Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090115PAC to Staff 80.pdf~ROCKY MOUNTAINPOR A DIISION OF PAflP RECE r: r~~L..;,; .s ~ 201 South Main, Suite 2300 Salt Lake City, Uth 84111 2009 JAN t 5 AM 9: 52 Janua 14,2009 Scott Woodbur Deputy Attorney General Idaho Public Utilties Commssion 472 W Washington Boise, ID 83702-5983 RE: P AC-E-08-07 IPUC_Production Data Request (68-101) Please find enclosed an original and three copies of Rocky Mountain Power's Response to IPUC _Production Data Request Number 80. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (801) 220-2963. Sincerely, ied NQt~ Ted Weston, Manger Reguation Enclosures -, PAC-E-08-07/Rocky Mountain Power January 14,2009 IPUC Production Data Request 80 IPUC Production Data Request 80 On page 14, lines 19-21, of Jeff Bumgarer's pre-fied testimony is an estimate of NEEA savings of 6,054 MWH in 2006 and 3,957 MWH in 2007 for Rocky Mountain Power's Idaho service area. Please provide the assumptions and calculations the Company and/or NEEA used to estimate those savings numbers and any Rocky Mountain Power analyses of the veracity of those electricity, savings and the value of such savings. Response to IPUC Production Data Request 80 In seeking the specific detailed assumptions and calculations NEEA used to estimate the reported savings noted in Jeffery W. Bumgarer's pre-fied testimony it was discovered the 2007 savings figure reported was NEEA's estimate rather than the final 2007 savings. The actual savings increased from 6,054 MWh in 2006 to 7,008 MWh in 2007. In order to assist Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) to address how the timing of reporting impacted the development of testimony in this case, Jeff Harris, Senior Planing Manager for NEEA provided the following explanation of their data tracking and reporting procedures: "NEEA's standard policy is to review on an anual and ongoing basis all energy savings tracking and reporting for assumption and methodological soundness. Accordingly, NEEA makes adjustments in reported savings to reflect the most 'up-to-date' information. Furher, NEEA conducts these reviews using a conservative perspective to ensure that the estimated savings will be reliable and available to utilties to report. It is NEEA's goal to provide utilties with the most accurate, reliable, and curent energy savings estimates for markets in which NEEA is engaged. Many of NEE A's utility parners need estimates of savings before this thorough review of assumptions can be completed. In order to accommodate this need and upon request NEEA provides "preliminar" estimates of savings for a given program year. These savings are then "trued up" after full review of assumptions and data with "final" savings estimates. Historically, RMP has requested these preliminar energy savings estimates fairly early in the process each year which was the case in 2007. The time it took for NEEA to validate anual savings and RMP's need for results early in 2007 resulted in the use of the preliminar estimate rather than the final savings in the development of their recent testimony. Furthermore, In July of2006, NEEA made a fairly large downward adjustment to the 2005 preliminar savings. This adjustment was based primarily on methodology and inputs associated with "baseline" energy savings; i.e., savings that would have occured without any other utilty intervention. This was paricularly the case for CFLs that make up the majority of NEEA savings. This is the baseline assumption that Mr. Bumgarer references in explaining the presumed drop in savings between his 2006 and 2007 reported savings in his pre-filed testimony. Finally, it is important to note that the net market-effects savings reported by NEEA are a function of market response which is not always predictable.RMP's funding of NEE A however is based on a .. P AC-E-08-07 /Rocky Mountain Power January 14, 2009 IPUC Production Data Request 80 fixed formula that provides a consistent base of funds to allow the long-term change that result in energy savings. Accordingly, from year-to year, there may be increases or decreases in energy savings due to market changes that are essentially independent of the Company's fuding contribution to NEEA in that year." In terms of the veracity and the value of the reported savings, RMP offers the following explanation on NEEA's market transformation work. We recognize that state specific verification of savings is preferred. However, NEEA reports savings to fuding utilties and parners at a regional, not state leveL. To demonstrate how Idaho customers are benefiting from NEEA' s work we requested NEEA to provide the Company any analysis they had that was measured at a state specific leveL. NEEA reported that two key residential programs were tracked by state and collectively they account for 82% ofNEEA's total reported savings. The two programs are Energy Star Lighting, which accounts for approximately 64% of the total savings presented and Energy Star washing machines which account for approximately 18%. The table below provides sales data in 2006 and 2007 for CFLs and Energy Star washing machines, as well as Idaho's percentage of sales when compared to the entire region. 2008 2007 Rel!ion Idaho % of Region Rel!ion Idaho % of Rel!ion CFLs 10,751,906 1,206,374 11.2%18,943,754 2,323,432 12.3% ES Washers 202,784 17,618 8.7%389,125 32,410 8.3% According to the Association of Home Appliances Manufactures, Idaho accounts for 10.5% of homes within the four state NEEA represented region. As noted in the table, Idaho's percentage of CFL sales slightly exceeds that of its household percentage rate in the region while for Energy Star washing machines the percentage is slightly lower. On average, the sales data in Idaho closely resembles the states portion of regional households. The value of the savings to PacifiCorp were noted within Mr. Bumgarer's pre- fied testimony. NEEA's cost-effectiveness analysis work reports energy effciency savings at a levelized cost ofless than $.01 per kWh while utilties maintain cost-effectiveness ratios in their programs at levelized costs in the range of $.03-$.04 per kWh. NEEA's methodology for determining the savings from their effects, and netting out the effects of utilty program, has been vetted and is supported by the regional utilties funding NEEA's work.