ML11348A186
| ML11348A186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/14/2011 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML11348A126 | List:
|
| References | |
| RAS 21536, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML11348A186 (43) | |
Text
NYS000080 Submitted: December 14, 2011 Organization Of The Study This complete study is presented in seven volumes. They are organized as follows* :
- Volume 1 Summary Report, which is contained in the following 42 pages.
- Volume 2: The main Technical Report, which describes the study's analytical approach and presents its consolidated results.
- Volume 3: The Energy Efficiency Technical Report, which consists of a detailed presentation of the analysis and results of residential, commercial, and industrial efficiency potential.
- Volume 4: The Renewable Potential Technical Report, which presents comparable details for electricity potential from the seven renewable energy technologies studies.
- Volume 5-6: Technical Appendices accompanying the efficiency and renewable energy reports. These appendices contain detailed information on the costs and performance efficiency and renewable energy technologies underlying the technical, economic, and achievable potential analysis.
- Volume 7: Details of an analysis of the potential least-cost solutions for meeting New York's greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets using efficiency and renewable energy resources.
- These volumes are available from NYSERDA by contacting:
Karen Lare (518) 862-1090, Ext. 3272 kll@nyserda.org.
OAGI0000158_000001
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN NEW YORK STATE Final Report VOLUME ONE:
SUMMARY
REPORT Prepared for NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Lawrence J. Pakenas, Project Manager Prepared by OPTIMAL ENERGY, INC.
- BRISTOL, VT John Plunkett, Project Leader Philip Mosenthal, Commercial Efficiency Leader AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGy-EFFICIENT ECONOMY* WASHINGTON, D.C.
Steven Nadel, Efficiency Leader R. Neal Elliott, Industrial Efficiency Leader VERMONT ENERGY INVESTMENT CORPORATION
- BURLINGTON, VT David Hill, Renewables Co-Leader Chris Neme, Residential Efficiency Leader CHRISTINE T. DONOVAN ASSOCIATES* STOWE, VT Christine Donovan, Renewables Co-Leader AUGUST 2003 OAGI0000158_000002
NOTICE This report was prepared by Optimal Energy, Inc. in the course of performing work contracted for and sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (hereafter "NYSERDA"). The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of NYSERDA, or the State of New York, and reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it.
Further, NYSERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor make no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose of merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report.
NYSERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor make no representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process, method, or other information will not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any loss, injury, or damage resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report.
OAGI0000158_000003
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 SECTION 2: APPROACH ....................................................................................................................... 2-1 SCOPE OF EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY POTENTIAL ANALySIS ....................... 2-2 TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC POTENTIAL ANALYSIS ............................................................... 2-4 ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL SCENARIO ANALYSES ...................................................................... 2-6 Achievable Contributions Toward New York's GHG Targets ........................................................... 2-6 Expected Achievements From Currently Planned Initiatives ............................................................. 2-8 ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE USED IN THIS STUDy ........................................................................ 2-8 AVOIDED ELECTRICITY AND OTHER RESOURCE COSTS ....................................................... 2-10 ELECTRICITY SALES FORECAST AND THE BASE CASE .......................................................... 2-11 STUDY TEAM ..................................................................................................................................... 2-13 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY. ................................................................................................... 2-13 SECTION 3: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 3-1 TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC POTENTIAL FOR EFFICIENCY AND ELECTRICITY GENERATED BY RENEWABLE SOURCES ..................................................................................... 3-1 ACHIEVABLE EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD NEW YORK'S GHG REDUCTIONS .................................................................................. 3-8 EXPECTED CONTRIBUTIONS FROM NEW YORK'S CURRENTLY PLANNED INITIATIVES .................................................................................................................... 3-15 POTENTIAL UNDERSTATEMENT OF ECONOMIC POTENTIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL ............................................................... 3-18 CAVEATS ............................................................................................................................................ 3-19 VOL. 1.
SUMMARY
REPORT 1 -i OAGI0000158_000004
LIST OF TABLES SECTION 2: APPROACH Table 1.1 Technologies and Practices Examined in the Efficiency Potential Analysis ........................ 2-3 Table 1.2 Technologies Examined in the Renewable Potential Analysis ............................................. 2-4 Table 1.3 NYSERDA Efficiency and Renewable Potential Study Integration Team......................... 2-13 SECTION 3: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Table 1.4 Technical Electricity Potential from Efficiency and Renewable Resources ......................... 3-3 Table 1.5 New York Statewide Economic Potential- Low Avoided Costs ....................................... 3-4 Table 1.6 New York Statewide Economic Potential- High Avoided Costs ...................................... 3-4 Table 1.7 Statewide Economic Potential as Share of Technical Potential Under Low and High Avoided Costs ............................................................................................... 3-5 Table 1.8 Benefits and Costs of Least-Cost Efficiency and Renewable Achievements Toward 2012 Greenhouse Gas Target (Statewide Low Avoided Costs) ............................ 3-13 Table 1.9 Benefits and Costs of Least-Cost Efficiency and Renewable Achievements Toward 2022 Greenhouse Gas Target (Statewide Low Avoided Costs) ............................ 3-14 Table 1.10 New York Statewide Currently Planned Initiatives Savings .............................................. 3-17 Table 1.11 Expected Achievements Under Currently Planned Initiatives - Benefit/Cost Analysis Results: Low Avoided Costs (Millons of$ 2003) ............................................... 3-18 Table 1.12 Summary of New York State Zonal Avoided Costs - 2003 $ .......................................... 3-20 Table 1.13 NYSERDA Avoided Costs of Fossil Fuels - 2003 $/MMBTU ......................................... 3-21 Table 1.14 Statewide Electricity Sales Forecast, 2000-2021 ................................................................ 3-22 VOL. 1.
SUMMARY
REPORT TABLES l-i OAGI0000158_000005
LIST OF FIGURES SECTION 2: APPROACH Figure 1.1 New York Control Area Load Zones .................................................................................... 2-1 Figure 1.2 Electricity Potential Scenarios in the NYSERDA Study ...................................................... 2-2 Figure 1.3 Schematic Diagram of Potential Analysis Approach .......................................................... 2-12 SECTION 3: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Figure 1.4 Technical and Economic Potential for Electric Energy from Efficiency and Renewables in New York (Annual GWh) .................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 1.5 Technical and Economic Potential for Electric Capacity from Efficiency and Renewables in New York (Summer Peak MW) ........................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 1.6 Statewide Economic Electric Energy Potential in 2012 (% total by Sector) ........................ 3-6 Figure 1.7 2012 Statewide Economic Electric Capacity Potential (% of Total by Sector) .................... 3-7 Figure 1.8 Economic Potential by Zone (Annual GWh) ........................................................................ 3-7 Figure 1. 9 Economic Potential as % of Technical Potential by Zone .................................................... 3-8 Figure 1.10 Greenhouse Gas Target Supply Curve (2012, Low Avoided Costs) .................................. 3-10 Figure 1.11 Greenhouse Gas Target Supply Curve (2022 Low Avoided Costs) ................................... 3-10 Figure 1.12 Greenhouse Gas Scenario 2012 GWh Savings by Sectof.. ................................................. 3-11 Figure 1.13 Greenhouse Gas Scenario 2022 GWh Savings by Sectof.. ................................................. 3-12 Figure 1.14 Currently Planned Initiatives Savings (Annual GWh) ........................................................ 3-15 Figure 1.15 Currently Planned Initiatives Savings for 2007 (Annual GWh) ......................................... 3-15 Figure 1.16 Currently Planned Initiatives Savings for 2012 (Annual GWh) ......................................... 3-16 Figure 1.17 Currently Planned Initiatives Savings for 2022 (Annual GWh) ......................................... 3-16 VOL. 1.
SUMMARY
REPORT FIGURES l-i OAGI0000158_000006
Section 1:
OVERVIEW The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) commissioned this study of the long-range potential for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies to displace fossil-fueled electricity generation in New York. The study examined the potential available from existing and emerging efficiency technologies and practices to lower end-use electricity requirements in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings. l The study also estimated renewable electricity generation potential from biomass, fuel cells, hydropower, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, solar, and wind. The study assessed New York's efficiency and renewable potential over three time horizons: five years (through 2007), 10 years (through 2012),
and 20 years (through 2022).
The study had four main objectives:
- Estimate the technical potential or theoretical maximum amount of electricity physically able to be displaced by efficiency and renewable energy technologies, both throughout New York and in each of five control area load zones within the State.
- Of this technical potential, determine how much efficiency and renewable energy would be economical compared with conventional generation that would be avoided both statewide and in the five specified zones.
- Working from the theoretical analysis of statewide technical and economic potential, estimate how much electricity New York could realistically expect efficiency and renewable energy resources to displace as part of a least-cost solution to the State's greenhouse-gas reduction targets established for the electricity sector over the next 10 and 20 years.
- Independently assess the impacts throughout New York from currently planned energy policy and program initiatives.
The study found large amounts of technical potential for efficiency and renewable energy. It also found that much of this theoretical potential would be economical compared to conventional electricity generation. These findings vary widely among the individual efficiency and renewable technologies analyzed. The study authors caution how to interpret and use this analysis, noting that it would be a mistake to compare the estimates of technical and economic potential directly with forecasted electricity requirements. This is because these estimates do not account both for the market barriers to efficiency and renewable energy technologies and for the costs of market intervention strategies to overcome these barriers.
Throughout the remainder ofthis report, the term "efficiency technologies" should be understood to include both energy-efficient equipment and efficient practices (e.g., commissioning high-efficiency equipment in a building to ensure systems perform efficiently). The analysis of efficiency potential did not consider end-use fuel switching from electricity to alternate sources such as gas or oil. It also did not consider load shifting, curtailment, or interruption, or behavioral modifications that might degrade the quality of service at the end use.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT
- Section 1: Overview 1-1 OAGI0000158_000007
Projecting from market intelVention strategies that have proved successful in the past, the study concludes that efficiency and renewable energy could be expected to reduce New York's annual electricity generation requirements by more than 19,939 GWh by 2012 and by more than 27,244 GWh by 2022. This energy represents 12.7% and 16.1 % of expected statewide requirements for those years. The study finds that these contributions could be achieved at costs below those of the conventional electric generation they would avoid.
Therefore, the economically-achievable potential for efficiency and renewable energy in New York is more than sufficient to meet the State's greenhouse-gas emission reduction targets for the electricity sector.
Finally, the study concludes that currently planned initiatives are expected to provide 13,675 GWh and 3,456 summer-peak MW annually by 2022. This represents 7.5% and 9.4% of the expected statewide energy and demand requirements, respectively. These expected outcomes represent significant and cost-effective contributions toward the State's greenhouse-gas targets for the electricity sector, and toward New York's electricity requirements over the decades ahead.
Technical potential estimates for efficiency and renewable energy resources are analogous to estimates of the amount of oil currently known to exist in the Earth. The extent to which these potential oil resources can be realized depends on the effectiveness of the oil drilling technology chosen to recover them. The gap between the known resource and the recoverable oil resource is analogous to the difference between technical and achievable potential for efficiency and renewable energy resources.
The oil analogy also helps illustrate the concept of economic potential. How much of the technically-feasible oil production is worth pursuing depends both on the costs of recovering it and how much it is worth on the oil market. As with oil, the higher the value of electricity from efficiency and renewable energy in the marketplace, the more that available and achievable potential will be found to be economical.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT
- Section 1: Overview 1-2 OAGI0000158_000008
Section 2:
APPROACH This study estimated the technical and economic potential for energy efficiency and generation of electricity from renewable resources in New York, as well as in five of the State's eleven load zones depicted in Figure 1.1: West (Zone A), Capital (Zone F), Hudson Valley (Zone G), New York City (Zone J), and Long Island (Zone K). The study also analyzed two achievable potential scenarios: first, the achievable contributions by efficiency and renewable technologies toward the State's greenhouse-gas (GHG) reduction targets; and second, independent estimates of the impacts on New York from the State's currently planned policy and program initiatives (CPI) for energy efficiency and renewable energy resources.
Figure 1.1 New York Control Area Load Zones This study presents efficiency and renewable energy potential in terms of electric energy - i.e., gigawatt-hours (GWh) or millions of kilowatt-hours (kWh) - and peak capacity, i.e., megawatts (MW). Figure 1.2 illustrates the relationships among the efficiency and renewable energy potential scenarios analyzed. 2 The 2 Figure l.2 is presented for illustrative purposes only. It depicts the nature of relationships between the scenarios analyzed, not the relative magnitudes of results found for the scenarios analyzed. For example, it does not accurately portray the fraction of technical potential that the study found to be economic or achievable. Those results are provided later in this report.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 2: Approach 2-1 OAGI0000158_000009
outer circle shows how this study proceeded from the theoretical limits of technical potential to assess both economic and achievable potential. The economic and achievable potential estimates are all subsets of, and derived from, the universe of technical potential for electricity savings from efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
Figure 1.2 Electricity Potential Scenarios in the NYSERDA Study Technical Economic Currently Planned SCOPE OF EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY POTENTIAL ANALYSIS The study examined literally thousands of efficiency and renewable applications to different buildings, industries, and markets. Table 1.1 indicates the number of efficiency technologies and practices analyzed in each of the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. This table also shows the different markets in each sector to which these technologies and practices were applied, along with the end uses and market segments covered in the potential analysis. In the commercial sector, for example, Table 1.1 shows that the study examined 87 technologies and practices applicable to nine end-use categories in four markets involving nine building types. Thus, the commercial efficiency potential analysis dealt with 2,163 technology and practice applications.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 2: Approach 2-2 OAGI0000158_000010
Table 1.1 Technologies and Practices Examined in the Efficiency Potential Analysis SECTOR:
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL Number of Technologies 50 87 39 I I I New construction New construction New construction Retail product sales Renovation Process overhaul/Replacement Markets Retrofit Remodel/Replacement Retrofit Retrofit I I I Cooling
- Cooling Motor systems Lighting Exterior lighting Lighting Space heating Interior lighting HVAC Water heating Office equipment Industry-specific processes Refrigeration End Uses Space heating Water heating Whole building Miscellaneous I I I 2 building types:
9 building types: 4 industry sectors:
Single family Education Manufacturing Multifamily Grocery Agriculture Health Mining Lodging Construction Market seg ments Office Restaurant 22 specific industries Retail Warehouse Other VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 2: Approach 2-3 OAGI0000158_000011
Table 1.2 provides the breakdown of technology applications studied in the renewable energy potential analysis. In all, the analysis examined 32 configurations of the eight renewable energy technologies studied.
Table 1.2 Technologies Examined in the Renewable Potential Analysis Biopower Municipal Solid Waste Biomass Cofiring with Coal Waste-to-Energy Large Biomass Gasification Waste-to-Energy Small Biomass Combined Heat and Povver Solid Waste Digestion Fuel Cells Photovoltaics Fuel Cell Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Photovoltaic Residential Fuel Cell Phosphoric Acid Photovoltaic Commerical/industrial Fuel Cell Solid Oxide Photovoltaic Building Integrated Fuel Cell Molten Carbonate Solar Thermal Hydro Power Residential Domestic Hot Water Hydro Relicense Comrnerical Domestic Hot Water Hydro Repovver Comrnerical/industrial Ventilation Pre*
Hydro Expanded Capacity Existing Dam Solar Absorption Cooling Hydro New Dam sites Landfill Gas Wind Farm Installations Landfill Gas Large Systems Cluster Installations Landfill Gas Engines Small Wind Installations Landfill Gas Microturbines Offshore Wind Installations Readers should bear in mind what the study did not cover. It is not an analysis of potential programs. Such an analysis would project the impacts from a particular set of program strategies directed at specific target markets to promote certain technologies. Nor does the study qualify as a plan for acquiring energy efficiency or developing renewable energy resources to meet specific electricity resource requirements.
While this study is intended to contribute to such analyses in the future, it is not a substitute for them. In addition, this study considers only technologies and practices that currently exist or are anticipated today to be available by 2022. Innovative technologies and practices continually emerge, and such new technologies and practices not considered by this study will create additional savings opportunities in the future.
TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC POTENTIAL ANALYSIS The technical potential for efficiency and renewable energy represents the theoretical outer bounds of the electricity resources physically available for exploitation, without any regard for cost or market acceptability.
By itself, technical potential has no direct applicability to policy or resource planning, which requires VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 2: Approach 2-4 OAGI0000158_000012
information about these characteristics of efficiency and renewable resources. Consequently, the technical potential estimates in this study should be used only as the foundation for further analysis.
This study defines the economic potential for efficiency and renewable energy as that amount of technical potential available at technology costs below the current projected costs of conventional electric generation that these resources would avoid. The study analyzed economic potential by valuing these potential electricity resources at these avoided electricity generation costs. As discussed further below, NYSERDA was the source for values of avoided electricity generation and fossil fuel costs through 2022 for each of the five load zones analyzed. The study assessed statewide economic potential twice, using the lowest and highest zonal avoided costs.
Included in the study's estimates of efficiency and renewable energy costs for the economic potential analyses were capital, fuel, operation, and maintenance costs. Where appropriate, the study also accounted for benefits of the technologies and practices other than avoided electricity costs. These other resource benefits included direct cost savings from reductions in consumption of water and fossil fuels (e.g., natural gas and oil). For example, the net cost of electricity savings from high-efficiency clothes washers reflects credit both for the value of water saved and for the value of natural gas savings in homes with gas-fired water heaters. 3 In addition, the application of some technologies or practices, particularly in the industrial sector, often produces other non-energy benefits, such as productivity or product quality improvements. Such benefits were included in the economic potential assessment. The economic potential analysis also accounted for estimated future changes in technology costs throughout the 20 year analysis horizon. For example, the costs of photovoltaic technology are expected to continue declining over the next 20 years.
To estimate economic potential, the study first compared the efficiency and renewable energy technology costs and benefits to a current, reference technology over the expected lifespan of each resource. The economic potential consists of the technical potential for electricity from efficiency and renewables remaining after removing those resources with technology costs in excess of avoided electricity generation costs. As with technical potential, results are presented in terms of electric energy (GWh) and peak capacity (MW). Also, as with technical potential, the economic potential analysis ignores the potential market acceptability of efficiency and renewable energy technologies, as well as the costs of programs or policies to increase market acceptance.
3 Much ofthe energy savings potential from efficient clothes washers is associated with reduced use of hot water.
VOL. I *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 2: Approach 2-5 OAGI0000158_000013
The same caveats on the use of technical potential results apply to economic potential. Since it is derived directly from technical potential, economic potential likewise does not represent achievable potential and therefore cannot be directly applied in policy making or resource planning. As is the case with technical potential, economic potential estimates only have meaning as inputs to further analysis, such as in planning for programs targeted toward specific amounts of electricity savings from efficiency or renewable energy technologies in particular markets.
ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL SCENARIO ANALYSES The study's analysis of achievable potential from efficiency and renewable energy adds two key ingredients missing from the technical and economic potential analysis:
- Market barriers to acceptance of efficiency and renewable energy technologies and practices that could potentially be overcome through targeted policies and market intervention strategies; and,
- Additional administrative costs of such programs and policies to promote higher market acceptance of efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
This study analyzed two distinct achievable potential scenarios:
- Potential contributions toward meeting the State's GHG targets; and,
- Expected achievements under currently planned initiatives.
For each of these two achievable potential scenarios, the study estimates electric energy and peak capacity impacts. It also projects and compares efficiency and renewable energy resource benefits and costs to New York's economy.
Achievable Contributions Toward New York's GHG Targets For the GHG potential scenario, this study assessed the achievable contributions that efficiency and renewable energy resources could make toward reducing the electricity industry's contribution to New York's greenhouse-gas emissions in 2010 and in 2020, as recommended in the 2002 State Energy Plan. 4 For each efficiency and renewable energy technology, this analysis started with the electricity savings estimated in the technical potential analysis, and the cost and benefit estimates developed for the economic potential analysis.
The analysis used the following steps to develop achievable electricity potential and achievable costs associated with each technology:
4 New Yark State Energy Planning Board, June 2002. The 2002 State Energy Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Energy Plan). See www.nyserda.arg/sep.html.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 2: Approach 2-6 OAGI0000158_000014
- As the basis for assessing achievable technology market acceptance over time, the study considered a broad set of market intervention strategies that have proved successful in overcoming market barriers in the past. (These strategies are described in Volume 5.)
- For each technology, the study then projected future market acceptance of efficiency and renewable energy technologies over time if New York pursued the kinds of market intervention policies and programs described in Step 1.
- Next, the study multiplied the estimated market acceptance from Step 2 by its corresponding technical potential estimate, which produced the estimated contribution toward New York's greenhouse-gas targets that each efficiency and renewable energy technology could achieve.
- To develop achievable costs, the study estimated the administrative costs of pursuing aggressive market intervention strategies developed in Step 1.
- Adding the estimated program administration costs from Step 4 to the technology costs developed for the economic potential analysis produced achievable costs for each efficiency and renewable energy technology.
- The study undertook one more preparatory step in the GHG analysis: It estimated the net costs per kWh of achievable electric energy potential. To do this, the study subtracted the value of the peak capacity provided by each efficiency and renewable technology from the Step 5 results above. The greater the peak kW contribution provided by each technology, the greater the offset to the achievable cost of its contribution toward New York's GHG targets. In some cases, the value of peak capacity contributions and/or other non-electricity cost savings associated with a technology or practice exceeded the total achievable cost. In such instances, the net cost of the technology's achievable electric energy contribution was negative (which the study found to be the case for achievable industrial efficiency savings, and for biomass and municipal solid waste technologies).
- At this stage, the study assembled a vast collection of individual points for achievable electric energy contributions toward New York's GHG targets. Each point represents a specific amount of efficiency or renewable energy that can be achieved at a particular cost per kWh. The analysis then "stacked" each technology's potential contribution in increasing order of cost per kWh. The result of this sorting was an achievable cost "curve" for contributions toward New York's GHG savings targets.
NYSERDA provided electric energy offsets for GHG reduction targets for 2010 and 2020, based on the 2002 State Energy Plan for the electricity sector. For the year 2010, the target is a 5% reduction from 1990 levels; for 2020, it is a 10% reduction from 1990 levels. The study interpolated the target values for 2012 and extrapolated the target value for 2022 in order to correspond with the study's analysis horizon, which produced GHG target values of 19,939 GWh and 27,244 GWh for each year, respectively. To meet these electric-energy targets at the lowest possible total cost to New York's economy, the analysis choose the least-costly contributions first, moving progressively up the cost curve until the target is met or achievable resources are exhausted, whichever comes first.
This achievable cost curve for efficiency and renewable energy resources is directly analogous to the order that generators are selected to meet electric-energy requirements. The curve shows which efficiency and renewable energy technologies would be chosen as part of a least-cost resource portfolio for meeting the GHG targets in 2010 and 2020. The analysis also estimates and compares the total resource benefits and VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 2: Approach 2-7 OAGI0000158_000015
costs from pursuing the least-cost combination of efficiency and renewable energy technologies to meet the statewide targets.
Expected Achievements From Currently Planned Initiatives The study estimated the future electric energy and peak capacity contributions from efficiency and renewable energy resources resulting from initiatives included in the 2002 State Energy Plan, and expected changes to future codes and standards. This analysis included expected market activity due to NYSERDA's energy-efficiency and renewable programs; programs administered by the New York Power Authority (NYP A) and the Long Island Power Authority (LIP A); Executive Order 111; New York's Draft State Purchasing Standards; and anticipated changes to future New York and Federal codes and standards. This statewide analysis assesses the combined effects of these policies and strategies on expected electricity achievements over five, 10, and 20 years. The study assumes these policies and programs do not continue beyond their current authorizations, which vary by initiative, with the exception of changes to codes and standards. The analysis explicitly captures any post-program effects reasonably expected to materialize beyond the authorized period for the initiatives.
The study estimates electric energy and peak capacity achievements, as well as costs and benefits expected from currently planned initiatives through 2007,2012, and 2022. To develop these estimates of achievable electric potential and costs, the study used information on program expenditures and performance provided by NYSERDA and other State entities to supplement technology costs and performance developed for the technical and economic potential analysis.
ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE USED IN THIS STUDY This study assessed the economics of efficiency and renewable energy resource development achievements from a total resource perspective, measuring changes in economic efficiency, i.e., improvement in New York's economic welfare. This study estimated the total costs of obtaining efficiency savings and renewable energy supply without considering who pays these costs. The study did not address distributional equity, i.e., how costs and benefits would be shared among or within groups. Accordingly, the study did not employ other benefit-cost perspectives such as the utility test, participant test or non-participant test. 5 From the total-resource perspective, an efficiency or renewable energy technology is economical or cost-effective if 5 The utility test considers only avoided electricity costs as benefits and counts only expenditures supported by ratepayers. The participant test uses retail electric rates to value the benefits of electricity savings and counts only efficiency or renewable energy costs paid directly by participants. The non-participant test uses the same benefits and costs as the utility test, but also counts the lost sales revenue as a cost.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 2: Approach 2-8 OAGI0000158_000016
and only ifbenefits exceed costs; net-benefits or the difference between total resource benefits and costs must be positive, or equivalently, the ratio of benefits to costs must exceed one.
This study values the electricity benefits from efficiency and renewable energy resources in terms of the electricity resource costs they would avoid, not retail rates paid by household and business consumers. The study took this approach because the electricity resource costs avoided by efficiency and renewable energy consist of the wholesale generation costs that otherwise would be incurred to supply New York's electricity needs. Realizing more of New York's efficiency and renewable energy potential would allow New York's independent system operator (ISO) to back down on the most costly generating sources in use to meet electricity demand, depending on when and where the additional resources materialized.
By contrast, retail electricity rates are set to a large extent based on fixed costs incurred in the past and which, by definition, cannot be avoided in the future. In New York, current retail rates are generally significantly higher than avoided wholesale generation costs. Valuing electricity from efficiency and renewable energy resources at retail rates therefore would overstate their true benefits to New York's economy.6 Just because technologies or practices are found to be cost-effective to New York' economy as a whole, however, does not mean that individual consumers find them economically attractive. Economic potential remains untapped precisely because numerous market barriers interact to prevent widespread market adoption of efficiency and renewable technologies. Market barriers are especially pervasive for energy-efficiency technologies and practices. Among the market barriers recognized by policy makers in New York and elsewhere are: insufficient information, restricted access to capital, split incentives between decision-makers, and limited market availability of efficiency technologies.
These market barriers typically lead most consumers of all types to pursue only those efficiency opportunities that pay for themselves in two years or less, even those with expected useful lives lasting 10 years or more. Such a stringent investment criterion is equivalent to requiring efficiency investments to provide returns in excess of 60%. Such a high "hurdle rate" for efficiency investments on the part of individual decision-makers is the manifestation of multiple market barriers.
6 For individual end users who adopt efficiency technologies or practices, retail rates do represent the direct benefit to the participant. However, a portion of these benefits - the difference between retail rates and marginal costs - is borne by all end users. These fixed costs eventually are redistributed among all ratepayers over time as part of the rate-making process.
VOL. I *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 2: Approach 2-9 OAGI0000158_000017
At the same time, New York' energy planners compare resource alternatives by weighting costs and benefits using a far lower cost of capital (4% after inflation in this study). Viewed from the standpoint of the State's economic well-being, efficiency investment opportunities passed over by individual consumers offer potentially economical resources if the State can realize them for less than avoided wholesale supply costs.
Bridging this gap between individual consumer and total resource economics is the overriding purpose behind market-intervention strategies to increase market adoption of efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
New York has been among the nation's leaders in its efforts to overcome market barriers to efficiency and renewable energy investments, thereby making them more economically appealing to individual consumers and businesses. The 2002 State Energy Plan contains a variety of policies and strategies that will lead to increased market adoption of efficiency and renewable energy technologies. This study provides an independent assessment of the additional electricity and economic savings likely to result in the future from these currently planned initiatives. It also shows how much more efficiency and renewable energy resources could contribute toward reducing New York's GHG emissions, and the net benefits to the State's economy from doing so.
AVOIDED ELECTRICITY AND OTHER RESOURCE COSTS The study valued efficiency and electric energy from renewable resources at the wholesale electricity costs they avoid. NYSERDA provided long-range projections of avoided electric energy and peak capacity costs for each of the five load zones under study. The reader is cautioned that the avoided costs, which were derived from electric system modeling completed for the 2002 State Energy Plan, are not the same as "bid" or "market clearing" wholesale electricity prices. Bid and/or market clearing prices are typically higher than the cost-based estimated wholesale costs provided by the model. No statewide energy and capacity market with a single set of market -clearing prices exists in New York. Consequently, the study used both the lowest (Zone A, West) and highest (Zone K, Long Island) zonal avoided costs for assessing the statewide economic and achievable potential scenarios. Table 1.12, included on page 3-20, summarizes the zonal avoided costs used for the study. The study applied each zone's avoided electricity costs to assess how much of its technical potential would be considered economic.
The study used the values for residential, commercial, and industrial fuel oil and natural gas shown in Table 1.13 (page 3-21). The study applied these values both to increased fuel use associated with renewable electricity production (e.g., co-firing coal with biomass) or fuel savings associated with electric-efficiency savings (e.g., gas space heating savings associated with tighter building shells that save electricity for air conditioning). The study valued water savings at 0.4 cents per gallon.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 2: Approach 2-10 OAGI0000158_000018
ELECTRICITY SALES FORECAST AND THE BASE CASE The focus of this study was on how much additional electricity is potentially available and achievable from efficiency and renewable energy resources above and beyond what would materialize absent further market intervention. This "business as usual" is reflected in the study as the base case. For purposes of the study, the base case for efficiency includes the reduced electricity requirements the State can expect in the future from policies, codes, standards, and market-intervention strategies already on the books as of year-end 2002.
The base case for renewable energy consists of projects that are on-line, permitted, or well along in planning.
The base case does not reflect the effects from continuing market -intervention policies or programs in the future beyond their current expiration dates. Those impacts are captured as expected achievements under currently planned initiatives. Thus, appliance standards already in effect in 2002 are reflected in the base case; future efficiency standards, even those known to take effect in 2005, are not. Likewise for renewable energy: The base case does not include additional projects in the future that come on line due to the continuation of currently planned initiatives. The renewable energy potential analysis developed an explicit base case projecting electricity generation from renewable resources either already on-line or in development.
For the efficiency analysis, the base case is embedded in the statewide electricity sales forecast. The forecast projects how much electricity it will take to light and cool buildings and mn industrial processes. The technical potential for efficiency savings originates from opportunities to reduce the electricity intensity of these underlying end uses in the electricity sales forecast. The achievable potential for efficiency savings depends on the success of market -intervention strategies in raising market acceptance of efficiency technologies.
NYSERDA was the source for statewide and zonal electricity forecasts used as the basis for this analysis.
Table 1.14 (page 3-22) provides the NYSERDA statewide forecast for residential, commercial, and industrial electric energy requirements through 2022.
The study calibrated the potential analysis to the electricity sales forecast with additional market data available from other public and private sources. By characterizing markets with this additional information, the study was able to examine efficiency and renewable energy potential in much more detail than would have been possible had it relied solely on NYSERDA's electricity sales forecast. For example, the industrial efficiency potential analysis considered 22 separate industries across the State, thanks to additional economic data on New York's industry and industry-specific load profile data. In addition, the study made use of hourly electricity load profiles for residential and commercial end uses in a variety of building types to VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 2: Approach 2-11 OAGI0000158_000019
estimate electricity savings potential. This allowed the study to estimate electricity savings over different periods during the year from many efficiency technologies and practices across numerous building types and industries.
The zonal technical and economic potential analysis is also founded in NYSERDA's electricity sales forecast for each zone. However, compared to the statewide analysis, the level of detail is not nearly as fine for the zonal analysis due to the lack of available market data at the zonal level. For example, little was available on the geographic distribution of the 22 industries analyzed in the statewide industrial efficiency potential analysis.
Figure 1.3 diagrams how the disparate information sources and analytical steps fit together in the study's analysis of technical, economic, and achievable potential.
Figure 1.3 Schematic Diagram of Potential Analysis Approach INPUTS Supplemental NYSERDA NYSERDA Market and Forecast Avoided Costs Technology Data
+---------t-----I-----~-- - -
Base-case Market I Technology Characterizations I Market II Administrative I ANALYSIS Penetrations Costs Characterization Performance / Costs I I I RESULTS
1----- TECHNICAL POTENTIAL I f--------- - - - - f--- -
(GWh,MW)
I ECONOMIC POTENTIAL (GWh, MW)
I ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL Potential Greenhouse Expected Results from Currently Gas Reductions (GHG) Planned Initiatives (CPI)
- Potential Energy (GWh)
- Potential Energy & Capacity (GWh, MW)
- Net Cost ($/KWh)
- Benefit Cost-Analysis ($)
- Benefit-Cost Analysis ($)
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 2: Approach 2-12 OAGI0000158_000020
STUDY TEAM The NYSERDA study team consisted of many individuals and organizations, all selected for their specialized expertise in efficiency and renewable energy technologies and markets. The multi-disciplinary effort was led by the study integration team headed by Optimal Energy Inc., the prime contractor for the study. The table below lists the affiliation and responsibility of each of the seven members of the study's integration team.
Table 1.3 NYSERDA Efficiency and Renewable Potential Study Integration Team Organization Team Member and Area of Responsibility Optimal Energy, Inc. John Plunkett, Project Leader (Bristol, VT) Philip Mosenthal, Commercial Efficiency Leader American Council for an Energy- Steve Nadel, Efficiency Leader Efficient Economy (Washington, DC) R. Neal Elliott, I ndustrial Efficiency Leader Vermont Energy Investment Corporation David Hill, Renewable Co-Leader (Burlington, VT) Chris Neme, Residential Efficiency Leader Christine T. Donovan Associates Christine Donovan, Renewables Co-Leader (Stowe, VT)
ORGANIZA TION OF THE STUDY This complete study is presented in seven volumes (including this Volume 1, Summary Report). The remaining volumes are organized as follows:
- Volume 2: The main Technical Report, which describes the study's analytical approach and presents its consolidated results.
- Volume 3: The Energy Efficiency Technical Report, which consists of a detailed presentation of the analysis and results of residential, commercial, and industrial efficiency potential.
- Volume 4: The Renewable Potential Technical Report, which presents comparable details for electricity potential from the seven renewable energy technologies studies.
- Volumes 5-6: Technical Appendices accompanying the efficiency and renewable energy reports.
These appendices contain detailed information on the costs and performance of efficiency and renewable energy technologies underlying the technical, economic, and achievable potential analysis.
- Volume 7: Details of an analysis of the potential least-cost solutions for meeting New York's GHG emission targets using efficiency and renewable energy resources.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 2: Approach 2-13 OAGI0000158_000021
Section 3:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This study had four main objectives:
- Determine the technical potential for energy efficiency and renewable energy resource development in New York, statewide and in five load zones.
- Assess how much of this technical potential would be economic compared to conventional electricity generation.
- Project the least cost mix of achievable contributions from efficiency and renewable energy resources toward New York's GHG emission targets
- Independently estimate the likely impacts of currently planned energy policy initiatives.
The potential study's results are presented in two sections. Results of the technical and economic potential analysis are presented in Figures 1.4 through 1.10, which summarize the results detailed in Tables 1.5 though 1.8. Results of the two achievable potential scenarios appear in Figures 1.10 through 1.14, which summarize detailed results presented in Tables 1.9 through 1.11. Electricity potential is expressed as GWh for electric energy and summer MW of peak capacity at generation voltage. Monetary values of costs and benefits are expressed at their 2002 present worth.
TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC POTENTIAL FOR EFFICIENCY AND ELECTRICITY GENERA TED BY RENWABLE SOURCES Figure 1.4 shows the technical and economic potentials for efficiency and electric energy from renewable energy resources, with efficiency savings broken out among the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. Figure 1.5 shows the comparable peak-capacity potential. These figures represent the cumulative annual contributions from 2003 up to and including 2007,2012, and 2022.
The combined technical potential for efficiency and electricity generated by renewable sources in New York is large relative to forecasted electricity requirements (compare Figure 1.4 with Table 1.14). Technical potential from efficiency measures remains flat or grows only slightly over the study's 20-year horizon. This is attributable to two opposing influences. Projected growth in electricity use in new construction, and increasing electricity saturation of some end uses in existing buildings (e.g., residential air conditioning),
both increase opportunities for efficiency savings. This is at least somewhat offset by expected improvements in base-case efficiency levels reflected in the underlying forecast of electricity requirements.
In contrast, technical potential from renewable energy resources grows substantially over the analysis period.
There is a steeper potential trajectory for renewable energy because, unlike efficiency potential, renewable energy supply is largely independent of underlying electricity requirements. Renewable energy technical potential depends much more heavily than efficiency on changes in manufacturing economies over time. For VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-1 OAGI0000158_000022
example, the technical potential for photovoltaic electricity depends on substantial growth in the worldwide manufacturing capacity for photovoltaic cells.
Figure 1.4 Technical and Economic Potential for Electric Energy from Efficiency and Renewables in New York (Annual GWh) 250,000 ~-----------------------------------~
200,000 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
o Renewable I:lI Residential II Cammercial o Industrial
.t: 150,000 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
~
iii
- J
<<"" 100,000 +-----------------------------j 50,000 2007 tech 2007 ecan 2007 ecan 2012 tech 2012 ecan 2012 ecan 2022 tech 2022 ecan 2022 ecan (Hi) (La) (Hi) (La) (Hi) (La)
These results indicate that the relative shares of efficiency and renewable energy technical potential change over time. In 2007, efficiency resources comprise most of the technical potential for electric energy, with the greatest potential arising in the commercial sector. By 2022, however, the technical potential for renewable energy supply surpasses the potential for efficiency, as greater efficiency becomes increasingly embedded in the electricity forecast over time.
As indicated in Figure 1.5, the study found that much of New York's efficiency and renewable energy technical potential would be economical at NYSERDA's estimates of avoided electricity costs. (The study used the West and Long Island zonal avoided costs to represent the high and low end of the range for determining the statewide economic potential for efficiency and renewable energy.) On a statewide basis, the study found that 77% of efficiency technical potential in 2012 would be economic at the lowest avoided costs in the State (West Zone); by 2022, the economic potential represents 81 % of efficiency technical potential. Valued at the highest avoided costs in the State, 87% of statewide technical potential in 2012 would be economic; 93% would be economic by 2022.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-2 OAGI0000158_000023
Figure 1.5 Technical and Economic Potential for Electric Capacity from Efficiency and Renewables in New York (Summer Peak MW) 50,000 S 40,000 2:
~
10 Renewable rn Residential .. Commercial Em Industrial I
!II Qj 30,000 Il..
Qj E 20,000 E
- I UJ 10,000 0
2007 2007 2007 2012 2012 2012 2022 2022 2022 tech econ econ tech econ econ tech econ econ (Hi) (Lo) (Hi) (Lo) (Hi) (Lo)
Tables 1.4 through 1.7 present the technical and ecomonic potential results reviewed above in tabular form.
Table 1.4 Technical Electricity Potential from Efficiency and Renewable Resources 2007 2012 2022 Annual Summer Annual Summer Annual Summer GWh Peak MW GWh Peak MW GWh Peak MW Energy Efficiency Savings Residential 22,236 5,011 21,642 5,255 21,964 6,067 Commercial 32,402 8,564 37,670 10,655 38,282 11,145 Industrial 6,131 905 6,530 973 5,605 849 Total Efficiency 60,769 14,480 65,842 16,883 65,852 18,061 Renewable Supply Biomass 5,141 833 5,325 861 6,344 1,022 Fuel Cells 651 79 5,279 641 37,777 4,596 Hydropower 2,115 257 5,038 555 10,311 1,095 Landfill Gas 460 62 432 58 452 61 Municipal Solid Waste - - 682 91 1,421 190 Photovoltaics 155 44 1,244 355 52,556 15,052 Solar Thermal 3,014 1,422 4,173 2,315 6,343 4,041 Windpower 951 75 3,872 304 42,133 3,227 Total Renewable 12,487 2,772 26,045 5,180 157,336 29,283 Total Efficiency Savings &
Renewable SupplV 73,256 17,252 91,886 22,063 223,187 47,344 VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-3 OAGI0000158_000024
Table 1.5 New York Statewide Economic Potential - Low Avoided Costs 2007 2012 2022 Annual Summer Annual Summer Annual Summer GWh Peak MW GWh Peak MW GWh Peak MW Energy Efficiency Savings Residential 10,124 1,475 12,205 1,981 15,610 2,646 Commercial 27,490 6,173 32,124 8,009 32,994 9,266 Industrial 5,718 840 6,045 896 4,999 752 Total Efficiency 43,332 8,489 50,374 10,886 53,603 12,664 Renewable Supply Biomass 5,141 833 5,325 861 6,344 1,022 Fuel Cells - - - - - -
Hydropower 1,512 109 4,336 375 9,123 816 Landfill Gas - - - - - -
Municipal Solid Waste - - 682 91 1,421 190 Photovoltaics - - - - - -
Solar Thermal 175 - 181 - 189 -
Windpower - - 1,245 100 41,818 3,255 Total Renewable 6,828 942 11,769 1,427 58,894 5,283 Total Efficiency Savings &
Renewable Supply 50,159 9,431 62,143 12,313 112,497 17,947 Table 1.6 New York Statewide Economic Potential- High Avoided Costs 2007 2012 2022 Annual Summer Annual Summer Annual Summer GWh Peak MW GWh Peak MW GWh Peak MW Energy Efficiency Savings Residential 12,593 2,433 15,982 3,267 19,660 4,480 Commercial 30,273 7,021 35,340 8,988 36,847 10,225 Industrial 5,718 840 6,045 896 4,999 752 Total Efficiency 48,584 10,294 57,367 13,151 61,506 15,457 Renewable Supply Biomass 5,141 833 5,325 861 6,344 1,022 Fuel Cells - - - - - -
Hydropower 2,115 257 5,038 555 10,311 1,095 Landfill Gas 439 59 407 54 419 56 Municipal Solid Waste - - 682 91 1,421 190 Photovoltaics - - - - - -
Solar Thermal 175 - 181 - 189 -
Wind power 893 70 3,744 293 41,818 3,255 Total Renewable 8,762 1,219 15,376 1,855 60,501 5,618 Total Efficiency Savings &
Renewable Supply 57,347 11,513 72,744 15,006 122,007 21,074 VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-4 OAGI0000158_000025
Table 1.7 compares statewide economic potential for efficiency and renewable resources with their respective teclmical potential.
Table 1.7 Statewide Economic Potential as Share of Technical Potential Under Low and High Avoided Costs 2007 2012 2022 Low High Low High Low High Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Energy Efficiency Savings Residential 46% 57% 56% 74% 71% 90%
Commercial 85% 93% 85% 94% 86% 96%
Industrial 93% 93% 93% 93% 89% 89%
Total Efficiency 71% 80% 77% 87% 81% 93%
Renewable Supply Biomass 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Fuel Cells 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Hydropower 71% 100% 86% 100% 88% 100%
Landfill Gas 0% 96% 0% 94% 0% 93%
Municipal Solid Waste N/A N/A 100% 100% 100% 100%
Photovoltaics 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Solar Thermal 6% 6% 4% 4% 3% 3%
Windpower 0% 94% 32% 97% 99% 99%
Total Renewable 55% 70% 45% 59% 37% 38%
Total Efficiency Savings &
Renewable Supply 68% 78% 68% 79% 50% 55%
Table 1.7 shows that the economic share of technical potential was lowest in the residential sector, varying between 56% in 2012 under low avoided costs and 93% in 2022 under high avoided costs. The economic potential for commercial efficiency savings was the highest share of technical potential among all three sectors. At low avoided costs in 2012, about 85% of commercial technical potential was found to be economic; virtually all (96%) of commercial efficiency technical potential was found to be economic at high avoided costs in 2022. In the industrial sector, between 89% and 93% of technical potential was found to be economic.
The study found that 45% of renewable energy technical potential would be considered competitive with conventional electric generation by 2012 ifvalued at the low avoided costs; the comparable share by 2022 would be 38% (of a much higher total technical potential at that point). Avoided costs at the high end of the range for the State increase the fraction of renewable energy technical potential that would be economic to 59% by 2012 and to 39% by 2022. The share of technical potential found to be economic varies widely between efficiency and renewable energy because the technical potential for some renewable energy VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-5 OAGI0000158_000026
technologies grows significantly over time, while their costs remain relatively high compared to conventional generation. Photovoltaic electricity provides a case in point. Conversely, biomass, hydropower, and solar thermal energy resources were found to be economic under low zonal avoided costs.
At high zonal avoided costs, electric energy from landfill gas and windpower also would become cost-competitive with conventional generation.
Figure 1.6 shows the breakdown of economic potential for renewable energy and efficiency in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors in 2012, the mid-point of the study horizon. (Volume 2 provides results for 2007,2012, and 2022.)
Figure 1.6 Statewide Economic Electric Energy Potential in 2012 (% total by Sector)
Renewable Residential 21% 22%
Industrial_-----,
8%
Total 73,000 GWh Commercial Statewide Hi Avoided Costs 49%
Figure 1.7 gives a comparable breakdown of economic potential for electric summer capacity in that year.
Once again, commercial efficiency is the largest single source of potential energy savings, representing 49%
of the electric energy potential in Figure 1.6. This sector's economic potential represents an even larger share (60%) of the total economic potential for summer capacity because commercial efficiency can offset relatively more peak capacity requirements than other efficiency sectors or renewable energy generation.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-6 OAGI0000158_000027
Figure 1.7 2012 Statewide Economic Electric Capacity Potential (% of Total by Sector)
Renewable 12%
Residential 22%
Industrial 6%
Total: 15,006 Summer Peak M Commercial Statewide Hi Avoided Costs 60%
Figure 1.8 portrays the economic potential for efficiency and renewable energy within each zone analyzed.
Figure 1.8 Economic Potential by Zone (Annual GWh) 25,000 +-------------------------------
20,000 ~-------------------
J:
S
(!)
~ 15,000 +--------
<C 10,000 ~--------
5,000 Zone A Zone F Zone G Zone J Zone K Zone A Zone F Zone G Zone J Zone K Zone A Zone F Zone G Zone J Zone K 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 IORenewable 121 Residential "Commercial o Industrial I VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-7 OAG10000158_000028
The study found that the share of technical potential that would be economic varies by load zone. This variation, illustrated in Figure 1.9, is due primarily to the effect of avoided costs, since the technology costs did not vary significantly between zones in the analysis. Volume 2 contains detailed results of the zonal technical and economic potential analysis.
Figure 1.9 Economic Potential as % of Technical Potential by Zone 90%T************************************************** ............................................................................................................................................................................ ,
80%+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------:
iii 70%
~
D-iii 60%
u
':rl" J:
~ 50%
~
IQ iii 40%
~
~ 30%
'E o
o
~ 20%
10%
Zone A Zone F Zone G Zone J Zone K Zone A Zone F Zone G Zone J Zone K Zone A Zone F Zone G Zone J Zone K 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 10 Renewable Ii:! Residential II Commercial 0Industrial I ACHIEVABLE EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD NEW YORK'S GHG REDUCTIONS The study produced two kinds of results from the analysis of achievable contributions toward GHG reductions:
- a set of cost "curves" for achieving reductions in fossil-fueled electric energy generation requirements, and thus contributing toward the statewide GHG goals; and
- a set of results indicating the mix of efficiency and renewable energy resources that would be part of a least-cost portfolio to achieve the GHG reductions, and the associated benefits and costs.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-8 OAGI0000158_000029
Cost Cunes for Reducing the Requirements for Fossil-Fueled Electric Energy Generation. The study produced one CUlve for achieving a reduction of 19,939 GWh in 2012, and another for a reduction in 2022 of 27,244 GWh. These reductions would contribute toward statewide GHG goals by lowering electricity use by 11.0% in 2012 and 14.1 % in 2022 from the base-case forecast of electricity requirements.
Figure 1.10 and Figure 1.11 show the cost curves for efficiency and renewable energy for 2012 and 2022, respectively. Each point on the curve represents a particular amount of efficiency or electric energy supply (in GWh) at a specific levelized cost per kWh (over the life span of the resource, using a real discount rate of 4 percent). The points are sorted and presented in order of increasing cost per kWh.
To obtain more achievable electric energy from efficiency and renewable resources, it is necessary to move to the right on the curve and choose progressively more costly sources. The area under the curve represents the total costs of obtaining any given amount of electric energy supply. The vertical line represents the GHG reduction goal for each year. Thus, the area under the cost curve up to the vertical line of the GHG reduction goal indicates the total cost of meeting it. The dark horizontal line represents the average energy avoided cost per kWh. The total area under the horizontal line represents the total benefits to New York from achieving the GHG reductions. Consequently, the area below the horizontal line and above the cost curve represents the net economic benefits to New York from pursuing the least-cost strategy.
Figures 1.10 and 1.11 demonstrate the study's finding that achievable efficiency and renewable energy resources would be more than enough to meet New York's long-range GHG reduction goals for the electricity sector. These figures also demonstrate the study's finding that New York could do so economically; that is, at costs below the avoided conventional electric generation displaced by efficiency and renewable energy. These achievable contributions could be realized at net costs below three cents/kWh.
The study found that achievable costs of these contributions start at a negative $ 1. 24/kWh of savings from industrial efficiency improvements. The most expensive analyzed achievable measure costs $6.87/kWh for a pump upgrade for residential well water. 7 The study obtained negative values for some efficiency and renewable energy resource costs because it subtracted the value of non-electric resource savings (such as fossil fuel) as well as avoided generating capacity costs from the achievable costs of the technologies.
Volume 7 provides tabular results indicating achievable costs and contributions from each efficiency and renewable technology depicted in Figures 1.10 and 1.11 (including those technologies not shown in these figures).
7 GHG supply curves are truncated at $OAO/kWh because at higher costs there is very little addition to the GWh savings.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-9 OAGI0000158_000030
Figure 1.10 Greenhouse Gas Target Supply Curve (2012, Low Avoided Costs)
$0.40
$0.35 f
$0.30
$0.25
$0.20
.<: "\ ~012 Greenhouse Gas Target,
~
$0.15 19,939 GWh )
'z" 0;
$0.10 I
$0.05 Levelized energy avoided cost,
$0.027/kWh
\. "", /
r 5,000 10,000 15,000 20 00 25,000 30,000 35, 00
$(0.05)
$(0.10)
GWh Figure 1.11 Greenhouse Gas Target Supply Curve (2022 Low Avoided Costs)
$0.40
$0.35 +-----------t-----------------iE---~
$0.30 +-----------t--------------------,t---~
2022 Greenhouse Gas Target, 27,244 GWh
$0.25
$0.20
~
'z" 0;
$0.15
$0.10 r
/
Levelized energy avoided cost, $0.029/kWh
$0.05 I
__ ....-----------------------------fIItIIII'
$0.00
-$0.05
-r ~
10,000 i-----------t---------------------
20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000
-$0.10 .........................................................................................................................................................................
GWh VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-10 OAGI0000158_000031
Figure 1.10 indicates that the most expensive resource selected to meet the GHG reductions would cost
$0.026/kWh for 2012, which is the achievable cost for retrofitting office lighting with high-efficiency fixtures along with better layout design. In Figure 1.11, the most expensive resource deployed to meet the target in 2022 would be wind-farm installations, also costing $0.026/kWh. Volume 7 of the report provides the values corresponding to each point on the achievable cost curves for efficiency and renewable electric energy.
Significantly, the study found that even the most expensive resources chosen to meet the targets could be achieved for less than the average avoided cost of electric energy. This indicates that the least-cost greenhouse gas solution would be highly cost-effective for New York. Figures 1.10 and 1.11 further demonstrate that additional efficiency and renewable energy contributions could be achieved beyond the GHG reduction goals at costs that would still be economic compared with the conventional electricity supply they would avoid.
Observe that the cost curve extends beyond the vertical line while remaining below the horizontal line, representing the average annual avoided cost over the period in question (2012 or 2022).
The Least-Cost Mix of Efficiency and Renewable Energy Resources Needed to Achieve the GHG Reductions. This second set of results also projects and compares the benefits and costs of the least-cost portfolio. Figures 1.12 and 1.13 show the resource composition of the least-cost greenhouse-gas solutions found in the study for meeting the 2012 and 2022 GHG reductions, respectively.
Figure 1.12 Greenhouse Gas Scenario 2012 GWh Savings by Sector Biomass-~~--J' i I i I VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-11 OAGI0000158_000032
Figure 1.13 Greenhouse Gas Scenario 2022 GWh Savings by Sector Municipal Solid vvaSlle-_
Biom Figure 1.12 shows that the least-cost solution for the 2012 GHG reduction goal would consist primarily of efficiency resources, which are dominated by commercial sector savings. Figure 1.13 provides a comparable breakdown for the 2022 analysis. Biomass, hydropower, MSW, and solar thermal would be the renewable energy resource contributions to the least-cost GHG solution in both 2012 and 2022, with a large amount of wind power added to the mix in 2022.
Tables 1.8 and 1.9 report the values underlying Figures 1.12 and 1.13, assuming low avoided costs, for 2012 and 2022 GHG reductions. (Volume 2 reports complete results, including those for high avoided costs.) They also show how economically advantageous the least-cost solutions would be for New York, even if statewide contributions are valued at the lowest zonal avoided costs.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-12 OAGI0000158_000033
Table 1.8 Benefits and Costs of Least-Cost Efficiency and Renewable Achievements Toward 2012 Greenhouse Gas Target (Statewide Low Avoided Costs)
Total Resource Lifetime net cost per Annual GWh kWh saved Benefits Costs Net Benefits BCR Energy Efficiency Savings Residential 3,105 $ (0.0224) 1,281,359,428 (26,107,167) 1,307,466,595 -49.08 Commercial 12,454 $ 0.0160 4,068,573,146 2,555,343,290 1,513,229,856 1.59 Industrial 538 $ (0.0164) 139,598,928 (3,325,355) 142,924,283 -41.98 Total Efficiency 16,096 $ 0.0084 5,489,531,502 2,525,910,768 2,963,620,734 2.17 Renewable Supply Biomass 2,520 $ (0.0122) 728,546,676 (162,757,236) 891,303,911 -4.48 Fuel Cells - NA - - -
Hydropower 859 $ 0.0075 440,421,346 135,787,348 304,633,997 3.24 Landfill Gas - NA - - -
Municipal Solid Waste 633 $ (0.0093) 329,616,958 (46,022,347) 375,639,305 -7.16 Photovoltaics - NA - - -
Solar Thermal 7 $ 0.0039 2,569,889 352,112 2,217,777 7.30 Windpower - NA - - -
Total Renewable 4,019 $ (0.0055) 1,501,154,868 (72,640,123) 1,573,794,990 -20.67 Total Efficiency Savings & Renewable SUDDlv 20,115,208 $ 0.0050 6,990,686,370 2,453,270,646 4,537,415,724 2.85 Note: Benefits are Cumulative Through 2012 and stated In Present Worth 2003 Dollars The study found that the net economic benefits to New York from pursuing this least-cost approach to meeting GHG reductions for 2012 are estimated at between $4.5 billion and $9.4 billion. This means that New York would be significantly better off economically if it pursued a least-cost portfolio of efficiency and renewable resources to meet its GHG targets, compared to the base case of doing nothing in the future to increase efficiency and renewable development. The net economic benefits of the least-cost GHG solution also significantly exceed those estimated by the study from currently planned initiatives. 8 The lower and upper ends of this range of net benefits from least-cost GHG reductions are the result of valuing efficiency and renewable energy benefits at the lowest and highest zonal avoided supply costs, and subtracting the total resource costs of achieving them. By 2022, net benefits from pursuing economically achievable efficiency and renewable energy contributions toward New York's GHG reductions would range between $9.1billion and $16.6 billion.
8 See Tables l.8, l.9, and 1.10.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-13 OAGI0000158_000034
Table 1.9 Benefits and Costs of Least-Cost Efficiency and Renewable Achievements Toward 2022 Greenhouse Gas Target (Statewide Low Avoided Costs)
Total Resource Lifetime net cost per Annual MWh kWh saved Benefits Costs Net Benefits BCR Energy Efficiency Savings Residential 6,817,904 $ (0.0286) 2,711,421,735 (369,786,348) 3,081,208,084 -7.33 Commercial 12,845,503 $ 0.0121 5,263,693,023 2,751,613,298 2,512,079,725 1.91 Industrial 2,381,309 $ (0.0175) 659,641,264 (42,566,669) 702,207,933 -15.50 Total Efficiency 22,044,716 $ (0.0002) 8,634,756,023 2,339,260,281 6,295,495,742 3.69 Renewable Supply Biomass 1,716,998 $ (0.0236) 870,486,934 (483,331,405) 1,353,818,339 -1.80 Fuel Cells - NA - - -
Hydropower 858,900 $ 0.0075 440,421,346 135,787,348 304,633,997 3.24 Landfill Gas - NA - - -
Municipal Solid Waste 1,324,862 $ (0.0093) 627,719,813 (83,651,065) 711,370,879 -7.50 Photovoltaics - NA - - -
Solar Thermal 9,234 $ 0.0029 3,405,550 353,885 3,051,665 9.62 Wind power 6,048,728 $ 0.0264 1,888,941,797 1,456,403,115 432,538,682 1.30 Total Renewable 9,958,722 $ 0.0067 3,830,975,439 1,025,561,878 2,805,413,561 3.74 Total Efficiency Savings & Renewable SUDDlv 32,003,438 $ 0.0022 12,465,731,462 3,364,822,159 9,100,909,303 3.70 Note that Tables 1.8 and 1.9 report negative values for the lifetime net cost per kWh for residential and industrial efficiency and for renewable energy from biomass and municipal solid waste. The tables also show negative total resource costs for biomass and municipal solid waste, and, consequently, negative benefit-cost ratios. In fact, the negative costs associated with biomass and municipal solid waste are so large that they exceed all the other resource costs associated with hydroelectric and solar thermal included in the least-cost mix. These results are consistent with the foregoing explanation that some efficiency and renewable energy resources also avoid substantial non-electric costs. These additional resource cost savings are discussed in the efficiency and renewable Technical Appendices (Volumes 4 and 6) of this report.
Several clarifying observations are in order regarding the results presented in Tables 1.8 and 1.9. The first colunm indicates the GWh achievements from each resource that are part of the least-cost resource solution to the GHG reduction for each year. These figures do not represent all the achievable potential for each resource, nor do they necessarily represent that total achievable potential that would be economic. Rather, they indicate the contribution from each resource given the costs of achievable potential from other resources. For example, the absence of wind energy in the least-cost solution to the 2012 greenhouse gas target does not mean that wind is not achievable or economic; it merely indicates that other resources can be obtained at lower achievable costs.
If a lower-cost resource was for some reason removed from its position in the order of achievable costs, then wind would improve its position (i.e., move to the left on the supply curve).
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-14 OAGI0000158_000035
EXPECTED CONTRIBUTIONS FROM NEW YORK'S CURRENTLY PLANNED INITIATIVES Finally, shown below are independent estimates of the expected contribution by New York's currently planned efficiency and renewable energy program initiatives toward the 2002 State Energy Plan's GHG reduction recommendations. Figure 1.14 presents the study's estimate of expected impacts by 2007, 2012, and 2022.
The pie charts that follow provide individual sector and renewable technology contributions for each of these three years.
Figure 1.14 Currently Planned Initiatives Savings (Annual GWh) 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000
.c::::
S
(!)
8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 2007 2012 2022 Figure 1.15 Currently Planned Initiatives Savings for 2007 (Annual GWh)
Wind power 25% Residential 10%
Solar Thermal 0%
Pholovollaics 1% Comnercial 35%
Landfill Gas 4%
Fuel Cells Biomass 2% 1%
22%
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-15 OAGI0000158_000036
Figure 1.16 Currently Planned Initiatives Savings for 2012 (Annual GWh)
Residential Windpower 27%
So lar Therrral 1%
Photovoltaics Comnercial 0%
47%
Landfill Gas 2%
Fuel Cells Biorrass Industrial 4% 14%
0%
Figure 1.17 Currently Planned Initiatives Savings for 2022 (Annual GWh)
Windpower Residential 19% 2%
Solar Therrral 0%
Photovo Itaics 1%
Landfill Gas 1%
Fuel Cells 4% ---- Comnercial 63%
Biorrass 10%
Industrial 0%
The study estimates that efficiency savings generated by currently planned initiatives will reach 0.9% of the state's electric energy requirements by 2007, 1.7% by 2012, and 4.6% by 2022. Much of the increase in expected contributions from efficiency in the later years is attributable to the growing impacts of efficiency codes and standards over time. The study finds that renewable energy will contribute 1.0% of the State's electricity requirements by 2007, 1.6% by 2012, and 2.5% by 2022. Most of the growth in renewable supply is expected to come from increased biomass and wind development.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-16 OAGI0000158_000037
Table 1.10 presents numerically the information depicted in Figure 1.14.
Table 1.10 New York Statewide Currently Planned Initiatives Savings 2007 2012 2022 Annual Summer Annual Summer Annual Summer GWh Peak MW GWh Peak MW GWh Peak MW Energy Efficiency Savings Residential 328 96 292 84 254 69 Commercial 1,134 335 2,751 798 8,555 2,835 Industrial 29 4 19 3 3 0 Total Efficiency 1,490 435 3,063 886 8,812 2,904 Renewable Supply Biomass 684 108 804 124 1,347 204 Fuel Cells 57 7 248 30 575 70 Hydropower - - - - - -
Landfill Gas 118 16 137 18 170 23 Municipal Solid Waste - - - - - -
Photovoltaics 16 5 27 8 108 31 Solar Thermal 7 2 39 10 67 18 Windpower 793 64 1,558 124 2,597 207 Total Renewable 1,676 200 2,812 315 4,863 552 Total Efficiency Savings &
Renewable Supply 3,166 636 5,875 1,200 13,675 3,456 Table 1.11 reports the study's estimates of expected benefits and costs applying low zonal avoided costs to statewide achievements from currently planned initiatives. The study finds that currently planned initiatives will achieve cost-effective contributions from both efficiency and renewable energy resources. The economic value to New York from currently planned initiatives is estimated between $0.5 billion and $2.0 billion by 2012 and between $1.7 billion and $5.4 billion by 2022, depending on whether electricity is valued at the lowest or highest zonal avoided costs in the State. (As explained above and as shown for the GHG analysis, the economic value to New York is the difference between the present worth of total resource benefits from expected efficiency and renewable energy development and the total resource costs of achieving them.)
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-17 OAGI0000158_000038
Table 1.11 Expected Achievements Under Currently Planned Initiatives - Benefit/Cost Analysis Results: Low Avoided Costs (Millons of $ 2003)
Expected Achievements under Currently Planned Initiatives Benefit/Cost Analvsis Results: LOW Avoided Costs Millons of $2003 2007 2012 2022 PV 1 ,I Net 1 PV 1 ,I Net 1 PV 1 1 Net 1 Benefits PV Costs Benefits BCR Benefits PV Costs Benefits BCR Benefits PV Costs Benefits BCR Energy Efficiency Residential 175 197 (21) 0,89 232 197 35 118 359 180 180 2,00 Commercial 409 324 85 1,26 958 755 203 1,27 2,996 2,122 874 1.41 Industrial 9 2 7 3,92 9 2 7 3,92 9 2 7 3,92 Total Efficiency 594 523 71 1,13 1,199 954 245 1,26 3,364 2,304 1,060 1.46 Renewable Energy Biomass 224 (135) 360 -1,66 271 (356) 627 -0,76 480 (696) 1,176 -0,69 Fuel Cells 20 74 (54) 0,27 79 265 (186) 0,30 177 530 (353) 0,33 Hydropower Landfill Gas 47 74 (27) 0,64 54 84 (30) 0,64 63 96 (33) 0,66 Municipal Solid Waste Photovoltaics 9 76 (67) 0,12 14 105 (91) 0,14 47 232 (185) 0,20 Solar Thermal 3 11 (8) 0,29 16 34 (18) 0.47 26 49 (23) 0,53 Windpower 312 363 (50) 0,86 596 651 (55) 0,92 920 905 15 1,02 Total Renewable 616 462 154 1,33 1,030 783 247 1,32 1,713 1,115 598 1,54 Total Efficiency & Renewable 1,210 985 224 1,23 2,229 1,737 492 1,28 5,077 3,419 1,658 1.48 POTENTIAL UNDERSTATEMENT OF ECONOMIC POTENTIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL Figure 1.5 and Table 1.7 support the study's conclusion that avoided costs have a major influence on how much technical potential is found to be economic. The difference between high and low avoided costs meant a difference of $7.5 billion in net benefits to the State economy from pursuing a least-cost solution to GHG reductions in 2022. These findings are important for New York's electricity resource planning. They indicate that not reflecting the full economic value of efficiency or renewable resources tends to underestimate the true technical and achievable potential that would be economically beneficial for New York.
This study's conclusions on the economic potential for efficiency and especially renewable energy resources are not definitive because of the relatively limited scope of the avoided costs used to value electricity savings. The study concludes that the analysis probably understates the true economic value of electricity potential from efficiency and renewable technologies. This conclusion stems from the omission of several additional beneficial effects from pursuing additional electricity resources from efficiency and renewable energy technologies. In particular, the avoided costs used to value electricity resources in this study exclude:
- Avoided transmission and distribution (T&D) capacity costs
- Avoided environmental externalities
- Demand-induced price effects (i.e., lower electricity demand due to efficiency and renewables will tend to lower market-clearing prices)
- Economic development impacts (net benefits from efficiency and renewable energy stimulate economic activity, increasing the New York's gross state product)
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-18 OAGI0000158_000039
Had the study included the additional value of these effects, it would have affected results in the following general direction:
- Economic potential analysis: A higher fraction of the technical potential for all efficiency and renewable energy resources would have been found to be economic.
- Achievable contributions toward GHG reductions: Incorporating the value of avoided T &D costs would lower the net achievable cost of electric energy, since the analysis subtracts the value of capacity from the total achievable cost of electric energy. The estimated benefits to New York's economy from achieving the least-cost solution to New York's GHG reductions would therefore increase.
- Expected contributions from currently planned initiatives: The estimated net benefits to New York's economy would increase from policies and strategies contained in the State Energy Plan to promote efficiency and renewable energy resources.
CAVEATS The Project Team offers several caveats about the use of this study, which are summarized here:
- It would be a mistake to confuse technical and economic potential with other types ofpotential analysis. Technical potential is not achievable potential, and therefore cannot be applied directly to represent the efficiency and renewable resources that New York could actually realize through policy or program initiatives. Doing so would be a misuse of the study's analysis.
The study's technical and economic potential analysis can and should be used to inform other analysis of policy, program, and resource options. The technology costs and performance characteristics developed from this analysis can be applied in the planning and design of programs, policies, and resource acquisition.
If using the study's technical and economic potential analysis results in efficiency and renewable energy program or resource planning, then such additional analysis should account for future market acceptance, specific program strategies for realizing market acceptance, and the administrative costs of such programs.
- Zonal technical and economic potential should be used with caution. The quality and reliability of supplemental information used to characterize markets within zones is limited, particularly in the industrial sector. The zonal technical and economic potential results are readily applicable in conjunction with more accurate information about zonal market characteristics (e.g., if more information is available regarding the location of specific industries within the State).
- To avoid understating the economic potential for efficiency and renewable resources and the economic benefits from achieving this potential, future estimates of electricity benefits should account for benefits beyond electric generation. Such additional potential benefits include avoided transmission and distribution capacity costs, avoided environmental costs not reflected in market prices, (i.e., externalities), the effect of lowering electric demand on wholesale market prices, and the economic stimulus that results from lowering New York's total costs of meeting energy requirements with economic efficiency and renewable resources.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-19 OAGI0000158_000040
Table 1.12 Summary of New York Zonal Avoided Costs - 2003 $
A: WEST K: LONG ISLAND (Low avoided F: CAPITAL G:HUDSON J: NEW YORK (High avoided costs costs in statewide CITY in statewide analysis) analysis)
Annual Summer Annual Summer Annual Summer Annual Summer Annual Summer Energy Capacity Energy Capacity Energy Capacity Energy Capacity Energy Capacity
$/kWh $/kW-Yr $/kWh $/kW-Yr $/kWh $/kW-Yr $/kWh $/kW-Yr $/kWh $/kW-Yr 2003 0.0286 37.42 0.0328 37.42 0.0348 37.42 0.0372 92.17 0.0406 92.17 2004 0.0266 37.60 0.0294 37.60 0.0344 37.60 0.0361 92.62 0.0420 92.62 2005 0.0269 28.20 0.0278 28.20 0.0292 28.20 0.0313 69.46 0.0348 69.46 2006 0.0269 28.31 0.0278 28.31 0.0291 28.31 0.0316 69.74 0.0351 69.74 2007 0.0269 28.42 0.0277 28.42 0.0291 28.42 0.0319 70.01 0.0355 70.01 2008 0.0269 28.53 0.0277 28.53 0.0291 28.53 0.0303 70.28 0.0359 70.28 2009 0.0264 28.64 0.0278 28.64 0.0295 28.64 0.0307 70.55 0.0365 70.55 2010 0.0260 28.76 0.0279 28.76 0.0299 28.76 0.0311 70.83 0.0372 70.83 2011 0.0270 28.87 0.0284 28.87 0.0303 28.87 0.0316 71.11 0.0381 71.11 2012 0.0281 28.98 0.0290 28.98 0.0308 28.98 0.0321 71.39 0.0390 71.39 2013 0.0287 29.10 0.0295 29.10 0.0314 29.10 0.0329 71.67 0.0401 71.67 2014 0.0293 29.21 0.0301 29.21 0.0321 29.21 0.0337 71.95 0.0411 71.95 2015 0.0298 29.32 0.0306 29.32 0.0327 29.32 0.0345 72.23 0.0421 72.23 2016 0.0304 29.44 0.0312 29.44 0.0334 29.44 0.0352 72.51 0.0432 72.51 2017 0.0309 29.55 0.0316 29.55 0.0338 29.55 0.0357 72.79 0.0441 72.79 2018 0.0313 29.67 0.0320 29.67 0.0343 29.67 0.0361 73.08 0.0450 73.08 2019 0.0318 29.78 0.0324 29.78 0.0347 29.78 0.0365 73.37 0.0459 73.37 2020 0.0322 29.90 0.0329 29.90 0.0352 29.90 0.0370 73.66 0.0467 73.66 2021 0.0327 30.02 0.0333 30.02 0.0357 30.02 0.0375 73.94 0.0477 73.94 2022 0.0332 30.14 0.0338 30.14 0.0362 30.14 0.0380 74.23 0.0487 74.23 Notes: Annual energy is simple average of avoided costs in summer, winter, on-peak, and off-peak hours. Potential analysis applied detailed avoided costs to electric energy and capacity in each period.
VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-20 OAGI0000158_000041
Table 1.13 NYSERDA Avoided Costs of Fossil Fuels - 2003 $/MMBTU Res. Oil Com. Oil Ind. Oil Res. Gas Com. Gas Ind. Gas Coal 2003 8.71 6.14 5.83 10.55 6.80 5.22 1.59 2004 8.75 6.19 5.87 10.67 6.93 5.20 1.60 2005 8.78 6.21 5.89 10.64 6.91 5.24 1.60 2006 8.77 6.21 5.89 10.50 6.80 5.12 1.60 2007 8.73 6.17 5.85 10.38 6.69 5.13 1.59 2008 8.74 6.18 5.86 10.30 6.61 5.13 1.58 2009 8.92 6.36 6.03 10.18 6.47 5.20 1.57 2010 9.03 6.47 6.13 10.06 6.36 5.26 1.56 2011 9.05 6.48 6.14 10.01 6.31 5.28 1.57 2012 9.08 6.52 6.18 9.95 6.25 5.30 1.56 2013 9.27 6.71 6.35 9.89 6.19 5.35 1.55 2014 9.50 6.95 6.57 9.82 6.12 5.37 1.54 2015 9.53 6.97 6.59 9.77 6.08 5.41 1.53 2016 9.55 6.99 6.61 9.71 6.01 5.44 1.52 2017 9.57 7.01 6.63 9.65 5.94 5.47 1.51 2018 9.59 7.03 6.65 9.64 5.88 5.51 1.50 2019 9.61 7.05 6.67 9.63 5.82 5.55 1.49 2020 9.63 7.08 6.69 9.63 5.76 5.60 1.48 2021 9.65 7.10 6.71 9.63 5.72 5.64 1.47 2022 9.67 7.12 6.73 9.63 5.72 5.64 1.47 Source: NYSERDA VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-21 OAGI0000158_000042
Table 1.14 Statewide Electricity Requirements, 2003-2022 Residential Com m ercial Ind ustrial Total Year GWh GWh GWh GWh 2003 51,738 78,301 25,549 155,588 2004 52,483 79,860 26,091 158,433 2005 53,127 81,480 26,624 161,231 2006 53,643 82,999 26,975 163,617 2007 54,136 84,434 27,405 165,976 2008 54,599 85,780 27,887 168,266 2009 55,004 87,049 28,388 170,441 2010 55,352 88,268 28,990 172,610 2011 55,688 89,414 29,588 174,690 2012 56,091 90,508 29,917 176,516 2013 56,560 91,431 30,312 178,303 2014 57,096 91,905 30,648 179,649 2015 57,640 92,120 31,024 180,785 2016 58,037 92,265 31,383 181,686 2017 58,487 92,357 31,723 182,567 2018 58,964 92,448 32,060 183,471 2019 59,487 92,539 32,378 184,404 2020 60,009 92,630 32,594 185,233 2021 60,531 92,722 32,810 186,063 2022 61,046 93,676 33,123 187,845 Source: NYSERDA forecast sales with effects of post-2002 DSM removed.
Sales are multiplied by 1.115 to derive generation requirem ents in this tabl VOL. 1 *
SUMMARY
REPORT. Section 3: Findings and Conclusions 3-22 OAGI0000158_000043