1 / 58

The following content applies to this page only Presenter Name: 12pt Arial Bold, black

The following content applies to this page only Presenter Name: 12pt Arial Bold, black Presenter Title: 12pt Arial Italic, black Company Name: 12pt Arial Regular, black Location Name: 12pt Arial Regular, black Date: 12pt Arial Regular, black

shepry
Download Presentation

The following content applies to this page only Presenter Name: 12pt Arial Bold, black

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. The following content applies to this page only • Presenter Name: 12pt Arial Bold, black • Presenter Title: 12pt Arial Italic, black • Company Name: 12pt Arial Regular, black • Location Name: 12pt Arial Regular, black • Date: 12pt Arial Regular, black • Background Image and Itron Logo can not be altered CPUC Energy Efficiency Savings Goals Update Study Goals Update Public Workshop June 2, 2008 Mike Rufo Mike Ting Mike Messenger Jean Shelton

  2. Presentation Overview • Review of study approach • Review of gas methodology and scenarios • Presentation of gas results • ASSET results • Scope and key assumptions in policy scenarios • Title 24 • Federal standards • BBEES • Synthesis of results into 3 Straw Man policy cases

  3. Study Approach • Analysis of EE potential undertaken for goal-setting builds on results from the 2008 Itron Potential Update Study (based on the ASSET bottom-up forecasting model) • assessment of ~300 energy efficiency measures • latest estimates of end-use and technology baselines • latest estimates of measure saturations, costs, and savings • incorporates measure-level assessment of cost-effectiveness and adoption modeling • produces estimates of EE potential achievable through voluntary IOU incentive programs from 2007-2026

  4. Overview of Scenario Analysis Tool • Purpose is to allow exploration of aspects of energy use and efficiency potential that are relevant to policymaking but go beyond the current analytic frameworks of bottom-up potential models, such as: • interacting & comparing the impacts of different sets of high-level assumptions in a quick and systematic way • explicit treatment of uncertainty (i.e. ranges rather than point estimates) • assessment of achievable potential that falls outside of the “voluntary utility program” framework (e.g. Big Bold and other policy initiatives) • Level of analysis: • IOU • Sector (residential, commercial, industrial) • Building type (SFD, MFD, 12 com building types) • Building vintage (existing, new) • End use (11 res end uses, 10 com end uses, 10 ind end uses)

  5. Overview of Scenario Analysis Tool • Basic analytic identity (residential example): Eesy = UECesy * SATesy * HHsy where, Eesy= total annual energy consumption for end-use (e) in market segment (s) in year (y) UECesy= unit energy consumption for end-use (e) in market segment (s) in year (y) SATeys = saturation for end-use (e) in market segment (s) in year (y) HHys= number of households in market segment (s) in year (y) • Unit energy consumption is further disaggregated into the following relationship: UECesy = UECesbase * EffAdjesy * UseAdjesy where: UECesbase= unit energy consumption for end-use (e) in market segment (s) in the base year EffAdjesy= technical efficiency for end-use (e) in year (y) relative to technical efficiency in base year (defined as 1.0 in base case scenario) UseAdjesy = energy service demand in year (y) relative to energy service demand in base year (defined as 1.0 in base case scenario)

  6. Key Analytic Caveats • Important to note that the analytic framework described above was not designed to estimate the cost-effectiveness from a customer or utility perspective • Nor was it designed to explicitly model the voluntary adoption of efficiency measures as done in Itron’s ASSET model • Analytic framework in SESAT designed to enable other, policy-driven “what if” scenarios to be layered on top of the latest ASSET results in an internally-consistent manner • Rigor of the scenario forecasts produced in SESAT depends entirely on the rigor applied to the development of the scenario inputs. As such, the bulk of our analytic efforts were dedicated to careful development of the scenario inputs

  7. Gas Methodology • Same modeling approach, energy consumption identity, and data sources as used for electric analysis • Same number of segments, but fewer end uses • residential: space heating, water heating, cooking, clothes dryers, pool heat, spa heat, other • commercial: space cooling, space heating, water heating, commercial cooking, miscellaneous • industrial: boilers, HVAC, process heat, industrial feedstocks, other

  8. Gas Savings Scenarios • ASSET scenarios – IOU programs • Theoretical potential benchmarks – technical and economic • Achievable potential – base and full market • Policy scenarios • Federal appliance standards • Title 24 revisions • BBEES initiatives • Interactions between IOU and policy scenarios limited to NC programs • no equivalent of Huffman Bill on gas side • only interaction is scheduled federal standard for residential gas storage water heaters • that measure accounts for only 2-4% of achievable gas savings potential in residential sector in the ASSET market potential forecasts

  9. ASSET Scenario Results – Technical Potential

  10. ASSET Scenario Results – Economic Potential

  11. ASSET Scenario Results – Base Market Potential

  12. ASSET Scenario Results – Full Market Potential

  13. Title 24 – IOU Perspective • Strengthening of Title 24 • Definition: the implementation of revisions to Title 24 that obviate current voluntary programs administered by the IOUs targeting new residential and commercial construction • Modeled as phase out of current IOU NC programs (which promote 15% better performance than 2005 Title 24 levels) due to implementation of incoming 2008 Title 24 standards in 2009 • accounting for typical one-year lag between final rulemaking and implementation • Penetration-weighted savings estimates applied to WH+SH in residential and WH+SH in commercial

  14. Title 24 – IOU Perspective • IOU code compliance programs • Definition: strengthening of Title 24 performance levels accompanied by significant non-compliance rates; IOU programs established to minimize noncompliance • Modeled as establishment of IOU programs in 2009 that capture portion of the energy savings from increasing total RNC Title 24 compliance rates • Assumed that non-compliance rates are highest during first year of revised Title 24, then decline over time due to IOU compliance efforts • Initial non-compliance rates and average non-compliance margins (in energy terms) base on latest RNC baseline study (Itron, 2004) • Penetration-weighted savings estimates applied to SH in residential (WH non-compliance margin estimated to be zero in RNC baseline study)

  15. Title 24 (IOU Perspective) Scenario Results

  16. Title 24 (IOU Perspective) Scenario Results

  17. Federal Appliance Standards • Definition: revision of federal appliance standards according to USDOE’s Five-Year Schedule of Issuance of Appliance Rulemakings (published January 31, 2006) • two significant standards for gas-consuming equipment, both in residential sector: gas storage water heaters and gas ranges and ovens • Final rulemaking for both dockets scheduled for 2009 • implementation assumed to occur in 2013 • Modeled as ROB measure, taking into account stock-turnover rates in existing residential buildings (to avoid double-counting with Title 24 and BBEES scenarios) • Savings potential modeled as stock-turnover weighted technical potential

  18. Unit Savings Assumptions for Gas Storage WHs • Rulemaking Framework for water heaters (1/16/07) considering three possible levels for future standards

  19. Unit Savings Assumptions for Gas Ranges/Ovens • Proposed Rulemaking for gas ranges and ovens (11/15/07) considering two possible levels for gas ranges and five possible levels for gas ovens

  20. Summary of Inputs for Fed Standards Scenario • Res WH EUL from DEER; res range/oven EUL from USDOE TSD • Range/oven unit savings weighted by relative saturations and UECs

  21. Federal Standards (Societal Perspective) Results

  22. Title 24 Revisions – Societal Perspective • Definition: periodic strengthening of Title 24 performance levels for RNC and CNC • Modeled as regular increase in Title 24 performance levels every 3 years through end of forecast period • assumed typical 1-year lag between rulemaking and implementation of Title 24 revisions • Savings estimated as technical potential going forward, taking into account annual NC rates and technical unit savings assumptions • Penetration-weighted savings estimates applied to SH in residential and SH and SC in commercial • Note: no WH measures in 2008 T24; WH measures in 2005 T24 simply updated code to support revised federal WH standard

  23. Title 24 Savings Assumptions • Savings estimates derived from impact assessments of 2005 and 2008 Title 24 revisions conducted for CEC • 2008 impacts: Architectural Energy Corporation (2007) • 2005 impacts: Eley Associates (2003) • For residential SFD and MFD, used AEC estimates as “high” case savings • For commercial, used average between AEC and Eley Associates estimates as “high” case savings

  24. Title 24 (Societal Perspective) Results

  25. Total Savings Potential from Codes & Standards

  26. BBEES Initiatives • CPUC directed the utilities to include specific programs to support the implementation of three specific BBEES initiatives • Small HVAC • Residential new construction • Commercial new construction • For gas analysis, focused on modeling on the two NC initiatives • likely that duct-sealing and other duct-related outcomes from the small HVAC initiative will produce some gas benefits

  27. BBEES – Residential New Construction • Definition: penetration of Tier 2 efficiency new homes according to milestones in D.07-10-032 and Tier 3 homes according to milestones in California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (Draft) • Attribution not addressed; savings estimated as penetration-weighted technical potential going forward • Technical savings (35% and 55% better performance than 2005 Title 24) adjusted to be incremental to ASSET NC market potential savings estimates (based on voluntary incentives promoting 15% better performance than Title 24) • Modeled based on annual NC market penetration assumptions • Penetration-weighted savings estimates applied to WH+SH

  28. BBEES – Commercial New Construction • Definition: penetration of high-efficiency new commercial buildings according to milestones in D.07-10-032 • Attribution not addressed; savings estimated as technical potential going forward • Technical savings (30% better performance than Title 24) adjusted to be incremental to ASSET NC full and base market potential savings estimates (based on voluntary incentives promoting 15% better performance than Title 24) • Modeled based on annual NC market penetration assumptions • Penetration-weighted savings estimates applied to WH and SH

  29. BBEES Initiatives • Unique challenges associated with modeling gas impacts from BBEES NC initiatives (e.g. net zero energy homes and buildings) • fuel-switching implications • more limited set of super high-efficiency measures available for gas compared to electric • implications for solar water heating • Bottom-up analysis of measure “packages” to ground the unit savings assumptions and ensure consistency with market penetration assumptions for Tier 2 and Tier 3 homes

  30. BBEES Initiatives – RNC Measure Packages • UEC-weighted savings includes adjustments for interactive effects between measures • Advanced shell measures include advanced windows, deeply insulated ducts, insulated slab edges, radiant barrier roof sheathing, R49 ceilings, insulated headers, and structural insulated panels

  31. BBEES Initiatives – CNC Measure Packages • UEC-weighted savings includes adjustments for interactive effects between measures • Advanced shell measures include high-performance insulation, dynamic windows, and passive solar design • assumed unit savings associated with these measures is consistent with NREL’s recent assessment of the technical potential of zero-energy building strategies in the commercial sector

  32. BBEES – Residential New Construction • Market penetration and savings assumptions a High values reflect 2011 milestone in California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (Draft) and 2015 and 2020 milestones in D.07-01-032 b High values reflect milestones in California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (Draft)

  33. BBEES – Commercial New Construction • Market penetration and savings assumptions a High values reflect milestones in D.07-01-032

  34. BBEES Scenario Results

  35. Integrated Results w/Base Market Potential

  36. Integrated Results w/Full Market Potential

  37. Synthesis of Policy Choices into Straw Man Cases • We constructed three straw man cases in an attempt to produce a range of outcomes from the key policy choices shown previously • Our intent was to construct a range of cases with internally-consistent policy criteria in order to provoke more discussion about the implications of these key choices on the likely level of savings that can be achieved • These estimates take into account the interactive effects between assumed levels of utility program efforts and the adoption of standards

  38. Synthesis of Policy Choices into Straw Man Cases

  39. Straw Man Cases Compared to Current Goals

  40. Composition of Savings in Low Case

  41. Composition of Savings in Mid Case

  42. Composition of Savings in High Case

  43. Appendix Slides

  44. ASSET Modeling Framework

  45. 2008 Itron Potential Update Study • Updated measure costs, savings, hours-of-use, and effective useful life information • Updated rates and avoided cost estimates • Updated forecasts of economic growth • Incorporated a host of refinements to Itron’s ASSET forecasting model • incorporation of interactive effects between measures • change in the calibration target from 2004 to the average of the 2004-2005 program cycle • Final 2008 Itron update study report includes a full description and analysis of the differences between the 2006 and 2008 Itron studies

  46. Policy Context • The policy context within which the CPUC energy savings goals exist has evolved significantly • Development and adoption of shareholder risk/reward mechanism • CPUC’s energy savings goals have also begun to play an increasingly significant role in the CPUC’s long-term procurement proceeding • Also play a central role in the CPUC’s commitments to the California Air Resources Board in meeting the statewide emissions reductions required under AB 32

  47. The Goal of the Goals • IOU goals should be set in a way that optimizes the size of Bucket A (net savings from IOU programs) relative to what can be achieved in Buckets B (naturally-occurring savings) and C (savings from codes and standards) such that the sum of A, B, and C can be as large as possible The Cost-Effective EE Resource “Bucket A” Net Savings from IOU Programs “Bucket B” Naturally- occurring Savings “Bucket C” Savings from Codes & Standards “Bucket D” Unrealized Savings

  48. Baseline Data • UECs, EUIs, and end-use load shapes by IOU and building type derived from the same key sources used in both the 2006 and 2008 Itron potential studies • California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Study (CEC, 2004) • California Commercial Building End-Use Survey (CEC, 2006) • California Industrial Existing Construction Energy Efficiency Potential Study (KEMA, 2006) • Residential building stock and commercial floor stock by IOU and building type taken from CEC staff forecasts developed for recently released California Energy Demand 2008-2018, Staff Revised Forecast (CEC, 2007a) • Bottom-up estimates of total electricity consumption, peak electricity demand, and natural gas consumption were then calibrated to the respective base-year values published by the CEC

  49. ASSET Scenarios – Theoretical Benchmarks • Technical potential • Upper bound of energy efficiency potential in a technical feasibility sense, regardless of cost or acceptability to customers • Total amount of energy savings that would be possible if all technically applicable and feasible opportunities to improve energy efficiency were taken, including retrofit measures, replace-on-burnout measures, and new construction measures • Economic potential • Upper bound of energy efficiency potential in a technical feasibility sense, but restricted to only potential savings from those measures that are cost-effective when compared to supply-side alternatives • All measures with TRC ratios greater than or equal to 1 are considered to be cost-effective

  50. ASSET Scenarios – IOU Program Potential • Full restricted market potential • Amount of customer measure adoption and resulting savings that would occur over time in response to incentives equivalent to full incremental measure costs • Takes into account a variety of factors such as participant cost-effectiveness or payback period, awareness, and willingness to adopt • “Restricted” to the potential savings from measures with TRC ≥ 0.85 • Base restricted market potential • Amount of customer measure adoption and resulting savings that would occur over time in response to incentives equivalent to current average measure incentives • “Restricted” to the potential savings from measures with TRC ≥ 0.85 • Naturally-occurring potential • Potential savings from customer adoptions that would occur in the absence of further utility programs from the outset of the forecast period, including free-riders, participant and non-participant spillover, and longer-term market effects

More Related