The structure of household energy consumption and related CO2 emissions by income group in Mexico

The structure of household energy consumption and related CO2 emissions by income group in Mexico

Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 127–133 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy for Sustainable Development The structure of ...

236KB Sizes 1 Downloads 53 Views

Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 127–133

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy for Sustainable Development

The structure of household energy consumption and related CO2 emissions by income group in Mexico Jorge Rosas, Claudia Sheinbaum ⁎, David Morillon Instituto de Ingenieria, UNAM, Apdo. Postal. 70-472, Coyoacan 04510, México D.F., Mexico

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 3 February 2010 Revised 5 April 2010 Accepted 6 April 2010 Keywords: Households Commercial energy End uses Income distribution CO2 emissions

a b s t r a c t In this study we differentiate the penetration of appliances in Mexican households according to income, and study its implications on commercial energy use and CO2 emissions in 1996 and 2006. We found that inequity in energy and CO2 emissions among income groups resulted to be higher in 2006 than in 1996. The share of household energy consumption for the first six income deciles decreased (from 45.5 to 38.9%), and differences in CO2 emissions among income groups resulted even higher. The study also shows an important reduction of commercial energy used for cooking due to decrease in unit energy consumption, and increase in the share of water heating and electric appliances in household commercial energy consumption due to increase in appliance ownership especially in higher income groups. From 1996 to 2006 CO2 emissions per household was reduced due to higher gas appliance efficiency and reduction of electricity emission factor. © 2010 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction Lack of energy resources is an obstacle to removing poverty and inaccessibility to educational and health services. Also, a great degree of inequality requires a higher increase in economic growth, to achieve poverty reduction (CEPAL, 2002), because the economy has to fulfill the requirements of the highest income groups. For these reasons, the study of energy consumption among income groups is relevant. Mexico is a country with high income inequality (Hammill, 2005) and high levels of poverty (De Ferranti et al., 2003). In 2006, the Gini coefficient of inequality was 46.61 while it reported to be 40.8 and 32.6 in the US and Canada respectively (CEFP, 2008). In 2008, one fifth of the Mexican population (20 million people, 6 million more than in 2006) was living under the so called food poverty that refers to the inability of a population to obtain healthy affordable food, and half the inhabitants were living in poverty (INEGI, 2009a,b). Dividing Mexican households into ten equal sets (deciles) according to the income–expenditure household survey (INEGI, 2007), in 2006, the lowest decile represented 1.2% of total Mexican household income, while the highest decile made up 37.1% of the total (Table 1). Although the Gini coefficient has not change significantly from 1996 to 2006, clearly, the first four deciles account for a smaller share of the total income in 2006 than in 1996 (13.3% in 1996 and

⁎ Corresponding author. Instituto de Ingenieria, UNAM, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán CP, 04510, Mexico DF, Mexico. Tel.: + 52 556233693. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Sheinbaum). 1 When the Gini coefficient is near to zero, the income distribution is more equitable.

12.4% in 2006). Thus, the distribution of income did not reach the groups with a lower share of the national income. This study analyzes the differences in energy appliance ownership among income deciles in 1996 and 2006, and based on this information it estimates the variations in commercial2 energy consumption and related CO2 emissions by income decile in Mexico. The appliances that are included in the analysis are those that have the highest saturation in the country and higher unit energy consumption: stoves, water heaters, refrigerators, TV sets, clothes washing machines and air conditioners. Lighting is also considered. The ownership data come from the national income–expenditure survey (INEGI, 1997, 2007), and the energy estimates are based on average unit energy consumption from Masera et al. (1991); Sener (1997a,b, 2000, 2002a,b,c, 2004); SCFI (1994); Arroyo-Cabañas et al. (2009) and CFE (2009); and for lighting, calculations are based on Assaf and Dutt (1998); INEGI (2009a,b, 2010); and WB (2006).

Residential energy consumption from the National Energy Balances Mexican households use over 17% of total final energy. According to the National Energy Balances (NEB) (SENER, 1998 and 2007) energy consumption, including fuel-wood grew by only 0.35%/year between 1996 and 2006 to a value of 711 PJ. Energy uses by fuel type per year are shown in Fig 1. In 1996 fuel-wood represented 36% of final energy use; by 2006 its share was similar (35%). During the same

2

It does not include fuel-wood.

0973-0826/$ – see front matter © 2010 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2010.04.002

128

J. Rosas et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 127–133

Table 1 Income distribution in Mexico 1996–2006. Source: based on the INEGI (1996 and 2006).

Table 2 Gas appliance ownership by income decile in Mexico. Source: based on the INEGI (1996 and 2006).

Deciles

1996

2006

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Total households (millions) Gini coefficient

1.8% 2.9% 3.8% 4.8% 5.8% 7.2% 8.8% 11.2% 15.8% 37.8% 20.48 0.466

1.2% 2.7% 3.8% 4.8% 5.9% 7.3% 9.1% 11.8% 16.4% 37.1% 26.54 0.473

period the contribution of LPG decreased from 46 to 38%, natural gas increased from 4 to 5% and electricity share augmented from 15 to 23%.

Household appliance ownership by income decile Gas appliances We consider separately gas and electric appliances. Unfortunately, the INEGI surveys do not distinguish between natural gas (NG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). For this reason we present the data for gas appliances, understanding that it includes both fuel types. In the estimation of energy consumption some assumptions are made to calculate gas consumption by fuel, decile and end use. Table 2 presents gas appliance ownership by income decile in Mexico for years 1996 and 2006. Most of the Mexican households that consume a commercial fuel to prepare food use gas. Electric stoves are rarely used because of high electricity tariffs. As shown in Table 2, national ownership of gas stoves increased barely from 88% in 1996 to 89% in 2006, and the increment by decile followed a very similar pattern. Ownership of this appliance is clearly dependent on income; ownership of gas stove is 37% in first decile, while it reached 119% in the X decile. It is interesting that from decile VII to X, some households have more than one stove. Gini coefficient for gas stoves is the same from 1996 and 2006 with a value of 0.16. Like in preparation of food, water heating is an end use that is covered mainly by gas water heaters if commercial fuel is utilized. However, its ownership is very low compared to stoves. The average ownership of gas water heaters increased from 36% in 1996 to 45% in

Fig. 1. Residential energy use in Mexico by fuel (PJ). Source: National Energy Balances (Sener, 1977a,b, 2007).

Gas stove

Gas water heater

Decile

1996

2006

1996

2006

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Total Gini coefficient

37% 55% 76% 80% 92% 97% 102% 108% 112% 119% 88% 0.16

37% 57% 77% 80% 92% 98% 104% 109% 114% 119% 89% 0.16

5% 9% 15% 20% 28% 35% 41% 54% 70% 85% 36% 0.39

6% 12% 21% 24% 35% 46% 52% 68% 85% 106% 45% 0.38

20063. However, as shown in Table 2, while lower deciles had very low ownership in 2006: 6%, 12%, and 21% for I, II and III deciles respectively, it was 68%, 95% and 106% for VIII, IX and X deciles respectively, meaning that water heater ownership has higher income dependence than gas stoves. It is even clearer from the Gini coefficient that reached 0.38 in 2006 (compared to 0.16 for gas stoves). The increment in penetration of water heaters from 1996 to 2006 had also very high income dependence; it went from 1% in the first decile until 21% in the highest decile. Gini coefficient decreased by 1% point, from 1996 to 2006, meaning a very similar ownership distribution among deciles (Table 2). Electrical appliances In 2006, 96.4% of the Mexican population had access to electricity, and unlike gas, electricity is used in lighting and a wide range of household appliances. The number of light bulbs per household is explicit in the 2006 national income–expenditure survey; however for 1996, an estimation is made based on number of rooms per dwelling by income decile (available in both 1996 and 2006 national income– expenditure surveys) and the 2006 value of number of light bulbs per room. Results are shown in Table 3. Average number of light bulbs per household increased from 5.1 to 6.7 between 1996 and 2006; but for the lowest and highest income deciles it increased from to 2.7 to 3.6 and 8.3 to 11.0 respectively from 1996 to 2006, showing important income dependence. The appliances that account for the bulk of domestic electricity use are refrigerators, TV sets, clothes washers, and air conditioning. The ownership of these appliances by income decile in 1996 and 2006 is shown in Table 4. Electrical appliance ownership grew for the ten income deciles from 1996 to 2006, and all of them show high income dependence. TV sets have the highest average saturation of all electrical appliances, increasing from 112% in 1996 to 151% in 2006. It is also the electric appliance with highest ownership in the lower income deciles (43%, 75% and 86% in the first deciles respectively) rising to 396% for the highest decile (almost four TV sets per household!). However, the Gini coefficient value grew from 0.27 in 1996 to 0.33 in 2006 meaning a higher inequity in TV ownership, among deciles. Refrigerators are the second most prevailing domestic appliance. Ownership grew from 67 to 82% at the national level. However, ownership of this appliance only grew from 16 to 20% and 30 to 38% for the first two income deciles, while it increased from 101 to 122% and 108 to 130% for higher income deciles. The Gini coefficient for 3 Because of hot weather in different parts of the country, saturation of water heaters probably does not need to reach 100%. Also, in the not-too-distant time one can imagine a large saturation of solar water heaters.

J. Rosas et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 127–133 Table 3 Number of light bulbs per household by income decile. Source: based on the INEGI (1996 and 2006). 1996

2006

Households, 20.5 millions Number of Number of rooms per light bulbs per household household

Number of Number of Number of light bulbs rooms per light bulbs household per household per room

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Average

2.3 2.8 2.9 3.3 3.4 3.8 4.0 4.5 5.1 5.8 3.8

1.7 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.9 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.4 2.9

2.7 3.1 3.4 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.7 5.3 6.0 6.8 4.5

26.5

3.6 4.4 4.8 5.6 5.9 6.7 7.1 8.2 9.5 11.0 6.7

1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.7

refrigerator ownership went from 0.25 to 0.24 in the decade under study, meaning a very similar income distribution for both years. Average ownership of cloth washers increased from 88 in 1996 to 124% in 2006. Clothes washing machines show even stronger income dependence, ranging from 10 to 124% as income deciles move up, in 2006. The Gini coefficient value for this appliance went from 0.33 to 0.32, showing little change. Air conditioners are important in certain parts of the country where temperatures rise in the summer up to 40 °C. Average ownership of this appliance grew from 9 to 16%; but for higher income deciles it increased from 18 to 34% and 34 to 49% respectively. Income dependence is even higher for air conditioner than for the other electrical appliances, because it represents higher energy consumption. The Gini coefficient value went from 0.52 to 0.50 showing a better income distribution in 2006 than in 1996. Energy use estimates Appliance ownership is only a part of the information necessary for a complete analysis of energy consumption. It is also necessary to know how much energy each appliance uses. As explained in Sheinbaum and Dutt (1996), the input power of an end-use device is expected to change according to income. The unit energy consumption of appliances used in upper-income households is likely to be higher, principally because higher levels of energy services are delivered, e.g. larger refrigerator, bigger TV, etc. However, in some cases, the unit energy consumption could be higher for lower-income households, because the latter use less efficient, older appliances, e.g.

129

refrigerators with gaskets deteriorated, or manufactured prior to minimum energy efficiency standards. A comprehensive analysis would require other methodologies such as energy audits and direct measurements of energy consumption by end-use appliance in a sample of households in each income group in order to determine the income dependence of appliance unit energy consumption. If we ignore this income dependence, energy use would vary by income level, depending on differences in equipment ownership. Bear in mind that the income dependence of energy consumption is almost certain to be higher than is shown in these figures, for reasons explained above and in Sheinbaum and Dutt (1996). Under these considerations, and because no official data on average unit energy consumption (UEC) per appliance is available, we estimate UEC per appliance based on different sources and estimations (Table 5). In addition and because no differentiation among LPG and NG appliances is available, we estimate that the percentage of households that use LPG is similar to the share of LPG in total residential gas consumption (sum of LPG and NG) reported by the NEB, and it does not change across income deciles. Gas appliance unit energy consumption Gas stove estimated UEC fell from 14.3 GJ per household (GJ/hh) in 1996 to 8.1 GJ/hh in 2006. This important decrease is most likely the result of higher appliance energy efficiency and probable changes in food preparation patterns because more women are working (women as a percentage of economic active population increased from 32% in 1996 to 38% in 2006) and urban population has risen (73% to 77%). The increase in energy efficiency was a consequence of technological changes in gas stoves such as electronic ignition rather than pilots and better gas burners. These technological changes were produced both by mandatory efficiency standards and by market changes. The Mexican Standard NOM-019-SEDG-2002, introduced in 2002, established safety, energy efficiency and environmental standards, as well as testing procedures, for LPG and NG residential stoves (SENER, 2002a). The standard requires a minimum efficiency of 45% (higher heating value basis) for stove-top burners. This is not a particularly strict standard. While not required by the standard, market changes have resulted in the introduction of electronic ignition to replace standing pilots. Since pilots are on permanently and consume a substantial amount of energy, we believe that this measure is responsible for most of the energy savings seen. Gas water heater estimated UEC fell from 8.6 GJ/hh in 1996 to 7.8 GJ/hh in 2006. This reduction was mainly a result of mandatory energy efficiency standards NOM-003-ENER-2000 set up in year 2000 (Sener, 2000). This standard includes instant and storage water heaters and specifies for both, a minimum thermal efficiency of

Table 4 Electric appliance ownership by income decile in Mexico. Source: based on the INEGI (1996 and 2006). Refrigerator

TV sets

Cloth washers

Air conditioners

Decile

1996

2006

1996

2006

1996

2006

1996

2006

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Total Gini coefficient

16% 30% 47% 53% 65% 73% 84% 93% 101% 108% 67% 0.25

20% 38% 56% 66% 82% 92% 104% 113% 122% 130% 82% 0.24

34% 56% 78% 83% 94% 105% 123% 153% 174% 217% 112% 0.27

43% 75% 86% 106% 99% 132% 153% 166% 255% 396% 151% 0.33

7% 16% 23% 31% 39% 42% 54% 69% 79% 88% 45% 0.33

10% 22% 37% 44% 60% 69% 88% 99% 110% 124% 66% 0.32

1% 1% 2% 4% 5% 6% 9% 13% 18% 34% 9% 0.52

1% 2% 4% 7% 9% 11% 16% 25% 34% 49% 16% 0.50

130

J. Rosas et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 127–133

Table 5 Unit energy consumption per appliance.

Table 7 Estimation of lighting energy consumption. 1996

MJ/appliance/year LPG stove NG stove LPG water heater NG water heater kWh/appliance/year TV Refrigerator Washing machine Air conditioner

2006

14.3 14.3 8.6 8.6

8.1 8.1 7.8 7.8

153 788 154 2220

153 616 154 2042

Masera et al. (1991); SENER (1997a,b, 2000, 2002a,b,c, 2004) CFE (2009); Arroyo-Cabañas (2009); SCFI (1994); De Buen (2005); FIDE (2009).

Incandescent ≤ 25 W Incandescent N 25 ≤ 100 W Fluorescent tube LFC Total Lamps per householda No. of households (million) Total energy use for lighting (kWh/hh) a b

domestic gas water heaters of 72% in year 2000 and 74% in year 2002, lower heating value basis. It is curious that the standards published on September 1, 2000 should be applicable for the same year (2000). However, considering that manufacturers were consulted in the preparation of the standards, it is reasonable to assume that products on sale in 2000 in fact met the 2000 standards.

Distribution of lamps per type in each yeara

Energy use GWh/ yearb

1996

2006

1996

2006

23.3% 59.1% 13.3% 4.3% 100.0%

16.4% 59.8% 10.3% 13.5% 100.0%

529 4350 876 103 5857

638 7538 1170 549 9894

5.1

6.7 20.48 286

26.54 373

Based on sales. Considering Table 6 assumptions.

established for different kind of AC's (SENER, 2002c). Assuming that old means before energy standard and new after energy standard; and estimating a similar age structure for AC's as for refrigerators, and a daily use of 8 h for 5 months per year; the estimated UEC for AC resulted in 2220 kWh/year for 1996 and 2042 kWh/year for 2006.

Electrical appliances unit energy consumption Lighting energy consumption UEC for TV sets are estimated assuming a 70-watt average power (19 to 21 in color TV) used 6 h per day (CFE, 2009). The same estimation is for 1996 and 2006. UEC for washing machines are estimated assuming an average power of 400 W and 32 h per month (CFE, 2009). The same estimation is for 1996 and 2006. According to Arroyo-Cabañas et al. (2009), in 2007 the average energy consumption per refrigerator was 616 kWh/year. This calculation considers the different energy efficient standards for refrigerators and estimates that 57% of the units were from 1 to 10 years old, 28% from 11 to 20 years old and 15% more than 20 years. The first energy efficient mandatory standard for Mexican refrigerators NOM-072-SCFI-1994 was published in 1994 and specified a maximum energy consumption of 734 kWh/year, for a 14 ft3 refrigerator. In August 1997 a new energy efficient standard was developed NOM-015-ENER-1997, that represented a 14.7% reduction in UEC for the same kind of refrigerator (626 kWh/year). In 2002, an updated standard was published NOM-015-ENER-2002 that promotes an additional 29.4% reduction in UEC (442 kWh/year; De Buen, 2005; FIDE, 2009). We consider that the average UEC calculated by Arroyo-Cabañas et al. (2009) for 2007, is the same for 2006; and based on efficiency standards and age structure; we calculated 1996 UEC in 788 kWh/ year. Most of the air conditioners used in Mexico are the individual or room type equipments, and according to CFE (2009), this kind of AC has an average power of 1200 W if they are new and 1850 if they are old. In 2002 a mandatory minimum efficiency standard was

Residential energy consumption by end uses

Table 6 Assumptions for lighting energy use estimations. Incandescent light bulbs

CFL

Fluorescent tubes

18 5000 3.5

50 6500 3.5

≤25 W N25 and ≤100 W 20 Average power (watts)a Average life (hours)a 940 Average on time 3 (hours per day) Average life (years) 0.86 Sales to the residential 80 sector (%) 95 Reposition factor (%)a a

65 940 3

To estimate lighting energy consumption it is necessary to know the type and power of light bulbs installed per household and their average on time. To estimate the first variable, we utilized light bulb sales data and other considerations using the methodology used by Assaf and Dutt (1998). INEGI (2010) published sales data on incandescent light bulbs and fluorescent lamps and tubes by power from 2005 to 2009. In 2006, 206 million incandescent light bulbs equal to or less than 100 W were sold and 22% had a power equal or less than 25 W. Also, in 2006, 42.2 million fluorescent tubes and lamps equal to or less than 75 W were sold. Because sales data are not available for 1996, we extrapolate 2005 data, using light bulb and fluorescent tube and lamp production annual rate of growth4. To differentiate between compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and linear fluorescent tubes we utilized the CFL sales data estimated by WB (2006). Since 1994, Mexico developed a very important lighting energy savings demand side management program, ILUMEX, through the main power utility (Comisión Federal de Electricidad) funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through the World Bank with additional support from other organizations (Friedmann and Sheinbaum, 1998). According to a recent study (WB, 2006), sales of CFLs in Mexico increased from 1 million in 1996 to 8.93 millions in 2006 (estimated 13 million for 2010). Table 6 presents assumptions for lighting energy consumption estimations and Table 7 shows lighting energy use estimations to be 5857 GWh (286 kWh/hh; 56.6 kWh/ light bulb) for 1996 and 9894 GWh (373 kWh/hh; 55.8 kWh/light bulb) for 2006.

0.86 80

3.91 80

5.09 10

95

85

85

Assumptions based on a study by Assaf and Dutt (1998).

Considering the above assumptions, residential energy consumption by end use for years 1996 and 2006 is presented in Table 8. As shown, kerosene consumption is not considered by end use, because its participation is decreasing and in 2006, it represented less than 1% of total residential energy consumption. Table 9 shows energy consumption by income deciles, for the most important fuels and end uses. 4 Differences in production and sales involve exports, imports and inventories, but it can give an idea of trends. Production data is available from 1994 to 2008 (INEGI, 2009a, 2009bquery).

J. Rosas et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 127–133 Table 8 Estimation of commercial energy consumption in the residential sector by end use (PJ).

LPG Cooking Water heating Others NG Cooking Water heating Others Electricity Lighting TV Refrigerator Washing machine Air conditioning Others Kerosene Total Households (millions) Population (millions)

1996

2006

311.5 240.2 59.0 12.4 22.7 17.5 4.3 0.9 102.5 21.3 12.7 38.9 5.1 15.2 9.3 4.84 425.1 20.5 92.4

272.3 172.3 84.0 15.9 29.6 18.7 9.1 1.7 160.0 35.6 22.1 48.2 9.7 30.8 13.6 1.85 435.7 26.5 104.5

131

Table 10 Estimation of CO2 emissions related to household energy consumption by fuel and end use (Tg of CO2).

LPG Cooking Water heating Others NG Cooking Water heating Others Electricity Lighting TV Refrigerator Washing machine Air conditioning Others Kerosene Total Households (millions) Population (millions)

1996

2006

19.4 15.0 3.7 0.8 1.3 1.0 0.2 0.1 21.0 5.4 3.2 9.9 1.3 3.9 2.4 0.3 42.0 20.5 92.4

17.0 10.8 5.2 1.0 1.7 1.0 0.5 0.1 22.4 6.4 4.0 8.6 1.7 5.5 2.4 0.1 41.2 26.5 104.5

CO2 emission estimates the main changes were the following: 1) LPG reduced its consumption from 311.5 to 272.3 PJ, because of reduction in UEC in cook stoves and water heaters, and substitution to NG. The reduction in gas cook stoves UEC was a result of mandatory energy efficiency standards, and increment of electronic ignition rather than pilots produced by market changes. 2) Although UEC reduction of gas devices, NG increased its consumption from 22.7 to 29.6 PJ because of increased penetration of this fuel. 3) Electricity consumption grew from 102.5 to 160.0 PJ, due to increased ownership of main appliances, and increased population. However, it might have increased more if refrigerator and air conditioner mandatory standards would have not been in place. Also, ILUMEX, a demand side lighting energy program, plays an important role in the increase of CFL penetration, and reduction in the average power per light bulb. In relation to end uses, cooking continued to be the main end use, but its participation in total household energy consumption decreased from 59% to 41%. Again, this was due to smaller increase in cook stove ownership and reduction in UEC. In contrast, water heating share increased from 14 to 20% due to higher increase in gas water heater ownership. The share of electricity consumption for lighting increased from 5% to 8% due to increased use of light bulbs in households and the four main appliances increased from 16 to 24% also related to ownership increase. CO2 emissions per household decreased from 2.1 to 1.7 t, because substitution of LPG by NG, reduction in UEC and the decrease in electricity emission factor. Cooking share in total household CO2

CO2 emissions related to energy consumption can be estimated using the IPCC methodology (IPCC, 2006). CO2E ¼ ∑CEFj Fj þ ∑CEFe e

ð1Þ

Where CEFj is the CO2 emission factor for fuel j (including not oxidized carbon), F is fuel consumption of fuel j, CEFe is the CO2 emission factor for electricity supply, and e is electricity consumption. The electricity emission factor varied over time, depending on the power generation efficiency and the mix of primary energy sources. Between 1996 and 2006, the fuel share for power generation changed from 57 to 29% for fuel oil and diesel; 6 to 5% for nuclear, 23 to 14% for hydro, 1 to 3% for coal; 4 to 3% for geothermal; and 8 to 45% for gas (CFE, 1996, 2006). The contribution of combined cycle plants in the share of power generation in the last 10 years, as well as other technology measures, increased the average power generation efficiency from 30% in 1996 to 39% in 2006 (CFE, 1997, 2007). As a result, the electricity emission factor given in tCO2/TJ changed from 254.0 in 1996, to 178.8 in 2006 (0.91 to 0.64 tCO2/MWh). Table 10 presents CO2 emissions by fuel/electricity and end use. Results and discussion Commercial energy consumption in Mexican households had important changes between 1996 and 2006. In terms of fuel structure, Table 9 Residential energy consumption of main appliances by income deciles. LPG

Decile I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Total

NG

Electricity

Total

Cooking

Water heating

Cooking

Water heating

Lighting

Refrigerator

TV sets

Cloth washers

Air conditioners

1996

2006

1996

2006

1996 2006

1996

2006

1996 2006

1996

2006

1996 2006

1996

2006

1996

2006

1996

2006

2.3% 3.4% 4.7% 4.9% 5.7% 6.0% 6.3% 6.7% 6.9% 7.4% 54.3%

1.5% 2.4% 3.2% 3.3% 3.8% 4.1% 4.3% 4.6% 4.8% 5.0% 37.0%

0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 0.7% 1.0% 1.3% 1.5% 2.0% 2.6% 3.2% 13.4%

0.2% 0.5% 0.8% 1.0% 1.4% 1.9% 2.1% 2.7% 3.4% 4.3% 18.3%

0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 4.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 1.0%

0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 2.0%

0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 4.5%

0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.7% 0.9% 1.0% 1.1% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 8.8%

0.3% 0.5% 0.7% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 1.6% 10.4%

0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 2.9%

0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 1.1%

0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 2.1%

0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.7% 1.3% 3.4%

0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 1.1% 1.4% 2.1% 6.6%

3.2% 4.9% 6.9% 7.6% 9.0% 9.8% 10.8% 12.1% 13.5% 15.5% 93.4%

2.9% 4.6% 6.3% 7.0% 8.4% 9.6% 10.7% 12.4% 14.3% 16.9% 93.3%

Total does not include kerosene and “other” appliances.

0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 4.0%

0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 1.0% 1.1% 1.3% 7.9%

0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 1.3% 4.8%

132

J. Rosas et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 127–133

Table 11 CO2 emissions related to household energy consumption by income decile for the main appliances (Tg of CO2). 1996 Decile I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Total

1.4 2.1 3.0 3.4 4.0 4.4 5.0 5.7 6.5 7.8 43.2

2006 3.0% 4.5% 6.3% 7.2% 8.4% 9.4% 10.5% 12.1% 13.8% 16.6% 91.7%

1.3 2.1 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.4 5.0 5.9 7.0 8.5 44.0

2.8% 4.4% 5.9% 6.9% 8.1% 9.3% 10.6% 12.4% 14.7% 17.8% 92.9%

Total does not include kerosene and “other” appliances.

emissions decreased from 34 to 25%, water heating increased from 8 to 12%, lighting from 12% to 13% and main electric appliances from 39 to 42%. Analyzing energy consumption by income deciles, results show higher inequality in 2006 than in 1996 (Table 9). The share of household energy consumption for the first six deciles decreased (from 45.5 to 38.9%), while it increased for the four higher income deciles (from 51.9% to 54.3%)5. This means that although UEC of gas appliances was reduced, the rise in appliance ownership of the higher income deciles, especially electric appliances, led to higher inequality in energy distribution among income deciles. This is true for each appliance with the exception of cook stove where the share of total, decreased for all income deciles. CO2 emissions by income decile are shown in Table 11. The results show higher inequity than energy use. The first six deciles produced 40% of total emissions in 2006, less than in 1996 (40%). The richest group produces 18% of total emissions (1% more than in 1996).

Conclusions This study evaluates commercial energy use and related CO2 emissions of Mexican households by income deciles. Calculations were based on appliance saturation data that are available by income groups, and estimation of unit energy consumption per appliance, assumed to be constant across income groups (for lack of additional data). The study is therefore not completely accurate, but it allows showing the inequity in Mexican household energy use and related CO2 emissions, due to disparity in appliance ownership. In the evaluation of energy consumption by end use, we found an important reduction from 1996 to 2006 in unit energy consumption of gas stoves, gas water heaters, lighting, refrigerators and air conditioners due to mandatory energy efficiency standards, demand side management programs and market changes. The inequity in energy among income groups resulted to be very significant. In 2006, the highest income decile consumed 6.7 times more commercial energy than the average household in the first decile. This is due to lack of services in lower income deciles (for example 80% of poorest households do not have a refrigerator) and oversaturation of services in higher income groups (for example, the richest households have an average of 4 TVs; and 1.3 refrigerators). Results show higher inequality in CO2 emissions than in energy use. The richest households generated on average 8.3 times more CO2 than the poorest households. From 1996 to 2006 ownership of most of the appliances increased slightly despite lower saturation in the poorest income deciles, meaning higher increase of appliance ownership in 5

It does not sum up to 100% because only main appliances and fuels are included.

the richest income deciles. In the case of LPG and NG the lower increase in appliance ownership of the poorest households is related to the use of wood-stoves in rural areas but also to the increase in energy prices in contrast to income. In the case of electricity, TV sets are the appliance with higher saturation in all income groups, although in 2006, the poorest decile had 43% and the richest 151%. The other electric appliances have higher income dependence. Mexico is one of the countries with higher levels of inequality in the world. This inequality is reflected in appliance ownership, household energy consumption and related CO2 emissions. The inequality in the household commercial energy use increased from 1996 to 2006, and if trends continue, more energy will be needed to fulfill the energy services of the richest group, even though the poor continue with small energy services. According to CEPAL and UNDP's report on Millennium Development Goals (MDG)6, for Latin America and the Caribbean, a little inequality reduction would go a long way towards reducing extreme deprivation (CEPAL, 2002). Policies in this sense have to be developed. Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the inputs and comments of Gautam Dutt. They were substantial for the consistency of this paper. References Arroyo-Cabañas FG, Aguillón-Martínez JE, Ambríz-García JJ, Canizal G. Electric energy saving potential by substitution of domestic refrigerators in Mexico. Energy Policy. 2009;37:4737–42. Assaf L, Dutt GS. El impacto ambiental de los sistemas del alumbrado y su reducción con el uso eficiente de la energía (The environmental impact of lighting systems and its reduction through electricity efficiency), Jornadas de Luminotecnia LUZ 98, of the Argentine Association of Lighting Technologies (AADL). Oct: Mar del Plata; 1998. CEFP. Distribución del Ingreso y desigualdad en México: un análisis sobre la ENIGH 2000–2006. Centro de Estudios de las Finanzas Públicas de la Cámara de Diputados, México, D.F; 2008. http://www.cefp.gob.mx/intr/edocumentos/pdf/cefp/2008/ cefp0092008.pdf. De Ferranti D, Perry GE, Ferreira FHG, Walton M. Inequality in Latin America: Breaking With History? Viewpoints, World Bank, Washington, D.C.: World Bank Latin American and Caribbean Studies; 2003 CEPAL. Meeting the millennium poverty reduction targets in Latin America and the Caribbean. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA) United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Santiago de Chile, Chile. http://www.undp.org/latinamerica/docs/ MDGs-libro70.pdf. 2002. CFE. Informe Anual. Comisión Federal de Electricidad, México, D.F. http://www.cfe.gob. mx/QuienesSomos/queEsCFE/publicaciones/Paginas/Publicaciones.aspx. 1996. CFE. Programa Operativo de Infraestructura del Sector Eléctrico, 1996. Comisión Federal de Electricidad, México D.F; 1997. CFE. Informe anual. México D.F: Comisión Federal de Electricidad; 2006. CFE. Programa Operativo de Infraestructura del Sector Eléctrico, 2006. México D.F.: Comisión Federal de Electricidad; 2007 CFE. Tabla de Consumo de Electrodomésticos. México D.F: Comisión Federal de Electricidad; 2009. http://www.cfe.gob.mx/casa/ahorroenergia/Paginas/Tabladeconsumo.aspx. De Buen O. Sobre las metas del milenio, cambio climático y energía. http://www.uia. mx/uiainstitucional/medioamb/pdf/odon_de_buen.pdf. 2005. FIDE. Sello Fide. Fideicomiso de Ahorro de Energía Eléctrica. http://www.fide.org.mx/ info_pdf/equipos3.pdf2009. Friedmann R, Sheinbaum C. Mexican electric end use efficiency: experiences to date. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 1998;23:225–52. Hammill, M, 2005. Income inequality in Central America, Dominican Republic and Mexico: Assessing the importance of individual and household characteristics. Serie estudios y perspectivas, 43. Social Development Unit, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). http://biblioteca.eclac.org/search∼ S0*spi?/XMexico+inequality&SORT=D/XMexico+inequality&SORT=D&SUBKEY= Mexico%20inequality/1,40,40,B/l856∼b1094255&FF=XMexico+inequality&SORT= D&7,7,,2,0. INEGI. Encuesta Nacional Ingreso Gasto de los Hogares, 1996. Bases de datos. México. México: Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática, Ags; 1997. IPCC, 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T., and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 6 In 2000, World leader trough out the United Nations set far-sighted goals to free a major portion of humanity from the shackles of extreme poverty, hunger, illiteracy and disease. More information on http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/reports.shtml.

J. Rosas et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 14 (2010) 127–133 INEGI. Encuesta Nacional Ingreso Gasto de los Hogares, 2006. Bases de datos. México: Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática, Ags; 2007. INEGI. Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008, tabulados básicos. México: Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática, Ags; 2009a. INEGI. Banco de Información Económica, encuesta industrial mensual, fabricación de focos o lámparas. Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática; 2009b. http://dgcnesyp.inegi.org.mx/cgi-win/bdieintsi.exe. SENER. Balance Nacional de Energía 1960–1996. México DF: Secretaría de Energía; 1997a. INEGI. Banco de Información Económica, encuesta industrial mensual, venta de focos o lámparas. Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática; 2010. http:// dgcnesyp.inegi.org.mx/cgi-win/bdieintsi.exe. Masera O, De Buen O, Friedmann R. Consumo Residencial de Energía en México: Estructura, Impactos Ambientales, Potencial de Ahorro. In: Quintanilla J, editor. Primera Reunión Internacional sobre Energía y Medio Ambiente en el Sector Residencial Mexicano, UNAM. México D.F.: UC-Berkeley; 1991 SCFI. Norma Oficial Mexicana. NOM-072-SCFI-1994. Eficiencia energética de refrigeradores y congeladores electrodomésticos, límites, métodos de prueba. México, D.F: Secretaría de Comercio y Fomento Industrial; 1994. SENER. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-015-ENER-1997. Eficiencia energética de refrigeradores y congeladores electrodomésticos, Límites, métodos de prueba y etiquetado. México D.F: Diario Oficial de la Federación. Secretaría de Energía; 1997b.

133

SENER. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-003-ENER, 2000. Eficiencia térmica de calentadores de agua para uso doméstico y comercial. Límites, método de prueba y etiquetado. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Secretaría de Energía, México D.F; 2000. SENER. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-019-SEDG-2002. Aparatos domésticos para cocinar alimentos que utilizan gas L.P. o gas natural-Especificaciones y métodos de prueba. México D.F: Diario Oficial de la Federación. Secretaría de Energía; 2002a. SENER. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-015-ENER-2002. Eficiencia energética de refrigeradores y congeladores electrodomésticos, Límites, métodos de prueba y etiquetado. México D.F: Diario Oficial de la Federación. Secretaría de Energía; 2002b. SENER. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-011-ENER-2002. Eficiencia energética en acondicionadores de aire tipo central paquete o dividido. Límite, métodos de prueba y etiquetado. México D.F: Diario Oficial de la Federación, Secretaría de Energía; 2002c. SENER. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-004-SEDG-2004. Instalaciones de aprovechamiento de Gas L.P. Diseño y construcción. México D.F: Secretaría de Energía de Energía; 2004. SENER. Balance Nacional de Energía, 1997. México D.F: Secretaría de Energía; 1998. SENER. Balance Nacional de Energía, 2006. México D.F: Secretaría de Energía; 2007. Sheinbaum C, Dutt G. The structure of residential energy consumption in the Mexico City metropolitan area. Energy for Sustainable Development 1996;3:43–8. WB. Post-Implementation Impact Assessment: Mexico—Ilumex Project. Washington DC: A World Bank Group Environment Facility Program Publication; 2006.