Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LOAD FORECAST
&& DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT
Lloyd Kuczek – VP, Customer Care & Energy Conservation Date: March 4 2014Date: March 4, 2014
1
Manitoba’s Electricity Load Profile
29.6%
1.2%12.0%
Residential Basic
22.8% GS Mass Market
GS Top Consumers
34.4% Seasonal/Misc
Losses & Station Service
Firm Energy: 24,404 GW.h
2
Load Forecast•Forecast updated annually to reflect most current available market data.
•Forecast Each Load Sector Separately & Use Different Methodologies For Forecasting Each SectorMethodologies For Forecasting Each Sector
•Forecast models/methods adjusted whenever•Forecast models/methods adjusted whenever appropriate to make improvements.
•Forecasting accuracy over the long term demonstrates the approach taken is reasonable and reliable.
3
2013 Forecast – Firm Energy
35,000
GW.h
29,000
31,000
33,000 1.5% Or 413 GWh
21 000
23,000
25,000
27,0001.6% Or 334 GWh
15 000
17,000
19,000
21,000
15,0001992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032
Energy W.A. Energy BaseEnergy W.A. Energy Base
4
2013 Forecast ‐ Residential
• Load has grown at a rate of 99 GW.h or 1.6% per year over the GW.h Residential Basic Sales p ylast 20 years.
• Forecast sector to grow at a rate f 112 GWh 1 4%7 500
8,0008,5009,0009,500
10,000
of 112 GW.h or 1.4% per year over the next 20 years.
• Primary drivers of growth:5,0005,5006,0006,5007,0007,500
Primary drivers of growth:
o Population
oMarket share of electric
1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033
Fiscal Year EndingHistory Weadjust Forecast
o a et s a e o e ect cheat
5
2013 Forecast – GS Mass Market
• Load has grown at a rate of 118 GWh or 1 7% per yearG l S i M M k t 118 GW.h or 1.7% per year over the last 20 years.
• Forecast sector to grow at a 9 000
10,000
11,000
12,000
GW.h General Service Mass Market
rate of 144 GW.h or 1.5% per year over the next 20 years.
5 000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
• Primary drivers for growth:
oPopulation
5,0001993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033
Fiscal Year EndingHistory Weadjust Forecast
oGDP
6
2013 Forecast – GS Top Consumers
• Overall sector grew by 1800 GWh over the last 20 yearsGW h GeneralService Top Consumers GW.h over the last 20 years, by 200 GW.h over last 10 years.
5 5006,0006,5007,0007,5008,000GW.h General Service Top Consumers
• Forecast sector to grow at a rate of 103 GW.h or 1.6% per year over the next 20 years
3,0003,5004,0004,5005,0005,500
1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 year over the next 20 years.1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033
Fiscal Year EndingHistory Forecast
7
Comparison of Forecast Growth Rates(Based on NERC Total Internal Demand)(Based on NERC ‐ Total Internal Demand)
8
2013 Forecast – Firm Energy
35,000
37,000
Without DSM
29,000
31,000
33,000 Without DSM 1.6% per year
25,000
27,000
29,000
Without DSM 2.0% per year With DSM
2013 Load Forecast
1.5% per year
19 000
21,000
23,000
With DSM 1.6% per year
1.4% per year
17,000
19,000
1993/94 1998/99 2003/04 2008/09 2013/14 2018/19 2023/24 2028/29
9
Forecast Accuracy15%
5 A5%
10%
5 yr Accuracy
‐5%
0%
‐15%
‐10%
15%1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
10
Forecast Accuracy15%
5 A5%
10%
10 A
5 yr Accuracy
‐5%
0%
10 yr Accuracy
‐15%
‐10%
15%1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
11
Load Forecast – Potential AdjustmentsChange Item Impact – GW.h Date
Pipeline Sector 1700 GW.h* 2019/20
C d d St d d (300) GWh 2027/28Codes and Standards (300) GW.h 2027/28
Price Elasticity (500‐600) GW.h 2027/28
Fuel Choice (100) GW.h 2027/28
• Concurrently, The Potential Large Industrial Load (PLIL) Value To Be Used ForThe 2014 Forecast Will Need To Be AssessedThe 2014 Forecast Will Need To Be Assessed
Caution: information is subject to further analysis/confirmationCaution: information is subject to further analysis/confirmation
12
DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT
Market Potential Study
13
Demand‐side Management Market Potential Study yResults Summary
14
Topicsp•EnerNOC experience with potential studies• Study objectivesStudy objectives
•Overview of analysis approachHi h l l k t h t i ti•High‐level market characterization
• Sector‐level analysis–Residential
–Commercial
–Industrial
• Summary of conservation potentialy p
• Setting targets15
EnerNOC experience with DSM market potential studiespotential studiesMore than 40 studies in the last six years
Canada^: Hydro OneBC HydroManitoba HydroOntario Power Authority
Midwest: AEP OhioAlliant EnergyAmeren IllinoisAmeren MissouriCitizens Energy
International:ECRA (Saudi Arabia)ElectraNet (Australia)KERI (Korea)*Korea Smart Grid Institute
Northwest:Avista Utilities*BPACowlitz PUD*
Ontario Power Authority Citizens EnergyIndianapolis P&LMidwest ISOSunflower Electric Power Corp. VectrenWisconsin PSC
Energy Trust of ORIdaho PowerInland P&L*Northwest Power & Conservation
CouncilOregon Trail Electricity CoopPacifiCorpPortland General ElectricSeattle City Light*
Northeast:Con Edison of NY*Connecticut EE BoardEmPOWER MarylandNew Jersey BPUNYSERDAPECORochester G&E
y g
Southwest:Burbank W&PHECOLADWPNV EnergyPacific Gas & ElectricPublic Service New Mexico SCEXcel/SPS
South:Oklahoma Gas & Electric (AR)Oklahoma Gas & Electric (OK)SMEPASouthern Company.Xcel/SPS
State of HawaiiState of New Mexico
p yTVA
Regional and National:Midwest ISOEPRIFERC Institute for Electric Efficiency (IEE)
16
Study objectivesd h d l f• To aid in the development of DSM targets:
– Develop updated estimates of technical, economic and market attainable savings potential by performing amarket attainable savings potential by performing a quantitative assessment of existing technologies and the potential for energy efficient technologies (existing and
i )emerging)– Undertake a comprehensive and quantitative review of the Manitoba Hydro service territory to determine thethe Manitoba Hydro service territory to determine the maximum market attainable DSM potential for electricity and natural gas for the period of 2012 to 2031 using 2011 as the reference year2031, using 2011 as the reference year
• Base the study on Manitoba Hydro’s extensive and detailed information available on the Manitoba market and each program and/or technology
17
LoadMAP baseline projectionThe starting point for energy efficiency analysisThe starting point for energy‐efficiency analysis
•A projection of energy usage in the absence of energyA projection of energy usage in the absence of energy efficiency programs
• Includes the effects of – naturally occurring conservation y g– appliance standards – building codes
18
LoadMAP potential projectionsFour levels of energy efficiency potentialFour levels of energy‐efficiency potential
•Technical PotentialTechnical Potential•Economic Potential•Market Potential TechnicalMarket Potential•Achievable Potential
Economic
Market
Achievable
19
LoadMAP potential projectionsTechnical PotentialTechnical Potential
•Theoretical upper limit of energy efficiency potential•Assumes all customers adopt the most efficient measures regardless of cost
•Assumes the adoption of every available, applicable measure
Technical
20
LoadMAP potential projectionsEconomic PotentialEconomic Potential
• Also a theoretical energy efficiency level• Assumes customers adopt all cost‐effective measuresAssumes customers adopt all cost effective measures
– Based on simplified total resource cost – compares lifetime energy and capacity benefits to incremental cost
– Resource perspective – independent of who pays for implementing the measure (not customer perspective)
Technical
Economic
21
LoadMAP potential projectionsMarket PotentialMarket Potential
• Subset of economic potential that can be obtained through market intervention under ideal market, implementation, regulatory and customer preference conditions
• Efforts supported by focused and coordinated efforts across governments utilities and industry to eliminate all materialgovernments, utilities and industry to eliminate all material market barriers
• Only barrier is customer preference for technology or measure (e.g. CFL lamps)
• Theoretical maximum threshold for EE savings available in the market
Technical
EconomicEE savings available in the market ‐ does not take into account wide range of more specific market barriers
Economic
Market
22
LoadMAP potential projectionsAchievable PotentialAchievable Potential
•Recognizes that market conditions are not ideal•Reflects expected program participation given•Reflects expected program participation given significant barriers to customer acceptance and non‐ideal implementation conditionsideal implementation conditions
•Not synonymous with setting specific DSM targets or with program designp g g
Technical
Economic
Market
Achievable
23
Study Approach y pp
24
The study used a bottom‐up analysis h
Achievable potential
approach
Screen Measures M d i ti MH d t
Technical and economic potential
Establish Customer Acceptance
MH programs Other studiesMarket acceptance/ramp rates
Prototypes and energy analysis (BEST) MH forecast dataProject theEnd-use forecast by segment
Screen Measures and Options
Measure descriptions MH program dataAvoided costs EnerNOC data
Characterize Base-year energy use by segment
Prototypes and energy analysis (BEST) MH forecast data Codes and standards Secondary data
Project the Baseline
MH billing data MH program data Energy Market Profiles
Study objectivesthe Market MH surveys Secondary data Previous study results
25
Baseline market segmentation by sectorg ySector Electricity sales
(GWh)
R id ti l 6 952Residential 6,952Commercial 5,685Industrial 7,576Total 20,213
Electricity Sales
26
EE measure assessment
EnerNOC universal measure list
Manitoba Hydroreview / feedback
Inputs Process
Measure descriptionsManitoba Hydro measure d lib
Measure characterization
Measure descriptions
EnerNOC measure data
data library
Energy savings Costs
EnerNOC measure data library
Lifetime ApplicabilityBuilding simulations
Economic screen
Avoided costs, discount rate, delivery losses
27
Sector Level Analysisy
28
Residential ‐ baseline use by segment
MF Gas2%
MF Elec1%
Apt Elec2%
SF Gas Pre‐2000SF Gas 2000+SF Gas Pre‐2000 LISF Gas 2000+ LISF Elec GA Pre‐2000
SF Oth All3%
2% 1% 2%SF Elec GA 2000+SF Elec GA Pre‐2000 LISF Elec GA 2000+ LISF Elec SNG Pre‐2000SF Elec SNG 2000+
SF Gas Pre‐200026%
SF Elec SNG Pre‐2000 LI3%
SF Elec NNG Pre‐20002%
SF Elec NG Reserve7%
SF Elec SNG Pre‐2000 LISF Elec SNG 2000+ LISF Elec NNG Pre‐2000SF Elec NNG 2000+SF Elec NNG Pre‐2000 LI
SF Gas 2000+3%SF Gas Pre‐
2000 LI5%
SF Elec SNG Pre‐200014%
SF Elec SNG 2000+2%
SF Elec NNG 2000+ LISF Elec NG ReserveSF Oth AllMF GasMF Gas LIMF ElSF Gas 2000+ LI
0%SF Elec GA Pre‐200016%
SF Elec GA 2000+3%
SF Elec GA 2000+ LI0%
MF ElecMF Elec LIMF Elec NG ReserveMF Oth AllApt GasApt Gas LI3%
SF Elec GA Pre‐2000 LI4%
Apt Gas LIApt ElecApt Elec LI+Apt Oth All
29
Residential ‐ baseline market profile% of Use by End Use, All Homes
Annual Intensity for Average Household
30
Residential achievable potentialKey measures passing B/C test
Achievable Potential in 2031/32
Key measures passing B/C test
Rank Measure/Technology
2031/32 Achievable Savings (GWh)
% of Total
( )1 Insulation, Ceiling 66.91 11.7%2 Interior Lighting ‐Screw‐in 61.15 10.7%3 ENERGY STAR Homes 57.37 10.1%4 Heating ‐Furnace 45.89 8.0%5 Insulation ‐ Infiltration Control 41.86 7.3%6 Home Energy Management System 33.98 6.0%7 Windows, ENERGY STAR 32.79 5.7%8 Low‐Flow Showerheads 27.33 4.8%9 Refrigerator, Remove Second Unit 25.09 4.4%10 Electronics ‐Set‐top Boxes/DVR 23.75 4.2%11 Insulation Wall Cavity 20 42 3 6%11 Insulation, Wall Cavity 20.42 3.6%12 Exterior Lighting ‐Screw‐in 14.63 2.6%13 Electronics ‐TVs 12.82 2.2%14 Doors, Storm and Thermal 11.94 2.1%15 Advanced New Construction Designs 10.52 1.8%16 Electronics ‐Personal Computers 9.48 1.7%17 Faucet Aerators 8.54 1.5%18 Water Heating, Drainwater Heat Recovery 7.66 1.3%19 Freezer, Remove Second Unit 7.65 1.3%20 Water Heating, Hot Water Saver 5.38 0.9%
Total 525.15 92.1%
31
Residential potential summary40%
Achievable potential savings are 6.5% of
25%
30%
35%
% of B
aseline
on)
Achievable Potential Market Potential Economic PotentialTechnical Potential
savings are 6.5% of baseline projection
5%
10%
15%
20%
Energy Savings (%
Projecti
2012/13 2017/18 2022/23 2027/28 2031/32li j i (G h)
0%
5%
2012/13 2017/18 2022/23 2027/28 2031/32
Baseline Projection (GWh) 6,955 7,168 7,592 8,215 8,831Cumulative Savings (GWh)Achievable Potential 16 162 277 435 570Market Potential 24 438 735 1,075 1,299Economic Potential 200 886 1 373 1 855 2 152Economic Potential 200 886 1,373 1,855 2,152Technical Potential 273 1,356 2,073 2,698 3,035
Energy Savings (% of Baseline)Achievable Potential 0.2% 2.3% 3.7% 5.3% 6.5%Market Potential 0.3% 6.1% 9.7% 13.1% 14.7%Market Potential 0.3% 6.1% 9.7% 13.1% 14.7%Economic Potential 2.9% 12.4% 18.1% 22.6% 24.4%Technical Potential 3.9% 18.9% 27.3% 32.8% 34.4%
32
Commercial potential summary50%
Achievable potential savings are 17 1% of 30%
35%
40%
45%
Baselin
e Forecast) Achievable Potential
Market Potential Economic PotentialTechnical Potential
savings are 17.1% of baseline projection
10%
15%
20%
25%
ergy Savings (%
of B
2012/13 2017/18 2022/23 2027/28 2031/32li j i (G h)
0%
5%
2012/13 2017/18 2022/23 2027/28 2031/32
Ene
Baseline Projection (GWh) 5,688 5,590 5,858 6,236 6,581Cumulative Savings (GWh)Achievable Potential 25 327 629 974 1,123Market Potential 114 572 1,241 1,696 1,892Economic Potential 493 1 169 1 986 2 485 2 699Economic Potential 493 1,169 1,986 2,485 2,699Technical Potential 538 1,311 2,191 2,727 2,976
Energy Savings (% of Baseline)Achievable Potential 0.4% 5.8% 10.7% 15.6% 17.1%Market Potential 2 0% 10 2% 21 2% 27 2% 28 8%Market Potential 2.0% 10.2% 21.2% 27.2% 28.8%Economic Potential 8.7% 20.9% 33.9% 39.8% 41.0%Technical Potential 9.5% 23.5% 37.4% 43.7% 45.2%
33
Industrial potential summaryp y
Achievable potential i 2 7% f
12%
14%
16%
18%
eline Forecast) Achievable Potential
Market PotentialEconomic PotentialTechnical Potential
savings are 2.7% of baseline projection
4%
6%
8%
10%
gy Savings (%
of B
ase
0%
2%
2012/13 2017/18 2022/23 2027/28 2031/32
Ener
2012/13 2017/18 2022/23 2027/28 2031/32Baseline Projection (GWh) 7 978 8 177 8 556 9 016 9 304Baseline Projection (GWh) 7,978 8,177 8,556 9,016 9,304Cumulative Savings (GWh)Achievable Potential ‐ 54 132 206 250Market Potential 28 282 538 736 822Economic Potential 73 478 890 1 166 1 274Economic Potential 73 478 890 1,166 1,274Technical Potential 84 513 981 1,315 1,463
Energy Savings (% of Baseline)Achievable Potential 0.0% 0.7% 1.5% 2.3% 2.7%Market Potential 0.3% 3.5% 6.3% 8.2% 8.8%Economic Potential 0.9% 5.8% 10.4% 12.9% 13.7%Technical Potential 1.1% 6.3% 11.5% 14.6% 15.7%
34
Summary of Electric Conservation Potentialy
35
Summary of electric conservation potential 35%potential
Achievable potential savings are 7 9% of the
25%
30%
35%
ne Projection)
Achievable PotentialMarket PotentialEconomic PotentialTechnical Potential
savings are 7.9% of the baseline projection
10%
15%
20%
avings (%
of B
aselin
0%
5%
2012/13 2017/18 2022/23 2027/28 2031/32En
ergy Sa
2012/13 2017/18 2022/23 2027/28 2031/32Baseline Projection (GWh) 20,621 20,935 22,007 23,466 24,716Cumulative Savings (GWh)Achievable Potential 48 542 1,038 1,615 1,943Market Potential 166 1 292 2 513 3 507 4 014Market Potential 166 1,292 2,513 3,507 4,014Economic Potential 766 2,533 4,249 5,507 6,125Technical Potential 895 3,180 5,244 6,740 7,474
Energy Savings (% of Baseline)Achievable Potential 0.2% 2.6% 4.7% 6.9% 7.9%Market Potential 0.8% 6.2% 11.4% 14.9% 16.2%Economic Potential 3.7% 12.1% 19.3% 23.5% 24.8%Technical Potential 4.3% 15.2% 23.8% 28.7% 30.2%
36
Baseline projection and potential forecastsforecasts
30,000
20,000
25,000
on (G
Wh)
10,000
15,000
nergy Co
nsum
ptio
Baseline Projection
Achievable Potential
‐
5,000
En Achievable Potential
Market Potential
Economic Potential
Technical Potential
37
Achievable potential by sector
2500
1500
2000
ntial (GWh)
R id i l
1000
hievable Poten Residential
Commercial
Industrial
0
500
Ac
2012/13 2017/18 2022/23 2027/28 2031/32
38
Target Settingg g
39
Target settingMethodsMethods
• Bottom‐up method– Typically based on a rigorous analysis, like was done here– Use judgment to determine amount and timing of annual
savings targets– Usually involve negotiation with regulators and/or stakeholdersUsually involve negotiation with regulators and/or stakeholders
• Top‐down method– Annual targets, specified as percent of baseline or absolute
amounts– Set by legislators or regulatorsSet by legislators or regulators– May be based more on industry norms rather than rigorous
analysis
40
Target settingPros and cons of methodsPros and cons of methods
•Bottom‐up methodBottom up method– Tend to have more buy‐in from utilities and will typically seem more reasonable
– May not stretch utilities enough to achieve higher targets
•Top‐down method– May not actually be achievableM t ib t t d i l l ti hi– May contribute to more adversarial relationships particularly when regulatory mechanisms do not support conservation
41
Target settingMethods used in the U SMethods used in the U.S.
• 25 states (61%) of U.S. electricity use, have EE resource standards (EERS)• Form of EERS varies from state to state• Some flexibility in meeting requirements
– Washington state ‐ requirement to achieve all cost‐effective conservation but utilities set their own goals every two years
– Illinois ‐ requirement is 2% savings per year butspending cap is notconsistent with goal
• Most states have stakeholder processand some stakeholders push for higher goals
• Depending on regulatory mechanism, states may be under pressureto keep rates low
42
Conclusions and recommendations• Recommend targets that are grounded in detailed, bottom‐up assessment
• May be prudent to average the savings estimates over a few years
• May be appropriate to increase or decrease individual measure• May be appropriate to increase or decrease individual measure savings goals based on knowledge of the market or specific implementation approaches
• Important to have good systems in place to track results on an on‐going basis
• Recommend monitoring results and refining estimates on an• Recommend monitoring results and refining estimates on an annual or biannual basis
43
DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT
Manitoba Hydro
45
Integrated Resource Planning (IRP)
Wind ‐ 2
Gas ‐1
Gas ‐2
Cogen
DSM ‐ 1
Wind ‐1Coal
Hydro ‐ 2
DSM ‐ 2 Hydro ‐ 1
Biomas
DSM ‐ 1
Gas ‐1
Hydro ‐1
Theoretical Resource Plan
46
Manitoba Hydro’s DSM/IRP Process
IRP Process DSM Process
Update Marginal Values
Update DSM Plan
IRP Assessment
Resource Plan
47
Manitoba Hydro’s DSM Process‐ Economic
‐ Uneconomic
DSM Program
DSM Program
DSM Program
DSM Program
DSM Program
DSM Program
DSM Program DSM
Program
DSM Program
Program
Marginal Value Resource Costs
DSM Program
DSM ProgramDSM
DSM Program
DSM Program Power
Smart Pl
Filter
gDSM Program Plan
48
Manitoba Hydro’s IRP ProcessPower Smart Plan
Gas ‐1CogenCoal Hydro ‐ 2
DSM Plan
Hydro ‐ 1
Wind ‐ 2 Biomas
Wind ‐1
Gas ‐2
DSM l
Gas ‐1
Hydro ‐1Resource Plan
Plan Hydro 1
49
Manitoba Hydro’s DSM/IRP Process
DSMDSM
DSM
DSM DSM DSM DSM
DSM
DSMDSM
Marginal Value Fil
Resource Costs
Filter DSM Plan
Wind ‐2
Gas ‐1
Biomas
CogenWind ‐
1
Coal
Hydro ‐2
DSM Plan
2
Gas ‐2
Hydro ‐1
Hydro ‐1 Gas ‐ 1 DSM
Plan Resource Plan
50
Marginal Value
• Marginal value is developed using the same model h i d id h i lthat is used to provide the incremental system costs and benefits for the economic comparison of resource options and from the perspective ofresource options and from the perspective of incremental system value.
bl l h l• Reasonable Conclusion: Given How The Marginal Value Is Determined, Manitoba Hydro’s Combined DSM/IRP Process Should Result In All Economic DSMDSM/IRP Process Should Result In All Economic DSM Opportunities Filtering Into The Corporation’s Resource Plan
51
Manitoba Hydro’sManitoba Hydro s
DSM Strategy
52
Manitoba Hydro’s DSM Strategy
P All C t Eff ti DSM O t iti Pursue All Cost Effective DSM Opportunities
Metric: Modified Total Resource Cost Ratio Metric: Modified Total Resource Cost Ratio
While Balancing …..g
Being Fiscally Responsible
Being Considerate To All Customers/Ratepayers
53
M it b H d ’ DSM St tManitoba Hydro’s DSM StrategyC h i A h Comprehensive Approach
Codes & Standards (Most Cost Effective) Codes & Standards (Most Cost Effective)
Customer & Industry Educationy
Programming (Where Appropriate & Economic)
Monitor & Support Emerging Technologies
54
DSM Saving: Codes vs Programming
GW.h Savings3,500
2,500
3,000
1,500
2,000
500
1,000
1989/90 1992/93 1995/96 1998/99 2001/02 2004/05 2007/08 2010/11 2013/14 2016/17 2019/20 2022/23 2025/26
Programs Codes & Standards
55
DSM Screening & Metrics
Manitoba Hydro’s use of DSM Metrics & Specifically RIMp y
56
DSM Metrics1) Resource Perspective (Irrespective Of Who Pays)
- Total Resource Cost (TRC)( )- Societal Resource Cost (SRC)- Levelized Resource Cost (LRC)
2) Utility / Ratepayer Perspective- Levelized Utility Cost (LUC)
( )- Rate Impact Measure (RIM)- Net Present Value (NPV)
3) Customer Perspective- Participant Customer Cost Test- Simple Payback period- Simple Payback period
57
How Are DSM Metrics Used?
• Go/No Go Decision- Resource Metrics (TRC or SRC)
P D i D i i (H T M t Eff ti l• Program Design Decisions (How To Most Effectively Achieve DSM Objectives, Including Sharing Of DSM Costs)Costs)- Utility Metrics (LUC, RIM, NPV)- Customer Metrics (Payback PC)- Customer Metrics (Payback, PC)
58
iDSM Metrics• ACEEE National Survey of State Policies and Practices for the y
Evaluation of Ratepayer‐Funded Energy Efficiency Programs Report Number U122:
“It is also the case that most states examine more than one benefit‐cost test, with …
- 36 states (85%) examining the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test;36 states (85%) examining the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test;- 28 states (63%) examining the Utility Cost Test (aka Program
Administrator’s Cost Test);- 23 states (53%) examining the Participant’s Test;- 23 states (53%) examining the Participant s Test;- 17 states (40%) examining the Societal Cost Test; and- 22 states (51%) examining the Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM).”
59
iKey DSM Metric
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) or modified TRC
Benefits Marginal Value ___________ = _____________________
Cost Resource Cost*
* Resource Cost = Utility DSM Cost + Customer Cost
60
Manitoba Hydro’s Use Of TRC
DSMDSM
DSM
DSM DSM DSM DSM
DSM
DSMDSM
Marginal Value + Fil
Resource Costs
Filter DSM Plan
BenefitsMarginal Value + Measureable Non Energy
BenefitsBenefits___________________
CostsmTRC =
Benefits_________________________________________________________________________________
Resource Cost=
61
Manitoba Hydro’s Use Of DSM Metrics
• Generally Consistent With Industry
• Metrics Are Used As Guidelines Rather Than Rules
62
Why Guidelines For DSM Metrics?• Each DSM Opportunity Has Unique Characteristics
– Targeted Participants– Where On The Market Transformation Curve– Different Barriers, Not All About Incentives,
• DSM Programming Isn’t An Exact Science– Not Concerned About Rounding Error (e.g. TRC = 0.9 May Be Acceptable)
i bl & i– Varying LUC Are Acceptable & Appropriate– Optimum Program Designs May mean Offering Diff t I ti L l O TiDifferent Incentive Levels Over Time
63
DSM O ti i tiDSM Optimization
Not All About Paying Higher Incentives?
64
Example: Home Insulation Participation
1800
2000Fed $1,250 MH $ 538HRTC
Fed $0MH $806
Fed $0MH $538
Fed $1,000MH $ 538
Fed $1,250MH $1 056
Fed $0MH $538
1400
1600
HIP only
ECO launch
1000
1200grant increase
regist ends
400
600
800 no ECO
ECO relaunch 20% top up
ECO endHIP l
0
200
400
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … …
HIP only
Janu
ary …
April 200
6
July 200
6
Octob
er …
Janu
ary …
April 200
7
July 200
7
Octob
er …
Janu
ary …
April 200
8
July 200
8
Octob
er …
Janu
ary …
April 200
9
July 200
9
Octob
er …
Janu
ary …
April 201
0
July 201
0
Octob
er …
Janu
ary …
April 201
1
July 201
1
Octob
er …
Janu
ary …
April 201
2
July 201
2
Octob
er …
Janu
ary …
April 201
3
65
Example: Geothermal Participation
25
20
ECO Launch $3,500
21
10
15
Participation
Grant Increase $4,375
ECO Re‐launch $5 250
11
88
5
launch $5,250 77
53
0
66
Manitoba Hydro’s Use Of RIM• Crude Metric Which Provides A Sense Of The Directional Impact On Rates.
• Provides Insight As A Comparative Measure Among programs.p g
• Provides Insight Into the Value Of A DSM Opportunity & Is Useful When Used In Conjunction With The LevelizedUseful When Used In Conjunction With The Levelized Resource Cost– Marginal Value Is Only A Proxy For The Actual Value Of– Marginal Value Is Only A Proxy For The Actual Value Of Conserved Energy (Varies By Season & Year)
67
DSMWh M it b H d D ’t I t M IWhy Manitoba Hydro Doesn’t Invest More In
DSM?
Levelized Utility Cost = 2.4 cents/kWh.
68
DSM Resource Costs
Levelized Resource Cost7.0
8.0
6 7¢
5.0
6.0
6.7¢
2 0
3.0
4.0
Customer Costs
Utility Costs
‐
1.0
2.0 Utility Costs
69
Reference: PUB/MH I‐216b
1000 GWh
Utility:Rate 7¢/kWh
Revenue $70 M
How to Best Meet Load Growth?‐ New Generation (10¢/kWh)?‐ DSM?
Today’s Load:1000 GWh
Future Load:100 GWh
70
Average Customer Bill Under Different Resource Scenario’s
800
850
800
850
800
850
800
850
Rates
T t l Bill
7.0¢ 7.27¢ 8.0¢ 7.27¢
700
750
mer Bill
700
750
mer Bill
700
750
mer Bill
700
750
mer Bill
Total Bill (millions)
$70 $80 $80 $72.7
$700600
650
700
Average Cu
stom
$727600
650
700
Average Cu
stom
$720
$800
600
650
700
Average Cu
stom
$727600
650
700
Average Cu
stom
$700
500
550
600
500
550
600
500
550
600
$654
500
550
600
500Existing New Gen DSM $ = New Gen $ DSM $ < New Gen $
DSM Participant Non‐participant
500Existing New Gen DSM $ = New Gen $ DSM $ < New Gen $
DSM Participant Non‐participant
500Existing New Gen DSM $ = New Gen $ DSM $ < New Gen $
DSM Participant Non‐participant
500Existing New Gen DSM $ = New Gen $ DSM $ < New Gen $
DSM Participant Non‐participant
71
ConclusionConclusion
Although Bill Impacts are More Important Than Rate Although Bill Impacts are More Important Than Rate Impacts, It Is important To Recognize
Bill Impacts Are Not The Same For Participating Customers and Non‐Participating Customers.
A Utility Should At Least Invest In DSM To The Same Degree As New Generation, As Measured By Relative Bill Impacts To Non‐Participating Customers
72
B h kiBenchmarking
DSM Efforts Among Regions
73
General Observations• Benchmarking Should Consider A Utility’s DSM Efforts From A Broader Perspective Beyond Just P i A hi tProgramming Achievements
• No Single Metric Should Be Used To Benchmark DSM Efforts Among Utilities. Regional Differences Can Result In Misleading Information.
• Caution Should Be Exercised In Comparative Analysis As Reported Energy Savings Can Be Misleading (e.g. Gross vs Net Energy Savings Reported, Interactive Effects Accounted, Accuracy Of Baselines & Free Rid E i )Riders Estimates, etc.)
74
Natural Conservation
300
DSM Example ‐ Energy Savings
250
Technical Potential
150
200
rgy Savings (GW.h)
DSM Impact
Net DSM Savings
50
100Ener
Base Line
DSM ImpactGross DSM Savings
02013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Fiscal Year End
75
S iti it A l iSensitivity Analysis
HowWere DSM Options Developed?
76
Sensitivity Analysis – DSM Options
DSM
DSMDSM
DSM
DSM
DSMDSM
DSM
Marginal Value +
DSM
Resource Costs
Filter
DSM Level 1 DSM Level 3
77
Other DSM Opportunities
Fuel Choice – Heating Education Campaign
Load Displacement
Residential IncliningResidential Inclining Block Rate
Today2006 2010 2011
78
Other DSM Opportunities
Energy Conservation
Fuel Switching
Conservation Rates
Load Displacement
Marginal Value Filter
Costs
DSM Level 2
79
Energy Savings from Different Levels of DSM
Level 33,546 GW.h
4,000
Comparison of Energy Savings projections(Cumulative GW.h)
Level 22,961 GW.h
3,546 GW.h
3,000
3,500
neratio
n)
Level 11 704 GWh
2,000
2,500
s GW.h @
Gen
2013 PS Plan
1,704 GW.h
1,000
1,500
(Savings
773 GW.h
‐
500
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
80
S i i i A l i C iSensitivity Analysis – Caution
Some Of The DSM Programs Were Developed At A high Level Without In‐Depth Analysis Or g p yReview
Manitoba Hydro’s 2014 DSM Plan Will Be Different Than The DSM Levels Developed For Undertaking Sensitivity AnalysisUndertaking Sensitivity Analysis.
81
2014 DSM Plan Updatep
Expect Most Programs Identified In DSM Option 1Expect Most Programs Identified In DSM Option 1 Will Be Pursued
Level 2 DSM Initiatives Require More Broader Level 2 DSM Initiatives Require More Broader Consideration Load DisplacementLoad Displacement Energy Conservation Rates Fuel Switching
Level 3 DSM Initiatives Not Likely To Be Pursued
82
12.0
Levelized Resource Cost Comparison(¢/kW.h)
6.0
8.0
10.0 New Programs
0.0
2.0
4.0
2014 PS Plan 2013 PS Plan
83
Manitoba Hydro’s DSM Process
DSM DSM DSM DSM
DSM
DSM
DSMDSM
DSMDSM
Marginal Value + Filter
Executive
Resource Costs
DSM Initiative
Executive Committee
Implement
84
i iDSM Process – Ongoing ReviewCommercial PAYSCommercial PAYS Launch
Enhanced Electric
Community Geothermal Program
Roadway Lighting Program
Enhanced ElectricHome Insulation
Enhanced Commercial LightingUpdate DSM
Plan
March2014
March2013
85
l i li2014 DSM Plan ‐ Timelines
Similar To Last Year – Two Separate Documents- 3 year Plan (March 31, 2014)3 year Plan (March 31, 2014)- Supplemental Document (April 30, 2014) 15 Year Supplement Plan 15 Year Supplement Plan Required For Planning Purposes
86
Th k !Thank you!
87
