Potential for governmental policies to improve US lighting energy efficiency in commercial and residential buildings

Panel: Panel 2. Commercial Technologies and Buildings

Authors:
James E. McMahon, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, USA
Barbara A. Atkinson, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, USA
Evan Mills, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, USA

Abstract

Lighting accotmts for about 19 percent of U.S. electricity consumption and 7 percent of all national energy use. This paper summarizes an analysis of policy options available to the U.S. govermnent for improving lighting energy efficiency in U.S. buildings. Lighting markets are already undergoing dynamic changes, including technology shifts, electric utility incentive programs, state building codes, and national government programs. Additional opportunities for national policies are identified, including education and labelling, tax credits or rebates, building codes, and component efficiency standards. Most policies are interpreted in terms of adoption of specific technologies - including lamps, lamp/ballast combinations, fixtures, and controls - based upon detailed engineering and economic analysis. Energy savings of 5-63 percent of cumulative U.S. commercial indoor lighting energy consumption in the period 1995-2030 are projected, depending upon the policy. Significant savings are also found in the residential sector. Economic analysis indicates that combined energy and maintenance savings offset increased equipment costs for most policies, resulting in net present values of $40-200 billion in the commercial sector. Some government incentive programs may be ineffective, if preceded by incentives offered by other governmental agencies and by electric utility companies. Other important differences among policies are discussed, including:

the certainty of projected savings, related to participation/compliance/enforcement;
equity issues (the extent to which participants in the energy savings also bear the costs, rather than sharing costs with non-partici-pants);
administrative burden (large for government incentive programs and for enforcement of building codes, but small for education and component efficiency standards) and
impact on manufacturers.