change. ETP 2012 explains how higher steam temperatures can cut coal-fired power plants’ emissions by 30% even as natural gas increasingly complements so-called variable renewable sources (primarily wind and solar), providing the flexibility that energy systems would need to balance generation and demand fluctuations. The book makes clear that low-carbon fuels and technologies depend on immediate infrastructure change to build in the flexibility the new approaches require.
Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 is now on sale and may be ordered from IEA Bookshop. Please send a request by email to books@iea.org, or order at the following link: http://www.iea.org/publications/bookshop.
For the first time, the IEA is making available on its website the data used to create ETP, along with interactive features that allow users to visualise the data. To learn more, please visit http://www.iea.org/etp
Journalists who would like to speak with one of the report’s authors, or who would like to receive a review copy of the report, are invited to send a request by e-mail to IEAPressOffice@iea.org.
About the IEA
The International Energy Agency (IEA) is an autonomous organisation which works to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 28 member countries and beyond. Founded in response to the 1973/4 oil crisis, the IEA’s initial role was to help countries co-ordinate a collective response to major disruptions in oil supply through the release of emergency oil stocks to the markets. While this continues to be a key aspect of its work, the IEA has evolved and expanded. It is at the heart of global dialogue on energy, providing reliable and unbiased research, statistics, analysis and recommendations.
Visit us on the Web at:
http://www.iea.org/audiencehubs/formedia
Click on link above... ignore junk below
* required information
Rate this page
Please type your name
Your name *Please enter a valid email address Please type your email address
Your email *Website
Please type your comments
Your comments * Your commentssend
Ending the Inertia on Energy Policy
JANE C. S. LONG
A Blind Man’s Guide to Energy Policy
The broad vision needed to transform the energy system will develop only when narrowly focused constituencies learn to see through the eyes of others.
The United States has seemingly reached a consensus that energy is a serious problem. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the solution. Three major constituencies are dominating discussion of the problem, and each approaches the issue from a different viewpoint. The constituency that is worried about climate change sees profligate use of fossil fuel that has dramatically changed our atmosphere. The energy security group sees dangerous reliance on foreign oil held by countries hostile to the United States. The economic vitality group sees high energy prices and market volatility threatening the economy and the U.S. standard of living. These three are certainly not the only constituencies, but they are the three that define the public interest aspects of the current policy debate in the United States, and more important, they are each pushing an agenda that does not mesh with that of the others.
Like the proverbial blind men describing an elephant, the three major constituencies participating in the energy debate have vastly different perceptions of the problem. And just as with the blind men, although each perspective is accurate as far as it goes, it is only by merging the views together that one achieves a complete and useful understanding of the energy problem. We must begin by reviewing the details of the three perspectives.
Environmentalists focus on the scientific consensus that greenhouse gases are contributing to rapid climate change with potentially catastrophic consequences. The recently released International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report concludes with 90% certainty that global warming is influenced by anthropogenic activity. Many individual scientists assert that the magnitude of predicted climate changes presented by IPCC is scientifically conservative. Some suggest recent data show that CO2 emissions are rising faster than forecast; other research suggests that temperature change is more sensitive to CO2 emissions than assumed; still others say impacts (e.g. Arctic ice) are more dramatic per degree change than thought. These scientists and their supporters see evidence of impending catastrophes in decreasing water supply, extreme weather, sea level rise, disease-vector migration, ecosystem failure, agricultural declines, air quality degradation, increased wild fires, and a host of other undesirable impacts. This group believes that the world cannot afford to gamble that these predictions are wrong because the consequences of them being right are potentially devastating. Because CO2 is largely cumulative in the atmosphere, early action to reduce emissions will be much more effective than any future measures. This group perceives a desperate need to act this decade in order to avoid what could be a completely unmanageable situation in the future.
It is important to realize that finding solutions that work for two of these three viewpoints can lead to solving the problems of the third.
To this constituency, climate is first and foremost an ethical and moral issue that transcends short-term economic concerns. They speak of intergenerational equity and the need for physical limits on emissions. Choices that shrink humanity’s CO2 footprint are favored. Many in this group think the problem can be solved with efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy. This constituency encourages all people to make changes in their daily activities to move toward a more sustainable lifestyle. They are willing to accept a decline in the standard of living in the wealthy countries in order to obtain a more environmentally sound world.
The energy security constituency is concerned primarily with the geopolitics of oil and the nearly exclusive use of this fuel for transportation. They see the geopolitics of oil becoming increasingly dire and conflicts in the Middle East being driven by demand for oil. They quip that the Iraq war is the first war in which the United States is paying for both sides because it is the dollars used to pay for Middle East oil that is being to support Islamic fundamentalism. In lighter moments, they ask, “How did our oil get under their sand?” They see oil and gas being used by Russia to exert political power over Europe. They are concerned that Venezuela, which is governed by U.S. critic Hugo Chavez, controls 15% of U.S. oil imports. They see the vulnerability created by having 25% of the world’s oil pass through the Straits of Hormuz. In Africa, they note that conflicts in Nigeria over oil wealth and corruption have disrupted oil supplies. They worry that countries such as China are unwilling to join political action against oil-supplier countries such as Sudan, or worse, nuturing the next Sudan in Chad. They do not want to see the U.S. way of life threatened by countries and factions that are difficult or impossible for us to control.
This security constituency favors ending U.S. vulnerability by ending its “addiction to foreign oil.” This group thinks that there is no domestic source of energy that is bad; their mantra is “energy independence.” They favor rapid increase in domestic corn-based ethanol production, regardless of the consequences for food prices or the farm environment. They oppose importing ethanol from Brazil because it might discourage domestic production. They propose the production of liquid fuel from coal, a very expensive process that produces a fuel that has twice the carbon footprint per unit of energy as does oil. For example, coal interests have proposed legislation in the House that would provide federal financial support to coal-to-liquids manufacturers if the price of oil falls below $40/bbl. They want to expand domestic oil supplies even if this holds no promise for long-term security. They see clear and present danger in world conflict and wish to insulate the United States from this problem. They may even argue that these “expensive” initiatives are cheap in an opportunity cost sense when the real alternative is a defense budget that must pay for Iraq in all its dimensions.
The economic vitality group sees high prices for energy potentially strangling the economy and worries about interference in the market that would make prices even higher. They observe increasing international demand for oil occurring simultaneously with a peaking supply of light sweet crude. They see that higher prices drive new technology and increased production of oil, but this oil is heavier and more expensive to produce and refine. They worry that global demand will increase faster than supply, driving prices higher. With China, a country with little domestic oil, adding more than 200,000 cars per month to its roads, demand for imported oil will rise quickly and so will prices. The economic contingent also worries about disruptions to supply resulting from refinery fires, pipeline leaks, hurricanes, or terrorism. They worry that environmentally motivated standards such as renewable energy portfolio standards will decrease options and increase the cost of energy. They note that the spike in oil prices after Hurricane Katrina was alleviated by lowering environmental standards for gasoline and that California’s extremely rigorous environmental standards for gasoline create scarcities that are a major factor in driving up record prices at the pump.
This constituency wants expanded capacity and favors investing in more oil production, reservoirs, pipelines, and refineries. They would like to drill the North Slope in Alaska for oil and open more federal lands to exploration. They believe that the market should and will control the energy system, but they support federal incentives to investment in new energy supplies. They favor importing ethanol from Brazil without tariffs because this will lower the price. They are afraid of carbon caps because of possible economic side effects. The face-off between Representatives Nancy Pelosi and John Dingell over the proposed schedule for enacting climate change legislation is largely about Dingell’s worries about lost jobs and economic harm.
Sharing insights
As each of these groups tries to sell their vision to the public, they are being forced to confront the narrowness of their vision. Environmentalists are learning that climate change by itself may fail to gather broad enough support to achieve their goals. Although more and more people are becoming aware of the climate problem, many are still unsure of the need for dramatic action. These skeptics do not want to make choices that they think will lead to “shivering in the dark” for a climate problem that is intangible to them. So environmentalists have begun building coalitions with other constituencies. They have found broad support for state-level renewable energy portfolio standards (RPSs), which require a certain percentage of electricity to come from renewable sources, among political factions who want to reduce their state’s risk of an energy supply crisis or to promote economic development within their state. In Nevada, when the climate constituency tried to change the RPS to a low-carbon standard which they found more directly beneficial to their cause, they lost the support of the economic and energy security constituencies who saw no benefit. Environmentalists had to settle for a renewable energy standard in order to build a coalition and get something done. Environmentalists are also being forced to reconsider their objections to nuclear power because many people view it as a potentially large source of greenhouse gas-free energy. An example is Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, who is now promoting nuclear power as an important part of solving the climate problem. This constituency needs to factor in the fundamental human desire to better their lives and increase their affluence while finding solutions that improve the environment.
The energy security constituency needs to face the reality that complete energy independence is a quixotic quest. They need to broaden their perspective to pursue energy resilience, which can be advanced by reducing energy demand and diversifying supplies as well as by boosting energy production. The United States uses about a quarter of the world’s energy; it imports 30% of all its energy and 50% of its oil. Eliminating imports is clearly out of the question for at least several decades and probably forever. Besides, exporting countries have a powerful motivation to keep selling oil to the United States. As prices rise with growing demand, they will increase exploration and look to new technology to help increase supply. U.S. consumers are going to want that oil, and all countries have an incentive to support global trade in principle.
The security constituency would do better to focus on controlling domestic demand for oil because demand is currently driving the price and making the country vulnerable to supply interruption. The gains in energy security from increased energy efficiency could be dramatically large compared to increasing domestic supply. Given that the United States imports half its oil, a 25% increase in the average fuel efficiency of vehicles could decrease imports by half. Finally, the security advocates have to face global political realities. U.S. allies and trading partners are making it clear that they will not let the United States ignore its responsibility to deal with carbon emissions. If the energy security constituency is willing to build coalitions and accept some responsibility for reducing carbon emissions, it can still be successful in its efforts to increase domestic energy supplies as well as supporting supply diversification and efficiency improvements that will also relieve some of the political pressure associated with being an energy importer.
The economic vitality constituency can learn that changing the energy system to meet climate and security needs could well be an economic stimulus. New industries are already springing up to meet the newly defined energy needs and are generating revenue and jobs. Countries such as Japan and the UK as well as states such as California are implementing policies aimed at making them leaders in new energy technology businesses. In California, venture capitalists were influential supporters of the enactment of AB32, the ambitious carbon cap law that mandates a return to 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. These business people see opportunity for technology to address the climate problem and create wealth in the process. A study released by the University of California, Berkeley, last year projected that reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California would create 17,000 jobs and add $60 billion to the state gross domestic product by 2020. John Doerr, the venture capitalist who helped to start Google, has said, “Sustainable technologies are the next big thing ... the mother of all markets,” and doubled the size of his investments in green technologies.
In early 2007, the executives of six major companies (Aloca, BP, DuPont, Caterpillar, GE, and Duke Energy) spoke out in favor of carbon controls through cap and trade, which they felt could be imposed without economic harm and with economic opportunities if applied uniformly. These executives also see carbon caps coming and want a level playing field and known boundary conditions for business. They think they can make money and do the right thing for climate. The executives of major oil companies are also coming to share this opinion.
Common ground
How can these three constituencies find common solutions in the next decades? Choices in the first half of the 21st century will be affected by the 50-year or greater life spans of many parts of the energy system infrastructure and dominated by the use of existing technology, hopefully supplemented by urgently needed applied research. Long-term, the energy system of the second half of the century will likely be dominated by whatever emerges from the advanced research and development we must begin to do now to develop entirely new technology. The research to support this transformation is absolutely essential, but in the meantime it is imperative to act quickly with the tools at our disposal.
Let us examine two aspects of the energy system, electricity and individual transportation, to see how common ground might be found. All three constituencies can favor reducing demand for electricity through increasing energy efficiency. They can agree on an approach including education, regulation, and the development of policy and financial instruments to encourage conservation. For example, Congress is considering new lighting standards that would eliminate energy-gulping incandescent light bulbs. Estimates show that the shift to fluorescent light bulbs would save $18 billion in electricity costs every year and would reduce demand equivalent to that currently met by 80 coal-fired power plants. States such as New York are calling for more stringent building codes. The California Public Utility Commission has developed mechanisms that reward utilities for promoting energy efficiency.
All three constituencies can support increasing the use of renewable energy to produce electricity, provided that the economic constituency sees an opportunity to make money. Encouragingly, entrepreneurs are entering this market and changing the economic perspective. For example, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are exploring the use of nanotechnology to produce flexible solar cells that will be easy to manufacture and will lower the cost the cost from $10 to $1 per watt of capacity. About one-third of the states have renewable energy portfolio standards of one kind or another that will create a market for new renewable technologies, and Congress is considering adoption of a national standard.
Nuclear power is perfect from the point of view of energy security and climate, but it has formidable drawbacks. The high cost of new plants has been a barrier, but licensing reform is being implemented that should reduce the construction time and cost of new plants. Nuclear power is also burdened with concern about safety, waste management, and nuclear weapons proliferation. Although these are not central concerns of the three constituencies, they are issues that must be addressed cooperatively. The Bush administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program is one strategy to handle these concerns through reprocessing of spent fuel and careful management of the international fuel cycle.
Natural gas is the least harmful of all fossil fuels from a climate perspective, producing about half the CO2 per unit of energy as does coal. From the economic perspective, gas-fired electricity has an advantage in that the capital costs of building a gas generator are relatively small. However, this fuel is experiencing more price volatility than is oil or coal, and the largest reserves are in other countries. It is possible that we could face the same geopolitical problems with importing gas as we face with importing oil. Overcoming technical and economic obstacles to producing domestic gas could attract all three constituencies.
Coal produces more CO2 per unit of energy than any other fossil fuel, making it perhaps the worst demon of the climate change constituency. However, coal is domestic and is the most abundant and inexpensive source of energy. If coal use is coupled with cost-effective carbon capture and geologic sequestration of CO2, the use of this resource could be acceptable to all three constituencies. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) would allow use of this source while also addressing climate change and is arguably the most important technology to add to our current mix from the climate point of view. Since there are no direct energy benefits to sequestration, it will be viable only if carbon has value as a tradable allowance or if regulation limits allowable emissions. A strong CCS program would help to provide a lower-cost low-carbon energy system for the economic vitality constituency and remove obstructions to the use of the nation’s plentiful coal as part of an energy security strategy. It is not surprising that a suite of bills dealing with CCS are now moving through Congress with the idea of accelerating this important technology.
The case for the climate-plus-economic solution would be even more compelling if the security constituency would expand its focus beyond energy independence to include the risks to security from climate change.
Meeting the needs of all three constituencies for individual transportation is quite difficult. The transportation problem has three parts: the vehicle, the fuel, and the vehicle miles traveled. Vehicle efficiency is of interest to all three constituencies, and they can support standards to increase vehicle mileage. It has been more than 30 years since the United States revised the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Now the Senate is working on legislation that would mandate a CAFE average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 for cars and light trucks and for further improvement of 4 percent per year after that. The constituencies might be willing to support policies similar to those in China, where the sales tax on gas guzzler cars is 20%, but the tax on the most efficient cars is only 1%.
There are two major approaches to the fuel. The first is to use something besides oil to produce liquid fuels for mobility. The energy security constituency favors this approach as a first priority. However, some of these fuels will have little or no efficacy in addressing climate issues and can be quite expensive. These facts have motivated California to study a low-carbon fuel standard, and the European Union is following right behind them. The second is to use electricity instead of liquid fuel. From the climate perspective, this is not useful unless there is a complementary plan to produce the needed electricity without adding carbon to the atmosphere. Thus, meeting the needs of the three constituencies in the electricity sector could have the added benefit of helping to meet their needs in transportation.
Finally, the reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) depends on the availability and attractiveness of public transportation and on land-use planning. The climate constituency generally understands the need to reduce VMT and supports solutions that have people live near where they work and to commute by foot, bicycle, or public transit. The security constituency might note that these choices would reduce demand for oil imports. Either constituency might support policies such as those being considered in the UK to reduce VMT and congestion. The UK may construct a vast national system for monitoring driving and then billing the drivers for amounts from one pence to one pound per mile traveled depending on congestion. The economic constituency is going to be wary of any policy that imposes changes on individual lifestyle. They will be more supportive of efforts to build communities that are environmentally friendly and energy efficient if these communities also provide the attraction of a better quality of life.
Putting the pieces together
Although it is clear that the three constituencies could share common interests in sensible policies to promote efficiency, renewable energy, lower cost nuclear power, more domestic gas, coal with sequestration, new liquid fuels or electric cars, and bold new designs for urban living, it is still a possibility than any one of the constituencies on their own can drive bad choices. The current energy system is dominated by the economic constituency and is responsible for the problems we have now. If the climate constituency alone dominates future choices, we could choose solutions that require long-term financial subsidies and result in market inefficiencies and higher prices. If the security contingent dominates, we might pick solutions that have little effect on the climate problem (corn-based ethanol) or even increase greenhouse gas emissions significantly (coal-to-liquids). Interestingly, investors are now backing off developing coal-to-liquids projects precisely because the associated emissions are causing economic uncertainty. Unless greenhouse gas emissions are curbed, rapid climate change is likely to have a widespread disruptive effect across the globe, particularly in the developing world. Stresses on water supplies, agriculture, fisheries, and the habitability of coastal land could leave millions hungry, homeless, and desperate and perhaps violent. Consider the mayhem that Hurricane Katrina created in the richest country in the world. Adapting to the consequences of climate change will push many poor countries to the edge of despair.
It is important to realize that finding solutions that work for two of these three viewpoints can lead to solving the problems of the third. If carbon reduction is made the organizing principle and the most cost-effective approaches are pursued, the result will also serve the purposes of the security group. The policy will aim to reduce energy demand through efficiency, do the research to make renewable energy less costly and more reliable, make carbon sequestration an economical option so that low-cost coal can be tapped, and perhaps make nuclear power a reasonable alternative. All of these actions will reduce dependence on oil imports and reduce the security risk from climate change. Solving the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions economically essentially solves the whole problem.
The case for the climate-plus-economic solution would be even more compelling if the security constituency would expand its focus beyond energy independence to include the risks to security from climate change. The fact that climate change will be a security problem has been highlighted recently in a report conducted by high-level military personnel titled National Security and the Threat of Climate Change and by a congressional action instructing the CIA and DOD to include security risks due to climate change in the next national intelligence estimate. This will include pinpointing the regions at highest risk of humanitarian suffering and assessing the likelihood of wars erupting over diminishing water and other resources and an assessment of the “direct physical threats to the United States posed by extreme weather events such as hurricanes.” Indeed, an understanding of the critical security implications of climate change could be the key to creating the consensus necessary for concerted action on energy policy.
Reaching this general consensus is only a first step. Important decisions will have to be made about the implementation of a carbon cap and trade system, the level of fuel efficiency standards, the details of building codes, R&D priorities, infrastructure investments, the ways to help developing countries, and a host of other details necessary to crafting an effective energy policy. But the nation will never reach the stage of optimizing policy if it fails to find the common thread in the concerns raised by the climate, security, and economic constituencies. This first step of building a foundation of agreement on the overall shape of energy policy is today’s essential task.
In his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, philosopher of science Karl Popper observes that “Instead of posing as prophets, we must become the makers of our fate.” That is exactly what we need to do with energy in the 21st century. We must become the makers of our energy, climate, economic, and security fate. Some of us are beginning to suspect that this challenge will demand new thinking and adaptability on a scale never managed before. Let us hope we have the wisdom and capacity to make one of the largest changes in human society ever required. Identifying the common ground for a broad societal vision of what needs to be done will provide us with a basis for hope.
Jane C.S. Long (jcslong@llnl.gov) is the associate director for energy and environment at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
includes IPCC Special Report (see below)
For announcements of recent publications, sign up for our publications notification email.
Renewable Energy Publications
Case Studies of State Support for Renewable Energy
This case study series by Berkeley Lab and the Clean Energy Group analyzes the innovative practices of state clean energy funds in support of renewable energy.Case Studies Changes in the Economic Value of Variable Generation at High Penetration Levels: A Pilot Case Study of California
Mills, A. and R. Wiser. LBNL-5445E. June 2012Report, 1.2 MB PDF
Presentation, 1.7 MB PDFUnderstanding Trends in Wind Turbine Prices Over the Past Decade
Bolinger, M. and R. Wiser. LBNL-5119E. October 2011Report, 368 KB PDF
Presentation, 403 KB PDFMass Market Demand Response and Variable Generation Integration Issues: A Scoping Study
Cappers, P., A. Mills, C. Goldman, R. Wiser, J. Eto. LBNL-5063E. October 2011Report, 700 KB PDF
Presentation, 235 KB PDFTracking the Sun IV: An Historical Summary of the Installed Cost of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2010
Barbose, G., N. Darghouth, R. Wiser, J. Seel. LBNL-5047E. September 2011Report, 1 MB PDF
Presentation, 562 KB PDF
Data File, 62 KB XLSEconomic Impacts of Wind Turbine Development in U.S. Counties
Brown, J. (USDA), Hoen, B. (LBNL), Lantz, E. (NREL), Pender, J. (USDA), Wiser, R. (LBNL). LBNL-5027E-Poster. July 20112.4 MB PDF 2010 Wind Technologies Market Report
Wiser R. and M. Bolinger. LBNL-4820E. June 2011Report, 1.8 MB PDF
Presentation, 1.6 MB PDF
Data File, 84 KB XLSIPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
May 2011Summary for policymakers
Technical summary
Full reportAn Analysis of the Effects of Residential Photovoltaic Energy Systems on Home Sales Prices in California
Hoen, B., R. Wiser, P. Cappers and M. Thayer. LBNL-4476E. April 2011Report, 839 KB PDF
Report Summary, 512 KB PDF
Presentation, 620 KB PDFCommunity Wind: Once Again Pushing the Envelope of Project Finance
Bolinger, M. LBNL-4193E. January 2011Report, 137 KB PDF
Presentation, 59 KB PDFTracking the Sun III: The Installed Cost of Photovoltaics in the U.S. from 1998-2009
Barbose, G., N. Darghouth, R. Wiser. LBNL-4121E. December 2010Report, 1.4 MB PDF
Presentation, 439 KB PDF
Data File, 47 KB XLSSupporting Solar Power in Renewables Portfolio Standards: Experience from the United States
Wiser, R., G. Barbose and E. Holt. LBNL-3984E. October 2010Report, 700 KB PDF
Presentation, 581 KB PDFImplications of Wide-Area Geographic Diversity for Short-Term Variability of Solar Power
Mills, A. and R. Wiser. LBNL-3884E. September 2010Report, 600 KB PDF
Presentation, 1.74 MB PDF2009 Wind Technologies Market Report
Wiser R. and M. Bolinger. LBNL-3716E. August 2010Report, 3 MB PDF
Presentation, 1.6 MB PDF
Executive Summary, 1.7 MB PDF
Data File, 212 KB XLSAssessing the Impacts of Reduced Noise Operations of Wind Turbines on Neighbor Annoyance: A Preliminary Analysis in Vinalhaven, Maine
Hoen B., H. Eckholdt and R. Wiser. LBNL-3562E. June 2010227 KB PDF The Impact of Rate Design and Net Metering on the Bill Savings from Distributed PV for Residential Customers in California
Darghouth N., G. Barbose, R. Wiser. LBNL-3276E. April 2010Report, 416 KB PDF
Presentation, 168 KB PDFPreliminary Evaluation of the Impact of the Section 1603 Treasury Grant Program on Renewable Energy Deployment in 2009
Bolinger, M., R. Wiser, N. Darghouth. LBNL-3188E. April 2010Report, 378 KB PDF
House Testimony, 37 KB PDFExploration of Resource and Transmission Expansion Decisions in the Western Renewable Energy Zone Initiative
Mills, A., A. Phadke, and R. Wiser. LBNL-3077E. February 2010Report, 1.6 MB PDF
Presentation, 399 KB PDFRevealing the Hidden Value that the Federal Investment Tax Credit and Treasury Cash Grant Provide To Community Wind Projects
Bolinger, M. LBNL-2909E. January 2010271 KB PDF Understanding Variability and Uncertainty of Photovoltaics for Integration with the Electric Power System
Mills, A., M. Ahlstrom, M. Brower, A. Ellis, R. George, T. Hoff, B. Kroposki, C. Lenox, N. Miller, J. Stein, and Y. Wan. LBNL-2855E. December 2009624 KB PDF The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis
Hoen, B., R. Wiser, P. Cappers, M. Thayer, and G. Sethi. LBNL-2829E. December 2009
2011 paper based on the LBNL report, published in the Journal of Real Estate Research. Vol 33 (3). 279-316Report, 3.7 MB PDF
Presentation, 1.1 MB PDF
Journal Article, 239 KB PDFTracking the Sun II: The Installed Cost of Photovoltaics in the U.S. from 1998-2008
Wiser, R., G. Barbose, C. Peterman, and N. Darghouth. LBNL-2674E. October 2009Report, 1.3 MB PDF
Presentation, 368 KB PDF2008 Wind Technologies Market Report
Wiser, R., and M. Bolinger. July 2009Report, 1.9 MB PDF
Presentation, 788 KB PDFPTC, ITC, or Cash Grant? An Analysis of the Choice Facing Renewable Power Projects in the United States
Bolinger M. and R. Wiser, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; K. Cory and T. James, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. LBNL-1642E. March 2009477 KB PDF Tracking the Sun: The Installed Cost of Photovoltaics in the U.S. from 1998-2007
Wiser, R., G. Barbose, and C. Peterman. LBNL-1516E. February 2009High resolution report, 6.7 MB PDF
Low resolution report, 744 KB PDF
Presentation, 332 KB PDFThe Cost of Transmission for Wind Energy: A Review of Transmission Planning Studies
Mills, A., R. Wiser, and K. Porter. LBNL-1471E. February 2009Report, 465 KB PDF
Presentation, 110 KB PDFFinancing Non-Residential Photovoltaic Projects: Options and Implications
Bolinger, M. LBNL-1410E. January 2009Report, 387 KB PDF
Presentation, 175 KB PDFAdvanced Coal Wind Hybrid: Economic Analysis
Phadke, A., C. Goldman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; D. Larson, T. Carr, Western Interstate Energy Board; L. Rath, P. Balash, National Energy Technologies Laboratory; and W. Yih-Huei, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. LBNL-1248E. November 2008293 KB PDF Shaking Up the Residential PV Market: Implications of Recent Changes to the ITC
Bolinger, M., G. Barbose, and R. Wiser. November 2008102 KB PDF Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2007
Wiser, R., and M. Bolinger. LBNL-275E. May 2008Report, 3.2 MB PDF
Presentation, 1.3 MB PDFRenewables Portfolio Standards in the United States — A Status Report with Data Through 2007
Wiser, R., and G. Barbose. LBNL-154E. April 2008Report, 1.5 MB PDF
Presentation, 600 KB PDFReading the Tea Leaves: How Utilities in the West Are Managing Carbon Regulatory Risk in their Resource Plan
Barbose, G., R. Wiser, A. Phadke, and C. Goldman. LBNL-44E. March 2008Report, 359 KB PDF
Presentation, 197 KB PDFUsing the Federal Production Tax Credit to Build a Durable Market for Wind Power in the United States
Wiser, R., M. Bolinger, G. Barbose. Preprint of article sent to The Electricity Journal. LBNL-63583. November 200776 KB PDF Wind Project Financing Structures: A Review & Comparative Analysis
Harper, J., M. Karcher, and M. Bolinger. LBNL-63434. September 2007Report, 528 KB PDF
Presentation, 100 KB PDFThe Impact of Retail Rate Structures on the Economics of Commercial Photovoltaic Systems in California
Wiser, R., A. Mills, G. Barbose, and W. Golove. LBNL-63019. July 2007Report, 571 KB PDF
Presentation, 145 KB PDFAnnual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006
Wiser, R., and M. Bolinger. LBNL-62702. May 2007Report, 3.2 MB PDF
Presentation, 2.7 MB PDFRenewables Portfolio Standards: A Factual Introduction to Experience from the United States
Wiser, R., C. Namovicz, M. Gielecki, and R. Smith. LBNL-62569. May 2007372 KB PDF The Treatment of Renewable Energy Certificates, Emissions Allowances, and Green Power Programs in State Renewables Portfolio Standards
Holt, E., Ed Holt and Associates, Inc. and R. Wiser, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. LBNL-62574. April 2007Report, 292 KB PDF Wind Power and the Production Tax Credit: An Overview of Research Results. Presented to The Senate Finance Committee, March 29, 2007
Wiser, R. LBNL/PUB-971. March 200768 KB PDF Weighing the Costs and Benefits of State Renewables Portfolio Standards: A Comparative Analysis of State-Level Policy Impact Projections
Chen, C., R. Wiser, and M. Bolinger. LBNL-61580. March 2007Report, 551 KB PDF
Presentation, 232 KB PDFDesigning PV Incentive Programs to Promote Performance: A Review of Current Practice
Barbose, G., R. Wiser, and M. Bolinger. LBNL-61643. October 2006Report, 616 KB PDF
Presentation, 76 KB PDFAvoiding the Haircut: Potential Ways to Enhance the Value of the USDA's Section 9006 Program
Bolinger, M. LBNL-61076. July 2006268 KB PDF State Clean Energy Funds Support Utility-Scale Projects
Bolinger, M. and R. Wiser. North American Windpower. LBNL-60402. June 2006203 KB PDF Analyzing the Effects of Temporal Wind Patterns on the Value of Wind-Generated Electricity at Different Sites in California and the Northwest
Fripp, M. and R. Wiser. LBNL-60152. June 2006Report, 2.2 MB PDF
Presentation, 1.1 MB PDFWho Owns Renewable Energy Certificates? An Exploration of Policy Options and Practice
Holt, E., R. Wiser, and M. Bolinger. LBNL-59965. April 2006Report, 380 KB PDF
Presentation, 120 KB PDFSupporting Photovoltaics in Market-Rate Residential New Construction: A Summary of Programmatic Experience to Date and Lessons Learned
Barbose, G., R. Wiser, and M. Bolinger. LBNL-59299. February 2006Report, 776 KB PDF
Presentation, 140 KB PDFLetting the Sun Shine on Solar Costs: An Empirical Investigation of Photovoltaic Cost Trends in California
Wiser, R., M. Bolinger, P. Cappers, and R. Margolis. LBNL-59282, NREL/TP-620-39300. January 2006Report, 2.1 MB PDF
Executive Summary, 141 KB PDF
Presentation, 150 KB PDFFostering a Renewable Energy Technology Industry: An International Comparison of Wind Industry Policy Support Mechanisms
Lewis, J. and R. Wiser. LBNL-59116. November 2005102 KB PDF Investment Timing and Capacity Choice for Small-Scale Wind Power Under Uncertainty
Fleten, S-E., and K. Maribu. LBNL-58072. November 2005285 KB PDF Does It Have To Be This Hard? Implementing the Nation's Most Aggressive Renewables Portfolio Standard in California
Wiser, R. and M. Bolinger, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; K. Porter, Exeter Associates; and H. Raitt, California Energy Commission. LBNL-58728. August 2005188 KB PDF Balancing Cost and Risk: The Treatment of Renewable Energy in Western Utility Resource Plans
Bolinger, M., and R.H. Wiser. LBNL-58450. August 2005Report, 1.1 MB PDF
Executive Summary, 146 KB PDF
Journal Article Pre-Print, 173 KB PDF
Presentation, 201 KB PDFReview of International Experience with Renewable Energy Obligation Support Mechanisms
van der Linden, N.H., and M.A. Uyterlinde, ECN; C. Vrolijk, IT Power; L.J. Nilsson, J. Khan, K. Åstrand and K. Ericsson, University of Lund; R. Wiser, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL-57666. May 2005963 KB PDF Real Options Valuation of US Federal Renewable Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment
Siddiqui, A.S., C. Marnay, and R.H. Wiser. LBNL-58000. March 2005422 KB PDF Easing the Natural Gas Crisis: Reducing Natural Gas Prices Through Increased Deployment of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
Wiser, R., M. Bolinger, M. St. Clair. LBNL-56756. January 2005.Report, 610 KB PDF
Senate Testimony, 708 KB PDFEvaluating State Markets for Residential Wind Systems:Results from an Economic and Policy Analysis Tool
Edwards, J., R. Wiser and M. Bolinger. LBNL-56344. December 2004813 KB PDF A Comparative Analysis of Business Structures Suitable for Farmer-Owned Wind Power Projects in the United States
Bolinger, M. and R. Wiser. LBNL-56703. November 2004.231 KB PDF An Overview of Alternative Fossil Price and Carbon Regulation Scenarios
Wiser, R. and M. Bolinger. LBNL-56403. October 2004244 KB PDF Guide to Purchasing Green Power: Renewable Electricity, Renewable Energy Certificates and On-Site Renewable Generation
Golove, W., R. Brown, and E. Holt. September 2004.988 KB PDF Building a Market for Small Wind: The Break-Even Turnkey Cost of Residential Wind Systems in the United States
Edwards, J.L., R. Wiser, M. Bolinger, and T. Forsyth. Presented at Global Windpower, Chicago, Illinois. LBNL-54865. March 2004Report, 148 KB PDF
Presentation, 292.7 KB PDFEvaluating Experience with Renewables Portfolio Standards in the United States
Wiser, R., K. Porter and R. Grace. LBNL-54439. March 2004Report, 687 KB PDF
Presentation, 364 KB PDFUtility Green Pricing Programs: A Statistical Analysis of Program Effectiveness
Wiser, R. and S. Olson, LBNL, Bird, L. and B. Swezey, NREL. LBNL-54437. February 2004212 KB PDF Accounting for Fuel Price Risk When Comparing Renewable to Gas-Fired Generation: The Role of Forward Natural Gas Prices
Bolinger, M., R. Wiser, and W. Golove. LBNL-54751. January 2004216 KB PDF Accounting for Fuel Price Risk: Using Forward Natural Gas Prices Instead of Gas Price Forecasts to Compare Renewable to Natural Gas-Fired Generation
Bolinger, M., R.H. Wiser, and W. Golove. LBNL-53587. August 2003Report, 746 KB PDF
Executive Summary, 106 KB PDF
January 2010 Update, 111 KB PDFUsing Contingent Valuation to Explore Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy: A Comparison of Collective and Voluntary Payment Vehicles
Wiser, R. LBNL-53239. August 2003Report, 8.9 MB PDF
Executive Summary, 771 KB PDFPolicies and Market Factors Driving Wind Power Development in the United States
Bird, L., and B. Parsons, NREL, T. Gagliano and M. Brown, National Conference of State Legislatures, and R. Wiser and M. Bolinger, LBNL-53554. July 2003620 KB PDF Learning by Doing: The Evolution of State Support for Photovoltaics
Bolinger, M. and R. Wiser. LBNL-52398. June 2003210 KB PDF Comparing the Risk Profiles of Renewable and Natural Gas Electricity Contracts: A Summary of the California Department of Water Resources Contracts
Bachrach, D., R. Wiser, M. Bolinger and W. Golove. LBNL-50965. March 2003Report, 605 KB PDF
Appendix, 459 KB PDFTransacting Generation Attributes Across Market Boundaries: Compatible Information Systems and the Treatment of Imports and Exports
Robert Grace (Sustainable Energy Advantage, LLC) and R. Wiser. LBNL-51703. November 2002Report, 540 KB PDF
Executive Summary, 96 KB PDFInnovation, Renewable Energy, and State Investment: Case Studies of Leading Clean Energy Funds
Wiser, R. and M. Bolinger. LBNL-51493. September 2002704 KB PDF Analyzing the Interaction Between State Tax Incentives and the Federal Production Tax Credit for Wind Power
Wiser, R., M. Bolinger, LBNL, and T. Gagliano, National Conference of State Legislatures. LBNL-51465. September 200264 KB PDF Quantifying the Value that Wind Power Provides as a Hedge Against Volatile Natural Gas Prices
Bolinger, M., R. Wiser and W. Golove. LBNL-50484. June 200292 KB PDF Customer-Sited PV: A Survey of Clean Energy Fund Support
Bolinger, M. and R. Wiser. LBNL-49668. May 2002160 KB PDF Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Projects: A Survey of Clean Energy Fund Support
Bolinger, M. and R. Wiser. LBNL-49667. May 2002108 KB PDF Potential for Renewable Energy Development: Alternatives to AEO2001
Osborn, J., K. Hamachi, C. Marnay, E. Gumerman and P. Chan. LBNL-51499. December 2001312 KB PDF The Renewables Portfolio Standard in Texas: An Early Assessment
Wiser, R. and O. Langniss. LBNL-49107. November 200180 KB PDF Forecasting the Growth of Green Power Markets in the United States
Wiser, R., M. Bolinger, E. Holt and B. Swezey. LBNL-48611. October 2001636 KB PDF Revisiting the "Buy versus Build" Decision for Publicly Owned Utilities in California Considering Wind and Geothermal Resources
Bolinger, M., R. Wiser and W. Golove. LBNL-48831. October 2001344 KB PDF Community Wind Power Ownership Schemes in Europe and Their Relevance to the United States
Bolinger, M. LBNL-48357. May 2001Report, 660 KB PDF
Presentation, 165 KB PDFClean Energy Funds: An Overview of State Support for Renewable Energy
Bolinger, M. and R. Wiser. LBNL-47705. April 2001464 KB PDF Public Goods and Private Interests: Understanding Non-Residential Demand for Green Power
Wiser, R. and M. Fowlie. LBNL-47300. January 2001288 KB PDF Customer Choice and Green Power Marketing: A Critical Review and Analysis of Experience to Date
Wiser, R., M. Bolinger, LBNL, and E. Holt, Ed Holt and Associates, Inc. LBNL-46072. August 200084 KB PDF Purchasing Renewable Energy: A Guidebook for Federal Agencies
Golove, B., M. Bolinger and R. Wiser. LBNL-46766. August 2000784 KB PDF The Role of Public Policy in Emerging Green Power Markets: An Analysis of Marketer Preferences
Wiser, R. LBNL-44178. August 1999188 KB PDF Green Power Marketing in Retail Competition: An Early Assessment
Wiser, R. (LBNL); J. Fang, K. Porter, and A. Houston (NREL). LBNL-42282. February 1999232 KB PDF Supporting Renewable Generation Through Green Power Certification: The Green-e Program
Wiser, R. LBNL-42485. September 1998504 KB PDF Details, Details ... The Impact of Market Rules on Emerging "Green" Energy Markets
Wiser, R., S. Pickle, and J. Eto. LBNL-41812. August 199896 KB PDF Restructuring and Renewable Energy Developments in California: Using Elfin to Simulate the Future California Power Market
Marnay, C., S. Kito (MRW), D. Kirshner (EDF), O. Sezgen, S. Pickle, K. Schumacher, and R. Wiser. LBNL-41569. June 1998380 KB PDF Selling Green Power in California: Product, Industry, and Market Trends
Wiser, R. and S. Pickle. LBNL-41807. May 1998160 KB PDF Wind Generation in the Future Competitive California Power Market
Sezgen, O., C. Marnay, and S. Bretz. LBNL-41134. March 1998Section 1, 1 KB PDF
Section 2, 1.1 MB PDF
Section 3, 804 KB PDF
Section 4, 1.2 MB PDF
Section 5, 1.9 MB PDF
Section 6, 186 KB PDF
Estimating the Environmental and Economic Effects of Widespread Residential PV Adoption Using GIS and NEMS
Marnay, C., R. Richey, S. Mahler, S. Bretz, and R. Markel. LBNL-41030. October 1997596 KB PDF Financing End-Use Solar Technologies in a Restructured Electricity Industry: Comparing the Cost of Public Policies
Jones, E. and J. Eto. LBNL-40218. September 1997640 KB PDF Green Marketing, Renewables, and Free Riders: Increasing Customer Demand for a Public Good
Wiser, R. and S. Pickle. LBNL-40632. September 1997212 KB PDF Transmission Pricing and Renewables: Issues, Options, and Recommendations
Stoft, S., C. Webber, and R. Wiser. LBNL-39845. May 1997272 KB PDF Financing Investments in Renewable Energy: The Role of Policy Design and Restructuring
Wiser, R. and S. Pickle. LBNL-39826. March 1997344 KB PDF California Renewable Energy Policy and Implementation Issues -- An Overview of Recent Regulatory and Legislative Action
Wiser, R., S. Pickle, and C. Goldman. LBNL-39247. September 1996104 KB PDF Alternative Windpower Ownership Structures: Financing Terms and Project Costs
Wiser, R. and E. Kahn. LBNL-38921. May 1996228 KB PDF Comparison of Financing Costs for Wind Turbine and Fossil Powerplants
Kahn, E. LBL-36122. February 1995140 KB PDF 
For announcements of recent publications, sign up for our publications notification email.
Energy Efficiency Publications
Evolution of the U.S. Energy Service Company Industry: Market Size and Project Performance from 1990-2008
Larsen, P., C. Goldman and A. Satchwell. Pre-print of article submitted for publication to Energy Policy. LBNL-5447E. July 2012Report, 548 KB PDF
Presentation, 934 KB PDFEvaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) of Residential Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency Programs: Issues and Recommendations
Todd, A., E. Stuart, S. Schiller, and C. Goldman. May 2012Report, 1.6 MB PDF
Presentation, 804 KB PDFExtending Efficiency Services to Underserved Households: NYSERDA's Assisted Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Program
Zimring, M., M.G. Borgeson, I. Hoffman, C. Goldman, E. Stuart, A. Todd and M. Billingsley. Clean Energy Financing Policy Brief. April 2012392 KB PDF Using Credit Enhancements to Leverage Existing CDFI Capacity: Indianapolis EcoHouse Project Loan Program
Zimring, M., M.G. Borgeson, I. Hoffman, C. Goldman, E. Stuart, A. Todd and M. Billingsley. Clean Energy Financing Policy Brief. April 2012436 KB PDF Alternative Underwriting Criteria — Using Utility Bill Payment History as a Proxy for Credit: Case Study on Clean Energy Works Oregon
Zimring, M., M.G. Borgeson, I. Hoffman, C. Goldman, E. Stuart, A. Todd and M. Billingsley. Clean Energy Financing Policy Brief. April 2012340 KB PDF Boulder, Colorado's SmartRegs: Minimum Performance Standards for Residential Rental Housing
Zimring, M., M.G. Borgeson, I. Hoffman, C. Goldman, E. Stuart, A. Todd and M. Billingsley. Clean Energy Financing Policy Brief. March 2012284 KB PDF Scaling Energy Efficiency in the Heart of the Residential Market: Increasing Middle America's Access to Capital for Energy Improvements
Zimring, M., M.G. Borgeson, I. Hoffman, C. Goldman, E. Stuart, A. Todd and M. Billingsley. Clean Energy Financing Policy Brief. March 2012580 KB PDF Measuring Short-term Air Conditioner Demand Reductions for Operations and Settlement
Bode, J., M. Sullivan, J. Eto. LBNL-5330E. January 20121.1 MB PDF Delivering Energy Efficiency to Middle Income Single Family Households
Zimring, M., M. G. Borgeson, I. Hoffman, C. Goldman, E. Stuart, A. Todd and M. Billingsley. LBNL-5244E. December 2011Report, 5 MB PDF
Presentation, 2.6 MB PDF
Other resourcesThe Value of Energy Performance and Green Attributes in Buildings: A Review of Existing Literature and Recommendations for Future Research
Stuart, E., Clean Energy Program Policy Brief. September 2011267 KB PDF Contractor Sales Training: Providing the Skills Necessary to Sell Comprehensive Home Energy Upgrades
Billingsley, M., E. Stuart, Clean Energy Program Policy Brief. LBNL-5066E. August 2011270 KB PDF Energy Service Company (ESCO) Project Performance Benchmarking Fact Sheets
Co-authored by staff from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, and National Association of Energy Service Companies. USDOE EECBG/SEP Technical Assistance Program. July 2011Federal Government Facilities, 2.2 MB PDF
Healthcare Facilities, 1.8 MB PDF
K-12 School Facilities, 2.1 MB PDF
Public Housing Facilities, 2.6 MB PDF
State and Local Government Facilities, 2 MB PDF
University and College Facilities, 3 MB PDFUsing Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBs) to Fund a Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program: Case Study on Saint Louis County, MO
Zimring, M. Clean Energy Financing Policy Brief. LBNL-4821E. June 2011241 KB PDF National Energy Efficiency Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM&V) Standard: Scoping Study of Issues and Implementation Requirements
Schiller S., C. Goldman, E. Galawish. LBNL-4265E. April 2011728 KB PDF Carrots and Sticks: A Comprehensive Business Model for the Successful Achievement of Energy Efficiency Resource Standards.
Satchwell, A., P. Cappers, C. Goldman. Preprint version of paper for conference proceedings, ECEEE Summer Study, June 6-11, 2011. LBNL-4399E. March 2011314 KB PDF Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing: Update on Commercial Programs.
Co-authored by staff from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Renewable Funding, and Clinton Climate Initiative. Clean Energy Financing Policy Brief. March 2011559 KB PDF Austin's Home Performance with Energy Star Program: Making a Compelling Offer to a Financial Institution Partner.
Zimring, M. Clean Energy Program Policy Brief. LBNL-4396E. March 2011370 KB PDF Interactions between Energy Efficiency Programs funded under the Recovery Act and Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs
Goldman, C., E. Stuart, I. Hoffman, M. Fuller and M. Billingsley. LBNL-4322E. March 2011Report, 935 KB PDF
Presentation, 1.1 MB PDF
Appendix, 1.6 MB PDFNYSERDA's Green Jobs-Green New York Program: Extending Energy Efficiency Financing To Underserved Households
Zimring, M. and M. Fuller. Clean Energy Program Policy Brief. LBNL-4556E. January 2011373 KB PDF HUD PowerSaver Pilot Loan Program
Zimring, M., I. Hoffman and M. Fuller. Clean Energy Financing Policy Brief. LBNL-4555E. December 2010339 KB PDF Energy Efficiency Services Sector: Workforce Size and Expectations for Growth
Goldman C., M. Fuller, E. Stuart, J. Peters, M. McRae, N. Albers, S. Lutzenhiser and M. Spahic. LBNL-3987E. September 2010Report, 3.89 MB PDF
Presentation, 4.1 MB PDF
Appendix, 567 KB PDFDriving Demand for Home Energy Improvements
Fuller, M., C. Kunkel, M. Zimring, I. Hoffman, K. L. Soroye, and C. Goldman. LBNL-3960E. September 2010High resolution report, 58.1 MB PDF
Low resolution report, 17.4 MB PDF
Presentation, 401 KB PDF
Other resourcesBenefits and Costs of Aggressive Energy Efficiency Programs and the Impacts of Alternative Sources of Funding: Case Study of Massachusetts
Cappers P., A. Satchwell, C. Goldman and J. Schlegel. Preprint version of paper for conference proceedings, ACEEE Summer Study, August 15-20, 2010. LBNL-3833E. August 2010.Report,329 KB PDF
Presentation, 368 KB PDFPACE Status Update
Zimring, M., I. Hoffman and M. Fuller. Clean Energy Financing Policy Brief. LBNL-4554E. August 2010.194 KB PDF A Survey of the U.S. ESCO Industry: Market Growth and Development from 2008 to 2011
Satchwell, A., C. Goldman, P. Larsen, D. Gilligan, T. Singer LBNL-3479E. June 2010.Report, 561 KB PDF
Presentation, 900 KB PDFAccelerating the Payment of PACE Assessments
Zimring, M., M. Fuller. Clean Energy Financing Policy Brief. LBNL-4553E. May 2010.71 KB PDF Review of Evaluation, Measurement and Verification Approaches Used to Estimate the Load Impacts and Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency Programs
Messenger M., R. Bharvirkar, B. Golemboski, C. Goldman, S. Schiller. LBNL-3277E. April 2010.572 KB PDF Transferring PACE Assessments Upon Home Sale
Coughlin J., M. Fuller, M. Zimring. Clean Energy Financing Policy Brief. LBNL-4551E. April 2010.189 KB PDF PACE and the Federal Housing Finance Agency
Zimring, M., M. Fuller. Clean Energy Financing Policy Brief. LBNL-4552E. March 2010.180 KB PDF Energy Efficiency Services Sector: Workforce Education and Training Needs
Goldman, C., J. Peters, N. Albers, E. Stuart and M. Fuller. LBNL-3163E. March 2010Report, 464 KB PDF
Presentation, 4.7 MB PDFCoordination of Energy Efficiency and Demand Response
Goldman, C., M. Reid, R. Levy and A. Silverstein. LBNL-3044E. January 2010364 KB PDF Financial Impact of Energy Efficiency Under a Federal Renewable Electricity Standard: Case Study of a Kansas "Super-Utility"
Cappers, P. and C. Goldman. LBNL-2924E. November 2009239 KB PDF The Shifting Landscape of Ratepayer-Funded Energy Efficiency in the U.S.
Barbose, G., C. Goldman, and J. Schlegel. LBNL-2258E. October 2009Report, 285 KB PDF
Presentation, 79 KB PDFEmpirical Assessment of Shareholder Incentive Mechanisms Designs Under Aggressive Savings Goals: Case Study of a Kansas "Super-Utility"
Cappers, P. and C. Goldman. LBNL-2492E. August 2009192 KB PDF Financial Analysis of Incentive Mechanisms to Promote Energy Efficiency: Case Study of a Prototypical Southwest Utility
Cappers, P., C. Goldman, M. Chait, G. Edgar, J. Schlegel, and W. Shirley. LBNL-1598E. March 2009Report, 1.6 MB PDF
Appendices, 345 KB PDF
Presentation, 548 KB PDFPerformance Contracting and Energy Efficiency in the State Government Market
Bharvirkar, R., C. Goldman, D. Gilligan, T. Singer, D. Birr, P. Donahue, and S. Serota. LBNL-1202E. November 2008840 KB PDF Energy Efficiency as a Preferred Resource: Evidence from Utility Resource Plans in the Western United States and Canada
Hopper, N., G. Barbose, C. Goldman, J. Schlegel. Preprint version of article published in Energy Efficiency, 10.1007/s12053-008-9030-x, 18 October 2008. LBNL-1023E. September 2008Pre-Print Version, 159 KB PDF
Journal ArticleQuantitative Financial Analysis of Alternative Energy Efficiency Shareholder Incentive Mechanisms
Cappers, P., C. Goldman, M. Chait, G. Edgar, J. Schlegel, and W. Shirley. LBNL-2590E. August 2008122 KB PDF A Survey of the U.S. ESCO Industry: Market Growth and Development from 2000 to 2006
Hopper, N., C. Goldman (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), D. Gilligan and T. Singer (National Association of Energy Service Companies), D. Birr (Synchronous Energy Solutions). LBNL-62679. May 2007205 KB PDF Energy Efficiency in Western Utility Resource Plans: Impacts on Regional Resource Assessment and Support for WGA Policies
Hopper, N., C. Goldman and J. Schlegel. LBNL-58271. August 2006Report, 672 KB PDF
Spreadsheet, 88 KB XLSPublic and Institutional Markets for ESCO Services: Comparing Programs, Practices and Performance
Hopper, N., C. Goldman and J. McWilliams (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), D. Birr (Synchronous Energy Solutions), K. McMordie Stoughton (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory). LBNL-55002. March 2005Report, 975 KB PDF
Appendix, 178 KB PDFReview of U.S. ESCO Industry Market Trends: An Empirical Analysis of Project Data
Goldman, C., N. Hopper, J. Osborn, and T. Singer. LBNL-52320. January 2005346 KB PDF A New Approach for Modeling the Peak Utility Impacts from a Proposed Commercial Unitary Air-Conditioning Standard
Hamachi LaCommare, K., E. Gumrman, C. Marnay, P. Chan, K. Coughlin . LBNL-55269. October 2004282 KB PDF The Federal Market for ESCO Services: How Does it Measure Up?
Hopper, N., C. Goldman, and D. Birr (Synchronous Energy Solutions). LBNL-54952. August 2004148 KB PDF Who Should Administer Energy Efficiency Programs?
Blumstein, C., C. Goldman, and G. Barbose. LBNL-53597. August 2003265 KB PDF Assessing U.S. ESCO Industry Performance and Market Trends: Results from the NAESCO Database Project
Osborn, J., C. Goldman, and N. Hopper, LBNL, and T. Singer, NAESCO. LBNL-50304. August 2002120 KB PDF Market Trends in the U.S. ESCO Industry: Results from the NAESCO Database Project
Goldman, C., J. Osborn and N. Hopper, LBNL, and T. Singer, NAESCO. LBNL-49601. May 2002Report, 456 KB PDF
Appendix D, 700 KB XLSCalifornia Customer Load Reductions during the Electricity Crisis: Did They Help to Keep the Lights On?
Goldman, C., J. Eto and G. Barbose. LBNL-49733. May 2002180 KB PDF Energy Efficiency Options for the New England Demand Response Initiative (NEDRI) - Framing Paper #4
Schlegel, J., Schlegel & Associates, LLC. LBNL/PUB-5482. May 2002168 KB PDF Historical Performance of the U.S. ESCO Industry: Results from the NAESCO Project Database
Goldman, C., P. Juergens, M. Fowlie, J. Osborn and K. Kawamoto, LBNL, and T. Singer, NAESCO. LBNL-46070. August 2000960 KB PDF Public Benefit Charge Funded Performance Contracting Programs - Survey and Guidelines
Schiller, S., Schiller Associates, C. Goldman, LBNL, and B. Henderson, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. LBNL-46071. August 200088 KB PDF California's Nonresidential Standard Performance Contract Program
Goldman, C., J. Eto, R. Prahl (Prahl and Associates), and J. Schlegel (Schlegel and Associates). LBNL-42347. August 199868 KB PDF The Energy Services Company (ESCO) Industry: Industry and Market Trends
Dayton, D. (HEC, Inc.), C. Goldman, and S. Pickle. LBNL-41925. August 199888 KB PDF Organizing for Market Transformation: Institutional Issues in the Creation of a New Energy Efficiency Policy Framework in California
Prahl, R., J. Schlegel, and C. Goldman. LBNL-43834. August 19981.2 MB PDF Ratepayer-Funded Energy-Efficiency Programs in a Restructured Electricity Industry: Issues and Options for Regulators and Legislators
Eto, J., C. Goldman, and S. Nadel (ACEEE). LBNL-41479. May 1998344 KB PDF The Past, Present, and Future of U.S. Utility Demand-Side Management Programs
Eto, J. LBNL-39931. December 1996108 KB PDF Impact of Information and Communications Technologies on Residential Customer Energy Services
Goldman, C. et al. LBNL-39015. October 1996Report, 628 KB PDF
Appendices, 736 KB PDFRatepayer-Funded Energy-Efficiency Programs in a Restructured Electricity Industry: Issues, Options, and Unanswered Questions
Eto, J., C. Goldman, and S. Kito. LBNL-40026. August 199688 KB PDF Evaluation of ENvestSCE and Teem Pilot Projects
Edgar, G., C. Goldman, B. McKellar, E. Carroll, M. Kushler, W. DeForest. July 1996117 KB PDF A Scoping Study on Energy-Efficiency Market Transformation by California Utility DSM Programs
Eto, J., R. Prahl, and J. Schlegel. LBNL-39058. July 1996552 KB PDF Market Barriers to Energy Efficiency: A Critical Reappraisal of the Rationale for Public Policies to Promote Energy Efficiency
Golove, B. and J. Eto. LBL-38059. March 1996228 KB PDF Where Did the Money Go? The Cost and Performance of the Largest Commercial Sector DSM Programs
Eto, J., S. Kito, L. Shown, and R. Sonnenblick. LBL-38201. December 1995276 KB PDF A Framework for Improving the Cost-Effectiveness of DSM Program Evaluations
Sonnenblick, R. and J. Eto. LBL-37158. September 1995html Evaluation of Public Service Electric and Gas' Standard Offer Program: Volume I
Goldman, C., M. Kito, and M. Moezzi. LBL-37157. July 19953.7 MB PDF Evaluation of Public Service Electric and Gas' Standard Offer Program: Volume II
Goldman, C., M. Kito, and M. Moezzi. LBL-37157. July 1995832 KB PDF DSM Shareholder Incentives: Current Designs and Economic Theory
Stoft, S., J. Eto, and S. Kito. LBL-36580. January 1995604 KB PDF The Cost and Performance of Utility Commercial Lighting Programs
Eto, J., E. Vine, L. Shown et al. LBL-34967. May 1994html Review of Demand-Side Bidding Programs: Impacts, Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness
Goldman, C. and M. Kito. LBL-35021. May 19943.9 MB PDF At the Electricity Resource Bazaar Lessons from Case Studies of Integrated Bidding in New York
Goldman, C., J. Busch and E. Kahn. Energy Studies Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1994848 KB PDF Analysis of PG&E's Residential End-Use Metered Data to Improve Electricity Demand Forecasts
Eto, J. and M. Moezzi. LBL-34431. December 19932.5 MB PDF When Demand-Side Management Competes in an Electric Resource Solicitation: Issues from a Case Study in New York
Goldman, C. and J. Busch. Utilities Policy, April 1993295 KB PDF Moving Beyond Demand-Side Bidding: A More Constructive Role for Energy Service Companies
Wolcott, D. and C. Goldman. Proc. of ACEEE 1992 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, August 1992713 KB PDF Ratemaking for Conservation: The California ERAM Experience
Marnay, C. and G.A. Comnes. LBL-28019. March 19902.9 MB PDF
For announcements of recent publications, sign up for our publications notification email.
Smart Grid Publications
LBNL Review of AAEM Submittal to Michigan PSC staff
April 2012102 KB PDF LBNL Review of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency Memo on Health Risks Associated with Smart Meters for Michigan PSC staff
April 2012280 KB PDF Mass Market Demand Response and Variable Generation Integration Issues: A Scoping Study
Cappers, P., A. Mills, C. Goldman, R. Wiser, J. Eto. LBNL-5063E. October 2011Report, 700 KB PDF
Presentation, 235 KB PDFCoordination of Energy Efficiency and Demand Response
Goldman, C., M. Reid, R. Levy and A. Silverstein. LBNL-3044E. January 2010364 KB PDF Demand Response in U.S. Electricity Markets: Empirical Evidence
Cappers, P. and C. Goldman, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab; and D. Kathan, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. LBNL-2124E. June 2009660 KB PDF Retail Demand Response in Southwest Power Pool
Bharvirkar, R., G. Heffner, and C. Goldman. LBNL-1470E. January 2009248 KB PDF Coordination of Retail Demand Response with Midwest ISO Wholesale Markets
Bharvirkar, R. and C. Goldman, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab; G. Heffner, Global Energy Associates; and R. Sedano, Regulatory Assistance Project. LBNL-288E. May 20081.0 MB PDF Estimating Demand Response Load Impacts: Evaluation of Baseline Load Models for Non-Residential Building in California
Coughlin, K., M.A. Piette, C. Goldman and S. Kiliccote. Demand Response Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL-63728. January 2008439 KB PDF A Methodology for Estimating Large-Customer Demand Response Market Potential
Goldman, C., N. Hopper, R. Bharvirkar, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL); B. Neenan, P. Cappers, Utilipoint International, Syracuse, NY. LBNL-63346. August 2007238 KB PDF The Summer of 2006: A Milestone in the Ongoing Maturation of Demand Response
Hopper, N., C. Goldman, R. Bharvirkar, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; and D. Engel, Freeman, Sullivan & Co. The Electricity Journal, Vol. 20, Issue 5, June 2007, Pages 62-75. LBNL-62754. May 2007 (revised July 2007)Pre-print version, 195 KB PDF
Article (ScienceDirect subscribers)Demand Response Spinning Reserve Demonstration
Eto, J., Principal Investigator (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), Project Team: J. Nelson-Hoffman, C. Torres, S. Hirth, B. Yinger (Southern California Edison), J. Kueck, B. Kirby (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), C. Bernier, R. Wright (RLW Analytics), A. Barat (Connected Energy), D. Watson (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory). LBNL-62761. May 2007799 KB PDF Loads Providing Ancillary Services: Review of International Experience
Heffner, G. and C. Goldman, LBNL; B. Kirby, ORNL; and M. Kintner-Meyer, PNNL. LBNL-62701, ORNL/TM-2007/060, PNNL-16618. May 2007Report, 327 KB PDF
Appendix, 829 KB PDFDeemed Savings Estimates for Legacy Air Conditioning and Water Heating Direct Load Control Programs in PJM Region
Prepared by: RLW Analytics and Prepared for: PJM Load Analysis Subcomittee and Charles Goldman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL-62570. April 20071.6 MB PDF Estimating Demand Response Market Potential among Large Commercial and Industrial Customers: A Scoping Study
Goldman, C., N. Hopper, and R. Bharvirkar, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; B. Neenan and P. Cappers, Utilipoint International. LBNL-61498. January 2007882 KB PDF Killing Two Birds with One Stone: Can Real-Time Pricing Support Retail Competition and Demand Response?
Barbose, G., R. Bharvirkar, C. Goldman, N. Hopper, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and B. Neenan (UtiliPoint International). In the Proceedings of the 2006 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. LBNL-59739. August 200673 KB PDF Not All Large Customers Are Made Alike: Disaggregating Response to Default-Service Day-Ahead Market Pricing
Hopper, N. and C. Goldman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and B. Neenan, Neenan Associates (A Utililpoint Company). In the Proceedings of the 2006 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. LBNL- 59629. August 200682 KB PDF Demand Response Program Design Preferences of Large Customers: Focus Group Results from Four States
Fry, T. and R. Hinkle, Nexant, Inc.; and D. Engel, Freeman, Sullivan and Company. Prepared for: Charles Goldman. LBNL-60610. June 2006567 KB PDF Customer Response to Day-Ahead Market Hourly Pricing: Choices and Performance
Hopper, N., C. Goldman, R. Bharvirkar and B. Neenan. Pre-print version of article published in Utility Policy, Vol. 14, Issue 2, Pages 126-134. LBNL-58114. June 2006107 KB PDF Demand Response from Day-Ahead Hourly Pricing for Large Customers
Hopper, N., C. Goldman, R. Bharvirkar and B. Neenan. Pre-print version of article published in The Electricity Journal, Vol. 19, Issue 3, Pages 52-63. LBNL-59630. April 200695 KB PDF The Role of Demand Response in Default Service Pricing
Barbose, G., C. Goldman and B. Neenan. Preprint version of article published in the The Electricity Journal, Vol. 19, Issue 3, Page 64-74. LBNL-59737. February 200674 KB PDF RTP as an Optional Service: It's Alive, But Is It Well?
Goldman, C., G. Barbose, and B. Neenan. Pre-print version of article published in the The Electricity Journal, Volume 19, Issue #1, Pages 18-29. LBNL-59740. February 2006113 KB PDF Benefits of Demand Response in Electricity Markets and Recommendations for Achieving Them - A Report to the United States Congress Pursuant to Section 1252 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
February 2006693 KB PDF Improving Dynamic Load and Generator Response Performance Tools
Lesieutre, B. LBNL-59192. November 2005485 KB PDF Option Value of Electricity Demand Response
Sezgen, O., C. Goldman, P. Krishnarao. Submitted to Energy Journal November, 2003. LBNL-56170. October 2005517 KB PDF Customer Strategies for Responding to Day-Ahead Market Hourly Electricity Pricing
Goldman, C., N. Hopper and R. Bharvirkar, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; and B. Neenan, R. Boisvert, P. Cappers, D. Pratt, and K. Butkins, Neenan Associates. LBNL-57128. August 2005Report, 1.05 MB PDF
Appendix, 665 KB PDFReal Time Pricing as a Default or Optional Service for C&I Customers: A Comparative Analysis of Eight Case Studies
Barbose, G., C. Goldman, R. Bharvirkar, N. Hopper, and M. Ting, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; and B. Neenan, Neenan Associates. LBNL-57661. August 2005Report, 985 KB PDF
Appendix, 713 KB PDFIndustrial and Commercial Industrial Response To Real Time Electricity Prices
Boisvert, R., P. Cappers, B. Neenan and B. Scott (Neenan Associates). December 2004
732 KB PDF A Survey of Utility Experience with Real Time Pricing
Barbose, G. and C. Goldman (LBNL) and B. Neenan (Neenan Associates). LBNL-54238. December 2004583 KB PDF Real Time Pricing and the Real Live Firm
Moezzi, M., C. Goldman, O. Sezgen, R. Bharvirkar and N. Hopper. LBNL-54978. August 2004
95.5 KB PDF Does Real-Time Pricing Deliver Demand Response? A Case Study of Niagara Mohawk's Large Customer RTP Tariff
Goldman, C., N. Hopper, O. Sezgen, M. Moezzi and R. Bharvirkar (LBNL) and B. Neenan, D. Pratt, P. Cappers, and R. Boisvert (Neenan Associates). LBNL-54974. August 2004Report, 250 KB PDF
Presentation, 382 KB PDFCustomer Response to Day-ahead Wholesale Market Electricity Prices: Case Study of RTP Program Experience in New York
Goldman, C., N. Hopper, O. Sezgen, M. Moezzi and R. Bharvirkar (LBNL) and B. Neenan, R. Boisvert, P. Cappers, D. Pratt (Neenan Associates). LBNL-54761. June 2004
Report, 1.5 MB PDF
Appendix, 752 KB PDF
NMPC RTP Fact Sheet, 344 KB PDFIndependent Review of Estimated Load Reductions for PJM's Small Customer Load Response Pilot Project
Heffner, G., M. Moezzi and C. Goldman. LBNL-54835. June 2004434.2 KB PDF Dividends with Demand Response
Kintner-Meyer, M. (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory), C. Goldman, O. Sezgen (LBNL) and D. Pratt (Neenan Associates). LBNL-52980. August 20033.3 MB PDF Social Welfare Implications of Demand Response Programs in Competitive Electricity Markets
Boisvert, R.N. and B.F. Neenan, Neenan Associates. LBNL-52530. August 2003185.6 KB PDF Price-Elastic Demand in Deregulated Electricity Markets
Siddiqui, A.S. LBNL-51533. May 2003424.6 KB PDF How and Why Customers Respond to Electricity Price Variability: A Study of NYISO and NYSERDA 2002 PRL Program Performance
Neenan, B., D. Pratt, P. Cappers, J. Doane, J. Anderson and R. Boisvert (Neenan Associates), Goldman, C., O. Sezgen, G. Barbose and R. Bharvirkar (LBNL), Michael Kinter-Meyer, Steve Shankle and Derrick Bates (PNNL). LBNL-52209/PNNL#14220. January 20034.3 MB PDF Configuring Load As A Resource for Competitive Electricity Markets--Review of Demand Response Programs in the U.S. and Around the World
Heffner, G. LBNL-51496. November 2002Report, 203.6 KB PDF
Presentation, 572 KB PDFDo "Enabling Technologies" Affect Customer Performance in Price-Responsive Load Programs?
Goldman, C. (LBNL), M. Kintner-Meyer (PNNL) and G. Heffner (LBNL). LBNL-50328. August 200278.4 KB PDF Price-Responsive Load (PRL) Program - Framing Paper #1
Goldman, C. LBNL/PUB-5476. March 2002200.8 KB PDF Customer Load Participation in Wholesale Markets: Summer 2001 Results, Lessons Learned and "Best Practices"
Goldman, C., G. Heffner, and G. Barbose. LBNL-50966. February 200291.5 KB PDF Impact of Enabling Technologies on Customer Load Curtailment Performance: Summer 2001 Results from NYSERDA's PON 585 and 577 Programs and NYISO's Emergency Demand Response Program
Goldman, C. and G. Heffner (LBNL) and M. Kintner-Meyer (PNNL). LBNL-49858. February 2002135.6 KB PDF Innovative Developments in Load as a Reliability Resource
Eto, J. (Member, IEEE), C. Goldman, G. Heffner (Member, IEEE), B. Kirby (Member, IEEE), J. Kueck (Member, IEEE), M. Kintner-Meyer, J. Dagle (Member, IEEE), T. Mount, W. Schultze, R. Thomas (Fellow, IEEE), R. Zimmerman. LBNL-50968. January 200234.8 KB PDF Demand Responsive Programs — An Emerging Resource for Competitive Electricity Markets?
Heffner, G. and C. Goldman. LBNL-48374. August 200164.5 KB PDF Direct Participation of Electrical Loads in the California Independent System Operation Markets During the Summer of 2000
Marnay, C., K. Hamachi, M. Khavkin and A. Siddiqui. LBNL-47897. April 2001330 KB PDF
Wylfa nuclear power station in Anglesey. Photograph: Paul Ellis/AFP/Getty Images
What is the problem with Britain's nuclear power programme?
The German energy companies RWE and E.ON have abandoned plans to build two new nuclear power stations at Wylfa on the island of Anglesey in north Wales and at Oldbury on the Severn estuary. Depending on the interpretation, this is either a "total train wreck" or just a "disappointing" setback for the government's nuclear ambitions. The truth, of course, is somewhere in between. A combination of last year's Fukushima nuclear disaster, the German government's subsequent decision to phase out nuclear power and the general economic downturn has long made investments in new reactors look shaky. The sums of money are so large, the potential liabilities so daunting and the financial paybacks so uncertain, that investors have always been wary about nuclear power. Expect more setbacks.
So is nuclear power doomed?
Unlikely. The industry is politically very powerful and has successfully raised itself from the dead several times in the past. It has prevailed upon successive UK governments to take a series of "facilitative actions" to remove barriers to nuclear development. Last November, the pro-nuclear Department of Energy and Climate Change helped set up a high-powered programme management board with nuclear companies to try to prevent the nuclear project going off the rails. Britain's nuclear industry had "lost its international edge", the board said, yet it was now embarked on the UK's "most challenging infrastructure programme".
Why doesn't Britain have its own nuclear energy supplier?
It did, before it was denationalised by the Conservative prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, in the 1980s. That ultimately led to the creation of British Energy to run nuclear stations, which then had to be bailed out by taxpayers to the tune of more than £3bn. In 2008 British Energy was sold lock, stock and barrel to the French government's nuclear company EDF, which now runs Britain's nuclear generating stations. It is also leading the efforts to build new nuclear plants, starting at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
But isn't France losing faith in nuclear power?
There are certainly problems. Two reactors like the ones EDF wants for England are under construction in France and Finland and they are four years late and costing nearly twice as much as predicted. The former head of EDF, François Rousseley, has recently suggested that the reactor design should be dropped, and the French National Audit Office has agreed, saying it is complex and expensive. The replacement of president Nicolas Sarkozy at the elections later this month could also see a shake-up on nuclear policy.
Could there be power cuts without nuclear?
That is a threat the nuclear industry has made in the past, but it has never materialised. There are issues with future energy supplies that need to be resolved as power stations approach the ends of their lives, but there are several sources other than nuclear, including gas and renewables such as wind, though each has its drawbacks. The problem with nuclear is that it is cumbersome, capital-intensive and relatively inflexible. Not everyone agrees with the British government's insistence that nuclear has to be the way forward. The Scottish government, for example, believes it can avoid replacing its two nuclear stations by rapidly developing renewable energy instead. This week, Scottish ministers said they had already beaten their target to provide more than 30% of Scotland's electricity from renewable sources.
• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree
An interdisciplinary MIT faculty group decided to study the future of nuclear power because of a belief that this technology is an important option for the United States and the world to meet future energy needs without emitting carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants. Other options include increased efficiency, renewables, and carbon sequestration, and all may be needed for a successful greenhouse gas management strategy. This study, addressed to government, industry, and academic leaders, discusses the interrelated technical, economic, environmental, and political challenges facing a significant increase in global nuclear power utilization over the next half century and what might be done to overcome those challenges.
This study was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and by MIT's Office of the Provost and Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.
MIT RELEASES INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY ON "THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY"
Professors John Deutch and Ernest Moniz Chaired Effort to Identify Barriers and Solutions for Nuclear Option in Reducing Greenhouse Gases
July 29, 2003
Washington, D.C. — A distinguished team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard released today what co-chair Dr. John Deutch calls "the most comprehensive, interdisciplinary study ever conducted on the future of nuclear energy."
The report maintains that "The nuclear option should be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power."
"Fossil fuel-based electricity is projected to account for more than 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020," said Deutch. "In the U.S. 90% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation come from coal-fired generation, even though this accounts for only 52% of the electricity produced. Taking nuclear power off the table as a viable alternative will prevent the global community from achieving long-term gains in the control of carbon dioxide emissions."
But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.
The study examines a growth scenario where the present deployment of 360 GWe of nuclear capacity worldwide is expanded to 1000 GWe in mid-century, keeping nuclear's share of the electricity market about constant. Deployment in the U.S. would expand from about 100 GWe today to 300 GWe in mid-century. This scenario is not a prediction, but rather a study case in which nuclear power would make a significant contribution to reducing CO2 emissions.
"There is no question that the up-front costs associated with making nuclear power competitive, are higher than those associated with fossil fuels," said Dr. Moniz. "But as our study shows, there are many ways to mitigate these costs and, over time, the societal and environmental price of carbon emissions could dramatically improve the competitiveness of nuclear power"
The study offers a number of recommendations for making the nuclear energy option viable, including:
- Placing increased emphasis on the once-through fuel cycle as best meeting the criteria of low costs and proliferation resistance;
- Offering a limited production tax-credit to 'first movers' - private sector investors who successfully build new nuclear plants. This tax credit is extendable to other carbon-free electricity technologies and is not paid unless the plant operates;
- Having government more fully develop the capabilities to analyze life-cycle health and safety impacts of fuel cycle facilities;
- Advancing a U.S. Department of Energy balanced long-term waste management R&D program.
- Urging DOE to establish a Nuclear System Modeling project that would collect the engineering data and perform the analysis necessary to evaluate alternative reactor concepts and fuel cycles using the criteria of cost, safety, waste, and proliferation resistance. Expensive development projects should be delayed pending the outcome of this multi-year effort.
- Giving countries that forego proliferation- risky enrichment and reprocessing activities a preferred position to receive nuclear fuel and waste management services from nations that operate the entire fuel cycle.
The authors of the study emphasized that nuclear power is not the only non-carbon option and stated that they believe it should be pursued as a long term option along with other options such as the use of renewable energy sources, increased efficiency, and carbon sequestration..
The members of the study team are: John Deutch (co-chair), Ernest Moniz (co-chair), S. Ansolabehere, Michael Driscoll, Paul Gray, John Holdren (Harvard), Paul Joskow, Richard Lester, and Neil Todreas.
Members of the Advisory Committee included: former U.S. Congressman Phil Sharp (chair), former White House Chiefs of Staff John Podesta and John Sununu, John Ahearne, Tom Cochran, Linn Draper, Ted Greenwood, John MacWilliams, Jessica Mathews, Zack Pate, and Mason Willrich.
This study was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and by MIT's Office of the Provost and Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.
CONTACTS: David Dreyer / Eric London
PHONE: 202-986-0033
PROFESSOR STEPHEN ANSOLABEHERE
Department of Political Science, MITPROFESSOR JOHN DEUTCH – CO CHAIR
Institute Professor
Department of Chemistry, MITPROFESSOR EMERITUS MICHAEL DRISCOLL
Department of Nuclear Engineering, MITPROFESSOR PAUL E. GRAY
President Emeritus, MIT
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer SciencePROFESSOR JOHN P. HOLDREN
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy
Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy
John F.Kennedy School of Government, and
Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University.PROFESSOR PAUL L. JOSKOW
Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics and Management
Department of Economics and Sloan School of Management, MIT
Director, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy ResearchPROFESSOR RICHARD K. LESTER
Department of Nuclear Engineering, MIT
Director, MIT Industrial Performance CenterPROFESSOR ERNEST J. MONIZ – CO CHAIR
Department of Physics, MIT
Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the EnvironmentPROFESSOR NEIL E. TODREAS
Korea Electric Power Company Professor of Nuclear Engineering
Department of Nuclear Engineering, MIT
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Department of Mechanical Engineering, MITERIC S. BECKJORD
Executive DirectorStudent Research Assistants
Nathan Hottle
Christopher Jones
Etienne Parent
An interdisciplinary MIT faculty group examined the role of coal in a world where constraints on carbon dioxide emissions are adopted to mitigate global climate change. This follows "The Future of Nuclear Power" which focused on carbon dioxide emissions-free electricity generation from nuclear energy and was published in 2003. This report, the future of coal in a carbon-constrained world, evaluates the technologies and costs associated with the generation of electricity from coal along with those associated with the capture and sequestration of the carbon dioxide produced coal-based power generation. Growing electricity demand in the U.S. and in the world will require increases in all generation options (renewables, coal, and nuclear) in addition to increased efficiency and conservation in its use. Coal will continue to play a significant role in power generation and as such carbon dioxide management from it will become increasingly important. This study, addressed to government, industry and academic leaders, discusses the interrelated technical, economic, environmental and political challenges facing increased coal-based power generation while managing carbon dioxide emissions from this sector.
Generous financial support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Energy Foundation, the Better World Fund, the Norwegian Research Council, and the MIT Office of the Provost is gratefully acknowledged.
MIT PANEL PROVIDES POLICY BLUEPRINT FOR FUTURE OF USE OF COAL
AS POLICYMAKERS WORK TO REVERSE GLOBAL WARMINGMarch 14, 2007
Washington, DC – Leading academics from an interdisciplinary Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) panel issued a report today that examines how the world can continue to use coal, an abundant and inexpensive fuel, in a way that mitigates, instead of worsens, the global warming crisis. The study, "The Future of Coal – Options for a Carbon Constrained World," advocates the U.S. assume global leadership on this issue through adoption of significant policy actions.
Led by co-chairs Professor John Deutch, Institute Professor, Department of Chemistry, and Ernest J. Moniz, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, the report states that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the critical enabling technology to help reduce CO2 emissions significantly while also allowing coal to meet the world's pressing energy needs.
According to Dr. Deutch, "As the world's leading energy user and greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. must take the lead in showing the world CCS can work. Demonstration of technical, economic, and institutional features of CCS at commercial scale coal combustion and conversion plants will give policymakers and the public confidence that a practical carbon mitigation control option exists, will reduce cost of CCS should carbon emission controls be adopted, and will maintain the low-cost coal option in an environmentally acceptable manner."
Dr. Moniz added, "There are many opportunities for enhancing the performance of coal plants in a carbon-constrained world – higher efficiency generation, perhaps through new materials; novel approaches to gasification, CO2 capture, and oxygen separation; and advanced system concepts, perhaps guided by a new generation of simulation tools. An aggressive R&D effort in the near term will yield significant dividends down the road, and should be undertaken immediately to help meet this urgent scientific challenge."
Key findings in this study:
- Coal is a low-cost, per BTU, mainstay of both the developed and developing world, and its use is projected to increase. Because of coal's high carbon content, increasing use will exacerbate the problem of climate change unless coal plants are deployed with very high efficiency and large scale CCS is implemented.
- CCS is the critical enabling technology because it allows significant reduction in CO2 emissions while allowing coal to meet future energy needs.
- A significant charge on carbon emissions is needed in the relatively near term to increase the economic attractiveness of new technologies that avoid carbon emissions and specifically to lead to large-scale CCS in the coming decades. We need large-scale demonstration projects of the technical, economic and environmental performance of an integrated CCS system. We should proceed with carbon sequestration projects as soon as possible. Several integrated large-scale demonstrations with appropriate measurement, monitoring and verification are needed in the United States over the next decade with government support. This is important for establishing public confidence for the very large-scale sequestration program anticipated in the future. The regulatory regime for large-scale commercial sequestration should be developed with a greater sense of urgency, with the Executive Office of the President leading an interagency process.
- The U.S. government should provide assistance only to coal projects with CO2 capture in order to demonstrate technical, economic and environmental performance.
- Today, IGCC appears to be the economic choice for new coal plants with CCS. However, this could change with further RD&D, so it is not appropriate to pick a single technology winner at this time, especially in light of the variability in coal type, access to sequestration sites, and other factors. The government should provide assistance to several "first of a kind" coal utilization demonstration plants, but only with carbon capture.
- Congress should remove any expectation that construction of new coal plants without CO2 capture will be "grandfathered" and granted emission allowances in the event of future regulation. This is a perverse incentive to build coal plants without CO2 capture today.
- Emissions will be stabilized only through global adherence to CO2 emission constraints. China and India are unlikely to adopt carbon constraints unless the U.S. does so and leads the way in the development of CCS technology.
- Key changes must be made to the current Department of Energy RD&D program to successfully promote CCS technologies. The program must provide for demonstration of CCS at scale; a wider range of technologies should be explored; and modeling and simulation of the comparative performance of integrated technology systems should be greatly enhanced.
The report is available online at http://web.mit.edu/coal/.
About The MIT study: A group of MIT faculty has undertaken a series of interdisciplinary studies about how the U.S. and the world would meet future energy demand without increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. The first study, "The Future of Nuclear Power," appeared in 2003.
Generous financial support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Energy Foundation, the Better World Fund, Norwegian Research Council, and the MIT Office of the Provost is gratefully acknowledged. Shell provided additional support for part of MIT's studies in China.
CONTACT: Deb Colbert (TSD)
301-565-5329
PROFESSOR STEPHEN ANSOLABEHERE
Department of Political Science, MITPROFESSOR JANOS BEER
Department of Chemical Engineering, MITPROFESSOR JOHN DEUTCH – CO-CHAIR
Institute Professor
Department of Chemistry, MITDR. A. DENNY ELLERMAN
Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, MITDR. S. JULIO FRIEDMANN
Visiting Scientist, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, MIT
Carbon Management Program
Energy & Environment Directorate
Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryHOWARD HERZOG
Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, MITPROFESSOR HENRY D. JACOBY
Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, MITPROFESSOR PAUL L. JOSKOW
Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics and Management
Department of Economics and Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, MIT
Director, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy ResearchPROFESSOR GREGORY MCRAE
Department of Chemical Engineering, MITPROFESSOR RICHARD LESTER
Director, Industrial Performance Center
Department of Nuclear Engineering, MITPROFESSOR ERNEST J. MONIZ – CO-CHAIR
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems
Department of Physics, MIT
Director, Laboratory for Energy and the EnvironmentPROFESSOR EDWARD STEINFELD
Department of Political Science, MITDR. JAMES KATZER
Executive DirectorThe study benefited from the participation of a number of graduate student research assistants as listed in the report.
A presentation, sponsored by Resources for the Future, was held on March 14, 2007. The co-chairs of this study, John M. Deutch, Institute Professor at MIT and a member of the Resources for the Future Board of Directors, and Ernest J. Moniz, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems at MIT, discussed the report and took questions from the audience. Video and audio of the seminar is available on the Resources for the Future website.
Laboratory for Energy and the Environment
Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Don't worry, we won't post anything.
0
10
