Achievable Potential Study - LDC Working Group Meeting #1 #7

Transcription

1 Achievable Potential Study - LDC Working Group Meeting #1 #7 Minutes of Meeting Date held: June 23 rd, 2015 Time held: 1:00pm 4:00pm Location held: IESO Office Invited/Attended Company Name Attendance Status (A)ttended; (R)egrets; (T)eleconference; Mike Marchant Toronto Hydro A George Katsuras Hydro One A Andy Armitage Thunder Bay Hydro A Kristin Rice Hydro Ottawa A Stephen Sottile Utilities Kingston R David Whitehouse Peterborough Utilities R Matt Weninger Guelph Hydro T Gary Rains London Hydro A Sam Ramtahal Enersource R Steve Zebrowski Veridian T Weston Sagle Greater Sudbury Hydro A Sean Perry Niagara Peninsula Energy A Bob Collins IESO A Sorana Ionescu IESO A Evelyn Lundhild IESO A Kausar Ashraf IESO A Nik Schruder IESO R Bronwen Smith IESO A Simon Geraghty IESO A Simon Zhang IESO A Lily Buja-Bijunas IESO R Hanna Smith IESO R Musab Qureshi MOE A Tom Eckman NPWC T Afreen Khan Electricity Distributors Assoc. R Takis Plagiannakos Ontario Energy Board A Valerie Bennett Ontario Energy Board A Charlotte Friel ECO A Tracy Lynch Union Gas R Scott Hicks Enbridge Gas R Scribe: Christina Jung, IESO Please report any corrections, additions or deletions by to bronwen.smith@ieso.ca. June 23 rd,

2 Meeting Objectives: 1. Receive an update on the procurement for the achievable potential study, LDC data collection and NG achievable potential study 2. Receive information from the NW Power Council on their experience tracking EE results against AP estimates 3. Discuss the objectives and the scope of work for the BMG potential analysis 4. Discuss the impact of the implementation of residential distribution fixed rates on the AP study Co-chair Bob Collins kicked-off the meeting with a roll call and review of the meeting objectives. Bob then asked for comments on last meeting s minutes and reviewed the open action items. A member noted that the evaluation team was revised after the last meeting with Matt Weninger replacing Stephen Sottile who had to recuse himself from the process. Pending this change, the members agreed to adopt the minutes as final. Item 1a Update on the procurement for the achievable potential study Bronwen Smith provided an update on the procurement of a consultant for the achievable potential study. The IESO received proposals from four qualified vendors on the Conservation s Market Transformation and Engineering Vendor of Record list. The evaluation team reviewed the proposals and held interviews with the top proponents last week. The evaluation team agreed on the selection of a preferred proponent. The IESO is in the process of finalizing the contract with the successful proponent. The IESO will be able to share the name of the successful proponent with the Working Group members when the contract is executed. The project kick-off meeting is expected to be scheduled for mid to late July. Item 1b Update on the LDC data collection process Kausar Ashraf provided an update on the LDC data collection process. Kausar noted that the IESO received a higher number of responses than expected, receiving data from 35 LDCs compared with the 22 LDCs that had committed to submit data in the survey. Kausar shared the Achievable Potential Study Master Tracking List that tracks the actual submitted data with the committed data. Mike Marchant will send out the Tracking List to the LDC Regional Representatives and to remind them to follow up with LDCs in their region who committed to provide data but have yet to submit it. The deadline for data submission is July 9th. The IESO is also in the process of collecting additional data from the OEB, which LDCs submit to them but is not published as part of the OEB yearbook. The Working Group members asked Kausar one question related to her presentation: A member asked about how to transfer a large data file. The IESO responded that data should be uploaded to the LDC s file in the IESO Portal. There is a file under each LDC called AP Data submission. Item 1c Update on the gas achievable potential study June 23 rd,

3 Takis Plagiannakos of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) provided an update on the natural gas achievable potential study. The OEB is in the process of finalizing the DSM Technical Working Group to support the natural gas achievable potential study. The DSM Technical Working Group will be comprised of representatives from Enbridge, Union Gas, IESO, Thunder Bay Hydro, Ministry of Energy (MOE), the Environmental Commissioner s Office (ECO), as well as several expert members. The first Working Group meeting will be scheduled for either 2nd or 3rd week of July to draft the scope of work for the RFP and the plan is to have a consultant on board by the end of August. Item 2 Information from NW Power Council Bronwen Smith invited Tom Eckman of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPC) to speak to the Working Group about NWPC s experience tracking EE results against Achievable Potential estimates. Tom is the Director of the Power Division at NWPC and he has over 35 years of experience in integrated resource planning and energy efficiency and he has been involved in all six of the NWPC s integrated resource plans. The Working Group members asked Tom several questions related to his presentation: A member asked what the change to the electricity rate has been in the Northwest over the period that the studies were conducted. Tom responded that the average electricity bill has been fairly flat since 1992 with per capital energy consumption declining since 1980s, which has offset the increases to the rate. A member referred to a slide on Planned vs. Actual Accomplishments by Major End Use and asked why there is a 20% - 100% variance between planned and actual accomplishments at major end use level. Tom responded that the variance between planned vs. actual depends on how well the ramp rate assumptions align with program assumptions and which programs electric utilities choose to focus on to achieve the savings. A member mentioned that Ontario s funded savings is only about 0.8% of electricity sales per year compared to 1.3% in Northwest. The members highlighted the need to understand the underlying reasons why the Northwest is achieving more savings than Ontario. A member asked if there are any other jurisdictions in the U.S. that have more aggressive savings. Tom responded that some states including Massachusetts and California are near the top achieving 1.5 to 2% of retail sales; however, the national average is 0.6%. Item 3 Objectives and scope of work for the BMG potential analysis Bronwen presented the objectives and the plan for the Behind the Meter Generation (BMG) potential analysis. Bronwen noted that separating the BMG analysis from the Achievable Potential Study was identified as the best practice since a different methodology is required for the two analyses. Similar to Achievable Potential analysis, the BMG analysis will be used to inform the mid-term review. Some of the key discussion points during Bronwen s presentation include: Need to ensure that the interactive effects between the BMG analysis and Achievable Potential study are considered in order to avoid double counting of the results Should obtain details on existing or current BMG projects from CLEAResult May be able to address challenges with data availability (i.e. identifying applicable customer and June 23 rd,

4 their consumptions, types of technologies applicable, sector payback thresholds) by engaging LDCs, Power System Planning at IESO, and Energy Managers in data collection process Should include both transmission and distribution connected customers in the BMG analysis The Working Group members asked Bronwen one question related to her presentation: A member asked if BMG analysis will include the impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The IESO responded that the BMG Rules require overall system efficiency on a higher heating value (HHV) basis of 65% for behind the meter CHP projects. At this level of efficiency BMG projects are expected to result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (refer to Fuel Switching Guideline). The members suggested that the impact on greenhouse gas emissions should be included in the consultant s scope of work. Bronwen recommended that a BMG sub-working group is established to support the development of scope of work and the procurement of a consultant. The Working Group adopted this recommendation. Any interested LDCs should contact Mike Marchant or Bronwen Smith about participation on the BMG sub-working group. The time commitment for the sub-working group is anticipated to be a one hour call and half an hour of prep work weekly. Item 4 Impact of implementation of residential distribution fixed rates At the last Conservation First Implementation Committee (CFIC) meeting, the issue of the impact of the implementation of residential distribution fixed rates was raised with a question about how this would be considered in the APS. The item was therefore referred to the APS WG for discussion. Based on the analysis that the OEB has conducted the impact of this change is anticipated to be very small or negligible. About 57% of the customers will see no change, or will see a bill increase or decrease of less than $5 a month. As well the impact of this change will be implemented gradually over 4 years with a limit to any change to a monthly charge of $4 per year. As a result of this analysis, market research of the residential sector and discussions with the expert panel, the IESO stated that it is their position that the impact of the implementation of the residential distribution fixed rates will have a negligible impact on the achievable potential for the residential sector in the period. As part of the APS, an updated price forecast, with the new rate design, will be used to calculate the payback periods to determine the achievable potential savings. However, the impact of the implementation of residential distribution fixed rates will not be quantified separately as part of the study. The Working Group agreed that this would sufficiently address the item and the decision would be reported back to CFIC. The IESO will distribute the OEB reports as well as the blog that the ECO wrote on this topic. Wrap-Up and Next Steps The next Working Group meeting will be scheduled for late July. The consultant will be presenting the project plan in this meeting. The IESO will send out materials in advance of the meeting. Bronwen will June 23 rd,

5 send out a doodle poll to finalize the date and time of the meeting. The Working Group identified the following highlights from the meeting to share with LDCs via the e- blast. 1) Procurement update 2) Establishment of BMG sub-working Group 3) Update on LDC data collection Action Items # Date Action Status Comments 5.1 April 8 Interested LDC members to contact Mike Marchant about participation on the DSM Technical Working Group 6.1 May 5 LDC members to submit data available for the Study Thunder Bay Hydro has volunteered. The final deadline for data submission is July 9 th. 6.2 May 5 IESO to send out BMG materials in advance of the next meeting 6.3 May 5 LDCs to prepare a high-level estimate and details of the BMG projects currently in their pipeline for the next meeting 7.1 June 23 IESO to share the name of the successful proponent with the Working Group when the contract is finalized. 7.2 June 23 Mike Marchant to send out information for Regional Representatives to follow up with LDCs on data submission 7.3 June 23 Kausar to obtain additional data from OEB 7.4 June 23 Interested LDC members to contact Mike Marchant about participation on the BMG subworking group 7.5 June 23 Bronwen to send the link to the OEB distribution rate design reports June 23 rd,