Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Joint Energy Committee Meeting Minnesotas Conservation Improvement Program

Bill Grant, Deputy Commissioner Jessica Burdette, CIP Supervisor

February 5, 2013

Overview and History of CIP


1980:
PUC directed to initiate a pilot to demonstrate the feasibility of investments in EE

1989: All Public utilities


were required to operate conservation improvement programs. Oversight transferred from PUC, low-income requirements added.

1991:
A specific level of spending was required (1.5% electric, 0.5% gas) & munis and coops were included.

2007:
Next Generation Energy Act

1983: Utilities with revenues greater than


$50 million were required to operate at least 1 conservation program. Required significant investment.

2010: 1994: Prairie Island settlement


required [Xcel] to spend 2.0% of their annual GOR. Programs began to be evaluated against a pre-set goal. 1.5% Savings Goal for Utilities takes Effect

Why Energy Efficiency?


Ratepayer Benefits Utility System Benefits Economic Benefits Environmental Benefits Risk Management

Energy Efficiency as a Resource


Alternatives Forecast Forecast DSM Strategist Model
Size, Type, & Timing Approved

Alternatives

Environment & Socioeconomics

Existing Generation Facility Approved

Finance Adjustments

Assign Costs Public Participation

Alternatives

Environmental Review

Forecast Adjustments

Design Rates

Rate Increase Approved

Siting /Routing Approved & Constructed

Current CIP Responsibilities


Technical Assistance and Outreach

Review and Evaluation


Conservation Applied R&D

Current Areas of Interest:


Large Customer Exemptions Low Income Programs DG and CHP Ongoing support for CIP staff/reporting tools

CIP Low Income


Utilities are required to spend .2% of their residential gross operating revenue for CIP. $8.2 million of CIP spending used to leverage federal dollars for the Weatherization Program. Each $1 spent on Weatherization measures create an additional $1.09 of economic activity. Serves those who spend 17% of their income on energy compare to non low-income who spend 4%.

CIP Performance
$200 $150 $100 $50 $0 2006 Expenditures ($1M) $50 $40 $30 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.9%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Electric Utility Performance

1,000 Incremental Savings (GWh) Incremental Savings (Bcf) 800 600 400

1.4%

1.5%

200 0

Natural Gas Utility Performance

$20
$10 $0
2011

1.0%

0.5 0.0

Expenditures

Savings

CIP Performance 2009-2011


2.5 million MWh and 7.3 million Dth saved. Enough energy saved to heat, cool and power 46,203 homes annually. Over 40 million tons of CO2 emissions avoided over the life of the projects. Enough CO2 emissions avoided to take 169,017 cars off the road for one year. Avoided two 500 MW combined cycle plants since 2007.

Nationwide Context: Minnesota Ranking