From:Poli, Patricia (LARA) [mailto:
Sent:Thursday, May 11, 2017 6:18 PM
Subject:Energy Waste Reduction IRP WG - Draft Scenarios Under Consideration. Input needed.
EWR Potential Study IRP Work Group,
Below is a quick recap of the efforts of this work group including where we are headed and where we need feedback and input from you!
Where we were:
As you know, the Commission, among other things, was tasked with conducting an assessment of the potential for energy waste reduction in this state and identifying economic, technical and achievable potential. In recognition of the tight timeline presented in the law, the MPSC Staff proposed to leverage the territory-specific, 2016 energy efficiency potential studies contracted for by DTE Energy and Consumers Energy, as a starting point for developing an estimate of statewide assessment of optimum achievable potential. Consumer Energy and DTE Energy provided their potential studies for posting on the EWR Potential Study webpage. Interested stakeholders were invited to review these potential studies, ask clarifying questions and provide suggestions for alternate scenarios and sensitivities to remodel the utility potential studies for purposes of capturing a statewide assessment of optimum achievable potential. These alternate scenarios are particularly important considerations in light of the removal of the cost cap for energy waste reduction measures.
In early April, stakeholders responded to the Staff invitation to provide comments/questions/recommendations. Staff reviewed stakeholder input and tried to synthesize them into a manageable proposal/request for alternate scenarios/sensitivities, considering the limited time and funding available.
Where we are headed:
The attached document identified as aDraft Under Considerationhas 4 additional scenario ideas proposed in consideration of the stakeholder comments. Below is a quick summary.We need stakeholder feedback on whether these scenarios reasonably capture the goals of this workgroup to identify a statewide assessment of achievable potential.
Scenario 1:sensitivity analysis on incentive levels
Several commenters requested a scenario assuming 100% (instead of 50%) of the incremental cost for measures/bundles was used.
Scenario 2:maximum investment/emerging technologies
This scenario includes various assumptions to get an estimate of optimum achievable potential.
-Assume higher avoided costs,
-Assumehigher incentive of 100% of measure cost,
-Include all low-income measures regardless of UCT ratio,
-Assume increased market penetration assumptions,
-Revise assumptions for LED lighting technologies which fail cost-effectiveness in year 1,
-Include emerging Technologies –Stakeholders are invited to suggest additional emerging technologies for consideration, but due to time constraints, supporting data must be provided.
Scenario 3:Upper Peninsula Modeling and Potential Study:
We’d heard feedback that the Upper Peninsula wanted a potential study which reflected the unique circumstances in the UP. With that in mind, I sent an email on May 8 with a proposal for consideration to conduct a quick study. Absent anyresponse to that proposal, the alternate plan is to estimate the Upper Peninsula energy waste potential using the data from the 2013 and 2016 potential studies.
Scenario 4:Carbon Scenario
There were several ‘alternate future’ scenarios proposed. A carbon scenario seemsinclusive in many of these scenarios withthe idea that anincreased fuelcost would make more energy efficiency measures cost-effective.Stakeholders are invited to suggestareasonable proxy for carbon ($/ton)
Where we need feedback:
1.Proposed scenarios.
Are they reasonable assumptions for purposes of estimating conditions for an optimum achievable potential? When you answer this, keep in mind that staff made a very good faith attempt to propose alternate scenarios which will capture additional data points on an energy efficiency supply curve.
2.Emerging Technologies.
If you have some insight on specific technologies that are not represented in the MEMD, please share this information and include supporting data.
3.Reasonable range for a carbon tax.
4.Anything else??
Timing:
This process has taken longer than expected and we are certainly behind the tentative schedule initially planned. If you could provide a reply by COB Tuesday May 16 that would be helpful.
Stakeholder Questions answered:
I summarized stakeholder questions and GDS provided answers. These answers are provided in the attached document“Responses to Stakeholder Inquiries”.
Thank you for your time, effort and patience with this stakeholder process!!
Let me know if you have any questions.
Patricia M. Poli
Manager, Energy Waste Reduction Section
Michigan Public Service Commission
517-284-8072