Should CDR or SARA be Adjusted
to Better Account for
EE, DR and DG?
Cyrus Reed
DSWG
September 21, 2012
What I Will Cover Very Briefly
1.
1. What is currently covered in SARA and CDR
2.
2. Areas for possible expansion of EE/DR
Resource in CDR
A. IOU Efficiency Programs -- goals and
achievements
B. NOIE Efficiency Programs -- What we know
and way forward
C. TDHCA Weatherization Programs -- some
small gains
D. Political Subdivision EE Programs -- what we
know and don't
E. Building Code Adjustments -- do Codes
matter?
F. Distributed Generation -- Already covered
above?
G. Others – Price-Responsive DR?
E. Market-Based DR?
3. Conclusions and Next Steps
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Why do we care?
 Fundamental changes are being discussed at PUC in
regards to wholesale energy cap, potential for more
ancillary services and potential for capacity market
 The CDR is the one document read by policy makers,
investors and others to determine the adequacy of
our market to provide energy
 The role of EE, DR and DG is being recognized more
and more, but has not been incorporated into CDR
1. What DR/EE is currently covered
in SARA and CDR
 SARA
 Not Much
 short-term ERS and LARS
depending on season
 CDR
 A bit more
 ERS, LARS
 Investor-Owned Utilities EE
 Have now incorporated
50% of the required
Demand Savings (30% of
growth) for ERCOT-based
IOUs from 2013 through
2022
Investor-Owned Utilities EE Programs
 Most utilities in Texas are not only meeting their goals but
exceeding them
 CDR only takes 50 percent of expected savings
 SARA Could be Adjusted to Take Into Account some
Percentage of EE Demand Reduction in that Year
 CDR Should be Adjusted to Take A Larger Portion of EE
Expected Savings – most demand reduction is focused on
summer demand reduction
 We could at least adjust the next calendar year based upon
April Filings
2013 EE Numbers in CDR and in IOU Reports
Utility
2013 DR Goal
2013 Expected
DR
Oncor
63.1
120
75% of
Expected
Savings
CDR 2013
90
Centerpoint
51.2
248
186
AEP TNC
3.01
5.4
4.05
AEP TCC
12.93
31
23.25
TNMP
5.02
9.2
6.9
Sharyland
1.3
2.3
1.725
Total
137
416
240 MWs
311.92
NOIE Efficiency
 NOIE have efficiency programs as well though they are not
statutorily required
 SB 924 (2011) requires all Cooperatives and Municipal
Utilities to report their EE programs, goals and
achievements to SECO annually
 The First reports were delivered in April of 2012 and only
covered 2011 year
 The Reports are not helpful generally in determining the
amount of EE – all over the map in type of information
provided
 SECO has sent the reports to ESL for analysis of any EE
savings, which is required by statute
 Likely ESL will not be able to say much because reports are
too incomplete
Some NOIE Numbers, 2011
Utility
Energy Savings
Demand Savings
CPS Energy
78,427 efficiency, plus
more for demand
response
17.9 MW for Efficiency,
94 MWs for DR
Austin Energy
118,000 MWh
44.7 MW
Bluebonnet
Goals reported but not
achievement
Brownsville
1,300 MWh
9 MW
Denton Municipal
257 MWh
Not reported
Pedernales
10,500 MWh
4.5 MW
How to Incorporate NOIE EE
 Two largest Municipal utilities – AE and CPS Energy – have long
term goals, dedicated funding stream and do have annual
reports separate from SECO reports. Both of these utilities are
saving 20 to 60 MWs per year for EE plus much more for DR.
 PEC, Bluebonnet, Brownsville and United Electric have
established goals for Energy Efficiency and have annual budgets
though savings are currently in the 1 to 5 MW range
 Recommendation: Improve reporting requirement and
incorporate ESL report into CDR Long-term but for immediate
work with CPS Energy and Austin Energy and maybe Pedernales
to add municipal EE and DR into next CDR at some level
TDHCA Weatherization Programs –
some small gains
 TDHCA is now required to report annually on their energy
savings and units weatherized through their 27 subrecipients
 2011 and 2012 are one-time large numbers because of ARRA
 2012 report covers 2010 Data – no look forward
 Report shows significant energy savings and some 24,000 Units
weatherized but the energy savings are based on old DOE
assumptions – no independent analysis
 Recommendation: Could do small adjustment based on funding
streams but given present budget not worth it
 IF SBF fund ever begins funding weatherization again, or there is
another ARRA, could consider change
Political Subdivision EE Programs
 Under SB 5(2001) and more Recent SB 898 (2011), political
subdivisions, educational facilities and state agencies in 41 nonattainment areas are required to look at annual 5% reduction in
energy use and report to SECO on their savings achieved
 Reports for previous year due on October 1
 Reports Analyzed by Energy Systems Lab to assess energy
savings and emission reductions
 Reporting in KWhs not in Demand Reduction
 ESL currently does annual Emissions and Energy Savings Report
– which includes SB 5 and SB 898 and includes projections –
based on Kilowatt Hours and would need factor to convert to
demand savngs
 Work with ESL to develop methodology to convert EE Savings
into Projected Demand Savings
Do Energy Codes Matter?
 SECO is required to assess with input from ESL every next residential or
commercial energy code
 SECO adopted 2009 IECC and 2009 IRC codes in 2010 and made them
state law by 2012
 ESL has now recommended 2012 Code Adoption and SECO should begin
rulemaking process soon
 Local municipalities like Austin and Houston above state minimum
 ESL charged with measuring energy savings and emissions reductions
due to code compliant construction
 2012 Report found that adopting of energy codes in Texas had reduced
peak demand between 2002-2009 by 684 MWs
 Recommendation: Utilize ESL existing data to adjust energy savings
projections to add demand reduction for energy codes
 (Example: 2012 codes lead to 15% reduction in demand from average
home – project slight adjustment in growth curve because of new home
starts in Texas)
ESL Already Does This Analysis In
Part, but focus is NOX reductions
ESL Generates Annual Energy Savings-NOX Generation Data from 10
Data Points, that are used to project savings:
Single-family homes
Multi-family homes
Commercial Savings
Federal Buildings
PUC Efficiency Programs
Political Subdivision EE Programs
SECO Programs (LOANSTAR)
Wind and Other Renewable Savings
SEER 13 Analysis
Furnace Pilot
RECOMMENDATION: INVITE ESL TO PRESENT THEIR RESULTS AND
DISCUSS TO WHAT EXTENT WINTER AND SUMMER DEMAND REDUCTION
CAN BE INCORPORATED
Distributed Generation -Already covered above?
Many of the utility EE programs already cover Renewable
DR Programs and NO further Adjustment Needed
(Example: Austin, AEP)
However, to the extent that self-generators start to
report to ERCOT or Utilities report these connections or
distributive resources to PUC this distributed generation
could be added into ERCOT projections as a new resource
Again, ESL also looks at energy savings from renewables
How are distributed utility-owned resources like
Webberville incorporated?
Others
 Price responsive DR – leave it to survey and other
work to determine
 Market-based DR – no adjustment needed yet until
market rules in place
Conclusions
 Upward adjustment in CDR for IOU programs each
year as programs are rolled out to better reflect
reality
 Incorporate NOIE EE programs but begin only with AE
and CPS Energy and maybe PEC until ESL and SECO
establish more formal reporting and analysis
 Weatherization – no adjustment needed unless
funding goes back up to major levels
 Work with ESL and SECO to incorporate demand
projection savings for SB 898and SB 924 reporting
 Work with ESL on incorporation of demand savings
for energy code compliant housing and make slight
adjustment in projections for new growth
 DRG – no adjustment except potential incorporation
of self-reported data
 Market and passive DR – jury still out