Bruce A. Measure Chair Montana Rhonda Whiting Montana W. Bill Booth Idaho James A. Yost Idaho Dick Wallace Vice-Chair Washington Tom Karier Washington Melinda S. Eden Oregon Joan M. Dukes Oregon MEMORANDUM Wednesday, April 28, 2010 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Council Power Committee Michael Schilmoeller Conservation Performance Uncertainty In the Sixth Power Plan, resource portfolio assessments assumed the future cost and availability of conservation measures was known with certainty. The draft Plan had scenarios where discretionary conservation ramp rates differed from the base assumption of 160 MWa per year. These sensitivity studies, however, still assumed certainty. Comments received in response to the draft Plan encouraged the Council to consider uncertainty in the region s ability to acquire the targeted levels of conservation. This presentation describes recent work to address the uncertainty issue. No action or decision is required. The study concludes there is negligible effect on the preferred conservation acquisition policy. The average amount of conservation developed in the least-risk plan is also about the same as in the case with conservation certainty. The preferred level of wind generation optioned by the model, however, increases. The explanation of this conclusion stems from how the acquisition policy is stated, as a market adder for cost-effectiveness thresholds. With variation in performance, the conservation acquired still has the same cost in dollars per megawatt, relative to the market, that the deterministic case has. The principal difference due to the performance variation is the amount of conservation acquired across futures, expressed in average megawatts. Conservation acquisition by the end of these 20-year studies typically varies about 23 percent when we do not consider conservation performance uncertainty. The range is primarily due to variations in wholesale market prices for electricity. The range of acquisition in this analysis, however, is around 51 percent. Consequently, more nonconservation resources may be preferred in futures where less conservation is cost-effective. In futures where more conservation is cost-effective, the non-conservation resources can be postponed or cancelled. This results in higher levels of optioning for non-conservation resources. 851 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Steve Crow 503-222-5161 Portland, Oregon 97204-1348 Executive Director 800-452-5161 www.nwcouncil.org Fax: 503-820-2370
Conservation Performance Uncertainty Power Committee Meeting Tuesday May 11, 2010
Sources of Conservation Uncertainty Source of Uncertainty Example Input Materials Cost Input Labor Cost Cost of Capital Existing Baseline Condition Technological Progress Future Penetration Future Stock Estimate Steel, glass, insulation, electronics, rare-earth phosphors Skilled and unskilled labor If conservation is financed How may new dishwashers are better than federal standard in the base case assumption? When will today s measure be superseded by a much better or cheaper idea? Progression of Linear Fluorescent Efficacy. How many houses are left to insulate? How many can we just never get to? How many TVs will be purchased? What size? Plasma or LCD? 2
Sources of Conservation Uncertainty Source of Uncertainty Example Future of End Use Future of Industry Measure Performance Customer Acceptance Health and Safety Interactions Program Performance Will remotely hosted dumb terminals replace smart business PCs? Will people quit TV in favor of ipod? Intel, Boeing, Freightliner, Wine Will forecast savings be realized in the field? For how many applications will occupancy sensors be too annoying? Will new health standards for more ventilation eliminate savings potential from less ventilation? Will house tightening increase radon exposure? Will program design be ineffective? Or we will get more savings than anticipated because we put the measure in code? 3
Effect on the Supply Curve Supply Curve 120.0 100.0 80.0 Levelized Cost (2004$/MWh) 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 MWa Available Annually Supply curves 4
Effect on the Supply Curve Supply Curve 120.0 100.0 Levelized Cost (2004$/MWh) 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 MWa Available Annually Supply curves 5
Effect on the Supply Curve Supply curves 6
Performance of Conservation Capture performance uncertainty with proportional adjustment of the supply curves Distribution of performance not skewed Performance varied by 30 percent. (Triangular distribution with mode at 1.0, minimum at 0.7, and maximum at 1.3) Performance not correlated with construction cost uncertainty 7
Results Conservation market adders were unchanged Average acquisition of conservation over the 20-year study period was unchanged Additional wind generation was optioned 8
End 9
Inelastic Response of Lost Opportunity Conservation Supply Curves 250 real levelized $/MWh (P) 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Lost Opportunity (Q) 2010 2015 2020 source: Q:\MS\Council Presentations and Communication\100511 P4 Portland\graphics\supply curves for illustration.xls 10
Relative Elasticity of Discretionary Conservation 500 real levelized $/MWh (P) 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 source: Q:\MS\Council Presentations and Communication\100511 P4 Portland\graphics\supply curves for illustration.xls 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 MWa (Q) 11
Sensitivity Analysis for Discretionary Conservation Ramprate Value of going faster Retrofit 220 MWa/Year & Lost-Opp 12-Year Ramp Up Cost of going slower Retrofit 100 MWa/Year & Lost-Opp 20-Year Ramp Up 4000 4000 3500 3000 Max Retro Slow Max Retro Base Case Max Retro Fast 3500 3000 Lost Opp Max Base Case and Fast Lost Opp Max Slow Cumulative MWa 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 12 C umulative MWa 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029