1 / 18

Presented February 16, 2008 Encore? Energy Efficiency Program Performance

OR . . . Why We Think We Know What We Think We Did. Development and Deployment of A Standardized Savings and Economic Valuation System for Tracking Conservation Resource Acquisitions in the PNW. Presented February 16, 2008 Encore? Energy Efficiency Program Performance. Tom Eckman

palmer
Download Presentation

Presented February 16, 2008 Encore? Energy Efficiency Program Performance

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. OR . . . Why We Think We Know What We Think We Did Development and Deployment of A Standardized Savings and Economic Valuation Systemfor Tracking Conservation Resource Acquisitions in the PNW Presented February 16, 2008 Encore? Energy Efficiency Program Performance Tom Eckman Northwest Power and Conservation Council

  2. In This Presentation • Historical Look at the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Conservation Resource Acquisition Program Savings • How the Pacific Northwest Is Attempting to “Standardize Savings Estimation and Economic Valuation” Processes • Some RandomThoughts on Why Power Planners May View EM&V Differently Than Regulators

  3. PNW Regional Savings Now Total Nearly 3300 aMW

  4. So What’s 3300 aMW? • It’s enough electricity to serve the entirestate of Idaho and all of Western Montana • It saved the region’s consumers nearly than $1.3 billion in 2005 • It lowered 2005 PNW carbon emissions by an estimated 13.5 million tons.

  5. Since 1980 Energy Efficiency Resources Met Half of PNW Load Growth

  6. Utility Acquired Energy Efficiency Has Been ABARGAIN!

  7. Did Meters in the PNW Really Turn Slower?

  8. Why We’ve Tracked Savings • The Northwest Power and Conservation Act established in federal law that cost-effective conservation (i.e., the more efficient generation, transmission or use of electricity) was to be treated as a resource equivalent the generation. • Since its first Plan in 1983, the Council has set “regional conservation savings targets” based on its integrated resource planning process. • So we track “savings,” not just “expenditures”

  9. How We’re Trying to Standardize Savings Estimation(But We’re Not California) • Established An Ongoing Centralized Process for Technical Review • Carried out by Regional Technical Forum (RTF) • RTF composed of utility and non-utility engineering and economic experts, staffed by Council • Funded by BPA, utilities and system benefits administrators • Public process • RTF builds on historical program experience and ongoing evaluations of regional acquisition programs

  10. RTF’s Major Functions • Establish a Standardized Regional Cost-Effectiveness Methodology • Public domain software for evaluating conservation cost-effectiveness • Recommend Measurement and Verification Protocols • Adding: NAPEE Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide, already use IPMVP, FEMP, etc. • Develop and Maintain Internet-based System for Tracking and Reporting regional conservation savings and expenditures • Deemed savings (with minimum technical specifications & Q/C criteria) • EM&V protocols • Default inputs for cost-effectiveness evaluations (e.g., forecast of future energy prices, cost of deferrable distribution and transmission, value non-energy benefits such as water savings, etc.) • Forecast CO2 content/kWh saved (based on load shape of savings)

  11. RTF’s Major Functions • Process for updating deemed savings as technology and standard practices change. • Appeals process through which utilities or other parties can demonstrate that different savings and value estimates should apply. • Collaborative Development of EM&V designsfor conservation programs operated across multiple utility service areas

  12. However - The RTF Doesn’t Count Votes The RTF cannot and does not require use of its deemed savings values nor does it mandate or oversee EM&V!

  13. What Power Planners Don’t Worry About • Attribution • Net-to-Gross Adjustments • Free-Ridership • Non-Participant Spill Over

  14. A Power Planner’s View of “Attribution” • We Don’t Care Who Was Responsible for Screwing in the CFL • We Do Need to Know That • It got installed • What it saves while functioning • How long it will function

  15. A Power Planner’s View of the Derivation of “Net-to-Gross” Ratios

  16. Some Thoughts on Net-to-Gross Adjustment for Regulators • Reductions in CO2 emissions from the actions “free-riders” counts toward climate mitigation just as much as the actions of “participants” • Utilities might just be interested in this when CO2 emissions are “monetized”

  17. Some Thoughts on Net-to-Gross Adjustment for Regulators • When program or portfolio “cost-effectiveness” is determined using a total societal cost (TSC) or total resource cost (TRC) test savings from “free-riders” should be counted

  18. A Concluding Thought onNet-to-Gross Adjustments From a Climate Change, Power Planning and TRC Perspective There Is No Such Thing as a “Free-Rider”

More Related