20041206NW Energy Coalition.pdf

Ct~j EO f71
.. ! :-- E: iJ
NW Energy Coalition ~ N atural Resource~JQJ~f~ef;~Q.il
Renewable Northwest Project ~ Advocates forth~West
,,; - "..' , '":,,.
r.' -
CILli ;=~; CCi-;;"j\SSiON
December 3, 2004
Jean Jewell, Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W, Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702-5983
Re: Comments on IPC-04-18 (Idaho Power s 2004 Integrated Resource Plan)
Dear Ms, Jewell:
The NW Energy Coalition, Natural Resources Defense Council, Renewable Northwest Project
and Advocates for the West (together, the "Clean Energy Advocates ) submit these comments on
Idaho Power Company s 2004 Integrated Resource Plan ("IRP"
While these comments include some criticisms of particular resource selections in the IRP, first
and foremost we wish to emphasize that overall we believe the 2004 IRP marks a significant
advance for Idaho Power Company, Idaho Power should be commended for its commitment to
an open and robust public process (the Integrated Resource Plan Advisory Council) and to its
demonstrated willingness to pursue new levels of DSM and renewable resources that we believe
will lead to lower financial risks to the Company and its customers, as well as better protection
of the environment. In our view, the Company met and exceeded the expectations of the
Commission as reflected in Order 29189 (regarding the 2002 IRP),
We do believe, however, that the IRP action plan will not capture all cost-effective and
practicably achievable demand-side management savings; and that exploration of all feasible
alternatives must occur before the Company makes further investments in large-scale
conventional coal-fired power plants,
We ask that the Commission take all of the following actions:
1, acknowledge and accept the IRP;
2, require Idaho Power to pursue all cost-effective energy efficiency resources;
3, caution against further investments in large-scale conventional coal-fired power
plants prior to the 2006 IRP;4, require Idaho Power to include advanced coal technologies, with carbon capture and
storage, in the 2006 IRP analysis; and
5, encourage IPC to continue its open public process in developing the 2006 IRP,
R1~
' !'!(!,
P~II'r:
. ;* ,
11 '/:" I .
' ,
M tf
.. ':;~~
L((-
~"v Iv'" "flI11
Public Process
The Clean Energy Advocates are strongly supportive of the public process Idaho Power used in
preparing the 2004 IRP,Indicators of the IPRAC's success are easy to discern: a healthy cross-
section of stakeholders were invited to the process; numerous meetings were held through every
stage of IRP development; and the vast majority of invitees continued to participate throughout
the process (even after the IRP had been filed with Commission), More importantly, we believe
that the Company was genuinely interested in the IRP AC's input, and that the IRP AC's input is
reflected in the IRP document itself.
The IRP AC process walked the difficult line between ensuring that IRP development is open to
the spectrum of interests, yet also is sufficiently interactive and informed so as to add value to
the highly technical and complex final product.
Energy Efficiency Investment
We commend Idaho Power for expanding its procurement of cost-effective energy efficiency and
demand response programs in the IRP. Specifically, the selected portfolio calls for 48 MW of
energy efficiency programs and 76 MW of demand response programs, The Clean Energy
Advocates recognize the programs described in the IRP will represent an increase in demand-
side investment, and believe the procurement of such resources should proceed on an expedited
basis.
However, the Company s chosen portfolio still lags behind conservative estimates of feasible
levels of cost-effective investment. The Company commissioned Quantum Consulting to
analyze the potential for cost-effective energy efficiency investments in the residential and
commercial sectors. The results of the Quantum report reveal that Idaho Power s selected
portfolio ignores substantial cost-effective investments that would be feasible to acquire.
The first phase of the Quantum study looked primarily at peak load reductions. Some of these
programs are the basis of the IRP's chosen investment level. The second phase was a more
comprehensive evaluation that updated the phase one analysis and added baseload efficiency
measure evaluation. We recognize that the second phase was completed after Idaho Power had
completed the IRP. As a result, the second phase results were not included in the IRP analysis,
The executive summary and some excerpted pages of the "Draft Final" Quantum report is
attached to these comments. We hope and anticipate that the final report will be provided to the
Commission as an addendum to the IRP.
The Quantum report found that under a "moderate" funding scenario, 72 MW of savings (on
peak) could be achieved from energy efficiency programs over a 10 year forecast period; and
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Advocates for the West held seats on the
Company s Integrated Resource Plan Advisory Council (IRPAC).
116 MW of savings could be achieved under a "high" funding scenario. Quantum report at 4-
16. The "maximum achievable" savings totaled 190 MW. Id.
Even the 72 MW of savings identified under a "moderate" funding scenario dwarfs the 48 MW
of savings called for in the IRP's chosen portfolio. But these results from the Quantum report
reflect an analysis of only the residential and commercial sectors. Thus, potential demand-
side savings from the irrigation and industrial sectors would only broaden the gap between Idaho
Power s chosen portfolio and the feasible level of cost-effective efficiency investment, as
identified by the Company s consultant. Indeed, the IRP itself identifies 29 MW of peak savings
from selected irrigation efficiency programs, and 12 MW from industrial efficiency programs.
IRP at 57. Thus, adding the Quantum report's "moderate" scenario (72 MW from residential and
commercial sectors) to the 41 MW of potential from irrigation and industrial sectors identified in
the IRP, a total of 113 MW of efficiency savings should be pursued, Under the Quantum
report's "High" funding scenario, together with the IRP's selected irrigation and industrial sector
programs, a total of 157 MW of efficiency savings should be pursued.
While Idaho Power plans to increase its use of cost-effective energy efficiency resources, there
are still large untapped cost-effective resources available. One frequently used metric to
benchmark energy efficiency programs across utilities is the annual energy savings achieved by
the programs as a percent of sales. To put Idaho Power s plans in perspective, consider that the
annual savings from IPC's existing energy efficiency programs represent about 0.% of annual
load. With the additional investments called for in the IRP, IPC's savings will reach about 0.
of sales.
2 The Northwest Power and Conservation Council's (NWPCC) recently-released draft
Fifth Plan" calls for Idaho Power to attain annual savings of about 0.5% of load.3 Thus, IPC'
current plans would reach less than half of the NWPCC goal. And in comparison, the California
PUC recently set energy saving goals for the three major electric utilities at % of load, in order
to capture 90% of the maximum achievable cost-effective savings.
Existing programs save up to 2.5 aMW per year; the IRP calls for an additional 1.8 aMWof
savings per year, for a total of 4.3 aMW per year.
The NWPPC's plan sets a savings goal of about 2500 aMW over twenty years for the region.
This is achieved by increasing regional conservation acquisition from 130 aMW in the first year
to 150 aMW in the fifth year. IPC assumes that it is 6.4% of the region s load; dividing the
NWPPC's goal proportionately yields a near term goal of 8.3 aMW per year, and a mid-term
goal of9,6 aMW of savings per year. This would amount to annual savings of about 0,5% of
load in both the near- and mid-term.
Benchmarking Idaho Power s Energy Efficiency Plans
(I)CI)
jij
...
0 0.
CI)
CI)D. 0.
(I)CIS
(I)
~ 0.4%
;::...
CI)c 0.
jij
c( 0.
-- -
IPC Existing IPC Existing + NWPPC Goal for California PUCIRP IPC Goal
The Clean Energy Advocates recognize that achievement of all cost-effective energy savings
cannot happen overnight. We ask that the Commission continue to support Idaho Power
efforts to ramp up its demand-side programs, and require that the utility pursue all cost-effective
and feasible energy savings identified in the Quantum report and meet the NWPCC goal.
In addition, we recognize that full achievement of these demand-side savings will manifest as
significantly diminished profits for IdaCorp shareholders. NRDC, NW Energy Coalition, and
Advocates for the West continue to work in the workshop process created in case number IPC-
04-15 to eliminate this financial disincentive to demand-side investment.
Risk of Future Regulation of Carbon
The Clean Energy Advocates commend Idaho Power for recognizing the need to analyze and
mitigate the financial risk associated with the potential future regulation of carbon dioxide
emissions, in addition to the various other risks included in the IRP.
New information regarding climate change and the likelihood of related regulatory action
supports extreme caution against further investments in fossil fuel-based resources - particularly
large base-load resources such as coal.
The Arctic Council (composed of representatives of the 8 Arctic nations, including the United
States) issued a report in November 2004 stating that temperatures in the Arctic are rising at
approximately twice the rate of the rest of world, leading to the reduction of sea ice. The full
primary and secondary impacts of such warming cannot be known at this time, but warming is
surely occurring. The report can be downloaded at -::::http://amap.no/acia/~
The West Coast Governors (for the states of California, Washington, and Oregon) recommended
a series of steps to combat global warming on November 18 2004. The Governors' action adds
to the ongoing action by individual states around the country as summarized at pages 71-72 of
the IRP.
International movement toward control of carbon emissions also recently leapt forward with
Russia s approval of the Kyoto treaty. With Russia s ratification, the treaty will now enter into
force in early 2005, requiring signatory countries to begin the process of reducing carbon
emissions to 5% below 1990 emission levels.
In short, there is a strong and growing body of evidence that carbon regulation is a foreseeable
eventuality. It is fully appropriate for Idaho Power and the Commission to evaluate the present
and growing financial risks from future regulation of carbon.
Renewables
In general, we believe Idaho Power has given wind resources fair treatment alongside other
resources, which is reflected in the draft IRP's call for acquisition of 350 MW of wind.
Significant investment in clean energy is likely to be pursued across the Western United States in
coming years. The Western Governor s Association (in their policy resolution 04-14) is calling
for 30 000MW of clean energy in their region by 2015.
http://www,westgov.org/wga/policy/04/clean-energy,
Renewable resources have a fixed price over a 20 - 30 year period. The benefit of this cost
certainty and future risk reduction should be balanced against the availability of gas at a long-
term fixed price or a short-term contract with a long-term hedge. The recent volatility of gas
prices underscores the value of resources with no fuel costs. In a recent study by Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, the authors estimated the fuel-price hedge value of wind
resources at $0.40/MMBtu to $0.80/MMBtu, or 0.3 cents/kWh to 0.6cents/kWh.
Specific to this IRP, the penetration level of wind into Idaho Power s full portfolio of resources
will still be quite small, even with the acquisitions called for in the IRP. This fact indicates that
integration costs (including the need for back up generation, if any) for these resources will also
be small. This is particularly the case where there is no indication that the variability in output of
wind (particularly given the low energy and capacity factors already assigned to wind)5
Mark Bolinger, Ryan Wiser and William Golove Account for Fuel Price Risk: Using Forward
Natural Gas Prices Instead of Gas Price Forecasts to Compare Renewable to Natural Gas-Fired
Generation August 2003, LBNL-53587, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/53587.pdf
5 IPC assigns wind an annual capacity factors of35%; but only 5% during summer peak hours,
We understand this is based on expected summer conditions at a hypothetical wind plant in
southern Idaho. However, it is likely that actual wind projects will be located at several separate
sites. This geographic dispersion is likely to increase the average energy and capacity factors for
all wind contributions to the grid.
correlates with variation in load. Moreover, as forecasting for wind project output steadily
improves, the need for shaping services will decline.
The Company s 2006 IRP should include a discussion of the appropriate discount rate to apply to
renewable resources. We think that discounting the fuel costs for supply side resources at a
discount rate of 7.2% (IRP at 68) is incorrect since it is assumed that fuel costs expenditures will
be paid by customers on an annual basis through the Power Cost Adjustment mechanism.
Because the Company intends to pass through fuel costs (and associated risks) to customers, the
appropriate discount rate for fuel costs should not be based on the Company s weighted average
cost of capital. Instead, it should be based on the lower, expected inflation rate. Moreover, the
high discount rate severely disadvantages new renewable resources, such as wind, because
renewables have high capital costs and no fuel costs. Basically, the high discount rate will skew
the cost of gas plants to the detriment of renewables.
New Coal Investments
Idaho Power s IRP calls for investment in a new 500 MW conventional coal-fired power plant.
Specifically, the Company s near-term action plan calls for the Company to identify a utility
partner and issue an RFP for that coal plant prior to the completion of the 2006 IRP. The Clean
Energy Advocates urge the Commission to caution Idaho Power against further investments in
large-scale conventional coal-fired power plants prior to the 2006 IRP for several reasons,
First, the 500 MW coal plant is a lumpy capital investment, which could realistically be
postponed for at least a year if the Company pursued a reasonable plan to capture all cost-
effective energy efficiency savings as identified by the Company s own consultant (Quantum)
and the Northwest Power Planning Council.
Second, the 2004 IRP did not analyze advanced coal technologies, such as integrated gasification
combined cycle (IGCC) plants, which could provide both economic and environmental benefits
relative to conventional coal technologies. Indeed, outputs of conventional pollutants and carbon
from IGCC plants are substantially lower than those associated with conventional or even
pulverized coal technology. Moreover, advanced coal technologies are more efficient than
conventional technologies, and enable the use of cost-effective carbon capture and storage.
These factors make IGCC a more prudent investment than conventional or pulverized coal when
faced with the financial risk associated with greenhouse gas emissions.
The Commission should require Idaho Power to pursue all cost-effective energy efficiency
resources and thereby postpone its consideration of a new coal-fired power plant until after the
2006 IRP. The Company should also require the Company to analyze advanced coal
technologies, with carbon capture and storage, in the 2006 IRP analysis.
Conclusion
The 2004 IRP represents a leap forward in sound risk management and environmental
stewardship. The Clean Energy Advocates ask the Commission to acknowledge and accept the
IRP, but direct the Company in the following regards: (1) the Company should pursue
investment in all cost-effective energy efficiency resources, at higher levels than called for in the
IRP; (2) the IRP's plan for acquisition of renewable resources should be implemented over the
next two years to help diversify the Company s energy portfolio; (3) in light of the further
potential for investment in additional efficiency programs, the risks of future carbon regulation
and the prospects for renewable energy development in Idaho, additional fossil fuel-based
resources should not solicited or acquired prior to approval of the 2006 IRP, and after all other
alternatives have been exhausted; (4) the 2006 IRP should include an analysis of advanced coal
technologies, with carbon capture and storage; (5) encourage IPC to continue its open public
process in developing the 2006 IRP.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Idaho Power s 2004 IRP,
Sincerely,
Nancy Hirsh
NW Energy Coalition
Devra Bachrach
Natural Resources Defense Council
Troy Gagliano
Renewable Northwest Project
William Eddie
Advocates for the West
Contact information can be obtained at:
William Eddie
Advocates for the West
O, Box 1612
Boise, ID 83701
ph: 208-342- 7024
fax: [phone]
billeddie(grmci, net
cc:
Barton Kline
Gregory Said
Idaho Power Company
PO Box 70
Boise, ID 83707-0070
IDAHO POWER DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT
POTENTIAL STUDY
DRAFT FINAL
Prepared for
Darlene emnich
Project Leader
Customer Relations and Research Department
Idaho Power
1221 West idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Prepared by
QUANTUM CONSULTING INc.
2001 Addison Street, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94704
P1974
October, 2004
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) directed the Idaho Power Company (IPCo) to
consult with their Energy Efficiency Advisory Group regarding the need to initiate a
comprehensive DSM study of the Idaho Power service territory, In July 2002, the Customer
Relations and Research Group at Idaho Power received recommendations from the Idaho
Power Energy Efficiency Advisory Group and from Idaho Power management to proceed with
a study of DSM opportunities, This study characterizes the potential for DSM resources
through 2013 for the commercial and residential sectors,
This study was carried out in two phases, In the study s initial phase, the focus was on the
potential for capacity reduction from demand-response (DR) programs and energy-efficiency
(EE) opportunities based on assessment of measures that maximize peak reduction, For a
second phase of the study, additional measures were added to the original EE portion of the
analysis to produce estimates of DSM potential that include an emphasis on overall energy
savings. Based on IPCo s resource planning needs, the potential for capacity reduction was the
most important component of the study, As such, the results from the initial phase of the study
were provided to IPCo s resource-planning department in late 2003 and early 2004 for
incorporation into its 2004 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)
The scope of this study also includes review and analysis of Idaho Power s summer peak load
characteristics and identification of residential and commercial end-uses that have potential for
demand reduction during the summer peak time, In addition, significant effort went into to
development of baselines for residential and commercial customers in Idaho Power s service
territory. This included estimation ' of end use energy and peak demand contribution;
development of parameters such as electric equipment saturation, current efficiency measure
saturation; incorporation of the impact of current codes and standards; analysis of Idaho Power
forecasts and rate schedules; and review of Idaho Power s current DSM programs,
Inherent differences between EE and DR - with respect to both technologies and program types
- called for distinct methodologies in assessing their respective potentials, The analysis of
potential followed a measure-based methodology in which technology and market
characteristics were combined to produce an estimate of the total technical potential of all
measures under consideration, Using a forecast of avoided costs to remove all measures that
were not cost effective from a total resource cost (TRC) perspective, the technical potential was
reduced to produce an estimate of economic potential. Finally, the influence of market
constraints given different program funding levels was modeled to reduce the economic
potential to various estimates of achievable potential. A detailed description of these concepts
and methodologies is presented in Chapter 2 of this report.
The DR portion of the study was based on an approach that merged professional judgment
about DR participation levels with available Idaho Power data to assess potential peak demand
reduction for a specific set of program offerings, Following an approach similar to that of the
analysis of EE measures, the DR analysis first assessed the maximum amount of load to which
DR programs could feasibly apply, This " applicable load" was then partitioned into "low
partial," and "high" capability segments, which reflected the extent to which load is
Quantum Consulting Inc.ES-Executive Summary
automated and/ or centrally controlled, From this initial breakout of applicable load, achievable
potential was estimated by modeling shifts in capability based on IPCo s program efforts and
customer motivation given different incentive levels, The end result is a set of potential
estimates by program concept and funding levels, Chapter 3 provides a comprehensive
description of the methodology,
Finally, the results of the two analyses must stand on their own, Although EE and DR programs
are not mutually exclusive, without accounting for the complex interactivity of the two, the
individual results cannot be added to each other to produce a figure for the combined potential
of both types of programs.
BASELINE ESTIMATES
In Exhibit ES-we show estimated summer peak demand and actual energy sales for Idaho
Power for 2002, The residential sector is largest contributor to both summer peak demand and
annual energy representing roughly 30 percent of each, The commercial sector is relatively
small, representing roughly 20 percent of energy and 18 percent of peak demand, Seasonal
irrigation contributes a very large and disproportionate amount to summer peak demand
(representing 24 percent of summer peak demand but only 12 percent of annual energy), The
industrial sector makes up 18 percent of annual energy usages but only 13 percent of summer
peak, due to its higher than average load factor.
Exhibit ES-
Estimated Breakdown of Summer Peak Demand by Sector for Idaho Power, 2002
Residential
28%
Losses Commercial
18%
Off System Sales
Other
Irrigation
24%
Quantum Consulting Inc.ES-Executive Summanj
ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL
The study resulted in a total economic potential of 384 MW of peak demand reduction and
107 GWh of annual energy savings. These are displayed in Exhibit ES-, broken out into
residential and commercial sectors. This peak demand reduction represents nearly 23 percent of
the combined residential and commercial peak demand forecast in 2013. For annual energy
savings, the economic potential is about 12 percent of IPCo s 2013 energy forecast.
Comprehensive results of technical and economic potential by sector, home or building type,
and end use are presented in Chapter 4.
ES-
Economic Potential (2013)
Peak Demand (MW) and Energy (GWh) Savings
200
-----
000 . Commercial
Em Residential
800
-----
600
.- - -- - -
400
-------------
200
GWH
Economic potential, which represents the savings possible if all cost-effective measures were
installed in every application deemed physically feasible, is the point of departure from which
more realistic assessments of the value of energy-efficiency programs are derived, To develop
the estimates of achievable potential, the study modeled market penetration based on four
different funding scenarios, These scenarios consisted of the following:
A Low efficiency funding scenario with rebates covering 33 % of incremental measure
costs and base marketing funding levels;
Moderate efficiency funding scenario with rebates covering 50% of incremental
measure costs and slightly higher marketing expenditures;
Quantum Consulting Inc.ES-Executive Summary
A High efficiency funding scenario with rebates ramping up over time to 75% of
incremental measure costs and significantly increased marketing expenditures; and
A Maximum Achievable scenario with rebates ramping up over time to cover 100% of
incremental measure costs and marketing expenditures sufficient to create maximum
market awareness,
The achievable potential peak demand for the four scenarios as well as the estimated naturally
occurring energy efficiency (which represent efficiency adoption in the absence of any
programs) is displayed in Exhibit ES-3. For year 10 of the analysis, peak demand reductions
range from 190 MW (around 11 percent of 2013 peak demand) for the maximum achievable
scenario to 42 MW (less than 3% of 2013 peak demand) for the low funding scenario.
As shown in Exhibit ES-4, the achievable potential energy savings in 2013 were 681 GWh for
the maximum achievable scenario, roughly 7.5 percent of IPCo s energy forecast for that year.
The low-funding scenario showed 195 GWh for the same year, just over 2 percent of the
forecast.
Based on the methodology used for this study, all of the measures that go into the assessment
of achievable potential are estimated to be cost effective based on their incremental costs and
incremental savings, For the achievable potential, however, marketing and administrative costs
are added into the equation. After incorporating these costs, all four scenarios were still cost
effective from the TRC perspective, In Exhibit ES-5, the present value of benefits is presented
along with a breakout of the various costs components included in the TRC for all four
scenarIOs.
Quantum Consulting Inc.ES-Executive Summary
Exhibit ES-
Peak Demand Reduction Potential by Funding Scenario, 10- Year Forecast
---------' ---, ----------,- - -, _. - -" -" ----, ---- -
200
- - - - - -
- D Nat. Occurring
1 80
- - -
- D Low
Moderate
High
I!!D Max. Achievable
- - - -
120
- - - -- - - -
MW 100
160
140
Year
Exhibi ES-
Energy Savings Potential by Funding Scenario, 10-Year Forecast
700
600
500
400
GWH
300
200
100
'- --, --- - -.--.------------
D Nat. Occurring
DLow
D Moderate
II High
III Max. Achievable
- -- - - -- - -
Year
Quantum Consulting Inc.Executive SummaryES-
Exhibit ES-
Present Value Costs and Benefits Achievable Potential Scenarios
$450
$400 ~ Net Benefits
0 Total Benefits
Fi Program Incentives
III Non-Incentive Participant Costs
0 Marketing
.Administration
a----$104.
.-----------------
$350
(/)
$300
f/7S $250
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
::J $200
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------.....
~ $150
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
a..
$1 00
- - - -
~$74 ~- - -
$50
- - - -
Low Moderate High
DEMAND RESPONSE POTENTIAL
.----
$868----
Max. Achievable
As displayed in Exhibit ES-6, of IPCo s total peak demand in 2004, 469 MW (32 percent) were
deemed to be applicable for peak demand reduction programs, Of this applicable load, 105 MW
of potential savings were estimated to be economic. Of the total economic potential, AC load
control programs for the residential sector accounted for nearly 60 MW, around 57 percent. The
next largest contributors were the small- and large-commercial back-up generation programs,
which combined for around 43 percent of the total economic potential.
Exhibit ES-
Economic Potential for Residential and Commercial DR Programs
% Of Total Peak
MW in 2004 Demand
Total Peak Demand 1,4 78
- -' -
Estimated Applicable Demand for DR 469 32%
Economic Potential for DR 105
The assessment of achievable DR potential was based on analysis of four program concepts -
AC Load Control (DLC), Critical Peak Pricing (CPP), Voluntary Demand Response Incentives
(DRP), and Back-up Generator Incentives (BUG) - bundled into four program strategies:
Quantum Consulting Inc.ES-Executive Summary
DLC and BUG - Low Incentive Levels
All 4 Concepts - Low Incentive Levels
All 4 Concepts - High Incentive Levels
Maximum Achievable
The forecast of annual estimated MW reduction that would occur during system peak
conditions is shown in Exhibit ES-6 for each of the four strategies, The growth in the various
scenarios represents a forecasted successful effort of IPCo to shift applicable load into higher
capability segments as well as customer response to incentives, The maximum achievable
scenario s 129 MW in 2013 amounts to more than 7.5 percent of the peak demand. The lowest
potential is associated with the DLC and BUG program concepts with low funding, which has a
potential of 25 MW in 2013, approximately 1.5 percent of peak demand, Chapter 5 presents
complete results for the assessment of DR potential.
Exhibi ES-
Comparison of Load Reduction Forecasts Residential and Commercial Sectors
-----..
140
120
100
DDLC & BUG - Low $
114 Concepts - Low $
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- .4 Concepts - High $
0 Max. Achievable
- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -, -
Year
Quantum Consulting Inc.ES-Executive Summary
4. ENERGY EFFICIENCY PEAK DEMAND AND ENERGY SA VINGS POTENTIAL RESULTS
In this section we present summary results of the Idaho Power energy efficiency potentialanalysis for the residential and commercial sectors. First, economic and technical potential are
discussed. Next, we present summary energy efficiency supply curves, which are an alternativemethod of presenting forecasted potentials, Finally, we present scenario forecasts for achievable
energy efficiency potential. Definitions of the different types of energy efficiency potential andInethods used to develop them are provided in Section 2 of this report. Section 2 also presentsthe baseline estimates used in our analyses.
At the outset of this study, the primary focus on was peak demand reduction and the scope was
lilnited to Ineasures with impacts on sununer peak. In a later, second phase, the scope wasexpanded to look at all measures with the potential to provide cost-effective energy savings,Where possible, the figures in this section delineate the peak demand and energy savingsassociated with the two phases. In cases where there is no distinction, the figures represent theresults of the second phase. Because the results of the first phase were provided to the resource-planning group at IPCo, identical graphs based only on the results of the initial phase areprovided separately in Appendix
TECHNICAL AND ~CONOMIC POTENTIAL
In Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2 we present our overall estilnates of total technical and economicpotential for peak demand and electrical energy in the residential and conunercial sectors in the
Idaho, Power territory. Technical potential represents the SUln of all savings achieved if allmeasures analyzed in this Shldy were iInplemented in applications where they are deemedapplicable and physically feasible, As described in Section 2, economic potential is based on
efficiency measures that are cost-effective based on the total resource cost (TRC) test, a benefit-cost test used to compare the value of avoided energy production and power plant consh'uctiOhto the costs of energy-efficiency Ineasures and progrmn activities necessary to deliver them. The
value of both energy savings arid peak delnand reductions are incorporated into the TRC test.
Overall and by Sector
If all measures analyzed in this study were iInplelnented where technically feasible, weestilnate that overall technical demand savings would be roughly 551 MW, about 33 perce~t of
projected combined residential and commercial peak demand in 2013. If all measures that pass
the TRC test were implemented, economic ' potential savings would be 384 MW, about percent of total residential and commercial demand in 2013. Technical energy savings potential
is estimated to be roughly 1,917 GWh, about 21 percent of total residential and commercialenergy usage projected in 2013. Economic energy estilnates savings are estimated at 1 107GWh, about 12 percent of base residential and conunercial usage, The technical and economic
potential estilnates are shown by sector and vintage (existing stock versus new consh'uction) in
Exhibits 4-3 through 4-5, The largest share of both technical and economic savings is in the
residential existing stock.
Quantum Consulting Inc.Efficiency Potential Results
Exhibit
Technical and Economic Potential (2013)
Peak De111and Savings - MW
Exhibit
Technical and EconO111ic Potential (2013)
Energy Savings - G Wh per Year
600 500
(f;!JPhase II
!ill Phase I
100
tiJJ Phase II
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ Phase I500
000
---------------------------
500
-------------- -- ------
400
----------------------
300
c..
--------
ro 1 500
- - - -
Q)
.s::
~ 1,000,
----------------
200
Technical Economic Technical Economic
Exhibit
Technical and Econo111ic Potential by Sector a11d Vintage, Peak Den1and Savings (2013)
350 --------,._...,-----,---,-"------_.._--",,,-,,_..-----_.._..---,--"-_..,-------'--'-,.......---,,_.._--.._-----.._---,-,._----,---------_-_--_--m_m_--_"__
""'--"-____--
"m___._..-,,-,-...-
II) Phase II
300
- - - - -
50
- - - - -..------------------..----....--------
Dill Phase I
250
- - - - ------- ----- ------- - --- ---- ---- ----------- - -- - ------
200
- - - - -
:2:
('QQ) ,
CL 1 50
- - - - ---------- --,--- ------- -- -----------------------
1 00
- - -- - -------------------
Tech. Ecan.
Residential
Existing
Tech. Econ.
Residential
New
Tech. Ecan.
Commercial
Existing
Tech. Ecan.
Commercial
New
Quantum Consulting Inc.Efficiency Potential Results
Exhibit
Technical and Ecol1O1nic Potential by Sector and Vintage, Energy Savings (2013)
1200
..-..---..- "-"- - - ,- -----.- --- ...-..------- --. - ..-...-- -.-,--- "",---..---- -- -----...---...- --- --- -,----- ..--- -----. -- --- - - ---"--' -_._,- -"- ----
800
-- --- - --- - -- - --- ------ ---- ----- -- -----
III Phase If
~ Phase I
1000
600
- - - - -
::J
c::!:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - ----- -- -------------------- - - -- ------------ ---------
400
- - - - -
200
------------------
Tech, Econ.
Residential
Existing
Tech. Econ,
Residential
New
Tech. Econ,
Commercial
Existing
Tech. Econ.
Commercial
New
Exhibit 4-
Phase II Technical and ECOnO11'lic Potential Esti1nates
GWh
Sector and VintaQe Technical Economic Technical Economic
Residential - ExistinQ 299 201 102 554
Residential - New 139 102 373 235
Commercial - ExistinQ 373 252
Commercial - New
Total 551 384 917 107
Quantum Consulting Inc.
Efficiency Potential Results
Exhibit 4-
Phase Technical and EconO1nic Potential Esti11'lates
GWh
Sector and VintaQe Technical Economic Technical Economic
Residential - ExistinQ 237 189 520 444
Residential - New 117 216 173
Commercial - ExistinQ 265 179
Commercial - New
Total 442 337 060 851
End Use Potential
Residential economic potential is presented by key end use in Exhibit 4-6. Lighting, cooling,
and clothes washing dominate econOlmc energy savings, while cooling makes up the vast
majority of peak demand impacts. Exhibit 4-7 shows conunercial sector economic potential
estimates by end use. Lighting is the largest conh'ibutor in terms of both energy savings
potential and peak demand savings potential, cooling is the second largest conh'ibutor to
commercial economic peak d~lnand savings.
Potential by Building Type
Exhibit 4-8 displays residential economic potential by building type. Single-fmmly homes
account for the vast majority of potential. Conunercial sector econOlmc potential is displayed
by building type in Exhibit 4-9. The largest conh'ibutors to both GWh and peak MW potential
are small offices, food stores, retail establishments, hospital/health care facilities, and
/I miscellaneous" buildings.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY SUPPLY CURVES
Energy efficiency supply curves for energy and peak delnand savings are shown in Exhibits 4-
10 and 4-11, respectively, The supply curves show the dish'ibution of measure-level potentials
by relative cost. ~nergy supply curve sulmnary data are presented Exhibits 4-12 through 4-
for the residential existing, residential new consh'uction, conunercial existing and coimnercial
new consh'uction vintages, Note that these values are aggregated across Inarket segInents and
that individual segment results can vary significantly froln the average values shown. In
addition, it is important to recognize that cost-effectiveness, as defined by the TRC test, can not
be determined exclusively from these curves because the value of both energy and demand
savings must be integrated when comparing to supply side alternatives; Measure-level TRC
estimates are provided in Appendix
Quantum Consulting Inc.Efficiency Potential Results
-,.""..
200
180
1 60
- - - -
140
- - - -
120
- - - -
100
Exhibit
Residential Econo11'lic Potential by End Use (2013)
300
III Phase
250 ~ Phase I
---- - - --- -- --- --- ----- -- ----- - ---
200
----------------- ------------ ----- ----- --
150 -
- - --- -- - - - --- -- --- - - -- --- ------------------
1 00
- - ----------------------------------------
50
- - -
GWH MW
Space
Cooling
GWH MW GWH MW GWH MW
Water
Heating
GWH MW
Clothes
Washer
GWH MW
Dish
Washer
Lighting Refrigeration
Exhibit 4- 7
Co11'l1nercial Econo11'lic Potential by End l.Jse (2013)
- -- ----- - - - -- -- - - --- - - - - -- -- - - - -- ----- ---- ---
f; Phase
(ill Phase I
- -- -- - ----- - --- - - -- -- - --- ---- ---- -- --- -- ---- -- ----- - ----- ---- ---------------------- --- ------------------------- ---------- --- - - - - -------------- -------- ---------------- ---- -- -- --------- --- - ---- ---- ------------ ---- -- - --
80
- - - ---- - - - ----- -- -- - - -- - - --- --- - -- -- - ----- ---- --- - -- - ----
40
- - - -
20 -" --
----
GWH MW
Lighting
GWH MW
Cooling
GWH MW GWH MW
Refrigeration
GWH MW
Heating
GWH MW
Water HeatVentilation
Quantum Consulting Inc.Efficiency Potential Results
Exhibit
Residential EconO1nic Potential by Building Type (2013)
700
Im1 Phase
100
- - - - -
600
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ Phase I
500
- - - - ----------- --- - - - --- - - - --- - - -- --------- - - - - - ------ ---
400
---- ----------- - --- - ------ ---- - ---- --- ---- ---- -----
300
------ ------ -- - - - ----- - ---- --- --------------- ------
200
- - - - -,--- ---- -------- -- - - - -- - - - -- ---------- - -- ---------------- ---
----- -- ----- __n__
- -------- -- - -----
'c"he'
.;'-'-"'_"".
":e,
GWH MW
Single-Family
GWH MW
Small Multi-Family
GWH MW
Large Multi-Family
GWH MW
Mobile Home
Exhibit
Col111nercial EconO1nic Potential by Building Type (2013)
-, _. ----,,- - "-"'- -'---"-- ----
T -" - ,,----------
,.- -.---.-- -...-,,--",---.- -.--,,- -
T"
-- .-.-, --" .---.- -,.- - --" ----"." ---", - ," --...., ----- - ,-"-,,-,,.
Small Office G~Jj
GWHRestaurant MW
GWH ;j),:if;I%i\mj~)'&i'#!di!\~:.~ii;(Ni,~~t:~N6~wif,\j:.:;.\i;v'~jj?~-x,e al MW !!iff11Wfi:~,~~ji)j
t-Jotel
GWHFood Store MW
GWHWarehouse MW
School G~Jj
College G~Jj
Hos ital GWH
iii Phase I
111 Phase Miscellaneous ~Jj
Quantum Consulting Inc,Efficiency Potential Results
Exhibit 4-
Residential and Col111nercial Energy Efficiency Supply Curve Energy
- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - -
$0.05
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -;---..--.- --'
$0.
$0.
$0.
Q,)
;:.
CJ)
.c:
~ $0.
Q,)
"C $0.
Q,)
t::!
Q,)
;:.
Q,)...J
, ,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, - - - - - - - - - - - - -+ - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10%15%20%25%
Percent Savings
Exhibit
Residential and Co11'l111ercial Energy Efficiency Supply Curve Peak De111and
000
$900
$800
Q,)
(,)
$700
Q,)
0:::$600
$500Q,)
ffl $400
Q,)
Q,)$300
;:.
Q,)..J $200
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
$100
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------ - --
10%15%20%25%30%35%
Percent Savings
Quantum Consulting Inc.Efficiency Potential Results
Exhibit
Residential-Existing Energy Efficienc;y Supply Curve Data
Cumulative Levelized
MW Savings MW Savings Capacity Cost
$/kW
;is:;::Double Pane, Med Low-E Coating 55 55 $35
::Si1i~\ Duct Insulation (.4) 59 $51
~;,j,i!~ Basic HVAC Diagnostic Testing And Repair 24 63 $74
Double Pane, Med Low-E Coating 56 91 $0.033 HE Room Air Conditioner - EER 10,12 95 $75CFL 227 316 $0,040 Duct Repair (0.32) 14 109 $94
!;i.A
~-;
J"""
"'~~""
'F:
~~7
".,::,
04~" 10 to 12 SEER Split-System Air Conditioner 42 151 $96
EQ~(9x:'~.W!rQ~'~EI;;=O,X6i""'Afu~:"("""iii&,8:i,'i":'h1,
~,.
",jg1-",55;2,):",;,s\'";::,,,572,;':;,
/.,,'::"
c;-:.,,$0;053,,%;' Wa1l2x4 R-O to Blow-In R-13 Insulation (0,14) 10 162 $96
Ductl~~ulatiO~t4r~-"""'"""-
~' .,."",... """"
4"""526"" ""$O.O5S""'DirectEvaporaUveCooter 22 164 $139
!~~~W'1W.IDmW ~~Th1K (~Ei~~1)Hdli.:l~0i;i~~t00 i~"
~~~ ;j\!,
!$gJ;\ ~i ~f,~K~~ ~:SX;i0r;ti i m?,~ ~~~~!~'
;~; .~~~~;
l~~ l ~ ~~ n:
Efij'geG'Y ;r$~:al9;'f:'~f SEHA CW Tier 2 (MEF=2.20 213 $240 .
~~~~~;a ~;~;ttioner-
EER 10,
~~ ~~~
~~:~~f"~~~~lmf ,j~1B~l~~~~)~f~jj~:;~,~~U J;:
10t012SEERSplit-SystemAlrCondltioner 40 1026 $0.105 10to 13 SEER Split-System Air Conditioner 13 237 $406
&5t;:::E:::!i:::!li: r 1~!!:::=~i::t~~:!I~~,
Ceiling R-19 to R-36 Insulation (.27) 1204 $0.577 Infiltration Reduction (0.4) 313 $670Ceiling Fans 1206 $0,756 Ceiling Fans 314 $1,445
Infiltration Reduction (0.4) 1209 $1.094 10 to 14 SEER Split-System Air Conditioner 10 325 $1 646
101014 SEER S lit-tem Air Conditioner 10 1219 1,759 OlarWarer~RealEi'r;f(P:,,;nYW'!;i!;,,:~'(ii'i:.;C:'\i~f;;'f't;;ij;';i;~i,r;Y:;;:;'f6;'i:k0:;F-:D/:!i:33ri':f,;:::;E,$S:725C:'
Measure CumulativeGWH Savings GWH Savings
Levelized
Energy Cost
$/kWh
Measure
Measures incremental to Phase II are highlighted.
Exhibit 13 *
Residential-New Construction Energy Efficiency Supply Curve Data -10 Years
Cumulative LevellzedGWH Savings Energy CostGWH Savings $/kWh
gW:RlgW,:RD9,?!~rh!!~9~1,~~tic~!,~)(J;':;,ji;t;';~~-,;7;;i'~i1.#';Trf1i(8~1~\~Tli!ji;5;,t!t\'S~~Jt:?,
~~!;:\
\i';t't'
:;;.
$9:.QJ i8:; Double Pane, Med Low-E Coating
Double Pane, Med Low-E CoaUn 41 44 $0.017 Basic HVAC Diagnostic Testing And Repair
B~~iw.~l~i',p~, 'J,
(~\~~::
J~:~~~";Jj!r. g~~~~:~:;o~~;:~ Cooler 1CFL 62 130 $0.040 HE Room Air Conditioner - EER 10.
SEHA CW Tier 2 (MEF=2.20) 47 177 $0,040 10 to 12 SEER Split-System Air Conditioner
""""
fft~~ ~!
~~%
l~*; ";,y' ~:~~1\~I~j; ~~f;~~~~~~~r~:!~~~;J\r~~~T~i;i~~'
r%::;1jfi!h!i'?):,
~;;~'
:r;q0::F~:jr;:,:a'
:;:;:;
Basic HVAC Diagnostic Testing And Repair 10 261 $0.074 S"""
' ";:"
J;EgFJ~J'd$j',b:f*J;Qiiij'~:ftifi:Flg~;ettf~;X1!!.(ih~~;,t!iq,Q~~K~~~b\\~:~2;ili\:;f;\li;~li~ri1?~~f\~i~3g1::;~$9;Qz.$k:!~i.:
Duct Repair (0,32) 291 $0.096
,---,.
Direct Evaporative Cooler 10 ,300 $0.113 10t013SEERSplit-SystemAlrCondlUoner 6
~~~
~~*~~Tf !~~~Ni~~!~~fU~~f~
~t:i~~*JiW1rdi:!1~&;~Wf~ kil ~ :1$3I r~m;m'm;g:; ;~~
~ ~
~fI:
~.~
~;T(:,!K
~:n
~;(M:~i
~ N ~ R$Y ~ $.tAB 9 ('
~ ~ \!
er, E.1
~:~
i~ ~;U:'(i 0/, 'in: ~\
;;; :
t 1;;:: :i;' i ~~; (it.;; :i'
10t012 SEER Split-Syslem Air Conditioner 21 330 $0.125 Whole House Fans
WaIl2x4R-13to2x6R-13InsulaUon(0,14) 333 $0.209Whole House Fans 342 $0,312
10 to 13 SEER Split-System Air Conditioner
. '
350 . ... $0.409 ,
.""""".",,.
91~!l~:vJjJ;3;r;;B.:~~f~!:~:tJg.w~0yn::;i%~'r~'
\j;;j:
i~1~(Z;!?tN;I;);~%'f;:mi,~:~r::X!Dj,(: ;\t;';::~Rq ::!;0":,V,
~:: '
;:$ Q 47!H';i' Ceiling FansCeiling Fans 367 $0,542 101014 SEER Spilt-System Air Condllioner
10 to 14 SEER S lit-S stem Air Conditioner 373 $1.616 S6IafW'afe'rFrei!IEir::'
:(";:
i;\:'0::;:US,i;";~~,~r;:;::;
Measure Measure MW Savings Cumulative Levelized
Capacity CostMW Savings $/kW39 $1-650 $7056 $9255 $9666 $11669 $117
':'
;\l~~';:L
" .j;:
~~~rf':'
t~~i~j~j;
; ~1~tt
if~ ~~(:.109 $363117 $455
;;ij :f:fj"fz: , ;:::..:Y') ';t:, $$114'122 $596
::1l, .~:~1t
136 $1 514;';i'):;tAjg\';;":;'
;::""::'
7$S';927':'
.:,\;/:
;;.~;i~,;1;'j.::::!2"
Measures incremental to Phase II are highlighted.
Quantum Consulting 1nc;-'Efficiency Potential Results
Exhibit
Co111111ercial-Existing Energy Efficiency Supply Curve Data
Cumulative Levelized LevelizedGWH Savings GWH Savings Energy Cost Measure MW Savings ;~~~~:~;s Capacity Cost$/kWh $/kW
R~'g~Nhr h
.,
. OX Packaged System, EER=10,, 10 Ions 12.7 12.$888~frHler.~tL T8/EB Replacement 15,2 27.$116Prog. Thermostat- OX 10,1 49.4 $0.028 Prog. Thermostat- DX 2.1 30.$136TB/EB Replacement 56.8 106,3 $0.031 CFL Screw-, Modular 18W 20.4 50.4 $155CFL Screw-, Modular 18W 79.3 185.5 $0.040 Window Film (Standard) 4,7 55,$180Ventilation 16,5 202.$0. 04 7 B~n)g~r1.tI9D.Z6\&;3;ig;~~~:fgtWi1(~~i:(;0;'~Ni;,i~~J,:1:1i~\S;,jlt.r0r~g!~iivj~0~i:g?'fgJ~fu:l05,(;~i2~~!t\~~t~~$%1~:~if$i1;W$;?9,~:;1'iMifOccupancy Sensor
. "
" 11,. 213.5 $0,059 Occupancy Sensor
Hig:6'RfW~Ur~'$()~jPiJr~~9WJ~~'mpi;;~~:;1':~\~i::;
:~;.';'
fJf,'ifii.J\',f::~).S';W::
:;'~:;
~i~''Z;~~2j:i::4i~a!-!Djit'~V;;z.9~~;;;t~t DX Tune Upl Advanced DiagnosticsDX Packaged System, EER=10., 10 tons 19.6 240.0 $0.057 Evaporative Pre-CoolerDX Tune Up! Advanced Diagnostics 13,1 253.2 $0.068 Ventilation
!;l~;r!iog~;;J\;~~.,~~~(1ft\fl;IJ\~~j~~~)~lJI~:~tfJ?lfi;0r$~.xN~~Jii~:a~~~1~N\'(~~1;;~~~jf~??~lP2t!;~~1t~l0r~Q/g~.?:~d\:~~ Con tin u 0 u s Dim m i nWindow Film (Standard)... 7.4 ' 330.4 " $0.114 WaJiWHe'
Vft.'f~ill-ffi&~: i iD9:t\~1tt!f\~ ~;i~Wlj ~~~:i0;x~;~;ffi:~ni~'!1 Eq\r~~l;~ ~ 1~; \~~;,:J; zIt; tV!;r\!m~; ;~;i1;'i:~'
~ % :'
$:l~;"'
; '
iE!,0:\:)' $9.1 ~~ ~ ;~~j:Hl' 'If: ,. 'r"'"Continuous Dimming 32.0 369.6 $0.233Eva orative Pre-Cooler 7.3 376,9 $0.290
Measure
Measures incremental to Phase II are highlighted.
Exhibit 15*
Co11'l1nercial-Ne~v Construction Energy Efficiency Supply Curve Data -10 Years
Cumulatl Levelized LevelizedCumulativeGWH Savings Energy Cost Measure MW Savings Capacity CostGWH Savings $/kWh MW Savings $/kWLow-e Windows 5.1 5.1 $0.022 Low-e Windows 3.4 3,4 $33
~~frrg~r:~~d:J~i tp~
'~,
J!m01.zw*~t)81~$il":J;:,p;';)r;(:f~"fi:Li'r)i:::;dj:;~):\(~\i:'t~'I)i'::g;'~b:~j'0:~'~t\f0:;.~b;~.
;:~'
~~ o ~~~~;~fj~~~~~ghting Design ~:~ 11~7
~~~
20 % More Efficient Lighting Design 15,5 46.3 $0,034 20 % More Efficient Lighting Design 4.9 16.6 $109
!~t;tff=~~:::::~::.;,
:~,..;,.!;,:,g, ~ :
~;;"'E~'
!1"':::m
~!jW ~~;~;~;1~1~~;t~:~:~::::~;;~:~ir=::~J,~~
Measure
"',';'
Measllres tncreulental to Phase II are highlighted.
.~~
FORECASTS OF ACHIEVABLE PROGRAM POTENTIAL SCENARIOS
In this section weJ l?resent our overall achievable potential forecasts. In conh.ast to technical and
econonuc potential estiInates, achievable potential estilnates take into account market and otherfactors that affect adoption of efficiency Ineasures. Our method of estilnating measure adoption
takes into account market barriers and reflects actual consumer and business implicit discount
rates (see Section 2 for this methodology). Achievable potential refers to the amount ofsavings that would occur in response to one or more specific program interventions. Netsavings associated with program potential are savings that are projected beyond those that
would occur naturally in the absence of any market intervention, Because achievable potential
will vary significantly as a function of the specific type and degree of intervention applied, we.
develop estilnates for multiple scenarios. Peak demand and energy savings forecasts weredeveloped for four possible program-funding scenarios, These scenarios were designed toaddress Inarket changes to increasing incentive levels (as a percent of incremental measure,
cost) and Inarketing levels. Th~ scenarios include:
1. A Low efficiency funding scenario with rebates coverIng 33% of incremental
Ineasure costs and base marketing levels;
Quantum Consulting Inc.Efficiency Potential Results
2, A Moderate efficiency funding scenmiio with rebates covering 50% of increillental
measure costs and slightly higher Illarketing expenditures;
3, A High efficiency funding scenario with rebates rmllping up over time to 75% of
incremental measure costs and significantly increased marketing expenditures; and
4, A Maxi1llum Achievable scenario with rebates ramping up over time to cover 100%
of incremental 11leaSUre costs and marketing expenditures sufficient to create
Illaximum market awareness. Maxi1llum achievable efficiency potential is the
amount of econonuc potential that could be achieved over tiIlle under the 11l0St
aggressive progrmll scenario possible)7
We forecasted program energy and peak deilland savings under each achievable potential
scenario for a 10-year period beginning in 2004=. Our estiIllates of achievable potentials and their
affect on forecasted deilland and energy consuillption' are shown in Exhibits 4-15 through 4-
for both Phase II and Phase,I results.
~i:J&1;1q1vnjn Exhibit 4-15a, by 2013 net18 peak deilland savings are projected to be roughly
("?"'::'
it(~ ex Low, 72 MW under Moderate, 116 MW under High, and 190 MW under MaxiInU111
1"""""
~-- .:~~~,
spending scenarios, In Exhibit 4-16a, we show projected net annual energy savings
:V: Wh under Low, 298 GWh under Moderate, 489 under High, and 681 GWh under
~i:(c,,:v "efficienc;y futures. '
Exhibit 17 provides a breakdown of Year-peak demand 'reduction potential by scenario
sector and vintage for both Phase II and Phase I results. As shown, the residential and
commercial existing consh'uction Inarket segillents account for Inost of the potential for the
Low and Moderate scenarios, The residential'existing seglTIent accounts for an increasing share
of potential impacts for the higher funding scenarios. Exhibits 4-18 and 4-19 sunuTIarize the
total ten-year results for all funding scenarios for both phases of results. Exhibit 4-18 juxtaposes
the total progrmTI benefits - based on the culTIulative avoided costs associated with each
scenario - with a breakout of the various cost components. Exhibit 4-19 provides the total ten-
year program spending and forecasted achievable potential estiinates by progrmTI scenario
sector and vintage. All of the funding scenarios are cost effective based on the TRC test. The
TRC benefit-cost ratios are 1,7, 1.6, 1.5, and 1.4 for the Low Moderate, High, MaxiInUlTI
Achievable sceI~arios, respectively.
17 Experience with efficiency programs shows that maximum achievable potential for voluntary programs will
always be less than economic potential for two key reasons. First, even if 100 percent of the exh'a costs to customers
of purchasing an energy-efficient product are paid for through program financial incentives such as rebates, not all
customers will agree to install the efficient product. Second, delivering programs to customers requires additional
expenditures for administration and marketing beyond the costs of the measures themselves. These added program
costs reduce the amount of potential that it is economic to acquire. Policy makers should consider a combination of
standards that follow behind strong voluntary programs as a more optimal efficiency acquisition sh'ategy than
trying to achieve maximum potential through voluntary programs Ol'lly.
18 Again net refers throughout this chapter to savings beyond those estimated to be naturally occurring, that is,
from customer adoptions that would occur in the absence of any programs or new standards.
Quantum Consulting Inc.Efficiency Potential Results
Exhibit 4-l5a
Phase II Net Peak De11'land Reduction Potential by Funding Scenario, la Year Forecast
1-- Max Achievable -8- High Moderate'" Low -- Nat. Occurring I
200 --.----------..-..--...--.--....-----.--.------------.-.--------.-..------..-.---....-
----.---..------------.----
140
120"tJ
100
::t:.
8:
180
160
Year
Exhibit 4-l5b
phase I Net Peak De111and Reduction Potential by Funding Scenario, la-Year Forec;ast
200
180
. .
d"'-
160
140
120"tJ
100
::t:.
0..
-+- Max. Achievable -- High Moderate ,,",q Low -- Nat. Occurring
- -- - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- - - -- - - - -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- - -- -- -- - -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- - -- - -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- - -- -- -- - -- - -- - -- - - - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - - -- -- -- - - -- -- -- -- - -- -- ---- -- -- -- - -- -- -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- - - - -- -
Year
Quantum Consulting Inc.Efficiency Potential Results
Exhibit 4-16a
Phase II Net Energy Savings Potential by Funding Scenar,io, 10-YearForecast
1-- Max Achievable -- High Moderate -.x- Low -- Nat. Occurring
C/)
::;
500
(j)
J::400
300
800
700
600
----~ ---
...-III
200
100
f'..
Year
Exhibit
Phase II Net Ene1'gy Savings Potential by Funding Scenario, 10-Year Forecast
C/) 500
S;:
C/) 400J::
(!) 300
::I
c:( 200
-- Max, Achievable -- High Moderate
.....
1.... Low -- Nat. Occurring I
700
----------'---'------'--
600
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.:..;-m--
.. ----.-----------------------------------
100
......"....
e;:,,
' .........-.......- - - - - - - - - - ~,-~~_.~~.~..;;.,,-,, - -- - - - - - - - - - -...
)-c..
1 0
Year
Quantum Consulting Inc.Efficiency Potential Results
Exhibit
P11ase II Net Peak Del11and Reduction Potential by Funding Scenario and Seg111ent Year
I~Res Exist rlJRes NC DCom Exist DCom Nc
200
180
160C/)
S; 140
if)120
::2:100
0..
..--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----------------------------
Nat. Occurring Low Moderate
Scenario
High Max Achievable
Exhibit 4-17b
Phase I Net Peak Delnand Reduction Potential by Funding Scenario and Seg111ent Year
..-
200
180
C/) 160
S; 140
if)120
100
a..
..-
1m Res Exist D Com Exist DCom NC ~ Res NC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nat. Occurring Low Medium High Max.
Achievable
Scenario
Quantum Consulting Inc,EfficienC1J Potential Results
Exhibit 4-19a
Sll11'l1nary of Phase II Net Achievable Energy Efficiency Potential Forecasts
Year 10 (2013) I1npacts
:;'
Cumulative 1 O.
Year Program Net MW Net Annual
Costs ($Reductions by GWh Savings Total ResourceSectorNi ntage Scenario Milions)*2013 by 2013 Cost Ratio
Residential Low $16
Existing Moderate $31 126
Hiqh $78 249 1.4
Maximum $148 103 348
Residential Low
New Moderate $12
Construction Hiqh $21
Maximum $38
Commercial Low $15
Existing Moderate $24 126
Hiqh $37 159
Maximum $60 202
Commercial Low
New Moderate
Construction High $12
Maximum $28
Total Low $39 195
Moderate $73 298
High $149 116 488
Maximum $274 190 681
Program costs discounted for inflation at 3 percent per year.
Quantum Consulting Inc.EfficienC1J Potential Results
Exhibit 4-19b
Su111111ary of Phase Net Achievable Energy Efficiency Potential Forecasts
Year 10 (2013) l111pacts
Cumulative 10-
Year Program Net MW Net Annual
. Costs ($Reductions by GWh Savings Total Resource
SectorlVi ntage Scenario Milions)*2013 by2013 Cost Ratio
Residential Low $12
Existing Moderate $25
High $68 200
Maximum $139 295
Residential Low
New Moderate
Construction Hiqh $14
Maximum $46,
Commercial Low $12 1.4
Existing Moderate $18 1.4
High $36 144 1.4
Maximum $48 , 173 1.4
Commercial Low
New Moderate
Construction High $10
Maximum $21 1.4
jfotal Low $31 131 1.4
Moderate $54 201 1.4
High $128 395 1.4
Maximum $255 . 183 584
*Program costs discounted for inflation at 3 percent per year.
Quantum Consulting Inc.Efficiency Potential Results