1 / 16

New York State’s Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard

New York State’s Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard. Bill Saxonis Office of Energy Efficiency & Environment New York State Department of Public Service . Encore? Energy Efficiency Program Performance NARUC Workshop – Washington DC February 16, 2008.

kathryn
Download Presentation

New York State’s Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New York State’s Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard Bill Saxonis Office of Energy Efficiency & Environment New York State Department of Public Service Encore? Energy Efficiency Program Performance NARUC Workshop – Washington DC February 16, 2008

  2. The Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS) Proceeding • The Proceeding was born on May 16, 2007 by Commission Order (Case 07-M-0548). • Reduce electricity usage by 15% from the levels forecasted for 2015 (15 X15 goal). • Comparable reduction goal for natural gas usage. • Achieving the 15X15 goal will bring electricity usage in 2015 to below the 2006 level. • About 25,000 GWh of sales reduction will be needed to meet the 15 X 15 goal.

  3. What did the Commission say about evaluation? • “Ensure transparent and technically sound methods for measurement and verification of net energy savings, benefits and costs, as well as assessment of customer satisfaction and program efficacy.”

  4. EEPS – A Transparent Process • Plenary collaborative meetings, technical conference, list-serve/web page… • Roundtable sessions for the general public. • Staff “straw proposal” to encourage feedback. • 4 working groups made up of key parties.

  5. The Four Working Groups • WGI - Administration (who does what?) • WGII - Program design • WGIII - Evaluation/EEPS targets • WGIV - Emerging technologies/demand response/peak load

  6. Issues for WG III • Comprehensive evaluation (impact and process evaluation). • Long and short term evaluation. Important to have an “early warning system” to identify program deficiencies. • Consistent evaluation terms and measurement techniques to accurately track statewide progress.

  7. Issues for WG III • Reliable cost effectiveness test. • Credible, timely and accurate results for ratepayers, regulators, and Independent system operator. • Transparency in reporting from routine program data to detailed evaluation results.

  8. Some Key WG III Questions • How do we deal with diverse evaluation issues, for diverse programs, implemented in a diverse state? • Should we establish statewide evaluation protocols ? Will everyone comply? • How do we assess impacts of Codes and Standards? R&D?

  9. Some Key WG III Questions • How do we effectively quantify the impacts attributable to the programs? • Do we need a statewide evaluation group to help guide the process over the short and long term and coordinate statewide studies? • How do we balance evaluation costs and data reliability?

  10. Sage Advice • “A problem is a chance for you to do your best.” -- Duke Ellington, Musician, American Genius

  11. WG III Results • Strong support for rigorous evaluation. • Detailed evaluation plan for every EEPS program. • Sufficient evaluation funding to get the job done….up to five percent of overall program budget. • Transparent and regular reporting.

  12. WG III Results • Support for statewide Evaluation Task Force (ETF). • General agreement that the ETF could play a key role in establishing evaluation protocols and, in some cases, coordinate research of statewide interest. • Lack of consensus over key details such as exact role, authority, membership and funding.

  13. WG III Results • Support for Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test. • Consider modifying TRC to include benefits beyond avoided energy resources savings for worthwhile programs that do not pass the test.

  14. What did the ALJs say? • Rigorous evaluation “is critical to the success of the EEPS as a whole.” • Endorsed concept of a statewide Evaluation Task Force (ETF). • ETF needed “to ensure that all program administrators are evaluating programs and reporting results consistently, reliably and regularly.” • Support for TRC test as a screening tool.

  15. One More Thing… • “Ever onward and upward to the end where all ends end– just before the beginning.” Duke Ellington, Musician, American Genius

  16. To Contact Us About the EPS Proceeding • Visit our Web site: • http://www.dps.state.ny.us/Case_07-M-0548.htm • E-Mail: william_saxonis@dps.state.ny.us • Call: (518) 486-1610 • Write to us: • NYS Department of Public Service • Office of Energy Efficiency & Environment • Three Empire State Plaza • Albany, NY 12223-1350

More Related