perspectives on an energy efficiency portfolio

Perspectives on an Energy Efficiency Portfolio

Institute for Regulatory Policy StudiesTransforming the Electricity Market

Val JensenICF International

[email protected]

2ICF International Icfi.com

Some Structure

Theology v. Realpolitik Context is everything Measures, Programs and Portfolios Measuring Goodness What’s next


Theology

There is huge untapped potential for efficiency gains

Utilities have a responsibility to promote efficiency improvement as part of their charter

The presence of market barriers ensures that customers will never invest in the optimal level of energy efficiency

Societal cost effectiveness should drive decisions

Demand response is another way of saying “We don’t want to support energy efficiency”

As long as all customers have an opportunity to participate in programs, there is no cross-subsidization

Once consumers face true prices, they will select the optimal levels of consumption and efficiency

The utilities’ responsibility is to provide electricity or natural gas as efficiently as possible

Utility incentives for energy efficiency constitute subsidies/cross-subsidies

Price impacts should drive the decision

Energy efficiency does not provide the same certainty as a supply-side resource

Utility funding of energy efficiency requires cross-subsidization

These are social programs


Realpolitik

Consumers tend to be myopic Prices might not matter as much as costs, but information on

both gets their attention Utilities can, by their involvement have a significant and

positive transformative effect on the market Energy efficiency is the cheapest way to reduce/offset GHG

emissions Best practice involves a blend of DR and EE There are ways to design and recover the costs of programs

that minimize cross-subsidization There are solid consumer service and customer satisfaction

reasons for this Demand-side resources can reduce the need for more

expensive supply.


Context is Everything

Illinois has consistently ranked low in energy efficiency spending and achievement relative to other large states:

Illinois is the 5th largest state, but ranks 36th in energy efficiency funding per capita

IL ranks 24th overall in energy efficiency spending and 35th in overall savings (ACEEE, 2002)

Spending has bumped up recently, but is shareholder-funded.

What would constitute transformation?

7

State EE Spending per capita ($)

Top-Ten States

Vermont $28.26

Massachusetts $21.49

New Hampshire $16.45

Washington $15.21

Rhode Island $14.13

Oregon $13.44

Wisconsin $11.33

New Jersey $11.31

Montana $10.65

Iowa $10.17

Average of all states $4.65

Illinois $0.25 - $1.25


Context is Everything , Part 2

MEEA (2006) estimates that electricity savings potential in the 20th year of its analysis could equal about 4% of baseline Illinois sales in that year (slightly over 2 million MWh) at a cost of <= $60/MWh– Total cost to get those MWh would be roughly $71M (from now

till then)– Maybe can get there from here

MEEA estimates total achievable potential to be 8.9% by the 20th year at a cost of <= $150/MWh– Total cost of $480M– Well beyond current reach?


Measures, Programs and Portfolios: How this gets Done

Establish portfolio objectives Measure Screening Market assessment – including the

POTENTIAL STUDY. Program screening Portfolio construction and analysis Pass programs to the integration stage Develop implementation plan


Setting and Using Portfolio Objectives

Objective Portfolio Design Parameters Program Design Elements

Pursue a significant portion of cost effective energy efficiency potential in the service area.

Achieve X% reduction in sales/peak by 2015 Concentrate on programs with a track record and that are straightforward to implement; build in effective ongoing evaluation to spot problems early

The portfolio as a whole should be cost-effective measured against both the Total Resource Cost and Utility Cost tests.

Measures screened using Technical Cost Test. Only consider cost-effective measures except where non cost-effective measures enhance the program.

Programs screened using Participant, Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Utility Cost (UC) tests.

Portfolio screened using TRC, UC and Ratepayer Impact (RIM) tests. RIM test used only for portfolio balancing purposes.

Ensure that the portfolio is cost-effective, but focus on meeting the full range of objectives rather than maximizing cost-effectiveness.

Allow individual programs that are not cost-effective if they are essential to meeting portfolio objectives.

All else equal, minimize rate impacts.

The portfolio should include some hard-to-reach program elements

The portfolio should achieve a relative balance across sectors

Portfolio should include, at a minimum, elements aimed at serving low income residential customers.

Other hard-to-reach sectors include small commercial and agriculture.

Include at least one low income residential program Include at least one small commercial program Give strong consideration to program elements for multi-

family and not-for-profit customers.

The portfolio should include a variety of energy efficiency options.

The portfolio should contain a mix of energy conservation, fuel switching and load management program elements..

Allocate up to 30% of the MW target to cost-effective load management programs.

The portfolio should include market preparation activities. This set of activities can include information/education, training, and technical assistance depending on the market needs of specific sectors.

Market preparation activities should be used where they (1) can help boost acquisition program effectiveness (2) are an essential element of an acquisition program and/or (3) help ensure sustainable market activity.

All program designs should address the need for specific market preparation activities (e.g. trade ally training programs, awareness-building, etc)

The portfolio should include program elements fostering development of emerging technologies and innovative program concepts.

The portfolio should earmark resources for a “Research and Development” element supporting technology research and demonstrations and pilot programs.

Given budget constraints, postpone decision on R&D element until resource acquisition programs are decided on.

The portfolio should strengthen customer service and create real value for customers.

Program designs should incorporate customer input, include branding, and link delivery to customer service functions.

Employ customer focus groups during final program design phase.


Portfolio Mapping

Industrial

The portfolio should achieve a relative balance across sectors in the allocation of resources.

Program 5

Coverage of low income customers

Inclusion of some educational/informational elements

Promotion of emerging technologies and innovative program concepts

Program 4

Balance energy efficiency and demand response

Minimize rate impacts

Portfolio should offer a wide range of technologies enabling wide participation

Program 5

Cost-effectiveness - The portfolio as a whole should be cost-effective measured against both the Total Resource Cost and Utility Cost tests

Program 3

Program 1

Program 4

Program 7,8

Program 2

Commercial

Program 2

Residential

Program 1

Program 1

Program 6


The Potential StudyResidential energy efficiency potential

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Mass. California BritishColumbia

New York Manitoba(Manitoba

HydroTerritory)

CaliforniaIOU

territory

Ontarioprovince

Georgia

Economicpotential %

Achievablepotential %

Commercial energy efficiency potential

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

California BritishColumbia

New York Manitoba(Manitoba

HydroTerritory)

CaliforniaIOU territory

Ontarioprovince

Georgia

Economicpotential %

Achievablepotential %


Portfolio Construction Principles

Achieve Portfolio Objectives

Manage the RiskCentral A/C

18%

Lighting59%

Water Heat 13%

Space Heat9%

Room A/C0.6%

Freezer0.1%

Refrigerator0.4%

Clothes Washer0.1%

Warehouse, 2%

Education, 10%

Office, 31%Misc, 16%

Lodging, 3%

Healthcare, 7%

Amusement, 2%

Grocery, 4%

Retail, 15%

Restaurant, 4%

Public, 4% Religious, 1%

Residential Energy -2010

Commercial Energy -2010

MarketTechnologyPerformanceEvaluation


Measuring Goodness

The meaning of goodness is at the heart of theology

And if there is a holy war in this business it is over how one judges goodness– The Church of the Almighty TRC

– The United Church of the RIM

N

ttat

N

tt

tRIM d

UAC

d

RGUACB

t

11

11 )1()1(

N

tt

atN

tt

ttttRIM d

RL

d

INCPRCRLUICC

11

11 )1()1(

N

t

N

tt

atatt

ttTRC d

PACUAC

d

TCUACB

1 111 )1()1(

N

tt

tttTRC d

UICPCNPRCC

11)1(


Measuring Goodness: An Illustration

0.60.60.5

-$2.4$3.4 3.4$6.7 -$4.9

Net Benefits

$3.1

1.51.71.8

-$1.3

BC RatioRIM

Moderate Incentive$0.8$1.8

TRC

Low Incentive

Net Benefits BC RatioScenario

Aggressive Incentive

PCTNet Benefits BC Ratio

$1.6 3.1

4.0

Table 11: TRC, RIM, and PCT Net Benefits ($B) and Benefit-Cost Ratios

Good or Evil?

System benefits of $3.1B RIM Cost of $4.9B –

Participant Benefit of $6.7B “Upward pressure on rates”

Net Consumer Benefit of $1.8B


What’s Next: Emerging Best Practice

More efficient pricing is inevitable and overdue– Very positive results from pilots in terms of demand response– Disappointing participation to-date, but at some point this will be the

default– This will drive very interesting combinations of controls and energy-

using equipment This will cause some wailing and gnashing of teeth

– Will tend to undercut a central tenant of energy efficiency community (we need DSM to compensated for average cost pricing)

– The economics of energy efficiency could change significantly• The TRC economics will change as DR cuts peak prices• The Participant economics will change – pure energy-saving devices will

look less good.• Will this put a dent in the least expensive carbon strategy?

The marriage of DR and EE will take place– Who will adopt whose theology?

perspectives on an energy efficiency portfolio

Documents

energy efficiency spending

energy efficiency funding

marketenergy efficiency

efficiency gainsutilities

efficiency improvement

decisionenergy efficiency

energy efficiencyas

costs of programs