No abstract

Our research was conducted in support of the EPA ENERGY STAR Office Equipment program, whose goal is to reduce the amount of electricity consumed by office equipment in the U.S. The most energy-efficient models in each office equipment category are eligible for the ENERGY STAR label, which consumers can use to identify and select efficient products. As the efficiency of each category improves over time, the ENERGY STAR criteria need to be revised accordingly. The purpose of this study was to provide reliable data on the energy consumption of the newest personal computers and monitors that the EPA can use to evaluate revisions to current ENERGY STAR criteria as well as to improve the accuracy of ENERGY STAR program savings estimates. We report the results of measuring the power consumption and power management capabilities of a sample of new monitors and computers. These results will be used to improve estimates of program energy savings and carbon emission reductions, and to inform revisions of the ENERGY STAR criteria for these products. Our sample consists of 35 monitors and 26 computers manufactured between July 2000 and October 2001; it includes cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors, Macintosh and Intelarchitecture computers, desktop and laptop computers, and integrated computer systems, in which power consumption of the computer and monitor cannot be measured separately. For each machine we measured power consumption when off, on , and in each low-power level. We identify trends in and opportunities to reduce power consumption in new personal computers and monitors. Our results include a trend among monitor manufacturers to provide a single very low low-power level, well below the current ENERGY STAR criteria for sleep power consumption. These very low sleep power results mean that energy consumed when monitors are off or in active use has become more important in terms of contribution to the overall unit energy consumption (UEC). Current ENERGY STAR monitor and computer criteria do not specify off or on power, but our results suggest opportunities for saving energy in these modes. Also, significant differences between CRT and LCD technology, and between field-measured and manufacturer-reported power levels reveal the need for standard methods and metrics for measuring and comparing monitor power consumption.

Consulting), Bill McNary (D&R International), Robin Clark, Darcy Martinez and Rebecca Duff (ICF Consulting) and Sarah Bretz (LBNL) also contributed to the analysis. Abstract ENERGY STAR is a voluntary energy efficiency-labeling program operated jointly by the United States Department of Energy and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Since the program inception in 1992, ENERGY STAR has become a leading international brand for energy efficient products. ENERGY STAR's central role in the development of regional, national, and international energy programs necessitates an open process whereby its program achievements to date as well as projected future savings are shared with committed stakeholders. Through 2006, US EPA'S ENERGY STAR labeled products saved 4.8 EJ of primary energy and avoided 82 Tg C equivalent. We project that US EPA'S ENERGY STAR labeled products will save 12.8 EJ and avoid 203 Tg C equivalent over the period 2007-2015. A sensitivity analysis examining two key inputs (carbon factor and ENERGY STAR unit sales) bounds the best estimate of carbon avoided between 54 Tg C and 107 Tg C (1993 to 2006) and between 132 Tg C and 278 Tg C (2007 to 2015). 1) Audio includes CDs, mini-systems, audio separates, and home theater in a box. 2) CAC =central air conditioning, ASHP = air source heat pump, HP = heat pump, DVD = digital versatile disc, CFL = compact fluorescent lamp, HVAC = heating ventilation and air conditioning, VCR=video cassette recorder.3) Specification revisions that resulted in program suspension are indicated with an "*"

No abstract

The Intermittent Renewable Management Pilot -Phase 2 (IRM2) was designed to study the feasibility of demand-side resources to participate into the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) wholesale market as proxy demand resources (PDR). The pilot study focused on understanding the issues related with direct participation of third-parties and customers including customer acceptance; market transformation challenges (wholesale market, technology); technical and operational feasibility; and value to the rate payers, DR resource owners and the utility on providing an enabling mechanism for DR resources into the wholesale markets.The customer had the option of committing to either three contiguous hour blocks for 24 days or six contiguous hours for 12 days a month with day-ahead notification that aligned with the CAISO integrated forward market. As a result of their being available, the customer was paid $10/ kilowatt (kW)-month for capacity in addition to CAISO energy settlements. The participants were limited to no more than a 2 megawatt (MW) capacity with a sixmonth commitment.Four participants successfully engaged in the pilot. In this report, we provide the description of the pilot, participant performance results, costs and value to participants as well as outline some of the issues encountered through the pilot.Results show that participants chose to participate with storage and the value of CAISO settlements were significantly lower than the capacity payments provided by the utility as incentive payments. In addition, this pilot revealed issues both on the participant side and system operations side. These issues are summarized in the report.