This document discusses challenges and opportunities for sustainable energy in Michigan. It begins by noting that Michigan's energy supply is heavily non-renewable and high in carbon intensity, while energy demand faces issues of inefficiency and affordability. The speaker then discusses tools like life cycle assessment that can measure sustainability performance across sectors like transportation, buildings, and food. Specifically, he notes that the use phase typically dominates life cycle impacts for many products and durable goods. Sustainable solutions require addressing both supply and demand issues through policies, technologies, and individual actions.

1. Sustainable Energy Futures for
Michigan: Challenges, Opportunities and
the Role you Play
Gregory A. Keoleian
Director, Center for Sustainable Systems
Peter M. Wege Professor of Sustainable Systems
Professor of Environmental Engineering
University of Michigan
Wolverine Caucus
January 27, 2016

2. Agenda
• Energy Sustainability Issues
– Supply
– Demand
• Life Cycle Analysis Perspective
• Sectors
– Transportation
– Buildings
– Food
2

3. Sustainability
• Sustainable Development definition:
“… development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.”
– United Nations World Commission on Environment and
Development (1987) = Brundtland Commission
• Tools for measuring sustainability performance
– Life cycle assessment
– Life cycle cost analysis
Dr. Gro Brundtland
Former Prime Minister of Norway
Former Executive Director of the World Health Organization

4. Energy Sustainability Issues in Michigan
• Energy Supply
– Heavily non-renewable
– High carbon intensity
• Energy Demand
– Inefficiency of stock
– Affordability and insecurity for low income
households
4

5. • Michigan renewable mix was
only 6.8%
• MI has no new RPS target to
drive renewable energy

6. Renewable Portfolio Standard Policies
www.dsireusa.org / June 2015
WA: 15% x 2020*
OR: 25%x 2025*
(large utilities)
CA: 33%
x 2020
MT: 15% x 2015
NV: 25% x
2025* UT: 20% x
2025*†
AZ: 15% x
2025*
ND: 10% x 2015
NM: 20%x 2020
(IOUs)
HI: 100% x 2045
CO: 30% by 2020
(IOUs) *†
OK: 15% x
2015
MN:26.5%
x 2025 (IOUs)
31.5% x 2020 (Xcel)
MI: 10% x
2015*†WI: 10%
2015
MO:15% x
2021
IA: 105 MW IN:
10% x
2025†
IL: 25%
x 2026
OH: 12.5%
x 2026
NC: 12.5% x 2021 (IOUs)
VA: 15%
x 2025†
KS: 20% x 2020
ME: 40% x 2017
29 States + Washington
DC + 3 territories have a
Renewable Portfolio
Standard
(8 states and 1 territories have
renewable portfolio goals)
Renewable portfolio standard
Renewable portfolio goal Includes non-renewable alternative resources* Extra credit for solar or customer-sited renewables
†
U.S. Territories
DC
TX: 5,880 MW x 2015*
SD: 10% x 2015
SC: 2% 2021
NMI: 20% x 2016
PR: 20% x 2035
Guam: 25% x 2035
USVI: 30% x 2025
NH: 24.8 x 2025
VT: 75% x 2032
MA: 15% x 2020(new resources)
6.03% x 2016 (existing resources)
RI: 14.5% x 2019
CT: 27% x 2020
NY: 29% x 2015
PA: 18% x 2021†
NJ: 20.38% RE x 2020
+ 4.1% solar by 2027
DE: 25% x 2026*
MD: 20% x 2022
DC: 20% x 2020
http://www.dsireusa.org/summarymaps
/
RPS has been the most influential mechanism for transforming the
US grid

7. COP 21 pledges expected to exceed 2.5C

8. Clean Power Plan
• US EPA rule that would require each state to reduce
carbon emissions from existing fossil-fueled power
plants
– calls for the state to reduce the emissions rate by 39.4%,
• Reduce carbon dioxide emission rate from 1,928 pounds per megawatt
hour of energy generated as of 2012 to 1,169 pounds per megawatt
hour, by 2030
• Least cost plan by UM Study (EIA gas price projection)
– Cost-effective energy efficiency corresponds to utility energy
efficiency resource standard of about 1.5% per year.
Implementing sufficient renewable generation to comply with
EPA’s draft rule for the Clean Power Plan corresponds to a
Renewable Portfolio Standard of approximately 28% by 2030
as well as aggressive improvements in the heat rates of the
remaining coal plants.

9. Turnover of many
systems is slow which
impacts the rate of
transformation
High efficiency
standards are critical
Purchase and policy decisions
can have long term consequences

10. Material
Processing
Use
Manufacture
& Assembly
Retirement
& Recovery
ServiceDisposal
Raw Material
Acquisition
recycling
reuse
Life Cycle Assessment
Primary Materials
(e.g., ores, biotic resources)
Recycled Materials
(open loop recycling)
Primary Energy
(e.g., coal)
Air pollutants
(e.g., Hg)
Water pollutants
(e.g., BOD)
Solid waste
(e.g., MSW)
Products
(e.g., goods, services)
Co-products
(e.g., recyclables, energy)
remanufacture
• metrics for evaluating environmental sustainability

11. System: Mid-sized 1995 Sedan
Sponsors: US Consortium for Automotive Research
• Chrysler • American Iron and Steel Institute
• Ford • Aluminum Association
• GM • American Plastics Council
Life Cycle Inventory of a Generic Vehicle
identify a set of metrics to
benchmark the environmental
performance

12. Life cycle energy
(6 GJ = 1 barrel of crude oil)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Mtl. Prd. Mfg. &
Assembly
Fuel Use Maint. E-o-L Total
life cycle stages
lifecycleenergy(GJ)
all highway
all city

13. Alternative vehicle technology
13
Renewable
Electricity
CV
HEV
Petroleum
Electricity
Electrical
Grid
PHEV
CO2
CO2

14. TA6 Project 3: Fuel Economy and GHG
Emissions Labeling and Standards for EVs
from a Life Cycle Perspective
MacPherson, N.D., G.A. Keoleian, and J.C. Kelly, “Fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions
labeling for plug-in hybrid vehicles from a life cycle perspective” Journal of Industrial Ecology
(2012) 16(5): 761-773.
NERC
Region
Map
Increased utilization of electric mode for the Volt

15. Key Sustainability Drivers:
IPAT Equation
I = P x A x T
I = total environmental impact from
human activities
P = population
A = affluence or per capita consumption
T = environmental damage from
technology per unit of consumption
Source: Ehrlich and Holdren (1971)

16. Impact of Automobiles in U.S.
I1
=
(impact)
P x
(population)
A x
(affluence)
T
(technol.)
gallons
(billion)
pop.
(million)
vmt/
capita
gallons/
mile
1970 80.1 204 5098 1/13.0
2009 133.1 307 8833 1/20.4
change +66% +51% +73% -36%
Source data from TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 30–2011
2025 Fuel Economy Standards: 54.5 mpg

18. Personal Transportation Modes
Auto
Bus
Car/Vanpool
Most Efficient?

20. Concrete overlay
ECC overlay
HMA overlay
 Overlay length is 10 km. Traffic flow is
70000/day (four lanes). Annual traffic
growth rate is 0% in the baseline
model. Truck percentage is 8%.
Reconstruction
 Overlay structure
 Preservation timeline
Concrete
Overlay 2
0
0
6
2
0
1
6
2
0
2
6
2
0
3
6
2
0
4
6
HMA
Overlay
ECC
Overlay
Overlay Construction
Minor Maintenance
Major Maintenance
1.2 m 3.6 m
Existing Reinforced Concrete Pavement
175mm Concrete Overlay
25mm Asphalt Pre-Overlay
100mm ECC Overlay
40mm Top Course
90mm Base Course
60mm Leveling Course
Sustainable Pavement Asset Management Based on Life Cycle
Models and Optimization Methods

21. Sustainable Mobility Drivers
• Use phase dominates life cycle impacts
• More efficient modes are underutilized
• Vehicle electrification advantages require shift toward
greater renewables deployment
• Life cycle framework useful for road infrastructure
management and policy
• Inexpensive fuel
– Challenge for OEMs to sell efficient vehicles
– Opportunity for tax revenues to improve roads and other low carbon
policies

22. Life Cycle Analysis of a Residential
Home in Michigan
Keoleian, G.A., S. Blanchard, and P. Reppe “Life Cycle Energy, Costs, and Strategies for
Improving a Single Family House” Journal of Industrial Ecology (2000) 4(2): 135-156.

23. Energy Efficient Strategies Utilized
• Increase wall insulation (R-35 double 2x4) Use-phase
• Reduce air infiltration (Caulking) Use-phase
• Increase ceiling insulation (R-60 cellulose) Use phase
• Insulation in basement (R-24) Use-phase
• High perfomance windows (lowE-coating, argon fill) Use-phase
• Energy-efficient electrical appliances Use-phase
• All fluorescent lighting Use-phase
• Building-integrated shading (overhangs) Use-phase
• W aste hot water heat exchanger Use-phase
• Air-to-air heat exchanger Use-phase
• Recycled-materials roof shingles Embodied Energy
• W ood foundation walls/cellulose insulation Embodied Energy

24. Summary of Life Cycle Results
Life Cycle
Inventory of:
Unit Standard
Home
Energy Efficient
Home
MASS Metric
Tons
306 325
ENERGY GJ 16,000 6,400
GLOBAL
WARMING
GASES
Metric
Tons
1,010 370

25. Figure 3. Life cycle energy consumption for SH and EEH
31
34
1,6691,509
4,725
14,493
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
SH EEH
GJ
demolition
use / maintenance
fabrication / construction
Initial construction/
total life cycle energy 9% 26%
?
100%
Zero Energy Home

26. Life Cycle Costs
1998 Energy Prices
Mortgage
$546,314
Price = $240,000 Mortgage = 30 years, 7%
10,130 kWh Annual Electricity Usage
141,554 kBtu Annual Gas Heating Usage
Cost of Energy Constant over 50 years
Maintenance
$180,828
Electricity
$40,520
Natural Gas
$32,699
Standard Home
Total Cost = $800,361
Mortgage
$598,216
Price = $262,800 Mortgage = 30 years, 7%
4,1730 kWh Annual Electricity Usage
30,400 kBtu Annual Gas Heating Usage
Cost of Energy Constant over 50 years
Maintenance
$177,049
Electricity
$16,692
Natural Gas
$7,029
Energy Efficient Home
Total Cost = $798,986

27. Life Cycle Costs
2012 Energy, Home, Mortgage Prices
Mortgage
$545,528
Price = $338,650 Mortgage = 30 years, 4%
10,130 kWh Annual Electricity Usage
141,554 kBtu Annual Gas Heating Usage
Cost of Energy Constant over 50 years
Maintenance
$255,156
Electricity
$63,081
Natural Gas
$50,959
Standard Home
Total Cost = $914,724
Mortgage
$597,354
Price = $370,822 Mortgage = 30 years, 4%
4,173 kWh Annual Electricity Usage
30,400 kBtu Annual Gas Heating Usage
Cost of Energy Constant over 50 years
Maintenance
$249,824
Electricity
$24,829
Natural Gas
$10,954
Energy Efficient Home
Total Cost = $882,962

28. Status of Code Adoption: Residential
Overview of the currently adopted residential energy code in each state
as of November 1, 2011

29. Affordability
• Weatherization Assistance leads to lower operating
and life cycle costs
• Low Income Home Energy Assistance is short term
fix

30. Average Size of a New U.S. Single-Family
House
Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. 2015. “Residential Buildings
Factsheet.” Pub. No. CSS01-08. October 2015 CSS Factsheet Collection
19% decrease
persons per household
3.14 2.54

31. Sustainable Building Drivers
• Use phase dominates life cycle impacts
• Consumption patterns unsustainable
• Large existing stock should be focus
• Technology exists for transformations
– Initial cost for adoption of new technology a barrier
• Incentives and policy mechanisms are not aggressive
enough
– Codes are lacking for improving existing stock
– Government programs should emphasize weatherization

32. The Food System Life Cycle
Origin of
(genetic)
resource
Agricultural
growing and
production
Food
processing,
packaging
and
distribution
Preparation
and
consumption
End of life
production consumption
total system
Heller, M. and G. Keoleian “Assessing the sustainability of the U. S. food system: A life cycle
perspective” Agricultural Systems (2003) 76: 1007-1041.

33. 0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
fossil energy in food energy out
trillionBTUs
7.3 units of energy
consumed to produce
1 unit of food energy
3900 calories made available
/person/day
Agricultural
Production
Processing
Packaging
Transport
Household
Storage and
Preparation
Commercial
Retail

34. Optimal Replacement Policy
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Cost
GHG
EnergyEnergy
GHG
Cost
• Replace refrigerators that consume more than 1000
kWh/year of electricity (typical mid-sized 1994 models
and older – original study)
– would be an efficient strategy both cost and energy standpoint.
Kim, H.C., G.A. Keoleian, Y.A. Horie, “Optimal household refrigerator replacement policy for life
cycle energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and cost” Energy Policy (2006) 34(15): 2310-2323.

35. Obesity prevalence in 2014

36. Overeating: Body Mass Index
BMI = Weight in kilograms ÷ [Height in meters]2
Obesity
Underweight BMI less than 18.5
Overweight BMI of 25.0 to 29.9
Obese BMI of 30.0 or more

38. 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Grain
productsFresh
fruit
Processed
fruit
Fresh
vegetables
Processed
vegetablesFluid
m
ilk
Otherdairy
products
M
eat
Poultry
Fish
and
seafood
Eggs
N
uts
Added
sugarand
sw
eeteners
Added
fatsand
oils
kgCO2eq.(capita)-1(year)-1
non-edible losses
consumer-level losses
retail-level losses
CONSUMED
Carbon intensity of US Diet and Losses
M.C. Heller and G.A. Keoleian, 2014 “Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates of U.S.
Dietary Choices and Food Loss,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, in press.

39. Food Drivers
• Food security vs obesity epidemic
– Food deserts in urban areas
• Greatest leverage point in life cycle lies with
reducing consumption and waste
– Reduction by one third is not unrealistic
• Diet shifts in addition to reduction in calories
• Agricultural policy and markets are not focused
on delivery the greatest nutritional value
Heller, M.C., G.A. Keoleian, W.C. Willett. “Toward a Life Cycle-Based, Diet-level
Framework for Food Environmental Impact and Nutritional Quality Assessment: A
Critical Review.” Environmental Science & Technology (2013) 47(22): 12632-12647.

40. Thank You!
• Additional resources
– http://css.snre.umich.edu/
Go Blue Think Green

41. Program Specializations

42. Carbon Emissions by State

43. “Use phase” dominates life cycle energy for many durables
Product System
(functional unit)
Total Life
Cycle
Energy (GJ)
Average Life
Cycle
Energy (GJ)/
Year
Use Phase
(%)
Mixed Use Commercial
Building (75 years,
78,500ft2)
2,300,000 3,100 98%
Residential Home
(50 years, 2450 ft2)
16,000 320 91%
Passenger Car
(120,000 miles,
10 years)
1,000 100 85%
Household Refrigerator
(20 ft3, 10 years)
110 11 94%
Desktop Computer
(3 years, 3300 hrs)
17 5.6 34%
Office File Cabinet (one
cabinet, 20 years)
2.4 0.12 0%
Source: Center for Sustainable Systems

44. EU households:
• Smaller size homes
• Lower occupancy
= 2.4 in 2010
Home size

45. Food Waste Across the Supply Chain