2024 Common Case Load Forecast Proposed Energy Efficiency Adjustments

1. 2024 Common Case Load Forecast Proposed Energy Efficiency Adjustments Galen Barbose Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory TEPPC Data Work Group Meeting June 18, 2013

2. Context/Motivation • Common Case is intended to be reflect current policies and utility plans (RPS, IRP, EERS, etc.) • BA load forecasts vary in the manner/extent to which they account for planned energy efficiency programs/policies • Some may not include any EE impacts, while others may only include a portion of the planned EE • Adjustments are therefore needed in order to ensure: • Some degree of consistency in terms of EE accounting across BAs • That the load forecasts are in line with the overarching intention of the Common Case (i.e., to reflect current policies)

3. How does the approach for this year compare to previous years? (1) • EE adjustments to the BA load forecasts were made during the past two study cycles • Adjustments were made for: • Ratepayer-funded efficiency programs, to account for planned/required savings not included in the load forecast • Federal appliance efficiency standards, to account for new standards/accelerated savings relative to the past • A somewhat broader range of EE policies in CISOto accommodate the way that “incremental uncommitted” savings targets are expressed • For the 2024 Common Case, we’ve taken a simplified approach  focus on big-ticket, easily replicable adjustments

4. How does the approach for this year compare to previous years? (2)

5. Energy Efficiency Adjustments: CISO • The load forecast submitted to LRS is based on the California Energy Commission’s 2011 California Electricity Demand Forecast  As in prior study cycles, this is an “unmanaged” forecast that does not include “incremental uncommitted” EE savings • State energy agencies have agreed to use the CEC’s “Low Case” projection of incremental uncommitted savings (Sept. 2012 vintage) in the CAISO’s current transmission planning process • We take the same approach for the Common Case, and adjust the LRS forecast downward based on the same projection of incremental uncommitted savings Two technical issues: • Incremental uncommitted projections are annual totals; we assume monthly savings are proportional to load • Savings projections, and thus EE adjustments, are at the IOU-level; apply PG&E percentage adjustment to each consitituent load zone

6. Energy Efficiency Adjustments: IPC • IPC’s IRP energy efficiency projections distinguish between “existing” and “new” programs • In prior study cycles, IPC’s load forecast was found to account only for existing programs, but not planned new programs • Adjustments therefore consisted of reducing IPC’s load forecast based on the projected savings from planned “new” programs in the latest IRP • For this study cycle, IPC’s load forecasting staff indicated that the forecast partially accounts for planned EE programs via econometric variables for “efficiency trends” • IPC staff provided LBNL with data comparing the amount of EE program savings embedded in the forecast to the planned EE savings • EE adjustment is equal to the difference between these two EE projections (~4% change in energy and peak) • EE forecast data only available for IPC as a whole; apply same EE percentage adjustments across constituent load zones

7. Energy Efficiency Adjustments: PNM • PNM is subject to long-term EE targets set by state law • PNM’s load forecasting staff indicated that the “Firm” load forecast does not include the impacts of future EE programs • PNM LRS submittal included a projection of planned “New Energy Efficiency Energy Load”, which reflects the amount of EE required to meet the long-term savings targets • WECC staff should deduct PNM’s submitted “New Energy Efficiency Energy Load” from its firm load to derive the Common Case energy forecast • No separate EE adjustment needed for monthly energy • PNM apparently did not submit a corresponding EE projection for peak demand • EE adjustments to monthly peak demand should be proportional to adjustments for monthly energy (4-5% change in monthly peaks)

8. Energy Efficiency Adjustments: TEP • TEP is subject to long-term EE targets set by the ACC • TEP’s load forecasting staff indicated that the “Firm” load forecast does reflect future EE program savings – at the level indicated in the energy efficiency forecast submitted to LRS – but that the targets have recently been revised • TEP provided LBNL with its revised EE forecast, reflecting current EE program plan, which is slightly higher than EE forecast submitted to LRS • Neither the original EE forecast nor the revised EE forecast meet the long-term regulatory targets • EE adjustment is equal to the difference between the original and revised EE projections (~1% change in energy and peak)

9. Two BAs with No EE Adjustment (but worth mentioning) AVA • Avista’s IRP EE projections distinguish between “existing” and “new” programs • In prior study cycles, AVA staff indicated that load forecast accounted only for existing programs, but not planned new programs • Adjustments therefore consisted of reducing AVA’s load forecast based on the projected savings from planned “new” programs in the then-latest IRP • For this study cycle, AVA’s load forecasting staff indicated that the forecast fully accounts for both existing and planned new programs SRP • SRP has established long-term EE targets (Sustainable Portfolio Plan) • In the last study cycle, SRP staff indicated that the LRS load forecast only accounted for EE programs implemented over initial years of the forecast period • Adjustment consisted of reducing SRP’s load forecast based on the additional savings required to occur during later years of forecast period (~4% adjustment) • SRP staff have not (yet) responded to inquiries about this year’s LRS forecast

10. Common Case EE Adjustments:Monthly Energy Values represent the percentage of the LRS load forecast (firm + non-firm)

11. Common Case EE Adjustments:Monthly Peak Values represent the percentage of the LRS load forecast (firm + non-firm)