counting the capacity that didn’t hatch: the rate mitigation effect of dsm programs

25
Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs Jennifer Edwards & Nancy Lange* MN Center for Energy & Environment *MN Public Utilities Commission Presented at the 2013 ACEEE National Conference on Energy Efficiency as a Resource September 22-24, 2013 Nashville, TN

Upload: center-for-energy-and-environments-innovation-exchange

Post on 18-Nov-2014

899 views

Category:

Technology


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Presented at the 2013 ACEEE National Conference on Energy Efficiency as a Resource

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Jennifer Edwards & Nancy Lange*

MN Center for Energy & Environment

*MN Public Utilities Commission

Presented at the 2013 ACEEE National Conference on Energy Efficiency as a Resource

September 22-24, 2013 – Nashville, TN

Page 2: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 2

Non-profit based in Minneapolis, MN

Energy efficiency program and service provider

Energy and Home Improvement Financing

Building Science and Program Design Research

Minnesota Energy Policy

Center for Energy and Environment

Page 3: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 3

A better understanding of the system

wide revenue benefits of DSM programs

Energy Efficiency as a BIG Resource means…

Page 4: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 4

Xcel Energy’s 20-year program history

Backward looking scenario analysis to compare

capacity options

Compare additional revenue requirements

Minnesota DSM Case Study

Page 5: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 5

The Resource Wedge

Page 6: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 6

Itemized Utility Bill

What if alternative power plant capacity was itemized?

Page 7: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 7

Lower Resource Costs

Fewer Sales

DSM Scenario Power Plant Scenario

Higher Resource Costs

More Sales

0.24 ¢/kWh 0.66 ¢/kWh

Additional Revenue Requirements = Σ Annual Additional Costs ÷ Total Sales

Page 8: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 8

+ Conservation and Load

Management Program

Costs

+ Indirect Impact

+ Lost Revenue &

Incentives

+ Capital & Financing

Costs

+ Shareholder Returns

+ Fuel Costs

+ O&M

+ T&D maintenance

DSM Scenario Power Plant Scenario

Cost Considerations

Page 9: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 9

Power Plant Offsets from DSM

-

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

Cap

acit

y (

MW

)

Incremental Demand Savings

Cumulative Offset Capacity

Page 10: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 10

250 MW

Power Plant Offsets from DSM

-

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

Cap

acit

y (

MW

)

Cumulative Offset Capacity

250 MW

250 MW

250 MW

250 MW

250 MW

250 MW 7 250-MW

Combined Cycle

Page 11: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 11

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

No

min

al $

/kW

Combined Cycle Overnight Capital Costs

Source: AEO Assumptions

Years when plants came online

Page 12: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 12

Capital Revenue Requirement Calculations

Page 13: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 13 Source: EIA Electric Power Producer Price

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

$2

01

1/M

MB

tu

Historical Natural Gas Fuel Costs

Page 14: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 14

Results

$1.14 Billion

Total Cost $4.16 Billion

Natural Gas Power Plants

DSM Programs

580,855 GWh Total Sales 629,212 GWh

0.24 ¢/kWh Addl Revenue 0.66 ¢/kWh

Incentives 23%

Program Costs 77%

Page 15: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 15

Scenario: Coal Plant Displacement

Page 16: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 16

250 MW

Power Plant Offsets from DSM

-

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

Cap

acit

y (

MW

)

500 MW

250 MW

250 MW

250 MW

250 MW

5 250-MW Gas Plants

+

1 500-MW Coal Plant

Page 17: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 17

Scenario: Coal Plant Displacement

Coal Capital

42%

Coal Operatio

n 19%

Gas Capital

18%

Gas Operatio

n 19%

Transmission 2%

$4.89 billion

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

DSMResource

Gas Only Coal + GasR

eve

nu

e R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

(¢/

kWh

)

0.78 ¢/kWh

Page 18: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 18

Scenario: Avoided Transmission Lines

Page 19: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 19

Scenario: Avoided Transmission Lines

$4.30 billion 0.68 ¢/kWh

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.90

Rev

en

ue

Re

qu

ire

me

nts

(¢/

kWh

)

Capital Costs 33%

Fuel 54%

O&M 8%

Transmission 5%

Page 20: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 20

Scenario: Average Measure Life

Page 21: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 21

10-Year Measure Life

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

DSM Resource Gas Only 10-yr MeasureLife

Rev

en

ue

Re

qu

ire

me

nts

(¢/

kWh

)

Capital Costs 30%

Fuel 58%

O&M 9%

Transmission 3%

$3.26 billion 0.53 ¢/kWh

Page 22: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 22

20-Year Measure Life

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

DSMResource

Gas Only 10-yrMeasure Life

20-yrMeasure Life

Rev

en

ue

Re

qu

ire

me

nts

(¢/

kWh

)

$4.50 billion 0.71 ¢/kWh

Capital Costs 31%

Fuel 58%

O&M 9%

Transmission 2%

Page 23: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 23

Summary of Scenario Results

0.24

0.66

0.78

0.68

0.53

0.71

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

DSM Resource Gas Only Coal + Gas NewTransmission

Lines

10-yr MeasureLife

20-yr MeasureLife

Rev

en

ue

Re

qu

ire

me

nts

(¢/

kWh

)

Page 24: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 24

DSM programs allow customers to save on the energy

they do use, as well as the energy they don’t

System wide avoided revenue requirements are 3-4

times higher than DSM program costs

Includes total DSM costs, but only power plant costs

recovered during the 20-yr time frame

One specific example, but relevant for other DSM

programs, especially those just beginning.

Summary

Page 25: Counting the Capacity that Didn’t Hatch: The Rate Mitigation Effect of DSM Programs

Page 25

Thank you!

Jennifer Edwards

[email protected]

(612) 335-5873

White paper forthcoming:

www.mncee.org/Innovation-Exchange/Resource-

Center