Western Regional Air Partnership
Search the WRAP  
Printer Friendly Page
WRAP Home   About WRAP Contact WRAP
SIP Status Summary
308 Support
309 Support
309 Support
Tribal Resources
Other WRAP Projects
Fact Sheets
Kids's Corner
Contractor's Corner
WRAP Sheet
Live Camera Pictures
National RPO Info
Getting Involved
Related Links
WRAP Staff
The Western Governers' Association
The National Tribal Environmental Council
Technical Decision Systems
Contractor's Corner
Contractor's Corner
Contractor's Corner
Contractor's Corner

Air Pollution Prevention Forum: Meetings & Calls

Air Pollution Prevention Forum Meeting Summary
May 31 - June 1, 2000, San Francisco, CA


The AP2 Forum met in San Francisco, CA on May 31 - June 1, 2000. This was the fifth full meeting of the Forum.


Joining co-chairs Hap Boyd (Enron Wind Corporation) and Jeff Burks (UT-DNR) at the meeting were the following Forum members: Alan Davis (MT DEQ); Rich Ferguson (CEERT); Trisha Frank (Manzanita Tribe); Cathy Ghandehari (representing Bill Becker - DOE Denver Regional Office); Van Jamison (Jamison Consulting); John Nielsen (LAW Fund); Terry O'Connor (Arch Coal); Amanda Ormond (AZ Energy Office); Julie Simpson (Nez Perce Tribe). New Forum members attending the meeting included: Carl Blumstein (LBNL); Bob Green (Kennecott Energy); John Savage (OR Energy Office); Rich Sperberg (Onsite Energy); and Dick Watson (NWPPC).

Also in attendance were Doug Larson and Dale DeCesare of the Western Interstate Energy Board who are providing technical support to the Forum. Others attending and participating in the meeting included: Blair Swezey from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; Mark Case a consultant from the State of Utah; and Kathy Augustine from the Nevada State Controller's office who was representing the WRAP Communications Committee.

The Forum also listened to presentations provided by: Brad Barber (Utah Office of Planning and Budget); Steve Cochrane (Regional Financial Associates); Ernst Worrell (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory); Mike Messenger (California Energy Commission); David Goldstein (Natural Resources Defense Council); David Nichols (Tellus Institute); Jim McMahon (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory); Fred Palmer (Greening Earth Society); and Jonathan Koomey (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory).

Forum Actions

  • Rich Ferguson agreed to incorporate the information from the impact analysis spreadsheets developed by John Nielsen into the Forum's renewables report. The Forum also agreed to include the spreadsheets and supply curve information in an appendix to the report.
  • The Forum agreed that co-chairs Hap Boyd and Jeff Burks would send a letter to the WRAP discussing the fact that transportation and mobile source energy efficiency recommendations need to be developed by the WRAP, but that the AP2 Forum is not the appropriate avenue to use in developing such recommendations.
  • John Nielsen agreed to contact Kevin Golden concerning the work of the WRAP Modeling Forum and how the AP2 Forum's renewable energy/energy efficiency recommendations can be translated into visibility benefits. Nielsen will then discuss with the AP2 Forum co-chairs the possibility of drafting a formal letter of request to the Modeling Forum to conduct such work.
  • Blair Swezey agreed to address the following issues in refining the supply curve analysis for renewables which was presented at the meeting:
    • What are the land requirements for the amount of new wind facilities involved?
    • Are all of the four sub-regions included in the supply curve analysis?
    • In order to more accurately determine costs, the Forum requested more detailed information of where wind resources are located within the sub-regions and what the quality of those resources are. The Forum was also interested in knowing the amount of Class 6 or above wind power which is located in each of the sub-regions discussed in the supply curves.
  • Jeff Burks agreed to provide a write up on net metering for Section III of the Forum's renewables report.

Items Discussed

The meeting began with an overview provided by co-chair Jeff Burks concerning the Air Pollution Prevention (AP2) Forum's work.

Burks also provided an overview of:

  • The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission;
  • The Western Regional Air Partnership; and
  • The Environmental Protection Agency's Regional Haze Rule.

The Forum next heard from two panelists concerning changes in the demographics and economy in the WRAP region.

Brad Barber (Utah Office of Planning and Budget) discussed numerous demographic and societal trends which are likely to impact the future of the West, including: changing political institutions, changing family/household compositions, increasing life expectancy, increasing ethnic diversity, changing technologies, increased globalization and global competition, and rising standards of living. Barber also stated that:

  • The Rocky Mountain region is the fastest growing region in the country. The 5-17 age group in this region has grown by 10 percent in recent years. The West will be impacted by the "third wave" (the children of the baby boomers starting to have children).
  • The West is facing an "urban/rural" conundrum whereby technology advances (such as the Internet and increased telecommuting opportunities) and increased wealth have caused some migration from urban to rural areas. At the same time however, in other areas of the West where there are few opportunities for employment, many people are moving from rural to urban areas.
  • Many "edge communities" around western metro areas are growing at the fastest rates. This may be due to the fact that many people want to get away from the city but still stay close enough to services which urban areas can provide. Such spread out growth is already causing sprawl and increased driving and pollution impacts.
  • The West is well positioned to take advantage of the "New Economy." According to Utah's "State New Economy Scores," five of the top ten states are in the West, which is much higher than any other single region in the country. The West will need to rethink tax structure and how Internet sales impact the tax base of state and local governments. The region will also likely need to wrestle with how to take care of infrastructure development needs in the face of potential reduced tax revenues.
  • By implementing intelligent growth strategies, emissions can be reduced. Infrastructure costs can be reduced as well (fewer roads, smaller roads, a better linked transit system, reduced sewage building). Growth will likely not be managed successfully by some "regional growth czar" or by some regional solution arrived at by "experts." Effective solutions are likely to best evolve at the local level.
  • With increased wealth, new problems have been created by the demand for larger homes on larger lots. It is very expensive to provide infrastructure for this type of spread out lifestyle which creates heavy demands on water, energy, and land-use needs. The cost of constructing additional highways can also be enormous. Awareness of such infrastructure costs comes largely through increased property taxes. Major discussions on tax increases to accommodate growth are coming in the near future. The booming economy in the West has helped to handle some of these issues for the time being, but major problems could occur if and when the economy slows down.
  • Growth in the West brings many challenges. Barber outlined five major strategies to deal with such growth:
    1. Co-invest in developing appropriate workforce skills;
    2. Co-invest in developing an infrastructure for innovation (fiber optics, transportation, etc...);
    3. Foster transformation to the "new digital economy;"
    4. Promote more innovative and consumer-oriented government (including such measures as streamlining the regulation of high-tech industries); and
    5. Promote civic collaboration to maintain quality of life.
  • See the following address for more information: http://www.nga.org/Pubs/IssueBriefs/2000/GrowingPains.asp

Steve Cochrane (Regional Financial Associates) also gave a presentation (PPT) on economic trends in the West.

Cochrane stated that:

  • No state in the nation is currently losing jobs and that most major western metro areas are also growing as well.
  • More than half of the new "Internet Economy" is in the West and seventy percent of market capitalization for Internet related firms comes from the Western region. This heavy Internet presence is a big advantage that the West should enjoy over the long term, however this also means there will be more volatility in the region's economy. The West continues to lead the country in high-tech jobs and is projected to continue to do so out until 2030.
  • Venture capital funds are important to the West in particular. Public policies should be designed to accommodate venture capitalists. Venture capital is focusing particularly on Colorado, California and Washington.
  • Despite rising interest rates, construction of homes in California will continue because supply has not met demand in any of that state's metro areas. In most of the rest of the West construction rates should slow down and be more balanced in the next 4-5 years.
  • Areas with low business costs will have a comparative advantage. Such costs include labor, energy, tax burden and office space rents. A stronger forecast of growth is projected for mountain states, which currently have lower costs than the Pacific West. The mountain states are expected to see the fastest job growth in the country.
  • Western population is projected to grow more than one third in the next 30 years, shifting from 23% of the U.S. total to 26% of the U.S. total.
  • Over the next 30 years, the average age of the overall population in the West will increase.
  • The more traditional industrial sectors in the West (such as mining) are employing fewer and fewer people all the time. With regard to energy consumption, it appears that the energy required to run equipment is being continually reduced. Over time these industries will require less and less energy per unit of output.
  • Farming will continue to be very important in California largely because many of its agricultural products are not grown anywhere else. Agriculture in other parts of the West is more open to global competition and may see greater decline. An additional constraint in the West is the lack of water in the region for irrigation.
  • Manufacturing will likely remain stable in the West. Manufacturing of higher added-value goods is more likely to grow than manufacturing of lower added-value goods. As goods become cheaper to produce, they will likely gravitate towards being produced outside of the region or abroad.
  • Commercial facilities such as warehousing are locating in states where there is cheap employment and where there are low or no sales taxes.
  • RFA models are focused on employment figures, but do not take into account quality of life measurements which are important but difficult to measure. QOL can strongly affect migration patterns within the country. The West generally would rank high in QOL measurements.

Mike Messenger of the California Energy Commission gave a presentation (PPT) on new and emerging energy efficient technologies. Messenger focused his discussion on commercial and residential emerging energy efficiency technologies, and provided information in his presentation concerning:

  • The difficulty of predicting which new technologies will be successful in the future. Of 20 emerging technologies which California targeted as high priorities in 1992, only five have been commercialized or incorporated into codes or standards. The most common failure of these technologies is that the energy savings were either overstated or that the market for the technology failed to materialize. (See: "Review of the Market Fate of the 21 high priority energy efficiency technologies"for California in 1992 DOC )
  • There are several promising emerging technologies, including: ducts designed into conditioned space, aeroseal for duct leakage improvements; cycling controls integrated into billing/metering systems; and high efficiency dish washers. With regard to industrial technologies, Messenger identified the development of amorphous steel for motors which could increase motor efficiency from 92% to 97%. This technology is not yet available but could have tremendous efficiency potential in view of the fact that motors consume approximately 15% of the power used in the U.S.
  • Regarding emerging lighting technologies, Messenger stated that innovations in lighting are being driven by technology and not by standards.
  • Energy efficiency services: Messenger stated that increased efficiency potential can be found in commissioning programs for residential and commercial buildings whereby buildings are tested during construction to ensure that ducts and thermostats are all functioning properly. Such inspections are much cheaper to accomplish during construction rather than waiting until after the building is completed. With regard to promoting the use of building performance contractors, Messenger stated that the government can help by certifying a list of approved contractors in order to boost consumer confidence in using such services.
  • The electronic/information revolution is likely to drive the growth in emerging efficiency technologies. Since energy likely will remain a low priority for most projects, Messenger pointed to the need for finding ways of bundling energy efficiency technologies with growth sectors such as Internet/information technologies.

Ernst Worrell of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory discussed emerging energy efficiency technologies in the industrial sector. According to Worrell:

  • The U.S. has been slower than other countries in adopting new energy efficiciency technologies. The efficiency of generating power in the U.S. is still very low compared to most other industrialized countries. This is due in large part to the continued use of older, coal-fired power plants.
  • The "Clean Energy Futures Study" by LBNL is due in July or August. The study looks at: scrap preheating and thin slab casting (a technology originally developed in Germany). These technologies also greatly reduced production costs. Productivity, not energy efficiency, is what was truly driving the development of these new technologies. The technologies that reduce production costs are the ones which tend to be the most successful. Any efficiency benefits which accrue tend to be of secondary concern.
  • There are numerous emerging energy-efficient technologies identified in several industrial sectors, including aluminum, electronics, food processing, glass, iron and steel, mining, oil refining, plastics, pulp and paper, and textiles (see presentation slide number 12).
  • The use of "voluntary agreements" and other supporting policies can be an effective tool for governments or regulating agencies to use to encourage energy efficiency practices and technologies (see presentation slides 15-18). Worrell identified several "key policies"for residential and commercial buildings as well as for the transportation and electricity sectors (see slide 22).

The Forum also heard presentations from a series of three additional experts on energy efficiency. David Goldstein of the Natural Resources Defense Council discussed several issues, including:

  • Certain policies, such as building standards, can only be pursued at the state level. In California, building standards are making large energy savings and are an effective policy. States should consider adoption of National Model Standards. States should also consider going beyond the national model.
  • With regard to appliance and equipment efficiency standards, states are not preempted by the federal government in several areas. Such standards can be an effective policy mechanism for promoting energy efficiency (eg., elimination of inefficient and unsafe halogen torchiere lamps).
  • The development of public benefits charges to support energy efficiency is an effective tool which can be enacted at the state level and which can generally produce a two-to-one benefit-to-cost ratio.
  • Market transformation programs need to provide large targets and last for a long period of time to produce any real change in industrial practices. Market transformation can be done in the utility system through public benefits charges. Tax incentives can also be provided at either the state or federal levels to encourage market transformation. Currently the NRDC is proposing a 6-year tax incentive.
  • With regard to the transportation sector: Legislation taxing higher emitting vehicles higher than lower emitting vehicles can be an effective policy tool. Such legislation passed in California but was later vetoed by the governor. Varying urban design can also drastically reduce the number of miles driven per year. Also, location-efficient mortgages have been introduced in San Francisco, Los Angeles and soon in Chicago. Such mortgages take into account cost savings from location in offsetting the monthly mortgage costs.

Jim McMahon of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory followed with an additional presentation (PPT)

According to McMahon:

  • Forecasting models do not take into account attitudes and consumer behavior. Consumers seem to be very concerned about the environment however it is not clear that this attitude is impacting behavior significantly as of yet.
  • To be effective, policies need to be very product specific and should include an examination of the market involved. The success with increasing the efficiency of refrigerators should be used as a model for other technologies.
  • Labels and appliance standards work well together and should be designed to work in tandem to create greater gains.
  • Policies must be of sufficient duration to cause the private sector to make the desired changes/improvements.
  • It can be important to determine whether different age groups will be impacted differently by the proposed policy.

David Nichols of the Tellus Institute was the final presenter of the day.

  • Slide Presentation DOC
  • "What is a Policy Maker To Do?: A Selective Discussion of Policies on Efficiency" (DOC)provided by Nichols at the meeting.

Nichols' presentation focused on several areas, including:

  • Two areas on which policymakers should focus their efficiency efforts are new construction and combined heat and power opportunities. One option is for states to develop a combined heat and power portfolio standard.
  • State building codes and standards and state public benefit funding are two major policy tools available to states to promote energy efficiency.
  • Market interventions should be examined as a means of promoting efficiency.

Following the panel presentations, the Forum conducted a question and answer session. Several comments were offered, including:

  • Rich Sperberg commented that there has not been a cogeneration market in California since 1988. There is interest in combined heat and power, but there is not presently a viable market for it in the U.S.
  • Mike Messenger stressed the need to understand the market before doing an intervention and the need to set clear goals that encourage innovation at the implementation level. He also advised that programs should not be funded until it is clear what the indicators are to measure/prove the success of the program. Messenger indicated that greater opportunity for efficiency gains can be found in the transportation sector as opposed to the electricity generation sector. He recommended several policy strategies to promote energy efficiency, including:
    1. Change the way the next generation of consumers thinks about energy and the environment and how using energy impacts air and the environment. This would include adoption of school-age education programs.
    2. Implement specific courses for architects and engineers in state universities and create state-sponsored competitions on designing buildings.
    3. Seniors are in an ideal position to lead growth planning seminars at the local level. Take advantage of demographic data to determine where seniors will stand with a particular policy.
    4. Certify energy construction techniques in home building (something equivalent to Energy Star).
    5. Adopt a policy where residential customers can see time-of-use prices. This will allow people to actually adjust their energy uses accordingly.
    6. Support adoption of public benefit charges. Private companies cannot capture certain types of benefits because they will not be able to recover these investments in today's market. Messenger recommended a 2-3% charge.
  • David Nichols had three major policy recommendations:
    1. Implement public benefits charges to promote energy efficiency measures;
    2. Implement a statewide building standards program similar to California's; and
    3. Create a cluster of programs promoting combined heat and power programs. Nichols did not believe focusing on seniors to lead growth seminars at the local level as suggested by Mike Messenger would be as effective.
  • Jim McMahon made several recommendations to promote energy efficiency, including:
    1. Consumers need to be able to see and be aware of energy prices for markets to work properly;
    2. Mandatory government agency energy efficiency standards can help by displaying a positive example of the importance of implementing energy efficiency measures;
    3. Change the way the next generation of consumers thinks about energy and the environment and how using energy impacts air and the environment. This would include adoption of school-age education programs;
    4. Place an emphasis on developing combined heat and power programs;
    5. Implement public benefits charges to promote energy efficiency programs. Such charges can be coordinated on a regional basis to achieve more market leverage;
    6. Building codes and standards continue to be valuable tools to increase the efficiency with which energy is consumed; and
    7. Performance-based solutions are generally the most cost-effective.
  • Ernst Worrell recommended that:
    1. A portfolio of both long and short-term policies is needed to make significant energy efficiency gains;
    2. States should explore implementation of voluntary agreements to promote energy efficiency;
    3. Labeling programs can be effective especially with regard to energy efficiency in appliances;
    4. Combined heat and power programs can be effective;
    5. Training and education is important especially for changing long-term attitudes with regard to energy use;
    6. Research and development funded by public benefit charges is an effective policy option as long as funding is channeled to the proper places; and
    7. Energy audits and other follow up activities are necessary to ensure that any required changes are implemented properly.
  • Steve Cochrane re-emphasized that the West will continue to be the largest growth area in the country, and that the region will see a continuing need for new infrastructure. This fact provides numerous opportunities with regard to land-use planning and urban development. Cochrane also indicated that the large size of western states translates to larger state markets and greater opportunities to use market-based policies to solve problems.
  • Van Jamison indicated that most legislatures are not aware of the successes involved with some current energy efficiency policies. Jamison pointed to the improvements achieved with refrigerators as an example of a successful efficiency policy and said it would be helpful to make policymakers aware of such successes.
  • Alan Davis stated that he believes the key is to create markets for efficiency, and to develop policies that create and enhance an energy efficiency market.
  • David Goldstein was not certain that markets would work properly by themselves to adequately promote efficiency and that government programs such as rebates and mandates are still necessary. Goldstein also believed increasing the education of the public on energy issues could be an important way to promote energy efficiency.
  • Amanda Ormond and John Savage agreed that, in developing policies to promote energy efficiency, the Forum's focus should be on state-level policies as opposed to region-wide policies.

Day 2

On the second day of the meeting, the Forum heard from a panel discussing alternate views on the impact of the Internet on energy consumption in the West. The panelists included Fred Palmer from the Greening Earth Society and Jonathan Koomey from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories.

Palmer stated that:

  • Demand for power in the U.S. is outstripping supply. Supply side electricity problems have clearly been developing over the past few years.
  • There is a close correlation between electricity usage and wealth. The large supply of cheap electricity, provided in large part by coal-fired power plants, has helped fuel the boom of productivity in the economy. Such cheap electricity will be needed to maintain the country's current economic boom.
  • The National Academy of Sciences in 1986 called for a focus on reducing the price of electricity. This resulted in construction of many of the new coal-fired plants in the late 1970s early 1980s.
  • Retirements of nuclear plants and increasing energy demands which are being created by the booming economy and the growth of the Internet mean that many more new power plants will need to be built. At the current time, many of these new plants are likely to be natural gas-fired plants. The report by Mark Mills' ("The Internet Begins with Coal.") shows that Intel projects one billion people online in approximately the next seven years. This would result in an average of a new 197,000 Internet customers per day coming online. This massive increase in Internet use will mean that more cheap electricity will be needed.

Jonathan Koomey (LBNL) presented an alternative view on the impact of the Internet on energy consumption.

Koomey stated that:

  • His work has focused on energy usage in office equipment. The aggregate net impact of office equipment in the U.S. is at 2%. LBNL is examining the issues of power usage by all computers, and is not limiting its analysis to the energy consumed by usage of the Internet alone. LBNL has come up with estimates of energy usage for all office equipment across the country. This data should be produced in the next few weeks.
  • In addressing the assumptions made by Mark Mills' with regard to the Internet's impact on electricity consumption, LBNL found that: 1) Claims in computer usage by the Mills' article were flawed. The Mills' article claimed that, including all the "behind the wall" networking equipment, electricity usage would be around 1,000 watts per computer. LBNL studied its own extensive office network and came up with around 140 or so watts per PC (including network equipment); 2) Claims of electricity used by telephone systems and mainframe computers were also too high.
  • The LBNL analysis reduced Mills' energy use prediction values by a factor of eight.
  • In addition, the potential "systemic effects" of information technology (reduced office space due to telecommuting, reduced retail space in favor of increased warehouse space used by Internet-based businesses) could have far-reaching societal effects that actually reduce the overall amount of energy consumed by the nation.
  • Growth in the economy is not necessarily dependent on growth in electricity use. In recent years growth rates in electricity has slowed while at the same time GDP has gone up (although potentially 25% of this reduction in energy use may be due to mild weather patterns).
  • Growth in the use of smaller computers and laptops (which use less electricity than larger machines) could also decrease the future amount of energy consumed.
  • For more information, visit the Network for Energy, Environment, Efficiency and the Information Economy at http://n4e.lbl.gov.

Both panelists also responded to several questions from the Forum:

  • In response to a question on whether the Forum should pursue recommendations to increase energy efficiency measures in the computing/information technology arenas, Koomey recommended that the Forum tie into national programs such as the Energy Star label. Palmer advised that the Forum talk to people in the information technology sector to see what can be done to develop energy efficiency measures.
  • In response to a question on the Internet's impact on land use patterns, Koomey said that LBNL is currently examining anecdotal case studies on this subject but does not have any hard data as of yet. Koomey said that more data collection is needed to better determine the Internet's impact on land usage. He added that AT&T is currently putting together pilot studies on the impact of telecommuting, and that companies generally turn to telecommuting for economic reasons and not to save energy. Palmer stated that he believes it may be too late to focus efforts into land-use planning because much of the West has already been built out.

Following this panel, the Forum heard a presentation from Forum member Rich Ferguson on "The Public Value of Load Reductions in the California Market."

Forum Discussion on Energy Efficiency Measures to Offset Fossil Generation and to Reduce Regional Haze

  • Van Jamison proposed that the Forum's work should proceed along two lines: 1) Promote policies to promote energy efficiency throughout the West; and 2) Address how state air directors can integrate potential energy efficiency recommendations into their SIPs for the Regional Haze Rule. States will need assistance with the accounting procedures necessary to show "reasonable progress" towards reaching the 60 year glide path goal of reducing emissions under the Rule.
  • Rich Ferguson stated that the Forum should focus its work on recommending energy savings, and not attempt to quantify the effects on haze from reduced emissions.
  • The Forum agreed that mobile source emissions were a key area to address in reducing regional haze, however a consensus was reached that the AP2 Forum was not the appropriate venue for addressing such issues. The Forum agreed that a letter should be sent from the co-chairs to the WRAP recommending that mobile source concerns be appropriately addressed.
  • The Forum discussed the importance of developing and incorporating marketing strategies for promoting energy efficiency measures. Such marketing strategies would focus on highlighting other benefits which accrue from implementing energy efficiency programs (aside from saving energy) such as increased employee retention, reduced absenteeism and others. Such benefits would all have higher value to private companies than saving energy and could therefore be more easily marketed. Focusing on improving the workplace by building a "quality work environment" (in which energy efficiency measures are used) may be more politically saleable as well. It was suggested that Margaret Gardner of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance would be a good source of knowledge on these issues. Forum members could also visit http://www.betterbricks.com for additional ideas. It was also suggested that the Forum should examine recommendations which could place suppliers of energy efficiency with timely information on those products which are needed the most.
  • It was suggested that the Forum should start by looking at what types of energy efficiency programs are already in place in western states. The Forum could use this baseline to then better gauge the appropriate areas to emphasize in making its recommendations. Cathy Ghandehari has provided Forum staff with initial information on state energy efficiency programs.
  • The Forum agreed that its energy efficiency recommendations should not focus solely on the demand side, but on the supply side as well. As an example, Terry O'Connor pointed out that Senator Frank Murkowski has proposed a bill to provide tax credits for coal producers that implement certain energy efficiency measures.
  • Co-chair Jeff Burks suggested that a small work group be formed to develop a work plan for the entire Forum to utilize in developing its energy efficiency recommendations.

  The Forum next discussed the Third Draft of its renewables report.

  • Blair Swezey (NREL) gave a presentation on renewable energy supply curves which have been developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the AP2 Forum's work. Swezey said the supply curve models were built for carbon analysis and only compare renewables to existing fossil generation. The analysis does not include nuclear plants. Swezey said that the analysis shows that there are sufficient renewable resources in the West to supply and replace fossil fuels. However, the supply curves do not take into account important factors such as transmission constraints or other infrastructural costs and restraints that would be involved. Click here for Swezey's presentation. (Other materials supplied by Swezey, including the supply curve assumptions and analysis were included in the briefing materials.)

    The Forum developed a series of additional questions for NREL to address regarding the supply curves. These questions are included in this summary under the "Forum Actions" heading.
  • The Forum discussed several suggested changes to the renewables report offered by Forum member Bill Becker. With regard to the inclusion of solar thermal heating systems for buildings, the Forum decided to attempt to address these technologies in its energy efficiency recommendations. With regard to assessing whether new renewables would be competing mostly with new natural gas power plants, the Forum decided that to make a thorough assessment of this topic would require an extensive modeling effort that would be beyond the Forum's means at the current time. With regard to including information on Federal programs in the report, the Forum decided not to include such information in order to maintain the focus on state government-level programs. With regard to the suggestion to move the Forum's recommendations to the front of the renewables report, the Forum discussed the fact that the recommendations are currently included in the document's executive summary. Cathy Ghandehari agreed to discuss this item with Bill Becker.
  • John Nielsen discussed an updated spreadsheet analysis which he has developed to help determine the costs and benefits associated with the implementation of the Forum's major recommendations with regard to renewables. Nielsen said that the spreadsheet shows that an aggressive RPS/SBC would be needed in order to achieve significant growth in renewable energy production. These findings support the recommendations which are already in the Forum's renewables report. The RPS/SBC should be additionally bolstered by effective green marketing and federal agency purchasing programs. The Forum discussed the possibility of including in the final renewables report more information on how dollars generated from a SBC should be spent. Rich Ferguson agreed to work on incorporating the information in the spreadsheets into the renewables report. The Forum also agreed to include the spreadsheets and supply curve information into an appendix to the report.

The meeting was adjourned.

Draft Agenda
AP2 Forum Scoping of Energy Efficiency in the WRAP Region

Marines Memorial Club Hotel
San Francisco, California
May 31-June 1, 2000

Wednesday, May 31

8:30 a.m. - Background on the Western Regional Air Partnership and the Air Pollution Prevention (AP2) Forum's energy efficiency scoping process

  • Jeff Burks/Hap Boyd, Co-Chairs, AP2 Forum
  • TBA

9:30 a.m. - Changes in the economy in the WRAP region The purpose of this discussion is to understand the future demographic and economic changes in the WRAP region that could significantly affect energy consumption patterns and thus opportunities to improve the efficiency with which energy is used. To understand these changes the Forum will be briefed by Brad Barber, Director of the Utah Office of Planning and Budget. The Forum will also be briefed by a representative of the financial community. As with all of the presentations at the meeting, the speakers are asked to focus on both the near-term (e.g., 2005) and the longer term (2015, 2020).

Key Questions: Will the WRAP states continue the rapid growth in population of recent years? What will be the age and income distribution of the population in the WRAP region? What will be the geographic distribution (by state and by urban, suburban, and rural)? Are we likely to see significant changes in the places people live (e.g., city-based lofts as opposed to green field, urban fringe subdivisions) and work? What will be the major changes in the economy in the WRAP region? Will the trend away from extractive industries (e.g., mining, logging) continue? Will manufacturing grow or shrink? What new industries will arise? What impact will the "Internet" (i.e., information technologies) have on the type and way in which work is done? Will these economic changes be uniformly spread among the WRAP states or wil they be focused in specific areas?

  • Brad Barber, Utah Office of Planning and Budget
  • Steve Cochrane, Regional Financial Associates

11:00 a.m. - New energy-efficient technologies

The purpose of this discussion is to understand the impact of potential technology changes in the next five to 15-20 years on the efficiency with which energy is produced, transported and used. Representatives of the Electric Power Research Institute, the Gas Research Institute and the national labs are being invited to brief the Forum on potential technological changes.

Key questions: What new energy efficiency and energy production technologies are likely to penetrate the market place over the next five and 15-20 years? What role will distributed generation play? To what extent is the penetration of new technologies dependent on: (1) government standards (e.g., appliance efficiency standards); (2) changes in the market place to provide better price signals to consumers (e.g., real-time electricity prices, individual metering of office and apartment buildings, pay-at-the-pump auto insurance); (3) information to consumers (e.g., product labeling); (4) consumer education, government-sponsored R&D; and (5) state and federal government financial incentives)? What are the major uncertainties (natural gas prices, carbon constraints, consumer tastes, economic growth and the attendant turnover of existing equipment and building stocks)? Are there any major technology breakthroughs that could radically alter the outlook for energy production and use technologies (e.g., widespread use of superconductivity, molecular-based computer chips, "fusion in a jar")?

  • Steven Gehl, Electric Policy Research Institute (tentative)
  • Jonathan Koomey, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (tentative)

12:30 p.m. - Lunch

1:30 p.m. - Expert Panel to Offer Views and Advice to the Forum

The purpose of this discussion is to tap the knowledge and opinions of experts on the impact that demographic, economic, environmental, lifestyle and technological changes in the WRAP region will have on energy production and consumption in 2005 and 2015. This information will provide the basis for the Forum's decision on the direction of its work on energy efficiency. The discussion will include several initial presentations on topics that may not have been addressed earlier in the day (e.g., policy options for increasing energy efficiency such as tax policy and emissions policy, the feasibility of construction of new generation and transmission). Thereafter, the previous presenters on demographics, economics and technology will address the key questions below. Substantial expertise exists among members of the Forum and Forum members will have an opportunity to offer their views on future opportunities for energy efficiency given the changes underway in the WRAP region.

Key questions: How will the demographic, economic and technological changes in the WRAP region affect energy consumption patterns? What new opportunities for energy efficiency result from changes in consumption patterns? What are the barriers to capitalizing on those opportunities? What actions could be taken to overcome those barriers?

What are the potential "drivers" that may affect the interest in improving energy efficiency (e.g., power outages, climate change concerns, money savings)? What are the future energy efficiency opportunities in generation and end use of energy, and what are the barriers to capitalizing on such opportunities. What policies are available to overcome those barriers (e.g., utility regulatory programs, market transformation, state/national/industry standards, tax policy, emission markets, system benefit charges)?

  • Ralph Cavanaugh, Natural Resources Defense Council
  • David Nichols, Tellus Institute
  • Jim McMahon, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (tentative)
  • Representative from the Rocky Mountain Institute (tentative)

Respondents: Brad Barber, Steve Cochrane, Steven Gehl, Jonathan Koomey

5:00 p.m. - Recess

Thursday, June 1

8:30 a.m. - Alternative Views of How the Internet May Affect Energy Consumption

  • Fred Palmer, Greening Earth Society
  • Joe Romm, Center for Energy and Climate Solutions (tentative)

10:00 a.m. - AP2 Forum discussion

  • Next steps on energy efficiency
  • Directions to staff

12:00 p.m. - Lunch

1:30 pm. - Review of the Third Draft of the Renewables Paper

4:00 p.m. - Adjourn


Air Pollution
Prevention Forum

Major Projects










Contact the Webmaster

©2009 Western Governors' Association