Energy Efficiency and 111(d) Steven Nadel, Executive Director For the NGA Policy Academy May 6, 2015

Transcription

1 Energy Efficiency and 111(d) Steven Nadel, Executive Director For the NGA Policy Academy May 6, 2015

2 The American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy (ACEEE) ACEEE is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that acts as a catalyst to advance energy efficiency policies, programs, technologies, investments, & behaviors 50 staff; headquarters in Washington, D.C. Focus on end-use efficiency in industry, buildings, & transportation Other research in economic analysis; behavior; energy efficiency programs; & national, state, & local policy Funding: Foundation Grants (52%) Contract Work & Gov t. Grants (20%) Conferences & Publications (20%) Contributions & Other (8%)

3 111(d) Compliance States can include any mix of strategies to achieve targets. Up to each state whether or not to include efficiency as a compliance method. EE is a low-cost compliance option that offers a LOT of flexibility for states.

4 The multiple benefits of energy efficiency as a compliance option Low-cost and reliable resource Saves utility customers money Reduces multiple pollutants Boosts state economies

5 Comparing the costs of some compliance options

6 How Energy Efficiency Creates Jobs Source: IMPlan national data

7 Modeling end-use energy efficiency potential through 2030 Assumed states adopt four common energy efficiency policy options Utility EE programs, building codes, CHP and state appliance standards Quantified resulting impacts on: Electricity consumption, environment, economy and jobs

8

9 How Much of EPA s Goal Can EE Achieve? We estimate that if state s across the nation adopted just 3 EE policies they could meet 68% of EPA s required reductions! Which 3? Ramping up to 1.5% annual savings target National model building energy codes Construction of economically attractive CHP

10 Electric Savings of Leading States 2013 net incremental savings (MWh) % of retail sales State Rhode Island 161, % Massachusetts 1,116, % Vermont 99, % Arizona 1,317, % Hawaii 159, % Michigan 1,284, % Oregon 676, % Washington 990, % California 3,223,733* 1.25% * 2012 data; 2013 data wasn t available yet

11 Approximate annual savings targets for electricity and natural gas ( ). State Approx. Annual Electric Savings Target Approx. Electric Sales Covered by EERS Approx. Annual Natural Gas Savings Target Approx. Natural Gas Sales Covered by EERS Massachusetts 2.6% 86% 1.1% 88% Arizona 2.4% 56% 0.6% 85% Maryland* 2.4% 100% Rhode Island 2.4% 99% 0.9% 100% New York* 2.1% 100% 0.5% 100% Vermont 2.0% 100% Illinois** 1.8% 89% 1.1% 88% Maine 1.6% 100% 0.3% 100% Colorado 1.5% 57% 0.2% 72% Indiana 1.5% 74% Minnesota 1.5% 100% 1.5% 74% Connecticut 1.4% 93% 0.6% 100% Hawaii* 1.4% 100% Oregon 1.4% 69% 0.4% 89% Washington 1.4% 81% Iowa 1.3% 74% 0.2% 100% Ohio 1.2% 89% Michigan 1.0% 100% 0.8% 100% New Mexico 1.0% 68% California 0.9% 78% 0.6% 82% Arkansas 0.8% 53% 0.7% 60% Pennsylvania 0.8% 97% Wisconsin 0.7% 100% 0.5% 100% North Carolina 0.4% 99% Nevada 0.2% 62% Texas 0.1% 70% Notes: *Savings originating from non-reporting entities may count toward targets. Only savings data from regulated program administrators was analyzed in this report. **Rate cap has limited available efficiency measures, resulting in approval of targets below legislative levels. 11

12 Electric Savings & Targets, Source: EERS Progress Report, ACEEE,

13 Establishing Savings Targets Legislative Public service commission Establish targets Decoupling and shareholder incentives Integrated resource planning

14 Shareholder Incentives Utility Efficiency Spending per Person: States with Policy Mechanisms vs. No Mechanisms See incentives figure 3 $12.00 $10.00 $8.00 $9.40 $11.58 No Mechanisms $8.00 $6.00 $5.79 $5.51 Policy Mechanisms* $4.00 $2.00 $1.82 $2.01 $1.78 $

15 More than 40 states have already adopted national model building codes

16 Building Codes We looked at two different scenarios for each state: Building energy codes (low case) Reflects state adoption of codes equivalent to the 2015 IECC for homes and ASHRAE Standard for commercial buildings Building energy codes (high case) Reflects the adoption of the national models as they are updated on three-year cycles. Also assumes better compliance rates.

17 Building Codes What role can they play? High scenario can account for 0.3% or more of total electric sales in 2030 Compare this to the 1.5% assumed in building block 4 of the CPP 2030 MWh Savings MI 3,877, % MO 3,348, % PA 5,684, % % of Electric Consumption UT 2,930, % Source:

18 New York Code Compliance Study Commercial Lost Savings by Building Component Source: Harper 2012

19 ACEEE Code Compliance Template

20 Other Efficiency Options Energy savings targets and building codes are big hitters, but many other options are available: -Combined heat and power -Energy performance contracts -Financing programs PACE, on-bill, revolving -Appliance standards -Behavior programs monthly reports, real-time feedback -What else can your state think of!?

21 The New SUPR Calculator! ACEEE s State and Utility Pollution Reduction Calculator can be used to compare many of these options with other compliance choices. SUPR can help you try out different compliance scenarios Provides costs and emissions impacts Use for scenario exploration Find it at:

22 How it Works Users can pick from 19 different policies and technologies to build a compliance scenario Results are for State specific results for: NO x SO x and CO 2 reductions Energy savings Costs

23

24

25 Michigan Impact of measures on emissions rate compared to EPA goal (as a percentage) 72% of EPA's goal achieved by selected measures

26 Missouri Impact of measures on emissions rate compared to EPA goal (as a percentage) 50% 40% 30% EPA goal emission rate reduction Annual 1.5% energy savings target 20% Building energy codes 10% 0% EPA's emission rate reduction goal Potential rate reduced from selected measures 89% of EPA's goal achieved by selected measures Combined Heat and Power (CHP) - 40 MW ESCO programs

27 Pennsylvania Impact of measures on emissions rate compared to EPA goal (as a percentage) 60% of EPA's goal achieved by selected measures

28 Utah Impact of measures on emissions rate compared to EPA goal (as a percentage) 50% 40% EPA goal emission rate reduction 30% 20% 10% Annual 1.5% energy savings target Building energy codes 0% EPA's emission rate reduction goal Potential rate reduced from selected measures 77% of EPA's goal achieved by selected measures ESCO programs

29 Resources ACEEE s 111(d) web page: (includes our 50-state Change is in the Air report) Building codes analysis: Building code template: SUPR calculator: NASEO/ACEEE joint hub for states: EERS report on state experiences:

30 Contact Information Steven Nadel