Best Practices in Energy Efficiency Program Screening - Synapse ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

consistent comparison purposes. The right-most bar provides the total impact of avoided costs. These are the actual avoided costs that are used by our example electric utility (with the exception of the high GHG compliance cost). Additional information on these costs is presented in Appendix A. Figure 3.1. Example of Avoided Costs, Broken Out by Component ($/MWh) Source: Synapse 2011, as discussed in Appendix A. For our purposes here, we present two versions of GHG compliance costs. The low GHG compliance cost is based on a forecast of CO2 allowance prices under the current Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (in the short-term), as well as a forecast of CO2 allowance prices under a future federal cap-and-trade requirement (over the long-term). This is the GHG compliance cost that is actually used by our example electric utility. The high GHG compliance cost would be applicable to a state that has climate change regulations that are stricter than what is currently expected from current regional and future federal regulations. In particular, if a state has a requirement to reduce CO2 emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050, then it could expect to incur costs similar to those presented in Figure 3.1 for the high GHG compliance cost case. These estimates of GHG compliance costs are discussed in more detail in Appendix A. Figure 3.2 provides the breakout of avoided costs superimposed over the 20-year levelized cost of saved energy for each program. (Refer to Figure 1.1.) The low GHG compliance cost line indicates the avoided cost cap that is currently being used by our example utility. As indicated, the programs are all well below this avoided cost cap, except for the low-income retrofit program which is cost-effective once the OPIs are factored in. Indeed, most programs are cost-effective relative to just the avoided energy and capacity costs. However, the additional avoided costs are necessary to support the economics of the residential retrofit and the low-income programs; two program types with important public policy implications. Best Practices in Energy Efficiency Program Screening | www.nhpci.org | 31
Figure 3.2. Avoided Costs Relative to the Levelized Cost of Saved Energy (cents/kWh) Sources: The avoided costs are discussed in Appendix A. The levelized program costs are actual 2010 program costs from our example New England electric utility. | 32 Best Practices in Energy Efficiency Program Screening | www.nhpci.org
Page 2 and 3: Preface In 2011, a group of energy
Page 4 and 5: Executive Summary Accounting for th
Page 6 and 7: Unfortunately, OPIs are often not a
Page 8 and 9: mitigating GHG emissions. In region
Page 10 and 11: Choosing the most appropriate test
Page 12 and 13: 1. Introduction Background Despite
Page 14 and 15: Figure 1.1. Levelized Costs by Prog
Page 16 and 17: The Participant Test. This test inc
Page 18 and 19: The TRC test is the next most compr
Page 20 and 21: Screening efficiency programs with
Page 22 and 23: eing applied. Finally, it is import
Page 24 and 25: Figure 2.1. Cost-Effectiveness Resu
Page 26 and 27: and compare the difference in prese
Page 28 and 29: not provide an accurate picture of
Page 30 and 31: mobile sources, and air quality sta
Page 32 and 33: or more. Supply-side resources have
Page 36 and 37: 4. Capturing All the Impacts of Ene
Page 38 and 39: Utility related OPIs: just as the u
Page 40 and 41: Among the participant-perspective O
Page 42 and 43: a more qualitative analysis on the
Page 44 and 45: esidential and low-income sector, s
Page 46 and 47: groups; and (3) the likelihood of s
Page 48 and 49: We recommend that program administr
Page 50 and 51: announced the retirement of its coa
Page 52 and 53: Oregon also applies a 10 percent co
Page 54 and 55: used throughout. If the annual cost
Page 56 and 57: widely accepted as representing low
Page 58 and 59: Illustrative Example Figure 5.1 bel
Page 60 and 61: Recommendation Energy efficiency pr
Page 62 and 63: Efficiency program screening should
Page 64 and 65: Checklist of Best Practices Here we
Page 66 and 67: Demand Side Management Program And
Page 68 and 69: NYSERDA 2012. “New York’s Syste
Page 70 and 71: Appendix A - Illustrative Example a
Page 72 and 73: In general, the fundamental assumpt
Page 74 and 75: indicated in Figure A.2, avoided ca
Page 76 and 77: Figure A.4. Capacity Price Suppress
Page 78: estimate of the cost to achieve the

Best Practices in Energy Efficiency Program Screening - Synapse ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?