|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
192802
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Transitioning to an equitable electricity sector requires a deep understanding of a warming climate's impacts on vulnerable populations. A vital climate adaptation measure is deploying air-conditioning (AC), but AC use can increase household energy costs. We evaluate how a warming climate will affect regional energy equity by tying temperature projections with household temperature response functions derived from smart-meter electricity data in Phoenix, Arizona. We simulate future consumption changes under two climate change scenarios from 2020 to 2070, with and without AC efficiency upgrades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
110364
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Addressing energy poverty rather than energy equity conveniently evades the problem of the gap in energy consumption per capita in the developed and developing world. For energy security policies to adequately address energy poverty it requires a widening of scope from national to global. This is a comment to the forthcoming presentation of IEA's proposition for a new architecture for financing universal modern energy access to be presented at the conference 'Energy for all-Financing access for the poor' held in Oslo in October 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
181428
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Our analysis of policy options was motivated by an inexplicable under-investment in demand response (DR) in the U.S. state of Georgia. In addition to estimating the size of the DR gap, we identify its causes and consequences. By modifying parameters of the U.S. flagship National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), we generate a baseline DR forecast with a default 4% maximum on-peak demand reduction, an achievable case with a DR limit of 20%, and a technical scenario that also halved the cost of storage. The results document many benefits of DR including a demand-reduction induced price effect (DRIPE), which makes DR more equitable than many other clean-energy policies that shift costs to non-participants. Our modeling results, literature review, and focus group analysis enable identification of DR barriers and motivators related to financial costs, electricity rates, consumer bills, pollution emissions, public health, energy equity, and inclusion. Our results suggest that the DR gap is caused less by technology limitations than by the need for financing initiatives, market innovations, infrastructure modernization, and enablers of socio-economic inclusion. By studying a state that lags in DR implementation, other countries and sub-national entities where DR is under-utilized can learn from our findings and methods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
192721
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As energy prices rise and climate change brings more extreme and frequent days of heating and cooling, households must allocate more of their income to energy bills, increasing their energy burden. Many strategies are employed to alleviate high energy burden, such as weatherization, energy efficiency, and energy storage and rooftop solar, though the benefits of each scale based on factors such as climate, housing characteristics, and energy behaviors. This study used variation in these factors across the United States to create a set of representative houses to investigate the variable responses to different energy burden reduction measures in the simulation environment GridLAB-D. Comparison of modeled energy and bill savings determined weatherization to have the most variability in energy and bill savings, often providing comparable and even greater energy and bill savings to energy storage plus rooftop solar at a fraction of the cost; energy storage provided the most consistent bill savings, determined primarily by the rate tariff used for energy arbitrage; and appliance efficiency upgrades provided minimal energy and bill savings. The results of the analysis can be used by policymakers, utilities, communities, and individuals to tailor energy burden reduction programs, policies, and spending to maximize local benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|