National Laboratory is an equal opportunity employer.ii Scope and OrganizationThis report was developed by a team of analysts at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, with Argonne National Laboratory contributing the transportation section, and is a DOE EPSA product and part of a series of "baseline" reports intended to inform the second installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review (QER 1.2). QER 1.2 provides a comprehensive review of the nation's electricity system and cover the current state and key trends related to the electricity system, including generation, transmission, distribution, grid operations and planning, and end use. The baseline reports provide an overview of elements of the electricity system. This report focuses on end uses, electricity consumption, electric energy efficiency, distributed energy resources (DERs) (such as demand response, distributed generation, and distributed storage), and evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) methods for energy efficiency and DERs.Chapter 1 provides context for the report and an overview of electricity consumption across all market sectors, summarizes trends for energy efficiency and DERs and their impact on electricity sales, and highlights the benefits of these resources as well as barriers to their adoption. Lastly it summarizes policies, regulations, and programs that address these barriers, highlighting crosscutting approaches, from resource standards to programs for utility customers to performance contracting.Chapters 2 through 5 characterize end uses, electricity consumption, and energy efficiency for the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors as well as electrification of the transportation sector. Chapter 6 addresses DERs-demand response, distributed generation, and distributed storage.Several chapters in this report include appendices with additional supporting tables, figures, and technical detail. In addition, the appendix also includes a separate section that discusses current and evolving EM&V practices for energy efficiency and DERs, approaches for conducting reliable and costeffective evaluation, and trends likely to affect future EM&V practices. Description of Energy Models aUnless otherwise noted, this report provides projections between the present-day and 2040 using the "EPSA Side Case," a scenario developed using a version of the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). Since the EPSA Side Case was needed for this and other EPSA baseline reports in advance of the completion of EIA's Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2016, it uses data from EIA's AEO 2015 Reference Case, the most recent AEO available at the time. However, since AEO 2015 did not include some significant policy and technology developments that occurred during 2015, the EPSA Side Case was designed to reflect these changes.The EPSA Side Case scenario was constructed using EPSA-NEMs, b a version of the same integrated energy system model used by EIA. The EPSA Side Case input assumptions were based mainly on the final ...

The program administrator and total cost of saved energy allow comparison of the cost of efficiency across utilities, states, and program types, and can identify potential performance improvements. Comparing program administrator cost with the total cost of saved energy can indicate the degree to which programs leverage investment by participants. Based on reported total costs and savings information for U.S. utility efficiency programs from 2009 to 2013, we estimate the savings-weighted average total cost of saved electricity across 20 states at $0.046 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), comparing favorably with energy supply costs and retail rates. Programs targeted on the residential market averaged $0.030 per kWh compared to $0.053 per kWh for non-residential programs. Lighting programs, with an average total cost of $0.018 per kWh, drove lower savings costs in the residential market. We provide estimates for the most common program types and find that program administrators and participants on average are splitting the costs of efficiency in half. More consistent, standardized and complete reporting on efficiency programs is needed. Differing definitions and quantification of costs, savings and savings lifetimes pose challenges for comparing program results. Reducing these uncertainties could increase confidence in efficiency as a resource among planners and policymakers.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract