ENERGY EFFICIENCY in California’S Public Power Sector Th 11 Edition — 2017
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENERGY EFFICIENCY in California’s Public Power Sector th 11 Edition — 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements 1 Executive Summary 2 Introduction 3 Methodologies 9 Program Results 12 Policy Considerations 17 Appendix A Description of Utility Programs Appendix B 2018-2027 Energy Efficiency Targets Navigant Description of the Potential Studies Energy Efficiency in California’s Public Power Sector: 11th Edition — 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report would not be possible without the substantial contributions of the following individuals: Project Managers: Jonathan Changus, Northern California Power Agency Bryan Cope, Southern California Public Power Authority Dan Griffiths, California Municipal Utilities Association Meredith Owens & Kelly Birdwell, Wendy De Leon & Amanda Stevens, Alameda Municipal Power Pasadena Water & Power Phil Hayes, Earl Lasley & Ed Murdock, Vanessa Xie, Anaheim Public Utilities City of Pittsburg Paul Reid, Corby Erwin, Azusa Light & Water Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative Jim Steffens & Veronica Craghead, Basil Wong, City of Banning Port of Oakland Marlee Mattos, Trina Valdez, City of Biggs City of Rancho Cucamonga Jeanette Meyer & Kapil Kulkarni, Lowell Watros, Burbank Water & Power Redding Electric Utility Jessica Sutorus & Adrianne Rogers, Kevin Palmer & Rebecca Cortez, City of Colton Riverside Public Utilities Craig Kuennen & Herbert Garcia, Renee Laffey, Glendale Water & Power Roseville Electric Meg Patterson, Rachel Radell-Harris, City of Healdsburg Sacramento Municipal Utility District Maritza Nunez, Bob Balzar, James Hendry & Lori Mitchell, Imperial Irrigation District San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Theresa Phillips, Tom Miller, Lassen Municipal Utility District City of Shasta Lake Adam Brucker, Mary Medeiros McEnroe, City of Lodi Silicon Valley Power Jennifer Main, Paul Hauser, City of Lompoc Trinity Public Utility District Paul Costa & David Jacot, Steven Poncelet & Lauren Schaake Hudson, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Truckee Donner Public Utilities District Vanessa Lara, Willie Manuel & Monique Hampton, Merced Irrigation District Turlock Irrigation District Peter Govea & Bob Hondeville, Anthony Serrano, Modesto Irrigation District City of Vernon Light & Power Michael McLellan, Marcy Newbern, City of Moreno Valley City of Victorville Rainie Torrance, Len Viejo, City of Needles ASTRUM Utility Services Bruce Lesch, Lena Perkins & Dixon Yee, Mark Gosvener & Miranda Boutelle, City of Palo Alto Utilities Efficiency Services Group Energy Efficiency in California’s Public Power Sector: 11th Edition — 2017 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY California’s publicly owned utilities (POUs) have collaborated since 2006 on evaluating energy efficiency programs and reporting annual results in a consistent and comprehensive manner. This eleventh report explores the latest results from public power’s wide range of energy efficiency programs. During the 2016 reporting cycle, POUs spent over $154 million on programs, resulting in more than 825,000,000 kWh of gross annual energy savings. When added to the total investments since the signing of SB 1037, public power has spent over $1.37 billion on energy efficiency and achieved nearly 63.6 billion kWh in lifecycle energy savings. As a whole public power is becoming more efficient at energy efficiency. From 2014 to 2016, annual energy savings grew by 3.7%, while program costs declined by 11.3%. As the state looks to double the energy savings from energy efficiency by 2030, the ingenuity and collaborative spirit of public power will be even more critical. The continued success of the past year provides an excellent foundation on which public power looks to build upon. Energy Efficiency in California’s Public Power Sector: 11th Edition — 2017 2 INTRODUCTION This report reflects public power’s response to a number of key pieces of legislation. This report compiles the required data from individual POUs into a single, comprehensive Assembly Bill 1890 (Brulte, 1996), infamous for document in compliance with §9505 of the facilitating the Energy Crisis in 2001, also Public Utilities Code. Furthermore, this plays a prominent role in California’s energy compilation fosters analysis of broader energy efficiency legacy. The bill established the efficiency trends and offers policymakers Public Goods Charge through which publicly data-driven considerations regarding the owned utilities (POUs) have funded energy practical impacts of their policies. efficiency programs for over two decades. The purpose of this report is not only to look Senate Bill 1037 (Kehoe, 2005) required each back on the success of the past year, but also POU to report annually to its customers and the to look ahead and inform discussions on how to Energy Commission on its energy efficiency and achieve additional energy savings in the future. demand reduction programs. Assembly Bill 2021 (Levine, 2006) directed “Energy efficiency is each POU to identify all potentially achievable cost-effective, reliable, and feasible electricity an enduring efficiency savings and establish 10-year challenge. Inefficient energy efficiency targets. use of energy and Assembly Bill 2227 (Bradford, 2012) changed hence waste of money the frequency of the 10-year energy efficiency and resources will potential studies from once every three years merit our attention for to once every four years to be consistent with the State’s Integrated Energy Planning process. the foreseeable future, and I believe the same Senate Bill 350 (De León, 2015) required the can be said of the annual report to include a comparison of actual energy efficiency savings to the annual target threat of climate adopted in the most recent 10-year potential change.” study. The bill also directed POUs to develop energy efficiency targets consistent with the Arthur H. Rosenfeld statewide energy efficiency targets adopted by the Energy Commission. Energy Efficiency in California’s Public Power Sector: 11th Edition — 2017 3 Customers are ultimately responsible for achieving savings from energy efficiency. optimize benefits in and for their local As California looks to double the energy communities. savings from energy efficiency by 2030, it is critical that policies and programs aim to Building Climate Zones remove barriers for, and encourage voluntary action by, customers to reduce their energy Building climate zones are one of the primary usage to realize all cost-effective and feasible factors driving energy efficiency program potential energy savings. design. California is divided into 16 separate and distinct climate zones, defined by multiple Whether the state adopts codes and standards factors, including summer temperature range, that are more stringent for existing building record temperature highs and lows, annual retrofits or a utility offers rebates for more precipitation, and seasonal differences. efficient appliances, the customer is ultimately responsible for the decision to comply, POUs are located in 13 of the 16 climate manage, invest, or otherwise implement an zones, ranging from Truckee Donner PUD over energy efficiency measure. the Sierra Crest to Merced Irrigation District in the heart of the Central Valley to downtown This guiding principle of energy efficiency – Los Angeles, the nation’s second largest city. that the customer is key to savings – drives POU program design and implementation as a Customer heating and cooling needs vary natural extension of public power’s broader significantly among climate zones. As a result, mission of tailoring utility services to the specific the energy savings from HVAC retrofits differ needs of their unique community. dramatically across utilities and climate zones. Locally elected boards, such as a city council, For example, an HVAC retrofit in the City of govern POUs and are accountable to the Needles in Climate Zone 15 – characterized as customers they serve. While harnessing proven extremely hot and dry – yields considerably global innovations and, in many cases, helping greater energy savings than a similar HVAC advance emerging technologies, POUs are first retrofit in a coastal community like Lompoc and foremost responsive to local concerns (Climate Zone 5). regarding energy efficiency programs. The climatic conditions that make for a cost- California POUs serve a diverse range of effective energy efficiency investment in one customers and communities. Key characteristics POU community may not deliver the same include building climate zone, customer class, energy benefits and cost savings for a similarly annual retail sales, and customer economic situated customer of another POU. conditions. Based on these factors, POUs develop energy efficiency programs to Energy Efficiency in California’s Public Power Sector: 11th Edition — 2017 4 Customer Class To deliver a cost-effective portfolio of energy efficiency programs, POUs balance their Customer class (i.e., residential, commercial, program offerings for non-residential industrial) distributions vary from utility to customers and residential customers. This utility, and affects energy efficiency planning ensures the portfolio is cost-effective, even if and program efforts. individual programs are not. More importantly, it ensures all customers have Residential customers consumed approximately access incentives for energy efficiency. one-third (33.9%) of all electricity delivered by California POUs in 2015. Figure 2. Percent of Retail Sales, 2015 Traditional programs for residential customers are increasingly not cost-effective. State and federal