Energy Efficiency in the State of Minnesota

Prepared By: Prepared By: Jessica Burdette

Conservation Improvement Program SupervisorJessica.burdette@state.mn.us

• Overview

• Performance

• New Guidance• New Guidance

• Moving Forward

• Q & A

OVERVIEW OVERVIEW

• Long standing commitment to energy efficiency in Minnesota

• National recognition for energy efficiency work in Minnesotawork in Minnesota

• Regulations and programs continue to evolve

• Partnerships with industry stakeholders

• Achievement of real results

Customer(Utility Bill Reduction)Reduction)

Society(System-

wide Benefits)

Utility(Avoided Costs)

• Participating Customers• Reduced Utility Bills• Incentives

• Society• 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 Agencies

UtilitiesIndustry Trade Allies

State Legislature

Consumers/Ratepayers

Environmental Advocacy

Groups

Allies

CIP

PERFORMANCE

The greatest impact of the 2007 NGEA was the change

from a 1.5% spending goal to a 1.5% savings goal.

SPENDING SAVING

1.5% savings goal.

100

120

140

$20

$25

Ann

ual S

avin

gs (

in M

illio

ns o

f kW

h)

Exp

endi

ture

s (in

Mill

ions

of $

)

1.0%

1.4%

0

20

40

60

80

$0

$5

$10

$15

2008 2009 2010A

nnua

l Sav

ings

(in

Mill

ions

of k

Wh)

Exp

endi

ture

s (in

Mill

ions

of $

)

Expenditures

Savings

0.8%

100,000

120,000

140,000

$1.0

$1.2

$1.4

Ann

ual M

CF

Sav

ings

Exp

endi

ture

s (in

Mill

ions

of $

)

0.5%

1.4%

2.7%

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

$0.0

$0.2

$0.4

$0.6

$0.8

2008 2009 2010

Ann

ual M

CF

Sav

ings

Exp

endi

ture

s (in

Mill

ions

of $

)

Expenditures

Savings

0.5%

0.014

0.016

0.018

$ pe

r lif

etim

e kW

h @

the

Gen

.

Program Cost per kWh Saved(Excluding Infrastructure Improvements)

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

2008 2009 2010

$ pe

r lif

etim

e kW

h @

the

Gen

.

2.0

2.5

$ pe

r Li

fetim

e M

CF

Sav

ed

Program Cost per MCF Saved

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2008 2009 2010

$ pe

r Li

fetim

e M

CF

Sav

ed

12%

34%

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

Sav

ings

Electric Savings - MWh

14%

28%

12%

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

MW

hS

avin

gs

Note: % indicates annual increase in savings

Electric Savings -MWh

-8% 18%

42%

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

MC

F S

avin

gs

Natural Gas Savings - MCF

-18%18%

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

MC

F S

avin

gs

Note: % indicates annual increase/decrease in savin gs

Natural Gas Savings …

NEW GUIDANCEGUIDANCE

• 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 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)(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 40

LP Gallon 27

Natural Gas MCF 293

LOOKING LOOKING AHEAD

• Energy Efficiency• Cost/kWh or Cost/MCF

• Load Management• Load Management• Cost/kW

• Use ESP Analytics• Review and Compare Program

Costs

Why Measurement & Verification?

• Measurement and verification (M&V) validates energy and demand savingssavings

• 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• 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 utilities

to identify and work through the to identify and work through the goal implementation.

Questions?