Unveiling Future Energy Demand Trends: Insights from Energy Modeling Forum Study

1. Efficiency and the Shape of Future Energy Demand: Initial Findings from Energy Modeling Forum Study 25 Hillard Huntington Energy Modeling Forum Stanford, CA International Energy Workshop Venice, Italy June 17, 2009

2. Today’s Discussion • Rediscovery of energy efficiency improvements • Organization/purpose of EMF’s effort • Participants/ modeling approaches • Early discussions • Had expected to compare preliminary results but not enough standardization • End-use rather than primary consumption efficiency

3. Models Scrambling to Catch-Up to Policy “Winds” • Most models represent climate change policy as a single target. • Policymakers do not trust a single economic policy. • Nations impose additional goals: renewable standards, energy efficiency targets. • Political attraction: reduce gap between target and actual; lower price effects.

4. Lumen-Hours per Kilowatt Hours Astronomicalgrowth in lighting services

5. Policy Climate Raises Interesting Issues • How quickly will energy/power demand grow? • How much efficiency and at what cost? • Do efficiency/price policies complement or substitute?

6. EMF - Communication Bridge Between Modelers and Policymakers • Working group adopts common assumptions for different scenarios. • Decentralized model simulations at home institutions. • Forum meetings compare/contrast key results. • Focus on insights for decisions rather than numbers for models.

7. Where We Are in the Process • Working group has met twice & revised scenarios once. • Will meet again in October in Washington DC. • Plan to develop preliminary conclusions for Spring 2010 discussion. • Summary report issued soon thereafter.

8. Approaches Offer Different Perspectives • Economic-technology models provide considerable detail (EIA, CIMS) • Economic-market models represent competition & market interactions (IA climate change models) • Both differ from “McKinsey” accounting exercises • More than a technical decision about which equipment • Behavior is often critical • Markets interact, technologies compete & sum < parts

9. EMF 25 Models • Brookhaven (US Markal) • Brookings Institution (McKibbin-Wilcoxen model) • Central Research Institute for Electric Power Industry (Japan) • Centre for Energy Policy & Economics, Zurich • Charles River Associates • CIRED, France (IMACLIM) • Joint Global Change Research Institute, U. of Maryland • MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change • MITRE (MARKAL) • Onlocation, Inc. (NEMS-GRPA) • Research Triangle Institute (ADAGE) • Resources for the Future (HAIKU electricity model) • Simon Fraser University (CIMS) • University of Maryland Inforum Project (LIFT) • US Energy Information Administration (NEMS) First-round resultsFirst-round results (technology model)

10. Began With Carbon Fee Scenario • Set next year at $30 per tonne CO2 (2007$) • Fee (inflation-adjusted) rises by 5% per year • Ignored recycling of tax revenues • Also considered comparable general energy tax and oil tax scenarios • New scenarios will add standards/subsidies (w & w/o carbon fee)

11. Carbon Fee Accelerates Electrification • Direct fuel prices rise more than power prices • More electrification when policy allows nuclear or other carbon-free sources if they are economical • More electrification in Switzerland than in USA • More CO2 reductions with carbon than energy or oil tax

12. Price Elasticities: Electricity

13. Price Elasticities: Transportation

14. Next EMF 25 Meeting • October 2009 in Washington DC • Compare standard/subsidy cases (w & w/o carbon fee) • Continued progress on data for energy efficiency cost curves (LBNL & ACEE) & contrast with McKinsey • Cross-country differences in energy productivity at a detailed sectoral level for OECD countries (EU-KLEMS database). • 1995-2005: 19 countries/40 sectors • 1980-2005: 11 countries/30 sectors