Strategic Planning for DSM in a Strategic Planning for DSM in a Community-owned Utility Community-owned Utility Presented by Shu-Sun Kwan & Ed Arguello Colorado Springs Utilities 2005 APPA Engineering & Operations Conference Memphis, TN April 19, 2005
31
Embed
Strategic Planning for DSM in a Community-owned Utility
Strategic Planning for DSM in a Community-owned Utility. Presented by Shu-Sun Kwan & Ed Arguello Colorado Springs Utilities 2005 APPA Engineering & Operations Conference Memphis, TN April 19, 2005. Strategic Planning for DSM in a Community-owned Utility. Disclaimer - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Strategic Planning for DSM in a Strategic Planning for DSM in a Community-owned UtilityCommunity-owned Utility
Strategic Planning for DSM Strategic Planning for DSM in in
a Community-owned Utilitya Community-owned UtilityDisclaimer
The research findings and DSM strategies discussed are based upon circumstances that may be unique to Springs Utilities and may not be representative of nor applicable to other customer populations, and that personal opinions expressed are those of the presenters and are not necessarily those of Springs Utilities management or directors.
What is DSM?What is DSM?
DSM = Demand Side Management Utility activities to encourage customers to
modify their level and pattern of electricity usage in ways that will produce desired changes in utility’s load shape
Benefits of DSMBenefits of DSM Utility
Contribute as an alternative resource to meet customer electricity demand
Customers Provide choices to better manage energy use Reduce electricity bills
Environment Contribute to energy conservation Reduce emissions and impacts to environment
DSM as Part of the DSM as Part of the Integrated Resource PlanIntegrated Resource Plan
Existing Supply
Resources Assessment
Existing Supply
Resources Assessment
Demand Forecast
Demand Forecast
AdditionalSupply
ResourcesAssessment
AdditionalSupply
ResourcesAssessment
Integrated Resource Planning
Integrated Resource Planning
ElectricIntegratedResource
Plan
ElectricIntegratedResource
Plan
SupplySide
Options
SupplySide
Options
DemandSide
Options
DemandSide
Options
Public Process
Public Process
Policies&
Limitations
Policies&
Limitations
Integrated Resource Planning Process
Public Process Inputs (1)Public Process Inputs (1) Community values demonstrate the following priorities (1)
Price, (2) Power Supply and (3) Environmental consideration People generally support renewable energy and DSM but
cost is a deciding factor in overall acceptance Different opinions exist between who should pay for
renewable energy and DSM programs – those that use it, or all ratepayers
Customers feel it is of equal importance to invest in renewable sources and to develop programs to help customers use less electricity (DSM)
Overall, customers favor renewable energy and DSM, but support decreases when price is added as a factor
Public Process Inputs (2)Public Process Inputs (2) 65% of residential customers want to include
renewable energy in our supply mix, even if it costs more than other supply options 66% of our customers feel the additional cost for
renewable energy and DSM (if there was incremental cost) should be charged to all customers through utility rates
The majority (slightly more than 50%) of residential customers would be willing to pay $1 - $2 more per month to increase or double DSM programs and renewable energy sources from current levels
Scenario Grid OptionsScenario Grid OptionsPartial General Public Preference
DSM Target ScenariosDSM Target Scenarios Developed 6 Scenarios for Consideration
* Modest but not trivial * Moderate
* Moderate to Aggressive * Aggressive
* Ramp up to “Moderate to Aggressive” in 3 years
* Ramp up to “Aggressive” in 3 years
Based on National Benchmarking Data Considers:
Energy and demand savings Load factor improvement Program costs Avoided Costs Potential Rate Impacts
Benchmarking - Benchmarking - Energy Efficiency Program Energy Efficiency Program Spending Categorized by State (% of Revenue)Spending Categorized by State (% of Revenue)
Range from 0% (Virginia, Kansas, N. Carolina, and Louisiana) to 2.33% (Connecticut)
National average = 0.47% Colorado (0.14%), ranked 24 out of 51states Springs Utilities (0.4%)
* Springs Utilities numbers based on 2003 spending
BenchmarkingBenchmarking - - Energy Efficiency Program Energy Efficiency Program Spending Categorized by State (per Capita)Spending Categorized by State (per Capita)
Range from $0 (Virginia, Kansas) to $19.48 per capita (Connecticut)
National average = $3.88 per capita Colorado ($0.81), ranked 27 out of 51states Springs Utilities ($2.5, estimated figure)
* Springs Utilities numbers based on 2003 spending
BenchmarkingBenchmarking - Energy Efficiency Program Savings - Energy Efficiency Program Savings (cumulative) Categorized by State (savings as % of Sales)(cumulative) Categorized by State (savings as % of Sales)
Range from 0% (Kansas) to 6.79%
(Connecticut) National average = 1.66% Colorado (1.15%), ranked 23 out of 51 states Springs Utilities (0.43%)
* Springs Utilities numbers based on 2000-2003 savings and 2003 sales
Target Scenario AnalysisTarget Scenario Analysis
Scenario
Annual Savings as % of System Energy
Annual Savings as % of System Demand
Max. MW
Saving in a
Given Year
Energy Saving over 21 Years (GWh)
Bill Reduction
/ Lost Revenue over 21
Years ($M)
Prog. Costs over
21 Years ($M)
Avoided Costs
over 21 Years ($M)
Cumulative Rate Increase (%)
TRC Benefit to Cost Ratio2005 2010 2020 2025
Modest But Not Trivial 0.15 0.25 32 1854 111.2 27.1 51.1 0.4 0.6 1.2 1.3 1.6