1 northwest energy efficiency alliance neea long-term monitoring and tracking distribution...
TRANSCRIPT
1 NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE
NEEA Long-Term Monitoring and Tracking Distribution Efficiency (DE) Study
RTF – January 21, 2015Christopher Frye – NEEA; (Jeff Harris - NEEA presenting)
2
Distribution Efficiency Study
Part of NEEA’s Long Term Monitoring and Tracking of previously funded MT Programs (Distribution Efficiency Initiative 2003-2007)
Market Characterization conducted in 2013; Avista DE Impact Evaluation 2014
Study conducted by Navigant Consulting, Inc.
Final Report, June 2014 here:http://neea.org/docs/default-source/reports/long-term-monitoring-and-tracking-distribution-efficiency.pdf?sfvrsn=5
3
Study Focused on Two Main Areas:
Current State of the Market: Current rate of adoption Awareness, understanding Attitudes/barriers and drivers Evaluation practices and progress Future Plans
DE Evaluation Tool Assessment: Utility CVR Program Review Existing Tool Assessment
4
Case Study: Avista DE Impact Evaluation
Avista DE Program Characterization Comparison of methods:
RTF CVR Protocol #1 WSU VO Validation Methodology Navigant Regression
5
DE Market Characterization Sample
DEI Sample Stratum
DE Sample Completed
6
Market Characterization Findings:
• Active utilities participated in ESUE program or have regulatory/legislative (e.g. I-937) directives; • Awareness/understanding of DE efforts is fairly high (all IOUs and Active Publics) but not always the case at smaller, more rural utilities; • Respondents overwhelmingly believe that there are opportunities for efficiency improvements on their distribution systems, and that utilities should be investing in those opportunities, though many caution that the cost-effectiveness of such investment is not always clear. • Two biggest barriers noted were capital availability and cost-effectiveness – others included low priority for DE, knowledge about opportunities, personnel constraints, system constraints, and regulatory constraints.
7
Market Characterization Findings: (cont’d)
8
DE Tools Evaluation Findings:
Many tools available; ranging from system simulation tools to statistical regression
Simulation tools/engineering assessment used primarily for project feasibility C/E evaluation
Some utility experience with RTF Protocol #1 but not many meeting exact requirements
Several cited use of RTF Simplified VO M&V Protocol to estimate/report savings.
AMI integration provides new, less expensive data collection / VO opportunities
CVR integration with Distr. Management Systems (DMS) now on the market.
9
DE Tools Evaluation: Fully Integrated Solution
10
Avista Impact Evaluation:
Smart Grid 2.0 project. Two locations: Spokane: 14 Substations; 58 feeders Pullman: 3 Substations; 13 feeders
AMI enabled Integrated volt/VAR controls
Implemented in 2013, commissioning completed Dec 2013
CVR data collection January–April 2014
11
Avista Impact Evaluation:
ApproachSavings Estimate
(MWh)
RTF Automated CVR Protocol #1
42,292
Navigant Regression Methodology
42,374