ENERGY STAR and Green Lights ENERGY STAR Products ENERGY Homes Clean (2001 Initiative) Table 10. Buildings Programs: Description of Planned Activities EPA will actively promote its new buildings benchmarking tool and will work with building owners and managers to EPA will award 2,500 new ENERGY STAR labels to buildings that reach a benchmark score between 75 and 100 (1,250 at current funding level). Continue to develop benchmarking tools for additional space types such as healthcare, lodging, food service and sales, and public assembly, providing benchmarking capabilities for 90% of the total US floor space. (Benchmarking capabilities for 2 additional space types, representing a total of about 75% of total US floor space at current funding level.) Continue to actively recruit new small businesses and congregations into the ENERGY STAR Small Business program to reach over 8,000 participants by the end of 2001 (5,000 at current funding level). Expand partnership to represent more than 19% of building square footage (17% at current funding level). Expand Public sector work to represent more than 1,000 schools and university partners (700 at current levels) and 500 state and local government partners (350 at current funding levels). Expand work to improve the efficiency of the federal government. EPA will work with other agencies to implement key pieces of the new Federal Executive Order on building energy efficiency, particularly focusing on assisting agencies to benchmark their buildings and to procure energy-efficient products. Achieve 50% public recognition of the ENERGY STAR label in the U.S. (40% at current funding levels) Work with 8 large retail chains like Sears, Home Depot, Montgomery Wards, etc. to promote Energy Star-labeled products Design and implement an initiative for small businesses and retailers to promote ENERGY STAR equipment and products, Train over 10,000 heating and cooling contractors (who meet daily with homeowners), allowing the value and benefits of Promote ENERGY STAR Homes in 15 geographic areas (5 at current levels) Develop ENERGY STAR Kitchen promotions with 6 utilities or market transformation groups and 2 national retail chain (3 Develop and promote ENERGY STAR package in Remodeling with 3 utilities or market transformation groups and I national Rol' out National ENERGY STAR Duct Program and Air-Sealing Program and develop and roll out National Home Develop public information materials concerning the environmental implications of electricity choices for electricity Develop and implement outreach plan using networks from existing partnership programs as well as networks beyond the Assist and develop 5 clean power projects in the buildings sector that can be case studies for cost-effective investment in clean power technologies. Climate Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Clean Industry Consulnations (2001) Waste Table 11. Industry Programs: Description of Planned Activities Within FY 2001 President's Budget Request Recruit 100 additional partner companies, bringing the total number of partners to nearly 800 partner companies 10 Expand work with the private sector to create a market for products whose emissions have been offset or Launch an initiative to enhance the production and use of less carbon intensive "blended" cements and cements Expand outreach to 15 key State air and utility regulators to overcome regulatory obstacles and raise awareness of Assist and develop 5 clean power projects in the industrial sector that can be attractive case studies for Develop new efforts to provide organizations with tools and incentives to purchase green power. Building upon Develop and implement pilot projects to link clean power and clean air. Clean energy technologies offer attractive Work with key energy-intensive industries such as aluminum, cement, chemicals, steel, petroleum, airlines, and Expand Waste Wise to include 1,400 partners (1,250 partners at current levels). Expand Waste Wise to product stewardship and materials management using the principles of Extended Product Expand the Climate and Greenbuildings Initiative to catalyze waste and materials management-related activities in Expand the Climate and Biomass Initiative, which promotes technologies for utilizing biomass materials and Methane Programs to Reduce High Global Warming Potential Gases Expand the Natural Gas STAR program to represent 65% of domestic gas production and 20% of gas processing while maintaining representation of 85% of gas transmission pipeline miles and 50% of distribution service connections (55% of domestic gas production and 10% of gas processing at current levels, and 85% of gas transmission pipeline miles, 50% of distribution service connections). Expand EPA's Coalbed Methane Outreach Program (CMOP) to work with key stakeholders to expand the market for new greenhouse gas reduction technologies, including flares at wells producing medium quality gas and combustion technologies appropriate for mine ventilation air. EPA will facilitate 2 demonstration projects (none at current levels). Expand the Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) to assist a total of 225 landfills with gas utilization projects, to promote newer energy applications, and to increase methane recovery efficiency at existing projects (205 landfills at current funding). In the agriculture sector, continued expansion of methane-reducing technologies will help ensure clean water and air for the livestock sector. The Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership (VAIP) will continue to deliver reductions, with VAIP The Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry will work with the US semiconductor companies as they set Enhance recruitment for the SF6 Emissions Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems (utilities) beyond the expected 150 partners (representing 40% of the industry's generating capacity) to more than double the expected greenhouse gas reductions. Enhance recruitment (beyond 70% of US primary magnesium and casting production) and research of emission reduction technologies for the SF6 Emissions Reduction Partnership for the Magnesium Industry, to increase expected reductions by 20%. Maintain effective Partnership with chemical manufacturers to reduce emissions of HFC-23. Expand the stewardship programs to reduce emissions from other key sources such as manufacturing and distribution losses of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, and other high GWP gas emitters, yielding estimated reductions in high GWP gas emissions of 8 MMTCE by 2010. Expand SNAP and related programs to require recovery and recycling of alternative refrigerants, including a number of greenhouse gases; to work with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships, to facilitate and promote new supermarket refrigeration technology that reduces refrigerant charge and leakage; and to promote liquid carbon dioxide or nitrogen for use in transport refrigeration 4.0 Measurement of Results 4.1 Background EPA measures the performance of its climate programs using outcome based measures where it is feasible to measure the outcomes. In the climate change area, EPA uses outcome based measures such as reduced emissions of greenhouse gases, which are consistent with U.S. national and international policy. By signing and ratifying the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, the U.S. has committed to "adopt national policies and take corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change, by limiting its anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs..... with the aim of returning.... to their 1990 levels these anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol"'" This aim was strengthened to a national goal for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to be a national goal in 1993, and President Clinton's Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) was designed to achieve an emissions reduction goal. The Climate Change Technology Initiative builds upon many of the successful efforts under CCAP and maintains reductions in greenhouse emissions as a primary goal. EPA has developed annual performance goals for its climate change programs through 2010 and beyond using the following outcome based measures: reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and reduced energy consumption. EPA has used a variety of methods to track its progress for these measures. While the specific methodologies used to collect data and estimate program impacts vary from program to program, EPA has relied upon direct program participant reporting as a key input for measuring program results in many cases. Partner reports are reviewed for accuracy and compared to trend data. For instance, The ENERGY STAR Buildings and Green Lights Partnership collects detailed, technology specific reports from program participants that include energy savings from completed energy-efficiency projects as well as detailed information on investments in energyefficient technologies. Other programs, such as EPA's ENERGY STAR Labeling program, rely on industry reports of shipments of equipment, the penetration rate of the ENERGY STAR label for that particular equipment, and expected penetration of energy-efficient equipment prior to activities related to the ENERGY STAR labeling program. Based on this information and other program specific factors, EPA calculated the energy savings and energy cost savings resulting from the climate programs. EPA calculates the carbon, NOx and SO, reductions from its programs by applying regional carbon (or NOx or SO2) factors (carbon emitted/kWh) to the reported or calculated energy savings. Some of the other factors that EPA has used in determining program benefits include estimates of free-ridership (benefits from projects that would have been undertaken by program participants without the program) and freedrivership (benefits that have resulted due to efforts of the program but are outside of the program reporting framework, i.e., undertaken by a non-participant). While these two factors are fairly difficult to estimate, there are some generally accepted values in the energy efficiency program evaluation literature that have been developed from utility energy efficiency work. EPA has used these values because the utility work has some similarities to the work of the partnership programs, although there are some important differences as well. The baseline for evaluating program performance has been a forecast of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of the Climate Change Action Plan programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the Climate Change Action Plan in 1997, which built on a similar baseline forecast that was developed in 1993 for the Climate Change Action Plan. The updated baseline includes updated energy forecasts and economic growth projections. The baseline is discussed at length in the Climate Action Report 1997, which includes a discussion of differences in baselines between the original Climate Change Action Plan and the 1997 baseline. EPA is now moving to new methods of program evaluation that are more appropriate for the types of programs that EPA operates. These evaluations will assess the market transformation impacts -- success in promoting market growth for energy-efficient products and services programs -- as well as the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption. With the programs now producing sizable results in the market place, EPA can use market-based assessments to evaluate its programs, as opposed to requiring an analysis of program participant microdata as a means of inferring market impact. Moving to these new methods represents a sharp departure from the evaluation studies of utility service energy-efficiency programs. These prior studies focused on estimating the localized energy savings that could be attributed to products and services that were purchased by eligible utility customers, with the incentives of rebates and subsidies. Participant micro data- specifically customer billing data and customer measure installation data- were used to estimate changes in customer energy consumption due to participation in the program. The market transformation programs operated by the federal government shift program emphasis away from energy savings and towards promoting market growth for energy-efficient products and services. This shift in program paradigms requires a parallel shift in program evaluation designs. Energy efficiency program evaluation concepts such as free riders and free drivers have only indirect use for evaluating whether, and to what degree, a program has quickened the overall pace of market movement. Indeed, for some market transformation programs, program participants are manufacturers and retailers. For others, the number of reported program participants might have little or no bearing on whether the program had a significant impact on the pace of market movement. For these reasons, the paradigm for evaluating market transformation programs cannot center on estimating changes in participant energy use and inferring participant intentions. Rather, it must focus on the dynamics and the determinants of market outcomes. EPA has embarked upon market evaluations for two key programs, Green Lights and ENERGY STAR Labeling. When complete, these efforts will not only provide the best information available on the impact of these programs, but will provide a foundation for a comprehensive market evaluation effort across the CCTI. These efforts are described below. 4.2 Accomplishments of the Green Lights Partnership To assess the climate protection accomplishments of the Green Lights partnership, EPA has completed an economic study of the national market for fluorescent lighting ballasts. Using market share as a central concept, this study provides quantitative evidence that the Green Lights partnership, over the past decade, shaped consumer demand for energy-efficient electronic lighting ballasts and permanently transformed the fluorescent ballasts industry. Based on the annual energy savings resulting from EPAOs success, this study finds that the partnership readily met its goals for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the generation of electricity. |