8 Feb 2007 - Summit Blue Consulting. 2. Benchmarking Spanned North America. British Columbia Hydro. Manitoba Hydro. Cana
Benchmarking 2005 DSM Results Presented by: Randy Gunn, Principal Summit Blue Consulting LLC
February 8, 2007
Contents of Presentation •
Introduction - discussion of data collected and methodology used to analyze the results
•
Description of the overall 2005 DSM results by region for energy and demand savings, and costs of conserved energy and demand
•
Discussion of the Commercial & Industrial sector results
• •
Discussion of the Residential sector results Summary and conclusions
Summit Blue Consulting
1
Benchmarking Spanned North America • • • •
• •
DSM results were compared for 23 organizations in 5 regions. Almost all results were for 2005. DSM program results were collected from utilities’ 2005 DSM annual reports to regulators. Focus was on energy & demand savings and costs to achieve savings. Organizations used a wide variety of methods to estimate program savings. No adjustments were made to reported results. Results were categorized by sector residential and commercial and industrial (C&I). Energy savings were normalized using baseline annual sales from FERC Form 861 data or annual reports for Canadian utilities and standardized costs in US dollars.
Summit Blue Consulting
Region
Utility/Agency
Midwest
Duke Energy Indiana Duke Energy Kentucky Indianapolis Power & Light Interstate Power and Light (MN & IA) MidAmerican Energy Minnesota Power Otter Tail Power Wisconsin Focus on Energy Xcel Energy (MN)
Northeast
Efficiency Maine Efficiency Vermont New Jersey Office of Clean Energy NY State Research & Dev’t Authority
Southeast
Gulf Power Florida Power & Light Progress Energy Tampa Electric
West
Puget Sound Energy San Diego Gas & Electric Southern California Edison Xcel Energy (CO)
Canada
British Columbia Hydro Manitoba Hydro 2
Previous Uses for This Information •
Most of these data were assembled and analyzed for a series of DSM potential studies that Summit Blue conducted in 2006.
•
Energy savings as percentages of baseline utility sales was used to provide “calibration targets” for DSM potential estimates.
•
For example, the C&I DSM program results data show that most top-performing C&I DSM program portfolios are achieving energy savings of about 1% of baseline energy sales. This percentage was used as the target for DSM energy savings estimates.
•
This information is also useful in identifying the key programs and results for top-performing portfolios across the country.
•
This data shouldn’t be treated like the results of a race. The variety of evaluation practices across organizations make the impact results not strictly an “apples-and-apples” comparison.
Summit Blue Consulting
3
Adjusting DSM Spending by Revenues Enabled Comparisons •
MidWest
Northeast
South Canada
West
•
Spending on DSM ranges from 0.1% of overall revenues to close to 3.5% for San Diego Gas & Electric. Median spending on DSM was 1.2% of revenues. XCEL (CO) PSE SCE SDG&E Man Hydro BC Hydro TECO Gulf Pwr FPL Progress Eff Maine NJ_CEP NYSERDA EVT Ind. P&L Duke Ind. Duke Ky. Ws FOE Mn Power MEC Otter Tail Interstate Xcel (MN) 0
Summit Blue Consulting
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
DSM Annual Energy Savings Above 1% of Sales is Uncommon •
Energy savings range from a low of 0.1% for the Florida utilities and others to close to 2% for SDG&E. Florida used the RIM test as the main benefit-cost analysis test.
•
Median energy savings are about 0.4% of sales. Most organizations achieved DSM savings of 1% of sales or less. NOTE: Energy savings in this chart and those following are first year only.
MidWest
Northeast
South Canada West
–
XCEL (CO) PSE SCE SDG&E Man Hydro BC Hydro Progress Gulf Pwr TECO FPL Eff Maine NJ_CEP NYSERDA EVT Ind. P&L Duke Ind. Ws FOE Mn Power Duke Ky MEC Interstate Otter Tail Xcel (MN)
0
Summit Blue Consulting
0.5
1
1.5
2
5
Median Cost of Conserved Energy (First Year) is 17 cents/kWh Assuming a 10-15 year average DSM measure lifetime, cost of lifetime energy savings is generally 2 cents/kWh or less.
•
Some organizations focus on demand savings over energy savings, which often leads to higher costs of conserved energy.
MidWest
Northeast
South
Canada
West
•
SCE PSE SDG&E Xcel (CO) BC Hydro Man Hydro TECO FPL Gulf Pwr Progress NYSERDA NJ_CEP EVT Eff Maine Mn Power Otter Tail Duke Ky MEC Ws FOE Xcel (MN) Interstate Ind P&L Duke Ind $0.00
Summit Blue Consulting
$0.60
$1.20
$1.80
6
Overall Peak Demand Savings Vary with Customer Numbers, DSM Program Focus NYSERDA programs resulted in close to 300 MW of peak demand savings and SCE saved close to 250 MW. Most of Manitoba Hydro’s demand savings from Interruptible Rates.
•
Baseline peak demand values often unavailable, especially for state agencies.
Midwest
Northeast
SouthCanadaWest
•
XCEL (CO) SDG&E SCE MH TECO Gulf FPL Progess EVT NJ_CEP NYSERDA IND P&L OTTER TAIL MN PWR MEC DUKEKY DUKEIN WISC FOE Interstate XCEL (MN) 0
Summit Blue Consulting
50
100
150
200
250
300
7
Median Cost for Peak Demand Savings was $655/kW •
MidWest
Northeast
South CanadaWest
•
Costs of peak demand savings range from under $146/kW at Duke Energy Kentucky up to about $2,500/kW. Lower costs of conserved demand for utilities with significant DR programs. XCEL (CO) SCE SDG&E Man Hydro Gulf Pwr TECO Progress FPL NYSERDA Eff. Maine NJ_CEP EVT Duke Ky Duke Ind Xcel (MN) Interstate Otter Tail Ind P&L Mn Power Ws FOE MEC $0
Summit Blue Consulting
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
8
Summary of Largest 2005 Energy Savings Organizations •
SDG&E spent over 3% of revenues to achieve savings of about 2% of annual sales.
•
Six other organizations achieved savings of about 1% of sales, most for less than 20 cents per kWh (first year). Savings > 0.9% of Annual Sales
Cost of Savings (¢/kWh)
Spending as % of Revenue
SDG&E
1.9%
18
3.3%
SoCal Edison
1.4%
13
1.7%
EVT
1.0%
23
2.0%
Xcel Energy (MN)
0.9%
15
2.1%
NYSERDA
0.9%
14
1.1%
Otter Tail Power
0.9%
19
1.4%
BC Hydro
0.9%
14
2.7%
Utility/Agency
Summit Blue Consulting
9
Summary of Largest Demand Saving DSM Portfolios Utility/
•
•
Both NYSERDA and SoCal Edison achieved high peak demand savings but costs were about $700/kW. Manitoba Hydro and Xcel Energy (MN) had lower costs of conserved demand. Both achieved large relative demand savings from DR programs.
Summit Blue Consulting
Demand Savings > 100 MW
Cost of Savings ($/kW)
Spending as % of Revenue
NYSERDA
288
$655
1.1%
SoCal Edison
234
$705
1.7%
Manitoba Hydro
167
$102
2.2%
Xcel Energy (MN)
112
$356
2.1%
Agency
10
Several Locations Achieved High Energy Savings at Low Cost; Fewer Achieved Similar Results for Demand Savings Percentage of Energy Savings (% of Energy Sales)
High (> $0.20) Costs ($/kWh) Low (< $0.20)
Low (0.4)
Duke Energy Indiana, Efficiency Maine, Florida Power & Light, Gulf Power, Manitoba Hydro, New Jersey CEP, Progress Energy, Tampa Electric, Xcel Energy (CO)
Efficiency Vermont
Duke Energy Kentucky, Indiana Power & Light, Minnesota Power, Wisconsin Focus on Energy
BC Hydro, Interstate Power & Light, MidAmerican Energy, NYSERDA, Otter Tail, Puget Sound Energy, SCE, SDG&E, Xcel Energy (MN)
Peak Demand Savings (MW) Low (100 MW)
High (> $500)
Efficiency Maine, Efficiency Vermont, Excel Energy (CO), Florida Power & Light, Indiana Power & Light, MidAmerican Energy, Minnesota Power, NJ-CEP, Otter Tail, Progress Energy, SDG&E, Tampa Electric, Wisconsin Focus on Energy
Southern California Edison, NYSERDA
Low ( $500)
Duke Energy Indiana, Efficiency Vermont, Florida P&L, MidAmerican Energy, NJ-CEP, Progress Energy, San Diego Gas & Electric, Wisconsin Focus on Energy, Xcel Energy (CO)
NYSERDA, Southern California Edison
Low (< $500)
Duke Energy Kentucky, Gulf Power, Interstate Power & Light, Minnesota Power, Otter Tail, Tampa Electric
Manitoba Hydro, Xcel Energy (MN)
Costs ($/kW)
Summit Blue Consulting
20
Results for the Residential Sector
Median Residential DSM Spending is 1.4% of Residential Revenue Spending in this sector ranges from 0.1% to over 3.5% (SDG&E) of annual residential revenues.
Midwest
NortheastSouth Canada West
•
SCE XCEL (CO) SDG&E MH BCH TECO Gulf FPL Progess NYSERDA EFF. ME NJ_CEP EVT Ind P&L DUKE IN MEC MN PWR MN-OT Duke Ky XCEL (MN) Interstate 0.0%
Summit Blue Consulting
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
22
Median Residential Energy Savings is 0.2% of Residential Sales •
SDG&E achieved the highest percent of energy savings (over 2% of sales), followed by SCE, BC Hydro and Efficiency Vermont, all achieving from 1-2%. XCEL (CO) SCE SDG&E MH BCH Gulf TECO Progess FPL EFF. M E NJ_CEP NYSERDA EVT IND P&L DUKE IND XCEL (M N) WS FOE M EC OTTER TAIL M N PWR Duke Ky Interstate 0.0%
Summit Blue Consulting
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
23
Wide Range of Costs ($/kWh) for Residential Energy Savings • • •
Costs of energy savings ranged from a low of 5¢/kWh for NYSERDA to highs of $1.60/kWh. Higher cost utilities have large DR program costs. Some organizations target demand savings over energy savings. Median cost of conserved energy was 24¢/kWh. XCEL (CO) SCE SDG&E MH BCH Gulf TECO Progess FPL EFF. ME NJ_CEP NYSERDA EVT IND P&L DUKE IND XCEL (MN) WS FOE MEC OTTER TAIL MN PWR Duke Ky Interstate $0.00
Summit Blue Consulting
$0.25
$0.50
$0.75
$1.00
$1.25
$1.50
$1.75
24
Residential Demand Savings Were Not as Large as C&I Demand Savings Few organizations achieved residential peak demand savings of similar magnitude to their C&I peak demand savings.
•
Southern California Edison achieved almost 120 MW.
Midwest
Northeast SouthCanada West
•
XCEL (CO) SDG&E SCE MH Gulf TECO FPL Progess EVT NYSERDA NJ_CEP OTTER TAIL IND P&L MN PWR MEC DUKEKY WS FOE Interstate DUKEIND XCEL (MN) 0
Summit Blue Consulting
20
40
60
80
100
120
25
Median Residential Cost of Peak Demand Savings was $750/kW •
Costs for residential demand savings ranged from less than $150/kW for Minnesota Power to close to $4,500/kW.
•
Most organizations’ costs of demand savings between $500 and $1,500/kW.
XCEL (CO) SCE SDG&E MH BCH Gulf TECO Progess FPL NJ_CEP NYSERDA EVT IND P&L DUKE IND XCEL (MN) WS FOE MEC OTTER TAIL MN PWR Duke Ky Interstate $0
Summit Blue Consulting
$1,500
$3,000
$4,500
26
Top Residential Portfolios Focused on Efficient Products Programs •
SDG&E had large energy savings but spent close to 4% of residential revenues to achieve these savings.
•
CFLs were often the key technology in these program portfolios.
Savings as % of Sales
Cost of Savings (¢/kWh)
Spending as % of Revenue
SDG&E
2.2%
18
3.7%
Efficient Products
SoCal Edison
1.8%
12
1.8%
Efficient Products
EVT
1.3%
21
2.1%
Efficient Products
BC Hydro
1.2%
9
2.1%
Lighting & Efficient Products
Utility/agency
Summit Blue Consulting
Source of Savings
27
Top Peak Demand Portfolios Focused on Several Initiatives •
Southern California Edison achieved high savings mainly from efficient products.
•
Unlike residential energy savings, a variety of initiatives were used to achieve large demand savings.
Utility/agency
Demand Savings (MW)
Cost of Savings ($/kW)
Spending as % of Revenue
SoCal Edison
115
513
1.3%
Efficient Products (89%)
Progress Energy
48
1,000
1.5%
New construction (42%); weatherization (33%); load control (19%)
New Jersey CEP
37
1,558
1.8%
Existing buildings (78%)
Xcel Energy (MN)
32
394
1.9%
Direct Load Control (78%)
Summit Blue Consulting
Source of Savings
28
Several achieved high energy savings at reasonable cost; only Xcel Energy (MN) achieved high demand savings for low cost. Percentage of Energy Savings (% of Energy Sales) in Residential
Costs ($/kWh)
Low (0.4)
High (> $0.20)
Duke Energy Indiana, Efficiency Maine, Florida P&L, Gulf Power, Manitoba Hydro, NJ CEP, Progress Energy, Tampa Electric, Wisconsin Focus on Energy, Xcel Energy (CO), Xcel Energy (MN)
Efficiency VT, Interstate P&L, MidAmerican Energy, Otter Tail
Low (< $0.20)
Indiana P&L, NYSERDA
BC Hydro, Duke Energy Kentucky, Minnesota Power, San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison
Peak Demand Savings (MW) in Residential Low ( $500)
Efficiency Vermont, Gulf Power, Indiana P&L, Interstate P&L, Manitoba Hydro, MidAmerican Energy, NYSERDA, Otter Tail, Tampa Electric, Wisconsin Focus on Energy
Low (< $500)
Duke Energy Indiana, Duke Energy Kentucky, Minnesota Power
Costs ($/kW)
Summit Blue Consulting
High (>20)
Florida P&L, NJ-CEP, Progress Energy, San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, Xcel Energy (CO)
Xcel Energy (MN) 29
Summary of Findings COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL
RESIDENTIAL
DSM Spending
Generally 1-3% of sector revenues
Generally 1-2% of sector revenues
DSM Savings
Energy savings up to 1-2% of C&I sales
Energy savings usually