MISO DR, EE, DG Potential Study:
Preliminary Potential Estimates
PAC Meeting
October 14, 2015
Agenda
• Study Overview
• Stakeholder comments
• Revised Potential Results for MISO
• Preliminary Potential Results for Eastern Interconnection
• Next Steps
2
Comments from Stakeholders
• Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
• OMS DRT WG
• Consumers Energy
• DTE Energy
• Michigan Public Service Commission/Michigan Agency for Energy joint
comments
• Sustainable FERC Project
3
Updates to September 21 Estimate
• After the September 21 estimate was posted, AEG received additional information that
led us to make changes
• For Minnesota, incorporated more up-to-date and detailed information on distributed generation,
provided by the Minnesota Department of Commerce.
• The additional program activity results in slightly higher savings estimates
• Summary of changes is provided below for the Existing Programs Plus case
Savings Existing Programs +
4
2015 Estimate
Change
2035 Cumulative Estimate
Change
Peak Revised: MW,
% of baseline
6,326,
5.4%
30,
0.03%
20,263,
13.1%
264,
.19%
Peak 9/15: MW,
% of baseline
6,296,
5.3%
n/a
19,999,
14.7%
n/a
Energy Revised: GWh,
% of baseline
3,221,
0.4%
32
0.001%
53,225
6.6%
394,
0.05%
Energy 9/15: GWh,
% of baseline
3,189,
0.5%
n/a
52,831
6.6%
n/a
Forecasts by LRZ – Summer Peak
• Primary Data Source: MISO LSE Survey data
• MISO coincident peak increases 15% between 2015 and 2035, an annual average of 0.7%
• Largest growth in LRZ9 with 37% growth over 20 years, or an annual average of 1.6%
• In the 2010 study, baseline peak increased on average by 0.8% annually between 2010
and 2030.
2015 MW
2035 MW
Annual growth rate (2015‐2035)
LRZ 1
15,679
18,652
0.9%
LRZ 1
LRZ 2
12,042
13,382
0.5%
LRZ 2
LRZ 3
8,740
10,331
0.8%
LRZ 4
8,923
9,146
0.1%
LRZ 5
LRZ 5
7,816
7,952
0.1%
LRZ 6
LRZ 6
16,559
18,636
0.6%
LRZ 7
19,297
20,438
0.3%
LRZ 9
LRZ 8
6,760
7,907
0.8%
LRZ 10
LRZ 9
18,742
25,720
1.6%
LRZ 10
3,678
4,277
0.8%
Total
118,235
136,441
0.7%
160,000
140,000
Summer Peak (MW)
120,000
LRZ 3
100,000
LRZ 4
80,000
60,000
LRZ 7
LRZ 8
40,000
20,000
-
5
* Retail sales at the meter, net of losses. Based on survey response.
Information includes peak before impact of DR, EE, and DG.
Forecasts by LRZ – Energy
• Primary Data Source: MISO LSE Survey data
• MISO Energy sales increase 18% between 2015 and 2035, an annual average of 0.8%
• Largest growth in LRZ9 with 53% growth over 20 years, or an annual average of 2.1%
• In the 2010 study, baseline energy increased on average by 1.0% annually between 2010
and 2030
Annual 6
* Retail sales at the meter, net of losses. Based on survey response.
Information includes peak before impact of DR, EE, and DG.
2015 GWh
2035 GWh
growth rate
(2015‐2035)
LRZ 1
97,436
115,192
0.8%
LRZ 2
63,321
69,473
0.5%
LRZ 3
48,172
57,119
0.9%
LRZ 4
50,567
51,115
0.1%
LRZ 5
42,069
42,162
0.0%
LRZ 6
96,748
108,026
0.6%
LRZ 7
99,843
104,355
0.2%
LRZ 8
39,226
46,258
0.8%
LRZ 9
118,772
181,980
2.1%
LRZ 10
22,497
26,067
0.7%
Total
678,651
801,747
0.8%
Preliminary Summary Results
Summer Peak Demand
• The existing demand response
programs already provide savings
of over 5% from the baseline.
• In the Existing Programs Plus case
we assume that the existing programs
will continue as they are currently run,
with a slight increase in later years.
• To meet the 111(d) targets, utilities
will also see significant peak demand savings
starting with a slight ramp up in 2018 to reach the EE goals in 2020
• Although the 111(d) 2014 case focuses on EE, we anticipate a modest increase in savings from
demand response programs, as well
Summary of Summer Peak Demand Savings (MW), Selected Years
2015
2016
2017
Baseline Forecast (MW)
118,235 119,349 120,058
Cumulative Savings (MW)
Existing Programs Plus
6,326 6,900 7,466
111(d) 2014
6,326 6,900 7,466
Peak Demand Savings (as % of Baseline)
Existing Programs Plus
5.4%
5.8%
6.2%
111(d) 2014
5.4%
5.8%
6.2%
7
*Retail sales at the meter, does not include losses.
2025
126,174
2035
136,441
12,481 20,263
19,408 36,495
9.9%
15.4%
14.9%
26.7%
Preliminary Summary Results
Annual Energy
• The energy savings in the existing
programs plus case are primarily
driven by energy efficiency
programs.
• In the Existing Programs Plus case
we assume the programs will
continue as they currently exist,
with a slight increase each year
• In the 111(d) 2014 case, we anticipate a
ramp up of EE programs starting in 2018 to achieved the goals starting in 2020.
• As a result of 111(d) 2014 we also anticipate an increase in savings from distributed generation and demand
response
Summary of Energy Savings (GWh), Selected Years
2015
2016
2017
Baseline Forecast (GWh)
678,651 685,467 690,015
Cumulative Savings (GWh)
Existing Programs Plus
3,221 5,326 7,447
111(d) 2014
3,221 5,326 7,447
Energy Savings (as % of Baseline)
Existing Programs Plus
0.5%
0.8%
1.1%
111(d) 2014
0.5%
0.8%
1.1%
8
*Retail sales at the meter, does not include losses.
2025
732,076
2035
801,747
25,314 53,225
54,458 124,709
3.5%
7.4%
6.6%
15.6%
Eastern Interconnection:
Market Characterization and
Baseline Projection
Study Overview –
Eastern Interconnection
1. Develop estimates of the forecast of baseline demand and energy using secondary data
2. Analyze and synthesize utility program data from secondary data sources to develop a
common set of programs for the analysis
3. Create a sector (e.g. Residential, C&I) market characterization for each of the six regions
4. Calibrate the model to replicate existing utility programs gathered from secondary data
5. Develop forecasts of potential reductions from DR, EE and DG and costs to install
10
AEG Approach for MISO Potential Study
Potential estimates
Develop Potential
Cases
Varying participation rates
Varying program costs
Full slate of programs across all LRZs
Base-year program results
Characterize
Programs
The approach for MISO starts here
Measure and program descriptions
Current program savings and budgets
End-use forecast by segment
Forecast the
Baseline
Forecast data
Utility survey data Secondary data
Base-year energy use by segment
Characterize the
Market
Utility survey data
AEG’s Energy Market Profiles
Establish deliverables
11
Secondary data
Market Characterization
Segmentation for the Eastern Interconnection analysis
Dimension
1
Segmentation Variable
Region
Dimension Examples
NYISO, PJM, SERC, TVA, TVA Other, SPP
Residential customers
12
2
Segment
3
Vintage
Existing and new construction
4
End uses Cooling, heating, ventilation, lighting, water heat, refrigeration, motors, etc. (customized for each sector) 5
Appliances/end uses and Technologies such as lamp type, air conditioning equipment, technologies motors by size, etc. 6
Equipment efficiency Baseline efficiency and an array of higher‐efficiency options as levels for new purchases appropriate for each technology C&I (Commercial & Industrial) Customers
Sector-Level Electricity Usage in the Base Year (2013)
• Using EIA Form 861 for 2013, we mapped each utility to ISO/RTO region and developed
an estimate of annual electricity use and number of customers for 2013 by sector
• Developed a market profile for each sector using publicly available potential studies,
AEG’s Regional Energy Market Profiles, RECS, and CBECS
Region
NYISO
Residential Annual Residential Number Electricity of customers
Use (GWh)
53,208
7,383,120
C&I Number of customers
1,152,249
PJM
298,107
28,045,487
502,879
3,711,485
SERC
167,240
12,563,112
252,897
1,901,732
TVA
58,587
3,923,109
95,002
739,620
TVA Other
22,370
1,603,808
27,350
241,514
SPP
82,243
6,410,110
153,189
1,288,197
681,756*
59,928,746
1,146,854*
9,034,797
Total
* Retail electricity sales at the meter
13
C&I Annual Electricity Use (GWh)
115,536
Sector-Level Demand Usage in the Base Year (2013)
• Using EIA Form 861 Operational data, we mapped each utility to ISO/RTO region and
developed an estimate of annual peak demand for summer and winter
• Developed a market profile for each sector using publicly available potential studies,
AEG’s Regional Energy Market Profiles, RECS, and CBECS
Summer Peak Demand (MW)
28,812
Winter Peak Demand
(MW)
21,115
PJM
132,115
108,152
SERC
91,872
84,688
TVA
55,475
50,632
TVA Other
10,458
10,048
SPP
51,865
40,451
370,597*
315,085*
Region
NYISO
Total
* Retail electricity sales at the meter
14
Residential Baseline Projection
• The baseline projection provides the foundation for estimating potential future
savings from EE, DR and DG
• It disaggregates the forecasts by ISO/RTO Region into the end-use components
• It reflects:
• Appliance standards in place at end of 2014 (from AEG’s database)
• Effects of EE and DR programs prior to 2015
Summer Peak Demand by End Use
Retail electricity sales at the meter
15
Annual Energy Use by End Use
C&I Baseline Projection
• As with residential, this projection provides the foundation for estimating potential
future savings from EE, DR and DG
• It disaggregates the forecasts by ISO/RTO Region into the end-use components
• It reflects:
• Equipment standards in place at end of 2014 (from AEG’s database)
• Effects of EE and DR programs prior to 2015
Summer Peak Demand by End Use
Retail electricity sales at the meter
16
Annual Energy Use by End Use
Characterize Programs
Program Descriptions and Modeling Assumptions –
Eastern Interconnection
• For each program, AEG used the generic description of programs developed
for the MISO analysis
• Typical design
• Target customer segments (Residential and C&I) and applicability
• Target technologies and measures
• Other characteristics
• Modeling assumptions were developed using
• EIA Form 861 information on total participation, energy and peak demand savings, and
program costs by sector
• eSource DSMinsights provided information on the types of programs
• FERC DR Survey provided information on the types of DR programs
18
Preliminary Potential Estimates –
Eastern Interconnection
Levels of Potential
111(d) 2014
Modeling assumptions
• Existing Programs Plus (EP+)
Existing Programs Plus
• Existing program data for 2015 comes from the secondary data
• Savings, costs, and participation are calibrated in 2014 to line up
with the secondary data
• Assumes small increased participation in current programs through 2035
(0.5% increase each year, max 10% over 20 years)
• 111(d) 2014
• Assumes each state will reach the proposed goals from the EPA’s Clean Power Plan
111(d) Building Block 4 that were developed in 2014
• Although the final rule does not include Building Block 4, energy efficiency will still be a
large contributor to savings. We decided to keep this metric as it was originally planned,
including keeping the first year of goals in 2020, and not 2022.
• Energy savings goals are established for 2020 through 2029
• Analysis assumes that additional programs will be added in order to help meet the
goals
• For existing programs, we assume a higher participation rate as a result of presumed increase in
marketing and awareness
20
• For programs not currently offered in the region, we assume that the program comes online in
2018 at a low participation rate
Eastern Interconnection Peak Savings 2015-2035
Existing Programs Plus case
• Demand response savings in 2015 reflect programs currently in place, which lower peak demand by
7.3% by 2035
• DR programs reduce the baseline summer peak demand by 5.2% in 2015
• By 2035, the cumulative effect of EE programs reduces the baseline summer peak by 5.1%
• By 2035, the cumulative effect of DG programs reduces baseline summer peak demand by 2.1%
Existing
Programs
21
Existing Programs Plus
*Retail sales at the meter, does not include losses.
Existing
Programs
Existing Programs Plus
Eastern Interconnection Energy Savings, 2015-2035
Existing Programs Plus case
• In the Existing Programs Plus case, energy savings primarily come from energy
efficiency programs throughout the study
• By 2035, the cumulative effect of DG programs reduces the baseline energy
sales by 0.4%
Existing
Programs
22
Existing Programs Plus
*Retail sales at the meter, does not include losses.
Existing
Programs
Existing Programs Plus
Results for 111(d) 2014 Case
• In the following slides, we introduce the potential
estimates associated with an alternative case:
111(d) 2014 assumes that all utilities will have all
programs that are included in the EP+ case as
well as the new programs included for this study
• We assume that utilities will prioritize energy-efficiency
actions to meet the goals
• We begin with the energy savings results first
since carbon savings, which impact energy most,
are the focus of 111(d)
23
111(d) 2014
Existing Programs Plus
Eastern Interconnection Energy Savings 2015-2035
Comparison of two potential cases
• To reach the 111(d) 2014 goals, we increased participation in existing programs and also
introduced new programs. Participation increases varied across the programs.
Existing Programs Plus
24
*Retail sales at the meter, does not include losses.
111(d) 2014
Eastern Interconnection Peak Savings 2015-2035
Comparison of two potential cases
• In the process of reaching the 111(d) 2014 energy-savings targets, utilities will also see
significant peak demand savings
• In addition, there is modest increase in savings from demand response programs
Existing Programs Plus
25
*Retail sales at the meter, does not include losses.
111(d) 2014
Next Steps
• Incorporate stakeholder feedback
• Finalize estimates
• Run results through EGEAS
• Complete Futures analysis
26
Thank You!
Ingrid Rohmund
760.943.1532
irohmund@appliedenergygroup.com
Bridget Kester
858.780.2635
bkester@appliedenergygroup.com
Fuong Nguyen
510.982.3532
fnguyen@appliedenergygroup.com
Ken Walter
510.982.3530
kwalter@appliedenergygroup.com
Supplemental Slides
MISO LRZ MAP for 2014 Planning Year
LRZ
29
Local Balancing Authorities
1
DPC, GRE, MDU, NSP, OTP, SMP
2
ALTE, MGE, MIUP, UPPC, WEC, WPS
3
ALTW, MEC, MPW
4
AMIL, CWLP, SIPC
5
AMMO, CWLD
6
BREC, DUK(IN), HE, IPL, NIPS, SIGE
7
CONS, DECO
8
EAI
9
CLEC, EES, LAFA, LAGN, LEPA
10
EMI, SME
Mapping of Utility Programs to Analysis Programs
Residential
Program Type
# of 2014 Programs
Direct Load Control
DR
6
Dynamic Pricing
DR
None
Appliance Incentives
EE
50
Appliance Recycling
EE
11
Behavioral Programs
EE
5
Lighting
EE
12
Low Income Programs
EE
24
MultiFamily Programs
EE
4
Whole Home Audits
EE
17
New Construction
EE
9
Customer Solar PV
DG
2
Customer Wind Turbines
DG
2
EV Smart Charging
DG
None
Battery Storage
DG
None
Thermal Storage
DG
None
Program Name
30
Commercial and Industrial (C&I)
Program Type
# of 2014 Programs
Curtailable and Interruptible
DR
6
Direct Load Control
DR
2
Dynamic Pricing
DR
1
Lighting
EE
17
Prescriptive
EE
41
Custom Incentives
EE
16
New Construction
EE
3
Retrocommissioning
EE
15
Customer Solar PV
DG
1
Customer Wind Turbines
DG
1
Thermal Storage
DG
1
Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
DG
None
Battery Storage
DG
None
Program Name
* Bold font and Italic indicates programs that are not offered currently
by utilities in MISO but are included in this study.
AEG Approach for MISO Potential Study
Potential estimates
Develop Potential
Cases
Varying participation rates
Varying program costs
Full slate of programs across all LRZs
Base-year program results
Characterize
Programs
The approach for MISO starts here
Measure and program descriptions
Current program savings and budgets
End-use forecast by segment
Forecast the
Baseline
Forecast data
Utility survey data Secondary data
Base-year energy use by segment
Characterize the
Market
Utility survey data
AEG’s Energy Market Profiles
Establish deliverables
31
Secondary data
What Has Changed and is New Since the 2009 Study?
• Geography
• Analysis at the LRZ level instead of planning region (does not include Manitoba Hydro)
• Adds the MISO South Region
• Scope of Programs
New
New
• Adds distributed generation
• Combined heat and power (CHP), solar, wind and energy storage
• Adds behavioral programs for EE
• Expands DR to include load control of space heating and water heating
• Modeling Approach
• Uses LoadMAPTM, AEG’s Load Management Analysis and Planning tool
• An bottom-up analysis approach
• Explicitly accounts for appliance standards
• Accounts for existing and new programs
• This study includes two levels of potential
• Reference case is now Existing Programs Plus – current programs with modest growth
• Also looks at EPA 111(d) 2014 – savings if utilities were to meet building block 4 guidelines
32
New