Conservation and Energy Efficiency by RG

VIEWS: 136 PAGES: 11

									Conservation and Energy Efficiency: Recent Performance, Future Potential
Jeff Schlegel Consultant to the CT Energy Conservation Management Board
Connecticut’s Energy Future December 2, 2004

Connecticut Conservation and Load Management Fund (C&LM) was created by the State Legislature to provide costeffective energy conservation programs  C&LM programs are administered by the electric distribution utilities (CL&P and UI)  Energy Conservation Management Board (ECMB) was created by the Legislature to advise and assist; input & review function  Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) is responsible for final approval of the C&LM programs

Energy Efficiency (or Energy Conservation)
Products, services, or practices aimed at reducing the energy used by specific enduse devices and systems, by substituting technically more advanced equipment or practices to produce the same or improved level of service with less energy use  Energy efficiency is NOT curtailment  Benefits customers, the electric system, the environment, and the economy  C&LM also funds load management and supports load response (though not addressed in this presentation)

C&LM Expenditures and Benefits
$89 million/yr collected from ratepayers  C&LM expenditures range from about $89 million in full funding years (2000-01) to about $60 million in recent years (balance was allocated to deficit reduction, DPW)  60+ MW of energy efficiency resources provided in a full funding year  Reduces annual load growth by 50-80%  Energy efficiency is the least cost resource ~ $.02 to $.05 per lifetime kWh, delivered  Provides ~$3 in benefits per $1 invested

C&LM Funding
100 90 80
State Deficit Reduction

Funding ($, millions)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2000 2001
C&LM Programs


Transfer to State


Potential for Energy Efficiency
for the Connecticut ECMB  Estimate the achievable costeffective potential for energy conservation and energy efficiency resources over the 2003-2012 period in three geographic areas:
– Connecticut statewide (CL&P and UI) – The 52 towns in constrained SW CT – The 16 critical constrained towns in SW CT (Norwalk-Stamford area)
 Study

Focus and Scope of the Study
achievable, cost-effective potential (not the technical potential)  Energy efficiency only (not load management or load response)  Limited to cost-effective options that are commercially available now  Residential, commercial, industrial sectors
 Maximum

Study Findings
Very large energy efficiency potential remaining; opportunities in all sectors  Capturing the achievable cost-effective potential for energy efficiency would reduce peak demand by 13% (908 MW) and electric energy use by 13% (4,466 GWh) by 2012  Would result in (approx.) zero growth in electric load from 2003 through 2012  Net benefits of $1.8 billion

Connecticut Summer Peak Load Forecast (MW): Base Case, Continued Current Energy Efficiency, and Maximum Achievable Cost Effective Potential
7,400 7,200 7,000


6,800 6,600 6,400 6,200 6,000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base Case Continued Current Energy Efficiency - 2003 Load Forecast* Maximum Achievable Cost Effective Scenario Continued Current Energy Efficiency - 2004 C&LM Plan

*For the “Continued Energy Efficiency” scenario from the 2003 Load Forecast, values for the CL&P service territory for years 2009 to 2012 are estimates based on the average of prior year values.

Capturing Energy Efficiency Potential is Very Cost-Effective
State of Connecticut Commercial Sector Residential Sector Industrial Sector All Sectors O&M Benefits
(inc. avoided inc. bulb purchases)

Total Resource Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits PV of BenefitPresent Value Net Cost Benefit Cost Benefits Ratio $1,411,460,062 $1,062,432,855 $341,431,615 $2,815,324,532 $358,414,779 $390,141,582 $79,413,671 $827,970,032 $(80,156,204) $206,992,508 $2,815,324,532 $954,806,336 $1,780,361,992 2.95 $1,053,045,283 $672,291,273 $262,017,944 $1,987,354,500 3.94 2.72 4.30 3.40

Other Program Costs (25%)* All Sectors

*Other program costs estimated as 25% of total incremental measure costs, net of any O&M savings.

Energy efficiency benefits customers, the electric system, the environment, and the economy: ~$3 in benefits per $1 invested  Very large energy efficiency potential remaining; significant cost-effective opportunities in all sectors  ISE potential study found similar results  Connecticut should increase energy efficiency efforts to capture the benefits

To top