NOTES
DEMAND ANALYSIS WORKING GROUP (DAWG) Energy Savings Subgroup
Sept 25, 2014 And finished October 9, 2014
California Energy Commission
10:00 am-3:30 pm on Sept 25 and then 1pm-3pm on Oct 9
Meeting link: http://demandanalysisworkinggroup.org/?p=1802
AGENDA
10:00 Introductions -- CAD
10:10 Meeting purpose -- Review/compare current IOU and POU Energy Efficiency Potential Studies -- CAD
10:30 Regulatory Purpose(s) – Fromm (CPUC), Lu, (CPUC) (Navigant substitutes by proxy), Fugate (CEC)
CPUC goals and potential. See: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Energy+Efficiency/Energy+Efficiency+Goals +and+Potential+Studies.htm
Energy Commission: Tracking and goal setting. See: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014publications/CEC-200-2014-002/CEC-200-2014- 002.pdf
IEPR Demand Forecasts. See: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2013_energypolicy/documents/ - adoptedforecast
11:00 IOU Energy Efficiency Potential Study – Lu (CPUC) (by proxy), Navigant
(See link above) Overview 1 Approach Results Comparison with other studies
Working Lunch (Brought in -- $10 contribution requested)
12:30 CMUA Study – Andreoni (CMUA), Cope (SCPPA), Changus (NCPA), Navigant
See: http://cmua.org/Files/1037/2010_SB1037_Report_Final.pdf
Overview Approach Results Comparison with other studies
1:30 LADWP Study – Jacot (LADWP), Herndon (Nexant)
See: http://www.ladwp.com/docs/opladwpccb409908 Overview Approach Results Comparison with other studies
2:15 SMUD Study – Radell (SMUD), Navigant
Overview Approach Results Comparison with other studies
3:00 Wrap up/takeaways/next steps
3:30 Adjourn
Statewide efficiency targets should be every 3 (now 4) years but haven’t done it hasn't happened since 2007 since CPUC/IOU goal-setting is on a different cycle than the POUs. Als their methodologies are not necessarily comparable. CPUC is looking at contributing to statewide targets.
Navigant (substituting for CPUC) The CPUC “Energy Efficiency Potential” and or “Energy Efficiency Potential, Targets & Goals” is used for goals, and the IOUs use the information to develop their detailed portfolios.
2 The current energy efficiency proceeding R13-11-005, has a number of components – a key component is to determine parameters for “rolling portfolios.” There are three phases of the proceeding. The first just finished, and was mainly focused on goal- setting (based on the 2013 PGT study). Phase II is underway now, and will focus on rolling portfolios. Phase III will take up some other issues including establishing baselines for counting energy savings, in particular, the ability for utilities to count savings “from the current state, up to and including above code” as opposed to the traditional approach that only gives credit for energy efficiency savings from the code baseline to the energy efficiency level of savings..
CPUC completed a 2011 energy efficiency potential study and a 2013 study. The updates for the 2013 included a more concerted effort to integrate [then-] current DEER estimates. Also non-DEER estimates from specific sectors not readily available in DEER: agricultural, industrial, manufacturing, streetlighting, financing
Navigant is going to be conducting the next, “2015 and beyond” CPUC Goals and Potential Study. Determining how to reflect the rolling portfolio cycle will be a key issue. Also, they will be taking some deeper looks at items such as financing, codes and standards baselines (described above in Phase III of the CPUC energy efficiency proceeding). The 2013 was designed is to inform the 2015 cycle, which will be appended to 2013-2014 as a “bridge” year. The 2013 study was is an update to the 2011 study which informed the 2013-14 cycle.
Changes for the 2015 study are not necessarily new additions. But there may be more opportunity to develop better drivers (behavior, C&I efficiency, whole house, etc.), carbon policies, locational potential (to support the CEC IEPR forecast disaggregation), water-wastewater may be on the list, Prop 39 may be included, though this was somewhat included in the 2013. AB 758 may be included, as will updates based on EM&V results for the 2010-2012 cycle, and new DEER estimates (being published presently).
The 2015-16 might have a 10-year budget cycle to initiate the “rolling portfolio” concept. Even though Phase II of the proceeding won’t be final, the Phase I decision approved rolling portfolios in concept and made some provisions for it. But the details are not specified. 2015 will now be combined such that the current “cycle” is 2013-2015. For goalsetting/achievement 2015 is part of a 3-year cycle. For purposes of moving forward the budget that is set for 2015 is a rolling budget and initiates that concept.
Another issue is that the IOUs – spend about $30M on assisting with codes & standards but it’s 40% of portfolio savings – very cost-effective and a very large part of their claimed savings. This is a much larger portion than before. However, note that one reason this is important is that every time C&S ratchet up the savings, the available potential reduces so utilities need to claim some of those savings? This issue also affects POUs. Should the statewide goals be reduced if C&S are accounting for more savings?
3 IEPR Demand Forecasts. See: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2013_energypolicy/documents/ - adoptedforecast
There will be an upcoming DAWG meeting to take a deeper dive into how CEC includes efficiency in the IEPR forecast and directly in the forecast through explicit model adjustments, and via the additional achievable energy efficiency (AAEE) analyses.
The next meeting should include discussions of forward-looking issues such as including the POU energy efficiency information and disaggregation of the AAEE.
CEC uses a cumulative savings value for the IEPR forecast whereas the CPUC potential model is produced using annual savings. This is one of the additional analyses Navigant develops for CEC to use in pairing with the base forecast (that is, “managing” the base forecast to include the effects of additional energy efficiency the AAEE). A managed forecast is “managed” to include demand-side impacts. That is: customer-side EE, DR, DG is subtracted for the base forecast.
CPUC adopts several scenarios for the base forecast and the AAEE. CEC is still working on paying attention to Prop 39, AB 758, and efficiency from other sources. Also, the question of measure decay can have a large effect, especially in the out years of the forecast horizon. So considering measure decay more thoroughly is important.
CEC desires to have a “statewide” AAEE analysis that includes POU impacts. POUs are on the order of 20-25% of the state’s energy efficiency. The POU AAEE would be less elaborate than the piece of the IOU AAEE. It is OK for the POUs to prioritize such that the largest POUs can devote more resources/personnel to addressing their energy efficiency whereas the smaller ones will be required to contribute a significantly smaller effort. Also, CEC needs to pay attention to the issue of not double-counting AAEE that is already included in the CPUC/IOU AAEE forecasts, by virtue of being located inside their transmission area.
11:00 IOU Energy Efficiency Potential Study – Lu (CPUC) (by proxy), Navigant
(See link and part of the discussion above) Overview Approach Results Comparison with other studies
Navigant will be conducting the 2015 study, but the presentation for this meeting is on the 2013 study that was completed last year.
4 The PGT (potential, goals & targets, also called PG, etc. – the name will be more clear in upcoming study) is a bottom up study starting with measure saturations, savings estimates in the DEER database (there are 1.5 million approx. entries in the current CPUC DEER). Navigant collapsed these into about 60,000 measures for the study analysis. Navigant didn’t include loadshapes in the 2013 study but this dimemsion will likely be included in the 2015 study.
Each measure is associated with a loadshape. Follow up on this issue. The loadshapes essentially represent a “hodgepodge” of approaches and vintages. Some of them are daytypes. Some are 8760. The loadshapes are from CEUS. The loadshapes are pretty old (mid-1990s), but there are new ones from the CPUC/IOU CLASS study completed in 2014. It’s not clear that loadshapes would change – on the other hand this is an important issue that many have raised in a number of different meetings and venues..
The CPUC study will probably want to take a look at the existing baseline issue rather than code-baseline). This is called the “dual baseline” issue.
The PGT study includes different levels of codes – on the books, expected, and for the out years, a “level” of savings estimated, e.g., an increase in efficiency of X% depending on the end use/measure. Note that IOUs can claim savings, though, for C&S improvement depending on their level of involvement.
In the model, efficient technologies are able to compete with one another, not just a base technology. E.g., CFLs can compete with LEDs, not just incandescent. The uptake is based on the assumed breakout of saturations in the year that is being modeled. Similarly, e.g., if a household does a whole house retrofit, the model assumes that that building is not eligible for those measures until the lifetime ends.
12:30 CMUA Study – Andreoni (CMUA), Cope (SCPPA), Changus (NCPA), Navigant
See: http://cmua.org/Files/1037/2010_SB1037_Report_Final.pdf
Overview Approach Results Comparison with other studies
The energy efficiency work/reporting used to be done every 3 years, but now based on new legislation it’s done every 4 years. The results of POU energy efficiency studies need to be filed with CEC (and CEC includes CPUC potential to get statewide potential). CMUA represents 40 POUs. Navigant did the last POU study (except the LAWDP portion) and used Navigant used the ERAM model. The IOUs have scenarios, the POUs did have them but they picked the one that they wanted to use.
5 The POU study cost less than $100K, but not all of the effort was monetized – that is, some of the utilities spent their own $. Their boards determined how they would go about this decision. The POUs have recently produced a TRM, on the CMUA website, and they will be claiming savings based on this. THis will affect the next potential study (due in 2017).
An issue is that some of the POUs are pushing early replacement which makes the analysis of their 1%/year goal appear to be unachievable at the end. It is unclear how to handle this. Also, the roles that emerging technologies will play is still up in the air. Right now, the POU average total annual percent savings/year is 1.26%.
Cumulative effects are hard to discuss . The statewide goal is 10% which is considered 1%/year but it’s not really that, due to compounding. The 10% was only loosely interpreted to be 1% per year, but that concept has “stuck.”
Note that the IOU goals are gross, savings are net. POUs goals and savings are expressed as gross savings. If POU savings were going to go into AAEE, this issue would need to be handled. The information is available in the model but would need to be more fully focused upon in the report.
Another issue is that the POUs are very different from one another due to their specific territories and size. For example, there are POUs with just one main customer – e.g., a manufacturer. Or those who primarily serve water (e.g., IID).
Note that 75% of POUs also supply water/wastewater, unlike IOUs. So water is als0 an important issue.
1:30 LADWP Study – Jacot (LADWP), Herndon (Nexant)
See: http://www.ladwp.com/docs/opladwpccb409908 Overview Approach Results Comparison with other studies
LADWP David wanted to make some changes to the prior studye.g., including bundled measures – they didn’t drop a measure if it has a TRC less than 1. Instead of measure- by-measure analysis they looked at the whole portfolio as achieving a TRC over 1.0. There are a couple of ways to think about this. One is ensuring that ratepayers don’t fund any individual measure that has a TRC less than 1.0. The other is to maximize savings such the portfolio is over 1.0 (and this then includes some measures that are below 1.0). LA operates in a political environment – there are many stakeholders in energy efficiency. For example there are jobs at stake. Whereas for example an ESCO might not include any measures under 1.0, they would be cream-skimming and pocket
6 the profits. LADWP invests the profits back into the community, in essence. The Mayor is the boss and he wanted to see 15% reductions by 2020. This complies and AB2021 requirements. Therefore POUs can have have two sets of targets since AB2021 requirement to do this every 3-4 years, and then there can be a political basis for savings goals.
Nexant did the study (and the results were included in the overall CMUA study). Navigant worked with Cadmus and used Cadmus model. There were some unique items with respect to the Navigant/CMUA study. Their model was hybrid top down/bottom up model taking utlity data, customer data, etc. and disaggregating this to a market/customer level. They started with technical potential, then set it aside to focus on achievable and program potential. They didn’t want to be bound by typical economic potential framework.
To create a baseline forecast. They used LADWP’s actual forecast and assigned data by market segment (e.g., offices), though this is essentially the same as the IOU and CMUA studies. They took the sector level forecast and removed EE from the current programs to avoid double counting. The Navigant approach didn’t do this matching for the IOU EE potential – they knew saturations, technologies, etc. so there wasn’t a need for it. However, SMUD disaggregates forecast based on both.
LADWP also developed it’s own s measure catalog. They used DEER and the 2011 Navigant (CPUC/IOU measures). LADWP has 3 climate zones. There were about 560 measures scaled to 6000 measure permutations. This is similar to what Navigant used, though Navigant/CPUC had more climate zones, etc. For industrial sector LADWP used the IAC (industrial assessment center) – a list of audits that have been done. The approach does include measure competition – efficient measures can compete with one another in a give year. In all of the study approaches, the model chooses technical potential the highest winner is the highest savings. In economic potential the model chooses the highest option that is cost effective. Then the competition per market share happens in achievable/program potential.
Navigant quantified codes & standards but reduced program potential. Measure/buildings can retrofit from where they started, but the baseline counts as codes and standards measures. LADWP is part of the statewide C&S advocacy and they are claiming savings like the IOUs/SMUD.
LADWP then did measure bundling. A customer can do multiple things on home/building. First have to define package of measures. But could do hvac/lighting together as an example.
LADWP modeled a number of scenarios they selected the scenario that achieved savings within the given budget. For example, they ran an “extreme” savings scenario, so that they would know what it would cost to achieve extreme savings – to answer political questions should those arise. They hit 15% by setting $200M/year cap .
7 2:15 SMUD Study – Radell (SMUD), Navigant
Overview Approach Results Comparison with other studies
SMUD participated in the Navigant CMUA study, but had a separate contract because they wanted to do some things that were extra including emerging technologies, behavior, whole home, etc. Not all of these made their way into the CMUA study because those parts were not complete yet. Also, the POUs get to participate in claiming part of the C&S savings, the part they contribute to making, like the IOUs do. There is also a more detailed carbon module and an electrification (EV) module.
Most POUs have their board approved. They tend to do it on a three year approval process for target setting. Some may report annually (AB 1037), and SMUD reports every year (at least) to the Board. They are not wedded to a three year cycle like IOUs, so they can make adjustments whenever needed.
The IOU and POU studies have different time horizons.
Should POUs use the IOU model? Some of the POUs thought this would be a good idea but others thought it was not necessary – the CPUC model is very complex.
There is a question about whether the IOU and POU models treat hard-to-reach customers differently.
The SMUD model includes some measures whether they are cost-effective or not – e.g., shade trees.
Follow-ups
Include POU efficiency in the IEPR forecast. Right now 20% or so of the state’s energy efficiency is not reported in the IEPR. The POUs strongly ask to be included in the reporting.
Keep the POUs appraised of developments in the CPUC energy efficiency proceeding. Baseline is a particularly high level issue, since CEC has indicated that POUs will be required to adhere to the same regulations the CPUC develops. POUs anticipate being involved in this issue via DAWG.
Webinar focusing on how energy efficiency is included in the CEC IEPR forecast, including the base forecast and the AAEE.
8 Continue to follow Prop 39 and AB 758 developments as they affect IOUs, POUs and the IEPR forecast (and via the IEPR forecast, LTPP and TPP).
Update loadshapes based on primary data collection.
Follow up on embedded energy in water. This is particularly important for POUs since so many of the also supply water.
Should the statewide goals (e.g., 10%) be reduced to account for C&S ratchets capturing part of the savings?
Determine whether IOUs and POUs treat hard-to-reach customers differently.
9