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

Northwest Resource Mix Energy Efficiency Was The Region’s Second Largest Resource in 2012 Nuclear Wind Biomass Natural Gas 4% 6% 1% 7% H ydropower G eothermal 46% <1% Energy Efficiency Based on 2012 Actual Dispatch and Hydro 17% Coal Resource Output; 2013 EIA data will be 12% released in October/November of 2014 3

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 The Council Is Unique! 4

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 (7 th is currently under development)  All Plan’s have called for significant reliance on 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 100% Share of Cost-Effective Potential 90% 1983 assumed high 80% levels of 70% 60% “achievability” 50% 40%  85% of 20-yr cost- 30% effective potential for 20% retrofits 10% 0%  65% of 20-yr cost- Retrofit Lost-Opportunity effective potential for Not Achievable Achievable lost opportunity Elapse of 20-year time span since first Plan presented unique opportunity for empirical comparison between “forecast” and “actual” achievements 7

Unfortunately, The Lack of Sustained Acquisition Program Activity Precluded Direct Comparison With The 1983 Plan’s Forecast of Achievable Potential Utility Program Achievements 1983 - 2002 Annual Savings (GWH/yr) 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 - Year

Nevertheless, The Overall Findings Supported Council’s Assumptions Council’s assumed near -term (5- Empirical evidence supported year) achievable acquisition rates are Council’s forecast of long-term well supported and may be achievable conservation potential conservative $450 3,000 Annual Expenditures (2006$) Plan Targets $400 Annual Savings (GWH/yr) 2,500 Actual R² = 0.82 $350 2,000 $300 $250 1,500 $200 1,000 $150 $100 500 $50 - $- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - 2,000 4,000 Program Year Annual Savings (GWh/yr)

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

Residential Water Heating Use Annual Water Heating Use 6,000 5,000 (kWh/yr) 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1983 Base 1983 Plan Minimum Minimum Achievable Federal Federal (2002) Standard Stardard (1991) (2004)

Average Energy Use of New Refrigerators 1,400 1983 Plan Baseline Annual Energy Use (kWh) 1,200 1983 Plan Achievable by 2002 1,000 Actual 2002 Use 800 600 400 200 0 Year

Average Energy Use of New Clothes Washers 1200 1983 Plan Baseline 1983 Plan Achievable by 2002 Annual Energy Use (kWh) 1000 800 600 Actual 2002 Use 400 200 0 Year

Commercial Lighting Power Density Codes Surpass 1983 MCS Building Type Lighting Power Density (Watts/sq.ft.) 1983 Oregon Washington Idaho Seattle Plan 2004 and 2004 2004 Target Montana (MCS) Office 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Retail Stores 1.5 Varies Varies 1.5+ Varies Varies 1.5+ 1.5+ 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 of Existing Buildings Audit Lighting Power Density Reduction in Lighting Power Date (Watts/sq.ft.) Density (%) All Offices Retail All Office Retail Buildings Buildings As found 1.5 1.6 1.9 in 1987 As found 1.2 1.4 1.5 20% 13% 21% in 2001

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 offset 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 3,000 Annual Savings (GWH/yr) Plan Annual Goal 2,500 Actual Annual Achievement 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 - 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 *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 3,000 2,500 Annual Savings (GWH/yr) Target 2,000 Actual 1,500 1,000 500 - 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Planned vs. Actual Accomplishments by Major End Use* 2010 – 2012 3,000 Plan Target 2,500 Savings ( GWH) Achievements 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 - *Source: Bonneville Power Administration, “Six Going on Seven” Analysis http://www.bpa.gov/EE/Utility/toolkit/Documents/Results_Presentation_CRAC_FINAL.pdf 25