« Back to Home Page

Energy Efficiency and the Rebound Effect

3p Contributor | Friday February 18th, 2011 | 3 Comments

By David Goldstein and Ralph Cavanaugh (Originally published on NRDC’s Switchboard Blog)

Throughout almost four decades of societal progress in getting more work out of less energy, those who deny the promise of energy efficiency have persisted in a bizarre claim: any energy savings from efficiency are offset by activities that demand additional energy consumption.

While implausible concerns about “rebound effect” have been around since the mid-nineteenth century, they have not impeded recent progress in improving the efficiency of energy use and reducing its environmental impacts.

The most obvious rebuttal to “rebound effect” claims is the performance of the US economy since the early 1970′s: between 1973 and 2009, US economic production more than tripled even as total US energy use increased by less than a third. If “rebound effect” advocates were right, that record would have been flatly impossible, since savings in energy use would be offset by activities that demand energy, keeping energy use trends in lockstep with economic growth (just as they were for the first three decades after World War II).

That was indeed the confident prediction of some economists when we began our careers in the mid-1970s, and such forecasts lie today on the ash heap of history — along with hundreds of unmourned power plants that never had to be built and mines that never had to be dug.

Yet the same discredited thesishas resurfaced recently in reports by The New Yorker writer David Owen and the iconoclastic Breakthrough Institute, which today released a report subtitled, “A Review of the Literature” [translation: don't expect anything new]. In the report, the Institute acknowledges that, truly cost-effective energy efficiency measures should be vigorously pursued as they will lead to an improvement in the general welfare. Since we agree entirely with that conclusion, it is tempting to end the discussion there, but the authors of the study also insist that the “rebound effect” will deny the global environment any benefits following that improvement in the general welfare, so an additional word is in order.

We reject the Institute’s implication that there is some kind of emerging academic consensus around the “rebound effect.” To the contrary, the most respected academic energy efficiency think tanks such as the UC Davis Center on Energy Efficiency and Stanford’s Precourt Institute on Energy Efficiency share the view that energy efficiency delivers big economic and environmental benefits. The reality is that energy efficiency is a huge success story and a key tool to reducing global warming, increasing electric reliability, slashing energy bills for those consumers who can least afford them, and avoids the need to build new costly power plants.

The Breakthrough Institute blames a host of evils on efficiency, but fails to back up their accusations with facts. It acknowledges that serious energy analysis of rebound effects shows them to be comparatively trivial. People who insulate their houses don’t absorb all the savings by sweltering through the winter, and buyers of efficient refrigerators don’t start leaving the doors open gratuitously. But after admitting that studies show rebound effects to be small and getting smaller over time, it tries to create a counter-narrative by inserting warnings that the available evidence to date remains too limited to draw precise conclusions.

Efficiency does not mean restraining energy services growth. It means using less for the same amount of service. The skeptics are confusing this trend with the sometimes-on, sometimes-off trend towards more efficiency, and claiming that more efficiency induces more demand for energy services.

The problem is that neither Owen nor the Breakthrough Institute has presented any evidence that this is happening in the real world: all of their examples are devoid of any mention of how efficiency leads to demand for activities that demand more energy, as opposed to other economic factors. Instead, they rely on interpretations of economic theory, the same interpretations that show that cost effective energy efficiency is impossible.

Given the weaknesses of this form of economic theory for the purposes of efficiency analysis, it is even more important than usual to rely on data. The clearest data-focused test of the rebound hypothesis is whether an economy that embarks seriously on efficiency policy really can cut its overall energy use. Because without question, if the thesis has any plausibility at all, the answer has to be ‘no’ or at least ‘not nearly as much as predicted’

Fortunately for the cause of economic truth, we have such experiments. California, for one, embarked on a broad set of policy reforms to encourage efficiency and promote renewable energy in 1974.

The influence of energy efficiency policies are helping the whole California economy (California would be the 8th largest national economy in the world if it were a nation) to save much more than one would expect. California is not the only example of a state or country promoting efficiency through policy and then showing divergent usage trends from its neighbors and thus demonstrating that energy really is saved. Perhaps this is why serious studies have found that the economy-wide rebound effect is trivially small.

In my blog, I show how California’s projected savings from energy efficiency programs, derived year by year in real time by the California Energy Commission, have resulted in 15 percent reductions; and these programs have resulted in 40 percent reductions compared to the rest of the country.

California is just one example. Other states and several countries that have pursued efficiency policies also demonstrate lower energy usage and growth than those that did not so implement such policies.

Energy efficiency saves energy, increases electric reliability, avoids the need to build new power plants, and saves Americans money. It’s really that simple.


▼▼▼      3 Comments     ▼▼▼

Newsletter Signup

Comments

  1. February 18, 2011 at 11:33 am PDT | William D'Alessandro writes:

    Calling the rebound effect “bizarre” and “implausible” does nothing to clarify the debate. Energy policy has seen more ridiculous theories since the first Arab oil embargo of 1973.

    For those who are more deeply interested in the issue, I recommend “The Myth of Resource Efficiency,” a book I reviewed in Crosslands Bulletin [ http://www.crosslandsbulletin.com/booksreports/reviews.php?id=51&show=bookreviewindex ]last year. In my mind the authors fail to prove the paradox that efficiency leads to an increase in consumption of the resource, but they sure as heck raise doubts that have yet to be removed.

    Reply Or REGISTER HERE if you are new.

  2. February 22, 2011 at 11:08 am PDT | sunsetbeachguy writes:

    A bit of background, NRDC does the heavy lifting for utility programs. They’ve never met one they don’t like. PG&E has referred to NRDC as their lobbyist at the PUC. NRDC benefits from utility relationships and programs.

    The metrics they are using to argue over the rebound effect are don’t shed any light on the topic.

    A better metric is total KWh sold by an electric utility that has made massive investments in energy efficiency, such as SCE.

    Despite several billion dollars of investment over many years in “PUC defined cost-effective” energy efficiency and having de-coupled profits from load growth, load growth in their service territory continues unabated.

    That is the rebound effect in action, without public policy that puts a hard cap on energy consumption.

    QED

    As long as the contribution margin is positive any public business has to sell idle capacity created from downstream efficiency. That is until NRDC convinces the PUC that utilities should earn profits for shutting down plants at which point, the ideal is reached.

    As Dire Straits said “Money for nothing and your chicks for free.”

    Reply Or REGISTER HERE if you are new.

  3. August 09, 2011 at 16:04 pm PDT | Blake Alcott writes:

    I agree with William D’Alessandro – I’m the author of the first chapter in the book he reviewed. David and Ralph, you are not only using non-serious language, you are choosing whatever empirie supports you: Studying one country alone tells us nothing, for example, unless we carefully correct for imports and exports. In fact worldwide, efficiency increase and energy consumption increase are in lock-step.
    We need wisdom and theory: Do human beings really leave natural resources lying fallow if due to efficiency increase one year they use a bit less of them? With population growing the likelihood of real savings through efficiency shrinks even more.
    Also, you are turning to experts you believe a priori. And: if you really want to reduce fossil fuel depletion and GHG pollution, why don’t you just cap these things? Then the rebound discussion is superfluous.
    Sunsetbeachguy also has a point: Look at the list of sponsors at the bottom of the UC Davis EEC homepage! Don’t know which hands feed NRDC.
    Thanks,
    Blake Alcott – hi to Mae Wu

    Reply Or REGISTER HERE if you are new.

Leave a Reply

  1. Please leave an intelligent comment. You are welcomed to link to your company or website, but entirely self promotional posts will be marked as spam.
There are 3 ways to comment on 3P

2. Facebook Users

Login to your Facebook account

3. Members

Register for an account or login.

Subscribe to Comments