|
Questions submitted during the December 15, 2009 Energy Efficiency Forum webcast: "Energy Efficiency Forum: Live from Copenhagen."
Answers provided by webcast panel of experts:
Barry Worthington, USEA Executive Director
· Michael Anderson, Manager, Research and Knowledge Center, CoreNet Global
· Roger Platt, Senior Vice President of Global Policy and Law, United States Green Building Council
· Dr. Nigel Jollands, Head of Energy Efficiency Unit, International Energy Agency
· Clay Nesler, Vice President, Global Energy and Sustainability, Johnson Controls, Inc.
Audience question: Headlines about the Copenhagen conference are currently focusing on demonstrations, walkouts, protests and objections to what developing countries’ stances may be. To what extent are these interferences rather than minor distractions? With all this noise and commotion going on, is the business community able to articulate its messages in a meaningful way, and are they being heard and listened to by policy makers?
Roger Platt: The U.S. Green Building Council is an organization with an environmental mission. We don’t see the Copenhagen protests and demonstrations as a bad thing. It’s important to have people who are highlighting the most idealistic vision of what can be achieved; it’s an important part of the pressure. Also need people who have pragmatic and specific ideas, which is what the business community brings. If you have a combination of people who are really passionate and who are really treating this with a seriousness that I think even the people who are protesting are doing and then the business community – even though they don’t always work together – or perhaps a little bit at groups like the U.S. Green Building Council they do – it’s important that both play a role. And my sense is that there’s a lot of interest in the ideas of the business community. Sadly, I find in the, at least here in Europe, a little bit less, oddly enough, of a mix between environmental groups and business groups working together. There’s much more mutual suspicion. The business groups have their own club, and here at the COM, for example, you can’t go, if you’re from an environmental group, you can’t go to the business group meetings. And if you’re a business group you can’t go to the environmental group meetings. And I think America has a little bit more fluidity between those two important groups.
Online question: Do you see LEED playing a large role in future efforts to manage building energy efficiency?
Roger Platt: I think LEED is one standard among many standards, and different countries will be tailoring those to make those most appropriate for their own countries’ needs. But let me tell you that LEED is already stimulating an extraordinary amount of activity around world and in the United States. I believe it can be a good model for encouraging voluntary action, and also a good model for local governments to consider, at least for their own buildings, for government buildings, because if you prove out what works and what doesn’t work, then you can encourage the private sector to do the same thing. Whether it’s LEED or other standards, I think governments leading by example, by trying out these different standards, and then the private sector hopefully following, and maybe even feeling competitive with government and trying to do a better job than the government by going to a further level, which we’ve found in the United States, that that is a good approach.
Dr. Nigel Jollands: I think buildings are so central to the whole solution set that we’ve really got to try two strategies. The first one is encouraging top end buildings, and that’s where LEED really comes in, really pushing the envelope to get real buildings on the ground that are performing at the best of their capability. But we’ve also got to get governments and building people to set a minimum standard as well. We cannot have buildings that are built to really shoddy standards. We’ve got to get rid of that lower stock. So I think we need both strategies: both the top and the bottom end.
Clay Nesler: I would add, being here in Europe for the conference, that as often as I’ve heard “green buildings” and “LEED,” I’ve heard “passive houses.” And there’s a real movement in Europe towards so-called “passive houses,” both residential as well as commercial design. These are very, very low energy, near zero energy type buildings. Interim goals, for instance, in the U.K. they’re going to have near-passive-type-house standards in 2013. That will be factor four less business-as-usual from an energy density per square meter. And the European Union as a whole, I believe, has set targets by 2019 to have these very, very low standards. These standards would be significantly lower than even the Title 24 type standards we see in California. So it is very interesting to hear the same discussion through a slightly different lens within Europe and see a very, very dramatic commitment to very lower energy homes through the use of renewable energy in homes and in commercial buildings and building them to super energy efficiency standards.
Roger Platt: I want to really agree with what Nigel said about the importance of minimum code standards and mandatory requirements for buildings in order to ensure that we have the baseline that he’s talking about as a minimum. I do want to reflect on one maybe surprising fact which is that in the LEED residential certification history, one third of our LEED-certified buildings for residential are affordable homes or lower-income homes. That’s one area where we’re trying -- not only with our own certification, but encouraging other forms of certification -- to work for people who don’t really have the big bucks.
Online question: In talking about efficiency in buildings, and particularly new buildings, it’s well recognized that we’re seen tremendous growth in all of Asia, but particularly in China. What can you say about energy efficiency opportunities in Asia, particularly, and also how do the opportunities in buildings compare with our industrial efficiencies?
Clay Nesler: Dr. Steven Chu is here in Copenhagen. In fact, many of President Obama’s cabinet are here; they’ve been very visible, speaking at events. Secretary Chu, who is Secretary of Energy in the United States, has announced a number of bilateral agreements between countries like India and China, as well as multi-lateral agreements with major economic powers. And the nature of many of these agreements is capacity building, sharing of best practices, collaboration on research and development where both countries would own the intellectual property arising out of that research. And, in fact, the U.S. is taking a lead in a number of these initiatives around building efficiency. The goal in working with, in particular, India and China, has been to work on appliance standards and building codes, the types of policies which are really appropriate for a country which is going to build 80-90 percent of its infrastructure over the next ten to twenty years. I think that is a very large priority for the U.S. Department of Energy and the Administration, and one very sound mechanism, with money behind it and commitments here in Copenhagen, to make some progress there. I know that Nigel also has good visibility into some of the work in the developing world, as well.
Dr. Nigel Jollands: China is obviously a huge player in the energy scene and in the emissions scene globally. In China I believe they are building roughly a billion square meters a year now in new build, so that’s enormous. And I think it’s fair to say that the Chinese government sees energy efficiency as a huge potential for their economy. And they’re being increasingly active – and I’d even say aggressive – in their approach to pursuing energy efficiency improvements. One of the question elements was, “ should we be focusing building or industry in China in terms of energy efficiency and the scale?” I’d like to suggest that it’s not an either/or option for China or any other country, that building energy efficiency needs to be pursued along with improvements in energy efficiency in industry.
Roger Platt: I could not agree more. I think this is one area where because of the leadership shown by India, by China and the United States really trying to also be engaged, this is one area where I think there are opportunities for all three of us to work together, Johnson Controls and companies like Johnson Controls, the International Energy Agency with all their expertise, and the U.S. Green Building Council, the Green Building Council of China and the Green Building Council here have been in substantial dialogue about some of these issues. There really is a great opportunity for us all to have an impact on these very critical agreements.
Online question: There seems to be a gap between individuals acknowledging the value of energy efficiency and then them actually taking action. If you’re trying to inspire companies to take action, what will it take to make that happen, and who’s going to make the decision? And, maybe most importantly, is it really going to take high prices before people are willing to pursue energy efficiency more rigorously?
Michael Anderson: High prices are, of course, going to drive energy efficiency practices, but the integration of technologies will be key in moving forward. If we’re not able to correctly benchmark the savings that can be achieved through energy efficient practices, there’s not much to sell to as far as getting senior buy-in and getting the funds allocated for these projects. My stance is that if we can get companies to actively pursue these strategies, to start benchmarking what operating costs they might be able to save, then the wider public will see these and jump on them because they’ll just become a band wagon of energy efficiency cost savings.
Clay Nesler: I was listening to Steven Chu last night and the night before. He is obviously a big supporter of energy efficiency. The second slide in every deck he gives relates to energy efficiency and usually about buildings. He said a very interesting thing. He was talking about reality in a carbon-constrained world, which he views as a given. And he brought up an interesting term. It wasn’t energy efficiency, it was “energy competitiveness.”And he felt that when you live in a carbon-constrained world, that those that aren’t proactive, those that do not take action, those that do not source clean power, those that are not as efficient as possible will find themselves becoming increasingly uncompetitive in this carbon-constrained world. I think it’s an interesting thought: that if I’m not taking action, than I’m going to become less competitive, your building value is going to decrease, you won’t be able to attract the tenants that you want or the employees, and you will increasingly find yourself in a cost situation, just due to everything that’s going on to value the environmental costs to the planet within the price of energy. That stuck in my ear, and I thought that was an interesting way of looking at it, different from what I’ve heard before.
Roger Platt: I think it’s every interesting that he talked about it in that way. I think it’s very similar to a number of things I’ve been hearing at the COM, which is, maybe in crude terms, that pretty soon China will be eating our lunch when it comes to all of the key new technologies and new wave of industrial competitiveness. And that’s because they’re not wasting any time. They can create the equivalent of many Silicon Valleys for the new energy technology revolution and they’re focused on it. If we’re going to be competitive with the new emerging, new soon-to-be superpower China, we’re going to really need to focus on this and I think that what Secretary Chu is sensitive to is even working together with China, that we’ve got to make sure that in addition to competing, we’re also identifying those priority technologies that can help climate change right now.
Online question: The IEA`s latest World Energy Outlook indicates that about two-thirds of the carbon savings required to avoid more than 450 PPM of CO2 by 2050 will come from energy efficiency, yet it does not appear that the policy focus of leaders at Copenhagen is on energy efficiency policy. Are leaders taking energy efficiency gains for granted? Are IEA and other entities drawing appropriate attention to the energy efficiency policy alternatives and their relatively low costs and high short-term potential benefits?
Dr. Nigel Jollands: You are correct - energy efficiency is the biggest wedge in the 450 ppm scenario. I don't think that is fair to say that energy efficiency is not getting attention - it certainly is, even if we have to try to find it through the fog of COP jargon. Nevertheless, I would say that on balance, energy efficiency is not getting the attention it deserves. Perhaps I am missing something, but if energy efficiency is two thirds of the energy-related mitigation potential, why, for example, is it not getting two thirds of the resources allocated to it? I would like to think that the IEA and other entities are trying to draw attention to the energy efficiency policy options and low costs - especially if the number of side events at COP are anything to go by. But perhaps we are not being effective enough?
Online question: Much has been written about McKinsey`s cost-effectiveness curve. Should financing programs such as PACE be aligned with energy efficiency investments?
Clay Nesler: The McKinsey carbon abatement cost curves are extremely valuable from a policy perspective, but they are based on average cost and energy savings potential. Financing programs, such as Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) bonds, lend themselves to whole-building retrofits where a proper facility audit and energy analysis are needed to select the most cost-effective improvement measures for each building.
Online question: Where are K-12 and higher education facilities factored into the “Energy and Climate Outlook” survey?
Michael Anderson: Unfotunately, we did not have any participation from K-12 and higher education facilities in the survey response.
Online question: In terms of preparing for cap and trade opportunities, is the Greenhouse Protocol the standard to use?
Clay Nesler: The WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol is the basis for most voluntary public greenhouse gas reporting in the U.S. and around the world. The U.S. EPA's new mandatory reporting rule may establish alternate protocols, but I would suspect that these will be strongly influenced by, and built upon, the GHG protocol.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
