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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

We recommend that program administrators and other efficiency stakeholders explore options to better capture the cumulative, long-term effects of energy efficiency programs. Programs that are highly successful in educating customers about the advantages of energy efficiency will naturally encourage those customers to adopt additional efficiency measures in the future. Expected savings from such customers should be estimated to the extent possible, and accounted for in screening efficiency programs. We recommend that market transformation programs be evaluated in a way that accounts for the fact that they will have significant spillover effects by design. One way to achieve this goal is to allow market transformation programs to be implemented even if they do not pass the TRC test, but to include their costs and benefits in the PAC test applied at the portfolio level. Finally, we recommend regional coordination on the definition and calculation of net savings. As we pointed out above, the operational definitions and methods for measuring net savings are very different by jurisdiction. More consistency on the net savings definition and calculation may be needed to address current policies and/or future policies such aggressive state-wide energy efficiency programs, an ISO capacity market, and regional GHG emissions reduction requirements. The Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership’s Forum on regional energy efficiency measurement and verification is a good example of using a regional approach to address these issues. 4.3 The Risk Benefits of Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency Offers Several Important Risk Benefits Energy efficiency can mitigate the various risks associated with large, conventional power plants. A recent study evaluated the costs and risks of various energy resources, and found out that energy efficiency is the least cost and least risky electricity resource (Ceres 2012). Figure 4.2 provides a summary of how the Ceres study characterizes the costs and risks associated with various electricity resources. Some of these key risks are described below. Fuel price risk. Increases in fuel price volatility underscore the significant benefits associated with reducing this risk. Historically, varying demand for and supplies of natural gas and the highly volatile nature of natural gas prices have been primary drivers of more volatile electricity rates. Construction Cost Risk. The longer development timelines associated with conventional generation as compared to energy efficiency solutions exposes these resources to longer-term increases in the cost of labor and materials – unanticipated cost increases which increase the risk of disallowance and stranded costs. For example, the construction schedule of the proposed Levy nuclear power plant in Florida has been delayed five years due to financial and design problems and its cost estimates has increased from $5 billion to $22.5 billion. 27 In contrast, energy efficiency can be deployed quickly and is one of the least risky resources, both financially and environmentally. 27 http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HQ2TN80.htm Best Practices in Energy Efficiency Program Screening | www.nhpci.org | 45
Figure 4.2. Projected Utility Generation Resources in 2015 – Relative Cost and Risk Source: Ceres 2012, p.9. Planning risk. When it turns out electric demand growth is lower than expected, there is a risk that a portion of the capacity of new power plants may be unused for a long time. In January 2012, lower-than-expected electricity demand along with unexpectedly low natural gas prices, led Minnesota-based wholesale cooperative Great River Energy to mothball its brand-new coal-fired power plant immediately after the plant’s completion. The utility expects to pay an estimated $30 million next year just for maintenance and debt service for this plant (Ceres 2012, page 33). Energy efficiency resources that reduce load incrementally never face this type of problem. Reliability risk. Energy efficiency can improve the overall reliability of the electricity system. First, efficiency programs can substantially reduce peak demand, during those times when reliability is most at risk. Second, by slowing the rate of growth of electricity peak and energy demands, energy efficiency can provide utilities and generation companies more time and flexibility to respond to changing market conditions, while moderating the “boom-and-bust” effect of competitive market forces on generation supply (RAP 2001). Lastly the operating risk of a large power plant (i.e., forced outage) can be catastrophic while the operating risk of energy efficiency is minimal because a large power plant could lose the entire energy supply while energy efficiency could lose only a small portion of its expected energy savings. New regulation risk. Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants have a risk of facing new regulation that makes them more costly or uneconomic. For example, the nuclear safety regulation is likely to become stricter due to the recent accident at Fukushima in Japan, which could increase the operating or construction cost of nuclear power plants (Ceres 2012). The new and proposed US EPA air regulations have already revealed numerous coal-fired power plants that are likely to become uneconomic and retire. AEP recently | 46 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 34 and 35: consistent comparison purposes. The
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 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?