Agenda Welcom e and introductions Im pact of Federal Standards - - PDF document

6/26/2014 1 De ma nd F

• re c a st Adviso ry Co mmitte e

Me e ting 2 in Pre pa ra tio n fo r the Se ve nth Po we r Pla n June 26, 2014 Tom Eckman Tom Eckman Charlie Grist Massoud Jourabchi

1

Agenda

• Welcom e and introductions
• Im pact of Federal Standards on future loads 1:40 to 2:40
• New data on load shape of appliances

2:45 to 3:15

• Next steps in 7th Plan developm ent

3:15 to 3:30

2

6/26/2014 2

Overview of Federal Appliance Standards and and Their Impact on Regional Loads

June 26, 2014

3

Sa ving s fro m Ma ny Me c ha nisms

4

6/26/2014 3

T

• da y’ s Pre se nta tio n
• Short history and “primer” on federal

ffi i t d d f li efficiency standards for appliance, equipment and lighting

• Why standards are important mechanism

for capturing savings

• Historical and projected impact of federal
• Historical and projected impact of federal

efficiency standards on regional loads

5

L e g isla tive Histo ry o f F e de ra l Applia nc e Sta nda rds

Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA establishes of test procedures, labeling, and The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA) establishes minimum efficiency standards for common household Energy Policy Act 2005 sets new standards for 16 p g energy targets for consumer

• products. Standards too

follow if voluntary targets aren’t met. EPCA amended to directs the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish energy conservation standards for consumer products. standards for common household appliances and DOE review schedules The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) adds standards for some fluorescent and incandescent reflector lamps, plumbing products, electric motors, commercial water heaters, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)

• systems. EPAct also authorized DOE

to develop of standards for products and directed DOE to set standards via rulemaking for another five. The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA 2007), enacted new or updated standards for 13

• products. EISA also included

a requirement that DOE maintain a schedule to regularly review and update

1975 1979 1987 1992 2005 2007 2013

to develop of standards for additional products. regularly review and update all standards and test procedures. 6

6/26/2014 4

Sta nda rds Pro c e ss Sub je c t to Po litic a l Clima te

More New Standards Set by States file lawsuit against DOE for failure to update standards on DOE authorized ffi i y Congress mandated schedule to set efficiency targets and standards DOE falls behind

• n updating over

25 standards DOE, under court supervised schedule, gets

• n track

1975 1979 1987 1992 2005 2007 2013

7

Bush Bush Obama Obama Carter Carter Reagan Reagan Bush II Bush II Clinton Clinton

Curre nt Sta tus

• Currently there are minimum energy

efficiency standards for more than 50 efficiency standards for more than 50 categories of appliances and equipment.

• Products covered by standards represent

about 90% of home energy use, 60% of commercial building use, and 29% of industrial energy use. gy

• DOE must now review each product standard

every six years to determine whether it should be revised

8

6/26/2014 5

Major Product Categories Covered by Federal Efficiency Standards

• Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies
• Ceiling Fan Light Kits
• Residential & Commercial Clothes Washers
• Commercial Ice Makers



Metal Halide Lamps Fixtures



Pool heaters

• Commercial Ice Makers
• Commercial Packaged Air Conditioners and Heat

Pumps

• Commercial Packaged Heating and Cooling

Equipment

• Residential & Commercial Refrigerators & Freezers
• Commercial Warm Air Furnaces
• Residential & Commercial Water Heaters and Unfired

Water Heater Tanks

• Compact Fluorescent Lamps
• Dehumidifiers
• Direct heating equipment



Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines



Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps



Residential Clothes Dryers



Residential Dishwashers



Residential Furnaces & Boilers



Residential Ranges and Ovens R Ai C diti

• Direct heating equipment
• Electric Motors
• Exit Signs
• General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Ballasts
• General Service Incandescent Lamps
• Incandescent Reflector Lamps
• Low & Medium Voltage Transformers



Room Air Conditioners



Single Packaged Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps



Torchiers



Traffic and Pedestrian Signal



Walk-in Coolers and Walk-In Freezers

9

Why F e de ra l E ffic ie nc y Sta nda rds Are Va lua b le

• Lower Cost – Standards produce savings at

l “ l ” b h id lower “total cost” because they avoid program administrative costs.

• Larger Savings -- Standards effect the entire

market while programs effect only a portion of the market resulting in greater total savings for comparable improvements in efficiency

• Greater Equity -- The “compliance cost” of

meeting a standard is borne by the consumers who benefit from the increased efficiency.

10

6/26/2014 6

Historical Standards Impacts – Residential Refrigerators

1,200 1,400 Wh)

1983 Plan Baseline 1983 Plan Baseline

200 400 600 800 1,000 nnual Energy Use (kW

Prior Prior Federal Federal Standards Standards

200 A Year

New New Federal Federal Standards Standards

11

Historical Standards Impact – Residential Freezers

800 900 1000 Wh)

1983 Plan Baseline 1983 Plan Baseline

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 nnual Energy Use (kW

Prior Federal Standards N F d l Std

100 A Year

New Federal Std.

12

6/26/2014 7

Standards Impact – Residential Dishwashers

600 700 Wh)

1983 Plan Baseline 1983 Plan Baseline Prior Federal Standards

100 200 300 400 500 nnual Energy Use (kW 100 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 An Year

New Federal Standard

13

Standards Impact – Residential Clothes Washers

1000 1200 h)

1983 Plan Baseline 1983 Plan Baseline Prior Federal Standards

200 400 600 800 nual Energy Use (kWh 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Ann Year

New Federal Standards

14

6/26/2014 8 Sta te E ne rg y Co de s a nd F e de ra l Sta nda rds Re duc e d 2010 Re g io na l Re ta il Sa le s b y Appro xima te ly 2300 MWa *

2500 Irrigation Transportation 500 1000 1500 2000 Average Megawatts Transportation Industrial Commercial Residential 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

15

*Reflects Codes and and Standards Adopted Prior to Sixth Plan

Federal Standards Contribute About 20% of Cumulative Regional Conservation Savings

5 000 6,000

MWa)

Federal Standards St t C d

2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

mulative Savings (M

State Codes NEEA Programs BPA and Utility Programs

• 1,000

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

Cum

16

6/26/2014 9

24 Ne w F e de ra l E ffic ie nc y Sta nda rds T a ke E ffe c t b y 2017 Ca pturing So me o f the 6th Pla n’ s E ffic ie nc y Po te ntia l

Cl th W h Distribution Transforments Microwave Ovens External Power Supplies Commercial Refrigeration Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures Incandescent Reflector Lamps Direct Heating Equipment Pool Heaters Clothes Washers, Commercial Dishwashers Commercial Central AC and Heat Pumps Refrigerators and Freezers Room Air Conditioners Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Water Heaters Small Electric Motors Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Clothes Dryers Clothes Washers

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Ranges and Ovens Boilers, Commercial Refrigeration Equipment, Commercial Vending Machines General Service Fluorescent Lamps p

Year New Standard Takes Effect

17

Published Published 01/28/14 01/28/14 Published Published 06/25/14 06/25/14 Published Published 02/03/14 02/03/14 Published Published

And There Are And There Are More on the Way More on the Way

Published Published 03/31/14 03/31/14 Published Published 05/09/14 05/09/14

More on the Way More on the Way – DOE 2014 DOE 2014 Rulemaking Rulemaking Schedule Schedule

18

6/26/2014 10

I mpa c t o n No rthwe st

• Council staff is working Bonneville and its

consultant to estimate the impact of consultant to estimate the impact of standards adopted since the Sixth Plan

• Objective of analysis
• Determine contribution of standards savings

toward achievement of the Sixth Plan conservation targets for 2010 – 2015

• Determine implications for the Seventh Plan’s

forecast of post-2015 load growth and remaining conservation potential

19

Ana lytic a l Appro a c h

• Focus on federal standards not included in

Sixth Plan baseline Sixth Plan baseline

• Target analysis on standards with largest

impact

• Collect data on actual units shipped and their

efficiency

• Account for interactions between standards
• Account for interactions between standards,

state energy codes and utility programs to avoid “double counting” of savings

• Determine “net impact” of standards

20

6/26/2014 11

I mpa c t Ana lysis F

• c use s Ana lysis
• n T

he se Sta nda rds

• Residential Dishwashers
• Residential Clothes Washers
• External Power Supply
• Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures

Residential

• External Power Supply
• Residential Refrigerators and

Freezers

• Residential Water Heater
• Residential Heat Pumps
• Torchieres
• Ceiling Fan Lighting Kits

ial

• Walk‐in Coolers and Freezers

C i l R f i ti P d t

Lighting

Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures

• Mercury Vapor Lamp Ballasts
• Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
• General Service Fluorescent

Lamps

• General Service Incandescent

Lamps

• Incandescent Reflector Lamps
• Candelabra& Intermediate Base

Commercial/Industri

• Commercial Refrigeration Products
• Commercial Clothes Washers
• Pre‐rinse Spray Valve
• Commercial CAC and Heat Pumps
• Packaged Terminal AC and HP
• Illuminated Exit Signs
• Electric Motors
• Distribution Transformers

Candelabra& Intermediate Base Incandescent Lamps

• Medium Base Compact

Fluorescent Lamps

• High Intensity Discharge Lamps

21

Co ntrib utio n o f F e de ra l Sta nda rds T

• wa rd 6th Pla n

E ffic ie nc y Go a ls

22

6/26/2014 12

Sixth Pla n Re so urc e Po rtfo lio

So urc e :http:/ / www.nwc o unc il.o rg / e ne rg y/ po we rpla n/ 6/ 2010-01/

8000 9000 ce ts)

NG Single Cycle D d

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Cumulative Resourc (Average Megawatt

Demand Response Simple-Cycle Gas Combined-Cycle Gas Renewables

23

1000 2009 2014 2019 2024

Efficiency

*Expected Value Build Out.

Expected Value Build Out. Actual Actual build out schedule depends on future conditions build out schedule depends on future conditions

23

Wha t’ s T he Co ntrib utio n o f F e de ra l Sta nda rds?

24

6/26/2014 13

6th Pla n Co nse rva tio n Go a ls

400 450 500 (aMW) 1200 aMW 1200 aMW 1660 aMW 2015‐2019 100 150 200 250 300 350 Annual Acquistions ( 2010 2010‐2014 2014 50 100 2010 2015 2020 2025

Discretionary Discretionary Lost Lost‐Opportunity Opportunity

Ho w Muc h Will Ne w F e de ra l Sta nda rds (a nd Sta te Co de s) Co ntrib ute Me e ting 6th Pla n Go a ls?

1400 1600 1800 Wa) Codes and Standards Primarily Codes and Standards Primarily Provide Lost Provide Lost‐Opportunity Savings Opportunity Savings

800 800 400 860

400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 –Year Acquisitions (MW 200 2010-2014 2015-2019 5 –

Discretionary Lost-Opportunity

6/26/2014 14

Re side ntia l Applia nc e a nd E q uipme nt Sa ving s F ro m F ive F e de ra l Sta nda rds T ha t T a ke E ffe c t b y 2015 Are Just Unde r

350 Ave ra g e Me g a wa tts b y 2029

350 400 a) Heat Pumps W t H t 100 150 200 250 300 Cumulative Savings (MWa Water Heaters Freezers Refrigerators Dishwasher 50 2010 2015 2020 2025 C

27

Ho we ve r, T he E stima te d Co ntrib utio n o f Re side ntia l Applia nc e a nd E q uipme nt Sta nda rds Sa ving s to Sixth Pla n Co nse rva tio n Go a ls I s Sma ll Ove r T he Ne a r T e rm

200 250 MW) 50 100 150 200 Annual Acquistions (aM 1 aMW 1 aMW 2010 2010‐2014 2014 125 aMW 125 aMW 2015 2015‐2019 2019 2010 2015 2020 2025 A Lost-Opportunity Savings Goal Savings from Residential Federal Standards

6/26/2014 15

Co mme rc ia l & I ndustria l E q uipme nt Sa ving s F ro m E ig ht F e de ra l Sta nda rds T ha t T a ke E ffe c t b y 2015 Are Ne a rly 280 Ave ra g e Me g a wa tts b y 2029

250 300 a)

Distribution Transformers PTAC/HP

100 150 200 Cumulative Savings (MWa

CAC Water Evap Cooled CAC Air‐Cooled Electric Motors Walk‐in Cooler and Freezers Commercial Washer (Laundromat) Commercial Washer (MF Common Area)

50 2010 2015 2020 2025 C

29

Co mme rc ia l a nd I ndustria l E q uipme nt Sta nda rds Sa ving s Are Mo re Sig nific a nt T ha n Re side ntia l Ove r T he Ne a r T e rm

200 250 MW) 50 100 150 Annual Acquistions (aM 38 aMW 38 aMW 2010 2010‐2014 2014 74 aMW 74 aMW 2015 2015‐2019 2019 50 2010 2015 2020 2025 A

Lost-Opportunity Savings Goal Savings from Commercial & Industrial Standards

6/26/2014 16

L ig hting Sta nda rds

• Lighting Standards in Sixth Plan forecast
• General Service Incandescent (2012)

( )

• Mercury Vapor (2008)
• Seven Standards since Sixth Plan (Effective Dates)
• General Service Fluorescent Lamps (2012)(2014)
• Fluorescent Ballasts (2015)
• Metal Halide Fixtures (2012)
• Halogen Reflector Lamps (2012)

g p

• Candelabra Lamps (2012)
• Ceiling Fan Light Kits (2010)
• Torchieres (2010)

31

L ig hting Sa ving s F ro m Se ve n F e de ra l Sta nda rds T ha t T a ke E ffe c t b y 2015 Are Ove r 155 Ave ra g e Me g a wa tts b y 2029

140 160 180 a)

Torchieres Ceiling Fan Kits

40 60 80 100 120 140 Cumulative Savings (MWa

Ceiling Fan Kits Candelabra Standard Halogen Reflector Standard Metal Halide Standard GSFL Standard

20 2010 2015 2020 2025 C

Fluorescent Ballast Standard

32

6/26/2014 17

F e de ra l L ig hting Sta nda rds Ha ve the Gre a te st Ne a r-T e rm I mpa c t

(Be c a use L ig hting E q uipme nt Ha s a Sho rt-L ife spa n)

250 W) 50 100 150 200 nnual Acquistions (aMW 62 aMW 2010‐2014 65 aMW 2010‐2014 50 2010 2015 2020 2025 An Lost-Opportunity Savings Goal Savings from Federal Lighting Standards

F e de ra l Sta nda rds Are E stima te d to Sa ve Just Ove r

100 a MW b y 2014 a nd 265 a MW b e twe e n 2015-2019

200 250 MW) 50 100 150 Annual Acquistions (a 102 102 aMW aMW 2010 2010‐2014 2014 265 aMW 2010‐2014 2010 2015 2020 2025 Lost-Opportunity Savings Goal Savings from Residential Federal Standards Savings from Commercial & Industrial Standards Savings from Federal Lighting Standards

6/26/2014 18 T

• ta l Sa ving s F
• re c a st fro m F

e de ra l Sta nda rds Add Up to 780 Ave ra g e Me g a wa tts b y 2029

700 800 900 Wa) 100 200 300 400 500 600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Cumulative Savings (MW 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Residential Appliances & Equipment Commercial & Industrial Equipment Lighting Equipment

35

F e de ra l Sta nda rds Ado pte d T he Sinc e Sixth Pla n Ca pture One Quar

te r

• f T

he T we nty-Ye a r L

• st-

Oppo rtunity Po te ntia l

3000 3500 Wa) 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Cumulative Savings (MW 2010 2015 2020 2025 Lost‐Opportunity Savings Goal Lighting Equipment Commercial & Industrial Equipment Residential Appliances & Equipment

36

6/26/2014 19

Ho w Muc h Will Ne w F e de ra l Co ntrib ute Me e ting 6th Pla n Go a ls?

265

1600 1800 Wa) Lost-Opportunity Savings From

300 595 100

600 800 1000 1200 1400 Year Acquisitions (MW Savings From Standards Remaining Lost- Opportunity Savings Goal

800 800

200 400 2010-2014 2015-2019 5 –Y Discretionary

Annua l Co ntrib utio n o f F e de ra l Sta nda rds T

• wa rds

6th Pla n Re g io na l E ne rg y E ffic ie nc y Go a ls 2010-2019

350 400 W) Savings from Federal Li htin Standards 100 150 200 250 300 350 ual Efficiency Goals (aMW Lighting Standards Savings from Commercial & Industrial Standards Savings from Residential Federal Standards Remaining Lost‐ Opportunity Savings Goal 50 Annu pp y g Retrofit Targets

6/26/2014 20

Re g io na l Re tro fit a nd L

• st Oppo rtunity

Sa ving s Go a ls, Ne t o f Sta nda rds

350 400

160 160 160 160 160 81 107 125 138 152

100 150 200 250 300 350 Annual Savings (MWa) ‐ 50 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Retrofit Targets Lost‐Opportunity Targets, Net of Standards Savings from Standards

I mplic a tio n fo r the Se ve nth Pla n

• Compared to the Sixth Plan:

L d f ill b l i l l h

• Load forecast will be lower, particularly over the

long term

• Remaining conservation potential will be lower
• But not as much lower as the load forecast, since

standard impact all units, but conservation assesesment assumes less than 100% program success

• Conservation programs will need adjust their

focus to measures less impacted by federal standards

40

6/26/2014 21

Ne w Da ta o n lo a d sha pe o f Applia nc e s a nd the Ca pa c ity I mpa c ts o f E ne rg y E ffic ie nc y

What We Know and What We Don’t Know June 26, 2014

41

We K no w T ha t Winte r Pe a ks Are n’ t Gro wing , While Summe r Pe a ks Pro b a b ly Are

y = 69.96x + 30235

40,000

Trends in PNW Region Peak Loads 1995 ‐ 2012

y R² = 0.0358 y = 257.53x + 23180 R² = 0.5925

10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

ystem Peak Load (MW)

42

5,000

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Sy Winter Summer Linear (Winter) Linear (Summer)

6/26/2014 22 We K no w T he PNW Syste m’ s Da ily L

• a d Pro file

Ha s No t Cha ng e d Sig nific a ntly Sinc e 1995

120%

Weather Normalized PNW Loads, without DSI

40% 60% 80% 100% t of Annual System Peak Winter‐1995 Winter‐2012 Winter System Peak: Winter System Peak: 8 8 – 9 AM 9 AM 7 7 – 8 PM 8 PM Summer System Peak: Summer System Peak: 0% 20% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Percent Hour Ending Summer‐1995 Summer‐2012 Summer System Peak: Summer System Peak: 5 5 – 6 PM 6 PM

43

3,000

We K no w T ha t Sinc e 1995 PNW Utilitie s Ha ve Ac q uire d Ove r 2,700 Ave ra g e Me g a wa tts o f Co nse rva tio n Sa ving s

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 ative Savings (aMW)

44

500

1995 2000 2005 2010

Cumul

6/26/2014 23 We Do n’ t K no w Wha t I mpa c t (I f Any) T he se E ne rg y Sa ving s Ha ve On the Re g io n’ s Ne e d fo r Ca pa c ity Re so urc e s

However:

• We Do Know That Improvements in Energy Efficiency

We o

• at

p o e e ts e gy c e cy also change hourly demands

• Savings shape matches end use load profile:
• If a device uses 20% less total energy over the course of the year, it uses

20% less each hour of the year (e.g., installation of lower wattage lighting)

• Savings shape is the difference between the pre-case

end-use profile and the post-case end-use load profile

• If a device uses 20% less total energy over the course of the year, but

gy y , the reduction in uses in not proportional across all hours (e.g.,

• ccupancy sensors for lighting turn lights off during business hours)
• We Do Know That End Use and Energy Efficiency

Savings Load Profiles Are Needed to Assess Capacity Impacts

45

What Is End‐Use Data?

46

NEEA RBSA metering data provided by Ecotope

6/26/2014 24

We K no w T he Curre nt Sta te o f E nd Use L

• a d Re se a rc h
• The Good New s - Bonneville conducted a

comprehensive End Use Load Research comprehensive End Use Load Research (EULR) project, the End-Use Load and Consumer Assessment Program (ELCAP)*

• The Bad New s – This year marks the 25th

anniversary of when the last ELCAP data was collected

• There have been no comparable studies in the US

There have been no comparable studies in the US

• r Canada since then
• There are none planned

*The ELCAP was later designated as the Regional End‐Use Metering Project (REMP)

47

We K no w Wha t Wa s Co lle c te d in E L CAP

• ELCAP began in 1983 and ended in 1991
• ELCAP’s Goal

Collect a comprehensi e set

• ELCAP’s Goal – Collect a comprehensive set
• f customer characteristics and hourly end-

use electricity consumption and weather data from residential and commercial sector consumers

• ELCAP’s Product - Created hourly (8760)

ELCAP s Product Created hourly (8760) load profiles at the individual end use and building level along with associated customer characteristics and weather data

48

6/26/2014 25

We K no w T he Co nc e rns Ra ise d Ab o ut E L CAP a nd E xisting E UL R Da ta So urc e s*

• They’re Old
• The last ELCAP data was collected in 1989
• The Don’t Reflect Current Building and Equipm ent Stock
• They Don’t Reflect Current Building and Equipm ent Stock
• Appliance characteristics and usage have changed (e.g., increased

efficiency standards);

• There are new emerging/ growing technologies (e.g., computers, plasma

TVs, Electric Vehicles, variable speed drives, demand controlled loads, LED’s, etc.);

• New appliances, lighting and equipment are “electronic” and may have

differ Power Factors than existing “resistance” based appliance, lighting and equipment

• They Don’t Provide Energy Savings Load Shapes
• They Don t Provide Energy Savings Load Shapes
• Energy Efficiency measure savings, especially controls, do not have the

same shapes as their end-use load shapes (e.g., occupancy sensors are designed to turn off lights during the day when no one is present)

49

*Results of a RTF Regional and National Review of the Business Case for End Use Load Research

We Do n’ t K no w I f T he se Co nc e rns Wa rra nte d

• The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)

To Test This Premise Staff Compared ELCAP Data To More Recent, But Less Comprehensive Studies The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) Research

• Residential Building Stock Assessment “Test Bed”
• EULR study of approximately 100 single family homes
• Preliminary (1st year) results are now available
• Ductless Heat Pump Pilot Program
• Detailed 5 minute interval data on approximately 100 ductless heat

pumps

• Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot Program
• Detailed 5 minute interval data on approximately 50 heat pump

water heaters

• While not as comprehensive as ELCAP these studies do

provide some insights into what’s changed and what hasn’t, but only in the residential sector

50

6/26/2014 26

F ive T e sts o f the E L CAP Da ta

• Electric water heating
• What impact did improvements in efficiency since 1990 that reduced annual

energy consumption from 4,700 kWh/ yr to 3,000 kWh/ yr have on winter peak demands?

• Residential Refrigerators

h d d ff h d d l

• What impact did improvements in efficiency since 1990 that reduced annual

energy consumption from 1,500 kWh/ yr to less than 500 kWh/ yr have on winter peak demands?

• Residential space heating
• What impact will supplementing existing zonal electric heating systems (e.g.

baseboard, radiant ceiling, wall heaters) with Ductless Heat Pumps have on winter and summer peak demands?

• Residential lighting
• What impact will federal efficiency standards that are changing the mix of

lighting technologies from primarily (90%) incandescent lamps to over primarily (60% 80%) fluorescent (CFLs) / solid state (LED) lamps have on winter peak (60% - 80%) fluorescent (CFLs) / solid state (LED) lamps have on winter peak demands and power factor?

• Total System Impacts
• Is ELCAP data “good enough”? (i.e., Is there a significant difference between

using ELCAP load profiles and more recent data to estimate the impact of energy efficiency measures on system peaks?)

51

E L CAP Re side ntia l Wa te r He a ting L

• a d Sha pe

00 1.20 System Winter Peak Hours 0 20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 KW ELCAP_weekday ‐ 0.20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Ending _ y ELCAP_weekend

52

6/26/2014 27

We K no w T ha t Re side ntia l Wa te r He a ting L

• a d Pro file s Ha ve Cha ng e d

1.20

Water Heating Hourly Load Profiles – 1990 and 2012

System Winter Peak Hours 0 20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 KW ‐ 0.20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Ending ELCAP_weekday RBSA_weekday

53

We K no w T ha t PNW Re side ntia l Wa te r He a ting Ho urly De ma nd Ha s De c re a se d

3 000 3,500 W)

PNW Residential Demand ‐ 1990 vs. 2012

System Winter Peak Hour Savings 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Hourly DWH Demand (MW ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 H Hour Ending

PNW Hourly Demand (MW) ‐ 1990 Stock PNW Hourly Demand (MW) ‐ 2012 Stock

54

6/26/2014 28

We K no w T ha t Ca pa c ity Sa ving s F ro m Re side ntia l Wa te r He a ting E ffic ie nc y I mpro ve me nts Be twe e n 1990 a nd T

• da y We re T

hre e T ime s T he ir Annua l E ne rg y Sa ving s

1990 1990 2012 2012 Ann al Use (kWh) 4 700 3 000 Annual Use (kWh) 4,700 3,000 Savings/Unit (kWh) 1,700 Water heater stock <55g 2,701,000 3,489,700 Water heater stock >55g 300,100 337,800 Water heater stock - Total 3,001,200 3,827,500 A l L d ( MW) 1 610 1 310 Annual Load (aMW) 1,610 1,310 PNW 2012 Savings (aMW) 300 Coincident Peak Load (MW) 2,940 2,035 Coincident Peak Savings (MW) 905

55

We K no w T ha t Curre nt Wa te r He a ting L

• a d F

a c to rs No w Hig he r

120% d 40% 60% 80% 100% rcent of Daily Peak Load 0% 20% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Pe Hour Ending

ELCAP DWH Profile RBSA DWH Profile ELCAP DWH Load Factor RBSA RWH Load Factor

56

6/26/2014 29

We No w K no w T ha t Using Old (E L CAP) L

• a d Pro file s

Unde rsta te the Ca pa c ity I mpa c t o f Cha ng e s in Wa te r He a te r E ffic ie nc y

1990 2012 – ELCAP Load Shape 2012 – RBSA Load Shape ( ) Annual Use (kWh) 4,700 3,000 3,000 Savings/Unit (kWh) 1,700 1,700 Water heater stock <55g 2,701,000 3,489,700 3,489,700 Water heater stock >55g 300,100 337,800 337,800 Water heater stock - Total 3,001,200 3,827,500 3,827,500 Annual Load (aMW) 1,610 1,311 1,311 PNW 2012 Savings (aMW) 300 300 Coincident Peak Load (MW) 2,940 2,370 2,035 Coincident Peak Savings (MW) 570 905

57

We K no w T ha t F e de ra l Sta nda rds Will De c re a se Wa te r He a ting E ne rg y Use F urthe r Alte ring T his E nd Use ’ s L

• a d Sha pe

Electric Resistance vs. Heat Pump Water Heater Hourly Load Profiles

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 KW

Profiles

Winter System Peak Hours ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Ending Electric Resistance Heat Pump Water Heater

58

6/26/2014 30 Ca pa c ity I mpa c t o f Cha ng e s in Wa te r He a te r E ffic ie nc y Due to Ne w F e de ra l Sta nda rds

2012 ER 2012 ER 2012 HPWH 2012 HPWH Annual Use (kWh) 3,000 2,000 Annual Use (kWh) 3,000 2,000 Savings/Unit (kWh) 1,000 Water heater stock >55g 337,815 337,815 Annual Load (aMW) 115 75 PNW 2012 Savings (aMW) 40 Coincident Peak Load (MW) 175 110 Coincident Peak Savings (MW) 65

We Know We Know That Without More Recent End Use Load Research We Would Not Be Able That Without More Recent End Use Load Research We Would Not Be Able to Estimate the Capacity Impacts of Heat Pump Water Heaters. to Estimate the Capacity Impacts of Heat Pump Water Heaters.

59

We K no w T ha t Co mpa re d to the Sto c k in 1990 the Curre nt Sto c k o f Re frig e ra to rs Use s One -T hird the E ne rg y a nd Re q uire s One -Ha lf the Ca pa c ity

0.25 Winter System Peak Hours 0 05 0.10 0.15 0.20 KW ELCAP_refrigerator RBSA_refrigerator

Today’s better insulated refrigerators are less sensitive to ambient air temperature

‐ 0.05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Ending

60

6/26/2014 31

We K no w T ha t Sinc e Re frig e ra to r L

• a d Pro file s Ha ve

No t Cha ng e d Sig nific a ntly E L CAP Da ta I s Still A Re a so na b le Re pre se nta tio n o f Ca pa c ity I mpa c ts

2012 2012 – – ELCAP Load ELCAP Load 2012 2012 – – RBSA Load RBSA Load 1990 1990 ELCAP Load ELCAP Load Shape Shape RBSA Load RBSA Load Shape Shape Annual Use (kWh) 1,500 500 500 Savings/Unit (kWh) 1,000 1,000 Water heater stock - Total 4,635,880 7,148,900 7,148,900 Annual Load (aMW) 795 410 410 PNW 2012 Savings (aMW) 385 385 Coincident Peak Load (MW) 760 390 390 Coincident Peak Savings (MW) 370 370

61

On the Othe r Ha nd, T he re Are Sub tle “Within Ho ur” Diffe re nc e s T ha t Mig ht Ma tte r fo r De ma nd Re spo nse

800 900 Note difference in use Note difference in use 200 300 400 500 600 700 Watts Note difference in use Note difference in use following “defrost” cycle following “defrost” cycle Defrost Cycle Defrost Cycle ‐ 100 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 780 840 900 960 1020 1080 1140 1200 1260 1320 1380 1440 Minutes 1995 Refrigerator (W) 2006 Refrigerator (W)

62

6/26/2014 32 He a t Syste m L

• a d Pro file s vs. DHP Sa ving s

L

• a d Pro file fo r No rma l Winte r Da y

3.00 3.50 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 KW ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Ending Heat Pump Electric Resistance DHP ER to DHP Saving Shape

63

We K no w T ha t Duc tle ss He a t Pumps Ha ve Bo th E ne rg y a nd Ca pa c ity Be ne fits

1.60 1.80 0 20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 KW ‐ 0.20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Ending ELCAP ‐ ER Annual ER w/DHP Supplemental Heating Profile

64

6/26/2014 33

We K no w T

ha t Duc tle ss He a t Pumps Ca pa c ity Be ne fits

E ve n On E

xtre me Winte r Pe a k Da ys

6.0 7.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 KW Peak Day Savings Peak Day Savings ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Ending DHP‐Winter Peak Day ER‐Winter Peak Day

65

We K no w T ha t Duc tle ss He a t Pump Pro vide Air Co nditio ning – So Summe r Pe a k L

• a ds Will I

nc re a se

160 180 200 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Watts ‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Ending DHP_summer_weekday ER_summer_weekday

66

6/26/2014 34

Po te ntia l Syste m I mpa c ts fro m Duc tle ss He a t Pumps

Electric Electric Zonal Heat Zonal Heat Electric Zonal Electric Zonal w/DHP w/DHP Supplement Supplement Electric Zonal Electric Zonal Extreme Peak Extreme Peak Electric Electric Zonal w/DHP Zonal w/DHP Supplement Supplement Zonal Heat Zonal Heat Supplement Supplement Extreme Peak Extreme Peak Supplement Supplement Annual Use (kWh) 9,680 6,360 6.2 (KW) 2.7 (KW) Savings/Unit (kWh) 3,320 3.46 (KW) Existing Baseboard Heated Stock 542,600 542,600 542,600 542,600 Annual Load (aMW) 600 395 N/A N/A Potential Savings (aMW) 205 N/A Winter Coincident Peak Load (MW) 1,725 485 3,345 1,465 Winter Coincident Peak Savings (MW) 1,245 1,880 Summer Coincident Peak Load (MW) 45 115 Summer Coincident Peak Savings (MW) (70)

67

L ig hting E ne rg y Use

Scenario LPD (W/ft^2) Annual Energy (kWh/yr) ELCAP 3.54 4500 Current Survey (RBSA) 1.40 1845 Full EISA Compliance w/ EISA targets 1.18 1555 Full EISA Compliance w/ CFLs 0.85 1120

• Four scenarios
• 1990 – Lighting load as measured in ELCAP
• 2012 – Lighting load as measured in RBSA
• Full EISA compliance with EISA targets assume all currently non-complying,

non-exempt lamps are replaced with their minimum compliance equivalents

• Full EISA compliance with CFLs assumes all non-complying, non-example lamps

replaced with CFL equivalents

• Annual energy use is for 2,006ft2 house with 1.8 hours per day of on-time

(Source: RBSA sample house size and lighting on-time metering)

68

6/26/2014 35

Re side ntia l L ig hting L

• a d Pro file s

L ig hting I s No w Co ntrib uting Sig nific a ntly L e ss to Bo th Mo rning a nd E ve ning Pe a ks

1.20 RBSA_winter S System Winter Peak Hours 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 KW RBSA_summer ELCAP_winter ELCAP Summer ‐ 0.20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour Ending

69

Histo ric a l a nd F

• re c a st Syste m I

mpa c ts fro m Re side ntia l L ig hting E ffic ie nc y I mpro ve me nts

Lighting Lighting Loads Loads (ELCAP) (ELCAP) -

• 1990 Stock &

1990 Stock & Efficiency Efficiency Lighting Loads Lighting Loads (ELCAP load (ELCAP load shape, 2012 shape, 2012 stock & stock & efficiency) efficiency) RBSA Lighting RBSA Lighting Load Shape Load Shape -

• 2012 Stock &

2012 Stock & Efficiency Efficiency Post Post-

• EISA 2020

EISA 2020 Lighting Lighting Standards Standards Loads (2012 Loads (2012 Stock) Stock) Efficiency Efficiency efficiency) efficiency) Efficiency Efficiency Stock) Stock) Annual Use (kWh) 4,500 1,770 1,770 1,080 Savings/Unit (kWh) 2,730 2,730 690 Single Family Residential Stock 4,021,700 5,798,220 5,798,220 5,798,220 Total Annual Lighting Loads (aMW) 2,065 1,170 1,170 715 PNW 2012 Savings (aMW) 895 895 455 Coincident Peak Load (MW) - Morning 2,080 1,180 1,230 750 Coincident Peak Load (MW) - Evening 2,885 1,640 1,850 1,135 Coincident Peak Load Savings (MW) - Morning 900 850 480 Coincident Peak Load Savings (MW) - Evening 1,245 1,030 725

70

6/26/2014 36

Wha t’ s All T his Me a n

• The region’s development of energy

efficiency resources also has capacity efficiency resources also has capacity impacts

• Our knowledge of the relationship

between energy and capacity savings is largely based on data collected 25 years ago ago

• Let’s see just how much difference using

updated data for just two end uses makes

71

2010 -2012 Utility E ffic ie nc y Pro g ra m Sa ving s

800 900 ) Residential Water Heating id i l Li h i 200 300 400 500 600 700 ngs (Average Megawatts Residential Lighting All Other Measures 100 200 2010 2011 2012 2010 ‐ 2012 Savin

72

6/26/2014 37 Upda ting L

• a d Pro file Da ta Annua l E

ne rg y a nd Winte r Ca pa c ity Sa ving s fro m 2010-2012 Utility E ffic ie nc y Pro g ra ms

1 000 1,200 Residential Water Heating Residential Lighting 120 Lower Peak 400 600 800 1,000 MWa/MW Residential Lighting All Other Measures 200 Annual Energy Savings Peak Savings w/ELCAP Peak Savings w/RBSA

73

Ne xt Ste ps

• Update on Seventh Plan timing
• Update on Drivers
• How the standards and load shapes will be

incorporated into the long term model.

• Next DFAC meeting

74

6/26/2014 38

Ne xt ste ps in Se ve nth Po we r Pla n De ve lo pme nt

75

Ne xt ste ps

• Updates to Economic Drivers of the model
• No significant change in Population and Economic drivers are
• No significant change in Population and Economic drivers are
• bserved.
• Range of forecast for residential, commercial, industrial sectors

similar to 2013 updates.

• Range of natural gas price projections widening.
• Updating long-term model with 2012-2013 baseline for RBSA,

CBSA, IFSA.

• Incorporate impact of federal appliance standards in long term
• Incorporate impact of federal appliance standards in long-term

demand forecasting model.

• Incorporating roof-top solar into forecast.
• Q3-Q4 update to long-term forecast.

76

6/26/2014 39

K e y De mo g ra phic a nd E c o no mic Drive rs

• Population growth
• Business drivers
• New homes
• Commercial floor space
• Industrial output
• Natural Gas Prices
• Natural Gas Prices

77

Re g io na l Po pula tio n

14000 16000 18000

Regional Population (1000) 1985-2014 2015-2035 ID 1.73% 1.30% MT 0.77% 0.50% WA 1.64% 0.90%

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

OR 1.37% 0.80% 4 States 1.50% 0.90% USA 1.03% 0.90%

Average Annual Addition to Population (1000) 1985-2015 2015-2035

ID 21 24 MT 7 6 WA 90 66 OR 43 34

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2035 ID MT OR WA

Overall regional population growth projected to slow down. Northwest population remains about 4% of national population.

4 States 162 130

78

6/26/2014 40

Co mme rc ia l Se c to r*

Annual Growth Rate

2005-2011 2011-2020 2020-2035

Employment 0.8% 1.4% 0.6% Floor space Stock Req. 0.4% 1.0% 0.5% Millions of square Feet

Cumulative Annual Average

1985-2011 Addition 1,406 52 2015-2035 Requirement 951 40 * Subject to change as Commercial Building Stock Assessment becomes available

79

3000 3500 4000 50 60 70

Co mme rc ia l F lo o r Spa c e Re q uire me nts Ne w a nd Sto c k (millio ns SQF )*

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 10 20 30 40 Additions Stock New 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

80

* Source: GI state level employment forecast /internal analysis.

* Subject to change as 2014 Commercial Building Stock Assessment becomes available

6/26/2014 41

400 500 600

Ma nufa c turing Output (Billio ns o f 2005$)*

100 200 300 400

Annual Growth Rate 2015-2035 1.7% Idaho 1.1% Montana 2.0% Oregon 0.8% Washington

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 Idaho Montana Oregon Washington

81

• Source: GI March 2014 state level forecast.
• Subject to change from finding from Industrial Facilities Site Assessment (IFSA)

Pro po se d Na tura l Ga s Pric e s 2012$ a nd No mina l $

Proposed Henry Hub Price Forecasts as of July 2014 $2012/MMBTU Council L Council M Council H

2013

3.7 3.7 3.7

2014 3.9 4.7 4.9

2015 4.0 4.6 5.1 2020 3.9 5.0 6.0 2025 3.8 5.7 7.3 2030 3.5 6.6 8.9 2035 3.2 7.4 10.8

Average 2015-2035

3.8 5.8 7.5

Proposed Henry Hub Price Forecasts as of July 2014 Nominal Dollars Council L Council M Council H

2014 4.0 4.9 5.1

2015

82

2015

4.2 4.8 5.3

2020

4.4 5.7 6.8

2025

4.7 7.1 9.1

2030

4.7 8.9 12.0

2035

4.7 11.0 16.0

Average 2015-2035

5.7 8.7 11.4

6/26/2014 42 Ho w we inc o rpo ra te impa c t o f fe de ra l a pplia nc e sta nda rds in the L

• ng -te rm mo de l
• Council’s long-term forecasting tool is an

d d l enduse model.

• Demand is forecasted at enduse level
• Marginal efficiency is set to greater of market
• r the standard
• Efficiency for transformers are modeled as

Efficiency for transformers are modeled as improvement in distribution efficiency.

83

Ne xt DF AC Me e ting

• Most likely in October
• How are you incorporating these topic

areas in your demand forecasting”

• Rooftop PV
• Data Center load growth and impact on the economy
• How to incorporate information technology improvements in the demand

forecast (Internet of Things, big data,… )

El i hi l l d

• Electric vehicles loads
• Indoor growing operation loads- Washington (I502)
• other key topic areas you are dealing with in your work?

84

6/26/2014 43

• Thank you for participating

85