The Program Administrator Cost of Energy Saved for Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs

Billingsley, Megan

doi:10.2172/1129528

Cited by 33 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…LCSG = levelized cost of saved GHGs in $/MT CO 2 e. CRF = capital recovery factor. d = Discount rate; assumed 4.5% (Billingsley et al 2014). y = Estimated program lifetime in years.…”

Section: Cost Savings Relative To Existing Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The estimated impact of California’s urban water conservation mandate on electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions

Spang

Holguin

Loge

2018

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In April 2015, the Governor of California mandated a 25% statewide reduction in water consumption (relative to 2013 levels) by urban water suppliers. The more than 400 public water agencies affected by the regulation were also required to report monthly progress towards the conservation goal to the State Water Resources Control Board. This paper uses the reported data to assess how the water utilities have responded to this mandate and to estimate the electricity savings and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions associated with reduced operation of urban water infrastructure systems. The results show that California succeeded in saving 524 000 million gallons (MG) of water (a 24.5% decrease relative to the 2013 baseline) over the mandate period, which translates into 1830 GWh total electricity savings, and a GHG emissions reduction of 521 000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO 2 e). For comparison, the total electricity savings linked to water conservation are approximately 11% greater than the savings achieved by the investor-owned electricity utilities' efficiency programs for roughly the same time period, and the GHG savings represent the equivalent of taking about 111 000 cars off the road for a year. These indirect, large-scale electricity and GHG savings were achieved at costs that were competitive with existing programs that target electricity and GHG savings directly and independently. Finally, given the breadth of the results produced, we built a companion website, called 'H2Open' (https://cwee.shinyapps.io/greengov/), to this research effort that allows users to view and explore the data and results across scales, from individual water utilities to the statewide summary.

show abstract

“…LCSG = levelized cost of saved GHGs in $/MT CO 2 e. CRF = capital recovery factor. d = Discount rate; assumed 4.5% (Billingsley et al 2014). y = Estimated program lifetime in years.…”

Section: Cost Savings Relative To Existing Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The estimated impact of California’s urban water conservation mandate on electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions

Spang

Holguin

Loge

2018

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The quality of data used for cost-effectiveness determination, particularly factors such as project lifetimes and project costs, varies. 824 As EM&V methods become more accurate and less expensive to administer, they will also help improve the analysis of the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency program administration.…”

Section: Cost-effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, three key concerns were found in compiling and analyzing program information on a regional or national basis, some of which could be addressed by the common typology and standardized definitions: (1) savings and program costs are not defined consistently, (2) program data are not reported consistently across states, and (3) programs and market sectors are not characterized in a standardized fashion. 856 Thus, efforts to better standardize EM&V-related terms, data taxonomy, data dictionaries, and communication specifications are needed to enable more consistent ("apples to apples") comparisons and meaningful summation of results from different activities and jurisdictions. Such efforts could also promote better understanding of the uncertainty around savings measurements.…”

Section: Consistent Reporting and Program Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electricity End Uses, Energy Efficiency, and Distributed Energy Resources Baseline

Schwartz

Wei

Morrow

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 ...

show abstract

“…It was built on the combination of public policies to set the direction of socially responsible economic growth with support for basic research and programs to create markets. 13 The private sector responded with investment in innovation and clean energy patents proliferated, followed by rapid deployment as costs fell. 14 While the cost of nuclear power remained high and appeared to be rising, the cost of wind and other low-carbon alternatives plummeted.…”

Section: Cost Of Supplymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Coal's capital and O&M costs are about two-thirds of total costs. 13 The recognition of the technological revolution came first in the academic literature, then in the popular press. See, for example, Avent [4] and Leonhardt [94,95].…”

Section: Demand and Grid Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Renewable and distributed resources in a post-Paris low carbon future: The key role and political economy of sustainable electricity

Cooper

2016

Energy Research & Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Program Administrator Cost of Energy Saved for Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs

Cited by 33 publications

References 11 publications

The estimated impact of California’s urban water conservation mandate on electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions

The estimated impact of California’s urban water conservation mandate on electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions

Electricity End Uses, Energy Efficiency, and Distributed Energy Resources Baseline

Renewable and distributed resources in a post-Paris low carbon future: The key role and political economy of sustainable electricity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About