Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 10–18

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Review

Saturation, energy consumption, CO2 emission and energy efficiency from urban
and rural households appliances in Mexico
Jorge Alberto Rosas-Flores a,b,∗ , Dionicio Rosas-Flores a,b , David Morillón Gálvez b,c
a
División de Estudios de Posgrado, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria Coyoacan 04510, México, DF, Mexico
b
Posgrado de Arquitectura, Facultad de Arquitectura, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria Coyoacan 04510, México, DF, Mexico
c
Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad, Universitaria, Coyoacan 04510, México, DF, Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Energy usage and energy efficiency are of increasing concern in Mexico, electricity generation principally
Received 27 April 2010 depends upon fossil fuels. On one hand, the stocks of these fuels have been confirmed to be critically
Received in revised form 28 July 2010 limited. On the other hand, in process of electricity generation by means of these fuels, a number of
Accepted 19 August 2010
poisonous by-products adversely affect the conservation of natural eco-system.
This paper focuses on estimation of energy consumption, energy savings, reduction of emissions of CO2
Keywords:
for use of urban and rural household appliances in Mexico between 1996 and 2021.
Appliance
The analysis concentrates on six major energy end uses in the residential sector: refrigerators, air
Urban–rural households
Mexico
conditioners, washing machines, TV set, iron and heater.
Emission CO2 It is estimated that by 2021 there will be a cumulative saving of 22,605 GWh, as a result of the imple-
Saving mentation of government programs on energy efficiency that represents a cumulative reduction of CO2
Energy emissions of 15,087 Tg CO2.
It means that Mexico can reduce in 5650 MW the generation capacity of national electricity system,
which is to avoid burning 40.35 MM barrels of oil.
The findings can be useful to policy makers as well as household appliances users.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. National characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1. Evolution of income in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. Structural changes and electrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. Information – data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Evolution of appliances in Mexican households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Equipment evolution in Mexican households (national–urban) 1996–2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Evolution of appliances in Mexican households (national–rural) 1996–2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Energy consumption of main appliances in Mexico (national–urban) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. Energy consumption of the main appliances in Mexico (national–rural) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.5. CO2 emission estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Main institutions involved in promoting energy savings in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. National commission for the efficient use of energy (CONUEE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. Energy savings program electric sector (PAES) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3. Integral systematic savings program (ASI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

∗ Corresponding author at: División de Estudios de Posgrado, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional, Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria Coyoacan 04510,
Mexico. Tel.: +52 55 56233600x8853; fax: +52 5556233600x8051.
E-mail address: jrosas78@yahoo.com (J.A. Rosas-Flores).

0378-7788/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.08.020
 J.A. Rosas-Flores et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 10–18 11

6.4. Trust fund for electric energy saving (FIDE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

6.5. Achievements in residential sector (appliances) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.6. Estimation of energy savings and emission reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1. Introduction On the other hand, it was an essay showing the equipment in

Brazil [3], on the basis of the data from the “Instituto de Geografía
Electricity consumption comprises different variables of diverse y Estadística de Brasil” [Institute of Geography and Statistics of
nature. The variables might be due to technology, climate, or human Brazil]. The purpose of the essay was to determine the amount and
activities. On the one hand, there are physical characteristics of the power installed of the main electrical appliances in Brazilian homes,
actual households and the electric devices they handle, mainly the hence demonstrating its evolution during the 1987–2002 period.
air conditioning consumed. And, on the other hand, there is the For another instance papers [1,5,6] had done comprehensive
behavior of the residents in regards to the use of electric power analyses on how to calculate and project energy savings, bill savings
inside their homes, a factor which can be associated to their income and emission reductions from the introduction of energy efficiency
level and the life style of each of the families. standards in Malaysia, UK and USA, respectively.
The demand for this energy is expected to grow rapidly through- In China, Lu, Ouyang and Hakao [7,8] determined energy savings
out the world, particularly in developing countries. and emission reductions out of implementation of standards in its
The growing demand of electricity will definitely put enormous residential sector
pressure upon the upstream sources of energy such as petroleum In Mexico, Masera et al. [9] carried out an electric energy analysis
fuels and natural gas. on the basis of consumption disintegration by final uses (light-
Residential electrical energy consumption is about 16–50% of ning, cooking, water heating, and electrical appliances) where the
total energy use in different countries, as shown in Fig. 1 structure, environmental impacts and saving potential due to con-
Over the past few decades, it has been observed that there is sumption are shown.Sheinbaum et al. [10] also carried out an
an increasing concentration of these greenhouse gases (GHGs) that investigation which is based on the final uses or “from the bottom
have harmful impacts on the environment. up” methodology. The essay determines the amount and energy
In particular, CO2 is the significant by-product that stems from consumption of the main electrical appliances.
the burn of these fuels used to generate electricity in conventional
power plants. 3. National characteristics
The introduction of Kyoto Protocol in 1997 is the first serious
step in putting in place an effective international mechanism for Mexico is located in North of America, extending from about
the reduction of emissions of the GHGs. 14N to 33N and from 86W to 118W. Its territory extends over
The aim of this paper is to show the saturation and energy con- 1,972,550 km2 with a population density of about 52.4 people per
sumption of appliances that are mainly used in urban and rural km2 .
households, as well as show the benefits of saving energy and of In 2008, the final fuel demand in Mexico amounted to 4814 PJ,
reducing CO2 emissions by 2021, as a result of the government almost 50% was for transport sector, the industry sector accounted
programs implementations in Mexico. for 28% of the total, while the rest was for residential, government
and commercial uses, itself 20% of the national total [11].
As shown in Fig. 1, the residential sector accounted for 15.5%
2. Background
of total energy consumption in Mexico [11], of this percentage,
19% was electricity for lighting, refrigeration, and appliances. The
In Japan in the 1990s, Nakagami [2] carried out an essay showing
remaining energy use was attributed to cooking 52% and water
how the main fuels were consumed during the period from 1960
heating 29%, as shown in Fig. 2
to 1993. However, this essay stresses mainly on home equipment,
demonstrating that equipment is directly linked to the population’s 3.1. Evolution of income in Mexico
life style.
Mexico is a country with high income inequality [12] and high
levels of poverty. In 2006, the Gini Coefficient of Inequality, was
0.471 while it reported 0.408 and 0.326 in the US and Canada
respectively [13]. In 2006, one-fifth of the Mexican population (17
million people, 4 million more than in 2004) was living under the
so-called food poverty that refers to the inability of population to
obtain healthy affordable food, and half the population was living
in poverty [14].
Dividing Mexican households into ten equal sets (deciles)
according to the income-expenditure household survey [15] the
lowest decile represented 1.2% of total Mexican households
income, while the highest decile made up to 37% of the total
(Table 1).

3.2. Structural changes and electrification

Fig. 1. Worldwide residential electrical energy consumption. The dynamics of Mexican households increased significantly
Source: [1]. during the past decade: in 1996, there were around 20.4 million
12 J.A. Rosas-Flores et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 10–18

Fig. 2. (a) Energy consumption in Mexico. (b) Breakdown of the residential energy use.

Table 1 Table 2
Income distribution in Mexico 1996–2006. Unit energy consumption.

Deciles 1996 2006 kWh/appliance/year

I 1.8% 1.2% TV 153

II 2.9% 2.7% Refrigerator 616
III 3.8% 3.8% Washing machine 154
IV 4.8% 4.8% Air conditioner 2042
V 5.8% 5.9% Heater 278
VI 7.2% 7.3%
Refrigerator: [22].
VII 8.8% 9.1%
Washing machine: [23]. Power of 400 W and 32 h/month.
VIII 11.2% 11.8%
TV: [23]. Power of 120 W; 6 h/day.
IX 15.8% 16.4%
Air conditioner: [23]. Power of 1000 W; 10 h/day; 5 months/year.
X 37.8% 37.1%
For electric appliance, same estimation for 1996 and 2006 because lack of data on
Total households (millions) 20.48 26.54 sales by power for the whole period.
Gini coefficient 0.47 0.47

Source: [15–20].
homes in Mexico, 76% urban households and 24% rural households;
however, by 2006, this figure increased to over 26 million homes,
distributed in 78% urban households and 22% rural households.
The size of houses will probably shrink gradually, for example,
by 1984 the household size was 5.1, and in 2006, 3.95; by 1984 the
minimum housing standard for a four person family would be three
bedrooms plus a dining room and a kitchen, a total dwelling room
area (excluding the entryway, bath, kitchen, and storage) of 35 m2 ,
and an effective living area (including the kitchen and bath but
excluding hallways and stairs) of 56 m2 , while in 2006, the average
family of four should live in a house with three bedrooms plus a
living and dining room and a kitchen, with a total dwelling room
area of 27.9 m2 and a total area of 44 m2 .
In Mexico, by 1996, 4% of the 92 million inhabitants had no
access to electric power. On the urban sector, only 0.79% of the
67 million inhabitants had no electricity supply, while in the rural
sector, with over 25 million inhabitants, 14% had no electric power
service.
As a result of efficient government’s efforts, by 2006 electrifi-
cation covered 99% of the more than 105 million inhabitants and
only 0.27% of the urban sector inhabitants and 2.6% of the 24 million
inhabitants in the rural sector did not have access to the service.1
In Mexico, the federal government promotes policies which
might allow electric power supply to all its inhabitants. At present,
in the entire national territory, a little more than 99% of the popu-
lation has access to energy services.
1
Data of Comisión Federal del Electricidad de México CFE (Federal Electricity
Comisión from Mexico).
This electrification effort can be used as a measure to determine
the development of the inhabitants’ quality of life in their homes.
3.3. Information – data
The data used in the study come from government reports,
such as those from the National Institute of Statistics, Geography
and Technical Information of Mexico (INEGI initials in Spanish),
this organization is responsible for collecting data and reporting
the socio-economic status of the country. Documents consulted
include several issues of the National Survey of Households Income
and Expenditure (ENIGH initials in Spanish). The main objective of
this survey is to obtain information on the distribution, amount and
structure of incomes and expenditures for the household with the
final aim of evaluating the developments in the standards of living
of the population.
In the case of the present essay, the word “urban” shall be
applied to towns of more than 2500 inhabitants, regardless of their
activity or income level, while the word “rural” shall be applied to
towns with less than 2500 inhabitants.
4. Methodology
The methodology used in this paper is based on end uses [21]
that are shown below.
The energy consumption for a given end-use (i) may be
described as a product of three parameters: the energy intensity
of the end-use (Ii ), the saturation of the end-use (Si ), and the aggre-
gate level or unit used to express energy intensity (Z). The energy
intensity is defined as energy use per capita or per household, and
correspondingly, Z would be the total population or number of
households, respectively.
 J.A. Rosas-Flores et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 10–18 13

Table 3
Equipment of the main appliances in Mexican households (national–urban) 1996–2006 (thousands of equipments).

Year 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 ARG

Households 15,537,825 16,697,403 18,101,759 18,829,954 19,921,014 20,685,257 2.90%

Tv set 19,210,147 21,459,327 24,820,267 27,719,314 30,686,724 33,621,829 5.76%
Iron 15,176,593 15,604,664 17,500,693 18,131,364 18,813,842 19,949,303 2.77%
Refrigerator 12,029,900 13,628,956 15,221,682 16,231,132 17,177,286 17,932,585 4.07%
Washing machine 8,350,530 9,813,312 11,321,219 12,528,622 13,711,334 14,998,448 6.03%
Air conditioning or cooling 1,787,915 2,020,944 2,790,588 2,384,698 3,054,021 3,803,108 7.84%
Heater 652,943 692,376 716,854 811,717 977,531 1,328,789 7.36%

Source: [15–20].

For instance, for LPG cooking, energy intensity may be the aver-
age use of LPG per household, saturation is the share of total
household that use LPG for cooking, and the aggregate level will
be the total number of households. For some end-uses, e.g., refrig-
erators, the energy intensity may be expressed as unit energy
consumption, while Z is the total number of refrigerators.
If we consider that different forms (k) of energy are consumed
at the end-use level, total energy consumption would be the sum
of all energy sources and end-uses:

E=Z (Iik Sik )
I k
The information obtained is the saturation for the main electri-
cal appliances used in Mexican households, such as televisions, air
conditioning, washing machines, irons, refrigerators and heaters.
For the purposes of this essay, saturation means the number of
electrical appliances per home, as shown in Eq. (2):
number appliances
saturation =
households
Under this consideration, and because no official data on aver-
age unit energy consumption (UEC) per appliance is available, we
approximate UEC per appliance based on different sources and esti-
mations (Table 2).
5. Evolution of appliances in Mexican households
5.1. Equipment evolution in Mexican households
(national–urban) 1996–2006
This section shows the number of main appliances used in urban
households of Mexico, between 1996 and 2006, it is important that
the urban population in 2006 represented 76% of the total popula-
tion in Mexico [15]. Table 3 shows the disaggregated information.
Fig. 3 shows the evolution of saturation of the main appliances
in Mexican urban households.
As shown in Fig. 3, televisions are the most prevailing appli-
ance in Mexican households and that, in 2006 in the entire country,
(1)
televisions are present, on average, at 1.62 appliances per home. In
the past 10 years the mean growth rate of televisions saturation
resulted at 2.77% for the period.
Irons are the second most prevailing domestic appliance, with
an average saturation of 0.96 appliances, per home for 2006. For
the period comprising from 1996 to 2006, the mean growth rate of
irons saturation turned out be of 0.13%.
Refrigerators are the third most prevailing domestic appliance,
with a saturation of 0.86 appliances per home for 2006. Refrigera-
(2)
tors had a mean growth rate of 3% for the period.
In fourth place of prevalence come washing machines, with a
saturation of 0.72 appliances per home for 2006. Washing machines
showed a mean growth rate of 3% for the period.
The last place is represented in 2006 by air conditioning or cool-
ing and heating devices, with a saturation of 0.18 and 0.06 per home,
respectively. Nevertheless, these two electrical appliances are the
ones with the higher mean growth rate which turned to be of 4.8%
and 4.34%, respectively.

This section presents two parts: the first covers the urban
households appliances nationwide; the second one includes rural
households nationwide.
In 2006, 96.4% of the Mexican population had access to elec-
tricity [15], and unlike gas (the main fuel to cooking), electricity
is used in a wide range of households appliance, besides lighting.
The appliances that account for the bulk of domestic electricity use
are refrigerators, TV sets, washing machines, air conditioners and
irons.
The information obtained is the saturation for the main appli-
ances used in Mexican households.
5.2. Evolution of appliances in Mexican households
(national–rural) 1996–2006
This section shows the number of main appliances used in rural
households in Mexico, between 1996 and 2006, it is important that
the rural population in 2006 represented 24% of the total population
in Mexico [15]. Table 4 shows the disaggregated information.
Fig. 4 shows the evolution of saturation of main appliances in
Mexican rural households.
As in urban households, the presence of televisions in rural
households accounts for the highest saturation, with 1.1 appliances

Table 4
Equipment of the main electrical appliances in Mexican households (national–rural) 1996–2006 (thousands of equipments).

Year 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 ARG

Households 4,929,213 5,466,165 5,382,993 5,820,215 5,924,067 5,856,070 1.74%

Tv set 3,616,955 3,901,574 4,219,544 5,039,135 5,806,581 6,442,307 5.94%
Iron 3,462,286 3,269,724 3,467,404 3,747,030 4,222,487 4,494,886 2.64%
Refrigerator 1,696,566 2,121,391 2,398,270 2,889,176 3,625,813 3,852,786 8.55%
Washing machine 821,585 1,046,706 1,294,816 1,671,668 2,486,009 2,586,302 12.15%
Air conditioning or cooling 117,057 151,538 214,838 262,334 286,794 402,361 13.14%
Heater 20,638 23,678 29,353 32,141 31,725 45,235 8.16%

Source: [15–20].
14 J.A. Rosas-Flores et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 10–18

Fig. 3. Saturation of the main electrical appliances in Mexican households (national–urban) 1996–2006.
Source: [15–20] Prepared by the author based on the ENIGH data.

Fig. 4. Saturation of the main appliances in Mexican households (national–rural) 1996–2006.

Source: [15–20] Prepared by the author based on the ENIGH data.

per home for 2006. Besides, televisions had a mean growth rate of
4.13%. Irons had a saturation of 0.76 appliances per home for the
same year, with a mean growth rate of 0.89% during the period.
Refrigerators showed a saturation of 0.65 appliances per home
and a mean growth rate of 6.69%.
Washing machines accounted for a 0.44 appliances per home,
with a mean growth rate of 10.24% for the period.
To finish, air conditioning or coolers and heaters had a saturation
of 0.068 and 0.007 appliances per home, respectively. The mean
growth rate was of 11.2% for air conditioning or coolers and of 6.32%
for heaters.
5.3. Energy consumption of main appliances in Mexico
(national–urban)
With the information obtained in Table 3 and based on the
methodology described above, we can determine the power con-
sumption of main appliances in urban households in Mexico, infor-
mation presents data of the period 1996–2006 as shown in Fig. 5.
As shown above, refrigerators are the highest energy consump-
tion appliances in urban Mexican households since they account,
on average for 35% of the main electrical appliances; televisions
account, on average, for 26% of the consumption; then air condition-

Fig. 5. Energy consumption (GWh) of the main appliances in urban households (1996–2006).
Source: [15–20] Prepared by the author based on the ENIGH data.
 J.A. Rosas-Flores et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 10–18 15

Table 5
Estimation of CO2 emissions related to household energy consumption by fuel and end-use (Tg of CO2 ).

Year 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Refrigerator 5.41 6.21 6.95 7.54 8.20 8.59

Air conditioner or cooling 2.49 2.84 3.93 3.46 4.37 5.50
Tv set 2.24 2.48 2.84 3.21 3.57 3.92
Iron 1.19 1.21 1.34 1.40 1.47 1.56
Washing machine 0.90 1.07 1.24 1.40 1.60 1.73
Heater 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.24
Electricity 12.35 13.94 16.44 17.15 19.39 21.55

ing or coolers come, with 24%, on average, irons, with 8%; washing
machines with 6% and, finally, heaters with 1% of the energy con-
sumption for the essay’s period.
5.4. Energy consumption of the main appliances in Mexico
(national–rural)
as other technology measures, increased the average power genera-
tion efficiency from 30% in 1996 to 39% in 2006 [27,28]. As a result,
the primary electricity emission factor given in tCO2 /TJ changed
from 254.0 in 1996, to 178.8 in 2006 (0.91–0.64 tCO2 /MWh). Table 5
presents CO2 emissions by fuel/electricity and end use.

With the information obtained in Table 4 and based on the
methodology described above, we can determine the power con-
sumption of main appliances in rural households in Mexico,
information presents data of the period 1996–2006 as shown in
Fig. 6.
As can be observed, refrigerators are the appliances which have
the highest energy consumer source in Mexican rural households,
since they account, on average, for 53% of the main electrical appli-
ances consumption. televisions account, on the average, for 18% of
the energy consumption while irons represents, on average, 13%
of the consumption, Air conditioners or coolers 9%, and washing
machines 7%. Lastly, heaters account for 0.001% of the energy con-
sumption for the period of this essay.
5.5. CO2 emission estimates
CO2 emissions related to energy consumption can be estimated
using the IPCC methodology [24]:
CO2E = ˙CEFe e
CEFe is the CO2 emission factor for electricity supply, and e
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 [25,26]. The contribution of combined cycle
plants in the share of power generation in the last 10 years, as well
6. Main institutions involved in promoting energy savings
in Mexico
There are many institutions, agencies and corporations, public
and private, where activities of various kinds to promote energy
saving and renewable energy use. However, those presented in
this article are just some of the most important, its impact and
coverage, and that in any way obliged to publicly report their
results.
6.1. National commission for the efficient use of energy (CONUEE)
The CONUEE was created in September 1989 having the name
of National Commission for Energy Saving (CONAE), aims to serve
as a technical consulting body of the Federal Public Administra-
tion agencies (dependencies and entities), and, when requested,
the governments of the states, municipalities and individuals, in
savings and efficient use of energy and exploitation of renewable
(3) energy.
The activities of the Commission can be classified into four major
groups:
Normalization
Development and update energy efficiency standards
Technical Assistance
Development of energy diagnosis and studies
Promotion
Organization of regional, national and international events
Design and Development of Programs
Coordination of committees and working group that are specialized in the
development of energy saving projects

Fig. 6. Energy consumption (GWh) of the main appliances in rural households (1996–2006)
Source: [15–20] Prepared by the author based on the ENIGH data.
16 J.A. Rosas-Flores et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 10–18
Fig. 7. Energy savings from the use of energy efficiency standards policy implementation.
6.2. Energy savings program electric sector (PAES)
The Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) as a fundamental part
of the national energy sector and to support the achievement of the
objectives of the National Energy Modernization Program in 1989
implemented the Energy Savings Program Electric Power Sector
(SAPs).
PAES has as its goals the coordination of actions and programs to
promote savings and efficient use of electricity in two major areas:
one internal to the electric sector itself and external, dedicated at
different users that represent a significant potential in electricity
saving.
6.3. Integral systematic savings program (ASI)
Since October 1990, Integral Systematic Savings Program (ASI)
has had as main objective to design actions dedicated to the saving
and efficient use of electricity for the benefit of users of electrical
service in domestic fares CFE. In this sense, the actions currently
undertaken in this program can be grouped into the following sub-
programmes:
• Housing insulation
• Replacement of air conditioning equipment with low efficiency
for Equipments with high efficiency
• Replacement of incandescent bulbs for compact fluorescent
lamps
Fig. 8. Total emission reductions from the use energy efficiency standards policy implementation.
• Door seals
• Energy diagnostics
• Replacement of low efficiency refrigerators by the ones with high
efficiency.
6.4. Trust fund for electric energy saving (FIDE)
On the initiative of the Federal Electricity Commission and with
the support of Light and Power Company (Luz y Fuerza del Centro)
(LFC) in August 1990 the Trust to support the program of Energy
savings of the electrical sector was constituted, now called trust
Fund for Electric Energy Saving (FIDE).
At the present time, the FIDE is an agency of non-profit par-
ticipation, which through multiple mechanisms provides support
to users of energy in their projects on saving and efficient use of
electricity.FIDE’s Goal is “To demonstrate and disseminate concrete
actions and results, advantage and economic and social benefits of
saving electricity to boost their application in all users”.
6.5. Achievements in residential sector (appliances)
At present, there is a program put forward in Mexico by the
Energy Ministry (CONUEE, FIDE, and ASI) for the “Substitution of
appliances for Energy Saving”, whereupon the substitution of air
conditioner and refrigerators with 10 or more years of age is sought
after, by new energy saving machines, through direct support and
financing, consisting in “vouchers” that must be destined to cover
 J.A. Rosas-Flores et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 10–18
the Price of the appliance and transportation costs, collecting and
destruction associated with the equipment substitution, whereas
the financing can be based on a credit with preferential interest
rates, to be paid in a reasonable term and collected through the
electric energy bill.
The results for 2009 were a total of 262.804 shares were divided
into 244.234 refrigerators parts for air conditioners while the figure
reached 18.570 units.
These results mean savings of 298.66 GW/h/year thus avoiding
the burning of 533, 229.28 barrels of oil and thereby failed to send
into the atmosphere a total of 199,331.55 tons of carbon dioxide
(CO2 ).
The cost savings were approximately 350 millions of pesos,2
which confirms and ratifies the economic benefits of the program.
6.6. Estimation of energy savings and emission reductions
The energy savings per year (ES) from the use of an appliance
can be found by multiplying its unit energy saving, corresponding
scaling factor and the number of units purchased/used in that year.
In mathematical form, this can be as expressed as
ES = ˙AES∗i UEi (4)
where AESi is the annual energy saving savings of appliance a in
year i, UEi is the unit energy savings (kWh) in ith for that appliance.
The energy savings from the use of household appliances is likely
to reduce the electricity generation or use the produced electricity
in other productive purposes. As a result, the potential reduction
CO2 emissions that would otherwise responsible for the use of
appliances can be estimated. Emissions reductions out of this action
can be determined from the formula below:
Ej = AES∗i EMj (5)
where Ej is the total emission reductions of a substance j in year i for
an appliance, EMj is the emission of substance j for unit electricity
generation (kg/kWh).
Using the methodology described (Eq. (4)) and some input data
from FIDE-WORLD-BANK [29], energy savings for air condition-
ers and refrigerator due to the introduction of energy efficiency
standards has been estimated and shown in Fig. 7.
The findings show that 3974 GWh and 18,631 GWh of energy
can be saved respectively by air conditioners and refrigerator for a
period of 13 years (2009–2021). The application of Eq. (5) and use
of data from Table 5, show that emissions by these two types of
appliances under different policy measures can be largely reduced.
The results are depicted in Fig. 8.
It is found that 2.6 and 12.43 Tg of CO2 can be reduced from
the use of air conditioners and refrigerator for the aforesaid period,
respectively.
Other experiences of programs to reduce energy consumption in
appliances, is presented in [1], which shows that Malaysia can save
822 GWh, 805 GWh in Thailand for the implementation of saving
policies by 2015, representing a cumulative decrease of 9288 kt of
CO2 emissions from the use of refrigerators and air conditioners.
Moreover, in China, Lu [7,30] re-determines the emissions
reduction potential of refrigerators and air conditioning, respec-
tively, for the refrigerator is a cumulative reduction of 736.8 Mt of
CO2 between 2003 and 2023, while for the air Conditioning is a
reduction of 113.3 Mt of CO2 between 2005 and 2020
2
Note: [1] Exchange rate in 2008: 1 US$ = $11.78 Mexican Pesos. Source:
http://www.sat.gob.mx/sitio internet/asistencia contribuyente/informacion frecue
nte/tipo cambio/42 10819.html.
17
7. Conclusions
The total and saturation of appliance use of urban and rural
household appliances in Mexico have been estimated for a period
of 1996–2021.
The study has found that refrigerator is the major energy-
consuming appliance followed by air conditioner, TV set, washing
machine, iron and heater.
Energy consumption and emission production trend for
household appliances have been presented for a same period
(1996–2021) in this study. It has been found from this study that
policy intervention such as energy efficiency standards and the
program “Substitution of appliances for Energy Saving” of air condi-
tioner and a refrigerator may save significant amount of energy and
reduce huge volume of various pollutants (CO2 ) at the residential
sector.
As a result of the energy saving programs promoted in Mexico,
an estimated cumulative energy savings of 22,605 GWh, by replac-
ing refrigerators and air conditioners, which would be a cumulative
reduction in CO2 emissions of 15,087 Tg CO2 .
For Mexico these savings would serve to reduce by 5650 MW
generation capacity of the National Electric System, which is to
prevent the burning of 40.35 MM barrels of oil.
It has to be noted that these energy savings and emission
reductions are shown only for two appliances (refrigerator and
air conditioner). However, significant amount of energy savings
and emission reductions would be possible for other appliances
by similar/other policy measures.
Acknowledgements
To CONACYT for supporting the development of research, the
anonymus reviewers for their helpful comments, Mónica Medellín
and Fernanda Rosas for the review, editing, translation and com-
ments on the manuscript, M3C2S center for their valuable help.
References
[1] R. Saidur, H.H. Masjuki, M.Y. Jamaluddin, S. Ahmed, Energy and associated
greenhouse gas emissions from household appliances in Malaysia, Energy Pol-
icy 35 (3) (2007) 1648–1657.
[2] H. Nakagami, Lifestyle change and energy use in Japan: household
equipment and energy consumption, Energy 21 (12) (1996) 1157–1167,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(96)00071-0.
[3] C.A. Mariotoni, P.R. Santos, Household-electric equipment diffusion and the
impacts in the demand of residential electric power in Brazil, Energy and Build-
ings 37 (7) (2005) 853–857, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2005.02.004.
[5] S. Firth, K. Lomas, A. Wright, R. Wall, Identifying trends in the use of domestic
appliances from household electricity consumption measurements, Energy and
Buildings 40 (5) (2008) 926–936.
[6] M. McNeil, V. Letschert, Modeling diffusion of electrical appliances in the resi-
dential sector, Energy and Buildings 42 (6) (2010) 783–790.
[7] W. Lu, Potential energy savings and environmental impact by implementing
energy efficiency standard for household refrigerators in china, Energy Policy
34 (13) (2006) 1583–1589.
[8] J. Ouyang, K. Hokao, Energy-saving potential by improving occupants’ behavior
in urban residential sector in Hangzhou City, China, Energy and Buildings 41
(7) (2009) 711–720.
[9] O. Masera, O. De Buen, R. Friedmann, Consumo Residencial de Energía en Méx-
ico: Estructura, Impactos Ambientales, Potencial de Ahorro, in: J. Quintanilla
(Ed.), Primera Reunión Internacional sobre Energía y Medio Ambiente en el
Sector Residencial Mexicano, UNAM, UC-Berkeley, México D.F, 1991.
[10] C. Sheinbaum, MartínezM, L. Rodríguez, Trends and prospects in Mexican
residential energy use, Energy 21 (6) (1996) 493–504, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0360-5442(96)00011-4.
[11] SENER, Balance Nacional de Energía, 2008, Secretaría de Energía, México D.F.,
2009.
[12] Hammill, M, Income inequality in Central America, Dominican Repub-
lic and Mexico: Assessing the importance of individual and household
characteristics. Social Development Unit, CEPAL. Serie estudios y per-
spectivas, 43, 2005. Available on http://biblioteca.eclac.org/search/S0*spi?/
XMexico+inequality/SORT=D/XMexico+inequality/SORT=D/SUBKEY=Mexico
break
18 J.A. Rosas-Flores et al. / Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 10–18
[13] CEFP, 2008. Distribución del Ingreso y desigualdad en México: un análisis
sobre la ENIGH 2000-2006. Centro de Estudios de las Finanzas Públi-
cas de la Cámara de Diputados, México, D.F. http://www.cefp.gob.mx/intr/
edocumentos/pdf/cefp/2008/cefp0092008.pdf.
[14] CEPAL, Meeting the Millennium Poverty Reduction Targets in Latin Amer-
ica 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, 2002,
http://www.undp.org/latinamerica/docs/MDGs-libro70.pdf.
[15] INEGI, Encuesta Nacional Ingreso Gasto de los Hogares, 2006. Bases de datos,
Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática, Ags. México, 2007.
[16] Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI), Encuesta
Nacional Ingreso Gasto de los Hogares 1984–1996, INEGI, México D.F., 1997.
[17] INEGI, Encuesta Nacional Ingreso Gasto de los Hogares 1998, INEGI, México
D.F., 1999.
[18] INEGI, Encuesta Nacional Ingreso Gasto de los Hogares 2000, INEGI, México
D.F., 2001, http://www.inegi.gob.mx/prod serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/
productos/encuestas/hogares/enigh/2000/enigh.pdf.
[19] INEGI, Encuesta Nacional Ingreso Gasto de losHogares2002, INEGI, Méx-
ico D.F., 2003, http://www.inegi.gob.mx/est/contenidos/espanol/sistemas/
enigh/enigh 2002/default.asp.
[20] INEGI, Encuesta Nacional Ingreso Gasto de los Hogares 2004, INEGI,
México D.F., 2005, http://www.inegi.gob.mx/prod serv/contenidos/espanol/
bvinegi/productos/encuestas/hogares/enigh/2004/ENIGH 2004.pdf.
[21] L. Schipper, D. Hawk, More efficient household electricity-use: an interna-
tional perspective, Energy Policy 19 (3) (1991) 244–265, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0301-4215(91)90150-M.
[22] F.G. Arroyo-Cabañas, J.E. Aguillón-Martínez, J.J. Ambríz-García, G. Canizal, Elec-
tric energy saving potential by substitution of domestic refrigerators in Mexico,
Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4737–4742.
[23] CFE, Tabla de consumo de electrodomésticos, Comisión Federal de Elec-
tricidad, México D.F., 2009, http://www.cfe.gob.mx/casa/ahorroenergia/
Paginas/Tabladeconsumo.aspx.
[24] IPCC, 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared
by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston, H.S., Buen-
dia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K. (Eds.). IGES, Japan. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change.
[25] CFE, Informe Anual, Comisión Federal de Electricidad, México, D.F., 1996,
http://www.cfe.gob.mx/QuienesSomos/queEsCFE/publicaciones/Paginas/Publ
icaciones.aspx.
[26] CFE, Informe anual, Comisión Federal de Electricidad, México D.F., 2006.
[27] CFE, Programa Operativo de Infraestructura del Sector Eléctrico, 1996, Comisión
Federal de Electricidad, México D.F., 1997.
[28] CFE, Programa Operativo de Infraestructura del Sector Eléctrico, 2006, Comisión
Federal de Electricidad, México D.F., 2007.
[29] FIDE–WorldBank, 2008. Evaluación ambiental del programa de sustitución de
refrigeradores y aires acondicionados domésticos para el ahorro de energía
eléctrica.
[30] W. Lu, Potential energy savings and environmental impacts of energy efficiency
standards for vapor compression central air conditioning units in China, Energy
Policy 35 (3) (2007) 1709–1717.