1. EE Reporting Tool Training California Municipal Utilities Association & Southern California Public Power Authority August 4, 2010 Eric Cutter Senior Consultant

2. Cost-Effectiveness Framwork 2

3. Origins of Cost-effectiveness: Traditional Supply Side Planning Cost-effectiveness analysis is rooted in least cost utility supply planning; where objective is to… develop the least cost supply portfolio that has acceptable level of cost risk, meets established reliability criteria, and complies with environmental regulations. Traditional analysis yields a preferred supply plan Integrated supply and demand planning (“IRP”) can also yield a preferred supply plan No ‘benefits’ calculation is needed in this framework, just a complete characterization of all costs required to meet the object function

4. How do you test for a lower cost solution? Why cost-effectiveness analysis? Shortcomings of “full IRP” approach Complex analysis on broad set of issues from fuel supply, operability, supply technology Significant time required (2+ years typically) Lack of stakeholder transparency Focus on ratepayer cost and risk, subject to minimum standards on reliability, environment Once you have your ‘preferred plan’

5. Cost-effectiveness Framework Testing whether an alternative plan is lower cost is the basic building block of CE analysis Evaluate the costs of EE program Evaluate the change in costs of your preferred supply plan (“avoided costs”) These are the ‘benefits’ of implementing your program Compute the difference (or ratio) More formally, net present value difference of benefits and costs… Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

6. Calculating Avoided Costs

7. Range of avoided cost components that are considered in developing the benefits for EE Each state selects their own elements and methods for quantification Electricity Energy Efficiency Energy SavingsCapacity Savings Market purchases or fuel and O&M costsCapacity purchases or generator construction System LossesSystem losses (Peak load) Ancillary services related to energyTransmission facilities Energy market price reductionsDistribution facilities Co-benefits of water, natural gas, fuel oil savings (if applicable) Ancillary services related to capacity Air emissionsCapacity market price reductions Hedging costsLand use Avoided Cost Components

8. Methodology of Avoided Costs Methodology depends on market structure Lots of variation across states Approaches to Value Energy and Capacity Near Term (Market data is available) Long Term (No market data available) Distribution electric or natural gas utility Current forward market prices of energy and capacity Long-term forecast of market prices of energy and capacity Electric vertically-integrated utility Current forward market prices of energy and capacity or Expected production cost of electricity and value of deferring generation projects Long-term forecast of market prices of energy and capacity or Expected production cost of electricity and value of deferring generation projects

9. Components of Avoided Cost

10. Generation Marginal Cost Forecast 20092013 2021 2028 and beyond Electric Forward data Gas Futures data Forecast of Long Run Market Price (Energy and Capacity) Market Price (Energy & Capacity) Resource Balance Year Long run forecast of market prices Trend to All-in Cost of New CCGT Or other suitable proxy powerplant Use Market and/or Market Forecast

11. Model Structure

12. Program Costs Select Measures Avoided Costs Calculations Results Reporting

13. Key Issues

14. Defining Incremental Costs

15. Incremental Costs

16. Measure Costs Utility incentives OFFSET measure costs (that otherwise would be paid by participant). The two incentive types are: Rebate: cash transfer from utility to participant Direct Install: Utility pays contractor to perform installation Both are (since 2008) treated the same in cost tests Utility costs that are IN ADDITION to measure cost are: Entered as Variable Overhead.

17. Net To Gross (NTG) Ratio Net to gross ratio may derate the program impacts and significantly affects the results of the TRC, SCT, PAC, and RIM tests Difficult to estimate the NTG with confidence Key factors addressed through the net-to-gross ratio are:  Free Riders  Installation Rate  Persistence/Failure  Rebound Effect  Take Back Effect  Spillover

18. Free Rider Costs In 2007: how to address free-rider “costs”? IOU Position Exclude both rebate and direct install costs that benefit free- riders (treat all incentive costs as transfers, whether to free- rider or not) Incentive costs, whether to participant or free-rider, are a transfer within the region and should be excluded from TRC DRA, TURN, NRDC Position Include both rebate and direct install costs that benefit free- riders as a TRC Cost. Incentives paid to free-riders are a “cost” bourn by non- participants and reflect actual utility expenditures. TRC is sum of participant cost (PCT) and non-participant cost (RIM)

19. Free Rider Costs CPUC sided with DRA, TURN and NRDC Both rebate and direct install costs paid to free riders are ADDED as a cost in TRC. In other words, only the rebate and direct install costs that benefit non-free-rider customers are treated as a transfer payment and excluded from the TRC cost.

20. Application at portfolio level allows for inclusion of individual programs or measures that do not past cost test  Low Income, emerging technologies, market transformation Point of Measurement

21. Discount Rates are a key input Tests and Perspective Discount Rate Used Illustrative Value Present Value of $1/yr for 20 years Today’s value of the $1 received in Year 20 Participant Cost Test (PCT)) Participant’s discount rate 10%$8.51$0.15 Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) Utility WACC8.5%$9.46$0.20 Utility Cost Test (UCT/PAC) Utility WACC8.5%$9.46$0.20 Total Resources Cost Test (TRC) Utility WACC8.5%$9.46$0.20 Societal Cost TestSocial discount rate 5%$12.46$0.38

22. Value of Carbon Adder Simple Calculation of Value At $30/tonne CO2, natural gas combined cycle costs increase about $0.012/kWh and coal $0.027/kWh

23. Accounting for Non Energy Benefits Customer perspective  Increased comfort, quality of life  Improved air quality  Greater convenience, quality of product Utility perspective  Reduced shut-off notices  Reduced bill complaints Societal Perspective  Increased community health  Improved aesthetics.  Reduces reliance on imported energy sources  NOT Included in CPUC/E3 Avoided Costs

24. Example Measures

25. Refrigerator Replacement Look up measure in KEMA Report Incremental costs provide the cost of installing a more efficient unit than the code minimum, whereas full costs represent the installed cost of an Energy Star refrigerator. The measure cost assumes an average refrigerator size of 26 cubic foot unit. Does not include disposal

26. Refrigerator Replacement

28. NPV and Levelized Costs

29. NPV

30. Levelized Payment

32. Cost-effectiveness Tests

33. TRC Test Implications TRC Test measures overall cost-effectiveness Pop Quiz Does the size of the incentives change the TRC? Do the customer bill savings change the TRC? Do direct install costs change the TRC? Distribution Tests (RIM, PCT, UCT) If the TRC is positive, what can we say about the distribution of costs and benefits? Need ‘distributional tests’ PCT (cost-effectiveness for participants) UCT / PAC (cost-effectiveness from a utility perspective) RIM (economics for non-participants)

34. Definition of Cost Tests Cost TestAcronymKey Question AnsweredSummary Approach Participant Cost Test PCTWill the participants benefit over the measure life? Comparison of costs and benefits of the customer installing the measure Utility/Program Administrator Cost Test UCT/PACWill utility bills increase?Comparison of program administrator costs to supply side resource costs Ratepayer Impact Measure RIMWill utility rates increase?Comparison of administrator costs and utility bill reductions to supply side resource costs Total Resource Cost TRCWill the total costs of energy in the utility service territory decrease? Comparison of program administrator and customer costs to utility resource savings Societal Cost TestSCTIs the utility, state, or nation better off as a whole? Comparison of society’s costs of energy efficiency to resource savings and non-cash costs and benefits

35. Summary of Costs and Benefits ComponentPCTPACRIMTRCSCT Energy and capacity related avoided costs.-Benefit Additional resource savings---Benefit Non-monetized benefits---Benefit Incremental equipment and install costsCost-- Program overhead costs-Cost Incentive paymentsBenefitCost -- Bill SavingsBenefitCost-- High level summary of costs and benefits included in each cost test Each state adjusts these definitions depending on circumstances Details can significantly affect the type of energy efficiency implemented

36. Example Cost Test Results Benefit / Cost ratio results from three programs Energy efficiency is widely cost-effective RIM test results are often less than one TestSo. Cal. Edison Residential Program AVISTA Regular Income Puget Sound Energy Com/Ind Retrofit PCT7.143.471.72 PAC9.914.184.19 RIM0.630.851.15 TRC4.212.261.90 SCT4.212.261.90

37. Participant Cost Test Measures economic attractiveness of measure to customer Non-economic factors can have significant influence on customer adoption

38. Participant Cost Test

39. Program Administrator Cost Test Measures cost to utility on a comparable basis with supply-side resources Positive PAC means average bills will eventually be lower as compared to supply-side alternative Usually the least restrictive cost test Includes cost of incentive to utility but not the cost of the measure to the customer

40. Program Administrator Cost Test

41. Ratepayer Impact Measure Almost always negative Participant bills go down, but average rates go up Most restrictive test

42. Ratepayer Impact Measure

43. Total Resource Cost Test Measures Cost to Region as a whole Intra-regional transfers not included Incentives, rates Most common threshold test PCT and PAC can be positive even when TRC is negative

44. Total Resource Cost Test

45. Societal Cost Test

46. What is the Goal? Achieve maximum potential savings All efficiency with PAC > 1.0 Or TRC > 1.0 at portfolio level Achieve maximum savings with given budget or meet savings target at minimum cost to utility and its ratepayers Individual measures with highest TRC and/or PAC Protect competitiveness of utility rates or minimize impacts to non-participants RIM > 1.0 (rare)

47. Resources

48. National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy- programs/napee/index.html PG&E Workpapers http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/archives/about/rates/re bateprogrameval/aljruling/2008/4q08_workpapers_revised. zip California Energy Efficiency Website http://www.californiaenergyefficiency.com/calenergy_old/2 006_08_programs.html CPUC Energy Division Contracts http://www.energydataweb.com/cpuc/home.aspx

49. Measure Impacts

50. Demand Savings Estimated or Connected Demand Savings Replace 100 w incandescent bulb with 20 W CFL 80 w connected demand savings Average or Non-Coincident Demand Savings Refrigerator or AC units cycle on and off Demand reduction averaged over period of time Coincident Peak Demand Savings Coincidence diversity factor Ratio of coincident peak demand/non-coincident peak demand

51. Energy Savings Demand savings * hours of use Estimate hours of use over course of a year Varies by Building type Building age Climate zone Occupancy Percentage impact not always the same for energy and demand

52. Estimating Impacts Connected Load Frequency of use Adjustment Factor Coincidence or Diversity Factor

53. CFL Example Replace 60 W bulb with 14 W bulb 2.34 hours/day 7 days a week 90% In Service Rate.081 coincident diversity factor

54. Water Heater Replace 63% AFUE with 90% AFUE Heating load 276 Btu/sq meter