یک نگاه اولیه به پتانسیل بهره وری الکتریکی

A systematic review of more than 20 studies of electric efficiency potential suggests that, contrary to what might be desired of such objective analysis, the study author, sponsor, and intended audience may matter in the conclusions that are reached. This pattern warrants further study.

Energy efficiency potential studies are being used by policymakers to inform decisions from approval of utility rate cases to developing legislation requiring energy efficiency supply some percentage of future consumption (in most cases, the “energy” is limited to “electricity generating sources”). This article seeks to provide a preliminary discussion of commonalities and differences in electric efficiency potential studies. Such a review has been attempted before; however, the previous studies failed to be systematic, ignoring important concepts like differences in length of study. Understanding which results from energy efficiency potential studies are generalizable could allow for greater comfort with efficiency for policymakers. Indeed, no measure exists by which to evaluate the reasonableness of any potential study claim – aside from “gut feelings” of what is “too much” or “not enough” savings. Energy efficiency potential studies are expensive – on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per study. Policymakers would do well to understand what key points should be examined at length in the study they pay for. In addition, if there are small ranges at the high level of analysis, policymakers might best be suited by focusing on more detailed-level analysis. This article is organized into five sections: Section II provides a description of efficiency potential studies, Section III describes how studies were collected and analyzed, Section IV reviews the variability in results based on study parameters, and Section V concludes with a summary and policy implications.

This article has pulled together more than 20 studies of electric efficiency potential for preliminary analysis. For the most part, expectations of results are confirmed – technical potentials are higher than those deemed economic or achievable; greater incentives may lead to higher savings. Policymakers could expect high-level estimates for their relevant jurisdictions to fall in the ranges shown in Figure 1. In general, the achievable potential with policy intervention, is estimated to be between 0.3 and 1.3 percent per year. The amount of achievable potential reached by a given policy intervention is somewhat tied to the level of incentive provided to consumers. More detailed studies of specific policy actions could be useful at the level in which the policy might be applied because policies that work in some locations may not work in others. This preliminary analysis shows such variation in terms of geography, authors, and sponsors to warrant further study. Although this preliminary analysis did not find statistically significant differences between the potential estimates by these measures, it should be noted that there was also no statistically significant difference between the different types of potential estimates (ranging from minimum achievable to technical). It appears that study author, sponsor, or intended audience may matter in efficiency potential studies. The degree to which this is related to specific policy options or methods of determining cost-effectiveness could not be evaluated with these few studies. The author is collecting studies from across the nation in order to pull out relationships in statistically meaningful ways. The goal is to develop an equation by which to estimate high-level potential for any particular location using input variables such as average weather and reliance on electric power.