?                     Pacific Northwest electricity generation resources, 2001 (pie chart). Hirsh noted that this chart does not include energy resources that serve the Northwest but lie outside the region's geographic boundaries, such as California service and Montana coal.

?                     A schematic of the study approach, using the Council's 4^th Plan as a benchmark.

?                     Changes to load projections in the 4^th plan ? fewer electrically-heated homes, new refrigerator standards, new freezer standards, new water heater standards, new clothes washer standards, faster-than-predicted residential growth, faster-than-predicted commercial growth, no change in DSI load, slower-than-predicted growth in non-DSI industries -- in all, a net change of only -54 aMW from the prediction in the 4^th Plan)

            Your prediction of faster-than-expected residential load growth is a large number, said Charlie Grist ? can we get a little explanation of that number? We looked at actuals, which showed much more rapid growth than that predicted in the 4^th Plan, Lazarus replied ? there was a lot more growth than what the 4^th Plan predicted, and we just sort of ramped that up into the future, assuming that growth would continue. And the DSI assumption? another participant asked. We didn't want to try to predict what was going to happen with the DSIs, instead assuming the status quo, because nobody knows what's going to happen there, Hirsh replied.

            You show industrial load growth going from a 1994 estimate to a 2020 estimate, said another participant; it shows growth higher than in any other sector. How did you arrive at that 47% overall growth figure? he asked -- frankly, we just don't see anything of that nature happening. What sectors will that growth be coming in? he asked. We're assuming various manufacturing industries will contribute, Lazarus replied; frankly, I, too was a bit surprised by that number, and given recent events, it may be high. In my view, all of these numbers need to be revisited before they're used as the basis for future planning. I'll get back to you on the specific responses to your questions, Lazarus said. This is actually a little lower than the Council's 1994 forecast for 2015, Hirsh noted.

            Moving on, Hirsh and Lazarus touched on:

?                     End-use demands and efficiency measures ? residential, commercial and industrial (tables)

            The group offered a few clarifying questions and comments on this section of the analysis as well, touching on the assumed savings from residential space heating conversions from electricity to gas, the assumptions underlying the active vs. standby plug loads and standby losses estimate, the accuracy of the study's residential lighting and cooling load growth estimates given the currently- conflicting analyses of these measures? growth potential; the commercial lighting assumptions in the study, and the differences between the 4^th and 5^th Plans? load demand and efficiency estimates.

            One participant noted that one of the greatest challenges facing the Council in the development of the 5^th Power Plan is predicting which industries will drive the Northwest economy in the years to come, given the fact that the assumptions and estimates in previous Power Plans have been so far off-base. He added that, at least in certain areas, the conclusions in the Tellus Institute study rely to an alarming degree on dated, secondary information, rather than primary data-gathering.

            Next, Hirsh moved on to graphs showing estimated commercial efficiency savings to 2020 (about 950 aMW), residential efficiency and fuel switch savings to 2020 ((about 1,600 aMW), industrial/other efficiency savings to 2020 (just under 1,400 aMW), commercial, residential and industrial net annual benefits and costs, and overall results in terms of efficiency, fuel switch and combined heat and power (CHP) measures:

                                    Savings (aMW)                                    Cumulative NPV Benefits

            Hirsh and Lazarus also touched on wind resource cost and potential (with and without production tax credit), regional biomass electricity options, and the following summary of renewable resource results (assuming 2010 costs)

                                                Total 2020 Potential                 Generation Cost (cents per kWH)

            Hirsh then shared a graph illustrating a combined resource scenario, identified (achievable) efficiency/fuel switch potential, with 20% of electricity production by non-hydro renewables by 2020. She noted that, according to the Tellus study, such a combined resource scenario would result in a 67% decrease in CO2 emissions after 2015.

            Finally, Hirsh offered the following conclusions:

?                     Cost-competitive efficiency and renewable energy resources are more abundant than commonly assumed, and far more than are being pursued

?                     Major reductions in (electricity) CO2 emissions are possible at limited cost or net economic benefit

?                     More in-depth understanding of demand patterns and markets (especially industrial) would be beneficial

?                     The merits of specific policy instruments (offset requirements, portfolio standards, tax incentives, efficiency standards etc.) need to be evaluated.

            We appreciate the opportunity to present this study, said Hirsh; Michael and his group are available for any further analytical needs the Council may have, and to answer any questions you may have about this report. I think this will be extremely helpful to the Council's efforts, said Charlie Grist.

3. Lunchtime Presentation: Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs).

            During lunch, Lisa Skumatz, Principal of Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA), provided a presentation titled ?Non-Energy Benefits ? Residential and Commercial Research, Results and Implications.? Among the highlights of this presentation:

?                     Introduction (what are non-energy benefits?)

?                     Purpose and topics ? NEBs and rationale, measured NEBs, Focus on participant side, applications and results, innovations and next steps

?                     Programs and progress

?                     Enhancements

?                     NEB-IT model and analysis

?                     What NEB benefits categories have been proposed and measured/estimated? ? utility and ratepayer NEBS (payment-related and gas emergency items), societal perspective NEBs (health and safety, environmental preservation, other externalities, economic benefits, water and wastewater savings/avoided cost, reduced public transfer payment savings, neighborhood preservation), resident participant NEBs

?                     An analysis of the results based on model scenario analysis

?                     Conclusions from basic work

?                     The uses of this information ? benefit/cost test (?adders?), design program, measures, recipients to maximize program benefits, program targeting/marketing, important for tailoring/marketing/designing and understanding

?                     Participant benefits ? measurement and implications

?                     Residential participant-side NEBs

?                     Recent efforts to measure participant benefits

?                     Residential participation NEBs ? weatherization programs

?                     Residential negative benefits mentions

?                     Top-ranking benefit mentions ? low-income weatherization (bill concern changes, comfort, abiulity to pay/control, features, help environment, maintenance/reliability, home appearance

?                     Measurement methods used for participant-side NEBs

?                     Conclusions on participant measurement methods

?                     What about commercial sector NEBs?

?                     Commercial program examples ? multi-resource audit, training/outreach

?                     Key commercial non-utility benefits named ? lighting and HVAC, water, refrigeration, other

?                     Which NEBs are most recognized by commercial participants?

?                     Implications of this information

?                     Can we estimate what these commercial NEBs are worth to occupants?

?                     What commercial buildings value

?                     Simplified commercial results for multi-resource audit program

?                     Review, implications and next steps

?                     Summary/order-of-magnitude results

?                     What participants value and care about (commercial and residential)

            Skumatz offered the following NEB results and implications:

Implications

?                     Reduced paybacks ? 1/4-1/6 as long (<1 year in some cases); regulatory tests

?                     NEBs important ? more than outweigh energy benefits

?                     Societal benefits diffused... but policy implications

?                     Participants strongly value ? high benefits by participant (vary by type)

Variations in Benefits by Type of Program Target etc.:

?                     Easily tailored, estimated (scenarios) with NEB-IT model, already tailored to several utilities, user-friendly/adaptable to many programs

?                     Can/must adjust for measures included, size of program, design etc. ? adjusted per savings etc. Allows discount variations etc.

?                     Targeting implications: arrears, gas, older homes, high bills/short account history

?                     Commercial business and measure implications, actors, sectors...

 

            Skumatz moved on to the uses of NEB estimates and model:

?                     Examine full benefits to match costs ? program and policy decisions

?                     Improve potentially valued service to customers-design

?                     Maximize benefits of program

?                     Select between programs holding costs constant

?                     Use to distinguish program and offeror ? market to customers

?                     Talk in terms customers value ? NOT (only) efficiency, energy

?                     Market/target/design programs, interventions, training etc.

 

            Skumatz then provided the following summary:

?                     NEBs offer strong benefits to participants and others

?                     It is important to make explicit program decisions, incorporating NEBs, to optimize full picture

?                     Measurement for program targeting/refining

?                     Improves ability to speak in participant value terms in marketing, etc. ? not kWh, not efficiency, respond and use what they are telling us they care about.

 

            She finished by touching on research results and future research directions:

Areas of Future/Ongoing SERA Research

?                     Participant ? key for targeting/marketing/addressing barriers

?                     Refining volatile/potentially large NEBs (environmental and economic)

?                     ?Normalizing? to apply across programs: control, attribution, ?net? (for smaller programs). Horizons... and retention.

?                     Education ? control, persistence, sharing... see recent publications

?                     Commercial a strong focus ? new ?add-on? project.

 

SERA's NEB-IT Model and Studies Moved Beyond ?Conceptual:?

 ?                     Quantitative estimates and identified needed future work ? organized/speeded computations. Widely used/cited by others.

?                     Tailoring model for different clients ? ?next level? and USER-friendly.

 

            A round of applause greeted the conclusion of this presentation. The obvious question is that this work is so good, why haven't people taken it up? said one participant. I think it has been taken up, in some cases, Skumatz replied. But why isn't there a bigger demand for these services? another participant asked. We may not be marketing this work in the terms its end-users can readily understand, Skumatz replied. Cars, for example, are marketed based on non-product values, but energy efficiency, at this point, is not ? I'm suggesting that we start marketing energy efficiency in a different way, a way that reflects the findings of this study, she said.

 

4. Presentation and Discussion of Draft Conservation Resource Assessment for Residential Lighting, Appliances and Domestic Water Heating.

            Eckman said that, with respect to the supply curve for the residential sector, he has completed the first cut for lighting, appliances and domestic water heating He began with a graph demonstrating a supply curve for residential lighting, appliance and domestic water heating technical potential in 2025, charting resource potential against levelized cost (mills/MWh). He then proceeded through a detailed set of levelized cost tables illustrating what might go into the plan, and what might go into the targets in the plan.

            Eckman went through the statistical underpinnings of his analysis, touching on a state-by-state summary of residential customer characteristics, population and housing units by state, current residential load growth estimates out to 2025, house demolition rates, and appliance saturation data. Eckman then moved into the analysis by specific appliance area: residential lighting, Energy Star clothes washers, residential appliance and water heating, Pacific Northwest housing data, Pacific Northwest residential sector supply curve units, residential water heater heat recovery and solar residential water heater.

            How do these supply curves fit with Michael Lazarus's work? asked one participant. My residential supply curves are larger, Eckman replied. In response to another question, Eckman said the residential air conditioning portion of his analysis will not be huge. In response to another question, Eckman said he has been unable to find any freezers that qualified for Energy Star. In fact, he said, if one looks at the data for the current models they don't appear to comply with the new federal standard.

            The discussion turned to what is technically realizable vs. what is realistically achievable in the marketplace; Eckman noted that ?realizable? conservation has historically equaled 85% of technically potential conservation. Eugene Rosolie noted that it could be problematic if only 75% of potential conservation is, in reality, realizable; if utilities are going to be penalized for not achieving 85% of the technically-realizable conservation, then we need to be very careful about the numbers we select, he said. Eckman asked all of the CRAC participants to send him their best estimates of realizable conservation targets prior to the next meeting.

5. Next CRAC Meeting Date.           

            The next meeting of the Conservation Resources Advisory Committee was set for January, actual meeting date T.B.A. Meeting summary prepared by Jeff Kuechle, NWPPC contractor.