Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
851 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Steve Crow 503-222-5161 Portland, Oregon 97204-1348 Executive Director 800-452-5161 www.nwcouncil.org Fax: 503-820-2370
Bruce A. Measure Chair
Montana
Dick Wallace Vice-Chair Washington
Rhonda Whiting Montana
W. Bill Booth
Idaho
James A. Yost Idaho
Tom Karier Washington
Melinda S. Eden
Oregon
Joan M. Dukes Oregon
September 9, 2010
MEMORANDUM TO: Council Members FROM: Tom Eckman and Charles Grist SUBJECT: 2009 Regional Conservation Achievements Each year the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) conducts an assessment of regional conservation achievements. The RTF’s 2009 assessment found that programs operated by Bonneville, the region’s public and private utilities, the Energy Trust of Oregon and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) acquired 217 average megawatts of saving. Savings in 2009 were slightly lower than the 235 average megawatts achieved the previous year. However, between 2005 and 2009 the region has captured 938 average megawatts of savings. This five-year total is more than 30% above the Council’s 5th Plan’s five-year conservation target of 700 average megawatts. The energy saved by 2009 is similar to the amount of energy produced in a year by the Columbia Generating Station nuclear power plant. Figure 1 shows the cumulative savings achieved in the region and the 5th Plan conservation target.
851 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Steve Crow 503-222-5161 Portland, Oregon 97204-1348 Executive Director 800-452-5161 www.nwcouncil.org Fax: 503-820-2370
Figure 2 compares the 5th Plan’s annual conservation targets with the actual regional achievements by sector. The region accomplished nearly double
the 5th Plan’s savings target for the residential sector and met or exceeded the plan’s targets in all but the Agriculture/Irrigation sector. Staff estimates that just over 40% (205 MWa) of the savings in the residential sector came from the highly-successful regional programs to increase the use compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). While CFLs did produce a significant portion of the residential sector savings it is important to note that the region would still have accomplished the 5th Plan’s target for the residential sector without securing any savings from CFLs. These savings came at a very low cost to the utility system compared to new power costs and even compared to wholesale market prices. The levelized cost of the energy efficiency savings to the region’s utility system was about $15 per MWh. The low cost of conservation was partly a result of the rapid acquisition of CFL bulbs and other relatively low-cost measures. In 2009, utility expenditures per annual average megawatt saved have increased compared to earlier years. For comparison purposes, the levelized cost of power from new wind generating facilities, like the recently completed Biglow Canyon, are in the range of about $100 per MWh. The conservation is also low cost when compared to average annual wholesale power prices during the 2005-2009 period which ranged $30 to $60 per MWh. Over the five-year period, the savings to the electric utility system was about $1 billion if it is valued at wholesale power prices. Regional utility system expenditures on conservation were $292 million in 2009, up about $70 million over 2008. Total utility system expenditures on conservation for the 2005-2009 period were about $1 billion. Staff will develop additional detail on the energy efficiency accomplishments for presentation at the September meeting in Bend.
Regional Conservation ProgressRegional Conservation Progress Review of Regional Savings from g g
2005 ‐ 2009
September 21, 2010September 21, 2010
Reported Savings from Utility, Bonneville, epo ted Sa gs o Ut ty, o e e,NEEA and Energy Trust of Oregon
• Data From RTF Survey, Bonneville & NEEA Reports– Adjustments for
• Line losses• Line losses• Duplication• Non‐reporting utilities• 5th Power Plan “baselines”5 Power Plan baselines
• Total Regional Savings Are Larger– Today’s Report Does not yet include:
• Savings from Building Codes & Federal Standards enacted after 5th Plan• Savings from Building Codes & Federal Standards enacted after 5th Plan was adopted
• Non‐Programmatic Savings (Consumers who adopted efficiency measures, but did not participate in utility, BPA or ETO programs)
• Plan’s Targets Include Savings From These Mechanisms
2
Regional Savings Far Exceeded 5th
Plan’s 2009 Target
219
250
5th Plan Target
150
200
5th Plan Target
Actual Savings
150150
50
100
0
50
2009
3
5th Plan’s Savings Targets Were Exceeded in Every Year
238250
300Actual Savings
5th Plan Target
203219
200
Wa
135147
130 135 140 145 150
100
150
Annual M
W
50
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
4
We We VanquishedVanquished the 5the 5thth Plan’s Five Year Plan’s Five Year Conservation TargetConservation Target
1000 942
800
900
1000
Actual Savings Target
723
600
700
800
gs (MWa)
485
400
500
ative Saving
135
282
200
300
Cumula
0
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
5
Savings Met or Exceeded 5th Plans’ Targets in All Sectors But Agriculture
600
491500
2005‐2009 Regional Target
2005‐2009 Regional Actual
400
(MWa)
225250252
300
al Savings
175 173
100
200
Annua
5025
0
100
Ag/Irrigation/Other Commercial Industrial Residential
6
Residential Success Due to CFLs
160Residential Savings 2005‐2009
Residential Success Due to CFLs
120
140
160
Residential CFL
Residential Other
80
100
120
Wa
Target ‐ Residential
40
60
80
M
0
20
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Market Transformation Savings from CFL Tapering OffMarket Transformation Savings from CFL Tapering Off
7
But Residential Sector Targets Were Met Without CFL Savings
600
500
Residential CFL Savings
Residential ‐ Non CFL Savings
205400
(MWa)
300
al Savings
250286
100
200
Annua
0
100
2005‐2009 Regional Target 2005‐2009 Regional Actual
8
Both IOUs & POUs Exceeded TargetsAll Sectors 2005‐2009
Both IOUs & POUs Exceeded Targets
500
600
400
500
561300
MWa
382319
379
100
200
0
100
IOU Target IOU Actual POU Target POU Actual
9
IOUs Exceeding in All SectorsPOUs Exceeding in Res & Commercial
POU Industrial Expansion Launched 2010
IOU System by Sector POU System by Sector
269
200
250
300
(MWa) 2005‐2009 IOU Target
2005‐2009 IOU Actual222
200
250
300
2005‐2009 POU Target
2005‐2009 POU Actual
136
82
139152
122
100
150
200
ual Savings (
89 9311199
100
150
200
ings (MWa)
24 18
0
50Annu
267
51
0
50
Annual Sav
10
Average Utility Cost of All Efficiency Acquired Is Still Very Low Cost
$13/MWh*$13/MWh
90
100
60
70
80
006$)
Market Prices at Mid‐C ($/MWh)
Levelized Cost if EE ($/MWh)
40
50
60
MWh (20
10
20
30$/
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
* Levelized Cost of 2005‐2009 Efficiency @ 13‐year measure life, Utility Cost Only 11
2005‐2009 Efficiency Savings941 MWa
Energy savingsEnergy savings equivalent to the
l fannual output of a large nuclear power plant
Columbia Generating Station near Richland, WA
12
2005‐2009 Efficiency Spending = $1 BillionSimilar to the cost of a large wind farm,
but produces five times the annual output
Biglow Canyon Wind Farm New Nuclear PlantBiglow Canyon Wind Farm• 217 turbines over 5 years• Cost about $1 billion• 150 MWa annual energy output
New Nuclear Plant
• Cost about $5.5 billion
• 900 MWa annual energy output• 150 MWa annual energy output• Completed September 2010• Levelized cost about $100/MWh
gy p
• Levelized cost about $100/MWh
• Not Available 2005‐2009
13
Projected Lifecycle Regional Power Cost Savings from
2005‐09 Conservation Accomplishments2005 09 Conservation Accomplishments
$2.9 Billion*$2.9 Billion*$2.9 Billion$2.9 Billion
*Present Value of 2005 2009 Conservation Savings Compared to SupplyingPresent Value of 2005‐2009 Conservation Savings Compared to SupplyingRegion with Equivalent Amount of Power from Wholesale Market PurchasesOver the Life of the Conservation Measures
14
Basis of the Estimated Regional Power Cost Savings from 2005‐09 Conservation
C ti C t A l Utilit R t d E dit• Conservation Cost = Annual Utility Reported Expenditures for Conservation 2005 – 2009 (all cost assumed to be expensed, i.e. recovered in rates during the same year as
)savings were achieved)• Power Cost Savings:
Savings begin year following “installation”– Savings begin year following installation – 2005 – 2009 = Valued at actual average annual wholesale
market prices at Mid‐C trading HUB2010 2022 V l d 6th Pl ’ di l– 2010 – 2022 = Valued at average 6th Plan’s medium annual wholesale market price forecast.
• Life of Conservation Savings = 13 yearsg y– Assumed shorter than average measure life of all measures in
5th Plan (14 years) due to proportion of CFL savings
15
How Power Cost Savings Were EstimatedgExample ‐2005 Program Savings and Cost
800U ili C f 2005 EE S i
600
700
Utility Cost of 2005 EE Savings
Savings from 2018
Savings from 2017Cost of 2005 S i F ll
400
500
06$
Savings from 2016
Savings from 2015
Savings from 2014
Savings Fully Recovered by Avoided Market Purchases by 2008
200
300
Million 200
Savings from 2013
Savings from 2012
Savings from 2011
y
0
100
g
Savings from 2010
Savings from 2009
Savings from 2008
‐200
‐100
Savings from 2008
Savings from 2007
Savings from 2006
Cumulative Net Savings
16
2005‐09 Conservation’s Impact on Regional Power System Revenue Requirements
$5 000
$6,000
006$)
Cost of Energy Efficiency in Revenue Requirements (2006$)
Cost of Power Equilvalent to 2005 ‐ 2009 Savings @ Mid‐C Wholesale Prices
$4,000
$5,000
t (m
illion 20
$3,000
Requirement
Present Value Savings $2 9 Billi
$2,000
al Revenue R = $2.9 Billion
$‐
$1,000
Annua
$
2005 2009 2013 2017 2021
17
Why are 2009 Savings Lower Than 2008?Why are 2009 Savings Lower Than 2008?
250
200
250Market Transformation …Utility Program Savings
150
gs (Mwa)
100
nual Saving
50
Ann
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
18
Three Years of Remarkable Residential Success2007‐2009
Total Regional Savings by Sector by Year
140
160
Total Regional Savings by Sector by Year
120
140
Target ‐ Irrigated Agriculture
Actual ‐ Irrigated Agriculture
80
100
MWa
Actual Irrigated Agriculture
Target ‐ Commercial
Actual ‐ Commercial
Target ‐ Industrial
40
60Target ‐ Industrial
Actual ‐ Industrial
Target ‐ Residential
Actual Residential
0
20
Actual ‐ Residential
02005 2006 2007 2008 2009
19
Utility Expenditures Are IncreasingCFLs Kept First‐Year Cost Low 2007‐2008
300
350
Annual Savings (MWa)
A l EE E di (2006$Milli )
250
Annual EE Expenditures (2006$Million)
150
200
100
0
50
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
20
To The Region’s Utilities, Bonneville, Energy Trust of Oregon & NEEA
21