previous | next

STANDARDS

Standards are a particularly effective way of assuring that emission reductions will be achieved. Standards for minimum efficiency performance of products like appliances, light fixtures, ballasts, motors, and the like, are effective in removing from the marketplace the least efficient products. Politically, standards can only be set where technological and economic feasibility has been demonstrated and where the businesses affected can be persuaded to agree to the level of control. They therefore generally represent minimum rather than maximum feasible achievements. Information programs, labels and incentives are needed to persuade manufacturers and vendors to go beyond the standards. Also, many products involve rapid technological change so that standards can become quickly obsolete. Regular updating of the standards is therefore required. Standards also must be set with care as to their applicability. For example, it makes sense to require installation of compact fluorescent lamps only where usage is reasonably high; they may be uneconomic where lamps are only used a few hours a day. Also, it is difficult to use standards for new technologies that are still relatively unproven and costly, in which case information, incentive and R&D programs may be more appropriate. Lastly, standards are ineffective if not enforced, so regular reporting, inspections and enforcement mechanisms must be included, as well as training of the personnel who will be involved with their application.

Pollution Standards

Legislated standards for air polluting emissions from power plants and tailpipe emissions from vehicles can be very effective in promoting clean energy. The United States (through its Clean Air Act ), most European countries and many developing countries have adopted such standards. Power plant standards are usually adopted for emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates and sometimes mercury. Legislated vehicle pollution standards place numerical limits on tailpipe emissions. They usually include requirements for annual vehicle inspections for compliance with the standards as a condition of registering the vehicle; catalytic converters to remove pollutants at the tailpipe; and require elimination of lead from gasoline. These standards, by making it more expensive to use fossil fuels, encourage the use of cleaner alternatives. Of course, the standards also reduce the health, mortality and environmental effects of air pollutants, so there is a double dividend. The costs in terms of more expensive electricity or automobiles, have been slight.

Environmental Impact Assessments

One of the most effective pollution control mechanisms is the environmental impact assessment or statement such as required for all major "federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The statements must detail the environmental impacts of any proposed action, any unavoidable adverse environmental effects, alternatives to the proposed action, short vs. long term effects and any irreversible commitments of resources. Assessments that do not conform to the Act can be challenged in court, a measure which has been very effective in assuring that the consequences of proposed actions be considered before they are implemented. The environmental impact assessment offers an immediate legal method to curb greenhouse gas emissions. More than 175 countries have enacted their own environmental impact legislation and assessments have been required in a number of international environmental treaties such as Article 206 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The World Bank and other multilateral banks require such assessments under their administrative procedures.

Building Codes & Standards

Most countries have adopted standards for construction of new buildings. Many have now included energy requirements in these building standards. All the IEA countries have energy requirements as a part of their building codes and many recently are strengthening them. For example, France is adopting more stringent thermal regulations for new residential and commercial buildings with the aim of improving energy efficiency by 25%. Building energy standards usually require all new residential, commercial and industrial construction to be built to a minimum energy efficiency level that is cost-effective and technically feasible. AGood practice@ residential energy codes, as defined by the 1992 Model Energy Code (now known as the International Energy Conservation Code), have been adopted in the U.S. by 32 states, and Agood practice@ commercial energy codes, as defined by the ASHRAE 90.1-1989 model standard, have been adopted by 29 states. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) requires all states to adopt this commercial building code standard and to consider upgrading their residential codes to meet or exceed the 1992 Model Code, but this legislative requirement has not been well enforced. Experience in the U.S. has shown building codes can reduce space conditioning energy use in new buildings by 25% or more. Legislation to give tax credits for highly efficient new housing was introduced but not passed by the U.S. Congress in 1999.

Carbon emissions from existing buildings, which account for approximately two-thirds of the energy used in the buildings sector, also can be substantially reduced through cost-effective retrofits. AFor example, an evaluation of the U.S. national weatherization assistance program found that retrofits of low-income housing carried out during 1990-96 typically reduced natural gas consumption for space heating by 34 percent...Also, retrofits of 15 office buildings as a part of EPA's ENERGY STAR7 Showcase Buildings partnership reduced energy consumption by 30 percent on average...The technologies that can be used to upgrade efficiency include adding insulation to walls and attics, replacing older windows with energy efficient windows , sealing leaky heating and cooling air ducts, sealing air leaks in the building envelope, upgrading heating and cooling systems, replacing inefficient lighting, and installing control systems.@ Ordinances requiring retrofits of existing buildings have been adopted in the U.S. cities such as San Francisco, CA, Minneapolis, MN, and Burlington, VT. Energy audits of buildings also have been adopted in various jurisdictions, for example in Luxembourg on a voluntary basis.

One measure worth pursuing is a law, adopted in some U.S. states, requiring that homes or commercial buildings be inspected at the time of resale, with a retrofit requirement for buildings that are found not to be up to standards.

Appliance Efficiency Standards

Legislated standards for appliance efficiency are particularly needed because most appliances are bought, not by bill payers, but by landlords, home builders and public housing authorities who have no economic interest in saving energy in selecting them; quite to the contrary, they are more likely to select buying the appliances which have the lowest first cost regardless of energy consumption. While incentives and appliance labeling for energy efficiency (which is required in the U.S. and many other countries), can be helpful in exceeding standards, only standards can assure that at least the most inefficient models will be removed from the market.

Residential and commercial buildings currently account for 36.5% of national energy use in the U.S., mostly consumed by heating and cooling equipment and electric appliances. Approximately 85% of residential energy is consumed in furnaces, boilers, air conditioners, heat pumps, refrigerators, water heaters, clothes washers and dryers,
ranges and dishwashers. 65% of commercial energy consumption occurs in heating, cooling, lighting, water heating, refrigeration, and office equipment. In industry, lighting equipment and electric motors account for more than 75% of electricity consumption.

The U.S. has adopted a broad range of appliance efficiency standards starting in 1987, on fluorescent ballasts in 1988, and on a variety of commercial and industrial equipment in 1992. It is estimated that the U.S. standards cumulatively will reduce electricity use in the U.S. by 2.7% in 2000 and 6% by 2015. An U.S. Energy Information Administration study finds that a 10-20% increase in these standards would lead to an 8 million metric ton reduction of carbon emissions in 2010 and would further reduce carbon emissions by 20-23 million metric tons in 2020.

A number of other countries have adopted appliance efficiency standards. For example, The European Union has adopted directives for its members to create energy efficiency standards for hot water heaters and boilers, refrigerators, freezers, washing machines and tumble dryers. Argentina has adopted home electrical appliance efficiency standards in place for refrigerators and freezers, with labeling commencing by mid-2000, with standards and labeling for washing machines in progress.

The European Commission also developed efficiency targets to reduce standby power consumption for TVs and VCRs. In implementing these targets, the Swiss Federal Office of Energy, pursuant to a Swiss statute, provided that if the industry fails to meet the target values by a specified date, it would set mandatory minimum efficiency standards for these appliances; it also provides for mandatory labeling of these products and a stiff reporting requirement. The results of the report for 1994 to 1996 show that TV and VCR sales for models with standby power of 5 Watts or less increased from 36% to 44%, while appliances using more than 10 Watts in standby power dropped from 19% to 8%. The U.S. EPA voluntary standard for standby energy in TVs and VCRs has been estimated to have a potential to save, at zero cost, about 8 million tons of carbon per year - as much as eight million cars now emit.

Over time, these standards result in considerable economic savings for consumers and society. While the first cost of the efficient appliances often is slightly more than inefficient models, the economic savings over the life of the appliance can be very significant B and the savings to society from reduction of energy demand also are great, resulting in decreased use of polluting fossil fuels and thus promoting cleaner energy. In developing countries there may be a need to provide for initial assistance to enable purchaser to pay for the higher cost of the efficient appliances.

Renewable Portfolio Standards

In the U.S. and other countries, renewable portfolio standards have been adopted or are being considered. These standards require electric utilities to purchase a certain percentage of their power from renewable resources. As of mid-1999, nine states (Arizona, Connecticut, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Texas and Wisconsin) had adopted some form of renewable portfolio standard utility requirement. Going even further, Massachusetts and Connecticut regulatory commissions have required a AGeneration Portfolio Standard,@ requiring each distribution company to offer a mix of generation sources that will meet federal and state air pollution standards.

Legislation has been proposed in Congress and by the Clinton Administration to create a national renewable portfolio standard of 7.5% non-hydro renewables by 2010 and 20% by 2020 (compared to 2.3% of U.S. electricity supply today). The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that this standard would reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 19 million metric tons by 2010. If such standards were to be widely adopted, they would allow mass production of renewable energy generation equipment, substantially reducing the costs, particularly of solar photovoltaic cells and wind machines, thus making them more competitive against fossil fuels.

The United Kingdom has enacted a similar Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO). After the UK's deregulation of its electric utility industry in 1989, it created Regional Electricity Companies (RECs) which in 1992 were required to purchase 1,500 MW of non-fossil generated power by the year 2000 in a series of auctions, five of which have now taken place. These auctions were so successful that 3,271 MW of non-fossil power has been purchased at the auctions, far in excess of the 1,500 MW requirement. The program's 15-year contracts with 5-year repayment grace periods permit reasonable financing of projects. The auction device has driven renewable prices down to about 4.3 cents/kWh (very close to the electricity pool price of 4.2 cents). On the other hand, the intense competition arising from the auction process has favored large,
deep-pocket companies and has discouraged small investors, independent developers and the domestic renewable energy manufacturing industry. Subsidies to pay the RECs for excess costs of non-fossil resources are paid from a tax on all electricity.

Argentina, Denmark and Germany also have adopted utility renewable requirements. The Netherlands mandates renewable purchases where utilities purchase excess power to cover avoided fuel and capacity costs. Denmark, in addition to pollution taxes and incentives for renewables purchases, has adopted a renewable portfolio standard under which a target for renewables is set legislatively and utilities are required to meet these targets. The utilities may either develop renewable resources themselves or purchase credits from other renewable generators. The extra costs of renewable purchases are handed down to all of the utility's customers.

Japan adopted a "Project Sunshine" under which the government subsidizes photovoltaic purchases by utilities to meet a Ten Thousand Roofs goal, and in 1997 enacted a New Energy Law establishing a goal to provide 3.1% of primary energy from renewable resources by 2010 (vs. 2.1% in 1996). While there is no purchase requirement, the government's Arequests@ to suppliers are the effective equivalent of a required standard under the Japanese system.

Vehicle Standards

Legislation regulating the vehicle miles per gallon standards for all vehicles sold can also make a big impact on pollution reduction, thus promoting cleaner energy policies. The U.S. Congress enacted Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards during the energy crisis in 1975, and Canada adopted a similar Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Program with voluntary standards. The U.S. CAFE standards provide that the passenger automobiles produced by each manufacturer must average a prescribed miles per gallon, with a lesser standard for light trucks. As a result, the average miles per gallon of the U.S. passenger automobile fleet was increased from 17 mpg in the 1970s to a high of 25.9 mpg in 1988.

However, with the recent introduction of highly popular larger Asports utility vehicles,@ which unfortunately were classified as light trucks, and the increased use of light trucks for passenger use, the average mpg in the U.S. has been reduced to 23.8 mpg today. Congress has resisted strengthening the standards and turned down a proposal for a modest gasoline tax increase at the beginning of the Clinton Administration. In December, 1999, however, the Administration was successful in reaching an agreement with the automobile manufacturers and the oil industry to apply stricter standards for sports utility vehicles and light trucks together with a mandate for production of gasoline with a lower sulfur content, both of which measures will substantially reduce vehicle pollution and carbon dioxide emissions.

In other countries, similar programs have been adopted in the form of negotiated agreements between governments and that auto industry. Australia, for example, entered an agreement to reduce national average fuel consumption for new cars and required the use of a mandatory fuel efficiency label. The German auto industry is committed to a 25% reduction in cars built and sold between 1990 and 2005. Italy and Japan have similar programs. In Switzerland, a voluntary program was enacted calling for a 15% fuel consumption between 1996 and 2001, with the authority to adopt mandatory regulations if this target is not reached.

Other vehicle measures adopted include multiple-occupancy vehicle lanes on highways and car-pooling incentives including company-provided vanpools, elimination of free parking by business establishments and parking fees. These measures have been adopted in a good number of U.S. states. France and Italy even have gone so far as to limit city parking to alternate days for odd and even license numbers and create No Car Days.

Enforcement

Effective enforcement is critical to the success of any standards program. Theoretically, the governments adopting the standards should enforce them, and any standards program, to be effective, should incorporate substantial resources for training, inspection and enforcement. In practice, however, governments and their regulatory agencies often come to identify with the industries or companies that they regulate. Also, political pressures often prevent effective government enforcement. Citizen enforcement, adopted in the U.S. in the Clean Air Act and other environmental statutes has been found to be a most effective enforcement mechanism. NGOs in the U.S. are able to hold regulators' feet to the fire very effectively by filing suit to enforce standards, with the award of attorney's fees for such litigation; the very presence of citizen suit provisions enables the NGOs to influence government enforcement policies.

previous | next

DOWNLOAD (Word format)