ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL (AOP) Draft: Under construction

Transcription

1 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL (AOP) Draft: Under construction March 21, 2018

2 INTRODUCTION First step in planning process Assessment of Potential (AoP) estimates potential savings, which is one important input goal setting Presentation will discuss AoP methodology Summary of PA potential studies Key take aways Electric potential considerations, adjustments and costs Gas potential considerations, adjustments, and costs 2

3 KEY TAKE AWAYS There is still potential in MA to support electric savings in excess of 3% There is still potential in MA to support robust programs Residential electric potential is lower than recent achievement due to lighting changes C&I electric opportunities remain strong No significant changes expected in gas potential for either residential or C&I Early expectations are that residential costs may increase somewhat, but PA Plan will provide best source of data for ongoing planning 3

4 CONSULTANT AOP APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY In previous planning cycles, Consultants relied on historical achievement as primary basis for AoP For , past not necessarily a strong predictor of the future Changing lighting standards and market transformation Changing baselines New more varied and integrated opportunities In years past, no potential studies for all PAs Current AoP uses PA potential studies informed by trends as starting point Made adjustments based on additional analysis of key considerations and recent program experience 4

5 PA POTENTIAL STUDIES OVERVIEW Each PA hired contractors to complete potential studies Scopes of work for each study varied by PA Not all PA potential studies were completed by the same contractor PA contractors used different assumptions Most PA studies only included annual savings Estimate of active demand potential forthcoming (April) Contractors will rerun results with new avoided costs Consultant analysis required data extrapolation to compare results between studies 5

6 PA POTENTIAL STUDIES EXCLUDED SEVERAL SOURCES OF SAVINGS Lead Author NGrid Navigant Eversource Dunsky CLC Opinion Dynamics /Dunsky Unitil Electric Unitil Gas CMA Berkshire Liberty GDS GDS Dunsky GDS GDS Received 2/7 1/15 1/15 3/13 1/31 2/22 2/5 2/5 Includes: Fuel Switching SEM x x CHP x Behavior x x x x x x 6

7 TYPES OF POTENTIAL USED IN PA POTENTIAL STUDIES Precise potential definitions varied by study Economic Portion of technically feasible potential that is cost-effective assuming no market barriers Business as Usual (BAU) Achievable Level of savings given current programs and incentives Business as Usual Enhanced (BAU+) Level of savings given current programs, new technologies, and some different incentive levels Maximum (MAX) Achievable Maximum level of cost-effective potential recognizing market barriers 7

8 ELECTRIC Res Electric Res Lighting C&I Electric Res Gas C&I Gas 8

9 2017 PROGRAMS ACHIEVED HIGHEST ANNUAL SAVINGS MWh 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000, , , , ,000 Portfolio Annual Electric Savings 3.36% of Sales 2.93% of Sales

10 PORTFOLIO LIFETIME ELECTRIC SAVINGS OVER TIME MWh 20,000,000 18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 Portfolio Lifetime Electric Savings High level of CHP Evaluated Portfolio Planned Portfolio Q Portfolio 10

11 PA POTENTIAL STUDY RESULTS The table below presents Maximum achievable annual electric savings as a % of sales Contractor Residential Low Income C&I Total Portfolio Eversource Dunsky 4.12% 1.93% 3.50% 3.63% CLC* ODC/Dunsky 3.68% 4.47% 3.50% 3.31% National Grid Navigant 2.95% 2.32% 3.03% 2.95% Unitil GDS 2.79% 2.25% 1.70% 2.04% PA Weighted Average 3.49% 2.24% 3.28% 3.29% 2017 Q4 Reported 5.38% 2.07% 2.38% 3.36% *CLC potential study did not include Max achievable scenario. Estimated using % change from BAU+ to Max achievable scenario for Eversource study 11

12 PA POTENTIAL STUDY ESTIMATES COMPARED TO PAST PLANNING PERIODS 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000, , , , ,000 Portfolio Annual Electric Savings (MWh) 3.63% (Eversource) 3.31% (CLC) 3.29% (PA Average) 2.95% (National Grid) 2.04% (Unitil) Evaluated Planned Slide to be animated in presentation Q Eversource % of Sales Unitl % of Sales N.Grid % of Sales CLC % of Sales Potential Average % of Sales PA April 2015 Plan 12

13 KEY CONSIDERATIONS-POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE IMPACTS Residential C&I Lighting Fuel Switching Program redesign Behavior Lighting CHP SEM Upstream changes Evaluation Baseline Changes 13

14 RESIDENTIAL Res Electric Res Lighting Res Gas C&I Electric C&I Gas Residential Lighting Fuel Switching Program redesign Behavior 14

15 RESIDENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS: LIGHTING 2017 Res annual electric savings were 73% lighting PA potential studies show varying levels of declining lighting savings and NTG higher than agreed-to values going forward Eversource report estimates a 65% reduction compared to 2016 and a 45% reduction from 2019 to 2021 Noticeably steeper decline estimate for Eversource than National Grid Eversource National Grid Residential Lighting (Annual GWh) Yellow Bar = Lighting 15

16 RESIDENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS: LIGHTING Consultants estimate steeper lighting savings drop than PA studies PA studies did not use most recent evaluation findings 700, , ,000 Projected Annual Lighting Savings (MWh) NTG values are lower (~50% vs 35% and declining) than in PA potential studies PA study lighting NTG values vary 400, , , , Evaluated Q Projected 82% drop from

17 RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES: FUEL SWITCHING PA Potential studies did not address fuel switching Unregulated fuel (oil and propane) to electric fuel conversions could yield increased electric usage, but modest MMBtu savings 2021 Ductless Heat Pump Fuel Switch Unregulated fuel participation rate 2.0% Number of Ductless 1.5/household 18,643 MMBtu Fossil Fuel savings (MMBtu) 292,456 Increased Electric usage (MWh) 26,108 Net Annual MMBtu reduction 202,857 % of 2017 Electric MMBtu Savings 1.2% 17

18 RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES: PROGRAM REDESIGN Feb. 28 EEAC resolution supports provision of a new, integrated residential program design The PAs potential study scenarios don t involve a significant redesign of the residential program MAX achievable potential scenarios included generic reductions to market barriers, which translated to higher modeled participation However, specific program changes were not modeled 18

19 CONTINUOUS ENGAGEMENT MODEL Common online portal Significant evolution of residential retrofit program design and IT functionality needed to achieve broader and deeper cost-efficient savings Technology enabled processes Key Elements Needed Channel Partners New Measures & Methods 19

20 INDIVIDUAL PA POTENTIAL COMPARED TO HIGHEST PA ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL Possible decline in participation and savings during initial rollout Assumes higher participation and measure uptake and conversions Changes supported by modernized IT portal Higher HVAC equipment uptake compared to weatherization Possible Potential Additions 53.8 GWh 8.9 Million therms 251k MMBtu (oil/propane) Energy Savings (Million MMBtu) Residential Lifetime Savings Impact (Electric + Gas) CONCEPTURAL PROJECTION No Program Redesign Program Redesign Presentation Master Title Can Be Added in Master Layout 20

21 RESIDENTIAL POTENTIAL SUMMARY Will be extremely challenging to make up lost lighting savings in the electric sector in Several things needed to keep savings impacts as low as possible Aggressive approaches to boost existing measure production Identifying new measures and approaches Promoting fuel switching Continuing innovations in new construction, and active demand management New continuous engagement program model offers opportunity for broader and deeper savings for all fuels 21

22 RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC POTENTIAL Residential Adjustments Savings as % of Res Sales Annual MWh ( ) Weighted Average PA Potential Study 3.49% 1,551,605 Annual Other Fuel MMBTU ( ) Lighting 0.79% 349,161 +TBD Fuel Switching 0.26% 115, ,150,613 Behavior % + 72,394 Program Redesign + TBD + TBD + TBD Net Changes to Potential 0.89% 392, ,150,613 Net Potential After Adjustments 2.61% 1,159, Q4 Reported Achievement 5.38% 835,748 Annualized Potential After Adjustments 2.61% 386,410 22

23 C&I Res Electric 2.61% C&I Electric Res Gas C&I Gas 23

24 C&I CONSIDERATIONS: LIGHTING C&I lighting market transitioning from screw-in to linear and other LED technologies This is good from an opportunity and EM&V perspective favorable evaluations for linear lighting 24

25 C&I CONSIDERATIONS: LIGHTING There is still strong potential in C&I linear lighting (linear lighting not effected by EISA) 42% of all C&I economic potential is in networked (controlled) linear lighting Annual MWh 700, , , , , , ,000 MA Annual Lighting Savings and Max Achievable Potential Historic Gross Savings Estimated Potential Savings Screw Based Advanced Lighting Design Controls Linear LED Other/Custom 25

26 C&I OPPORTUNITIES: CHP CHP was not included in the PA potential studies Except CLC where potential was found to be zero CHP typically increases C&I Savings by 13.5% or 80k MWh annual savings per year (16.4) MW) DOER has identified a strong pipeline at ~35 MW/yr 22 MW MIT CHP likely in

27 C&I OPPORTUNITIES: STRATEGIC ENERGY MANAGEMENT CMA was the only PA to attribute a value to SEM: For buildings > 25k SF. They found: Commercial potential assumed to be 6% of gas use Industrial potential assumed to be 2% of all gas use The EEAC has recommended SEM in past resolutions PAs released a SEM RFP, which could bring in new savings as soon as 2019 Estimate that SEM could increase C&I electric annual savings 2.1% per year and 0.46% for C&I gas savings 27

28 C&I OPPORTUNITIES: UPSTREAM The potential studies did not consider program modifications such as moving measures upstream Upstream approach can increase volume and savings Example: gas water heaters Upstream lighting is the least expensive electric C&I initiative on a $ / lifetime kwh basis PAs continue to add new measures upstream: Electric: LED fixtures with controls, LED high/low bay, T5 TLEDs, VRF HP, circulator pumps, food service equip. Gas: Food service, other measures in pipeline 28

29 C&I CONSIDERATIONS: EVALUATION AND BASELINE CHANGES Consultant analysis shows: C&I evaluations will decrease future electric savings 1.1% Comprehensive Design (CDA), Multiple Upstream, Custom Process, Small Biz Lighting C&I evaluations will decrease future gas savings 10.9% CDA, Upstream HVAC, Steam traps (Custom and Rx) Baseline and Industry Standard Practice changes will impact savings as follows: 3% reduction in electric annual savings 11% reduction in gas annual savings 29

30 C&I ELECTRIC POTENTIAL Commercial and Industrial Adjustments Savings as % of C&I Sales Annual MWh ( ) Weighted Average PA Potential Study 3.28% 2,710,425 SEM % + 43,689 CHP % + 240,000 Evaluation Adjustments 0.03% 23,236 Baseline Adjustments 0.08% 62,446 Linear Lighting + TBD + TBD Net Changes to Potential % + 198,008 Net Potential After Adjustments 3.52% 2,908, Q4 Reported Achievement 2.38% 693,842 Adjusted Annualized Potential 3.52% 969,477 30

31 TOTAL ELECTRIC POTENTIAL Portfolio Adjustments Savings as % of Total Sales Annual MWh ( ) Weighted Average PA Potential Study 3.29% 4,379,456 Annual Other Fuel MMBTU ( ) Residential Net Adjustments 0.29% 392, ,150,613 C&I Net Adjustments % + 198,008 Net Changes to Potential 0.15% 194,366 Net Potential After Adjustments 3.14% 4,185, Q4 Reported Achievement 3.14% 1,395,030 Adjusted Annualized Potential 3.36% 1,574,249 31

32 PORTFOLIO ELECTRIC COSTS 32

33 PORTFOLIO ELECTRIC COST TO ACHIEVE OVER TIME $0.515 Portfolio Annual Electric Cost to Achieve $0.465 $0.415 $/kwh $0.365 $0.315 $0.265 $ Evaluated Planned Q Linear (Evaluated) Linear (Planned) 33

34 PA POTENTIAL STUDY COSTS TO ACHIEVE Table below presents Max achievable annual electric costs to achieve ($/kwh) Residential Low Income C&I Total Portfolio National Grid $0.90 $1.18 $0.75 $0.82 Eversource N/A N/A N/A $0.73 Unitil $0.95 $0.95 $0.50 $0.72 CLC N/A N/A N/A N/A PA Weighted Average $0.90 $1.17 $0.75 $ Q4 Reported $0.27 $1.43 $0.34 $

35 PA MAX ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL COSTS TO ACHIEVE ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN HISTORICAL COSTS TO ACHIEVE $0.815 $0.715 Portfolio Annual Electric Cost to Achieve $/kwh $0.615 $0.515 $0.415 $0.315 $0.215 $0.115 Evaluated Portfolio Planned Portfolio Q Portfolio Potential High Potential Low Potential Average PA April 2015 Plan $

36 ENERGY EFFICIENCY COST CURVES - ILLUSTRATIVE Source: IESO presentation, Module 3: Conservation and Demand Response Outlook. August

37 GAS Res Electric 2.61% C&I Electric 3.52% Res Gas C&I Gas 37

38 PORTFOLIO ANNUAL GAS SAVINGS OVER TIME 35,000,000 Portfolio Annual Gas Savings Therms 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 Evaluated Portfolio Planned Portfolio Q Portfolio

39 PORTFOLIO LIFETIME GAS SAVINGS OVER TIME Therms 450,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000 50,000,000 Portfolio Lifetime Gas Savings Evaluated Portfolio Planned Portfolio Q Portfolio 39

40 PA POTENTIAL STUDY RESULTS The table below presents Max achievable annual gas savings as a % of sales PA Contractor Residential Low Income C&I Portfolio Total Columbia Dunsky 3.12% 1.19% 3.21% 2.95% Eversource Dunsky 3.14% 2.29% 1.84% 2.37% Unitil GDS 1.04% 1.38% 2.62% 2.20% Liberty GDS 1.45% 1.33% 0.64% 1.12% National Grid Navigant 1.07% 2.19% 0.88% 1.01% Berkshire GDS 0.67% 1.15% 0.58% 0.65% PA Average 1.81% 1.84% 1.27% 1.54% 2017 Q4 Reported 1.22% 2.03% 0.99% 1.15% 40

41 PA POTENTIAL STUDY GAS SAVINGS ESTIMATES COMPARED TO PAST PLANNING PERIODS Therms 80,000,000 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 Portfolio Annual Gas Savings 2.95% (Columbia) 2.37% (Eversource) 2.20% (Unitil) 1.54% (PA Average) 1.12% (Liberty) 1.01% (National Grid) 0.65% (Berkshire) Slide to be animated for presentation Evaluated Planned Q Columbia % of Sales Eversource % of Sales Unitil % of Sales Liberty % of Sales N. Grid % of Sales Berkshire % of Sales Potential (Average) PA April 2015 Plan 41

42 CONSULTANT KEY CONSIDERATIONS Residential C&I Behavior Program redesign SEM Upstream changes Evaluation Baseline changes 42

43 RESIDENTIAL GAS POTENTIAL Residential Adjustments Savings as % of Res Sales Annual therms ( ) Weighted Average PA PotentialStudy 1.81% 62.0Million Behavior % Million Program Redesign + TBD + TBD Net Changes to Potential % Million Net Potential After Adjustments 2.20% 75.6 Million 2017 Q4 Reported Achievement 1.22% 13.9 Million Adjusted Annualized Potential 2.20% 25.2 Million 43

44 C&I GAS POTENTIAL Commercial and industrial Adjustments Savings as % of C&I Sales Annual therms ( ) Weighted Average PA Potential Study 1.27% 49.3 Million SEM % Million Upstream +/ TBD +/ TBD Evaluation 0.09% 3.5 Million Baseline 0.09% 3.6 Million Net Changes to Potential 0.13% 5.0 Million Net Potential After Adjustments 1.14% 44.2 Million 2017 Q4 Reported Achievement 0.99% 10.5 Million Annualized Potential After Adjustments 1.14% 14.8 Million 44

45 TOTAL GAS POTENTIAL Portfolio Adjustments Savings as % of Total Sales Annual Therms ( ) Weighted Average PA Potential Study 1.54% Million Residential Net Adjustments % Million C&I Net Adjustments 0.07% 5.0 Million Net Changes to Potential % Million Net Potential After Adjustments 1.65% Million 2017 Q4 Reported Achievement 1.15% 26.6 Million Adjusted Annualized Potential 1.65% 42.4 Million 45

46 PORTFOLIO ANNUAL GAS COST TO ACHIEVE OVER TIME $/therm $9.00 $8.00 $7.00 $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 Portfolio Annual Gas Cost to Achieve Evaluated Portfolio Planned Portfolio Q Portfolio 46

47 PA POTENTIAL STUDY GAS COSTS TO ACHIEVE The table below presents Max achievable annual gas costs to achieve ($/therm) PA Residential Low Income C&I Portfolio Total Eversource N/A N/A N/A $24.02 National Grid $14.36 $30.57 $7.49 $12.60 Columbia N/A N/A N/A $12.48 Berkshire N/A N/A N/A N/A Liberty N/A N/A N/A N/A Unitil N/A N/A N/A N/A PA Average N/A N/A N/A $ Q4 Reported $8.32 $20.12 $4.20 $

48 PA POTENTIAL STUDY GAS COST TO ACHIEVE ESTIMATES COMPARED TO PAST PLANNING PERIODS $25.00 Portfolio Annual Gas Cost to Achieve $/therm $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 Evaluated Planned Q Potential (High) Potential (Low) Potential (Average) PA April 2015 Plan 48

49 PORTFOLIO Res Electric 2.61% C&I Electric 3.52% Res Gas 1.93% C&I Gas 1.14% 49

50 THANK YOU Questions?

51 INDIVIDUAL PA POTENTIAL COMPARED TO HIGHEST PA ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL 2,500,000 Annual Potential Savings by PA 2,000,000 MWh 1,500,000 1,000,000 Study % Savings High PA % Savings 500,000 0 National Grid Eversource CLC Unitil 51

52 RESIDENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS: LIGHTING While PA studies anticipated reductions in lighting net to gross, evaluation agreed-to values are much lower Further, PA study lighting NTG values vary LED Net to Gross Values 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Statewide Plan/Proposed National Grid Eversource CLC 52

53 PROGRAMS INSTALLED MANY MORE LEDS THAN PLANNED 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% %LEDs Presentation Master Title Can Be Added in Master Layout 53

54 RESIDENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS: LIGHTING Consultants estimate even steeper lighting savings drop than Eversource potential study By 2021, total annual lighting savings are projected to decline by ~82% compared to 2017 Would result in a ~64% reduction in total Residential annual electric savings in 2021 compared to 2017 PA studies did not incorporate most recent evaluation findings into their results evaluation agreed-to values are much lower (~50% vs 35% and declining) than assumed in PA potential studies Further, PA study lighting NTG values vary 54

55 EB8 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL SAVINGS CONSIDERATIONS Expected Lifetime Energy and Summer Demand Savings Directionality and Magnitude vs. PAs' Potential Studies Electricity (MWh) Summer Demand (MW) Delivered Fuels HVAC/DHW Evaluation Impacts neutral neutral? Active demand management + + Residential program redesign: Whole House and HVAC Evaluation results (primarily lighting) + Increasing services to renters/moderate income/other underserved customers Multi family retrofit

56 Slide 55 EB8 sput content in res adjustments slide Eric Belliveau, 3/21/2018

57 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL SAVINGS CONSIDERATIONS Expected Lifetime Energy and Summer Demand Savings Directionality and Magnitude vs. PAs' Potential Studies Appliance/Consumer Products Evaluation Impacts Fuel switching (unregulated fuel to gas) HVAC/DHW Evaluation Impacts Active demand management Residential program redesign: Whole House and HVAC Evaluation results (Overall) Increasing services to renters/moderate income/other underserved customers Multi family retrofit Gas Low Med +Low +Low +Med +High +Med +Med 56