1. DAWG Meeting June 18, 2012 Estimates of Incremental Uncommitted Energy Savings For CED 2011
Chris Kavalec
Demand Analysis Office
Electricity Supply Analysis Division

2. Mid Savings Case GWh: Total Market Potential (Gross C&S) vs
Mid Savings Case GWh: Total Market Potential (Gross C&S) vs. Incremental Uncommitted Savings

3. Mid Savings Case MW: Total Market Potential (Gross C&S) vs
Mid Savings Case MW: Total Market Potential (Gross C&S) vs. Incremental Uncommitted Savings

4. Mid Savings Case MM Therms: Total Market Potential (Gross C&S) vs
Mid Savings Case MM Therms: Total Market Potential (Gross C&S) vs. Incremental Uncommitted Savings

5. Method Codes and Standards EE Measures Emerging Technologies Lighting
Interactive effects
Three Scenarios

6. Codes and Standards
Included C&S savings from Potential Study not incorporated in CED 2011:
2011 and future Title 20
Future Federal appliance standards
2008 Title 24 (residential) and 2013 Title 24
Used net C&S savings—subtracted off naturally occurring market adoption (NOMAD) from gross C&S savings
Excluded lighting for overlap calculation

7. Codes and Standards
Used Navigant estimates for savings except for end uses with 1 to 1 relationship with standards requirements, where CEC forecasting model used:
Clothes dryers
Central AC/Heat Pump
Gas Pool heaters
Room AC
Gas ranges

8. EE Measures Cumulative savings starting in 2013 from Potential Study
Used net savings
Excluded lighting for overlap calculation
Usage-based behavior incorporated separately

9. Lighting Overlap between CEC and Potential Study lighting savings
Compared lighting savings incremental to 2010 (2011 for peak)
Lighting savings = Potential Study savings from C&S plus Potential Study savings from measures (non-ET) minus CEC C&S lighting savings

10. Three Scenarios
For low savings case, C&S compliance rate reduced by 20 percent
Electricity measure savings reduced by 2 percent for low savings case, increased by 5 percent for high case
Natural gas measure savings reduced by 5 percent for low savings case, increased by 4 percent for high case
ET included only in high savings case

11. Results: All IOU GWh

12. Results: All IOU MW

13. Results: All IOU MM Therms

14. Incremental Uncommitted GWh by Scenario, all IOUs

15. Incremental Uncommitted MW by Scenario, all IOUs

16. Incremental Uncommitted MM Therms by Scenario, all IOUs

17. Comparison to Itron-CEC 2009 Estimates of Incremental Uncommitted

18. Impact on Forecast: PG&E ST Sales, Mid Case 2010-2022 avg annual growth falls from 1.19% to 0.76%

19. Impact on Forecast: PG&E ST Peak, Mid Case 2011-2022 avg annual growth falls from 1.53% to 1.08%

20. Impact on Forecast: SCE ST Sales, Mid Case 2010-2022 avg annual growth falls from 1.19% to 0.68%

21. Impact on Forecast: SCE ST Peak, Mid Case 2010-2022 avg annual growth falls from 1.56% to 1.04%

22. Impact on Forecast: SDG&E ST Sales, Mid Case 2010-2022 avg annual growth falls from 1.94% to 1.55%

23. Impact on Forecast: SDG&E ST Peak, Mid Case 2010-2022 avg annual growth falls from 2.04% to 1.59%

24. Naturally Occurring Savings Associated with Incremental Uncommitted Savings (Mid Case, All IOUs)

25. Naturally Occurring Savings
Higher than incremental CEC price effects (although this is apples to oranges comparison)
Option 1: NOS is capturing behavior by a segment of the market (“efficient group”). This behavior is counterbalanced by less efficient behavior in the market as a whole.
Option 2: CED 2011 forecast “missed” this increased efficiency and should be adjusted.