northwest power and conservation council the role of energy efficiency in could (and should) play in...

Northwest Power and ConservationCouncil

The Role of Energy Efficiency The Role of Energy Efficiency in Could (and Should) Play in Montana’s in Could (and Should) Play in Montana’s FutureFuture

Insights from the 5Insights from the 5thth Northwest Northwest Power Power and Conservation Planand Conservation Plan

Tom EckmanTom Eckman

Manager, Conservation ResourcesManager, Conservation Resources

Northwest Power and Conservation CouncilNorthwest Power and Conservation Council

Presented October 18, 2005Presented October 18, 2005

Montana Energy Futures ConferenceMontana Energy Futures Conference


What You’re About To HearWhat You’re About To Hear

Energy Efficiency in the Region’s Current Energy Efficiency in the Region’s Current

Resource MixResource Mix

Regional Efficiency GoalsRegional Efficiency Goals

– What These Might Mean for MontanaWhat These Might Mean for Montana

What’s Behind the GoalsWhat’s Behind the Goals

The Challenges AheadThe Challenges Ahead


PNW Energy Efficiency PNW Energy Efficiency AchievementsAchievements1978 - 20041978 - 2004

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Avera

ge M

egaw

att

s

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

BPA and Utility Programs Alliance ProgramsState Codes Federal Standards

Since 1978 Utility & BPA Since 1978 Utility & BPA Programs, Energy Codes & Programs, Energy Codes & Federal Efficiency Standards Have Federal Efficiency Standards Have Produced Nearly 3000 aMW of Produced Nearly 3000 aMW of Savings.Savings.


So What’s 3000 aMW?So What’s 3000 aMW?

It was enough electricity to serve the It was enough electricity to serve the entireentire state of Montana, state of Montana, plusplus 60% of Idaho in 2004 60% of Idaho in 2004

- OR –- OR –

It was enough electricity to serve the It was enough electricity to serve the entireentire state of Idaho state of Idaho plusplus Western Montana in 2004 Western Montana in 2004

It Saved the Region’s Consumers Nearly It Saved the Region’s Consumers Nearly $1.25 billion$1.25 billion in 2004 in 2004


Energy Efficiency Resources Energy Efficiency Resources Significantly Reduced Projected PNW Significantly Reduced Projected PNW

Electricity SalesElectricity Sales

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Avera

ge M

eg

aw

att

s

Medium High ForecastMedium LowMedium High Minus ConservationActual


Energy Efficiency Met Nearly 40% of Energy Efficiency Met Nearly 40% of PNW Regional Firm Sales Growth PNW Regional Firm Sales Growth

Between 1980 - 2003Between 1980 - 2003

61%

39%

Generation Conservation


Regional Utility Conservation Acquisitions Have Regional Utility Conservation Acquisitions Have Helped Balance Loads & ResourcesHelped Balance Loads & Resources

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

Conse

rvati

on A

cquis

itio

ns

(aM

W)

Response to West Coast

Energy CrisisResponse to NW

Recession

Response to “Restructuring

Discussions”

Creating Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride for the PNW’s Energy Efficiency IndustryCreating Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride for the PNW’s Energy Efficiency Industry


Utility Acquired Energy Efficiency Has Been Utility Acquired Energy Efficiency Has Been A BARGAIN!A BARGAIN!

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

May

-96

Nov-9

6

May

-97

Nov-9

7

May

-98

Nov-9

8

May

-99

Nov-9

9

May

-00

Nov-0

0

May

-01

Nov-0

1

May

-02

Nov-0

2

May

-03

Nov-0

3

May

-04

Nov-0

4

May

-05

Wh

ole

sale

Ele

ctri

city

Pri

ce (

20

00

$/M

WH

)

Levelized Cost of EfficiencyAcquisitionsWholesale Market Price


So Much for the Past, So Much for the Past, What’s AheadWhat’s Ahead

55thth Plan Relies on Conservation and Renewable Plan Relies on Conservation and Renewable

Resources to of Meet Load GrowthResources to of Meet Load Growth**

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024

Year

Inst

alle

d C

apaci

ty (

MW

or

aM

W)

Conservation (aMW) Wind (MW) DR (MW)SCGTurbine (MW) CCGTurbine (MW) Coal (ICG) (MW)

**Actual future conditions (gas prices, CO2 control, conservation accomplishments) will Actual future conditions (gas prices, CO2 control, conservation accomplishments) will change resource development schedulechange resource development schedule


Cost-Effective and Achievable Cost-Effective and Achievable Conservation Should Meet Over 45% of Conservation Should Meet Over 45% of

PNW Load Growth from 2005-2025*PNW Load Growth from 2005-2025*

0

5 0 0

1 0 0 0

1 5 0 0

2 0 0 0

2 5 0 0

3 0 0 0

C o s t - E ff e c t iv e P o t e n t ia l( a M W in 2 0 2 5 )

A g r i c u l t u r a l S e c t o r - 8 0 a M W

N o n - D S I I n d u s t r i a l S e c t o r - 3 5 0 a M W

C o m m e r c i a l S e c t o r N o n - B u i l d i n g M e a s u r e s - 4 2 0 a M W

H V A C , E n v e l o p e & R e f r i g e r a t i o n - 3 7 5 a M W

N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g L i g h t i n g - 2 2 0 a M W

E x i s t i n g C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g s L i g h t i n g - 1 3 0 a M W

R e s i d e n t i a l S p a c e C o n d i t i o n i n g - 2 4 0 a M W

R e s i d e n t i a l L i g h t i n g - 5 3 0 a M W

R e s i d e n t i a l W a t e r H e a t i n g - 3 2 5 a M W

R e s i d e n t i a l A p p l i a n c e s - 1 4 0 a M W

*Medium Load Forecast *Medium Load Forecast Loads & Market PricesLoads & Market Prices


Regional Near-Term Conservation Regional Near-Term Conservation Targets (2005-2009) = 700 aMWTargets (2005-2009) = 700 aMW

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Reso

urc

e (

aM

W)

Residential - Lost Opportunity

Commercial - Lost Opportunity

I rrigated Agriculture - Non LostOpportunity

Industrial - Non Lost Opportunity

Residential - Non Lost Opportunity

Commercial - Non Lost Opportunity


Montana’s Share of Near-Term Montana’s Share of Near-Term Conservation Targets (2005-2009) = Conservation Targets (2005-2009) =

57 aMW57 aMW

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Reso

urc

e (

aM

W)








Why Should We?Why Should We?

What’s Behind the 5What’s Behind the 5thth Plan’s Plan’s Conservation Targets?Conservation Targets?

PNW Portfolio Planning – Scenario Analysis on SteroidsPNW Portfolio Planning – Scenario Analysis on Steroids

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%

Annual Load Growth

Pro

bab

ilit

y (

%)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%

Real Natural Gas Escalation Rate% )

Pro

bab

ilit

y (

%)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

3.27% 3.80% 3.85% 3.93% 2.50%

Nominal Annual Electricity Price Escalation Rate

Pro

babilit

y (

%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

98

467

705

842

1,06

9

1,19

1

1,28

3

1,33

5

1,35

3

1,37

3

1,65

0

Resource Potential

Levelized C

ost

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

Carbon Tax Implementation Date

Pro

bab

ilty

(%

)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975

Hydrosytem Year

Cap

acit

y (

MW

)

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

Pro

bab

ilit

y

$0 $6 $12 $18 $24 $30 $36

Carbon Tax

Frequency Chart

Dollars

Mean = $689.000

.011

.022

.032

.043

0

10.75

21.5

32.25

43

($3,509) ($1,131) $1,247 $3,625 $6,003

1,000 Trials 1,000 Displayed

Portfolio Portfolio Analysis Analysis ModelModel

$35,500

$36,000

$36,500

$37,000

$37,500

$23,500 $24,000 $24,500 $25,000

NPV System Risk (2004$Millions)

NP

V S

yste

m C

ost

(20

04

$M

illio

ns)

Efficient FrontierEfficient Frontier

NPV System Cost


Plans Along the Efficient Frontier Permit Plans Along the Efficient Frontier Permit Trade-Offs of Costs Against RiskTrade-Offs of Costs Against Risk

$35,500

$36,000

$36,500

$37,000

$37,500

$23,600 $23,800 $24,000 $24,200 $24,400 $24,600

NPV System Cost (Millions)

NPV

Syst

em

Ris

k (

Mill

ions)

Least Risk

Least Cost


Three Conservation Options TestedThree Conservation Options Tested

Option 1Option 1: : AcceleratedAccelerated – Similar to the “best – Similar to the “best performance” over the last 20 yearsperformance” over the last 20 years– Non-lost opportunity limited to 120 aMW/yearNon-lost opportunity limited to 120 aMW/year– Ramp-up lost-opportunity to 85% by 2017Ramp-up lost-opportunity to 85% by 2017

Option 2Option 2: : SustainedSustained - Similar to typical rates over - Similar to typical rates over last 20 yearslast 20 years– Non-lost opportunity limited to 80 aMW/yearNon-lost opportunity limited to 80 aMW/year– Ramp-up lost-opportunity to 85% by 2017Ramp-up lost-opportunity to 85% by 2017

Option 3Option 3: : Status QuoStatus Quo - Similar to lowest rates over - Similar to lowest rates over last 20 yearslast 20 years– Non-lost opportunity limited to 40 aMW/yearNon-lost opportunity limited to 40 aMW/year– Ramp-up lost-opportunity to 85% penetration by 2025Ramp-up lost-opportunity to 85% penetration by 2025


Average Annual Conservation Average Annual Conservation Development for Alternative Levels of Development for Alternative Levels of

Deployment TestedDeployment Tested

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2005 2010 2015 2020Year

Savin

gs

(aM

W)

Option 3 - Status QuoOption 2 - SustainedOption 1 - Accelerated


Accelerating Conservation Accelerating Conservation Development Reduces Cost & Development Reduces Cost &

RiskRisk

$20

$22

$24

$26

$28

$30

$32

$34

$36

$38

$40

Option 1 - Accelerated Option 2 - Sustained Option 3 - Status Quo

NPV

(bill

ion

20

04

$)

NPV System Cost NPV System Risk


WECC Carbon Dioxide Emissions WECC Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions for Alternative Reductions for Alternative

Conservation TargetsConservation Targets

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mill

ion T

ons

over

20 y

ears

Option 1 - Accelerated Option 2 - Sustained Option 3 - Status Quo


Why Energy Efficiency Reduces NPV Why Energy Efficiency Reduces NPV System Cost and RiskSystem Cost and Risk

It’s A Cheap (avg. 2.4 cents/kWh TOTAL It’s A Cheap (avg. 2.4 cents/kWh TOTAL RESOURCE COST) Hedge Against Market RESOURCE COST) Hedge Against Market Price SpikesPrice Spikes

It has value even when market prices are It has value even when market prices are low low

It’s Not Subject to Fuel Price RiskIt’s Not Subject to Fuel Price Risk It’s Not Subject to Carbon Control RiskIt’s Not Subject to Carbon Control Risk It’s Significant Enough In Size to Delay It’s Significant Enough In Size to Delay

“build decisions” on generation“build decisions” on generation


The Plan’s Targets Are A The Plan’s Targets Are A Floor, Not a CeilingFloor, Not a Ceiling

When we took the “ramp rate” constraints off the portfolio model it developed

1500 aMW1500 aMW

of Conservation in 2005


Where Are The Savings?Where Are The Savings?


Sources of Savings by SectorSources of Savings by Sector

Industrial 350 aMW

12%

Irrigation 80 aMW3%

Commercial 1105 aMW

39%

Residential 1340 aMW

46%


Residential Sector Target = 1340 aMWResidential Sector Target = 1340 aMW

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Avera

ge M

egaw

att

s

Residential Space Conditioning - 245aMW

Residential Lighting - 630 aMW

Residential Water Heating - 285 aMW

Residential Appliances - 140 aMW


Commercial Sector Target = 1105 aMWCommercial Sector Target = 1105 aMW

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Avera

ge M

egaw

att

s

Infrastructure

Equipment

Envelope

Lighting

HVAC


Irrigated Agriculture Sector Target = Irrigated Agriculture Sector Target = 80 aMW80 aMW

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Avera

ge M

egaw

att

s

Replace Pumps, Nozzles &Gaskets

Replace Nozzles & Gaskets

Convert Center Pivots fromMedium to Low Pressure

Convert Center Pivots from Highto Low Pressure


Industrial Sector Target = Industrial Sector Target = 350 aMW350 aMW

Estimate of 5% of 2025 forecast loadsEstimate of 5% of 2025 forecast loads 350 aMW at 1.7 cents per kWh350 aMW at 1.7 cents per kWh Process controls, drive systems, lighting, Process controls, drive systems, lighting,

refrigeration, compressed air, etcrefrigeration, compressed air, etc Potential is a function of the ongoing Potential is a function of the ongoing

changes in region’s industrial mixchanges in region’s industrial mix


Implementation Implementation ChallengesChallenges


Plan Plan Conservation Action ItemsConservation Action Items

Ramp up “Lost Opportunity” conservationRamp up “Lost Opportunity” conservation» Goal => 85% penetration in 12 years Goal => 85% penetration in 12 years » 10 to 30 MWa/year 2005 through 200910 to 30 MWa/year 2005 through 2009

Accelerate the acquisition of “Non-Lost Accelerate the acquisition of “Non-Lost Opportunity” resourcesOpportunity” resources

» Return to acquisition levels of early 1990’sReturn to acquisition levels of early 1990’s» Target 120 MWa/year next five yearsTarget 120 MWa/year next five years

Employ a mix of mechanismsEmploy a mix of mechanisms» Local acquisition programs (utility, SBC Administrator & Local acquisition programs (utility, SBC Administrator &

BPA programs)BPA programs)» Regional acquisition programs and coordinationRegional acquisition programs and coordination» Market transformation venturesMarket transformation ventures


The Total Resource Acquisition Cost* of The Total Resource Acquisition Cost* of 55thth Plan’s Conservation Targets Plan’s Conservation Targets

2005 – 2009 = $1.64 billion2005 – 2009 = $1.64 billion

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Tota

l R

eso

urc

e C

ost

s(M

illio

ns

20

00

$)







*Incremental capital costs to install measure plus program administration costs estimated at 20% of capital.


Meeting the Plan’s Efficiency Targets Will Meeting the Plan’s Efficiency Targets Will Likely Require Increased Regional InvestmentsLikely Require Increased Regional Investments

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Avera

ge 1

991-

04

Avera

ge 2

001-

2004

2005

2009U

tilit

y I

nvest

men

ts (

mill

ion

20

00

$)


Although, The Share of Utility Although, The Share of Utility Revenues Required is ModestRevenues Required is Modest

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Aver

age

1991

-04

Aver

age

2001

-200

420

0520

09Share

of

Reta

il R

evenues

(%)

Regional Average Revenues/kWh will need to increase by $0.000006/kWh


Utility* Efficiency Acquisition Plans for 2005 Are Utility* Efficiency Acquisition Plans for 2005 Are Close to 5Close to 5thth Plan Targets Plan Targets

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2005 5th Plan Target 2005 Utility Acquistion Plan

Conserv

ati

on L

evels

(M

Wa)

*Targets for 15 Largest PNW Utilities. These utilities represent approximately 80% of regional load.


Most IOU Efficiency Plans are Close Most IOU Efficiency Plans are Close to 5to 5thth Plan’s Targets Plan’s Targets

0

5

10

15

20

25

Pacifi

Corp

(OR,W

A,ID)

Puge

t Sou

nd E

nerg

y

Portland

Gen

eral

Idah

o Po

wer

Avist

a Util

ities

North

weste

rn E

nerg

y

Con

serv

ati

on

Levels

(M

Wa)

Plan Targets

Utility Plans


However, Several Large Public Utility Efficiency However, Several Large Public Utility Efficiency

Plans Are Well Below 5Plans Are Well Below 5thth Plan Targets Plan Targets

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Seattl

e City

Lig

ht

Snoho

mish

PUD

Taco

ma

Power

Cowlit

z PU

D

Clark

PUD

EWEB

Grant

PUD

Bento

n PU

D

Flat

head

REA

Con

serv

ati

on

Levels

(M

Wa)

Plan Targets

Utility Plans


SummarySummary The 5th Plan’s Goal IsThe 5th Plan’s Goal Is To Make The To Make The

InefficientInefficient Use of Electricity . . . Use of Electricity . . .– ImmoralImmoral– IllegalIllegal– UnprofitableUnprofitable

If We Fail Both If We Fail Both CostsCosts and and Risk Risk Will Be HigherWill Be Higher


Backup SlidesBackup Slides


Montana Electric Sales Montana Electric Sales 1,490 aMW in 2004 1,490 aMW in 2004

Industrial625 aMW

42%

Commercial440 aMW

30%

Residential425 aMW

28%

Source: US DOE/EIA


Montana Electricity Sales Represent Montana Electricity Sales Represent 8% of Regional Sales Across All 8% of Regional Sales Across All

SectorsSectors

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

WA OR ID MT

Share

of

Regio

nal S

ale

s

ResidentialCommerciaIndustrialTotal


Residential Sector Residential Sector ResultsResults

What’s Left To Do At What’s Left To Do At Home?Home?

65 Average MW


Montana Has The Region’s Lowest Montana Has The Region’s Lowest Market Shares of Electric Water and Market Shares of Electric Water and

Space HeatingSpace Heating

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Mark

et

Satu

rati

on

ID MT OR WA Region

Electric Water Heater Electric Heating Central Air Conditioning


Montana’s Average Electricity Montana’s Average Electricity Use/Residential Customer Is The Use/Residential Customer Is The

Lowest in the RegionLowest in the Region

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Avera

ge A

nnual U

se/C

ust

om

er

(kW

h)

WA OR ID MT Region


But Residential Customer Use Has Not But Residential Customer Use Has Not Declined Since 1990, While Use in Other Declined Since 1990, While Use in Other

PNW States HasPNW States Has

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Avera

ge

Annual U

se/C

ust

om

er

(kW

h)

ID MT OR WA


Montana’s Housing Stock is Montana’s Housing Stock is Predominantly Single Family and Predominantly Single Family and

Manufactured HomesManufactured Homes

Multifamily3%

Manufactured Home17%

Single Family80%


Regional Residential Sector Cost-Regional Residential Sector Cost-Effective & Realistically Achievable Effective & Realistically Achievable

Regional Potential = 1340 aMWRegional Potential = 1340 aMW

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Avera

ge M

eg

aw

att

s

Residential Space Conditioning - 245aMW





Montana Residential Sector Cost-Montana Residential Sector Cost-Effective & Realistically Achievable Effective & Realistically Achievable

Regional Potential = 65 aMWRegional Potential = 65 aMW

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Avera

ge M

eg

aw

att

s Residential Space Conditioning - 4 aMW





Regional Residential Sector Realistically Regional Residential Sector Realistically Achievable Potential for AppliancesAchievable Potential for Appliances

Clothes Washers - 135

aMW75%

Dishwashers - 10 aMW

6%

Refrigerators - 35 aMW

19%


Montana Residential Sector Achievable Montana Residential Sector Achievable Conservation Resource Potential for AppliancesConservation Resource Potential for Appliances

Energy Star Dishwashers

1 MW9%

Energy Star Refrigerators

2 aMW18%

Energy Star Clothes Washers8 aMW73%


Regional Residential Sector Realistically Regional Residential Sector Realistically Achievable Potential for Water HeatingAchievable Potential for Water Heating

Efficient Tanks29%

95 aMWWaste Water

Heat Recovery4%

15 aMW

Heat Pump Water Heaters

67%225 aMW


Montana Residential Sector Conservation Montana Residential Sector Conservation Resource Potential for Water HeatingResource Potential for Water Heating

High Efficiency Water Heaters

3 aMW27%

Waste Water Heat Recovery

1 aMW9%

Heat Pump Water Heaters

7 aMW64%


Regional Residential Sector Realistically Regional Residential Sector Realistically Achievable Potential for Space Achievable Potential for Space

ConditioningConditioningNew Construction -

Shell Measures 40 aMW

16%

Duct Sealing & System

Commissioning & Controls 15 aMW

6%

Weatherization60 aMW

24%

Heat Pump Upgrades 55 aMW

22%

Heat Pump Conversions

75 aMW32%


Montana Residential Sector Conservation Montana Residential Sector Conservation Resource Potential for Space ConditioningResource Potential for Space Conditioning

Heat Pump Upgrades0.9 aMW

23%

Duct Sealing & System

Commissioning & Controls0.3 aMW

7%

Weatherization0.9 aMW

24%

Heat Pump Conversions

1.2 aMW30%

New Construction - Shell Measures

0.6 aMW16%


Commercial Sector Commercial Sector ResultsResults

What’s Left To Do At the What’s Left To Do At the Office?Office?

95 Average MW


Regional Non-Building Resource Regional Non-Building Resource Potential = 430 aMWPotential = 430 aMW

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160S

ew

age

Tre

atm

em

t

Wate

rTre

atm

ent

LED

Tra

ffic

Sig

nals

Netw

ork

ed

PC

Managem

ent

Pack

aged

Refr

igera

tion

Pow

er

Supplie

s

LED

Exit

Sig

ns

Avera

ge M

egaw

att

s


Montana Non-Building Resource Montana Non-Building Resource Potential = 30 aMWPotential = 30 aMW

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sew

age

Tre

atm

em

t

Wate

rTre

atm

ent

LED

Tra

ffic

Sig

nals

Netw

ork

ed

PC

Managem

ent

Pack

aged

Refr

igera

tion

Pow

er

Supplie

s

LED

Exit

Sig

ns

Avera

ge M

egaw

att

s


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

New and Replacement Retrofit

MW

a in

202

5

Equipment

Refrigeration

Envelope

Lighting

HVAC

Cost-Effective Commercial Conservation Potential Cost-Effective Commercial Conservation Potential in 2025 For Building Lighting, HVAC & Equipment- in 2025 For Building Lighting, HVAC & Equipment-

Regional = 950 aMW / Montana = 65 aMWRegional = 950 aMW / Montana = 65 aMW


What’s Left To Do Out on the What’s Left To Do Out on the Farm?Farm?

Irrigated Agriculture Sector Irrigated Agriculture Sector ResultsResults

>1 Average MW


Industrial Sector AssessmentIndustrial Sector Assessment

Fourth Plan’s Estimate = 8% savings (670 Fourth Plan’s Estimate = 8% savings (670 aMW)aMW)

Fifth Plan is lower due to changing (less Fifth Plan is lower due to changing (less electrically intensive) industrial mix ) = 5% electrically intensive) industrial mix ) = 5% of 2025 sector loadsof 2025 sector loads

Montana potential @ 5% of 2004 salesMontana potential @ 5% of 2004 sales

= 30 aMW= 30 aMW


While PNW Annual Utility System While PNW Annual Utility System Investments in Energy Efficiency Have Declined Since Investments in Energy Efficiency Have Declined Since

the Early 1990’sthe Early 1990’s

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Con

serv

ati

on

In

vest

men

ts (

mill

ion

20

00

$)


Total PNW Annual Energy Efficiency Total PNW Annual Energy Efficiency Achievements Have Been Growing, Largely Due Achievements Have Been Growing, Largely Due To The Impact of Energy Codes and StandardsTo The Impact of Energy Codes and Standards

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Con

serv

ati

on

Acq

uis

itio

ns

(aM

W)

Federal Standards

State Codes

Alliance Programs

BPA,Utility and SBC Administrator Programs


PNW Utilities Now Invests Less Than 2% of PNW Utilities Now Invests Less Than 2% of Their Retail Sales Revenues in Energy Their Retail Sales Revenues in Energy

EfficiencyEfficiency

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Con

serv

ati

on

In

vest

men

ts (

mill

ion

20

00

$)


Fortunately . . . The “First Year” Cost ($/aMW) of Fortunately . . . The “First Year” Cost ($/aMW) of Utility Acquired Energy Efficiency Has DeclinedUtility Acquired Energy Efficiency Has Declined

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Con

serv

ati

on

Cost

/aM

W (

mill

ion

20

00

$)


PNW Utilities Have Gotten More Efficient at Acquiring PNW Utilities Have Gotten More Efficient at Acquiring Energy Efficiency - Cost Are Now Below $15 MWHEnergy Efficiency - Cost Are Now Below $15 MWH

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Leveliz

ed C

on

serv

ati

on

Cost

(m

illio

n/M

Wh

20

00

$)


Cumulative 1978 - 2004 Efficiency Cumulative 1978 - 2004 Efficiency Achievements by SourceAchievements by Source

Alliance Programs185 aMW

6%

State Codes560 aMW

19%

Federal Standards545 aMW

19%

BPA and Utility Programs1635 aMW

56%


The Share of PNW Retail Electricity Sales The Share of PNW Retail Electricity Sales Revenues Invested In Energy Efficiency Has Revenues Invested In Energy Efficiency Has

Declined Since The Early 1990’sDeclined Since The Early 1990’s

$0.0$1.0$2.0$3.0$4.0$5.0$6.0$7.0$8.0$9.0

$10.0

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Tota

l R

eta

il Ele

ctri

city

Sale

s R

evenue

(bill

ion 2

000$)

Revenues Invested In EfficiencyRevenues Dedicated to Other Costs


Utility Acquired Energy Efficiency Has Been Cost-Utility Acquired Energy Efficiency Has Been Cost-Competitive with Market PurchasesCompetitive with Market Purchases

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

May

-96

Nov-9

6

May

-97

Nov-9

7

May

-98

Nov-9

8

May

-99

Nov-9

9

May

-00

Nov-0

0

May

-01

Nov-0

1

May

-02

Nov-0

2

May

-03

Nov-0

3

May

-04

Nov-0

4

May

-05

Wh

ole

sale

Ele

ctri

city

Pri

ce (

20

00

$/M

WH

)

Wholesale Market Price

Levelized Cost of EfficiencyAcquisitions

northwest power and conservation council the role of energy efficiency in could (and should) play in...

Documents

conservation councilpresented

conservation accomplishments

achievable conservation

energy efficiency resources

role of energy efficiency

plans conservation targets

hearenergy efficiency

yearsnonlost opportunity