Below is the transcript for the DOE webinar, "Energy Efficiency Potential for States," which was held on July 13, 2017, and was hosted by the U.S. Department of Energy Efficiency Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Strategic Priorities and Impact Analysis Team. The webinar description and presentation slides are also available.
Alicia Moulton: Good afternoon, and welcome to the U.S. Department of Energy webinar: "Energy Efficiency Potential for States." Today's webinar is being recorded and will be posted on the State and Local Solution Center on the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy website.
If anyone needs a copy of the slides before it is posted, please send us an email. Our contact information will be posted later in the presentation. Or you can use the contact information in your registration email. My name is Alicia Moulton, and I'll be running today's webinar. If you have any questions at any time during the webinar or during the Q&A sessions, please type your questions into the chat box. You can send your questions to me and to the presenter or to all the panelists. All attendees are muted by default, but if you prefer to ask us your questions directly, click the raise hand icon and I'll unmute you.
We'll start off today with an overview by Danielle Sass Byrnett, who will be our moderator.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Thanks, Alicia. And all the panelists will be able to speak at any time, but if you could mute yourselves until it's your turn, that would be great and we'll cut back on any interference. So for today's webinar we're going to be talking about a suite of energy efficiency potential studies that the Department of Energy and its partners have recently conducted and released. We're going to hear from a number of DOE staff and support folks. We're going to talk about state-level electric energy efficiency potential estimates at cross sectors for the industrial sector, for the residential sector, for building energy codes, and combined heat and power. There will be a little bit of time for question and answer after each brief presentation, and then we'll have a longer question and answer session at the end, so please do keep in touch with us by chat if you have any issues or questions or would like clarification. We will be sure to get to those.
We're going to start off with a brief overview. This again is Danielle Sass Byrnett with the Office of Energy Efficiency. Presumably you've joined this call because you understand the benefits of energy efficiency, but I wanted to frame our discussion around that, nonetheless.
Efficiency can help state, local, federal, and private sector meet their various policy and economic development goals. It is a low-cost resource available at about half the cost of retail electric service providing. It reduces all types of power plant-related emissions and has other environmental benefits as well. It provides energy cost savings to consumers or businesses. It provides jobs, including a recent statistic from the Department of Energy based on our national jobs analysis that showed 2.2 million people work in energy efficiency in 2016, which was 7% growth from the year prior with a lot more potential for job growth in that sector. And energy efficiency also lowers overall energy congestion on transmission and distribution systems and therefore increases system reliability.
So there are a wide range of benefits that are achieved by expanding the use of energy efficiency as a cost-effective resource. Furthermore, it is being used, to date. There are 16 states that have been achieving 1 percent annual incremental electricity savings on a regular basis. That's about a third of the country. And two-thirds of the states are achieving at least a half a percent of savings. The top six states are achieving one and a half percent on an annual basis going all the way up to about 3 percent savings per year, which is pretty significant. And that really all adds up. ACEEE did an analysis last year that showed if energy efficiency were considered among the power supply resources, it would be the third largest resource that we're using as a country.
Nonetheless, though many states have been running energy efficiency programs for decades, they are continuing to cost-effectively increase savings and finding additional savings potential, which is what we're here to talk about today. Specifically, in 2016, the Department of Energy thought to fill a gap by pulling together a catalogue of all of the state and utility energy efficiency potential analyses we could find for the last 10 years. We identified more than 80 potential studies that were published by states, utilities, consultants, with a variety of purposes in mind, time frames, assumptions, and analytical techniques. So, we did not normalize them, but what we did do was look to see what's the average annual efficiency potential that this wide range of different studies is showing, which is the chart in front of you, and you can see that two-thirds of the studies that had an actual savings number fall into this mid-range of one to two and a half percent of savings available economically or achievably, which is an even higher bar. So, these are all different in many cases. They don't cover an entire state. They're just for a utility territory. There are about a dozen states that either don't have any analysis at all or it's rather outdated, and so despite this collection of good information as a starting point, it is challenging for every state to be able to use this kind of information for their own energy planning purposes.
So that was the impetus for us embarking on this effort—to devise energy efficient potential studies for all states. And you're going to hear from our study authors and principal investigators over the next 45 minutes or so, starting with Kara Podkaminer.
Kara Podkaminer: Great! Thanks, Danielle. I'm Kara Podkaminer with the Strategic Priorities and Impact Analysis Team here in EERE, and I'm going to discuss a recent report released by EPRI [the Electric Power Research Institute]: The State Level Electric Energy Efficiency Potential Estimates. As Danielle mentioned, given the diversity of energy efficiency studies across states and utilities, each with a different scope and methodology and timeline, and a number of states that don't have any current potential studies, we thought to work with EPRI to provide a consistent methodology to determine energy efficiency for every state. EPRI had the most recent national potential study, and we worked with them to show the results, to produce the state results shown here. The EPRI model estimates economic potential electricity across the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. These results provide a comparison for states that have existing potential studies and a starting point for states that don't have any recent studies.
Across the country and across this timeline, from 2016 to 2035, there is energy efficiency potential equivalent to 16 percent of baseline sales in 2035. This translates to about a 0.8% per year annual incremental savings, and that's really a conservative level relative to the potential studies that Danielle just described. So this can be thought of more as a floor than a ceiling.
A quick summary of the methodology, as I mentioned, is based upon the 2014 EPRI national potential study. And there's three additional analyses that we are adding here, so the first is the state-level analysis where state-level results are produced by disaggregating the national and regional potentials. In addition, we have a benchmark analysis that puts those results into context by comparing them to historical savings, and then the third is an incentive analysis where we added an additional 5 to 20 dollars per megawatt-hour incentive and look at the impact on energy efficiency economic potential. For the models themselves, for the commercial and residential sector, they use a bottom-up stock turnover model for the equipment where the energy-efficient measure is tested for cost-effectiveness at the end of the useful life of a prior piece of equipment. There's also additional estimates for controls and shell improvements. For the industrial sector, it's more of a top-down approach using EIA's Plant Energy Profiler tool to estimate savings in the industrial sector. So as you see from the descriptions of the models here, it excludes things like behavioral efficiency or increased program efficiency. In addition, there's limited technology improvement in the model, though it does include some. And so for that reason, it does contribute to being a bit more conservative than some of the other studies out there.
So what did the results look like? Here is a map of the energy efficiency potential shown in million megawatt hours across the United States. What you'll see is that every state has a lot of potential, and the states that are in darker blue--California, Texas, and Florida--have a lot of savings available. These savings do correlate to climate, electricity use, and population. So in Florida, for example, where it's pretty hot and there's a lot of electricity used for air conditioning, there's a big opportunity for savings. In addition, in places like Ohio and Illinois where there's a lot of electricity-intensive manufacturing, there's also a lot of opportunity. There are a lot of places that have a lower population or use a lot of fuel oil for their heating, so there are savings, but they're not reflected here in the electricity savings. They're outside the model.
To put those numbers into a bit of context, we did this benchmark analysis. So, of the energy efficiency potential that was identified, how much are states going to achieve that? How much of that are states going to achieve if they continue to save energy efficiency at the rates they've shown in the past?
So this is a scale from 0 to 100, and so the states in dark-blue are all around 100%. And what that means is if they keep going, doing what they've been doing, they're going to be able to capture that energy efficiency economic potential. Granted, we will also want to note that there's additional savings that are possible through things like program efficiency, behavioral efficiency, and innovation. And many of these states are states that have historically invested in energy efficiency. Shown in lighter blue are a number of states that are leaving cost-effective savings on the table, with over 20 states that are poised to achieve less than 50 percent of the model savings. So there's certainly an opportunity to reduce energy costs by taking advantage of these low-cost resources. The final analysis is an incentive analysis. We re-ran the model with an added incentive. And while it's modeled as an incentive, it can also be thought of as a proxy for lower cost or lower technology cost or higher avoided costs. What we found was that with a $20 per megawatt-hour incentive, it increased the energy efficiency economic potential by over a hundred thousand gigawatt hours to 19 percent of baseline sales. So that was an increase of 14 percent. And this analysis also identified technologies that are near cost effective--so with the incentive, could bump into the cost-effective category. A few examples that were on the margin are televisions, computers, and heat pumps. We found that the most prominent impact was in the residential sector where the $20 per megawatt hour incentives increased the residential sector energy efficiency by 25%. The commercial and industrial sectors was a little bit more modest with a 7 percent increase at the highest incentive level.
So with that, I encourage you to download the full report at EPRI's website or also on the DOE website listed here. Keep an eye out for new analysis. EPRI plans to update their national study later this year or in early 2018, and they're planning on hosting a workshop in October. So if you're interested in that, or you have any questions, feel free to contact me, Kara Podkaminer, as well as Chris Holmes and Sarah Mullen Trento, who are the principle investigators at EPRI. And with that, I'll turn it back over to Danielle.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Thanks so much, Kara. And folks who are on the webinar, please feel free to raise your hands on the right-hand side of your webinar screen, or type in the chat box if you have any questions. And we did receive one question, which was "Why the end date of 2035?"
Kara Podkaminer: So that's just the date of the study. It aligned with what we had information for. If there is a date that you think would be really useful, we're open to that, as well. So, based on the 2014 study and then what we had information for.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great, thanks. And then someone has raised their hand. Ed Holbrook, we just unmuted you, so please feel free to ask your question. Your line is open. We can hear you. All right, any other questions come in? If not, we will move to our industrial energy efficiency potential.
Sandy Glatt from EERE's Advanced Manufacturing Office is going to share the analysis and results from that study. Sandy?
Sandy Glatt: So hi there, can you hear me?
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Yes, perfectly, thank you.
Sandy Glatt: Ok, great. And you are moving the slides, correct?
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Yes.
Sandy Glatt: Okay. All right. Well, thank you, again.
My name is Sandy Glatt. I'm with the Advanced Manufacturing Office in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. We also did an analysis to look at the state-by-state opportunities in the year 2030, is the is the time frame that we looked at in the industrial sector. So you know, the industrial sector accounts for the largest share of energy consumption at the U.S. currently—just about 30 percent. And there's a large opportunity for capturing energy efficiency in this sector, as well as use factors—the opportunity for savings are also quite large. And we've got two sort of statistics there. One is in BTUs total national savings, and the other is in electricity, and I'll show you the charts for both of those. So you can go to the next slide. So this is our all fuels chart. Much like the one you saw earlier, the darker the state, the more energy savings opportunity there is.
It's not surprising when you look across where the colors--where the states are—that have high opportunity are the states that have high industrial intensities. Intensity is an interesting concept in the industrial sector because it's not only measured by the quantity of facilities that you may have in a state but also the type of facilities that you might have in any given location. There are certainly facilities and types of industries that are considerably more energy intensive than others. Those in particular that use a lot of heat in their processes tend to have extremely higher energy intensity energy use than those that do not. As you can see, the spectrum is pretty huge between the lower consuming and opportunity states and the higher consuming opportunity states, but in all states, the opportunities are not insignificant. Next slide. Again, look, this is--we did for electricity savings as well, we did the calculations, so those of you who have interest in either electricity or in total BTU, which includes most obviously fuel oils and natural gas, we can provide that data for you. Again, the composition by state is relatively similar. There are some that change based potentially on high—they might have high refining or chemical using companies in those states which might bring them up higher on the BTU scale over the electric scale. But again, there's no real surprises here in terms of what the states are and again, emphasizing the opportunity. Next slide.
So the methodology we used—and the methodology is a little bit tricky in all of these, but I think in the industrial to some extent may be a little bit trickier because of the way data is collected. We did use a value of shipments as our historical growth rate to measure out to 2030, and we used it a 10-year period of data that was available. We combined that projection with energy efficiency numbers that EIA provides. Now, in the EIA case, they have what's called a business-as-usual sort of saving, so in the industrial sector, while it varies fairly widely across certain NAICS codes, anywhere from maybe 0.2 percent up to close to almost 2 percent, the average rate is about 1.2 percent year--that's just if nothing changed and everybody just continued along the straight path that they're on, they would get a 1.2 percent savings per year. We sort of decided we think this is conservative, but we kind of said, ok if you were to double that by employing different sorts of energy efficiency opportunities that are out there in the marketplace, you could probably realistically achieve those numbers.
So we pick this 22.4% as our projection out to 2030 of the savings opportunity. And that was—it's also consistent with numbers that we've used internally for some of our programs where we've sort of directed to meet things like 2.5 percent per year over ten years or 25 percent. It's sort of consistent with that, a little over 2 percent / 2.5 percent per year opportunity and savings. Then you can sort of see the magnitude of numbers that were reflected in the charts at the bottom. We just—a little bit more about methodology—you can go to the next slide, but I'll just—some of the challenges in methodology are that some of the data—a couple things: In the industrial sector, you have to be careful whether you're talking about the entire industrial sector, which includes the mining and agriculture NAICS codes, which we did include in this analysis. So, it's not just the manufacturing NAICS codes, which in some cases folks use and call that industrial. We did use the manufacturing and the agriculture and the mining. Some of the data only comes in regional data, in which case there had to be some assumptions made, and we had to do some extrapolating for individual states from regional data. And also there's some time frame challenges against which the energy numbers have been collected--the energy efficiency and energy numbers, energy consumption numbers, versus the value of shipments numbers.
So, I just want to make it very clear to folks that it was a relatively complex set of data sets that we had to mix and match and some assumptions. And again, if you want greater detail on how we got to the numbers we got to, I can provide that for you. Finally, just so folks know, the kinds of things are included industrial energy efficiency range everywhere and things that are supported in DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy--Advanced Manufacturing--include research and development portfolio, as well as technologies and best practices that are available today.
We deliver through our Better Plants program. And we've also spent a lot of energy and what's a tremendous opportunity out there right now in the strategic energy management space, which is really focusing on behavioral opportunities, and those can be quite substantial in the industrial space. And there are several sort of relatively new opportunities out there, including the ISO 50001 certification, the opportunity the international energy management standard, and the DOE Superior Energy Performance, and our 50,001 ready program. So, next slide. Also a series of tools that are available through DOE and in other places that make it very easy to get started in this space, and finally my contact information.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great, thank you so much, Sandy. And this is probably a good point for me to remind folks, the slides will be available in this webinar, and the webinar is being recorded. It will be posted in EERE's State and Local Solution Center. Please do provide your questions in the chat box or feel free to raise your hand. And we've received one question: "Are data centers included in industrial analyses?"
Sandy Glatt: Ah, that's a good question. I'd have to go back and check that one for you, and I'll get back with you on an answer for that.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Thank you. And then, there was a question about whether renewable portfolio standards were included in the analysis, but the answer would be no since this is focused on energy efficiency not renewables.
Sandy Glatt: That's correct. We didn't take into account anything other than, you know, traditional energy efficiency opportunities that would be, you know, in the marketplace or potential through new research and development, but no, not policy-related activities.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Thank you, Sandy. And then the latest question that came through is whether CHP is considered within this energy efficiency potential analysis.
Sandy Glatt: Not specifically. And you'll see a presentation later on that talks about CHP potential and opportunities. It's kind of an interesting question. It could be if that was something—an activity—that an industrial facility took place, but we did not particularly look at CHP as a contributor.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great, thank you for clarifying, and yes, as Sandy said, we'll have another presentation on CHP very shortly. One last question before we move on is "Why is power factor not considered as a key metric with energy efficiency?"
Sandy Glatt: I'm not sure I can answer that question or if I fully understand that question.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Okay, let me see if we can unmute the person who asked it because I'm not able to interpret it either by what we just saw typed in. One second here. I think we will come back to that one. We are trying to find the person who... Can you get there? Okay, we're still looking.
All right, so thank you very much, Sandy, and we will move on to our next presentation, and we'll save that for the Q&A period. The next presentation is around economic energy efficiency potential in the residential sector, and specifically, single-family detached homes. And Erin Boyd with the DOE Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis is going to walk us through that study. Erin?
Erin Boyd: Thanks, Danielle. As Danielle mentioned, I'm from the Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, or EPSA for short, which is essentially DOE's policy office. And EPSA, in conjunction with NREL, has completed a first-of-its-kind analysis of the cost-effective potential for energy efficiency and single-family detached homes. This analysis uses a building model called ResStock to perform data-driven, physics-based simulations using large public and private data sets and modern scientific computing resources. These computing resources allow us to achieve unprecedented granularity in modeling building energy use and demand. This type of bottom-up analysis that ResStock is able to do achieves much greater granularity than a traditional top-down approach that has been employed by most potential studies.
And this granularity is achieved by representing 350,000 representatives home types and then using these representative home types to build up the total single-family detached housing stock of 80 million. And some of the variables that differ between these homes are weather stations of where it's located, heating fuel type, the year it was built, home size, foundation type, and a number of other variables. The current data that's published on the Web is just for single-family detached homes, but work is underway to expand model capabilities to include multifamily dwellings, also by state, and another models is under development called ComStock to address potential in commercial buildings. We modeled over 50 individual energy efficiency improvements, some examples, which can be seen on the left side of this slide, such as space heating and cooling, lighting, as well as insulating walls and ceilings. And then we created tailored packages for each of those 350,000 representative home types.
These packages were created by picking the upgrade with the largest positive net present value or the upgrade that was most cost-effective for an improvement type. In this example, on the right-hand side, we're creating the package of most cost-effective measures by putting the green box around particular measures, and you can see both the SEER 16 air conditioning and the variable speed heat pump are space cooling improvements, but in this case, for this particular home type, the SEER 16 AC had a greater net present value and so it was put into the package. Same type of thing with the wall sheathing and drill-and-fill wall insulation. Those are both wall insulation measures, and the most cost-effective one was picked to put into the package. And this allows us to run these scenarios together—all these improvements together in a single scenario for each of the 350,000 home types—and this way, the interactions between improvements are accounted for. This analysis found the economic potential nationally to save 4,200 trillion BTU of primary energy per year and to avoid 273 million tons of carbon equivalent per year. To put this in perspective, this corresponds to 24 percent of single-family detached homes' energy consumption and emissions. The current report that's posted, and there's a link to it on the bottom of this slide, found and focused on potential electricity savings at the state level, but the analysis also looked at all major fuel types, and we'll be posting an update to the report later in July at the same link that includes details of the primary energy savings or natural gas propane and fuel oil, in addition to electricity savings. Next slide please.
Since this webinar is designed to just give a taste of what each potential analysis can provide, there's not time to dive into the details of all the results, but I wanted to give a flavor of the type of data that is available. So, examples of output variables include savings from all the fuel types; primary energy savings; carbon emission reductions; and for all those savings that can be outputted in both aggregate and per house savings levels, economic variables are available, such as utility bills savings per house incremental costs and average net present value or simple payback for the improvements in homes, and applicability of statistics, such as number of percentage of homes in which the improvement applies. The output variables are also available for different segments of the housing stock, so in addition to be able to slice and look at just state-level results, you could look at just results for a particular age of home in a state or for a particular income of the residents. And this is posted and the report for all the available states. This map drills into the electricity savings, so it shows what savings would result if you as homeowners made all cost-effective energy efficient upgrades from the tailored packages. So these would include combinations of central AC, furnaces, heat pumps, air sealing, duct sealing, different types of insulation. And these saving numbers that are presented here are accounting for interactions between all of the measures.
The color scale shows that most states can save between 15 to 30 percent of the single-family electricity used cost effectively. You'll notice New England is especially light in color so there's less electricity savings here on a per house basis, and this is because it's often cost effective to switch from oil to electric fuel for home heating and so that variable is increasing electricity use. So if you look at the primary energy savings, which the map will be in the updated report, you'll see much higher percentages of savings for primary energy for New England. This analysis was essentially for a 30-year time frame. You'll see it's a 2042 at the top from 2012 to 2042, but there's no technology improvements. Assume that it's just looking at current stock. The 30-year time frame is because that we're assuming equipment was only replaced at the end of its useful life, but these savings could be achieved sooner with supporting policies or if any type of cost reductions or efficiency improvements happen for EE improvements in that time frame. And the total electricity savings was 245 million megawatt hours per year, which is 22% of the single-family detached electricity consumption or 6.3 percent of total U.S. electricity use, so significant numbers.
Next slide.
This graph is showing the top 15 energy efficiency improvements with the largest cost-effective savings potential nationally. These are for the individual measures, so before they're put together in the packages. Next slide.
What's striking here is if you look at the measure with the most cost-effective potential—upgrading an electric furnace to a variable speed heat pump at wear-out—the potential for that measure is over twice as great as the next measure in line. And this is on a national level. We also did analysis that looked at the individual improvements with shorter payback periods than requiring a net present value of zero, so this was looking at a payback period of 5 years or less, and there's details of that in the report that's posted online. Next slide. The analysis produced actionable results for states, such as top priority upgrades for states based on total savings, shortest payback time, number of houses the improvement applies to, and utility bill savings on aggregate and per house. This information on the top priorities is included in the report, but we're also working on putting together custom one-page fact sheets for each of the 48 lower states. There was a lack of data the prevented analysis of Hawaii and Alaska. These single-page fact sheets can act as a starting point for understanding the potential in your state. The analysis also provided information on the relative cost-effectiveness of measures. So, if there's 30 cost-effective measures in your state, which one is most cost effective--so for the same dollar, which measure gives you more energy savings—and that information is contained in the report in the individual state energy efficiency supply curve. The finalized fact sheets should be on the internet in August, and a draft sample can be seen here on the right of the screen.
Please feel free to contact me, Erin Boyd, with any questions. My contact information is there on the published or future ResStock analysis. And I also wanted to point out that in addition to the resources provided by ResStock, DOE has a number of residential energy efficiency partnerships tools and resources, such as the Home Performance with Energy Star, a public/private voluntary partnership program focused on solutions for improved energy-efficient homes, the Better Buildings Residential Network that connects energy efficiency programs and partners to share best practices, the Home Energy Score that helps the homeowner compare their home's performance to other homes in the same area, and the SEE Action Residential Retrofit Working Group, which provides guidance and resources to help states launch or accelerate their residential energy efficiency program, and the Residential Program Solution Center that provides resources to help program administrators develop and implement residential energy efficiency programs.
Now, I'll hand it back over to Danielle.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Thanks very much, Erin. Folks, please feel free to type in your questions in the chat box, or raise your hand and we'll unmute you so you can ask directly. We have received one question, Erin, which is, "What did you see with the effect of spray foam insulation in the analysis, if you looked at it in that way?
Erin Boyd: We looked at a number of different types of insulation, and I could probably at the end of the Q&A get back to you with what that effect was, but I'll have to look it up.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Okay.
Erin Boyd: I can't remember it off the top of my head.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Thank you, so when you had something like insulate an attic to a certain R-value, did you consider different technologies to do that, or did you just consider the outcome?
Erin Boyd: We just—in order to get the cost, we had to consider a technology, which is in the methodology of the report, but I'll have to look up what that was.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Okay, thank you, we'll come back to that during that other Q&A—the broader Q&A. We have one other question. I'm not sure I know exactly what this question is asking, but the question was, "What kWh rate did you use for the analysis?"—so, presumably, electricity rate from a consumer side.
Erin Boyd: Gotcha. So I believe we use the eGRID regions from EPA, and so it varied based on region of the country what the electricity rate was for the homeowner to calculate net present value as an economic threshold.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Okay thank you. Any other questions come in right now? All right, nice. Thank you very much, Erin.
We are going to move on to Jeremy Williams with the EERE's Building Technologies Office to talk about energy efficiency potential in states from building energy codes. Jeremy?
Jeremy Williams: Hi there, thanks, Danielle. I'm Jeremy with the DOE Building Technologies Office and our DOE Building Energy Codes Program. And so to start out (we can jump to the next slide)—to start out, with just a quick background on what we do as the codes program: We provide support for basically all aspects of building energy codes—so anything from participating in industry consensus practices to develop new codes to helping states and localities as they adopt and update their codes, and studying compliance to help make sure that, you know, the savings intended from codes actually reach the end home and business owners—so everything kind of across the spectrum of code development through implementation. Just a little bit of background on the studying we're looking at today: Just one of the things our program does is evaluate the impacts associated with energy codes, and so in doing that we regularly take a look at the savings associated with codes, both residential and commercial energy codes, and at the national and state level.
And so the most recent update we did was--it was late last year, and it was published via a technical report by our Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and that dated October 2016, so pretty recent here. I'm going to briefly cover some of the highlights from that work and then include some of the savings and what we expect to see in terms of impacts looking forward.
So, starting with the methodology: This particular study encompasses both residential and commercial that evaluates things from both the national and state level, so to a state-by-state perspective, and it looks at annual projections both for a given year and then also cumulative savings over time—so looking in this case—the case of this report—looking at what we expect to see 2010 through 2040. And then it also accounts for the various phases of codes that I mentioned so meaning that the methodology is broken down based on a series of assumptions for, you know, things like code development and advancement in the model codes, adoption trends, and then what we see in terms of compliance. And so, starting with the development piece, the savings are based on one edition of model code to the next, and so there's kind of a rolling baseline as codes.
We anticipate the codes will continue to be updated in the future, and we kind of look at those as potential savings based on those updated model codes—so, their potential savings at that point—and we leverage some of the analysis that we conduct, you know, as part of the DOE model code review and determination process, which is one of our statutory requirements.
And then, moving on to the adoption component, future trends are based on what we've seen historically, so individual states are characterized based on their past adoption cycles. A lot of states have established cycles, so every 3 years for example, and then others are initiated sort of in ad hoc process or through a legislative process or a government regulatory agency, and we're able to leverage some of the—if you're familiar with the DOE adoption tracking status maps—we leverage a lot of that information.
And then finally with the compliance piece, what we do is all the savings that we've calculated thus far, we then de-rate those savings based on compliance levels that we've seen in the field. So, those of you familiar with codes know that compliance is a crucial factor, and making sure that you're getting the savings you anticipate. Lots more states doing compliance research, these types of studies, and field-based research. And so on the residential side, we've reviewed some of the recent DOE field studies. We've actually been able to update some of our past assumptions based on those studies. And then on the commercial side where there's notably less known about commercial compliance in general, but we've been able to leverage what studies have been conducted and do exist, and those are both DOE and external work there. A couple other things on the methodology: Note that this analysis does exclude a handful of states where we don't have great data, and so certain states, for example, just they don't have statewide codes, so it's tough to get data in those particular areas, or certain states--especially in the northwest and California—have codes that are just fundamentally different than the model codes, and so we have to exclude a handful of states. And that is, you know, again, to keep the analysis on the conservative side. It's sort of focused on what we have a good handle on.
And so, once the code savings and adoption timing is established and then we scale those estimates based on what we expect to see in terms of new construction—so, projections based on some of the past and related work we've done but also, you know, from sources like the Annual Energy Outlook. And then lastly, we report those numbers based on common energy metrics—in this case, we're focused mostly on primary energy, but there's a number of other metrics, costs of CO2, and what-not available. Next slide.
So from a quick look at things nationally, and again, this is 2010 through 2040, we're projecting about 126 billion dollars in energy costs saving resulting from codes, and that's equivalent to about 12.82 quads of primary energy. And so, if you're interested in this full analysis, which has both the national and the state breakdown, check out that PNNL report that is linked at the URL there on the screen. Next slide.
Okay, so jumping to the state perspective here. And so the map here shows it's an estimate of—again, this is primary energy for each state for the same time period we mentioned before, so to 2040—and notice certain states have much higher savings projections, so states like Texas and Florida and a few others—and keep in mind it was about 12.82 quads nationwide. A big bulk, a quarter of those savings, are coming from a handful of states, and we get a lot of questions, "Why are some states so much higher?" and the simple answer is because it's based on construction trends, and we expect a lot of construction in those states. We think that's where codes are going to have the largest impact, so those states end up with a much larger savings potential due to codes. And then you can kind of see the breakdown on a state-by-state basis from there.
And then I had mentioned that a handful of states were excluded, so you see those particular states with kind of the cross-hatching. Those are states which tend to be home rule or don't have a statewide code, and so those are the ones excluded from the analysis—so along with the dark-colored states along to the west side of the country there.
And so overall, this map is a great resource. We encourage people to use it. It does a nice job of presenting energy code impacts on a state-by-state basis. And then if you want more information, dive into that report I mentioned. Next slide.
Lastly are some additional codes resources: And so, just to close out my piece here, I want to highlight a handful of other things we do. We have a lot of great resources that states especially can use—things like energy savings analyses (the same energy savings analysis that gets used for model code determinations and what-not); cost-effectiveness analysis, which are really popular with states when it comes time for an adoption cycle or potential code update; the impact analysis that we're talking about today; and then we also have a help desk that can service anything from an individual with a question on the code to a state that is looking for some analysis or some technical assistance.
We provide a lot of that all the time. And then lastly, always feel free to contact us with any questions. My information is on the screen and then lots of good information at energycodes.gov. And so with that, thanks everybody, for the time and interest. We really appreciate it, and I look forward to any questions.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Thank you so much, Jeremy. That was great. We have received a couple of questions, and everyone else is welcome to type theirs in as well.
The first was how code compliance was considered. I know you touched on this, but maybe you could reiterate that in case someone didn't hear it the first time around.
Jeremy Williams: Sure. And so, kind of from a basic perspective, we've leveraged some of the recents on the residential side. For example, there's been some recent DOE field studies where we've been able to kind of pull some assumptions and compliance rates out of those, and quite frankly, some of those, if you're familiar with the studies, they were higher than what we hear in terms of compliance rates a lot of times, but within the analysis, there's a roll-in baseline, and so what we do is we assume lower compliance on the residential side example—you know, in the neighborhood of 80% right after a code is adopted. And then as time passes through—I think it's year 10--that assumption goes up to 100%.
On the commercial side, it's a little lower—I think capping out at 80% after 10 years just because we know less about commercial compliance and so we want to, again, keep things on the conservative side.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great, thank you so much. There was a minor clarification—if we're talking about site or source energy for the savings potential.
Jeremy Williams: For the codes piece, its primary, so it's going to be more similar to source-based energy.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great. Thank you. And then the last clarifying question that just came in: Could you speak briefly to why Washington State, Oregon, and California are fundamentally different from the other states?
Jeremy Williams: And so when I say they're fundamentally different, most of the analysis here is based on the model codes--so IECC on the residential side, 90 point standard, 90.1 on the commercial side. So because those states just have very different codes—California has a large performance-based component, Washington has a very different structure; in fact, their code tends to be more, provide more savings compared to the model codes and be more advanced. They're just very different. And so because we don't have a strong handle on them, they're not as comparable, and we want to keep things apples to apples as much as possible within the analysis.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Perfect. Thank you. Okay, we will address any further questions in our Q&A at the end. We have one more presentation that's by Anne Hampson from ICF, who supports EERE's Advanced Manufacturing Office and CHP program on combined heat and power technical potential in the United States. Anne?
Anne Hampson: Great, thanks, Danielle. As Danielle said, I'm with ICF, and we went ahead and looked at the CHP potential studies for the EERE Advanced Manufacturing Office. If you go to the next slide.
Just as a quick FYI, we find sometimes that folks aren't as familiar with combined heat and power, so just as a quick overview: This is a graphic that shows that with a combined heat and power system, you're providing both electricity and heat from one fuel source and from one combustion process. So you're providing both of those energy services from one input, whereas from a traditional method, you would get your electricity from a power plant and you would make thermal energy in a boiler.
So you would have to burn fuel in both of those places to get each energy input separately. So by generating them together, CHP is more highly efficient, and it's a really great energy efficiency technology to look for throughout the country. So if you go to the next slide.
The CHP technical potential report is available online. It was done in published in March 2016, and it looks at the technical potential for CHP systems throughout the country. It also looks at both industrial facilities and commercial facilities. And institutional, as well, are kind of grouped under the commercial.
And so, out of the total country, we found about 240 gigawatts of CHP potential at almost 300,000 sites. So there's a very significant number of facilities where they could put in CHP systems to serve their energy loads. And within the report, there were two different ways that the potential was calculated. One was looking at whether the energy—both the thermal and electric outputs—could be used solely on-site at the facility. That's how a lot of systems are designed. Or you can design a system that would use all of the thermal electricity on-site but then export some additional electricity back onto the electricity grid.
And so, when looking at on-site potential, you have just a little under 150 gigawatts, and then if you add that additional potential for export, you add about 92 gigawatts—so altogether, up to the 240. And so, one caveat here is that this analysis was looking just at the technical potential. So, that's just looking at what sites could technically put CHP in. It didn't dive into any economic analysis or other factors. So if you go to the next slide. Our next slide, please.
This is a map that shows the results. So you can see the darker states that have the highest amount of CHP technical potential. And this is remaining potential. There's a large amount of CHP that's already deployed in the market, and those figures are taken out of this. So this is just additional remaining potential for combined heat and power. And you can see that the largest state, Texas, has the most potential capacity. There's a lot of large industrial use that goes on in Texas. And then other very populated areas and states tend to have more facilities where CHP can be applicable. You can go on to the next slide.
And so in this slide, we can dive a little deeper into the applications where CHP is used. You can see in this, so we're looking at the industrial applications, and you can see that in like chemicals and refining, there's a lot of existing CHP capacity that's already installed in these sectors, which is shown in the blue portion of the bar. But then the portion is green shows that there's a very large additional potential for more CHP capacity to go into those various application types, especially in, again in the chemical sector and refining food processing, primary metals have the highest amount of potential.
On the next slide, we'll go through and look at the commercial applications. And you can see in contrast to the previous slide, the blue portion of the bars are not nearly as high in the commercial sector and institutional sectors. These types of facilities don't have as much as a history and background of CHP like the industrial sector does, but we're seeing this market really grow a lot. And there's a lot of potential for these types of facilities, especially in commercial office buildings and colleges and universities and hospitals.
And one of the things that we're seeing a lot is the emergence of smaller package CHP systems, which are much more easily able to serve the commercial and institutional sector, that have smaller energy loads and are more distributed throughout the electric grid and throughout the country. The one that I'll point out here is listed in other commercial, and most of the existing capacity there is utility capacity at district energy facilities that serve downtown loops or other utility-owned capacity. And so we've seen that they've done a very good job of saturating that market, even though there is some additional capacity left. But without those sites, the majority of the commercial market has a lot of potential yet to be achieved. You can go to the next slide.
And so one of the things we really wanted to highlight about this report is that it provides a lot of information about CHP, but it really gets down into a lot of specifics and has a state page, similar to the graphic on this slide, that highlights at the state level a lot of the detailed information about the amount of industrial and commercial CHP capacity for technical potential capacity, as well as waste heat to power and district energy. And it has different charts that are really able to break down all of the information by what sector is used in the facility type, as well as the size range potential for the CHP systems. And so it was really designed to be have a lot of detail so that stakeholders at the state level were able to take the information and engage in some of their strategic energy planning.
And as they look at energy efficiency programs, they can really see where the potential is in their state and develop programs that are able to address both the size range and the types of applications that they see for CHP in their respective states.
There's a lot of information that's broken down at the state level. That was very much by design so that would be available to users of the report. So I think we can move into questions.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great. Thanks very much, Anne. And we did get a few questions, one of which has been asked regularly: "Is this being recorded and when will it be available?" Yes, it is being recorded. It will be available as soon as we can, probably within the next week or so, at the State and Local Solution Center. And we will send out a link to all registrants for the webinar.
Anne, was there any reason economic analysis wasn't done, and will it be done in the future for CHP?
Anne Hampson: Yeah, well so this, at least for this study, it was really focused on establishing what the overall technical potential was, and so the economic analysis would be the next layer that could be done on top of it. So, it just wasn't included at this time. I think there's been some talk about looking at the economic analysis for CHP. And one of the things that we've been trying to think about is how best to show that information since energy prices and things are changing on a continual basis. We've been looking at doing some more specific states and helping them look at their economic potential for CHP rather than doing a national study that will be outdated in a short amount of time. The program's really been looking more towards providing specific technical assistance and the economic potential to state energy offices and other stakeholders as it's been needed.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Thank you, Anne. And one more clarifying question before we start to do our wrap-up: Someone noted that they were amazed that the potential for D.C. (District of Columbia) being higher than some states—such as Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont—which have more space. Does the study have details about locations, uses, etc.?
Anne Hampson: So, it doesn't go into specific (site-specific) locations, but it is something that when we look at more populous areas, to have the facilities. And one of the important things to note was that there was a minimum size cutoff of 50 kW, so no facilities were included in the analysis that were below 50 kilowatts, mainly because the CHP technologies that can address that smaller market are not as well commercialized in the U.S. yet. And so we really wanted to focus on commercial applications. And so a state that maybe has a lot of small facilities might see that they didn't get incorporated just because of that size limit. But in the future, as more technology development is done on the smaller size range, I would expect to see places like Vermont and other areas have more capacity represented.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great. Thank you. I don't see any other clarifying questions on CHP. We have received many questions overall, and we will answer those in just a couple of minutes, so feel free to keep typing those in as we do a wrap-up here.
So, this is Danielle Sass Byrnett talking again from the Office of Energy Efficiency. You've heard about a wealth of new information and resources. Thank you to all of our panelists and analysts. Wanted to make sure that everyone knew you can find the maps for all of these presentations and the underlying studies at the Energy Efficiency Opportunities web page, for which the URL is at the top of the slide (energy.gov/eere/slsc/EEopportunities). And in addition, there are quite a few other resources that you'll find there beyond the potential studies, including state-level potential states catalog, which I referenced at the kick-off of the presentation today. Also, a guidebook from SEE Action in the State and Local Energy Efficiency Action Network about using energy efficiency as a least cost strategy to reduce greenhouse gas and air pollution and meet needs in the power sector—that includes additional information related to a lot of these energy efficiency pathways. There's also detailed information about EM&V (evaluation, monitoring, and verification), energy modeling, other DOE programs and resources and technical assistance, and the 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment State Report, which the department released in January, and for which we just posted last week state-level spreadsheets for the underlying data, in addition to the report. So that is all available to you as resources to support additional planning, along with these energy efficiency potential analyses.
And we are often asked, "Okay, what next?” Folks are typically looking for a particular state as we go through this type of presentation and information, and one of the most immediate next steps could be for your state, in the specific pathways or sector opportunities that look the darkest on the maps and where there is the greatest potential, we have provided some concise presentations that are consistently developed to give you or your stakeholders a good understanding of what it would look like to include this type of energy efficiency in a state plan. So, it covers things like what's the purpose, what are the benefits, what's the current status across the country, what would states and local roles be from a policy and implementation perspective, and who might partners be within a state, what are best practices, is it cost effective, and how would I track the savings? So, you can find these presentations on the same website (energy.gov/eere/slsc/EEopportunities). URL is at the bottom that we've already described. And feel free to contact us, as well, to get more information.
Lastly, wanted to let everyone know that DOE is continuing analyses along these lines and is currently working to develop energy efficiency potential analyses for low-income residential housing stock for public buildings or the MUSH sector, specifically thinking about where energy savings performance contracting would be a cost-effective option. We are aggregating EE potential from cities and the communities and localities. I'm working on an analysis for that right now.
There will be an updated and more robust analysis for industrial that gets down to the county level. And we also anticipate, in the future, being able to provide energy efficiency potential estimates for low-rise multifamily, which would include townhouses and other connected multifamily or connected residential homes. And we are expanding our suite of pathways presentations. Those should be available before the end of the fiscal year at end of September. So, all of the resources in this presentation are available on Energy Efficiency Opportunities website (energy.gov/eere/slsc/EEopportunities). We will send a link out, once that is available, to all the registrants. And for those who join late, we are recording this. We will have both the video, which includes the audio and the slides, and also just the slides themselves available.
So, we're going to move now to the question and answer period. And we have a number of questions that have come in for individual speakers. I'll bounce around a little bit and folks' questions answered. So, we're going to start with the national EPRI and DOE study. And two questions that came in: "How was economic potential determined?" (What was the economic part?) and secondly, "What is the timeframe for the comparison to achievements by states?"
Kara Podkaminer: Great. So, to determine cost-effectiveness we used a total resource cost test where the total discounted avoided cost is compared to the incremental cost of a more energy-efficient measure, as well as a program administration cost. So these savings are assumed to come through use a utility program or something like that. So that is how the cost effectiveness is measured. And the details are available in the report. In terms of the historical savings by state, that information used in the benchmark analysis comes from ACEEE—the state scorecard for the past 10 years.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great. Thank you, Kara. Erin, I got a couple of questions here on the residential analysis. One was, "Will any models in the future include row houses that are typical of older northeast and mid-Atlantic cities separate from multifamily apartments?
Erin Boyd: Yes. Let me answer this one, and then I'll go back, if it's okay, to the one that was after my session.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Yes, thank you.
Erin Boyd: Sure. Row houses are being included in this current update of the model, so when I said multifamily, to be more precise, it will include attached single-family homes—so, your row houses and duplexes and low-rise multifamily. It won't include high-rise multifamily because those buildings typically operate more like commercial buildings, and Comstock is looking at how they might be able to include those, probably in a longer time frame.
To the question on, "Was spray foam insulation considered?"—for attic insulation, we focus on blown in cellulose or fiberglass insulation and basement walls and crawl spaces on extruded polystyrene. We did not look specifically at spray foam insulation in this analysis.
And to the question on, how did we consider electricity rates for doing the economic analysis are slightly off. It wasn't differentiated by regional electricity rates. We looked at electricity rates by county and how those varied.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great, thank you. And I've got a couple more questions for you, Erin, while you're live: When did you look at heat pumps versus gas-fired hot water as a replacement for electric resistance heat?
Erin Boyd: So, for space heating, we looked at—
Danielle Sass Byrnett: I think this is for hot water, water heating.
Erin Boyd: For hot water heating, we looked at both more-efficient traditional electric heaters or natural gas heaters, and we also looked at heat pumps.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: And did you look at gas-fired water heaters?
Erin Boyd: Yes.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great. Thank you. And then, last question for you right now is, "Did the results consider household income when selecting potential home improvements?"
Erin Boyd: So, that's something we're working on now, not so much didn't consider it, but we're looking at quantifying the potential for energy efficiency improvements in low-income households, actually in a variety of different income households. We're not trying to define what low-income means because that varies a lot between states. But the current analysis does not look at income. I would say, the results for the income analysis will probably be out mid to late fall.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great. Thank you. We just got a question for Kara: "Did you speak with any utilities about the EPRI report, and what was the feedback if any?”
Kara Podkaminer: So, I haven't spoken with any utilities yet. It was just released recently. EPRI is hosting a workshop in October. But EPRI also works with the utilities directly, so I can follow up on that and possibly provide some information later.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Thank you. We also received a question that says, "Do any of these analyses identify federal, state, local, utility, etc., incentives or rebates that are available?" And I will ask any of the panelists to jump in if their analyses do include incentives or rebates. But on the whole, they typically do not, unless explicitly identified as part of the models. These are typically looking for just what are the economic or achievable savings that are available from a building stock perspective. And then any incentives would be available to help obtain that savings. But, that's not typically part of an underlying model. Do any of the panelists have a different perspective from their analyses?
Erin Boyd: This is Erin Boyd on the residential analyses. We didn't include any utility or state-level. We did look at including the historical levels of the federal tax credits that expired at the end of last year.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Thanks, Erin. Anyone else have a point on this?
Okay. We've also received a question asking, "What are the estimated costs for capturing these energy savings? And how are these costs proposed to be funded?"
So overall, I'll answer that the costs are included in the analyses, because these are—with the exception of CHP—all looking at what's economical. And so, in any of the economical efficiency potential studies, we're seeing that the costs would be paid back by the savings over time. So, the up-front costs question is a very important one, and that is up to an individual state or utility or locality to decide. This is not something that DOE is planning to act upon in terms of trying to achieve all of these savings. We are making this analysis and these data available to help state, local, utility, and other energy planners determine how to move forward with their own energy plans and decide whether to start programs in these areas to encourage customers by their residences or businesses to implement the energy-efficient equipment, techniques, technologies, etc., because they are cost effective, or to put incentives in place—whether they're rebates or tax credits or state-level tax credits or other mechanisms.
Folks, please do continue to send in questions. We don't have very many more, but we will keep going for right now. One more time—
Sandy Glatt: Danielle?
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Yep.
Sandy Glatt: It's Sandy. I want to answer one and a half of the two questions that I was asked before, one easy, one not so easy. So, data centers are not included in the industrial NAICS codes. So, they were not included in in our data from the industrial side. The power factor question: So, that's typically more site-specific, and you know, what we did in our analysis was we took the EIA data, and we don't know whether EIA does or does not account for power factor in their energy efficiency data. Their business as usual energy savings numbers, and we just doubled it for our analysis. My thought process is that this analysis—and even the EIA data does not look at the specific means of energy efficiency, how the energy efficiency is in fact achieved—it just is measuring the overall energy efficiency. So, while power factor in a facility, and particularly with specific pieces of equipment, can be relatively important and should probably be the types of things that are looked at, and they're often looked at in utility programs, I don't think it's explicitly called out in this data.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great. Thanks, Sandy, for jumping in on those.
And we have another question for Erin, which is a technology question: "When you did your heat pump replacement analysis, were you looking at air source heat pumps or ground source heat pumps?"
Erin Boyd: Good question. We were not looking at ground source heat pumps. We were looking at a new high-efficiency variable speed heat pump with a sphere of 22 and an HSPF of 10. And so that can be considered a cold climate heat pump, although it doesn't work below temperatures of zero degrees Fahrenheit.
We also included an electric resistance coil for backup heat, in parts of the U.S. where temperatures could get down to that level.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great. Thank you.
We have received another question about how did we adjust potential based upon anticipated changes in baseline as a result of adoption of new lighting standards and presumably other appliance standards, etc., as incandescents are replaced and what-not?
I think that that's a question that's relevant to all of the panelists. Does anybody want to jump in?
Erin, I know for your analysis, it's based on the existing building stock. Is that correct?
Erin Boyd: Right, it's on the existing building stock, so it would look at how many incandescent light bulbs or CFLs are in now to figure out the potential if you switch to current state-of-the-art LEDs.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great. Jeremy, is that a question that you can tackle, as well? How did you all account for adjusted baseline moving forward?
Jeremy Williams: Sure. I mean, in general, what we do is we assume the current minimum federal appliance or equipment standard in both—the numerator and the denominator. And so they're kind of separated from our analysis. And so, anything that's controlled by, say, an appliance standard, is separate from what we're crediting under this codes analysis.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Thank you. And then, Sandy, I know you explained for the industrial analysis, that you're looking at numbers relative to what's already predicted. Is there any more you want to say on that?
Sandy Glatt: No, I wouldn't change that.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Okay. And then for the CHP analysis, it's also based on existing building stock. And it's the technical potential, right, Anne?
Anne Hampson: Yes, it is. And, you know, one of the things DOE does is maintain a database of CHP facilities throughout the country, so it was done—the analysis was done in 2015 and published in early 2016, so it used all of the current CHP systems as of 2015. So those were included into the analysis as a baseline for what the future potential would be.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great. Thank you. Folks, keep the questions coming. We have another one that just arrived that asks, did we benchmark or compare the results of any local, utility, state, or regional energy efficiency potential estimates?
And I know that for the multi-sector EPRI report, Kara did take a look at that, so I'll let you.
Kara Podkaminer: So, the energy efficiency potential catalog that is noted on the DOE website—we compared the EPRI results to the results of those around 80+ studies there. And from those, the EPRI report showed lower annual incremental savings than roughly 75 percent of three-quarters of those studies that are listed in the catalog.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: So that was one of the reasons we know that it's a conservative analysis, in addition to understanding the underlying data. Did any of the other analyses do any comparison to state- or regional-level EE potential assessments?
Sandy Glatt: It's interesting. In the industrial sector, we didn't look at any state, local, or utility potential assessments, but we did benchmark against actual facilities and companies that are participating in the Better Plants Program. So these are companies that are actively pursuing, achieving certain energy savings goals. And our numbers were fairly consistent with what we were seeing there. Although, like everything else, these guys are very attuned to things that are going on in the market. And any change in market conditions, particularly in the industrial sector, can be pretty dramatic. So, the kinds of things we saw—and even our data was impacted like this—the kind of trends we saw 2009 to 2011 and -12, where there was absolutely almost no growth at all relative—because the market was in such bad shape—you'll see real impacts in the industrial sector.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: Great. Thank you for that additional context, Sandy. One last call for questions. We have one remaining question, and then we will probably end the webinar.
The question is, can the data that we presented be down-scaled to a city scale with inputs related to building stock? And I'm interested if any of the panelists want to talk about that, or Kara?
Kara Podkaminer: Yes, so that's actually some things that we are thinking about right now. I think that the methodology that we've used is really scalable. And so we're looking at a few example cities right now. And hopefully we'll have more to report later this fall.
Danielle Sass Byrnett: There is also a database called Cities-LEAP or SLED (energy.gov/eere/cities-leading-through-energy-analysis-and-planning) that has data on current energy use at an estimated level, but a solid estimated level, which is one opportunity.
And then, as Kara said, we are working on a cities- or a local-level potential. It won't be necessarily down-scaled from these analyses specifically but will be something that would be comparable and be part of this suite of energy efficiency potential studies.
Unless anyone has raised their hand, I think that we at this point have responded to all of the questions, and so we are planning to close the webinar.
And thank all of you again. I'll let you know that we have been recording. We will be posting the webinar slides and the recording on the State and Local Solution Center—EERE's State and Local Solution Center (energy.gov/eere/slsc/state-and-local-solution-center)—and also a link on the website that's up in front of you—energy.gov/eere/slsc. Thank you, everyone, and have a good afternoon.