This study estimated energy, environmental and consumer economic impacts of U.S. Federal residential energy efficiency standards that became effective in the 1988-2006 period, and of energy efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts and distribution transformers. These standards have been the subject of in-depth analyses conducted as part of DOE's standards rulemaking process. This study drew on those analyses, but updated certain data and developed a common framework and assumptions for all of the products in order to estimate realized impacts and to update projected impacts. It also performed new analysis for the first (1990) fluorescent ballast standards, which had been introduced in the NAECA legislation without a rulemaking. We estimate that the considered standards will reduce residential/ commercial primary energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in 2030 by 4percent compared to the levels expected without any standards. The reduction for the residential sector is larger, at 8percent. The estimated cumulative energy savings from the standards amount to 39 quads by 2020, and 63 quads by 2030. The standards will also reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by considerable amounts.The estimated cumulative net present value of consumer benefit amounts to $241 billion by 2030, and grows to $269 billion by 2045. The overall ratio of consumer benefits to costs (in present value terms) in the 1987-2050 period is 2.7 to 1. Although the estimates made in this study are subject to a fair degree of uncertainty, we believe they provide a reasonable approximation of the national benefits resulting from Federal appliance efficiency standards.

This paper addresses the political acceptability and workability of CDM by and in developing countries. At COP-3 in Kyoto in 1997, the general position among developing countries changed from strong rejection of joint implementation to acceptance of CDM. The outgrowth of CDM from a proposal from Brazil to establish a Clean Development Fund gave developing countries a sense of ownership of the idea. More importantly, establishing support for sustainable development as a main goal for CDM overcame the resistance of many developing countries to accept a carbon trading mechanism. The official acceptance of CDM is not a guarantee of continued acceptance, however. Many developing countries expect CDM to facilitate a substantial transfer of technology and other resources to support economic growth. There is concern that Annex I countries may shift official development assistance into CDM in order to gain carbon credits, and that development priorities could suffer as a result. Some fear that private investments could be skewed toward projects that yield carbon credits.Developing country governments are wary regarding the strong role of the private sector envisioned for CDM. Increasing the awareness and capacity of the private sector in developing countries to initiate and implement CDM projects needs to be a high priority. While private sector partnerships will be the main vehicle for resource transfer in CDM, developing country governments want to play a strong role in overseeing and guiding the process so that it best serves their development goals. Most countries feel that establishment of criteria for sustainable development should be left to individual countries. A key issue is how CDM can best support the strengthening of local capacity to sustain and replicate projects that serve both climate change mitigation and sustainable development objectives.There is support among developing countries for commencing CDM as soon as possible. Since official commencement must await the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, many developing countries support the establishment of an Interim Phase starting in 2000, with possible retroactive crediting once the Protocol enters into force.