Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide

1
Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation
Guide

• Steve Schiller. Schiller Consulting
• steve_at_schiller.com
• CEE Annual Conference
• January 2008

2
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
Released on July 31, 2006 at the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
meeting Goal To create a sustainable, aggressive
national commitment to energy efficiency through
gas and electric utilities, utility regulators,
and partner organizations Over 60 member
public-private Leadership Group developed five
recommendations and commits to take
action Additional commitments to energy
efficiency exceeds 120 organizations Facilitated
by US DOE and EPA www.epa.gov/eeactionplan

• National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
• Recommendations
• Recognize energy efficiency as a high-priority
  energy resource.
• Make a strong, long-term commitment to implement
  cost-effective energy efficiency as a resource.
• Broadly communicate the benefits of and
  opportunities for energy efficiency.
• Provide sufficient, timely and stable program
  funding to deliver energy efficiency where
  cost-effective.
• Modify policies to align utility incentives with
  the delivery of cost-effective energy efficiency
  and modify ratemaking practices to promote energy
  efficiency investments.

3
Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation
Guide

• Published in November 2007 after a year long
  national committee process
• Guide was developed because a need was identified
  for documents that foster best practices and
  promote consistent evaluations of programs
• Provides a structure and several model approaches
  for
• Calculating energy and demand savings
• Calculating avoided emissions
• Facility (non-transportation) energy efficiency
  programs

4
The Participants

• Advisory Group
• Commissioner Dian Grueneich, California PUC
  (co-chair)
• Diane Munns, EEI (co-chair)
• Chris James, formerly of Connecticut DEP
• Rick Leuthauser, MidAmerican Energy Company
• Jan Schori, Sacramento Municipal Utility District
• Peter Smith, formerly of NYSERDA
• Technical Group
• Steve Schiller, Schiller Consulting (Principal
  Author)
• Derik Broekhoff, World Resources Institute
• Nick Hall, TecMarket Works
• M. Sami Khawaja, Quantec
• David Sumi, PA Consulting
• Laura Vimmerstedt, National Renewable Energy Lab
• Ed Vine, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
• Reviewers
• Draft sent to hundreds

5
Objectives

• This Guide was produced to provide
• A model impact evaluation process that can be
  used by individual jurisdictions (states,
  utilities, etc.) with their own specific
  evaluation requirements
• Basic descriptions and guidance, in a policy
  neutral manner, of evaluation options and issues
• List of reference documents and resources
• Readers should be able to
• Define the basic objectives, structure and
  evaluation approaches that will be used for their
  own program-specific, impact evaluation
• Using the Guide and other documents referenced in
  Guide, prepare a complete program impact
  evaluation plan.

6
Audience

• Program evaluation managers
• Resources and background on evaluation and
  statistical analyses
• Guidance, or a roadmap, on process and key issues
  relating to
• Documenting energy and/or demand savings
• Documenting avoided emissions
• Program designers
• Understanding of how their programs will be
  evaluated
• Energy efficiency community
• Common terminology definitions
• A central reference document
• References for publicly available best practices
  resources
• An understanding of the mechanisms for
  determining the potential value of energy
  efficiency as an emissions avoidance strategy
• Policy-makers
• Information about the basic principles of
  efficiency evaluation.

7
Why a Program Guide?

• Programs are different from projects
• There are widely recognized protocols for the
  measurement and verification (MV) of energy
  savings from single projects
• e.g., International Performance Measurement
  Verification Protocol (IPMVP)
• Similar widely accepted policy neutral protocols
  or guidance documents for measuring energy
  savings from programs do not exist

8
Scope Programs Addressed

• Primary focus (i.e., includes detailed guidance)
  
• Resource acquisition, downstream energy
  efficiency programs - directly achieve energy
  and/or demand savings, and possibly avoid
  emissions, through specific actions
• Very Secondary focus (i.e., addressed, but no
  detailed guidance)
• Other demand-side programs Market
  transformation, codes and standards, demand
  response, and upstream efficiency programs will
  be referenced
• Supply-side programs renewable energy and
  combined heat and power (CHP) program

9
Scope Evaluation Focus

• Primary focus
• Impact evaluation, including kWh, kW, therm
  savings and avoided emissions
• Three basic gross savings analysis approaches
• Four basic net savings analysis approaches
• Two basic avoided emission analysis approaches
• Very Secondary focus
• Process and market evaluations
• Potential studies
• Cost-effectiveness evaluation

10
Contents
Also includes about 40 sidebars of
examples/clarifications and 25 figures and tables
11
Issues Addressed

• Defining evaluation goals and scale, including
  deciding which program benefits to evaluate
• Setting time frame for evaluation and reporting
  expectations
• Setting spatial boundary for evaluation (i.e.
  what energy uses, emission sources, etc. will be
  included in the analyses)
• Defining baseline, baseline adjustments, and data
  collection requirements
• Establishing a budget vis-à-vis expectations for
  quality of reported results
• Selecting impact evaluation approaches for gross
  and net savings calculations and avoided
  emissions calculations
• Selecting who (or which type of organization)
  will conduct the evaluation

12
EMV Issues Not Addressed (yet)

• Context
• Efficiency is the first resource and a critical
  part of cheap, reliable, clean and stable energy
  systems
• Efficiency is the first mechanism for energy
  sector climate change mitigation
• 50- 80 GHG emissions reduction is required for
  climate stabilization
• EE has a key role according to IPCC, IEA,
  McKinsey and other studies
• Needed resource and climate impact evaluation
  requirements are not policy-neutral (but the
  Guide is)

13
EMV Issues Not Addressed (yet)

• Questions
• How will efficiency savings be documented as
  real?
• What is additional?
• How does one attribute the savings to a
  particular activity?
• How accurate, is accurate enough and how are
  transaction costs controlled?
• Will cross-jurisdictional, post-Kyoto,
  international requirements (standards) be
  established? Is that a good idea?
• How will the data, tools and technology for
  cost-effective EMV be developed and supported?