energy efficiency in california
DESCRIPTION
June 2011. Energy Efficiency in California. Overview of Energy Efficiency (EE) in California Top 5 problems with current EE structure 4 ways to address EE problems. Presentation Overview. Minimize need for new generation Reduce peak demand Reduce GHG emissions Improve energy reliability - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency in Californiain California
June 2011June 2011
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference! 2
Presentation Overview
Overview of Energy Efficiency (EE) in California
Top 5 problems with current EE structure
4 ways to address EE problems
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
3
California’s Policy GoalsEnergy Action Plan
Minimize need for new generation
Reduce peak demand
Reduce GHG emissions
Improve energy reliability
Improve price stability and lower costs for customers
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
4
History: Energy Efficiency Policy 1970/80’s: Low-level demand side programs
1980’s: Funded through General Rate Cases (minimal reporting requirements)
1983: EE Manual determines cost-effectiveness
1998: AB 1890 introduces PGC; caps budget at $228 million
2002-04: CPUC orders pursuit of all cost-effective EE; EAP puts EE at top of loading order
2003: CPUC adds PEEBA – procurement dollars as additional funding source; significantly increases EE budget
2006: IOU EE program savings independently verified, for first time
2008: The Energy Action Plan (EAP) EE as top resource to reduce GHG from energy
Key Policies Impact EE Budget
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Year
EE B
udge
t (in
mill
ions
)
D.02-10-062
Pursue all cost-effective EE
First year EE savings are
independently verified ex-post
D.03-12-060
PEEBA funds supplement PGC
EAP
EAPEAP
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
6
Trends: EE Budget vs. Energy Savings
Changes in: Annual Budget vs. Annual Savings
+47.6%
+5.5%
6500
6700
6900
7100
7300
7500
7700
7900
2004-2005 2006-2008
Portfolio Cycle
Sav
ing
s G
oal
(G
Wh
)
$0.68
$0.73
$0.78
$0.83
$0.88
$0.93
$0.98
$1.03
$1.08
Budget Annual, ($ billion)
Savings Goal -Cumulative Electric(GWh)
Peak savings goal increased by 9.2%
Natural gas savings goal increased by ~35% over the same period
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
7
Energy Savings vs. Goals2006-2008 IOU Energy Efficiency Savings Against Goals
Utility Goals Performance
Cumulative Energy Savings (GWh)PG&E 2826 1766
80 - 85% of Goal71%
SCE 3135 1963 70%SDG&E 638 364 65%SoCalGas N/A
Peak Savings (MW)PGE 613 320
80 - 85% of Goal60%
SCE 672 384 64%SDG&E 122 72 69%SoCalGas N/A
Cumulative Gas Savings (MMTh)PGE 45 22 80 - 85% of Goal 63%SCE N/ASDG&E 10 3
80 - 85% of Goal37%
SoCalGas 57 32 37%
Minimum Performance
Standard
% of Goals Achieved
Source: CPUC 2006-2008 Energy Efficiency Evaluation Report, July 2010
Shareholder Reward: $211 million
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
8
DRA Page 1 of 1 9/11/2007
Background Material on EE Incentives
1. California has offered EE incentives since 1990. Historic data shows energy savings are correlated to EE budgets, but not to incentive payments:
Utility EE Incentives vs. Energy Savings
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006-PD
Program Year
EE
In
cen
tiv
es
($ M
illio
ns
)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
To
tal
En
erg
y S
avin
gs (
GW
h/y
r)
Total Incentives Total Net Energy Savings
2. Since initiated in 1990, shared savings rates for EE programs have varied from 0% to 30%:
3. Budgets for 2006-2008 EE programs were established by the utilities using the EE savings goals established by the CPUC in D.04-09-060
4. The 2006-2008 budget of $700 million per year ($2.1 billion total) is approximately double the 2004 budget and more than 25% higher than the 2005 budget:
Incentives and Energy Savings
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
9
Current EE Planning and Evaluation
Source: Energy Division
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
10
EE Structural Problems
1. EE goals do not align with statewide goals. Focus on energy savings leads to “treading water effect” in
reaching AB32 GHG goals and lower total demand
2. IOU administration is narrow in scope; objectives to expand ratebase conflicts with energy conservation.
3. Lack of prioritization and targeted strategies. “All cost-effective EE” keeps portfolios stagnant
4. Lack of Market Transformation approach for EE programs.
5. Lack of enforcement of state’s policies Independence. Independent evaluation Changing rules
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
11
Total CA electricity consumption 1960-2005 & an AB32*-derived trajectory through 2050
* Executive Order S-03-05 stipulates the 2020 & 2050 targetsSource: Reuben Deumling, Associate Energy Economics Inc. Separating Means and End: Reorienting Energy Efficiency Programs and Policy Toward Reducing Energy Consumption in California
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
TW
h/y
r
80% below 1990
1990
2000 2010
2020
2050
Data Source: EIA Electric Power Annual <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html>
‘06‘07
‘08
‘05
Achieving AB 32 Goals RequiresReducing Energy Consumption
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
12
Consequences of Weak EE StructureIOU EE Programs have inherent structural problems:
Savings achievements do not directly translate to reduced procurement or reduced GHG emissions.
Widget focus, not reduction in total energy consumption (e.g., total building or systems savings approach).
Portfolio skewed toward short-term, non-peak savings (e.g., CFLs).
Squander ratepayer capital: ► EE budget increasing at a faster pace than EE savings► No strategy for ramp-down of ratepayer-subsidized rebates and
transition to market forces► IOU programs informed by significantly outdated assumptions► IOUs received $211 million in unearned bonuses based on
self-reported data► Disconnect between timing of EM&V and portfolio planning
Utilities utilize CPUC procedural process to continually change the rules.
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
13
IOU Programs Do Not Target Peak
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
14
The CFL Scenario CFL programs subsidized for 20 years in California, now have
high free ridership. Key market indicators demonstrate market transformation:
high availability through multiple channels, high awareness.
Market distortion: CFL programs keep prices artificially low, preventing higher quality CFLs from entering the market; sending wrong message to consumers about cost.
40 million CFLs in storage.
Significant leakage resulting in arbitrage.
IOU portfolios are dependent on CFLs to keep portfolios cost-effective, rather than evolving, targeted strategies. Short-term CFL savings decay quickly and can not be counted on in
long-term procurement planning Residential CFLs do little to reduce peak demand
IOU Programs Inhibit Market Sustainability
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
15
EE Strategies Don’t Align with California’s Energy Use
In the 2010-2012 Portfolio:
HVAC = 30% of summer peak, but only 3% of portfolio peak savings goal (32 MW over 3 years)
Despite spending, $1M of ratepayer money, SDG&E’s savings goal for HVAC = 0
Commercial Buildings = 38% of total energy use, but only 20% of the savings goal
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
16
Characteristics of a Successful EE Program
Focuses on Total Energy Demand Reduction.
Prioritizes EE investment. Potential to reduce peak demand, level of risk to ratepayers,
location, and duration of savings
Develops and implements market strategies: Removes barriers to EE measure adoption Transitions to self-sustaining EE market
Implements EE strategy and planning informed by timely market and evaluation feedback.
Utilizes a coordinated, statewide approach. Multiple market actors
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
17
DRA Recommendations
Design goals based on desired direction and magnitude of overall consumption.
Prioritize EE strategies that would optimize energy savings.
Remove requirement to pursue “all cost-effective EE” and replace with Prioritization and Market Transformation approach.
Establish an Independent Administrator (IA) to implement Market Transformation strategies: ► The IA would implement Market Transformation through development
and implementation of a Strategic Plan► The IA would act as an air-traffic controller to coordinate relevant market
actors and statewide EE effort
Remove Shareholder Incentive Mechanism.
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
18
Market Transformation
Identifying market barriers impeding the adoption of an energy efficiency measure.
Introducing a market intervention to remove the market barrier.
Creating an Exit Strategy to stop funding the interventions when barriers are removed and the free market takes over and becomes sustainable.
Market Transformation is a strategy to introduce consumer demand for and sustain a market for an energy efficiency measure or strategy
that replaces an existing lower efficiency energy application.
Market Transformation is achieved by…
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
19
Technology Adoption Curve
Derived from: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~renglish/370/notes/chapt11/adoption_curve_05.gif
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
20
Market Transformation
Natural Baseline(free riders)
Time
Transformation
Ma
rke
t
Dollars Invested
WindowsClothes Washer
CFLs
Food Processing
Commercial Real Estate
Consumer Electronics
DHPs
Existing Building Renewal
Codes & Standards
•
M
arke
t S
har
e
Source: NEEA – Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
21
Administrative Models
Utility Independent Administrator (IA)
Rate-base focus Incentive-driven Unable to adapt to changing market conditions
Mission-driven Partnership driven Adaptable Product, marketing, sales, channel developmentObjective high-level Air Traffic Controller
Utilities have a role to play in statewide, independent model by leveraging utility-customer relationships
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
22
Independent Administrator Expertise
An administrative entity separate from IOUs capable of developing and implementing a strategic plan that prioritizes energy efficiency strategies.
Must have market and business expertise and can react quickly to a changing marketplace.
Expertise to work with a variety of market players to implement market transformation for priority strategies as identified by the strategic plan.
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
23
PUC-IOU Hybrid (1)
New Jersey (2003)
IA (7)
Oregon (2002)Vermont (1999)Hawaii (2009)Maine (2010)Wisconsin (2002)Delaware (2009)Washington DC (2009)
IA-IOU Hybrid (4)
Washington State (1996)New Hampshire (2002)Idaho (1996)Montana (1996)
State Agency-IOU Hybrid (2)
Illinois (2008)New York (1998)
Alternatives to IOU-Only Administration (14)
Examples of Independent Administration
The Voice of Consumers, Making a Difference!
24
Procedural Opportunities
Proceedings: A.08-07-021 – setting ex ante parameters A.09-11-014 – bridge funding A.09-01-019 – shareholder incentive mechanism
Studies and Pilots: Macro-consumption metrics study and pilot Market transformation study and pilot