Energy Efficiency in Arizona, California, Montana, and Washington's Industrial Compressed Air Systems - Product Image

Energy Efficiency in Arizona, California, Montana, and Washington's Industrial Compressed Air Systems

  • ID: 4495344
  • Report
  • Region: Arizona, California, Montana, Washington
  • 69 pages
  • Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC.
1 of 3
Industrial electric motors account for over 70% of electricity consumption in manufacturing in the U.S. Motors are used to drive pumps, fans, compressed air systems, material handling, processing systems and more. Industrial motor systems represent a largely untapped cost-effective source for energy savings that could be realized with existing commercialized technologies. Compressed air systems are widely used throughout manufacturing industries. In many industrial facilities, air compressors are among the highest electricity consuming equipment. Inefficiencies in compressed air systems are common.

One of the major barriers to effective policy making and increased action by states and utilities to improve energy efficiency in industrial compressed air systems is the lack of information and data on the magnitude and cost-effectiveness of the energy savings potential in industrial compressed air systems in each state. This lack of information creates an obstacle to developing a comprehensive and effective strategy, roadmap, and programs for improving compressed air systems efficiency cost-effectively. It is far easier to quantify the incremental energy savings of substituting an energy-efficient motor for a standard motor than it is to quantify the energy conservation of applying other energy efficiency and system optimization practices to an existing compressed air system.

The researchers conducted a large initiative to study industrial motor systems in 30 states from different U.S. regions. This includes the top 20 U.S. states in terms of industrial energy consumption. We focused on industrial pumps, fans, and compressed-air systems which together account for over 70% of electricity use in U.S. industrial motor systems.

This report focuses on analyzing energy use, energy efficiency, and CO2 emissions-reduction potential in industrial compressed air systems in selected Western U.S. states of Arizona, California, Montana, and Washington. We have also published similar reports for industrial pump systems and fan systems for these Western states.

Now that states have different programs to set targets, including passing legislation to enact formal energy efficiency resource standards, setting long-term energy savings targets through utility commissions tailored to each utility, or incorporating energy efficiency as an eligible resource in renewable portfolio standards (RPS), investment in energy efficiency in industrial compressed air systems to tap into the huge saving potentials quantified in this report can help utilities to meet their targets, reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and thereby help with climate change mitigation.

In addition, energy efficiency in industrial motor systems stimulates economic growth and creates jobs in a variety of ways (direct, indirect, and induced jobs creation). Investment in energy efficiency creates more jobs per dollar invested than traditional energy supply investments. Energy efficiency in industrial motor systems also creates more jobs in the local economy, whereas energy supply jobs and investment dollars often flow outside the state.

Key analyses and results included:
  • Electricity use by manufacturing subsector (NAICS code 31-33) in each state studied
  • Electricity use for motor systems and compressed air systems by manufacturing subsector (NAICS code 31-33) in each state studied
  • Electricity use by industrial compressed air system by size in each state studied
  • Market barriers to energy efficiency in industrial motor and compressed air systems
  • Energy Efficiency Cost Curves for industrial compressed air systems for each state using ten major energy efficiency measures
  • Energy saving potential and cost of conserved energy (US$/MWh-saved) for each efficiency measures in each state studied
  • The cost-effective and total technical energy efficiency potential in industrial compressed air systems in each state studied
  • Energy saving potential for each energy efficiency measure by system size
  • GHG emissions reduction potential for each efficiency measure in each state
  • Sensitivity of the results with respect to changes in electricity prices and discount rates
  • Implications for markets, utilities, and policy makers
Who should read this report?
  • Utilities
  • Government energy and environmental agencies
  • State regulators and policy makers
  • Energy Service Companies (ESCOs)
  • Demand Response (DR) service and technology providers
  • Energy management service and technology providers
  • Motor, compressor, and compressed air systems service and technology providers
  • Energy efficiency equipment vendors
  • Climate and environmental NGOs and think tanks
  • Investor community
READ MORE
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
2 of 3
1. Introduction

2. Market Barriers to Energy Efficiency in Motor and Compressed Air Systems

3. Energy Use in Industrial Motor and Compressed Air Systems in each State, by Manufacturing Subsector
3.1. Industrial Electricity Use in each State by Manufacturing Subsector
3.2. Industrial Motor Systems Electricity Use in each State by Manufacturing Subsectors
3.3. Electricity Use in Industrial Compressed Air Systems in each State by Manufacturing Subsectors
3.4. Electricity Use in Industrial Compressed Air Systems in each State by System Size

4. Energy Efficiency Potential and Cost in Industrial Compressed Air Systems in each State
4.1. Energy-Efficiency Cost Curve for Industrial Compressed Air Systems in Arizona
4.2. Energy-Efficiency Cost Curve for Industrial Compressed Air Systems in California
4.3. Energy-Efficiency Cost Curve for Industrial Compressed Air Systems in Montana
4.4. Energy-Efficiency Cost Curve for Industrial Compressed Air Systems in Washington
4.5. Sensitivity Analyses

5. Summary and Implications for Markets, Utilities, and Policy Makers
5.1. Summary
5.2. Implications for Markets, Utilities, and Policy Makers

Appendices
Appendix 1. List of acronyms
Appendix 2. List of Figures and Tables
Appendix 3. Methodology and Scope of the Study
Appendix 4. Bibliography and References
Appendix 5. Related Reports

List of Figures
Figure 1. Global total final electricity use by end use in 2014
Figure 2. Electric motor systems energy use profile
Figure 3. Final electricity consumption in motor-driven systems in the IEA’s New Policies and 450 Scenarios
Figure 4. Illustration of two industrial electric motor-driven systems: (a) normal and (b) efficient
Figure 5. A typical compressed air system
Figure 6. Industrial electricity use by manufacturing subsector (NAICS code 31-33) in Arizona in 2015
Figure 7. Industrial electricity use by manufacturing subsector (NAICS code 31-33) in California in 2015
Figure 8. Industrial electricity use by manufacturing subsectors (NAICS code 31-33) in Montana in 2015
Figure 9. Industrial electricity use by manufacturing subsector (NAICS code 31-33) in Washington in 2015
Figure 10. Share of motor systems from total electricity use in manufacturing in Arizona, California, Montana, and Washington in 2015
Figure 11. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by manufacturing subsectors (NAICS code 31-33) In Arizona in 2015
Figure 12. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by manufacturing subsectors (NAICS code 31-33) In California in 2015
Figure 13. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by manufacturing subsectors (NAICS code 31-33) In Montana in 2015
Figure 14. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by manufacturing subsectors (NAICS code 31-33) In Washington in 2015
Figure 15. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by system size in Arizona in 2015
Figure 16. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by system size in California in 2015
Figure 17. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by system size in Montana in 2015
Figure 18. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by system size in Washington in 2015
Figure 19. Energy Efficiency Cost Curve for industrial compressed air systems in Arizona
Figure 20. Comparison of energy saving potential (GWh/yr) for each efficiency measure in Arizona when each measure is implemented in isolation or is implemented along with other measures
Figure 21. Energy Efficiency Cost Curve for industrial compressed air systems in California
Figure 22. Comparison of energy saving potential (GWh/yr) for each efficiency measure in California when each measure is implemented in isolation or is implemented along with other measures
Figure 23. Energy Efficiency Cost Curve for industrial compressed air systems in Montana
Figure 24. Comparison of energy saving potential (GWh/yr) for each efficiency measure in Montana when each measure is implemented in isolation or is implemented along with other measures
Figure 25. Energy Efficiency Cost Curve for industrial compressed air systems in Washington
Figure 26. Comparison of energy saving potential (GWh/yr) for each efficiency measure in Washington when each measure is implemented in isolation or is implemented along with other measures

List of Tables
Table 1. Industrial compressed air system electricity-savings potential in five Western U.S. states in 2015
Table 2. Share of motor systems and compressed air systems electricity use in each U.S. manufacturing subsector
Table 3. Industrial motor systems electricity use by manufacturing subsectors (NAICS code 31-33) for each state studied in 2015
Table 4. Share of compressed air systems from total electricity use in manufacturing and from industrial motor systems electricity use in each state in 2015
Table 5. Cumulative annual electricity saving and CO2 emission reduction potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in Arizona ranked by final CCE
Table 6. Total annual cost-effective and technical energy saving and CO2 emissions reduction potential in industrial compressed air systems in Arizona
Table 7. Cumulative annual electricity saving potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in Arizona by system size (GWh/yr)
Table 8. Cumulative annual electricity saving and CO2 emission reduction potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in California ranked by final CCE 31
Table 9. Total annual cost-effective and technical energy saving and CO2 emissions reduction potential in industrial compressed air systems in California
Table 10. Cumulative annual electricity saving potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in California by system size (GWh/yr)
Table 11. Cumulative annual electricity saving and CO2 emission reduction potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in Montana ranked by their final CCE
Table 12. Total annual cost-effective and technical energy saving and CO2 emissions reduction potential in industrial compressed air systems in Montana
Table 13. Cumulative annual electricity saving potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in Montana by system size (GWh/yr)
Table 14. Cumulative annual electricity saving and CO2 emission reduction potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in Washington ranked by their final CCE
Table 15. Total annual cost-effective and technical energy saving and CO2 emissions reduction potential in industrial compressed air systems in Washington
Table 16. Cumulative annual electricity saving potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in Washington by system size (GWh/yr)
Table 17. Sensitivity analyses for the cost-effective electricity saving potentials in the industrial compressed air systems with different discount rates
Table 18. Sensitivity analyses for the cost-effective electricity saving potentials in the industrial compressed air system with different electricity price
Table 19. Total annual technical energy saving and CO2 emissions reduction potential in industrial compressed air systems in the studied states
Table 20. Policies driving customer-funded energy-efficiency programs
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
3 of 3

Loading
LOADING...

4 of 3
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
Adroll
adroll