US EPA Climate Choice Program: MicroCHP Initiative

1
US EPA Climate Choice Program Micro-CHP
Initiative

• Peter Banwell
• U.S. EPA
• November 24, 2008

2
Agenda

• Overview of Climate Choice program
• Micro-CHP Discussion
• EPA Activities to Date
• Overview of Draft Criteria
• Timeline and Next Steps

3
Look at the Technology Commercialization Process

• Important different phases
• Different costs/ risks and benefits
• Important different players
• Need different tools/policies/ market
  interventions

4
Technology Introduction Challenge the Chasm

• Over hyping not the solution
• Disillusionment follows the hype
• Working together to make technology relevant to
  todays buyers is the answer

Gartner, 1995
5
Role of ENERGY STAR

• ENERGY STAR
• mass market consumer
• cost-effective (2 to 3 year
• payback)
• two-thirds of ENERGY STAR
• products have no incremental
• cost
• proven technology
• no sacrifice in performance
• reliable savings easy design,
• installation, and maintenance

6
Role of Climate Choice

• ENERGY STAR
• mass market consumer
• cost-effective (2 to 3 year
• payback)
• proven technology
• no sacrifice in performance
• reliable savings easy design,
• installation, and maintenance
• Climate Choice
• new recognition program
• early adopters /
• environmentally conscious
• consumers
• longer payback
• more complex regional / installation/
• maintenance / performance issues

7
Program Benefits

• Recognition
• Website
• Trials promotion
• Climate Choice logo
• Tailored technology assistance
• Clearing unintended regulatory barriers
• Identifying customers partners
• Providing opportunities for information sharing
  through existing CPPD networks
• ENERGY STAR candidate development

8
Stakeholder participation consensus building

• EPA experts and external stakeholders participate
  in program design and criteria selection
• Review of draft performance requirements
• Partnership opportunities with utilities and
  other program implementers
• Pilot projects, case study development,
  co-promotion
• Access to energy saving tools and technology
  assessments

9
Criteria

• Commercially available, but not widely adopted (lt
  5 market share)
• Preferably offered by more than one supplier, but
  not required to be
• Demonstrated environmental performance third
  party verified to agreed standards
• EPA could help facilitate standard development
• Likely to significantly reduce greenhouse gases
  at competitive costs
• Capable partners, adequately financed,
  established business record
• Challenges matched to EPA competencies and
  appropriate roles.
• Criteria are elaborated in Climate Technology
  Conference Findings
• http//www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/climate/

10
Selection Review

• Learning from the best
• Open application process
• Selection based on annual expert review
• Sector-based expert panels nominate promising
  technologies
• CPPD managers and external expert review panel
  score proposals

11
Technology Evaluation

• Technology Readiness (25)
• Company Capability (20)
• Environmental Benefits (35)
• Third party testing and validation (20)

12
Residential Cogeneration (mCHP)

• EPA has some experience with technology through
  EPA CHP Partnership program
• Technologies most suitable to residential app.
• IC engine, stirling engine, fuel cell systems
• Space heating and/or water heating applications
• Interest in residential and small commercial
  applications (lt5 kW)
• Plans for U.S. commercialization

13
Activities to Date

• Created micro-CHP savings model
• Shared with several industry stakeholders for
  input
• Developed Technology Action Plan
• Held discussions with key manufacturers for U.S.
  market
• Released draft criteria for Climate Choice
  participation

14
EPA CHP Model
15
Climate Change Specification

• Technologies must meet minimum criteria to be
  considered
• Documentation requirements to validate claims
• Technical performance
• Key criteria is carbon emissions reduction
• Other environmental and quality criteria
• Company requirements
• Sufficient resources to distribute in U.S. market

16
Draft Performance Criteria
Overall CHP Efficiency (Net CHP Electric
Output CHP Thermal Output Used)/CHP Fuel Input
all calculated in Higher Heating Value (HHV)
17
Draft Performance Criteria cont.
Note Comments on draft criteria can be sent to
Rebecca Duff at rduff_at_icfi.com
18
Next Steps/Timeline

• December Finalize and release micro-CHP
  performance criteria
• Include pilot program requirements document
• December January Identify potential pilot
  project/participants
• Look to partner with utility/regional program
• January March Participate in pilot project,
  collect/review results
• May Release/post case studies

19
Contacts MCHP Initiative

• Peter Banwell, 202-343-9408 banwell.peter_at_epa.gov
• Bruce Hedman, ICF International, bhedman_at_icfi.com
• Rebecca Duff, ICF International, rduff_at_icfi.com
• Additional Climate Choice information
  http//www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/climate/