National Research Council recommends use of "full fuel cycle" measurements in setting appliance efficiency standards
The National Research Council (NRC), part of the National Academy of Sciences, recently released a report advising the Department of Energy (DOE) to update its criteria for setting appliance energy-efficiency standards. The new analysis would incorporate energy consumed in producing and distributing different fossil fuels (“full fuel cycle” measurements) and include the efficiency of the fuel source used to operate the appliance. This type of analysis is especially useful in appliances that can be powered by more than one fuel source, like water heaters, furnaces, and heat pumps. The report states that full-fuel-cycle measurements would provide consumers with a more complete picture of product efficiency, energy consumption, and environmental impacts.
Currently, when setting efficiency standards, the DOE only takes into account the energy consumed to operate an appliance (“point of use” measurements). The report says that this gives an incomplete picture to consumers because “it omits the energy needed to mine, process, and transport the primary fuel to a generating power plant; the energy used at the generating plant; and the energy used in delivery electricity or fuel to the site of operation of an appliance.”
Debate about the use of a full fuel cycle measurement is continuing. The majority of the committee endorsed a gradual switch to full fuel cycle measurements for the DOE, but said that further work on data and analysis is needed. However, two members of the committee issued dissenting opinions. According to the dissent, the full fuel cycle is fraught with complexity and controversy and would not necessarily help consumers become more energy efficient. Instead, according to the dissent, the full fuel cycle will inevitable favor one type of fuel over another, which they felt is a matter for national energy policy, not the appliance efficiency program.
IGCC aims for regulatory framework for green construction
On June 29, the International Code Council (ICC), in conjunction with the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) announced the launching of a new initiative, the International Green Construction Code (IGCC). The IGCC will be a model code for commercial and high performance buildings, with a framework based on environmentally sound standards. The goal is to create a sustainable regulatory framework that can be adopted into local, state, and federal law.
The main goals of the IGCC are to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that buildings emit, while encouraging efficient use of energy, water, materials, and other resources. The IGCC will also address indoor environmental quality, site design, and education for building owners and facility management. There will also be provisions that take account of existing buildings. The IGCC will include compliance criteria, and will include mandatory language that provides the flexibility necessary to take account for local conditions. Architects and designers are expected to have a primary role in the implementation of the Code.
ICC Executive Officer Richard P. Weiland noted that the AIA and ASTM’s involvement in this process signifies a commitment to “recognized and verifiable approaches to standards.” Notably, the AIA has an initiative of carbon neutral buildings by 2030.
The Sustainable Building Technology Committee (SBTC), which the Code Council Board established last year, will hold public meetings, culminating in an initial draft, followed by a public comment period. The final draft of the IGCC will be available by 2010, at which point it will go through development and final action hearings. The IGCC is not the first green building initiative. The IGCC follows Standard 189, the first minimum, code-enforceable standard for green buildings.
Ninth Circuit hears argument in lawsuit urging higher minimum efficiency standards for electricity distribution transformers
On March 9, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in People of California v. US Dept. of Energy, a lawsuit brought by the state of California, Earthjustice, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) against the US Department of Energy (DOE) to adopt stronger energy efficiency standards for electricity distribution transformers. Amongst other things, Petitioners argue that, by rejecting a proposal for stronger efficiency standards, DOE failed to "achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency" that is "technologically feasible and economically justified," as required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992. In support of this argument, they allege that DOE failed to account for the monetary benefits of reducing carbon dioxide pollution. (Listen to California v. DOE Ninth Circuit oral arguments.)
In October 2007, DOE adopted minimum energy efficiency standards for distribution transformers (72 FR 58190). Electricity distribution transformers (the gray cylinders or boxes seen on utility poles) play a key role in delivering electricity to commercial and residential end users. Electricity travels across transmission lines at high voltages that are not suitable for commercial or home use. Electricity distribution transformers (in combination with substation transformers) reduce the voltages to levels suitable for end users.
According to a recent press release issued by Earthjustice, adopting more stringent standards would avoid the emission of 700 million tons of carbon dioxide – more than what is emitted annually by all US passenger cars – and requiring all new transformers to achieve the same efficiency levels as the best units currently available would eliminate the need for nearly 20 large new power plants by 2038. According to Earthjustice, higher efficiency standards would also reduce costs and improve system reliability for electricity end users, and could save the utility industry, the primary purchaser of distribution transformers, $9 billion.
