Energy Efficiency in the State of Minnesota Prepared By: Prepared By: Jessica Burdette Conservation Improvement Program Supervisor [email protected]
Jun 13, 2015
Energy Efficiency in the State of Minnesota
Prepared By: Prepared By: Jessica Burdette
Conservation Improvement Program [email protected]
• Overview
• Performance
• New Guidance• New Guidance
• Moving Forward
• Q & A
OVERVIEW OVERVIEW
• Long standing commitment to energy efficiency in Minnesota
• National recognition for energy efficiency work in Minnesotawork in Minnesota
• Regulations and programs continue to evolve
• Partnerships with industry stakeholders
• Achievement of real results
Customer(Utility Bill Reduction)Reduction)
Society(System-
wide Benefits)
Utility(Avoided Costs)
• Participating Customers• Reduced Utility Bills• Incentives
• Society• 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
UtilitiesIndustry Trade Allies
State Legislature
Consumers/Ratepayers
Environmental Advocacy
Groups
Allies
CIP
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
1.5% savings goal.
100
120
140
$20
$25
Ann
ual S
avin
gs (
in M
illio
ns o
f kW
h)
Exp
endi
ture
s (in
Mill
ions
of $
)
1.0%
1.4%
0
20
40
60
80
$0
$5
$10
$15
2008 2009 2010A
nnua
l Sav
ings
(in
Mill
ions
of k
Wh)
Exp
endi
ture
s (in
Mill
ions
of $
)
Expenditures
Savings
0.8%
100,000
120,000
140,000
$1.0
$1.2
$1.4
Ann
ual M
CF
Sav
ings
Exp
endi
ture
s (in
Mill
ions
of $
)
0.5%
1.4%
2.7%
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
$0.0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$0.8
2008 2009 2010
Ann
ual M
CF
Sav
ings
Exp
endi
ture
s (in
Mill
ions
of $
)
Expenditures
Savings
0.5%
0.014
0.016
0.018
$ pe
r lif
etim
e kW
h @
the
Gen
.
Program Cost per kWh Saved(Excluding Infrastructure Improvements)
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
2008 2009 2010
$ pe
r lif
etim
e kW
h @
the
Gen
.
2.0
2.5
$ pe
r Li
fetim
e M
CF
Sav
ed
Program Cost per MCF Saved
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2008 2009 2010
$ pe
r Li
fetim
e M
CF
Sav
ed
12%
34%
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
Sav
ings
Electric Savings - MWh
14%
28%
12%
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
MW
hS
avin
gs
Note: % indicates annual increase in savings
Electric Savings -MWh
-8% 18%
42%
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
MC
F S
avin
gs
Natural Gas Savings - MCF
-18%18%
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
MC
F S
avin
gs
Note: % indicates annual increase/decrease in savin gs
Natural Gas Savings …
NEW GUIDANCEGUIDANCE
• 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 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)(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 LOOKING AHEAD
• Energy Efficiency• Cost/kWh or Cost/MCF
• Load Management• Load Management• Cost/kW
• Use ESP Analytics• Review and Compare Program
Costs
Why Measurement & Verification?
• Measurement and verification (M&V) validates energy and demand savingssavings
• 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• 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 to identify and work through the goal implementation.
Questions?