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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

widely accepted as representing low-risk investments, is straightforward, is transparent and is readily available. It also means that different utilities in a single state will use the same discount rates across the state, as it eliminates the need to develop utility-specific risk-adjusted discount rates. Discount Rate for the Participant Test The Participant Test considers whether an energy efficiency investment is cost effective from the program participant’s point of view. This test should be used principally to set an incentive level that would be sufficient to make consumers implement efficiency measures. A consumer’s discount rate should be used to discount the costs and benefits in this test. However, choosing a consumer’s discount rate is administratively and theoretically complicated as different customers have different discount rates. There is considerable uncertainty over what the reference point should be, as some consumers have home equity credit available, but some only have access to credit card type debt with a much higher cost. For residential customers, energy efficiency programs are generally of lower risk than almost any investment the household can make, but immediate needs tend to put pressure on household capital, making borrowing rates also a factor. These points suggest that home equity loan or home mortgage rates might be appropriate, especially in new construction and remodeling programs, with higher credit card rates being more applicable to participants in low income programs. For commercial and industrial customers, a reasonable cost of borrowing proxy could be local commercial lending rates or a prime rate plus an adder for non-prime businesses, e.g., a prime rate plus three percent. For large entities with internal capital rationing, it would be appropriate to use the firm’s internal rate of return hurdle rate or its internal payback requirement. Discount Rate for the RIM Test Discounting is a side issue for the RIM test because the key goal of this test is to indicate the effect of energy efficiency programs on retail rates. The utility WACC may be appropriate for this purpose because this is the borrowing cost that ultimately determines utility rates. Illustrative Example Figure 5.1 summarizes the impact on program cost-effectiveness when using different discount rates. The blue bars present program cost-effectiveness using a nominal discount rate of 3.2 percent, which is our example utility’s actual discount rate for energy efficiency screening, based on 10-year US Treasury Bills. The red bars represent program cost-effectiveness using a high discount rate of 8.5 percent, roughly equal to a utility’s after-tax WACC. This figure illustrates that a higher discount rate will reduce program cost-effectiveness, especially for programs with longer measure lives. As discussed above, the new construction programs typically have longer measure lives than other energy efficiency programs, and so discounting the savings from such programs at a higher rate will have Best Practices in Energy Efficiency Program Screening | www.nhpci.org | 53
a greater negative impact on program cost-effectiveness than for measures with shorter lives. Figure 5.1. Cost-Effectiveness with Different Discount Rates Source: The 2012 energy efficiency plan for our example utility, with modified assumptions as noted. 5.2 Study Period Energy efficiency measures produce savings over the full course of their useful lives. Depending on the measure, the useful life can be as long as 20 years or more. Energy efficiency screening practices should include the savings available over the full life of the energy efficiency measure. This requires using a study period that is long enough to capture savings over their full useful lives. Shorter study periods will skew the costeffectiveness results against energy efficiency. Ideally, a study period of at least 25 years should be used to evaluate the costeffectiveness of energy efficiency resources, given that some energy efficiency measures affect existing and new buildings and thus can last at least 30 years. After 30 years the effect of discounting significantly reduces energy efficiency benefits, even in cases where relatively low discount rates are used, and thus there is little advantage to using a study period beyond 25 years. If, for some reason, program administrators do not have the inputs or the models to account for 25 years, then other methodologies should be used to capture the benefits in the years that are not included in the study period. For example, “end effects” calculations can be made to adjust the benefits that are derived using a shortened study period. If there is reasonable data regarding the degradation of measure performance, or about early failure of energy efficiency measures, then these factors should be accounted for separately in the program screening process by adjusting the savings or the lifetime assumptions for the measure. | 54 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 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 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
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?