1 / 37

Draft Plan Proposed Regional Conservation Targets for 2010 - 2014

Draft Plan Proposed Regional Conservation Targets for 2010 - 2014. Power Committee June 10, 2009 Updated for CRAC June 19, 2009. Why We Ask Council for Guidance on Targets. Near term conservation targets determine medium term action plan on other generating resources

mdahl
Télécharger la présentation

Draft Plan Proposed Regional Conservation Targets for 2010 - 2014

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. Draft Plan Proposed Regional Conservation Targetsfor 2010 - 2014 Power Committee June 10, 2009 Updated for CRAC June 19, 2009

  2. Why We Ask Council for Guidance on Targets • Near term conservation targets determine medium term action plan on other generating resources • If significantly lower or higher targets are desired, portfolio model may need to be re-run to evaluate impact on other resources options

  3. Proposed Targets 2010-20141200 MWa Cumulative

  4. Alternative Targets • Staff received comment from some Conservation Resources Advisory Committee members that approximately 20 percent lower target should be set • This lower target would not include any of the “new” measures in the conservation assessment • Action Plan would include recommendation for minimum regional investment in deployment of these “new resources” – but not savings targets • Staff also was encouraged to evaluate higher conservation “ramp rate” constraints • Portfolio Model results showed some additional cost and risk reduction • State (and maybe National) Climate action goals require aggressive efficiency programs

  5. Alternatives to Proposed Targets – Discretionary Conservation

  6. Alternatives to Proposed Targets – Lost Opportunity Conservation

  7. Cumulative Savings 2010 - 2014

  8. The “Big Picture” • Through 2007 the region acquired 3600 aMW of conservation savings • This is equivalent to meeting all of the electricity needs of Idaho and Western Montana in 2008 • Acquiring 1200 aMW of conservation savings by 2014 • Could meet 50% regional load growth* • Is equivalent to adding the critical water output of three Bonneville Dams • Acquiring the ~5800 aMW of conservation savings by 2029 • Could meet 85% of regionally load growth* • This would keep most public utilities out of “Tier 2” for the next 20 years • Is equivalent to the critical water output of the seven largest hydroelectric projects in the PNW or meeting all of the 2008 electricity needs of the state of Oregon *Under medium load growth the region is forecast to grow by approximately 2350 aMW by 2014 and 6900 aMW over the next 20 years without any additional conservation.

  9. CFL Countdown • Issue: • Estimate recent regional savings NOT including CFLs addressed by EISA • Why: • Recent savings is heavy with CFLs • Proposed targets do not include EISA CFLs • What is current non-CFL savings? • How big a gap between current non-CFL savings and proposed non-CFL targets

  10. CFL Countdown • First Estimate non-CFL savings: • 155 MWa in 2008 • Updated Estimate: • 140 MWa in 2008 • Difference: • About 15 MWa of reported regional savings were from CFLs that replaced burned-out CFLs • So total estimated savings were too high • Differences in BPA/Utility & NEEA reporting

  11. Updated Analysis in MWa Savings estimates include line losses & 5th Plan Baseline Adjustment

  12. Historical Regional CFL Savings Source: NEEA Data and Projections

  13. Historical & Projected Regional CFL Savings Forecast Historical Source: NEEA Data and Projections

  14. Alternatives to Cope with“CFL Detox” • Adopt staff proposal of 1200 aMW target for 2010 – 2014 period • Alt 1 – Adopt 1200 aMW target, but add savings from CFLs covered by federal standards to conservation potential in 2010-2011 (~20 to ~25 aMW/yr) • Alt 2 – Same as Alt 2, but reduce 2010 – 2012 targets by 20 - 25 aMW/yr and move these savings to 2013 – 2014 • Alt 3 – Other Suggestions

  15. Why These Targets • Fastest “Realistically Achievable” Acquisition Schedule • All portfolio sensitivity analysis supports these (or higher) targets • Historical achievements (200 aMW in 2007, ~220 aMW in 2008), equal to or above than near term targets • Proposed ramp rates based on “grounds up” measure-by-measure estimate of achievable savings • Region is better positioned today to achieve conservation than it has been at any point since the Act was past

  16. Base Case Least-Risk Plan Conservation “Build Out” ScheduleFrom Regional Portfolio Model Proposed Target

  17. Portfolio Analysis Supports Accelerated Conservation Acquisition • Least-risk plans: • Model builds discretionary conservation at maximum pace for first 2400 MWa in all sensitivity cases • High premium for Lost-Opportunity in all sensitivity cases • $50/MWh premium over market (up to $120/MWh) • $40/MWh premium for high-pace discretionary sensitivity • Slower-paced sensitivity case shows large cost & risk penalty • Faster-paced sensitivity case shows smaller cost & risk reduction

  18. Recent Utility Program Performance Equals Near Term Targets Prior Utility Program “Ramp Rates” Support Proposed Pace Recent Changes in State Codes & Federal Standards Support Medium Term Pace Market Driven Changes Show Increasing “Non-Programmatic” Improvements in Efficiency (based on survey of building characteristics) (e.g., the “Walmart Effect”) Are These Targets “Doable”?Rationale Based on Past Achievements

  19. The Region Is Well Ahead of the 5th Plan’s Targets Revised!

  20. Share of Savings by Funding Source

  21. Contribution of CFLs to Regional Conservation Savings Revised!

  22. Utility Conservation Acquisitions Are Stable At Record Levels (“Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride”* May Have Finally Ended) Revised! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Toad's_Wild_Ride

  23. Are These Targets “Doable”?Rationale Based on Forecast “Achievability” • Proposed targets based on program “ramp rates” built up from measure-by-measure analysis • “Ramp Rate” Estimates Based On • Measure Characteristics • (e.g., new measures slower than measures in existing programs) • Implementation Strategies • (e.g. market transformation near-term ramps slower than “house-by-house” deployment) • Size & Cost • (e.g., lower cost measures deployed faster than higher cost measures) • Physical Availability of Equipment • (e.g., deployment of heat pump water heaters low for first five years because product is just entering market) • Training & Education Requirements • (e.g., savings based on “improved practices” deployed slower than “widget-to-widget” change outs)

  24. Forecast AchievabilityMeasure-by-Measure Cumulative Sum of Ramp-Ups = 1270 aMW (~1270 MWa: 370 aMW LO + 900 aMW NLO) Maximum Annual Rates from Conservation Supply Curves: Retrofit at <$70/MWh and Lost-Opportunity at <$120/MWH

  25. Forecast Achievability for New InitiativesMeasure-by-Measure Cumulative Sum of Ramp-Ups = ~340 aMW(130 aMW LO + 210 aMW NLO) Maximum Annual Rates from Conservation Supply Curves: Retrofit at <$70/MWh and Lost-Opportunity at <$120/MWH

  26. Estimated Impact on “Regional Revenue Requirements” • Assumptions: • 2008 Regional Retail Electricity Sales Revenue = $11.4 billion • 2008 Conservation Investments in Retail Sales Revenue = ~ $300 million (2.6%) • Utility Share of New Conservation Cost = 65% • Lost-Opportunity Resources = $3.0 million/aMW • Discretionary Resources = $2.6 million/aMW

  27. Impact on Regional “Revenue Requirement”

  28. Estimated Cumulative Impact on Regional “Revenue Requirement” to Achieve Proposed Conservation Targets

  29. Comparison of 2010 “Targets” with Utility Projected Savings for 2008 and 2009

  30. Preliminary Estimates of Expenditures & Budgets

  31. 12) Sum of measure ramp rates >1200 MWa 11) 2008 actual is higher than 2010 proposed start 10) ~140 MWa/YR of non-CFL in 2008 w/o new measures 9) New measures & initiatives could add >100MWa/YR 8) Magnitude & acceleration of historic ramp up periods exceeds 6P ramp up 7) Exceed 5P targets by ~40% 6) Large 2008-09 budget ramp up 5) Proposed NEEA budget doubles 4) Poised for codes & standards 3) Tiered Rates 2) Some large utilities & ETO already have plans to exceed their “share” of targets 1) It matters more than ever Top Reasons Why We Have Never Been Better Positioned to Hit Targets

  32. HPWH Ramp Rate • Looked for comparable consumer product on which to base market growth • So What - • Has a higher efficiency, but cost 2-3 more • Was used in Europe and Asia, but “unknown” to US consumers and contractors • Has special installation (i.e., venting) requirements • Had a limited distribution network • Had to overcome prior less than “positive” consumer experience with earlier versions of the technology • Answer - Instantaneous gas-fired water heaters

  33. National Instantaneous Gas-Fired Water Heater Sales

  34. HPWH Ramp Rate vs. Instantaneous Gas-Fired Water Heater Market Growth

  35. What Technology Could This Be?

  36. What Technology Could This Be?

More Related