130 likes | 247 Views
Accounting for Energy Efficiency Programs in Regional Load Forecasts. Tim Woolf Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities Planning Advisory Committee Meeting December 16, 2010. Overview.
E N D
Accounting for Energy Efficiency Programs in Regional Load Forecasts Tim Woolf Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities Planning Advisory Committee Meeting December 16, 2010
Overview • The ISO’s current methodology of forecasting energy efficiency savings in New England clearly understates likely future savings. • Program Administrators tend to save more in practice than they bid into the FCM. • ISO assumes that no new efficiency savings will occur in future years. • While there are several uncertainties in forecasting energy efficiency savings, these can be addressed through proper planning practices. Tim Woolf - Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities
Recent MA EE Savings, and Current Plans:Capacity Savings (MW) Tim Woolf - Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities
Recent MA EE Savings and Current Plans Tim Woolf - Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities
EE Savings Compared with ISO Forecast:Capacity Savings (MW) Tim Woolf - Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities
EE Savings Compared with ISO Forecast Tim Woolf - Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities
Projection of EE Savings – High Case Tim Woolf - Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities
Projection of EE Savings – Moderate Case Tim Woolf - Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities
Projection – Moderate Case vs. NESCOE Suggestion Tim Woolf - Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities
Challenges to Forecasting EE Savings • Actual EE savings differ from FCM bids and FCM delivered. • Planned savings may differ from actual savings. • There are no plans that go beyond the next few years. • EE measures retire over time. What is the impact on load? • Challenges noted in RSP 10 (page 121): • State diversity of EE makes forecasting challenging. • Double counting concerns. • Monitoring and verification. • Fatigue of EE program participants. • Diversion of EE funding. Tim Woolf - Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities
Preliminary Big Picture Recommendations • ISO should work cooperatively with States and EE Program Administrators to develop load forecasts. • Goal of the forecasting process should be to develop estimates of the most likely amount of EE savings, not the most conservative amount. • Program Administrators should provide ISO (and states) with all relevant data regarding EE savings (actual and planned) and FCM bidding, to support the forecast effort. • States should provide input with regard to expected levels of efficiency funding and savings in future years. • Could be coordinated through NESCOE. Tim Woolf - Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities
Options to Address Challenges - I • EE savings differ from FCM bids. • Analyze the two separately. • Planned savings differ from actual savings. • Review historical results, get input from PAs. • There are no plans after the next few years. • Get input from States and PAs about legislative and regulatory context that will drive future activity. • EE measures retire over time. • Make reasonable assumptions about measure replacement. • State diversity makes forecasting challenging. • Get data and input from each state. Tim Woolf - Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities
Options to Address Challenges - II • Double counting concerns. • Identify and develop methodologies to address. • Monitoring and verification. • Clarify the issue. Improve M&V standards if necessary. • Fatigue of EE program participants. • Not an issue for EE (passive DR). • Diversion of EE Funding. • Get input from States. Apply a discount factor if warranted. Tim Woolf - Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities