Assessing Impacts in California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) Presentation to Demand Assessment Working Group George Simons, Director Itron August 16, 2013 Itron, Inc. Overview Leading technology provider to global utility industry 110 million communication modules 8,000+ customers in 130 countries 8,000 employees $2.4 billion (2011 USD) 2 Itron: Consulting and Analysis Group Who we are: Part of Itron’s Professional Services Group Staff of ~80 C&A Professionals Economists, Engineers, Statisticians, Load and Market Researchers Offices in Oakland, CA; San Diego, CA; Davis CA, Vancouver, WA; and Madison, WI What we do: Energy Efficiency Demand Response Renewables and Distributed Generation Load Research Market Research Integration of Resources (IDSM and Smart Grid) © 2009, Itron Inc. 3 Renewables and Distributed Generation Strongly focused on generation located on the distribution side of the electricity system Includes solar (PV and thermal), wind, biomass and conventional and renewable-fueled generation and combined heat and power (CHP) Services include: Market assessments for DG/renewables/CHP Program and project performance evaluations Cost-effectiveness and economic analyses Advanced DG technology cost and performance assessments Sub-metering for evaluation and performance monitoring Assistance related to integrating DG technologies into the grid © 2009, Itron Inc. 4 Itron’s Role in the SGIP Itron has been the SGIP prime evaluator since 2001 Services: Impacts evaluation Process evaluation Performance metering Cost-effectiveness analysis Topical reports and products Examples of products © 2009, Itron Inc. 11 annual impact evaluations 22 semi-annual renewable fuel reports DG cost-effectiveness framework (2005) SGIP cost-effectiveness evaluation (2007) DG Cost-effectiveness study and model (SGIPce) 2011 Optimizing Dispatch and Location of Distributed Generation (2010) 5 SGIP Impacts Evaluations Evaluations cover: Status of program Critical trends Energy impacts Annual Coincident peak demand Transmission and distribution impacts Compliance with efficiency requirements Useful thermal (waste heat recovery) Overall system efficiency Reliability and performance Greenhouse gas impacts Foreward look at SGIP © 2009, Itron Inc. 6 Overall Approach on Assessing Impacts SGIP population of technologies is varied Legacy systems (IC engines, microturbines, gas turbines, fuel cells, wind) New systems (fuel cells, wind, storage) Based on statistical sampling Targeting 90% confidence with 10% precision Some legacy systems we can only achieve 70/30 Determine sample based on strata Metered data needed: Fuel consumed by SGIP generator Net electricity produced by SGIP generator (interval data) Useful thermal energy recovered (for CHP systems) Metered data sources: Host sites, project developers, utilities Third party providers Performance data providers (PDPs) emerging in SGIP Itron installed metering (on behalf of PAs) Net electricity (over 190) Useful thermal energy (over 120) © 2009, Itron Inc. 7 Data Collection for Impacts Evaluation Not a one time process Data collected on an on-going basis throughout the preceding year Data collection and processing Converting multiple sources of data in different formats to common formats Time/date stamp alignment Data validation When does zero mean zero generation vs no communication? QA/QC Verifying that values “look” correct Site Inspection Reports Monitoring Plans Weather Data SiteLevel QA/QC Electrical, Thermal, Fuel Raw Interval Data © 2009, Itron Inc. 8 SGIP: A Closer Look at Operational Status SGIP represents legacy projects installed over the past eleven years and newer projects Important to distinguish “on-line” versus decommissioned projects Decommissioned defined as equipment has been out of service and removed from the site On-line projects may be temporarily down at times Not always able to accurately identify decommissioned projects Loss of contacts and reporting from older projects leads to “unknown” designations On-line © 2009, Itron Inc. Technology No. of Projects Rebated Capacity (MW) IC Engines 176 115.4 Fuel Cells 109 Gas Turbines Microturbines Decommissioned Percent Total Rebated Capacity Unknown Percent Total Rebated Capacity No. of Projects Rebated Capacity (MW) Percent Total Rebated Capacity No. of Projects Rebated Capacity (MW) 62% 33 14.9 76% 46 25.9 57% 28.6 15% 6 1.3 6% 16 8.4 19% 7 24.5 13% 0 0 0 1 1.2 3% 92 18.3 10% 21 17% 27 3.1 7% Wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6.8 15% Total 384 186.8 100% 60 19.6 100% 100 45.3 100% 3.4 9 SGIP: Capacity and Utilization Capacity reflects program participation Enables measurement of trends by technology, fuel, etc. Utilization reflects use of capacity Critical in assessing impacts Also provides valuable information on aging trends © 2009, Itron Inc. 10 Examples of Trending with Utilization and Capacity Utilization trending can help identify how project age affects capacity factor Figure at left shows clear increase in off-line capacity with age and associated decline of average annual capacity factor Capacity trending can show impacts due to capacity changes Graph at right demonstrates how lower growth in IC engine capacity affected annual energy delivery from IC engines over time © 2009, Itron Inc. 11 Treatment of Calendar vs Year in Operation (Age) Calendar year provides information that allows year to year comparisons and trending Figure on left shows annual capacity factor trends by year Year in operation (year) provides information on how performance of technologies vary with time in the field Figure on right shows changes in capacity factor as the technology ages © 2009, Itron Inc. 12 SGIP: Annual Energy Impacts Annual energy impacts estimated at different levels and timeframes: Program-wide and at Program Administrator level Broken out by technology and fuel type By quarter and annual Trended over time Can be by technology or portfolios © 2009, Itron Inc. 13 SGIP: Peak Demand We look at peak impacts at various levels CAISO system demand Summer peak Impacts at top 210 hours Utility system peak demand Peak at distribution feeders Peak at customer site Intent is to determine influence of SGIP technologies on resource adequacy Are SGIP DG technologies available when needed? Assess using hourly capacity factors during peak © 2009, Itron Inc. 14 SGIP: Transmission and Distribution System Impacts With increasing amounts of DG capacity projected for the future, peak impacts occurring below the CAISO and utility peak demand become more important Began examining DG generation impacts on distribution feeder peaks Significantly different investigation Findings: DG can help unload distribution feeder peaks Unloading impact tied to DG capacity and may become more pronounced with increasing amounts of DG DG impacts tied to feeder characteristics (e.g., customer mix, length, etc) © 2009, Itron Inc. 15 SGIP: Optimizing DG Dispatch Feeder studies showed DG can help unload distribution system Occurred haphazardly; without design by project or utility Shown by example in top figure Same demand curve Can DG resources be operated to meet both needs of site and utility? Led to study on optimizing dispatch and location of DG resources under the SGIP Bottom figure shows how load following generator can help address feeder demand © 2009, Itron Inc. 16 SGIP: Optimizing DG Dispatch (cont’d) Affects of blending multiple DG resources? Looked at same representative feeder with intermittent PV and multiple load following DG Same demand curve Multiple DG not only addresses feeder demand but firms intermittent PV Created representative “look-up” tables Full set of results in topical report: “Optimizing Dispatch and Location of Distributed Generation” © 2009, Itron Inc. 17 SGIP: Combined Heat & Power Efficiencies CHP makes up an increasing amount of SGIP capacity Important to determine efficiencies Useful thermal energy efficiency Overall system efficiency 𝐸𝐶𝐸 = © 2009, Itron Inc. 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 (𝐿𝐻𝑉) 𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 = 𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 (𝐿𝐻𝑉) 18 SGIP: Useful Thermal Energy Investigated applications for thermal energy The majority of projects recovered waste heat to offset boilers However, a significant amount of CHP capacity used recovered energy for combined heating and cooling Electric only DG technologies have emerged in recent years Useful waste heat recovery rates vary by building type also © 2009, Itron Inc. 19 SGIP: Overall System Efficiencies Non-renewable CHP systems must achieve a high overall system efficiency to achieve GHG benefits Represents sum of electrical and thermal energy efficiency Several observations: Gas turbines achieved the highest system efficiencies, followed by IC engines All electric fuel cells achieve modest system efficiencies Realizable useful thermal efficiencies dependent on thermal loads at host sites and coincidence to electrical loads © 2009, Itron Inc. 20 SGIP: Trending of Electrical and Thermal Energy We examined delivery of energy by electricity and thermal from inception of the SGIP going forward Interestingly, fuel cells have increasing capacity and associated electricity delivery but provide little thermal energy delivery We’re seeing growth in fuel cell capacity. Most of emerging fuel cell capacity tied to all electric fuel cells. Implications to GHG aspects? © 2009, Itron Inc. 21 SGIP: Greenhouse Gas Emissions A primary goal of SGIP is to achieve net GHG emissions reductions (relative to baseline use) Reductions tied to: Electrical load Heating load Cooling load Also affected by use of renewable fuels Estimates based on 8760 hour per year treatment © 2009, Itron Inc. 22 SGIP: GHG Emissions from Non-Renewable CHP Electricity: Baseline: CA mix of resources and GHG from E3 calculator SGIP: generated electricity on 8760 basis Heating: Baseline: boiler fuel used onsite SGIP: useful waste heat is assumed to offset boiler fuel Cooling: Baseline: on-site cooling from electric chillers SGIP: useful waste heat directed to absorption chillers Observations: Fuel cells and gas turbines showed net GHG emission reductions for non-renewable CHP What is happening and why? © 2009, Itron Inc. 23 SGIP: CHP Electrical Efficiency & GHG Emissions SGIP net GHG emissions driven by several factors: CA electricity mix Historically driven by mostly natural gas fueled central station systems – Most of the year, the grid supplies electricity from efficient (45% plus) combined cycle systems – During peak (< 500 hrs per year) is generated from older, less efficient (3035%) combustion turbines SGIP CHP resources With exception of fuel cells, SGIP CHP have low electrical efficiency – Can’t “beat” combined cycle for most of the year on an efficiency basis – Results in grid having lower GHG emissions than SGIP generator © 2009, Itron Inc. 24 SGIP: Thermal Efficiency & GHG Emissions Except for all electric fuel cells, non-renewable CHP can’t rely on electrical conversion efficiency to obtain net GHG reductions Instead, must rely on useful heat recovery to obtain net GHG reductions Examined SGIP CHP historical useful heat efficiencies Compared to theoretical useful heat recovered needed to obtain net GHG reductions In general, non-renewable CHP must consistently have higher than observed useful waste heat recovery to achieve net GHG emission reductions © 2009, Itron Inc. 25 SGIP: Looking to the Future (CHP) 2030 technical potential Source: ICF © 2009, Itron Inc. 26 SGIP: Getting to There from Here (CHP) These are the greatest areas of CHP potential in the industrial sector at 2030 • • © 2009, Itron Inc. Chemicals and food industries represent over 1,300 MW in CHP sizes up to 5 MW Over 700 MW of potential in the 5 – 20 MW range Smaller scale CHP has good potential across the commercial sector • • Commercial buildings, hotels, hospitals and govt buildings represent over 3,000 MW of potential capacity in CHP sizes up to 5 MW Universities have over 500 MW of technical capacity at sizes larger than 5 MW 27 Capacity Growth is Only One Goal Meet the CARB Scoping Plan GHG target for CHP • 6.7 MTons of GHG reductions by 2020 • Be cost effective GHG method Develop DG/CHP that is responsive to utility and customer needs • Provides ramping as needed • Cost effective peak relief measure • Helps firm the electrical grid © 2009, Itron Inc. 28 Increasing and Competing Demands in the Next Decade Decisions being made now are fashioning the future grid Interconnection of intermittent renewables Significant Reductions in GHG Emissions Growth of DG and CHP © 2009, Itron Inc. 50% of RPS interconnected by 2013; 65% by 2016; and 75% thereafter 6.7 million metric tons from CHP alone by 2020 12,000 MW of DG and 6,500 MW of CHP by 2020 29 Currently, Conflicting Results from SGIP Projects GHG Emissions Peak Demand How to realize these benefits from mixing and blending projects Mixed GHG reductions Consistent GHG reductions How CHP systems respond to thermal or electrical demand can affect GHG emission outcomes © 2009, Itron Inc. Many Peak Demand Targets High Volatility When Unplanned DG and CHP projects currently target customer demand; not utility demand. Left unplanned, future DG & CHP projects may exacerbate peak demand and congestion issues Begin by examining site electrical and thermal demands among high potential end uses 30 Investigating High Opportunity Approaches We have 8760 hourly electrical and thermal demand profiles for each of these commercial end uses based on SitePro We can use these profiles to determine: • Smaller scale CHP has good potential across the commercial sector • • © 2009, Itron Inc. Commercial buildings, hotels, hospitals and govt buildings represent over 3,000 MW of potential capacity in CHP sizes up to 5 MW Universities have over 500 MW of technical capacity at sizes larger than 5 MW • • Sizing to meet thermal demand and reduce GHG emissions Sizing to meet on-site electrical demand that does not lead to thermal dumping Identification of possible electricity export to the grid 31 Electrical Demand: Inland Hospital Summer Weekdays Targeting this electrical load with a self generator could help offset the hospital’s peak demand over typical summer weekdays 14 hrs duration ~ 350 kW “Peak” electrical demand for 13 hours (7 am to 8 pm) ranging from approximately 250 kW to 350 kW © 2009, Itron Inc. 32 Thermal Demand: Inland Hospital Summer Weekdays This is the hospital’s thermal load that could be offset using waste heat recovery from a CHP system. Note that only thermal uses are offset (i.e., cannot offset cooking from natural gas with CHP) 15 hrs duration ~ 1 MM Btu/hr A minimum of 1 million Btu/hr of thermal demand for 15 hours (5 am to 8 pm) © 2009, Itron Inc. 33 Example of Optimizing GHG Reductions GHG reductions can be achieved at realistic heat recovery rates From earlier work, we know that heat recovery rates between 2 to 6 kBtu/kWh are needed to achieve GHG reductions for non-renewable CHP systems. 15 hrs duration If an ICE CHP system is used to meet the 1 MMBtu/hr thermal demand at the hospital, a heat recovery rate of at least 4 kBtu/kWh is needed to achieve GHG reductions. • Generator = (1,000 kBtu/h)/4 kBtu/kWh • Generator = 250 kW © 2009, Itron Inc. 34 Matching Electrical to Thermal Demand: Inland Hospital Summer Weekdays hrsfuel duration 10014kW cell for remaining electrical needs 25015 kW system for hrsCHP duration thermal and some electrical needs To optimize GHG reductions, we set the CHP system to recover 4 to 5 MBtu per kWh of generated electricity. Per our example, to ensure consistent recovery of 1 MM Btu/h of thermal energy using 4 MBtu per kWh, this could mean using an ICE CHP generator capacity of 250 kW. Note that this also provides the customer site with 250 kW of “peak” electricity that does not have to be procured and delivered by the utility. However, a 250 kW CHP system does not fully meet the electrical needs of the site. An all electric fuel cell with a rating of up to 100 kW could provide the remaining electrical need and not increase GHG emissions (i.e., no thermal dumping of waste heat that could not be used by the site). © 2009, Itron Inc. 35 Electrical Demand: Inland Hotel Summer Weekdays Hotels are another example of a high potential end use ~ 250 kW 16 hrs duration Targeting this electrical load with a self generator could help offset the hotel’s peak demand over typical summer weekdays “Peak” electrical demand for 16 hours (6 am to 10 pm) ranging from 125 kW to 250 kW © 2009, Itron Inc. 36 Thermal Demand: Inland Hotel Summer Weekday This is the hotel’s thermal load that could be offset using waste heat recovery from a CHP system. Note that only thermal uses are offset 15 hrs duration ~ 600,000 Btu/hr A minimum of ~ 600,000 Btu/hr of thermal demand for 15 hours (5 am to 8 pm) © 2009, Itron Inc. 37 Matching Electrical to Thermal Demand: Inland Hotel Summer Weekdays 100 fuel cell 16 hrs kW duration for remaining electrical needs hrs duration 15015kW CHP system for thermal and some electrical needs To optimize GHG reductions, we set the CHP system to recover 4 to 5 MBtu per kWh of generated electricity. To ensure consistent recovery of 600,000 Btu/h of thermal energy using 4 MBtu per kWh, this could mean using an ICE CHP generator capacity of 150 kW. Note that this also provides the customer site with 150 kW of “peak” electricity that does not have to be provided by the utility. However, a 150 kW CHP system does not fully meet the 250 kW electrical needs of the site. An all electric fuel cell with a rating of up to 100 kW could provide the remaining electrical need and not increase GHG emissions (i.e., no thermal dumping of waste heat that could not be used by the site) © 2009, Itron Inc. 38 What About Differences Between Summer and Winter Demands? 14 hrs duration 17 hrs duration Winter electrical demand is 50% of summer demand but more consistent and of longer duration 15 hrs duration 15 hrs duration Winter thermal demand (magnitude and duration) is about the same as the summer demand but more consistent This suggests that the CHP unit be sized to meet the thermal demand and meet lower electrical demand to be operated year round. Use of an all electric fuel cell would be limited to meeting increased hospital demand during the summer and could provide export during winter. © 2009, Itron Inc. 39 Summary of Matching Electrical and Thermal Demands to Coordinate Benefits Achieving Simultaneous GHG and Responsiveness Benefits Requires: Establish GHG Baseline - Thermal and electrical Size Electrical Identify: demand profiles (8760 profiles ideally) - Balancing of thermal and electrical loads - May require multiple generation systems to achieve GHG reductions and peak relief - Minimum thermal demand across largest duration - Extent to which thermal demand varies (ramping) - CHP heat recovery rate needed to achieve GHG reductions (based on technology) Developed on: - Electrical generation tied to thermal load - Any additional generation needed to meet customer electrical demands - Identification of amount and timing of any generation that has potential for export to grid However, this doesn’t address responsiveness for utility needs; must also balance electrical generation with distribution and transmission needs. Possible interplay of DG within microgrid settings. © 2009, Itron Inc. 40