• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Energy Efficiency in the State of Minnesota
 

Energy Efficiency in the State of Minnesota

on

  • 484 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
484
Views on SlideShare
372
Embed Views
112

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 112

http://mncee.org 99
http://www.mncee.org 13

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Energy Efficiency in the State of Minnesota Energy Efficiency in the State of Minnesota Presentation Transcript

    • Energy Efficiency in the State of Minnesota Prepared By: Jessica Burdette Conservation Improvement Program Supervisor Jessica.burdette@state.mn.us
    • • Overview• Performance• New Guidance• Moving Forward• Q&A
    • OVERVIEW
    • • Long standing commitment to energy efficiency in Minnesota• National recognition for energy efficiency work in Minnesota• Regulations and programs continue to evolve• Partnerships with industry stakeholders• Achievement of real results
    • Customer (Utility Bill Reduction) Society Utility (System-(Avoided wide Costs) Benefits)
    • • Participating Customers • Reduced Utility Bills • Incentives• Society • System-wide Benefits • Avoided rate hikes • Non-energy benefits• Utilities • Avoided Production, Generation, Transmission and Distribution Costs • Energy Efficiency as the lowest cost resource
    • Regulatory AgenciesIndustry Trade Utilities Allies CIPEnvironmental State Advocacy Legislature Groups Consumers/ Ratepayers
    • PERFORMANCE
    • The greatest impact of the 2007 NGEA was the changefrom a 1.5% spending goal to a 1.5% savings goal.SPENDING SAVING
    • $25 140 1.4% 120 Annual Savings (in Millions of kWh) $20Expenditures (in Millions of $) 100 1.0% $15 0.8% 80 Expenditures Savings 60 $10 40 $5 20 $0 0 2008 2009 2010
    • $1.4 140,000 2.7% $1.2 120,000Expenditures (in Millions of $) $1.0 1.4% 100,000 Annual MCF Savings $0.8 0.5% 80,000 Expenditures Savings $0.6 60,000 $0.4 40,000 $0.2 20,000 $0.0 - 2008 2009 2010
    • Program Cost per kWh Saved (Excluding Infrastructure Improvements) 0.018 0.016$ per lifetime kWh @ the Gen. 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0 2008 2009 2010
    • Program Cost per MCF Saved 2.5 2.0$ per Lifetime MCF Saved 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2008 2009 2010
    • Electric Savings - MWh 1,000,000 900,000 34% 800,000 700,000 12%MWh Savings 600,000 28% 500,000 14% 400,000 Electric Savings - 300,000 MWh 200,000 100,000 - 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Note: % indicates annual increase in savings
    • Natural Gas Savings - MCF 3,000,000 2,500,000 42% -8%MCF Savings 2,000,000 18% -18% 1,500,000 Natural Gas 1,000,000 Savings… 500,000 - 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Note: % indicates annual increase/decrease in savings
    • NEWGUIDANCE
    • • Low Income Programming in Multifamily Buildings with 5+ Units• What qualifies as Low Income?• Guidance does not define income guidelines, but provides resources
    • • Buildings with at least 66% units occupied by LI households.• Resources • DOE Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) Lists • Low Income Renter Certification (LIRC) Report • Use Restriction – Mortgage Covenant
    • Qualifying Customers:• Electric utility customers that use delivered fuels for space and water heating.• Electric utility customers that are served by municipal gas utilities exempt from CIP.• Low Income Only
    • Potential Measures:• Thermal Efficiency Measures (i.e. Insulation)• Mechanical Efficiency Measures (i.e. Furnaces)• Water Heating Measures (i.e. Low Flow Showerheads)
    • • Utilities may claim kWh savings based on energy savings from displaced fuel.Fuel Unit kWh#2 Fuel Oil Gallon 40LP Gallon 27Natural Gas MCF 293
    • LOOKING AHEAD
    • • Energy Efficiency • Cost/kWh or Cost/MCF• Load Management • Cost/kW• Use ESP Analytics • Review and Compare Program Costs
    • Why Measurement & Verification?• Measurement and verification (M&V) validates energy and demand savings• Gives ratepayers assurance that CIP $$ is delivering actual savings• M&V reinforces notion of efficiency as a resource
    • • Electric Utility Infrastructure Upgrades• Solar Energy Programs• Codes and Standards• Custom Projects/M&V
    • Energy Efficiency = Resource • Lowest Cost Resource • Cost Effective Investments • Short/Long Term Benefits to Customers • Non-Energy Benefits (i.e. Economic)
    • The state continues to have a positive dialogue with utilitiesto identify and work through the goal implementation.
    • Questions ?