1 / 12

Getting to 3% Annual Energy Savings NECPUC Annual Symposium Stowe, VT June 17, 2014

Getting to 3% Annual Energy Savings NECPUC Annual Symposium Stowe, VT June 17, 2014. Chris Neme, Energy Futures Group. Energy Futures Group Consulting. Areas of Expertise Program Design Policy Development Building Codes Evaluation Cost-Effectiveness . Range of Clients

veta
Download Presentation

Getting to 3% Annual Energy Savings NECPUC Annual Symposium Stowe, VT June 17, 2014

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. Getting to 3% Annual Energy SavingsNECPUC Annual SymposiumStowe, VTJune 17, 2014 Chris Neme, Energy Futures Group

  2. Energy Futures Group Consulting Areas of Expertise • Program Design • Policy Development • Building Codes • Evaluation • Cost-Effectiveness Range of Clients • Government Agencies • Advocates/NGOs • Regulators • Utilities Clients in more than 20 states, 4 Canadian provinces and Europe.

  3. Presentation Themes • Get the goals right • Focus on the longer-term • Facilitate integration of efficiency with other objectives • Electrification • Distributed generation • Others • Fully value all benefits of efficiency

  4. The Climate Change Context Four strategies required to address climate change: • De-carbonization of grid • Electrification • building heating/other end uses • cars • Investing in grid flexibility to address intermittent renewables • More transmission inter-connections • More demand response • More flexibility (to turn off/on) of remaining fossil fuel generation • Massive investment in energy efficiency Conclusion of both European and California studies

  5. California’s Least Cost 2050 GHG Path Source: Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), “Meeting California’s Long-Term Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals, 2009

  6. Question/Goal Needs Re-Framing • Need longer term focus: e.g. getting to “30% over 10 years” • Articulating goals as 1st year savings is problematic • Perverse incentive to invest in cheap, shorter-lived measures • Cheapest per 1st year kWh often not cheapest per lifetime kWh: • Metrics based on 1 year of performance is problematic • All about chasing savings this year/quarter/month • Little incentive to invest in longer-term market development strategy • Little incentive to invest in emerging technologies

  7. Lifetime vs. 1st Year Savings Trade-offs Source: Optimal Energy and Energy Futures Group, “Final Report: Alternative Michigan Energy Savings Goals to Promote Longer Term Savings and Address Small Utility Challenges”, prepared for the Michigan Public Service Commission, September 13, 2013

  8. Make Goals kWh “Equivalents” • Need “all fuels” perspective to optimize efficiency • Why not weatherize fossil fuel-heated homes? • They will ultimately need to become electrically heated • Better to weatherize before or at same time as electrified • Why not support efficient fuel-switching? • We need to electrify anyway • Super efficient, cold climate heat pumps are game-changer • Source efficiency already better than best gas furnace • More advancements coming • Electric cars are inherently more efficient

  9. Encourage/Reward Market Transformation A range of options: • Provide credit for advancing codes and standards • Provide credit for other evidence of MT • Substantial efficiency budget set-asides for MT • With their own rigorous performance metrics • More radical changes to savings goals…

  10. Base Goals on Actual kWh Consumption • E.g. Electric sales should be <XXXX GWh in 5 years • Lots of Advantages: • Measures the real “bottom line” • Inherently rewards market transformation efforts • Eliminates fights over gross savings measurement • Still do EM&V, but only to inform strategy • Eliminates fights over free ridership and spillover • But Challenges Too: • Need to provide credits to support electrification • Need adjustments for weather, economy, maybe other things • Requires commitment to long time horizons… • …but utilities like annual rewards

  11. Fully Value All Efficiency Benefits New England is nation –leading on these things, but still room for improvement Some of the best efforts in country in the Northeast, but still some big problems (e.g. PTF treatment of transmission, but not alternatives) • In cost-effectiveness screening: • Avoided energy, capacity, T&D • Price suppression effects • Marginal line losses • Risk mitigation • Non-energy benefits • When considering T&D: • Routinely assess alternatives • Equal cost-allocation treatment

  12. Q&A Chris Neme Energy Futures Group cneme@energyfuturesgroup.com Phone: 802-482-5001 Cell: 802-363-6551

More Related