Achievable Savings A Retrospective Look At The Councils - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Achievable Savings – A Retrospective Look At The Council’s Conservation Planning Assumptions

June 23, 2015 Tom Eckman, Director Power Division Northwest Power and Conservation Council

First – A Little Context

• Northwest Region
• Four states
• Idaho, Oregon ,Washington and Western Montana
• Regional Population = 13.4 million
• Served by 131 Electric Utilities – Annual Sales ~ 165,000 GWh
• Five Investor Owned - 55% of Retail Sales
• 126 Publicly Owned – 45% of Retail Sales
• 14 Utilities serve 80% of customers
• 97 Utilities serve 10% of customers
• 34 Utilities serve less than 2,000 customers
• 17 Utilities serve less than 1,000 customers
• Federal Power Marketing Agency - Bonneville Power

Administration

• Wholesales power to public utilities from hydro-electric projects.
• Owns and operates 75% of high voltage transmission
• No RTO/ISO
• 12 Separate “Balancing Authorities”

2

3

Northwest Resource Mix

Energy Efficiency Was The Region’s Second Largest Resource in 2012

Hydropower

46% Coal 12% Energy Efficiency 17%

Geothermal

<1% Natural Gas 7% Nuclear 4% Wind 6% Biomass 1% Based on 2012 Actual Dispatch and Hydro Resource Output; 2013 EIA data will be released in October/November of 2014

Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (PL96-501)

• Authorized the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho

and Montana to form an interstate compact (aka, “the Council”)

• Council is comprised of two members from each state

appointed by their Governors

• Directed the Council to develop:
• Fish and Wildlife Program to “protect, mitigate and

enhance” F&W impacted by hydro-system development

• Regional Power Plan
• Mandated public involvement in the Program and

Plan development processes

4

The Council Is Unique!

NW Power Act’s Statutory Charge

• Council is to Prepare a Regional Power Plan that contains:
• A 20-year load forecast for electricity demands
• A “least cost” resource strategy to meet forecast demand
• Review and update its Plan every five years
• Conservation (i.e., energy efficiency) is defined as a resource

and given 10 percent cost advantage

• Established Resource Development Priorities:

1. Conservation 2. Renewable Resources; 3. Generating resources utilizing waste heat or generating resources of high fuel conversion efficiency 4. All other resources.

5

Council’s Planning Process

• Longest running Integrated Resource Planning

Process in US (and likely the world)

• Council has published six regional plans since

1983 (7th is currently under development)

• All Plan’s have called for significant reliance
• n energy efficiency
• Council has no regulatory authority over

utilities or state commissions*

*Resource acquisitions by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), a federal power marketing agency, must be “consistent with the Plan”

Why We Did the Review

• Council’s first Plan in

1983 assumed high levels of “achievability”

• 85% of 20-yr cost-

effective potential for retrofits

• 65% of 20-yr cost-

effective potential for lost opportunity

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Retrofit Lost-Opportunity Share of Cost-Effective Potential Not Achievable Achievable

7

Elapse of 20-year time span since first Plan presented unique opportunity for empirical comparison between “forecast” and “actual” achievements

Unfortunately, The Lack of Sustained Acquisition Program Activity Precluded Direct Comparison With The 1983 Plan’s Forecast of Achievable Potential

• 200

400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Annual Savings (GWH/yr) Year

Utility Program Achievements 1983 - 2002

Nevertheless, The Overall Findings Supported Council’s Assumptions

Empirical evidence supported Council’s forecast of long-term achievable conservation potential

R² = 0.82 $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450

• 2,000

4,000 Annual Expenditures (2006$) Annual Savings (GWh/yr)

Council’s assumed near-term (5- year) achievable acquisition rates are well supported and may be conservative

• 500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Annual Savings (GWH/yr) Program Year Plan Targets Actual

What Evidence Do We Have?

• Residential Weatherization
• Hood River Conservation Project
• Multiple Sectors and Measures
• Actual Achievements Relative to 1983 Plan Assumptions
• Ramp Rates
• Planned vs. Actual Annual Changes in Program Achievements

Evidence: Hood River

• Hood River Conservation Project
• 1982-84 experiment in Hood River County
• Try to weatherize all electric-heated homes
• Measures installed at no cost to participants
• Result: 85% Achieved
• 85% of Technically Feasible Residential

Weatherization Savings Achieved Over 2 years

Evidence: Actual Achievements Relative to 1983 Plan Assumptions

• New Residential and Commercial Construction

(Model Conservation Standards)

• Residential Appliances
• Residential Water Heating
• Commercial Lighting
• Commercial HVAC Equipment
• Irrigation (kWh/acre)
• Industrial

Residential New Construction Council Goal 40% Improvement in Building Envelop by 2002

Regional Average Annual Space Heating Use New Single Family Homes Constructed Between 1983 and 2002 Vintage Annual Use (kWh/sq.ft./yr) Percent of 1983 Use Improvement over 1983 1983 6.3 100% 0% 1986 5.5 88% 12% 1989 5.4 86% 14% 1992 4.0 64% 36% 2001 (MCS) 3.7 59% 41%

1983 Plan Forecast “0%” Market Share of Energy Efficient Manufactured Housing*

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Actual Market Share of Energy Efficient Manufactured Homes Year *Energy Efficient Manufactured Homes are defined as homes built to standards that were 60% more efficient than the national standards existing in 1983

Residential Water Heating Use

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 1983 Base 1983 Plan Achievable (2002) Minimum Federal Standard (1991) Minimum Federal Stardard (2004) Annual Water Heating Use (kWh/yr)

Average Energy Use of New Refrigerators

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Annual Energy Use (kWh) Year 1983 Plan Baseline 1983 Plan Achievable by 2002 Actual 2002 Use

Average Energy Use of New Clothes Washers

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Annual Energy Use (kWh) Year 1983 Plan Baseline 1983 Plan Achievable by 2002 Actual 2002 Use

Commercial Lighting Power Density

Codes Surpass 1983 MCS

Building Type Lighting Power Density (Watts/sq.ft.) 1983 Plan Target (MCS) Oregon 2004 Washington 2004 Idaho and Montana Seattle 2004 Office 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Retail Stores 1.5 Varies 1.5+ Varies 1.5+ Varies 1.5+ Varies 1.5+ Schools 2.0 1.1 1.35 1.2 1.2 Warehouses 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.5

Change in Lighting Power Density

• f Existing Buildings

Audit Date Lighting Power Density (Watts/sq.ft.) Reduction in Lighting Power Density (%) All Buildings Offices Retail All Buildings Office Retail As found in 1987 1.5 1.6 1.9 As found in 2001 1.2 1.4 1.5 20% 13% 21%

Industrial Sector Achievable Potential

• 1983 Council’s forecast of achievable

conservation potential was equivalent to about 6 percent of non-DSI industrial electric loads

• Motors comprise approximately 60

percent of industrial energy use

• Federal minimum efficiency standards

required 3 - 10 % improvement over 1983 efficiency levels for covered sizes

Why the 1983 Long Term “Achievable Potential” Forecast Was Important

• In 1983 lead times for construction of new

generation (coal & nuclear) were 12-15 years

• Average resource size ~ 1000 MW
• Therefore, if conservation resources were to
• ffset the construction of new generation the

Council needed to reliably forecast “achievable savings” 12-15 years out

Why It’s Less Important Today

• Lead times for new generating resources

are 2-5 years

• Average resource size ~ 250 – 350 MW
• Ability to expedite (or delay) construction

is now greater

• Current Question: Are the near-term

“ramp rates” achievable?

Since the West Coast Energy Crisis in 2000 Actual Program Achievements Have Exceed Council Plan Goals

• 500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 Annual Savings (GWH/yr) Plan Annual Goal Actual Annual Achievement

*Achievements reflect utility and NEEA savings only. Savings from codes and standards are included as baseline adjustments in each plan’s baseline load forecast

23

Accomplishments Have Exceeded Recent Plan Targets Every Year Since 2005

• 500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Annual Savings (GWH/yr) Target Actual

Planned vs. Actual Accomplishments by Major End Use*

2010 – 2012

• 500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Savings ( GWH) Plan Target Achievements

25

*Source: Bonneville Power Administration, “Six Going on Seven” Analysis http://www.bpa.gov/EE/Utility/toolkit/Documents/Results_Presentation_CRAC_FINAL.pdf

Northwest Regional Electric Loads Have Remained Virtually Unchanged for Seven Years, Because We’ve Been Meeting Most Load Growth With Efficiency

• 5,000

10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 PNW Regional Electricity Loads (MWa) Weather Normalized Loads Load Growth Met with Efficiency We’ve Offset the Equivalent of 1.1% Annual Load Growth With Efficiency Since 2006

Region Invests About Twice the National Average Share of Its Retail Electric Revenues in Energy Efficiency

2.0% 2.4% 3.2% 3.5% 3.3% 3.4% 1.6%

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 US Average

Share of Retail Revenues for EE *

* 2013 is based on 2012 revenues data from EIA. 2013 data is expected in October/November 2014

Utility/SBC-Funded Savings Equaled 1.3% of Regional Electricity Sales in 2013 More Than Double the US Average

1.1% 1.1% 1.3% 1.4% 1.2% 1.3% 0.6%

0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 US Average

Share of Retail Electricity Sales

* 2013 is based on 2012 loads data from EIA. 2013 data is expected in October/November 2014

*

Efficiency Has Met Nearly 62% of PNW Load Growth Since 1980

• 50,000

100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

PNW System Load (GWH/yr)

Load Net of Efficiency Efficiency Resource 1980 Load

Since 1978 Utility & BPA Programs, Energy Codes & Federal Efficiency Standards Have Produced Almost 50,000 GWH/yr of Savings

• 10,000

20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Cumulative Annual Savings (GWH/yr) Federal Standards State Codes NEEA Programs BPA and Utility Programs

30

So What’s 50,000 GWH/year?

• It’s enough electricity to serve the entire

state of Oregon

• It saved the region’s electricity consumers

nearly $3.51 billion in 2013

• It lowered 2013 PNW carbon emissions by

an estimated 21.9 million MTE.

Any Questions?