1 / 28

City of Boulder Meeting Kyoto -- Carbon Emissions Reduction: Commercial Lighting

City of Boulder Meeting Kyoto -- Carbon Emissions Reduction: Commercial Lighting. Discussion Overview. State of Play Project Overview - Analysis I Project Development and Goals Model Review Energy Efficiency Model Development and Overview Findings and Implications Key Assumptions

luka
Télécharger la présentation

City of Boulder Meeting Kyoto -- Carbon Emissions Reduction: Commercial Lighting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. City of BoulderMeeting Kyoto -- Carbon Emissions Reduction: Commercial Lighting

  2. Discussion Overview • State of Play • Project Overview - Analysis I • Project Development and Goals • Model Review • Energy Efficiency Model Development and Overview • Findings and Implications • Key Assumptions • Areas for Model Refinement • Derivation of Potential and Cost of Efficiency • Technical, Economic and Achievable Potential • Cost of Efficiency Example Calculation • Levelized Cost of Energy • Questions and Discussions

  3. State of Play

  4. State of Play City of Boulder Emissions Projections by Source

  5. Project Overview

  6. Project Inception • Project Identification • Commercial sector poses a significant amount of energy efficiency potential • Increasing energy efficiency in commercial buildings is among the most cost-effective ways of reducing energy use and the associated carbon emissions • Project Development • Project ID prompted the proposal and development of a commercial energy efficiency potential model to: • Determine the feasible range of delivered cost per metric tonne of CO2 reductions • Determine the anticipated metric tonne reduction for a given investment

  7. Analysis I - Delivered Price per mt CO2 Assessment Analysis I set out to answer the questions: • What is Boulder’s cost for delivered CO2 (cost CO2/metric tonne reduced)? • What are each of the components that make up the delivered CO2 price? • How much CO2 reduction can be expected with a given investment? • What influence does industry type, building type, etc. have on CO2 price?

  8. Analysis I - Approach • Basis • Various energy efficiency potential studies and data sets exist • Itron 2006 California Energy Efficiency Potential Study • DEER (Database for Energy Efficiency Resources) • NYSERDA’s 2003 study for New York State • E-Source / Platts • California Commercial End-Use Survey • Others… • Integrate City of Boulder data • Develop the model to reflect Boulder’s • Climate zone • Building stock • Energy mix • Consumption projections • Program Development • Others…

  9. Model Review

  10. Model Overview

  11. Analysis I - Findings • Boulder’s Budget Required for Achievable Potential ≈ $480,000 (Boulder’s LCOE: $0.0035/kWh) • Boulder’s Achievable Potential Year 3 ≈ 9,000 mt CO2

  12. Analysis I - Findings • Boulder’s Annual Budget Target = $400,000 => Associated Annual CO2 Savings 8,300 mt CO2

  13. Analysis I - Findings • Boulder Lighting Energy Efficiency Potential by Building Type

  14. Analysis I - Findings • Boulder’s Program Administration Costs • Model Baseline ≈ 11% of measure costs • Analysis - 1% • Project Management - 3% • Strategic Positioning - 2% • Sales - 4% • Education an/Outreach - 1% • Compare to utility Demand Side Management/EE Programs • PA Costs modeled in range of the national average (10-18%) but above "best-in-class" utilities, which have more experience running programs than does the City of Boulder

  15. Analysis I - Implications • Commercial lighting has significant EE potential • Boulder’s building stock is well positioned (i.e. significant savings from a few building types) • Small Office, Large Office, Retail and Health Care ≈ 87% of Achievable Potential • Targeted commercial EE can provide measurable and verified emission reductions • Cost sharing makes the commercial EE options more appealing for all stakeholders • Multi-party appeal • Understanding market segmentation will be critical for program development and sustained emission reductions.

  16. Analysis I - Implications • System-wide Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) at $0.032/kWh, is comparable to leading industry analyses. • City of Boulder’s Cost of Carbon at $3.96/mt CO2, is significantly less than worldwide carbon market cost of carbon (e.g. EU ETS at ≈ $20.8/mt CO2 on Aug 18, 2009) • Achievable lighting efficiency has the potential to reduce overall commercial lighting energy use by 5%* • Achievable lighting efficiency has the potential to achieve nearly 12%* of Boulder’s commercial emissions reduction goal * Based on conservative Achievable Potential and “Ramp-up” percentages. Includes all energy savings from year 1, 2 and 3

  17. Key Model Assumptions • Data set corrects for any measure double counting (i.e. measure XX negates the savings potential from measure YY) • Only readily available commercially implemented and proven measures included in model (i.e. no singular or extreme cutting-edge technologies) • System Consumption Projections: ≈ ½ % per year growth • Cost of CO2 offsets: $20/mt CO2 • Boulder Discount Rate: 2.04% • Ratepayer Discount Rate: 3.0% • Boulder’s Program Administration Costs: 11%

  18. Areas for Model Refinement • As data becomes available: • Program Administration Costs • Sales, Analysis, Project Management, etc. • Utility and Federal Incentives • Achievable Potential • Boulder’s technology saturation, customer acceptance, etc. • Achievable Potential Ramp-up • Investment/Benefit change over time • Lighting Technology cost • Anticipate reduced costs as technology gains mainstream market acceptance

  19. Derivation of Potential and Cost of Efficiency

  20. Technical Potential • Boulder Building Stock • Energy consumption forecast • Commercial energy use break down by building type (sources: CBECS, Boulder) • End use breakdown by building type(sources: PLATTS, CEC CEUS) Top down Technical Potential • Efficiency Measure Data(by building type and climate zone) • Measure lifetime • Annual savings (kWh/unit) • Measure cost ($/unit) • # of units in building type Bottom up

  21. Economic Potential Economic Potential (kWh/year) > 1 TRC < 1 Not included in Economic Potential Total Resource Cost (TRC) System Avoided Costs System Costs = System Avoided Costs System Costs Xcel:avoided cost of generation orwholesale purchase price Xcel:rebate, lost revenue Customer:Measure costs, net of rebate Customer:Avoided retail rateof electricity City of Boulder:Program administration costs City of Boulder:avoided cost of carbon offset

  22. Achievable Potential Achievable Potential (kWh/year) EconomicPotential(kWh/year) Achievable Ramp-Up Factor (% achievable by year) Achievable Factor (% achievable, by end use and bldg type) x x = Achievable CO2 Savings(m tons/year) Achievable Potential (kWh/year) CO2 Intensity(m tons CO2/kWh) = x

  23. Derivation of Cost of EfficiencyExample: Occupancy Sensor in Small Office • Source data for cost and performance of efficiency measures: Itron’s 2006 report “California Energy Efficiency Potential Study”

  24. Derivation of CostExample: Occupancy Sensor in Small Office *Program Administration (PA) costs defined as % of measure capital cost: • Analysis (1%) • Project Management (3%) • Sales (2%) • Strategic Positioning (4%) • Education / Outreach (1%)

  25. Derivation of CostExample: Occupancy Sensor in Small Office • Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) is the lifecycle cost of a measure, amortized over the measure’s lifetime, divided by the measure’s lifetime energy savings. • LCOE = [PMT(1) (measure cost + PA costs, @ Boulder’s discount rate, measure lifetime)] [(energy savings/year) × (lifetime)] • Occupancy sensor in small office: LCOE = [PMT(1) ($169.20 + (11% × $169.20), @ 2.04%, 8 years)] [(789 kWh/year) × (8 years)] measure cost PA Costs discount rate lifetime energy savings/year lifetime $ 25.96 788.9 kWh = = $0.033/kWh (1) PMT is a function that calculates the payment for a loan based on constant payments and a constant interest rate, using the present value of all future payments, the interest rate, and the number of payments (years) for the loan.

  26. Derivation of CostExample: Occupancy Sensor in Small Office • How does this compare to the levelized costs of the rest of the measures modeled? Measures costing more than ≈$0.12/kWh are not economic ($0.12 = customer rate + city's avoided cost of CO2 offset alternative) $0.033/kWh

  27. Xcel Costs = Customer Costs = Boulder Program Administration Costs = % of Total Measure Cost Incentive Cost Units Incentivized x Incentive per Unit = Incentive Cost Units Installed x Measure Cost per Unit — System Cost Breakdown Overall costs are further broken down by stakeholder:

  28. Thank You!

More Related