Presentation to UC/CSU Energy Managers Friday, July 18, 2014 Energy Division California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Energy Efficiency Organizational Chart Energy Efficiency Branch Manager: Pete Skala Industrial and Agricultural Programs And Portfolio Forecasting Supervisor: Jaclyn Marks Program Areas • Industrial and Agricultural • Water Energy Nexus • Continuous Energy Improvement • Efficiency Savings Performance Incentive • Emerging Technologies Program Oversight Functions • Cost Effectiveness • Potential and Goals • Data Base for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER) • Non-DEER Work Papers • Custom Projects • EE Policy Manual • Strategic Plan Residential Programs And Portfolio Approval Supervisor: Hazlyn Fortune Program Areas Oversight Functions • Home Upgrade/Advanced Home Upgrade • Portfolio Approval • Regional Energy Networks • Programmatic Stakeholder Engagement • Community Choice Aggregators • Government Partnerships • New Residential Buildings • HVAC • Financing • Behavior Programs • ME&O • Portfolio Analytics • CARE Program Enrollment • Marketing, Education, and Outreach Commercial Programs And Portfolio Evaluation Supervisor: Carmen Best Program Areas • New Commercial Buildings • Lighting • Codes and Standards • Identification / Tracking of EE Safety Issues • Workforce Education and Training Oversight Functions • Annual Report • EM&V Plan/Budget • Data management/ Reporting • Non-Savings Metrics • EM&V Protocols and Methods • Audit Oversight • Market Studies • Integrated Demand Side Management Program Oversight • Institutional Partnerships • AB 758 • Prop 39/K-12 Schools 2 Why am I here today? • Eric invited me to speak to you about – Rolling Portfolio Cycle – Water Energy – EM&V • But then he sent me your questions… 3 Why Invest in Energy Efficiency? • It saves you money • It can help mitigate climate change Let’s imagine a future where… 4 So where does energy efficiency fit it? This image cannot currently be displayed. Source: California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan, December 2008, Table 2. 5 What are the Energy Efficiency accomplishments? Evaluated Cumulative Savings from 2004-2009 GWh saved 7,387 MMTherms saved 96 MW offset 1,314 Number of households powered 769,500 Number of power plants avoided 3 Average household assumed to use 9600 kWh/yr; Major power plant defined to be 400MW or greater Source: 2009 Energy Efficiency Evaluation Reports 6 The gap between U.S. and CA energy use can be partially attributed to EE. Per Capita Electricity Sales (not including self-generation) (kWh/person) 14,000 California without standards and programs 12,000 United States 10,000 kWh/person 8,000 6,000 California 4,000 2,000 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 1978 1976 1974 1972 1970 1968 1966 1964 1962 1960 0 7 The gap between U.S. and CA energy use can be partially attributed to Energy Efficiency 8 CPUC policy emphasis focused on voluntary market Historical Agency Emphasis / Mandates CPUC CPUC CPUC Example Programs CPUC CEC CEC CEC Example IOU Programs CPUC Innovators Emerging Technologies ZNE Pilots Early Adopters CEC CEC Early Majority Late Majority “Laggards” Incentives Incentives Incentives Codes and Standards Training Mass marketing Financing Financing Financing 9 Ratepayer-funded EE programs have provided a Commission-estimated $1.8 billion of net benefits (TRC) over the past 9 years. TRC $ Millions Net Benefits PAC Costs Net Benefits Costs 2006-2008 Evaluated 352 2,886 2,534 1,076 2,886 1,810 2009 Evaluated 486 1,523 1,037 821 1,523 702 2010-2012 Forecast 469 3,598 3,129 1,150 3,598 2,448 2013-2014 Forecast 478 2,388 1,910 1,216 2,388 1,172 1,785 10,395 8,610 4,263 10,395 6,132 Total Source: Table 2, page viii, 2006-2008 Evaluation report: ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/gopher-data/energy%20efficiency/20062008%20Energy%20Efficiency%20Evaluation%20Report%20-%20ES.pdf Table 2, page 4, 2009 Evaluation Report: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D66CCF63-5786-49C7-B25000675D91953C/0/EEEvaluationReportforthe2009BFPeriod.pdf proxy estimates from D.09-09-047, page 4, page 71 (Table 4) proxy estimates from D.12-11-015, page 100 and 103, ex ante 13-14 compliance tool 10 Ex Ante and Ex Post Policy Framework Ex Ante Program Design Reporting Ex Post 11 Impact Evaluation Objective Verify energy savings via field research How many units got installed? Installation Rate What savings were achieved Unit Energy Savings (baseline, operating hours, peak effects, expected life) Did the program cause the action? Net to Gross Ratio (other factors influencing decision making) Evaluation Results and Recommendations -Data and results used to update estimates -Summarize evaluation-based accomplishment (load forecasting, CARB reports, etc.) -Feedback for program design improvements and future estimates) 12 Ex Ante Review Non-DEER Workpapers Measures not in DEER Custom Projects Site-specific; Values developed at completion Sub-selection of submission Ex Ante Values Best available information and extrapolation DEER methodology DEER Common EE measures; Savings estimates and parameters 13 DEER (Database for Energy Efficient Resources) Inputs • • • • • Current DEER Non-DEER measures EM&V C&S updates Measure additions and deletions Planned Updates • DEER2014 Mid-cycle • DEER2016 Outputs • Frozen ex ante values • Claims and incentives • Goals and Potential Model 14 Custom Projects Review CPUC Staff • General Review Review Selection • 10-12 cycle, 2% of projects selected Selection Criteria • Size, sector, etc. Staff & IOU • Pre-Installation Review IOU • Post-Installation Review 15 Strategic Plan IOU Portfolios State Agencies Action Plans Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies Champions Network Foundation Grants 16 Actions Plans Developed / Underway Completed Underway • • • • Commercial ZNE HVAC (currently being updated) Lighting Research & Technologies (Co-led or led by Energy Commission) • Codes & Standards (Co-led or led by Energy Commission) •Local Government •Industrial •Residential ZNE 17 2013 EE Incentives and Gross Savings by Sector Total Incentive ($) 49% Gross kWh /yr 23% Gross kW /yr 21% 7% 11% 23% 0% 10% Commercial 5% 49% 30% 40% Residential 50% Cross Cutting 60% Industrial 3% 6% 51% 18% 20% 10% 61% 26% Gross therm/yr 16% 70% 3% 6% 8% 80% 90% 100% Agricultural Commercial Residential Cross Cutting Industrial Agricultural 12,474,614 9,427,084 1,027,654 26,517,870 4,173,268 146,039 63,295 283,955 28,649 31,647 804,751,119 230,354,031 2,161,571,778 214,783,737 113,156,333 Total Incentive ($) $164,954,368 $70,989,456 $54,521,707 $33,908,657 $10,828,931 Total 53,620,490 553,585 3,524,616,999 $335,203,119 Sector Gross therm/yr Source: 2013 IOUs Compliance Filings Gross kW /yr Gross kWh /yr 18 2013-14 EE Portfolio Organization Source: 2013 IOUs Compliance Filings 19 Codes & Standards Program • Analysis /Support activities – Principal audience is CEC’s building and appliance standards. – Also influences federal appliance standards via DOE proceedings and the legislative process • Major program activities: – Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) studies – Compliance Enhancement – “Reach Codes” – Planning and Coordination • 22% of planned electric savings, 25% of gas savings, and 1% of portfolio budget* *Savings based on 2010-2012 cycle, non-verified. 20 Shareholder Incentive Payments Component Cap Total Cap Value Estimated Payments Energy savings performance award 9% of resource program budget (minus C&S) $126.85M $85.32M Ex ante review performance award 3% of resource program budget (minus C&S) $42.3M $23.99M Codes & Standards (C&S) program management fee 12% of C&S program budget $2.98M $2.98M Non-resource program management fee 3% of non-resource program budget $6.3M $6.3M Total 11% of EE portfolio budget $178.42M $118.59M 21 Energy Efficiency Rulemaking • Phase 1: 2015 Funding, with targeted changes o Prop 39 Support o Locational targeting to enhance grid reliability o Drought response • Phase 2: “Rolling Portfolio Cycles” • Phase 3: Broader portfolio changes for 2016+ and Strategic Plan update 22 CPUC Process for Approval / Oversight of IOU EE Programs Current 2-3 year Budget Cycle Process: -CPUC Policy Guidance -IOU Savings Goals Ex Ante Review Process -CPUC EM&V -Evaluated Savings -IOU Portfolio Applications -Projected Portfolio Savings -IOU Portfolio Implementation -Reported Savings *Phase II of R.13-11-005 will consider moving away from the 2-3 year cycle to a Rolling Portfolio framework 23 Rolling Portfolio Cycle • Stakeholder effort underway to determine the framework. Proposal will be submitted to the proceeding when Phase II launches • The Joint Stakeholders believe that long-term energy efficiency funding authorization will: • create market stability, • sustain momentum and performance of successful programs, • improve ability to “count” efficiency for resource planning, and • enable the “delinking” of the contracting process from regulatory schedules. 24 Water Energy Nexus • There are two distinctly different types of water impacts on the energy sector: – Energy Use by the Water Sector – Energy Use by Water Customers • The energy IOUs are currently piloting projects to reduce embedded energy in water 25 Water Energy Programs Program Area Water Leak Detection and/or Pressure Management Pilots & Trial Marketing, Education & Outreach about Water-Energy / Water Conservation Statewide? Yes Yes Yes Water-Energy Efficiency Pilots, Programs or Studies Low Pressure Sprinkler Nozzle--Incentives (Mostly Agriculture) PG&E, SDG&E Low Flow, Efficient Faucet Aerators—Direct Install or Incentive Yes Low, Super Low Flow Showerheads---Direct Install Yes High Efficiency Clothes Washers—Incentive Yes High Efficiency Dish Washers—Incentive Ozone Laundry—Incentives (hospitals and hotels mostly) 26 PG&E, SCE, SDG&E PG&E Thank You Jaclyn Marks, Supervisor CPUC Energy Division Energy Efficiency Agricultural/Industrial Programs and Portfolio Forecasting Section [email protected] More information on the Water Energy Nexus: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Energy+Efficiency/WaterEnergy+Nexus+Programs.htm 27