Energy Efficiency Potential in California

Transcription

1 Energy Efficiency Potential in California Rafael Friedmann & Chris Ann Dickerson Pacific Gas and Electric Company with Fred J. Coito Julia K. Larkin KEMA-XENERGY, Inc. Mike Rufo Quantum Consulting, Inc. June 9, 2003 Main Findings CA can save 5.9 GW & 30 TWh with 4-fold increase in EE program spending Save ~ 50% of expected D growth s to CA ~ 12 B$ EE is a key option for future CA Energy policy 2 1

2 Presentation Overview Background & Objectives Overview of Statewide Results Summary Findings Residential Sector Commercial Sector Industrial Sector Upcoming Studies Summary Study In-depth Industrial New Construction 3 Background & Project Objectives 4 2

3 Why this Project? Energy efficiency is a resource Like other resources, characterization needed periodically In wake of CA energy crisis, importance and need for efficiency increased With EE back in Procurement & CPUC/CEC/CPA joint push for it, need potential information 5 Key Research Questions How much EE potential is there in California? How much of the EE potential is cost-effective to pursue? How much savings can be achieved through EE programs? How does this vary by program activity level? How does this vary under alternative energy cost forecasts? 6 3

4 Project Components Completed studies Commercial Electric Potential Commercial Natural Gas Potential Residential Electric and Gas Potential In progress Industrial Electric and Gas Potential New Construction Potential Statewide Summary Study 7 Snapshot of Methods Covers usage of major IOUs: PG&E, SCE, SGG & SDG&E: 80% of electric; 99% of gas use statewide Excludes new construction & emerging technologies Forecast EE potential from Calculate Technical, then Economic, then Achievable Three Energy Cost Scenarios Base (current forecast), Low, High Four Program Activity Scenarios Continued Current, 50% Increase, 100% Increase and Maximum Achievable 8 4

5 Overview of Statewide Results 9 Achievable Electric Savings by GWh per Year 18,000 GWh/Year Savings by ,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 Continued Current ~100% Increase Max Achievable Economic 2,000 - Residential Industrial Commercial 10 Note: Data represents all of California. IOUs represent ~90%, MUNIs and other, ~10%. Source data: The Energy Foundation, California s Secret Energy Surplus: The Potential for Energy Efficiency Final Report, Prepared by XENERGY. 5

6 Achievable Demand Savings by MW per Year 3,000 MW Savings by ,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 Continued Current ~100% Increase Max Achievable Residential Industrial Commercial 11 Note: Data represents all of California. Source data: The Energy Foundation, Summary of s & Costs (Electricity Savings only) $25 $20 Avoided Cost s Total Resource Costs Program Costs Present Value - $ Billions $15 $10 $5 s: $5.5B s: $8.6B s: $11.9B $0 Continued Current ~100% Increase Max Achievable 12 Note: Data represents all of California. Source data: The Energy Foundation,

7 Key Cost-Effective Measures Residential High-Efficiency Windows High-Efficiency Pool Pumps CFLs Early Replacement of Older Refrigerators Industrial Adjustable Speed Drives Motor System Improvements Lower-Cost Process Improvements Compressed Air System Improvements T8 Lamps with Electronic Ballast Commercial T8 Lamps with Electronic Ballast Lighting Occupancy Sensors CFLs High-Efficiency Chillers High-Efficiency DX Air Conditioners 13 Summary Findings 14 7

8 Commercial Electric s & Costs: $8 Avoided Cost s Total Resource Costs Program Costs (subset of TRC) $7 $6 $ Billions. $5 $4 $3 s: $2.6B s: $3.0B s: $3.4B s: $4.0B $2 $1 15 $0 Current Level Continued Note: Date represents IOU Service Areas only 50% Increase 100% Increase Max Achievable (300% Increase) Levels of Program Activity Commercial Electric Program Potential Results Program Activity GWh MW Scenario Savings Savings TRC Continued Current 4, % Increase 5,256 1, % Increase 6,112 1, Max Achievable 7,758 1, *Under base energy cost scenario 16 Note: Date represents IOU Service Areas only 8

9 Commercial Gas s & Costs: $900 Present Value in $ Millions. $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 Total s Non-Incentive Participant Costs Program Incentives Program Admin & Marketing $12 M $18 M $75 M $312 M $ $0 Continued Current ~50% Increase ~100% Increase Levels of Program Activity Note: Date represents IOU Service Areas only Max Achievable Commercial Gas Program Potential Results Program Activity Scenario Mth Savings TRC Continued Current % Increase % Increase Maximum Achievable *Under base energy cost scenario 18 Note: Date represents IOU Service Areas only 9

10 Residential Electric s & Costs: $7 Present Value in $ Billions $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 Total s Non-Incentive Participant Costs Program Incentives Program Admin & Marketing $0.5 B $0.8 B $1.2 B $1.6 B $1 19 $0 Continued Current ~50% Increase ~100% Increase Levels of Program Activity Note: Date represents IOU Service Areas only Max Achievable Residential Electric Program Potential Results Program Activity Scenario GWh Savings MW Savings TRC Continued Current 2, % Increase 4, % Increase 6, Maximum Achievable 9,826 1, *Under base energy cost scenario 20 Note: Date represents IOU Service Areas only 10

11 Residential Gas s & Costs: $1,200 Present Value in $ Millions $1,000 $800 $600 $400 Total s Non-Incentive Participant Costs Program Incentives Program Admin & Marketing $9 M $2 M $42 M $260 M $ $0 Continued Current ~50% Increase ~100% Increase Levels of Program Activity Note: Date represents IOU Service Areas only Max Achievable Residential Gas Program Potential Results Program Activity Scenario Mth Savings TRC Continued Current % Increase % Increase Maximum Achievable *Under base energy cost scenario 22 Note: Date represents IOU Service Areas only 11

12 Industrial Program Potential (Electric only, all CA) Program Activity Scenario GWh Savings MW Savings TRC Continued Current 1, % Increase 2, Maximum Achievable 7,533 1, *Under base energy cost scenario 23 Note: Data represents all of California. Source data: The Energy Foundation, Preliminary Industrial Gas Results Meets 3 year or less Payback Threshold Natural Gas Mth Boilers 330 Process Heat 136 Total Gas 466 Total Note: Data represents major IOU territories only. Source data: PG&E, California Industrial Energy Efficiency Market Characterization Study. Prepared by XENERGY. 12

13 Upcoming Studies 25 Industrial Potential Study Based on California industrial mix Integration of national-level research Adjust to reflect California data Address key electric and gas industrial end uses Due: Fall,

14 New Construction Study Developing methodology tailored to unique characteristics of NC markets Examine 4 California markets: Single Family Multifamily Commercial Industrial Integrate new construction with codes & standards and emerging technologies Analysis will include traditional & non-traditional measures (Cx, ETs) RFP this Summer; Completion mid Statewide Summary Study Using existing studies & bottom-up approach provide results by end-use for each sector, and aggregated SW Characterize savings streams in procurement-friendly format Produce output suited for policy environment that supports D-side programs (EE & DR) 28 14

15 Conclusions 29 Conclusions & Final Thoughts Significant EE savings opportunities remain Can increase spending ~ 4-fold to increase savings similarly Increased spending to 8.2 B$ Saves 30 TWh 5.9 GW ~ 50% expected D growth 12 B$ net benefits More research needed to fine-tune program elements & capture ongoing progress 30 15

16 Appendix A: Energy Use By Sector 31 California Electricity Use by Sector: 2000 Agricultural 7% Other 6% Residential 30% Industrial 21% Commercial 36% Total GWh = 280, Source: Brown & Koomey,2002 and CEC, California Energy Demand:

17 California Peak Electricity Demand by Sector: 2000 Agricultural 5% Other 6% Industrial 17% Residential 35% Commercial 37% Total MW = 55, *Includes line losses. Source: CEC, Electricity Outlook. P California Natural Gas Use by Sector: 2000 Commercial 15% Industrial 46% Residential 36% Other 3% ((~2100 Mth) 34 *Excludes natural gas used for electricity production. Source: CEC, California Energy Demand:

18 Commercial Electric: In Scope Electricity Consumption Electricity Demand Mis c. 23% Heat/Cook/ DHW 4% Lighting 39% Office Equipment 2% Refrigeration 5% Ventilation 9% Misc. 6% Heat/Cook/ DHW 0% Lighting 33% Office Equipment 1% Refrigeration 8% Ventilation 10% Cooling 15% Total ~ 80,000 GWh Cooling 45% Total = 16,500 MW *In scope electric usage for major IOUs represents 80% of statewide usage. Source: CEC California Energy Demand: & XENERGY/RER analysis. 35 Commercial Gas: In Scope Miscellaneous 9% Heating 31% Water Heating 38% ~2100 Mth Cooking 22% 36 *In scope gas usage for major IOUs represents 99% of statewide usage. Source: CEC California Energy Demand: & XENERGY analysis. 18

19 Residential Electric: In Scope Other 12% Electricity Consumption Heating 6% Cooling 7% Water Heating 6% Lighting 12% Electricity Demand Other 8% Heating 0% Lighting 28% Laundry 8% Pool/Spa 5% Dishwashing 2% Cooking 3% Freezer 2% Cooling 45% 37 Dishwashing 3% Cooking 5% Freezer 3% Refrigerator 18% Total ~ 71,000 GWh Refrigerator 12% Pool/Spa 5% *In scope electric usage for major IOUs represents 80% of statewide usage. Source: CEC California Energy Demand: & XENERGY/RER analysis. Laundry 8% Water Heating 3% Total ~ 15,700 MW Residential Gas: In Scope Cooking 6% Clothes Drying 3% Spa/Pool Heating 4% Miscellaneous 5% Water Heating 38% Space Heating 44% Total ~ 5,000 Mth 38 *In scope gas usage for major IOUs represents 99% of statewide usage. Source: CEC California Energy Demand: & XENERGY analysis. 19

20 Appendix B: Study Methods 39 Types of Potential Technical Economic Maximum Achievable Program Naturally Occurring 40 20

21 SCENARIOS Study Process ECONOMIC DATA MEASURE DATA BUILDING DATA MODEL INPUTS TECHNICAL POTENTIAL ECONOMIC POTENTIAL NATURALLY OCCURRING EFFICIENCY MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL PROGRAM POTENTIAL PROGRAM DATA AND ADOPTION INPUTS 41 Key Inputs Measure data Costs, savings, applicability, saturation End Use data UECs, saturations, load shapes Building data Total units (ft 2, households, etc.) by segment Economic data Avoided costs, rates Discount rates (utility/society, participant) Inflation rate 42 21

22 Efficiency Supply Curve Cost per Unit Saved or Avoided Low Cost - High Potential High Cost - Low to Mid Potential Mid Cost - Mid Potential Each point represents an individual measure in a particular application Percentage or Absolute Units Saved or Avoided 43 Program Budgets by Scenario Program Costs by Scenario (Millions) Com. Electric Com. Gas Res. Electric Res. Gas Continued Current $ 693 $74 $527 $223 50% Increase $1,058 $109 $814 $ % Increase $1,492 $185 $1,270 $348 Maximum Achievable $1,952 $545 $2,413 $