Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Energy Efficiency in the State of Minnesota

•
•
Center for Energy and Environment
Center for Energy and Environment

This document provides an overview of energy efficiency programs and performance in Minnesota. It discusses the state's longstanding commitment to energy efficiency and recognition for its work. Key points include utilities achieving savings of over 120 million kWh and 2 million MCF in 2010. Program costs per kWh and MCF saved have declined. New guidance was also provided for low-income multifamily buildings and customers using delivered fuels. Looking ahead, the state aims to continue cost-effective energy efficiency programs that validate savings and reinforce efficiency as a resource.

1 of 29
Energy Efficiency in the State of Minnesota Prepared By: Jessica Burdette Conservation Improvement Program Supervisor Jessica.burdette@state.mn.us
• Overview • Performance • New Guidance • Moving Forward • Q&A
OVERVIEW
• Long standing commitment to energy efficiency in Minnesota • National recognition for energy efficiency work in Minnesota • Regulations and programs continue to evolve • Partnerships with industry stakeholders • Achievement of real results
Energy Efficiency in the State of Minnesota
Customer (Utility Bill Reduction) Society Utility (System- (Avoided wide Costs) Benefits)
• Participating Customers • Reduced Utility Bills • Incentives • Society • System-wide Benefits • Avoided rate hikes • Non-energy benefits • Utilities • Avoided Production, Generation, Transmission and Distribution Costs • Energy Efficiency as the lowest cost resource
Regulatory Agencies Industry Trade Utilities Allies CIP Environmental State Advocacy Legislature Groups Consumers/ Ratepayers
PERFORMANCE
The greatest impact of the 2007 NGEA was the change from a 1.5% spending goal to a 1.5% savings goal. SPENDING SAVING
$25 140 1.4% 120 Annual Savings (in Millions of kWh) $20 Expenditures (in Millions of $) 100 1.0% $15 0.8% 80 Expenditures Savings 60 $10 40 $5 20 $0 0 2008 2009 2010
$1.4 140,000 2.7% $1.2 120,000 Expenditures (in Millions of $) $1.0 1.4% 100,000 Annual MCF Savings $0.8 0.5% 80,000 Expenditures Savings $0.6 60,000 $0.4 40,000 $0.2 20,000 $0.0 - 2008 2009 2010
Program Cost per kWh Saved (Excluding Infrastructure Improvements) 0.018 0.016 $ per lifetime kWh @ the Gen. 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0 2008 2009 2010
Program Cost per MCF Saved 2.5 2.0 $ per Lifetime MCF Saved 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2008 2009 2010
Electric Savings - MWh 1,000,000 900,000 34% 800,000 700,000 12% MWh Savings 600,000 28% 500,000 14% 400,000 Electric Savings - 300,000 MWh 200,000 100,000 - 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Note: % indicates annual increase in savings
Natural Gas Savings - MCF 3,000,000 2,500,000 42% -8% MCF Savings 2,000,000 18% -18% 1,500,000 Natural Gas 1,000,000 Savings… 500,000 - 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Note: % indicates annual increase/decrease in savings
NEW GUIDANCE
• Low Income Programming in Multifamily Buildings with 5+ Units • What qualifies as Low Income? • Guidance does not define income guidelines, but provides resources
• Buildings with at least 66% units occupied by LI households. • Resources • DOE Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) Lists • Low Income Renter Certification (LIRC) Report • Use Restriction – Mortgage Covenant
Qualifying Customers: • Electric utility customers that use delivered fuels for space and water heating. • Electric utility customers that are served by municipal gas utilities exempt from CIP. • Low Income Only
Potential Measures: • Thermal Efficiency Measures (i.e. Insulation) • Mechanical Efficiency Measures (i.e. Furnaces) • Water Heating Measures (i.e. Low Flow Showerheads)
• Utilities may claim kWh savings based on energy savings from displaced fuel. Fuel Unit kWh #2 Fuel Oil Gallon 40 LP Gallon 27 Natural Gas MCF 293
LOOKING AHEAD
• Energy Efficiency • Cost/kWh or Cost/MCF • Load Management • Cost/kW • Use ESP Analytics • Review and Compare Program Costs
Why Measurement & Verification? • Measurement and verification (M&V) validates energy and demand savings • Gives ratepayers assurance that CIP $$ is delivering actual savings • M&V reinforces notion of efficiency as a resource
• Electric Utility Infrastructure Upgrades • Solar Energy Programs • Codes and Standards • Custom Projects/M&V
Energy Efficiency = Resource • Lowest Cost Resource • Cost Effective Investments • Short/Long Term Benefits to Customers • Non-Energy Benefits (i.e. Economic)
The state continues to have a positive dialogue with utilities to identify and work through the goal implementation.
Questions ?

More Related Content

Energy Efficiency in the State of Minnesota

  • 1. Energy Efficiency in the State of Minnesota Prepared By: Jessica Burdette Conservation Improvement Program Supervisor Jessica.burdette@state.mn.us
  • 2. • Overview • Performance • New Guidance • Moving Forward • Q&A
  • 4. • Long standing commitment to energy efficiency in Minnesota • National recognition for energy efficiency work in Minnesota • Regulations and programs continue to evolve • Partnerships with industry stakeholders • Achievement of real results
  • 6. Customer (Utility Bill Reduction) Society Utility (System- (Avoided wide Costs) Benefits)
  • 7. • Participating Customers • Reduced Utility Bills • Incentives • Society • System-wide Benefits • Avoided rate hikes • Non-energy benefits • Utilities • Avoided Production, Generation, Transmission and Distribution Costs • Energy Efficiency as the lowest cost resource
  • 8. Regulatory Agencies Industry Trade Utilities Allies CIP Environmental State Advocacy Legislature Groups Consumers/ Ratepayers
  • 10. The greatest impact of the 2007 NGEA was the change from a 1.5% spending goal to a 1.5% savings goal. SPENDING SAVING
  • 11. $25 140 1.4% 120 Annual Savings (in Millions of kWh) $20 Expenditures (in Millions of $) 100 1.0% $15 0.8% 80 Expenditures Savings 60 $10 40 $5 20 $0 0 2008 2009 2010
  • 12. $1.4 140,000 2.7% $1.2 120,000 Expenditures (in Millions of $) $1.0 1.4% 100,000 Annual MCF Savings $0.8 0.5% 80,000 Expenditures Savings $0.6 60,000 $0.4 40,000 $0.2 20,000 $0.0 - 2008 2009 2010
  • 13. Program Cost per kWh Saved (Excluding Infrastructure Improvements) 0.018 0.016 $ per lifetime kWh @ the Gen. 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0 2008 2009 2010
  • 14. Program Cost per MCF Saved 2.5 2.0 $ per Lifetime MCF Saved 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2008 2009 2010
  • 15. Electric Savings - MWh 1,000,000 900,000 34% 800,000 700,000 12% MWh Savings 600,000 28% 500,000 14% 400,000 Electric Savings - 300,000 MWh 200,000 100,000 - 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Note: % indicates annual increase in savings
  • 16. Natural Gas Savings - MCF 3,000,000 2,500,000 42% -8% MCF Savings 2,000,000 18% -18% 1,500,000 Natural Gas 1,000,000 Savings… 500,000 - 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Note: % indicates annual increase/decrease in savings
  • 18. • Low Income Programming in Multifamily Buildings with 5+ Units • What qualifies as Low Income? • Guidance does not define income guidelines, but provides resources
  • 19. • Buildings with at least 66% units occupied by LI households. • Resources • DOE Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) Lists • Low Income Renter Certification (LIRC) Report • Use Restriction – Mortgage Covenant
  • 20. Qualifying Customers: • Electric utility customers that use delivered fuels for space and water heating. • Electric utility customers that are served by municipal gas utilities exempt from CIP. • Low Income Only
  • 21. Potential Measures: • Thermal Efficiency Measures (i.e. Insulation) • Mechanical Efficiency Measures (i.e. Furnaces) • Water Heating Measures (i.e. Low Flow Showerheads)
  • 22. • Utilities may claim kWh savings based on energy savings from displaced fuel. Fuel Unit kWh #2 Fuel Oil Gallon 40 LP Gallon 27 Natural Gas MCF 293
  • 24. • Energy Efficiency • Cost/kWh or Cost/MCF • Load Management • Cost/kW • Use ESP Analytics • Review and Compare Program Costs
  • 25. Why Measurement & Verification? • Measurement and verification (M&V) validates energy and demand savings • Gives ratepayers assurance that CIP $$ is delivering actual savings • M&V reinforces notion of efficiency as a resource
  • 26. • Electric Utility Infrastructure Upgrades • Solar Energy Programs • Codes and Standards • Custom Projects/M&V
  • 27. Energy Efficiency = Resource • Lowest Cost Resource • Cost Effective Investments • Short/Long Term Benefits to Customers • Non-Energy Benefits (i.e. Economic)
  • 28. The state continues to have a positive dialogue with utilities to identify and work through the goal implementation.