Presentation to UC/CSU Energy Managers

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