0. CPUC Potential and Goals Study 2013 Update
Presentation to the Demand Analysis Working Group (DAWG)
September 25, 2014
Navigant Reference:

1. Agenda » General Methodology » Approaches to Key Issues
» 2013 Study Results
» Comparison of IOU and POU Studies
» Discussion

2. » Agenda » General Methodology » Approaches to Key Issues
» 2013 Study Results
» Comparison of IOU and POU Studies
» Discussion

3. General Methodology
The Navigant team developed an Analytica based model using bottom up calculations to forecast energy efficiency savings.
Model covers all IOUs, Climate Zones, Building Types
Same source of data across all IOUs with minor variations where needed
Bottom up analysis:
Stock turnover model
Forecasts adoption of measures based on the economic attractiveness of a measure
Calibrates to historic program activity

4. » Agenda » General Methodology » Approaches to Key Issues
» 2013 Study Results
» Comparison of IOU and POU Studies
» Discussion

5. Approaches to Key Issues
The Navigant team developed a measure nomenclature system and mapping that allowed integration of data from a variety of sources.
Process Used to Integrate Data from Vetted Data Sources

6. Approaches to Key Issues
Estimating savings from voluntary IOU programs occurs in three general steps.
Step 1: Determine Annual Installation Decisions
Building Stocks
End Use Stocks
Installation Decisions
Step 2: Simulate Measure Adoption
Measure Screen
Measure Awareness
Measure Willingness
Measure Adoption
Step 3: Estimate Savings, Benefits & Costs
Baseline Efficiency
Measure Savings
Program Costs & Benefits

7. Approaches to Key Issues
The PG Model examined different sets of Codes and Standards (C&S) under various policy scenarios.
Policy Scenario
Standards Group
On the Books
Expected
Possible
Title 24
2005, 2008, and 2013 Title 24
2016 Title 24
2019 and 2022 Title 24
Title 20
2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2011 Title 20
Future (pending) Title 20 standards reported by IOU C&S Programs
Federal Appliance Standards
All adopted Federal standards reported by IOU C&S Programs
Future (pending) federal standards reported by IOU C&S Programs

8. Approaches to Key Issues
The PG Model’s data and methodology comes from CPUC evaluations of C&S programs.
Gross C&S Savings
Total energy savings estimated to be achieved by C&S since 2006
Accounts for compliance rate
Net C&S Program Savings
The portion of the total C&S savings that can be attributed to the IOUs
Accounts for naturally occurring market adoption (NOMAD) and utility attribution factors
Inform the IOU-specific goals for portfolio planning
General Methodology for C&S Savings Calculation
Source: KEMA. Codes & Standards (C&S) Programs Impact Evaluation. 2010

9. Approaches to Key Issues
The PG Team examined Emerging Technologies (ET) for the largest commercial and residential end uses.
ETs often compete with conventional high efficiency measures found in DEER
Data sources for ETs varied based on technology, though relied on publically available data from the CEC, DOE, DEER, and other sources.
Additional ET considerations
ET (as well as some conventional technologies) costs are capable of decreasing over time based on data available from the DOE.
LED technologies are expected to increase in efficacy over time (also based on DOE data) resulting in decreased energy use.
The PG Team used an Emerging Technology “Risk Factor” assigned to each ET to represent the inherent uncertainty in the market and source data.
LED Technology Improvement

10. Approaches to Key Issues
The PG Model includes whole building initiatives for Residential and Commercial new construction and renovation.
Whole Building Measure Name
Description
Res NC Level 1
15% more efficient than 2005 T-24 home
Res NC Level 2
25% more efficient than 2005 T-24 home
Res NC Level 3
30% more efficient than 2005 T-24 home
Res NC ZNE
Zero Net Energy Home (40-50% less energy than 2013 T-24 home)
Com NC Level 1
15% more efficient than 2005 T-24 building
Com NC Level 2
25% more efficient than 2005 T-24 building
Com NC Level 3
35% more efficient than 2005 T-24 building
Com NC ZNE
Zero Net Energy Building (35-60% less energy than 2008 T-24 building)
Res RET Level 1
10% less energy use than an average existing home
Res RET Level 2
20% less energy use than an average existing home
Com RET Level 1
20% less energy use than an average existing building
Com RET Level 2
40% less energy use than an average existing building

11. » Agenda » General Methodology » Approaches to Key Issues
» 2013 Study Results
» Comparison of IOU and POU Studies
» Discussion

12. 2013 Technical, Economic and Market Potential (GWh)
2013 Study Results
2013 Technical, Economic and Market Potential (GWh)

13. 2013 Incremental Annual Market Potential by Sector*
2013 Study Results
2013 Incremental Annual Market Potential by Sector*
*Includes behavior and C&S savings

14. 2013 Incremental Annual Market Potential by End-Use*
2013 Study Results
2013 Incremental Annual Market Potential by End-Use*
*Excludes behavior and C&S savings

15. 2013 Technical, Economic and Market Potential (MM Therms)
2013 Study Results
2013 Technical, Economic and Market Potential (MM Therms)

16. 2013 Incremental Annual Market Potential by End-Use*
2013 Study Results
2013 Incremental Annual Market Potential by End-Use*
*Excludes behavior and C&S savings

17. 2013 Study Results
A Tornado plot is used to test the sensitivity of model outputs to changes in key model inputs
* This chart shows results for the Commercial sector; results in the Residential sector are similar

18. Key Findings From 2013 PG Study
2013 Study Results
Key Findings From 2013 PG Study
Expanded emerging technologies provide additional potential
Potential in the AIMS sectors identifies limited savings
Early analysis shows financing as alternate driver of savings
Whole building efforts represent transformational opportunities
Lighting technologies still drive savings
Codes and standards and behavioral initiatives remain key areas of uncertainty

19. » Agenda » General Methodology » Approaches to Key Issues
» 2013 Study Results
» Comparison of IOU and POU Studies
» Discussion

20. Comparison of IOU and POU Studies
The California IOU and POU Potential Studies are similar in many ways.
Topic
Detail
IOU
POU
Modeling Platform
Analytica Modeling platform x
EERAM (Excel-based)
Source of Key Inputs
DEER, Utility Workpapers, Other Studies
Sectors included
Residential, Commercial, Industrial & Agriculture
Mining and Streetlights
Key Codes and Standards Assumptions*
C&S Included  and attributed to utility
C&S Included  but not attributed to utility
Key Market Adoption Assumptions**
Payback Acceptance
Bass diffusion
Analysis Level
Climate Zone and building type
Emerging Technologies
Commercial and Residential Technologies only
Whole Building Initiatives
Existing Building and New Construction (including ZNE)
Financing
Effects of low interest financing on adoption of measures. 
*POUs cannot claim C&S savings; The list of C&S were the same for IOUs and POUs at the time of 2013 studies.
**Bass diffusion was used by POU study only for emerging technologies

21. Greg Wikler, Director in Charge
San Francisco, CA
(415)
Amul Sathe, Project Manager
Associate Director
(415)