HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1280 City of Palo Alto (ID # 1280)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 2/7/2011
February 07, 2011 Page 1 of 12
(ID # 1280)
Title: FY 2010 DSM Achievements
Subject: Report on City of Palo Alto Utilities Demand Side Management
Achievements for FY 2010
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
This is an informational report and no action is required.
Executive Summary
This memo and the attached report present the results of Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 programs
implemented by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) Department and third party
administrators. These programs are designed to influence the quantity or patterns of use of
energy and water consumed by customers, otherwise known as Demand Side Management
(DSM). This is for the Council’s information and no action is required. This information was
provided to the Utilities Advisory Commission on January 12, 2011.
CPAU met all of its efficiency goals for water, electricity and natural gas in FY 2010. Details on
the efficiency programs and data used, as well as California Energy Commission (CEC) submittal
summaries, are included as Appendices to the report attached to this memo.
Background
State law (AB 1890) requires utilities to fund and maintain electric efficiency programs with
specific environmental goals. In 1996, the City Council approved initial funding levels for natural
gas and water. (CMR:209:96). These “public benefit” programs may include the following:
• Cost‐effective, demand‐side management services to promote energy‐efficiency.
• New investment in renewable energy resources and technologies consistent with
existing statutes and regulations that promote those resources and technologies.
• Research, development and demonstration programs in the public interest which
advance science or a technology not being adequately provided for by competitive and
regulated markets.
• Services for low‐income electricity customers including, but not limited to, targeted
energy‐efficiency installations and rate discounts.
February 07, 2011 Page 2 of 12
(ID # 1280)
To meet State and local goals, the City Council approved the first CPAU Ten‐Year Energy
Efficiency Plan in April 2007 (CMR:216:07). In May 2010, Council approved the revised electric
efficiency goals, which increased by more than twofold. Natural gas efficiency goals were
discussed at the UAC meeting on January 12, 2011, and will be presented to Council for
approval. The goals were based upon state mandates requiring that energy efficiency be the
first priority utility supply option. The goals were also designed to meet the City’s
environmental and sustainable policies, which include: Climate Protection, Long Term Energy
Acquisition (LEAP), Gas Utility Long Term Plan (GULP), a 20% city‐wide reduction in water use by
2020 and the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.
This report also answers some of the questions posed in the Colleague’s Memo of May 3, 2010.
In that memo, Council requested analysis on how to maximize efficiency goals in a
comprehensive procurement strategy. In response, this memo provides information in the
following areas:
o Summaries of current efficiency end‐use categories;
o Review of technical opportunities that are likely to develop over the next decade in
those categories;
o Projected energy efficiency measures anticipated in the categories;
o Discussion of how CPAU customers may differ in adoption rates of energy efficiency
measures versus customers of other municipal utilities;
o Identification of energy efficiency penetration rates where additional cost or program
management is no longer preferable to purchasing renewable energy supplies; and
o Identification of those measures which are not cost‐effective.
Discussion
CPAU exceeded all of its efficiency goals for the Fiscal Year 2010. This achievement is attributed
to the increased number of programs available for all customer types, as well as an expansion
of programs administered by third party agencies. Such third party program administration
enhances the City’s ability to set and achieve greater efficiency goals while slowing the need for
additional staff and financial resources.
DSM Goals for FY 2010
Electric
The 2010 Ten‐Year Electric Energy Efficiency (EE) Plan has a cumulative goal of achieving a 7.2%
reduction in consumption by Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 as a direct result of utility programs. Not only
does this goal double the one set in 2007, but it also must be achieved in addition to the
substantial “natural” efficiency improvements that occur every year in the marketplace due to
state or federally‐mandated improvements in appliance and lighting efficiency standards.
February 07, 2011 Page 3 of 12
(ID # 1280)
The chart below shows CPAU’s record thus far in meeting its electric reduction goals:
Year Annual Savings Goal Savings Achieved
FY 2008 0.25% 0.56%
FY 2009 0.28% 0.47%
FY 2010 0.31% 0.55%
FY 2011 0.60% in progress
Gas
Updated gas efficiency goals are not yet approved by Council, but staff will be recommending
goals for a cumulative reduction of 5.5% by 2020. This reduction is program‐driven and must be
achieved in addition to any reductions that may naturally occur.
The following chart shows CPAU’s record thus far in meeting its gas reduction goals:
Year Annual Savings Goal Savings Achieved
FY 2008 0.25% 0.11%
FY 2009 (Deemed Savings) 0.28% 0.49%
FY 2009 (Post Evaluation Study) 0.28% 0.28%
FY 2010 0.32% 0.40%
FY 2011 0.40% in progress
Note that the third party measurement and verification contractor found that actual natural gas savings
in FY 2009 were less than those reported from the Statewide “deemed savings” database for steam
traps.
Water
The 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) includes water reduction goals. Staff is
currently updating the plan for 2011; recommended goals are not yet available. The 2005 plan
includes the expectation that conservation programs will reduce water purchases from San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) by 4% by the year 2030. The goal for calendar
year 2010 was a cumulative savings of 2.6% over projected water use.
The chart below shows CPAU’s record thus far in meeting its water reduction goals:
Year Annual Savings Goal Savings Achieved
FY 2008 0.34% 0.72%
FY 2009 0.34% 0.98%
FY 2010 0.34% 1.35%
Customer‐Side Renewables (Not in the Renewable Portfolio Standard)
CPAU has programs to incent customers in installing both solar electric or photovoltaic (PV) and
solar water heating (SWH) systems. Both programs are governed by state law (SB1 for PV and
AB1470 for SWH) on development, implementation and administration. These customer‐side
generation systems are not included in the utility’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) because
they are customer‐owned generation and not utility supply.
February 07, 2011 Page 4 of 12
(ID # 1280)
The chart below shows CPAU’s record in meeting State renewables use goals. Note that the
extremely high amount of kilowatts installed in FY 2008 was due to the Roche Biosystems
nearly one megawatt PV system. Also, PV installations have slowed in the last couple of years,
primarily due to economic conditions.
Year
Program Renewables Goals
(Set by
SB1 or AB1470)
Number of Systems;
Generation Achieved
FY 2008 PV 650 kW 85 Systems; 1,347 kW
SWH 0 0 Systems
FY 2009 PV 650 kW 57 Systems; 340 kW
SWH 30 12 Systems
FY 2010 PV 650 kW 53 Systems; 313 kW
SWH 30 7 Systems
Greenhouse Gas Reduction
The City’s Climate Protection Plan includes electric and natural gas efficiency goals for CPAU to
achieve to assist the City. As seen in the table below, CPAU significantly exceeded the electric
efficiency goal, but made more limited progress in other areas, primarily because natural gas
upgrades are more expensive and have longer payback periods. This is particularly the case for
solar water heating, which is not cost‐effective in this climate. CPAU offers a SWH rebate to
meet state law requirements.
Program 2020 Goal
CO2 Tonnes Reduced
2010 Achievement
CO2 Tonnes Reduced
Electric Efficiency 15,800 6,022
Solar Electric (PV) 3,800 1,113
Natural Gas Efficiency 7,300 1,536
Solar Water Heating 1,500 12
Energy and Water Efficiency as a Supply Resource
The goal of promoting efficiency is to be cost‐effective when compared to the cost of
purchasing new supplies. A summary of supply and efficiency purchase costs on a unit basis are
in the table below:
Fiscal Year:
2008 2009 2010
20 Year
Forward
Prices
Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Supply
Water $/CCF $ 3.49 $ 4.57 $ 3.07 $ 3.69
Gas $/therm $ 0.752 $ 0.496 $ 0.408 $ 0.91
Electric $/kWh $ 0.029 $ 0.0465 $ 0.0638 $ 0.11
February 07, 2011 Page 5 of 12
(ID # 1280)
Water efficiency programs tend to have a longer payback than electric and gas due to a variety
of factors creating a cost for efficiency that is higher in comparison to supply. Water programs
are typically evaluated over a 30‐year period. In addition, water efficiency is required for other
factors, such as to meet the San Francisco Public Utility Commission’s Interim Supply
Limitations, and so cost is not the only factor in the water utility.
Expansion of Programs
During the past three years, CPAU has expanded the number and variety of efficiency programs
in all utilities and for all customer classes. From residential usage comparison in the Home
Energy Reports to industrially‐focused process, natural gas, and chiller programs through the
Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program, there are many more ways for customers
to become efficient than ever before. In addition, funding has been significantly enhanced for
ongoing programs that are cost‐effective, such as the Right Lights+ energy saving program and
the Santa Clara Valley Water District conservation programs, to expand program reach. For the
upcoming year, further additions to the portfolio are being solicited through a Request for
Proposals.
Increase in Expenditures
To achieve its aggressive resource efficiency goals, CPAU has spent about $22 million for DSM
during the 7 years between 2003 and 2010. For FY 2010, about $6 million was spent from
public benefit and supply funds. CPAU estimates that it will spend a similar amount in FY 2011
from the operating budget and transfers from reserves for DSM programs. Of this $6 million,
$4.8 million is from electric public benefit and supply funds, about $800,000 is from natural gas
public benefit funds, and just under $500,000 is from water DSM funds. The DSM budget
covers:
o Primarily energy efficiency and water conservation measures; these programs consume
53% of expenditures during the entire period under review.
o Renewable energy, such as solar photovoltaic and water heating programs are 31% of
DSM program funds.
o Low income and Research and Development (R&D) programs consume 4% and 1% of
the funds, respectively.
o Program administration uses 6% of funds, including independent Evaluation and
Measurement, and
o Working with larger or key accounts on efficiency, billing, and other management issues
uses just under 5% of total funds.
February 07, 2011 Page 6 of 12
(ID # 1280)
An overall summary of program expenditures in a functional breakout is shown below.
DSM Program Expenditures
- 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000
2009-2010
2008-2009
2007-2008
2006-2007
2005-2006
2004-2005
2003-2004
R&D Efficiency Renewable Energy Low Income Admin Key Accts
DSM Achievements in FY 2010
CPAU achieved its efficiency goals for all three utilities this fiscal year, while actively revising its
long‐term DSM plans. FY 2010 savings varied by end use and customer class depending on the
utility:
o For electricity savings, 90% came from the commercial sector and 10% from the
residential sector. Over half of the residential savings came from refrigerator upgrades
and removal/recycling, while 30% came from lighting upgrades. About 50% of business
savings were a result of lighting upgrades.
o About 80% of expenditures were for commercial programs and 20% for residential
programs, as residential programs tend to be more costly to deliver on a per kilowatt
hour basis.
o Palo Altans saved much less from lighting programs than has been achieved by other
publicly owned utilities (POU’s), because of CPAU’s focus on a portfolio of savings that is
focused on both inexpensive and more well rounded activities. In a comparison of
electric efficiency results in FY 2010, the California Municipal Utility Association (CMUA)
reported that the majority of POU’s efficiency reductions came from lighting programs.
The graph below shows CMUA average savings by end use. Unfortunately, this report is only
available for electric utilities.
February 07, 2011 Page 7 of 12
(ID # 1280)
2009 California POU Programs’ Electric Savings for all Customers by End Use
Comprehensive
10%
Heating,
Ventilation & Air
Conditioning
12%
Other (including
Pool Pumps,
Appliances, etc.)
4%
Consumer
Electronics
1%
Industrial
Processes &
Motors
8%
Lighting
65%
Source: 2010 CMUA Status Report
o For natural gas savings, about 45% came from residential customers. The majority of
these residential savings came from shell (insulation) and space heating upgrades—33%
and 29%, respectively. The remaining 55% of gas savings came from business
customers with nearly one third resulting from one new construction rebate to incent
the customer for exceeding the City’s Green Building Program requirements. Another
third of business savings came from a single project to upgrade a large customer’s
heating plant. Comparative savings information by end use at other publicly owned
utilities is not readily available. In California there are only four municipal gas utilities
(Palo Alto, Long Beach, Coalinga and Victorville).
o For water savings, about 83% came from business customers, primarily due to three
installations of weather based controllers on large business irrigation systems. Most
residential water savings came from incentives to purchase new efficient washing
machines. Information on comparative savings by end use at other publicly owned
utilities is not readily available.
February 07, 2011 Page 8 of 12
(ID # 1280)
All Programs Summary Report
For the period July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010
Program Savings
Program Applications
Rebate $
Issued*
Gross+
kWh/Year
Peak kw
Savings
Therms/
Year
CCF/
Year
Efficiency Programs 4,588 $ 1,111,666
6,586,928 694 106,479 67,030
Customer Side
Renewable Programs
(Non‐RPS for PV
Partners and Solar
Water Heating)
65 $793,789 344,000 0 1,514 0
Total: 4,653 $ 1,905,455 6,930,928 694 107,993 67,030
*This figure does not reflect costs for audits, direct installation services provided to customers,
nor program administration fees.
+ Net savings (5,259,542 kWh) are reported to the California Energy Commission. Both net
and gross savings come from program results, which are less than customer savings. Gross
savings by program are tracked internally are used in the supply forecasts.
End‐Use Categories and Potential for Future Savings
Residential
Lighting is the most cost‐effective electric efficiency measure. Compact Fluorescent Lights
(CFLs) are inexpensive and provide significant savings. A technology with the greatest potential
for savings in the upcoming few years is Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs).
LED replacements for standard or “A” type bulbs are not currently cost‐effective. None
of these lights have been ENERGY STAR certified for performance or quality. While
these lights may become commercially viable, they are not likely to have a payback or
performance comparable with the CFLs for the three year planning period.
Other/Niche: A few niche LED lights have obtained an ENERGY STAR rating for quality
and performance. They are still expensive when used as retrofits, but are an option.
They include holiday lights, “can” lights, under‐counter fixtures and lamp styles.
Appliances: Refrigerators are typically the most cost‐effective electric appliance to upgrade.
They operate year‐round, and older units use five to ten times the electricity of a newer model.
When looking also at water savings, washing machines and toilets are cost‐effective.
Prototypes (mostly cost‐ineffective now) of new appliance styles are becoming available. A
listing includes: absorption‐enhanced drying dishwasher, ultrasonic dish and clothes washers,
beaded (as opposed to water‐cleaning) clothes washers, and multi‐compartment clothes
washers.
Shell Improvements: Due to the mild climate in Palo Alto, many shell improvement measures
are not cost‐effective. Insulation, especially in the ceiling or on the roof, provides the fastest
February 07, 2011 Page 9 of 12
(ID # 1280)
payback. Other shell upgrades, such as duct sealing, weatherization or window replacement,
have varying paybacks, as costs range from a few dollars for a bottle of caulk to thousands of
dollars for windows. New technologies in residential ductless heat pumps for air conditioning
and heating may become cost‐effective. New types of insulation and windows come onto the
market occasionally, but net effect on efficiency potential is minimal.
Cooling: Replacing a less efficient central air conditioner with a new ENERGY STAR model at the
end of the appliance’s life is cost‐effective. Some types of cooling that combine air conditioning
and water pre‐cool are becoming available and may be effective for some.
Space Heating: The greatest natural gas use for residents is space heating. Relatively few new
technologies are being developed in this area. Some customers may choose to switch to
electric heat for environmental reasons, but not from a payback perspective.
Water Heating: The second largest residential natural gas use is for water heating. Solar water
heating, condensing and heat pump hot water heaters are available, but are expensive to
install. The impact of these technologies in the near term is expected to be slight due to the
high upfront costs and relatively low savings per unit compared to standard technologies.
Behavioral: Significant research over the past five years has found that customers do “keep up
with the Joneses” or follow norms of behavior. CPAU is implementing the Home Energy
Report. Estimated savings are between 1 and 2 percent of residential energy load.
Landscaping: Given that 40 to 50 percent of residential water usage is for irrigation, replacing
high water use plants with Bay Friendly landscaping has large savings, but paybacks are long.
The new CALGreen Building Code does address landscaping requirements for facilities
completing a permittable retrofit or new construction, but this rebate also assists residents who
are not going through the Green Building Program in making upgrades.
Nonresidential
Lighting is the most cost‐effective business efficiency technology. Paybacks are typically less
than three years; the savings are assured for the long‐term and are year‐round (including peak).
Upcoming technologies include the following:
• LED T‐8 replacement: According to the Department of Energy, this technology is not
ready for commercial use due to poor performance, short life and high costs for replacing the
entire fixture. These lights are three to five years away from commercial applications.
• Other lighting: The CEC’s Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) program is conducting
research on the following technologies: bi‐level smart exterior lighting, wireless controls,
integrated office systems and controls, as well as interior LEDs. These may have some impact
on efficiency programs in the next three years.
HVAC: Replacing heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment can provide
savings for a business, particularly if the current system is over 15 years old. Installation can be
expensive, especially for large systems, so payback periods are long. New technologies include
February 07, 2011 Page 10 of 12
(ID # 1280)
variable refrigerant low‐flow air conditioning and data center cooling techniques. As new
technologies become cost‐effective, there may be a small increase in efficiency potential.
Water Heating: Palo Alto businesses save natural gas by replacing and upgrading boilers and
water heating equipment. Some niche applications are becoming available for upgrades, but
the total impact on potential from new technologies is expected to be slight in the next few
years.
High Efficiency Toilets and Urinals: Replacing an older toilet or urinal with a high efficiency unit
saves about 46 gallons of water per day. Given the number of older toilets in commercial
facilities, ongoing potential for water savings from this technology is high.
Landscaping: Replacing high water use landscaping with native Bay Friendly plants can save an
average of 800 CCF per acre per year. Water savings are large, but paybacks are long.
Other: There are specialized business areas where DSM programs are cost‐effective, including
some changes in business process (process changes) or chillers. New technologies include
direct digital control systems, pneumatic thermostats and controllers (wireless gauge and
transducer systems).
DSM Variations between Palo Alto and Statewide Adoption Rates
Utility usage in Palo Alto is somewhat different from statewide averages due to the local
climate, commercial building types, housing stock and other factors. Palo Alto does not have
large warehouses or energy‐intensive data centers. Residential air‐conditioning and peak
electric requirements are considerably less than inland and southern regions.
Residential customers in Palo Alto have had a higher participation rate in some programs, such
as refrigerator rebates, than have customers in other Northern California utilities. The
difference in adoption influences the efficiency potential and program goals. A quick survey in
April 2010 among three other Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) municipal utilities
found that CPAU’s residential refrigerator rebate rate over the past three years has been the
highest. A more detailed comparison between adoption rates will take additional resources,
and the UAC may choose to recommend this option to the Council.
February 07, 2011 Page 11 of 12
(ID # 1280)
CPAU Lodi SVP Redding
Avg No.
Refrigerator
Rebates 452.8 250.0 185.7 461.0
Percentage of
Resid.
Customers 1.81% 1.04% 0.36% 1.12%
No. of Resid.
Customers
(rounded)25,000 24,000 51,000 41,000
Comparison of CPAU customer participation rate for refrigerator rebates with three
other NCPA members
Source: email correspondence with Lodi, Redding and SVP
Implementation Plan: CPAU currently has a Request for Proposals out for new third party
efficiency program administrators. When these responses have been received and reviewed,
an implementation plan and contracts with vendors for future years’ efficiency programs will be
prepared.
Resource Impact
This is an informational report of ongoing activities. No additional resources are being
requested at this time for implementation of the programs. When new programs or partners
are instituted, the information is sent to Council for review and approval. Additional staff to
meet updated efficiency goals will be presented in the FY 2012 budget request.
Policy Implications
These programs conform to the Council approved Long‐term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP)
and Gas Utility Long term Plan (GULP) Guidelines which recognize cost‐effective energy
efficiency measures as a principle resource and require that they take priority over the
purchase of renewable and conventional supply sources. Energy efficiency also enables the
community to reduce its carbon footprint and will help achieve the Council approved
greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2020.
Environmental Review
This informational report does not meet the definition of a project, pursuant to section 21065
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), thus no environmental review is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
AttachmentA‐CPAU_Status_Report_Final 2009‐2010Adj (PDF)
Prepared By: Joyce Kinnear, Manager
February 07, 2011 Page 12 of 12
(ID # 1280)
Department Head: Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
1
City of Palo Alto Utilities
EMENT PROGRAM
ciency, Water Conservation
and Renewable Energy Measures
for Fiscal Year 2010
December 2010
DEMAND SIDE
MANAG
Energy Effi
2
ntents
Demand Side Management Programs
3
BACKGROUND FOR ENERGY AND WATER
5
N FISCAL YEAR 2010: ENERGY AND WATER
9
tivity and Savings Summary 10
14
14
16
OGRAM NOTES AND UPDATES 19
20
20
elopment Projects 20
23
MARY OF ACHIEVEMENTS BY
26
APPENDIX D: STATEWIDE ENERGY AND WATER USE BREAKDOWN BY UTILITY AND
CUSTOMER CLASS 35
APPENDIX E: ANALYSIS AND LISTING OF NON-COST-EFFECTIVE MEASURES 39
APPENDIX F: ELECTRIC DSM REPORT TO CMUA FOR ITS REPORT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 43
APPENDIX G: STATE AND CITY MANDATES CONTROLLING PROGRAM GOALS AND
IMPLEMENTATION 44
Table of Co
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
POLICY BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM GOALS
DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
ACHIEVEMENTS I
EFFICIENCY
DSM Program Ac
Expansion of Programs
Increase in Expenditures
DSM Program Overview
GENERAL PR
Net Versus Gross in Electric Savings
Evaluation, Measurement and Verification
Research and Dev
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: CURRENT CPAU DSM PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
APPENDIX B: DISCUSSION OF TECHNOLOGIES AND SUM
END USE CATEGORY
APPENDIX C: COMPARATIVE CHART OF PAST AND CURRENT DSM EXPENDITURES 34
3
Demand Side Management (DSM) Program
esults for Fiscal Year 2010
fiscal year ending June
mber of programs available for
as well as an expansion of programs administered by third party agencies. Such
ency
ojects.
DSM Goals for FY 2010
art below summarizes the 10 savings go ts. To put this year’s goals
ext with past years, see ch sections be y.
avings oal Achievement
R
Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) exceeded all its efficiency goals for the
30, 2010 (FY 2010). This achievement is attributed to the increased nu
all customer types,
third party program administration enhances the City’s ability to set and achieve greater effici
goals while freeing up staff and other resources for additional programs and pr
The ch
ont
FY 20 als and achievemen
in c arts in low for each commodit
S G
Commodity % of Load Commodity
Savings % of Load
Electricity 0.31% 6,586,928 kWh 0.55%
Gas 0.32% 106,479 therms 0.40%
Water 0.34% 67,030 ccf 1.35%
Renewables
Implementation
Goal
Achievement
Solar Electric (PV) Systems 6
Solar Water Heating Sys.
50 kW
30 systems
313 kW
7 systems
Greenhouse Gas Reduction
e Protection Plan includes CPAU’s electric atural gas efficiency goals to assist
ing its sustainabil ls. As seen in the table below, CPAU significantly exceeded
other areas, primarily because natural
icularly the case for
Program 20
CO2 Red
2010 Achievement
2 Tonnes Reduced
The City’s Climat and n
the City in meet ity goa
the electric efficiency goal, but made more limited progress in
gas upgrades are more expensive and have longer payback periods. This is part
solar water heating, which is not cost-effective in this climate.
20 Goal
Tonnes uced CO
Electric Efficiency 00 6,022 15,8
So ctric (PV 0 1,113 lar Ele ) 3,80
Natural Gas Efficiency 0 1,536 7,30
Solar Water Heating 1,500 12
Energy and Water Efficiency as a Supply Resource
The goal of programs promoting efficiency is to be cost-effective when compared to the cost of
purchasing new supplies. The table below summarizes purchase costs for supply and efficiency on a
unit basis:
Per Unit Costs
FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Future
Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Supply
Water $/CCF $ 3.49 $ 4.57 $ 3.07 $ 3.69
Gas $/therm $ 0.752 $ 0.496 $ 0.408 $ 0.91
Electric $/kWh $ 0.029 $ 0.0465 $ 0.0638 $ 0.11
4
fficiency programs in all
and comparison in the
r programs through the
ways for customers to
significantly enhanced
t Lights+ energy saving
d the Santa Clara Valley Water District water conservation programs,
expanded. For the upcoming year, further additions to the DSM programs
ix A for a complete
ir demand for electricity,
its aggressive resource
Palo Alto has expended about $22 million for demand-side management (DSM)
between 2003 and 2010. For FY 2010, about $6 million was spent from public benefit and supply
funds. CPAU estimates that it will spend a similar amount in FY 2011 from the operating budget and
transfers from reserves. Of this $6 million, $4.8 million is from electric public benefit and supply-
purchase funds, about $800,000 is from natural gas public benefit funds, and just under $500,000 is
from water DSM funds.
Expansion of Programs
During the past three years, CPAU has expanded the number and variety of e
utilities and for all customer classes. From residential usage information
Home Energy Reports to industrially-focused process, natural gas and chille
Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program, there are many more
access efficiency measures than ever before. In addition, funding has been
for ongoing programs that were found to be cost-effective, such as the Righ
program for small businesses an
so their reach could be
portfolio are being solicited through a Request for Proposals process. See Append
listing of all current DSM program activities.
Expenditures
CPAU programs help customers get the most for their utility dollar, reduce the
natural gas and water and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve
efficiency goals,
5
AND
For Energy and Water Demand
Side Management Programs
POLICY BACKGROUND
PROGRAM GOALS
POLICY BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM GOALS
For Energy and Water Demand Side Management Programs
6
m the efficiency
City of Palo Alto
energy efficiency
(CEC) in the first
programs, information used in the analysis and summaries of
re included as Appendices. This report also compares achievements against
an, first adopted
ssed as well.
Policy Background
local requirements in
bute social and
required by law to be
ficiency.
y resources and technologies consistent with
nologies.
interest which
ed for by competitive and
ted to, targeted
Currently, California does not have similar laws placing “public benefit” requirements on gas and
e gas and water
ms similar to those itemized above.
0 efficiency savings goals for water, electricity and natural
management goals for all its utilities that are designed to
support the City’s environmental and sustainable policies.
These environmental and sustainability policies are outlined in the following documents. Note
that the documents are more fully described in Appendix G :
Climate Protection Plan
Long-term Energy Acquisition Plan or LEAP,
Gas Utility Long-term Plan or GULP,
2005 Urban Water Management Plan
Introduction
This annual report provides an update on expenditures and resource savings fro
programs, solar electric installations, and other projects implemented by the
Utilities (CPAU). The report includes information on program effectiveness and
achievements that will be provided to the California Energy Commission
quarter of 2011. Details on the
CEC submittals a
the goals developed in the Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency (EE) Portfolio Pl
in 2007 and updated in May 2010. Other state and local requirements are discu
For electric utilities, California law (see citations for State laws and
Appendix G) requires the implementation of specific programs which contri
environmental benefits to the state. These “public benefit” programs are
funded at specific levels and may include the following:
Cost-effective, demand-side management services to promote energy-ef
New investment in renewable energ
existing statutes and regulations that promote those resources and tech
Research, development and demonstration programs in the public
advance science or technology not being adequately provid
regulated markets.
Services for low-income electricity customers including, but not limi
energy-efficiency installations and rate discounts.
water utilities. However, CPAU began collecting public benefit-type funds for th
utilities in 1996. These funds are used for progra
Goals and Policies
CPAU successfully met its FY 201
gas. CPAU has many demand-side
POLICY BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM GOALS
For Energy and Water Demand Side Management Programs
7
ved a Ten-Year
pdate to the Ten-
that are more than double
th to meet state mandates requiring
y law, the Ten-
ears.
nergy Efficiency Plan (EE Plan) highlights:
Electric Efficiency Goals
To meet both State-mandated and locally-desired goals, the City Council appro
Energy Efficiency Plan in April 2007. In May 2010, City Council approved an u
Year Electric Energy Efficiency (EE) Plan, with new annual EE goals
ose approved in the 2007 plan. The new goals also aim
energy efficiency to be given first priority in evaluating utility supply options. B
Year Electric EE Plan must be updated and submitted to the CEC every three y
2010 Ten-Year Electric E
ergy use to be
resents savings
there are increasingly more
starting with an
2011 equal to 0.6% of projected annual
e. That goal then increases 0.05% per year to reach a 0.8% annual savings
measures and
supply funds to
2011.
mulative annual
energy efficiency goals for each year between 2008 and 2017, adding up to a 3.5%
r of the program
e reduction is reached.
Separa based on these
2007 gas ef That plan
require vel by 2020 and
CPAU’O2 reduction in
2020.
In August 2010, the GULP was updated to include a strategy of ensuring deployment of all
feasible, cost-effective energy efficiency measures by:
(a) Developing and implementing a revised ten-year gas efficiency plan every three
years that includes a reasonable carbon price premium for traditional gas supplies;
and
(b) Considering the impact (costs, benefits, and GHG emissions) of substituting
electricity-using appliances for gas-using appliances and vice versa as a factor in
revising the ten-year gas efficiency plan
A 10-year cumulative goal of a 7.2% reduction in projected annual en
achieved by FY 2020. This is double the goal of the 2007 plan and rep
on top of all the savings that will occur “naturally” because
efficient products in the market
The EE Plan reaches its cumulative savings goal of 7.2% by 2020 by
annual incremental savings goal for FY
electricity us
goal by FY 2015; the 0.8% target will then be maintained until FY 2020.
In addition to the $1.8 million per year Public Benefits funds used for EE
programs, the EE Plan calls for using up to $1.2 million per year from
implement programs for three years starting in FY
Gas Efficiency Goals
The Council-approved 2007 Ten-Year Energy Efficiency Plan also included cu
gas
cumulative annual gas load reduction by 2017, starting at 0.25% in the first yea
and increasing throughout until the cumulativ
tely from therm reduction, the projected greenhouse gas reductions
ficiency targets were incorporated into the 2007 Climate Protection Plan.
s the City to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 90% of the 2005 le
s gas efficiency programs are accountable for 7,300 metric tonnes of C
8
POLICY BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM GOALS
For Energy and Water Demand Side Management Programs
Gas Energy Efficiency
Proposal is currently being developed and will be presented to Council for review and approval
s will be established by taking into account gas efficiency achievements
10, including the gas savings from the solar water heating program.
05 Urban Water
scal years. This
Council in 2011.
UWMP is updated every five years and outlines the long-term supply and demand-side
issues and policies impacting the water utility. Until that revised Plan is approved, the primary
water reduction goals are the Council-mandated 20% water use reduction by 2020 and the 2005
plan goal that efficiency programs will reduce water purchases by 4% by the year 2030. The
current annual goal for calendar year 2010 is a cumulative savings of 2.6% over projected water
use.
To meet the goals and implement the GULP strategy above, a 10-year
in 2011. The new target
between 2008 and 20
Water Efficiency Goals
The guiding document for the water utility efficiency programs has been the 20
Management Plan (UWMP), which establishes goals for calendar rather than fi
UWMP is currently undergoing a revision that will be presented to the UAC and
The
9
ACHIEVEMENTS
In Fiscal Year 2010: Energy and Water Efficiency
ACHIEVEMENTS
In Fiscal Year 2010: Energy and Water Efficiency
10
ly, the Ten-Year
cy Plan update was adopted by the City Council in May 2010. A similar update
cted to be delivered to the UAC and Council before
long-term water
DSM Program Activity and Savings Summary
CPA offers inc ssistance programs to every customer class to promote
efficiency improvements in as an w summarizes the FY
avings goals a t for a put this year’s goals in
parison to past ye rts in ommodity.
ings Goal Achievement
Achievements
CPAU achieved its efficiency goals for all three utilities in FY 2010. Additional
Electric Efficien
to the Ten-Year Gas Efficiency Plan is expe
early 2011. The Urban Water Management Plan is being revised for 2011 and meanwhile,
efforts in the water DSM program have been expanded to help meet
conservation goals.
U currently entives and a
electric, g d water use. The chart belo
2010 s nd achievemen ll of these programs. To
com ars, see the cha the sections below on each c
Commodity Sav
% of Load dity Savings % of Load Commo
Electricity 0.31% 6,586, 928 kWh 0.55%
Gas 0.32% 106,479 therms 0.40%
Water 0.34% 67,030 ccf 1.35%
Renewables Implementation Goal Achievement
Solar Electric PV Systems 650 kW
Sola
313 kW
tems r Water Heating Sys. 30 systems 7 sys
Electr
mount of FY 2010 savings varied by customer class and end use. About 90% came from
mmercial sector and 10% he residential se r half of the residential savings
from refrigerator upgrade recycling, while 30% came from lighting upgrades. About
50% of business savings came from lighting upgrades.
Goals and Achievements as a Percentage of Total Annual Electricity Sales
Year Annual Savings Goal Savings Achieved
ic
The a
the co from t ct eor. Ov
came s and
FY 2008 0.25% 0.56%
FY 2009 0.28% 0.47%
FY 2010 0.31% 0.55%
FY 2011 0.60% in progress
ACHIEVEMENTS
In Fiscal Year 2010: Energy and Water Efficiency
11
tility Association
reductions came
programs targeting other end uses. For further comparisons, the graph below from the CMUA
report sh utilities. Unfortunately, this
report is only available for electric utilities, so there are no similar comparisons of Palo Alto with
other POU’s in regard to gas and water savings.
2009 California POU Programs’ Electric Savings for all Customers by End Use
In a comparison of electric efficiency in FY 2010, the California Municipal U
(CMUA) reported that the majority of publicly-owned utilities (POUs) efficiency
from lighting programs. In contrast, Palo Alto has achieved more of its savings from efficiency
ows average savings by all end uses for publicly-owned
Comprehensive
10%
Heating,
Ventilation & Air
Conditioning
12%
Other (including
Pool Pumps,
Appliances, etc.)
Industrial
Processes &
Motors
8%
Lighting
65%
4%
Consumer
Electronics
1%Source: 2010 CMUA Status Report
Gas
of FY 2010 ame from residential customers. The majority of
residential savings came shell (insulation) a ce heating upgrades—33% and
vely. The remaining 55% of savings cam business customers with nearly
ird resulting from one ne struction rebate to incent the customer for exceeding the
Green Building Program ements. Another usiness savings came from a
single project to upgrade a large customer’s heating plant.
Goals and Achievements as a Percentage of Total Annual Gas Sales
Year Annual Savings Goal Savings Achieved
About 45% efficiency savings c
these from nd spa
29%, respecti e from
one th w con
City’s requir third of b
FY 2008 0.25% 0.11%
FY 2009 0.28% 0.49%
FY 2009 Adjusted 0.28% 0.28%
FY 2010 0.32% 0.40%
FY 2011 0.40% in progress
ACHIEVEMENTS
In Fiscal Year 2010: Energy and Water Efficiency
Water
12
About customers, primarily due
to three installations of rollers s irrigation systems. Most
ntial water savings came from incentives to purcha efficient washing machines.
Goals and Achievements as a Percentage of Total Annual Water Sales
83% of water conservation achievements came from business
weather-based cont on large busines
reside se new
Year Annual Savings Goal Savings Achieved
FY 2008 0.34% 0.72%
FY 2009 0.34% 0.98%
FY 2010 0.34% 1.35%
Customer-Side Renewable Generation (Not in the Renewable Portfolio
CPAU has programs to incent customers to install both solar electric or photo
solar water heating (SWH) systems. Both programs are governed by state
development, implementation and administration. These customer-side genera
not included in the utility’s Rene
Standard)
voltaic (PV) and
law in regard to
tion systems are
wable Portfolio Standard (RPS) supply requirements.
In e goals, note that the
extre high amoun tts in ea due to the Roche
tems nearly one m watt PV PV lowed in the last
of years, primari to the econ ndition ing systems have
tently been behind set by ram. This is primarily due to the higher than
expected upfront costs o ystems.
Goals and Achievements for Solar Electric (PV) and Solar Water Heating (SWH)
Year Program Renewables Goals
(State Law SB1)
Number of Systems;
Generation Achieved
the chart below showing CPAU’s record in meeting State renewables us
mely t of kilowa stalled in Fiscal Y
syst lso,
r 2007 to 2008 was
Biosys
couple
ega em. A
om co
installations have s
s. So heatly due ic lar water
consis the goals the prog
f the s
FY 2008 PV 650 kW 85 Systems; 1,347 kW
SWH 0 0 Systems
FY 2009 PV 650 kW 57 Systems; 340 kW
SWH 30 12 Systems
FY 2010 PV 650 kW 53 Systems; 313 kW
SWH 30 7 Systems
Greenhouse Gas Reduction
The City’s Climate Protection Plan includes electric and natural gas efficiency goals for CPAU to
achieve to assist the City in meeting its sustainability goals. As seen in the table below, CPAU
significantly exceeded the electric efficiency goal, but made limited progress towards the other
goals, primarily because gas upgrades are expensive to make and paybacks are longer. Solar
water heating system installations are far below goals in the Climate Protection Plan.
ACHIEVEMENTS
In Fiscal Year 2010: Energy and Water Efficiency
13
ievements Versus Goals for Gre use Gas Emission Reductions
ogram Goal
CO2 Tonnes Reduced
2010 Achievement
CO2 Tonnes Reduced
Ach en Ho
Pr 2020
Electric Efficiency 6,02215,800
Solar 1,113Elect ic (PV) r 3,800
Natural Gas Efficiency 0 1,5367,30
Solar Water Heating 00 121,5
All Programs Summ Report for the period July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 ary
Savings
Program #
p
Reba Gross
kWh/Year W
Therms/
Year
CCF/
Year
of
A plicants
te $
Issued* k
Peak
Efficiency Programs
Residential Smart Energy $ 3 626,145 0 35,4623,109 127,40
REAP (low income) 121,79 3,61357 $46,792 8 0
Residential Water 6,682 11,6161,083 $76,902
Commercial Advantage 68 $385,986 2,992,717 188 37,391
Right Lights+ 33 2,207,349 365 1,989$282,036
Large Business Program (Enovity) 503,600 141 18,0804 $80,780
Commercial Refrigeration (NRM) 8 839 0 07 $67,68 131,
Commercial Water 227 $44,079 480 3,262 55,4143,
Efficiency Subtotal: $1 6,5 928 694 106,479 67,0304,588 ,111,666 86,
Renewable Programs
Solar Water Heat Res. 12 $12,926 - 0 1,514
Solar Water Heat Com. 0 $ - - 0 0
PV Partners 153 $780,863 344,000 215
2 0
Palo Alto Green Members 5,981 $ - - 0 0
Renewable Subtotal: 6,052 $793,789 344,000 0 1,514 0
Total: 10,640 $1,905,455 6,930,928 694 107,993 67,030
*This figure does not reflect costs for audits, direct installation services, nor program administration fees.
1 Includes performance based incentives paid for system installed before this reporting period
2 The installed PV capacity was 215 kilowatts, but does not likely contribute to peak demand savings
ACHIEVEMENTS
In Fiscal Year 2010: Energy and Water Efficiency
14
purchase of new
ograms into less
over the past
three years. Supply resources have been added to Public Benefit Funds, and this trend will
con inue, as approv d in the Ten Year E rgy Efficiency Plan.
A summary of the cost to se up mp the cost to increase efficiency
on a unit basis are in the table below
l Y
Energy and Water Efficiency as a Resource
The goal of programs promoting efficiency is to save money by avoiding the
supplies. As CPAU continues to increase efficiency goals and to expand pr
cost-effective areas, the costs for efficiency programs has continued to increase
t e lectric Ene
purcha future s
:
plies co ared to
Fisca ear:
FY FY 0
20 Year
Forward
Prices
2008 2009 FY 201
Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Supply
Water $/CCF $ 3.49 $ 4.57 $ 3.07 $ 3.69
Gas $/therm $ 0.74 $ 0.50 $ 0.41 $ 0.91
Electric $/kWh $ 0.029 $ 0.0465 $ 0.0638 $ 0.11
Expansion of Programs
During the past three years, CPAU has expanded the number and variety of effi
in all utilities an
ciency programs
d for all customer classes. From residential usage information and comparison
in the Home Energy Reports to industrially-focused process, natural gas, and chiller programs
rogram, there are many more ways
rs to access efficiency measures than ever before. In addition, funding has been
ive, such as the
ra Valley Water
or the upcoming
h a Request for
Proposals process.
See Appendix A for a more complete listing of all DSM program activities.
Expenditures
To achieve its aggressive resource efficiency goals, Palo Alto has expended about $22 million
for demand-side management (DSM) during the 7 years between 2003 and 2010. For FY 2010,
about $6 million was spent from public benefit and supply funds. CPAU estimates that it will
spend a similar amount in FY 2011 from the operating budget and transfers from reserves. Of
through the Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency P
for custome
significantly enhanced for ongoing programs that were found to be cost-effect
Right Lights+ energy saving program for small businesses and the Santa Cla
District water conservation programs, so their reach could be expanded. F
year, further additions to the DSM programs portfolio are being solicited throug
ACHIEVEMENTS
In Fiscal Year 2010: Energy and Water Efficiency
15
efit and supply funds, about $800,000 is
water DSM funds. The
%)
31%)
illing, and other
are expected to
ustomers’ supply
needs by first reducing demand through cost-effective efficiency measures. Total FY 2010
e most for their
al gas and water and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. Note that the renewable energy programs reported in the DSM budget are the
customer-side photovoltaic and solar water heating systems rebated through the utility. By state
law requirements, these programs are not included in the renewable portfolio standard (RPS).
An overall summary showing the multi-year trends of program expenditures in a functional
breakout, combining all three utilities, is shown in the chart below.
this $6 million, $4.8 million is from electric public ben
from natural gas public benefit funds, and just under $500,000 is from
DSM budget breakdown is:
o Energy efficiency and water conservation measures (53
o Renewable energy, e.g. solar photovoltaic and water heating programs (
o Low income programs (4%)
o Research and development (R&D) programs (1%)
o Program administration, including evaluation and measurement (6%)
o Large commercial customer (key accounts) support for efficiency, b
management activities (just under 5%)
Total expenditures have more than doubled in the past five years, and budgets
continue to increase for these programs given CPAU’s mandate to meet the c
Expenditures were almost $4.7 million. CPAU programs help customers get th
utility dollar, reduce their demand for electricity, natur
ACHIEVEMENTS
In Fiscal Year 2010: Energy and Water Efficiency
DSM Program Expenditures
R&D Efficiency Renewable Energy Low Income Admin Key Accts
2007-2008
2006-2007
2005-2006
2004-2005
2003-2004
2008-2009
2009-2010
-1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000
arty programs.
. However, the
ms are being called out to emphasize their more significant contribution to
s in FY 2010. (Savings are “first year” and will continue for the
most effective energy-saving
rograms. In
proposals (RFP
General Program
Residential Smart Energy Program:
Purpose
Note that expenditures for FY 2010 include contracted encumbrances for third p
Some of these funds may not be spent until future years.
DSM Program Overview
A complete listing of all DSM and renewable energy programs is in Appendix A
following progra
CPAU’s overall DSM achievement
life of the installed measures). In particular, note that the
programs have been the Commercial Advantage and Commercial Right Lights+ p
addition to continuing with these and other current programs, CPAU is seeking
issued October 2010) for expanding the range of program offerings.
An explanation of the difference between gross and net savings is in the
Notes section below.
: improving residential electric and gas use efficiency through rebates
Primary Expenditure: $127,403 in rebates
Customer Impact: 4,416 upgrades to appliances, equipment and home shells, including 2,056
Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) and Light Emitting Diode (LED) bulbs, 114 heating and
cooling systems and 94 insulation installations, 1,350 appliances, 52 water heaters and 10 pool
pumps. CPAU also replaced 740 holiday incandescent light strands with high-efficiency LEDs.
Savings: Electric---626,145 kWh (gross) and 500,916 kWh (net).
16
ACHIEVEMENTS
In Fiscal Year 2010: Energy and Water Efficiency
Natural gas---35,462 therms
Residential Energy Assistance Program:
17
Purpose: improving low-income residential electric and gas use efficiency at no cost
Primary Expenditure: $168,189 in direct subsidies to contractors
Customer Impact: 57 low-income homes received lighting and shell upgrades
Savings: Electric---121,798 kWh (gross) and 97, 438 kWh (net)
Natural gas---3,613 therms
Residential Green@Home:
Purpose: improving residential electric, gas and water use effi
Primary Expenditure
ciency through in-home audits
: $60,000 in direct subsidies to contractor
Customer Impact: 88 residential home energy audits completed (performed by volunteers)
Savings: No immediate savings result from the audits themselves; however, cus
personalized advice on specific ways to reduce their water and energy costs.
tomers received
Residential--Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Program
Purpose: improving residential water use efficiency in partnership with the SCVWD through
rebates and audits
Primary Expenditure: $76,902 in rebates and $26,530 in reimbursed audit and administrative
fees
Customer Impact 1,151 residents provided with services including indoor and outdoor home
scape upgrades water-use audits (340), rebates for toilets (229), washing machines (514), land
(61) and evapotranspiration (ET) controllers for irrigation systems (7).
Savings: Water---11,616 CCF (almost 8.7 million gallons)
Natural gas---6,682 therms
Commercial Advantage Program
Purpose: improving business electric, gas and water use efficiency through rebates
Primary Expenditure: $385,986 in rebates
Customer Impact: 68 customers received rebates for lighting upgrades, wall and ceiling
mounted motion sensors, LED exit signs, boilers, pipe insulation, variable frequency drives, PC
power management software, night covers for display cases, anti-sweat heater controls, auto-
closers for cooler doors, window film, new construction projects and custom electric and natural
gas saving projects.
Savings: Electric---2,992,717 kWh (gross) and 2,797,054 kWh (net)
Natural gas---37,391 therms
18
ACHIEVEMENTS
In Fiscal Year 2010: Energy and Water Efficiency
Right Lights+ Program
Purpose: improving small business’ electric efficiency through installation and re
Primary Expenditure
bates
: $282,036 in rebates; $466,288 in subsidies to contractor (Ecology Action)
tors to complete work.
Cus
to perform audits, supply products and arrange contrac
tomer Impact: 30 customers received onsite audits and efficiency rebates on a variety of
des as well as for door gaskets, LED exit signs,
for coolers and customized projects.
lighting, sensors and commercial kitchen upgra
vending machine controls, strip curtains
Savings: Electric---2,207,349 kWh (gross) and 1,765,879 kWh (net)
Natural gas---1,989 therms
Commercial Refrigeration (NRM): $68,183
Purpose: improving business’ electric efficiency through installations and rebates
Primary Expenditure: $67,668 in rebates and $515 in third-party administrator fees (NRM)
Customer Impact: 7 business customers with commercial kitchens were given rebates for
nd motors, LED
ghts and LED lights for walk-in coolers.
equipment upgrades with longer paybacks, such as walk-in cooler controls a
case li
Savings: Electric ---131,839 kWh (gross) and 105,471 kWh (net)
Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program
Purpose: improving large business electric and gas efficiency through audits and rebates
Primary Expenditure: $337,930 for third-party contractor assis
(Enovity)
tance with system replacements
Customer Impact: 4 large commercial customers replaced systems includin
chiller, various controls, linear fluorescents, occupancy sensors, boilers and insul
g an air cooled
ation on a
steam distribution system.
Savings: Electric---503,600 kWh (gross) and 402,880 kWh (net)
Natural gas---18,080 therms
Commercial--Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Program
Purpose: improving business water use efficiency with the SCVWD through audits and rebates
Primary Expenditure: $44,079 in rebates, $43,462 for direct installations and $35,700 for
business audits and administrative fees.
Customer Impact: 265 business customers received services that included indoor and outdoor
audits, irrigation audits and rebates for toilets (193), washing machines (16), landscape
conversions (10) and evapotranspiration (ET) controllers for irrigation systems (3).
Savings: Water---55,414 CCF (almost 41.5 million gallons)
Electric---3,480 KWh (gross)
Natural gas---3,262 therms
19
GENERAL PROGRAM NOTES
AND UPDATES
20
GENERAL PROGRAM NOTES AND UPDATES
20
otes and Updates
ers and spillover
have made the
y’s program can
efits (and costs)
ornia utilities are
ypical NTG ratio
ings, is thus about 80% of the total program, or
gross, savings. In other states, the NTG ratio can be greater than 1, which accounts for
e energy efficient choices without participating in the
over 1.2, which
this higher NTG
PAU contracted with a third party consultant---
vations, Inc.---to
public benefits
s the program-
implementation
econd report for
th the residential
businesses and
ed on non-residential
evaluation, the consulting team also performed process
ess) Programs.
f verified energy
and a realization
rate of 85% for the Right Lights+ program. The report also provides recommendations to
improve the realization rate for these two programs. Evaluation efforts for the FY 2010 gas and
electric programs are currently underway and are expected to be completed in early 2011.
Research and Development Projects
During FY 2010, CPAU began working on a variety of research and development projects.
Demand response, electric vehicle, and smart metering/smart grid projects are all being
reviewed for development within the Utilities Department. The DSM staff may become involved
to a greater extent with these programs as they get closer to implementation.
General Program N
Net versus Gross Electric Savings
Nationwide, most electric utilities are required to include the effect of free-rid
effects when calculating savings. Free-riders are those customers who would
efficiency improvement whether or not the utility had the program, so the utilit
not “take credit” for this savings. Spillover effects are those environmental ben
that make a difference even on those not directly involved in a program. Calif
required to reduce gross program savings by a net-to-gross (NTG) ratio. The t
in California is 0.8. The reported, or net sav
spillover effects, when customers mak
utility programs. For example, in Vermont, the NTG ratio for CFL programs is
takes into account the spillover effects. California law does not allow use of
ratio that includes spillover effects for reporting savings.
Evaluation, Measurement and Verification
To meet the requirements of state law, C
Navigant, formerly Summit Blue, and its subcontractor Energy Market Inno
provide evaluation, measurement and verification services (EM&V) for the
programs. The EM&V effort covers both impact evaluation, which measure
induced energy savings, and process evaluation, which assesses the program
procedures to identify areas for improvement. The consultant completed its s
the FY 2009 electric efficiency programs in early 2010.
CPAU has a number of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in bo
and non-residential sectors. About 70% of the savings achieved comes from
therefore the impact evaluation efforts for FY 2008-2009 were center
projects. In addition to impact
evaluation focusing on Smart Energy (residential) and Right Lights+ (small busin
Results from the impact evaluation show a realization rate of 90% (ratio o
savings to claimed energy savings) for the Commercial Advantage Program
21
APPENDICES
APPENDICES
22
DSM program costs and achievements may find
y End Use
ent DSM Expenditures
Appendix D: Statewide Energy and Water Use Breakdowns by Utility and Customer Class
Appendix E: Analysis and Listing of NON-Cost-Effective Program Measures
Appendix F: Electric DSM Report to CMUA for their report to the California Energy Commission
Appendix G: Relevant City Council and Legislative Mandates
Appendices
Those who want to delve deeper into CPAU’s
the following appendices useful:
Appendix A: Current CPAU DSM Program Descriptions
Appendix B: Discussion of Technologies and Summary of Savings Achievements b
Categories
Appendix C: Comparative Chart of Past and Curr
APPENDICES
23
ix en AU DSM Program Descriptions
Append A: Curr t CP
Customer Class Pro Admini-
strator Descriptgram Name ion
Residential Ele
Water, and Ga
c
s
rt Energ
gram
Utility
Ma
Sta
Sta
CP
rchasing and installing
, insulation, power
aces, variable speed
s, and other items.
tric, Sma
pro
y rketing
ff (UMS)
ff in
Rebate customers for pu
energy efficient appliances
strips, solar attic fans, furn
AU pool pumps, water heater
Residential Electric Refrigerator
g JAC
old working
rogram in place Recyclin O
Rebate customers $35 for an
refrigerator. Unit recycled. P
since 2006.
Residential Elec
Gas, Water
esidential New
Construction Rebate UM xceed City’s Green
to $900.
tric, R S Staff Rebate customers who e
Building Ordinance up
Residential Elec
and Gas eports OP
comparing residents’
ogram began in
y funded by the
n Block Grant
covery and
unds).
tric Home Energ
R
y OWER
Written and on-line reports
energy usage to neighbors. Pr
November 2010 and partiall
Energy Efficiency Conservatio
program of the Americans Re
Reinvestment Act (Stimulus F
Residential Electric
and Gas
Low Income
Residential Energy
Assistance Program
)
Syn
commendations are
ures. Replacements
ulation, weather
ors, and furnaces (if
ce 2005. (REAP
ergy
given for energy saving meas
and repairs are made to ins
stripping, lighting, refrigerat
needed). Program has been in place sin
Free energy audit with re
Residential Electric,
Gas, and Water
Residential Home
Energy Audit Acl
ehold energy and
nded in October 2010, as it
Energy Reports.
ara
On-Line energy audit of hous
water use. Contract e
was replaced by the Home
Residential Elec
Gas, and Water en@Home t
me energy audits and
c meter information (blue line monitors).
n delivered
nds a two-person
nteers to visit resident’s homes for a
2.5 hour audit. Some homes receive a Blue Line
Energy Monitor which provides in-home
information on electricity use and cost.
tric, Gre Ac erra
The Green@Home audits have bee
since 2008. This program se
team of volu
Acterra provides free in-ho
electri
Residential Electric,
Gas, and Water
Training and
workshops
Various
Contractors
and Staff
Workshops on energy and water conservation
issues for the public.
Residential Water Water Conservation
Programs SCVWD
Work with Santa Clara Valley Water District to
ensure customers receive audits and rebates for
water conservation projects.
APPENDICES
24
Small Business
a Lights+ Eco
Act
recommends changes, assists customer in
completes paperwork for
en in place since Electric and G s Right logy
ion making upgrades, and
rebate. This program has be
2006.
Contractor performs energy audit on facility,
Business Elec
and Gas
tr ercial
ntage P UM
nt
illers, boilers, food
rigeration, office equipment & custom
ic Comm
Adva rogram
(CAP)
S Staff
Rebates on installation of energy efficie
equipment: lighting, HVAC, ch
service, ref
savings.
Business Electric,
ter
ew
n UM eding City and
Gas and Wa Constructio
Rebates
Business N
S Staff Rebates for new construction exce
state energy requirements.
Business Electric Data Center
Efficiency Program UM erver virtualization and other data
. S Staff center efficiency measures
Rebates for s
Business Electr ci Qu
s customers to
begin in early 2011.
d by contractor and
utside legal review.
ic Energy Effi
Financing
ency est
Zero interest loans for busines
install efficient equipment. To
Program is being develope
staff with o
Business Electr
and Gas
rcial
dustrial Ene
Efficiency Program
Eno
n assistance for
ficiency measures.
e since 2009 and is
with buildings larger than
et and/or greater than 50 kW
ic Comme
In
&
rgy vity
Commissioning and installatio
large businesses installing ef
This program has been in plac
available for customers
30,000 square fe
maximum electric demand.
Business Elec
and Gas
tric Efficiency Programs
r Commerci
tchens
Nation
g
or efficiency
measures in commercial kitchens. This program
rgeted to commercial
ed in June 2011, as the
contractor has determined that insufficient
lto.
al Re
M
fo
Ki
al
Direct installation assistance f
source
mt
was started in 2008 and ta
kitchens, but it will be end
potential is available in Palo A
Business Water Water Conservation
rams SC
Valley Water District to
dits, rebates, and
ater conservation Prog VWD ensure customers receive au
direct installation services for w
projects.
Work with Santa Clara
Business Electric,
Gas, and Water Training
Various
contractors
and staff
Various training and workshops for business
customers.
Business Electric,
Gas, and Water
Large Customer
Facility Manager
Meetings
UMS Staff &
Others
Training on a variety of efficiency measures, from
chillers to LEED certification on buildings.
Business Electric,
Gas, and Water MeterLinks Automated
Energy
On-Line access to metered utility usage for large
customers. This program has been in place since
2002.
APPENDICES
25
BLE PRENEWAROGRAMS
All Custom
Electric
ers
tners U
olar electric (PV)
ere are 402 PV
total capacity of
awatts (1.4% of system peak load).
PV Par MS Staff systems. As of June 30, 2010 th
installations in Palo Alto with the
2.563 meg
Rebates for installation of s
All Customers PaloAltoGre D
on by purchasing
ent to a customer’s Electric en 3 egrees
Supports wind and solar generati
renewable energy credits equival
energy usage.
All Customer
Gas
s ater
ting
U
w
fo
Sustainable
Energy
lar water heating
s installed. Of these,
st fiscal year, totaling 1,514
sidents are paid up to
$1,500 and business customers can get up to
$100,000, depending on system performance.
Rebates are set at a similar level to those provided
to customers of the IOU statewide program.
Solar W
Hea
MS Staff
Rebates for installation of so
systems. There are 19 system
12 were installed in the laith Center
r therms in annual savings. Re
All Customers
Electric and Gas
Ground Source
Heat Pump UMS Staff Provide information on ground source heat pump
systems.
APPENDICES
Appendix B: Discussion of Technologies a
26
nd
Summary of Achievements by End Use Categories
Residential Energy (Gas and Electric)
Lighting: Lighting is by far the most cost-effective electric technology for a resi
retrofit and has the largest potential for savings. Compact Fluo
dential efficiency
rescent Lights (CFLs) are now
m CFLs and the
gh over the next
three years, the law will evolve to require this to become standard for residents.
FLs, fluorescent
EDs) bulbs and
relatively inexpensive and provide significant electricity savings. Particularly for lights in use
more than three hours per day, payback is quick. Due to the large savings fro
low upfront additional or incremental cost, many utilities rebate CFLs, even thou
CPAU residential lighting programs include Green@Home CFLs, low income C
tube lights, and fixtures, and incenting new technology light emitting diode (L
LED holiday lights. Also in development is a CFL flood/specialty lights rebate.
Appliances: Refrigerators are typically the only appliance for which it is cost-effective for electric
a newer model.
for residents to
a more efficient
® certified one is relatively small. For this reason, rebates for refrigerators and
and dishwasher
g machines and
water savings.
recycled through
Insulation and Shell (weatherization, windows, ducts, etc):
utilities to provide fiscal incentives for efficiency improvements. Refrigerators operate year-
round, and older appliances can easily use five to ten times the electricity of
While replacing any refrigerator over 15 years old is a good efficiency measure
take, the relative cost difference between a new standard refrigerator and
ENERGY STAR
other appliances are typically low.
Rebates are paid for ENERGY STAR certified refrigerator, washing machine,
purchases, as well as for a few electric water heaters. The rebates for washin
dishwashers are cost-justified for the utility because of both natural gas and
Customers are also rebated for having an old, working refrigerator or freezer
the City’s contractor.
Due to the relatively mild year-round
terms of electric
especially in the
ceiling or on the roof, provides the fastest payback for natural gas savings and home comfort
improvement. Costs are generally low, and the improvement in the home’s shell is fairly
significant, particularly with older homes that have little or no insulation. Other shell upgrades,
such as duct sealing, weatherization or window replacement, can result in natural gas savings.
However, paybacks vary dramatically in these measures, as the cost varies from a few dollars
for a bottle of caulk to thousands of dollars for window replacements.
For example, the calculated savings for window replacements from single pane to double pane
in Climate Zone 4 (in which Palo Alto is located) is four kilowatt hours (kWh) per year for each
climate in Palo Alto, most shell improvement measures are not cost-effective in
savings, but some are cost-justified based on natural gas savings). Insulation,
APPENDICES
27
a Single Family
h for first year savings, this would justify a
rebate of $0.004 per 100 square feet of clear windows replaced and $0.24 per 100 square feet
dollars, payback
100 square feet of window with a clear pane and 24 kWh with a tinted pane in
Residence. At the custom rebate of $0.10 per kW
of tinted windows. Since the cost to replace a window is in the hundreds of
can be as long as 50 or more years for a window replacement.
Cooling: Since Palo Alto has very few hot hours per year, incenting new inst
the most
allations of even
efficient residential air conditioning is not cost-effective. Residents are incented to
AR certified
xpensive cooling
e harmful to the
replace an older, less efficient central air conditioner with a new ENERGY ST
model. In addition, customers receive education about fans and other less e
technologies, as opposed to air conditioners, which use a lot of energy and ar
environment.
Space Heating: The largest end use for residential natural gas in many hom
heating. The majority of space heating in Palo Alto is through natural gas—boil
es is for space
ers to heat water
in radiant floor heating and from a variety of furnace types. Due to the cost and inconvenience
, most residents
cal homes have
being replaced.
avings over the
Solar Water Heating:
of making the upgrade and relatively low energy savings from newer equipment
do not upgrade their furnaces until the end of the equipment’s life. Some lo
heating systems that are 50 years or older, and the equipment is slowly
Rebates for these systems have provided the largest amounts of natural gas s
past several years.
The second largest use for natural gas for most residents is water
tandard models,
g costs can be
ter heater as a
rebate for solar
ctors are trained
expected.
heating. The initial purchase price of solar water heaters is high compared to s
but they can be cost-effective. As a result of natural gas savings, operatin
reduced up to 90%. Solar water heating systems require a conventional wa
backup to ensure hot water is available when solar energy is not. Palo Alto’s
water heating is still fairly new (2008); however, as more residents and contra
on the program over the next several years, increased customer involvement is
Other Water Heating: Customers who upgrade washing machines to front loaders or other
models use much less water, and since some of that water is heated, the majority of the savings
come from reduced water heating needs. In addition, replacing water heaters with more
efficient models yields energy savings, although the savings are often relatively small, especially
in comparison to the plumbing costs for installation. Some residents do achieve savings with
tankless water heaters. For tankless systems, water circulated through a large coil is heated
only on demand using gas or electricity; there is no storage tank maintaining hot water. A
possible concern with this technology is the limitation on the number of fixtures that can use hot
water at the same time. Also, because there is an endless supply of hot water, some customers
actually use more natural gas with this technology.
APPENDICES
28
Smart Energy Residential Program Instal d Sa Y 2010
Measure Units
lations an vings; F
A
Sa
Annual
Therm
Savings*
nnual
kWh
vings*
Lighting
CFL Bulb 81 7,371 -
LED Holiday Lights 740 17,760 -
LED Novicomm 988 36,556 -
LED Pharox 987 39,480 -
Subtotal Lighting 2,796 101,167 -
HVAC
Boiler 15 3,000 -
Central AC More Efficient (SEER 14) 3 1,017 -
Central AC Most Efficient (SEER 15) 8 3,336 -
Gas Furnace 88 7,392 -
Subtotal HVAC 114 4,353 10,392
Shell
Attic Insulation More Efficient (R-30) 45 16,980 6,042
Attic Insulation Most Efficient (R-38) 19 7,292 2,618
Flat Roof Insul. More Efficient ( R19) 3 510 267
Wall Insulation 27 4,860 2,700
Subtotal Shell 94 29,642 11,627
Appliances
Clothes Wash More Efficient (Tier 2) 41 6,027 697
Clothes Wash Most Efficient (Tier 3) 487 81,816 9,253
Dishwasher 36 1,584 144
Dishwasher More Efficient (CEE Tier 1 19) 627 30
Dishwasher Most Efficient (CEE Tier 2) 243 9,720 462
Refrigerator 351 42,471 -
Refrigerator Recycling 173 33 - 6,658
Subtotal Appliances 1,350 478,903 10,586
Water Heater
Tankless Water Heater 13 - 1,690
Water Heat Electric 3 537 -
Water Heat Gas More Efficient (Tier 0) 14 - 238
Water Heat Gas More Efficient (Tier 1) 1 - 29
Water Heat Gas Most Efficient (Tier 2)) 21 - 1,197
Subtotal Water Heater 52 537 3,154
APPENDICES
29
Other
Pool Pumps 10 14,000 0
Subtotal Other 10 14,000 0
Total Sm y Program art Energ 4,416 628,602* 35,759*
Low Income Residential Assistance Program P) (REA
Measure Units ecip Therm
Savings* R ients kWh
Savings*
Lighting
REAP - CFL Replacement 479 33,530 - 55
REAP - Hardwire Interior Lights 175 53 19,600 -
REAP - Hardwire Porch Light 65 - 22 14,170
REAP - T8 Delamp Conversion 92 50,766 - 40
Subtotal Lighting 811 118,06 06
HVAC
REAP - Furnace Filter 3 - 3 3
Subtotal HVAC 3 03
Shell
REAP - Attic Access Weatherstripping 6 6611
REAP - Attic Insulation 10,123 1,51862,834
REAP - Caulking MFR Windows etc. 24 24 46 24
REAP - Caulking SFR Windows etc 15 151529
REAP - Door Weather-Stripping 103 41253309
REAP - Duct Test & Seal 4 964500
REAP - Programmable Thermostat 3 2283
-
Subtotal Shell 10,278 3,729 2,299
Water Heating
REAP - Faucet Aerator 117 51 - 351
REAP - Low Flow Showerhead 59 43 - 413
REAP - Water Heater Blanket 10 10 - 550
Subtotal Water Heating 186 0 0 1,314
Total REAP Low Income Program 11,278 0 121,798 3,613
*Savings by end use is based on original gross savings estimates and differs slightly from final reported net savings
by program delivered to the CEC.
APPENDICES
30
) Non-Residential (Commercial & Industrial) Energy (Gas and Electric
Lighting: Lighting technology improvement is the most cost-effective efficiency retrofit for a
including during
stom) and direct
ce T12 fluorescent tubes with T8’s and remove lamps when not
pact fluorescent
y sensors in low
ppropriate, and
business. Payback periods are typically less than three years, the savings are assured for the
long-term when fixtures are installed, and energy savings are all year-round,
peak times which is especially beneficial to the utility.
Current commercial lighting programs include rebates (both prescriptive and cu
installation programs to repla
needed, replace exit signs with LED fixtures and incandescent lights with com
bulbs, install LED case lighting in coolers, install Bi-Level lighting and occupanc
use areas (stairwells and parking garages), install metal halide lights where a
install/repair lighting control systems.
HVAC: Replacing heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment can provide
old. However,
large systems.
ntial between a
and more efficient new item. For these reasons, HVAC equipment is typically replaced
d custom) and
g towers, air conditioners, variable
and manage
savings for a business, particularly if their current system is over 15 years
installation of the new equipment can be quite expensive, especially for
Payback periods remain long, even after a utility incentive equal to the differe
standard
at the end of the life of current equipment (“burn out”).
Current business HVAC programs include rebates (both prescriptive an
advise/assistance programs to replace chillers/coolin
frequency drives (VFDs), and pumps, as well as to reset control settings
operations.
Other: There are many specialized areas of business where energy saving
effective. Commercial kitchens, grocery stores, and “quickie” marts often use l
energy and have relatively poor regular maintenance progra
s can be cost-
arge amounts of
ms. Other businesses have
e low cash flow
irect install and rebate programs.
Other efficiency measures include replacement of steam hoods, motors, refrigeration
systems/appliances and gaskets/strip curtains in commercial kitchens. CPAU has implemented
programs to assist other businesses include upgrading business computing to more efficient
technologies and to help in design and construction of more efficient buildings.
Water Heating:
processes that can be improved to achieve greater energy efficiency.
Due to the relatively quick payback of restaurant and kitchen programs and th
position of these customers, CPAU has emphasized these d
Palo Alto businesses have saved the most natural gas by replacing and
upgrading boilers and water heating equipment. Much of this equipment in current office
spaces is old and reaching the end of its useful life. In addition, water quality regulations have
required some of the larger firms to upgrade boilers to meet new standards.
APPENDICES
31
water utility is required to report its efficiency savings to the California Urban Water
MPs).” See
relative to these
High Efficiency Toilets:
Residential Water
The
Conservation Council under various categories of “Best Management Practices (B
the chart at the end of the water section for a listing of CPAU Achievements
BMPs.
Replacing an older toilet with a high efficiency one can save 22 gallons
. Given that the
r residents who
ing Machines:
per day (single family residence) to 43 gallons per day (multi-family residence)
replacement cost is relatively low and older units often leak, payback periods fo
install these toilets can be very short.
Wash High-efficiency residential washing machines can save nearly 6,500
m
the community,
machines. As
payback periods for customers continue to get
shorter.
gallons per appliance per year over old models, in addition to the natural gas savings fro
heating less hot water. Given the penetration of older technology machines in
there is a large water and natural gas savings potential in replacing washing
costs for the newer machines come down,
Landscaping: Given that 40 to 50 percent of residential water consumptio
irrigating landscaping, replacing high water using plants with native or Bay Frien
can result in significant water savings. However, payback periods can be
residen
n goes towards
dly landscaping
longer for the
ts as the cost to retrofit a landscape can be high.
Nonresidential (Commercial & Industrial) Water
High Efficiency Toilets and Urinals: Replacing an older technology toilet or u
efficiency unit saves about 46 gallons of water per day. Given the number o
commercial facilities, t
rinal with a high
f older toilets in
he total savings potential from this technology is high. Cost of installation
savings for
Landscaping:
for new fixtures is low, giving customers a very quick payback and subtantial water
the utility.
Replacing high water use landscaping (turf lawn) with native or Bay Friendly
plants and improving irrigation system efficiency can save an average of 800 to 1,500 CCF per
acre per year. Given the sizes of some of the commercial campuses in Palo Alto, savings for
this program can be significant. Payback is longer for existing facilities, as the cost to retrofit a
landscape can be high.
Other Technologies: Many commercial customers have the capability to change processes or
chiller technology to use less water. These new Water Efficient Technologies are custom
developed and rebates are paid based on actual water savings.
APPENDICES
32
Water programs are reported under their Best Management Practice (BMP) category to the
California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) on a bi-annual basis. The program
in
FY 2010
volvement for FY 2010 is shown below.
Item
Best Management P ater W
House Calls
ractice (BMP1): W ise
Single Family 278 Dwelling (SFD) Completed
Multi-Family Dwelling (MFD) compl 62 eted
Showerhead installed 93
Aerators Insta 65 lled
Flappers Insta 7 lled
Water Savings (gallons per ye 1,017,280 ar)
BMP5: Weather (ET) Controller Rebate
Residential 7
Small Comm 3 ercial
Large Comm - ercial
Water Savings (gallons per year) 2,504,412
BMP2: Re oilet (H
Rebate
sidential High Efficiency T ET)
SFD Installation Rebates 229
W s per y 692,543,518 ater Savings (gallon ear)
BMP5: Landscape Survey Program
Irrigation Audits Performed 18
Water Sa s per y 10,771,200 vings (gallon ear)
BM nstallationP9: Business (CII) & MFD HET I
CII HET Installa 176 tions
MFD HET installa 17 tions
Water Savings (gallons per y 3,170,025 ear)
BMP6: CII Clothes Washer Rebate
Total Installed 16
Water Savings (gallons per year) 512,000
BMP6: Resi Clothes Washer Rebate
Total Installed (Tier 3) 514
Total Installed (Tier 2) -
Water Savings (gallons per year) 3,315,300
APPENDICES
33
BMP9: CII Indoor Water Audits
Total CII Sites Audited 22
Est. Water Savings (gallons per y 23,071,312ear)
BMP5: Water-Efficient Landscape Conversion
N ommercial) 71 umber of Retrofits (Residential & C
Square Feet of Turf Remov 146,098 ed
Est. Water savings (gallons per year) 3,599,001
Pre Rinse Spray Valve (CPAU funded)
Total Instal 3 led
Water Savings (gallons per year) 219,000
TOTAL WATER SAVED (GAL) PER YEAR 50,138,421
TOTAL THERMS SAVED 9,944
TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENDITURES $ 220,923
Water savings represented 0.34% of total water sales in FY 2010.
APPENDICES
34
mparative Chart of Past and Current
and program function from FY 2004 through FY 2010 are
provided w.
isto o U n r
Fiscal Year
Appendix C: Co
DSM Expenditures
For comparison purposes, the costs by utility
in the chart belo
H rical C sts by tility a d Prog am
2004 2005 2006 Total 2007 2008 2009 2010
Electric
PBC
Admin
128,020 129,288 164,141 81,470 140,215 384,312 144,887 1,172,333
Electric
DSM 1,199,220 1,094,768 792,852 728,930 1,049,958 1,566,757 2,668,403 9,100,890
Electric
Renew. 205,002 258,025 1,504,726 1,126,506 1,219,982 1,210,982 1,446,874 6,972,097
Electric
Cust
Accts
103,983 61,297 6,170 38,726 17,832 290,110 259,339 777,456
Electric
R&D 78,682 8,526 7,774 19,145 4,354 8,543 45,100 172,123
Electric
Low Inc - 1,993 - 132,117 148,169 168,189 121,811 572,277
Subtotal 1,714,908 1,553,896 2,475,663 2,126,894 2,580,509 3,628,892 4,686,413 18,767,176
Gas PBC
Admin 1,575 196 4,449 41,179 86,914 52,131 3 186,447
Gas DSM 113,548 190,934 41,603 119,135 125,052 215,489 766,811 1,572,572
Gas Cust
Accts 6,866 13,596 5,411 12,359 3,846 53,841 44,834 40,754
Gas R&D - - 4,763 12,380 9,769 13,626 11,000 51,538
Gas Low
Income - - - 50,549 56,256 83,597 62,676 253,078
Subtotal 121,990 204,726 56,225 235,602 281,836 418,684 885,324 2,204,388
Water
Efficiency 54,075 30,974 61,592 66,802 211,460 331,315 447,624 1,203,842
Water
Cust
Accts
6,214 5,989 7,256 7,865 17,509 57,521 28,572 130,926
Subtotal 60,289 36,963 68,848 74,667 228,968 388,836 476,196 1,334,768
Total $1,897,187 $1,795,585 $2,600,737 $2,437,163 $3,091,314 $4,436,413 $6,047,934 $22,306,332
APPENDICES
35
d Water Use
By Utility and Customer Class
and commercial
by Climate Zone
As shown e most electricity for lighting,
refrigeration, and electronic equipment. Natural gas usage is concentrated in space and water
heating. Break-downs of statewide residential and commercial electric and natural gas
consumption patterns by end-use category are shown below.
Figure D1 : California Break-down of Residential Electric Use
Appendix D: Statewide Energy an
Breakdown
Residential Energy Use
The state completes a thorough analysis of the equipment used by residential
customers every three to four years. This information is further broken down
(Palo Alto is in Climate Zone 4, immediately adjacent to Climate Zone 3).
in the latest data available, residential customers use th
Statewide Electricity Use Per Household
5,914 kWh Each
Light (est.),
22%
Refrig. &
Freezer, 19%
TV, PC,
Office, 15%
Air Condition,
10%
Pool & Spa,
6%
Dishwash &
Laundry, 5%
Space Heat,
4%
Water Heat,
3%
Misc., 11%
Cook, 5%
Source: Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) 2004
APPENDICES
36
Figure D1 : California Break-down of Residential Gas Use
Statewide Gas Use Per Household
Space Heat, 44%
Water Heat, 44%
Cooking, 7%
Dryer, 3%
Pool, Spa, Misc., 3%
Source: Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) 2004
Nonresidential Energy Use
Nonresidential electric usage is dominated by lighting, cooling, and refrigeration. Natural gas
usage is concentrated in space and water heating, as for residents.
Figure D3: Statewide Commercial Electric Usage
California Commercial Building Electricity End
Use
Interior Lighting,
28.7%
Exterior Lighting,
5.8%
Office
Equipment, 7.1%
Misc., 5.8%
Process, 0.3%
Motors, 4.2%
Air Comp., 1.0%
Heating, 1.6%
Cooling, 14.9%
Ventilation,
11.9%
Refrigeration,
13.4%
Water Heating,
0.9%
Cooking, 4.2%
Source: Commercial Energy Use Survey 2006
APPENDICES
37
Figure D4: Statewide Commercial Gas Usage
California Commercial Building Gas End Use
Water Heat,
31.8%
Process,
Heating,
36.4%
Cooling,
1.5%
Cooking,
22.6%Misc., 1.8%
5.9%
Survey 2006
Residential Water Use
The largest uses for residential water usage are for the landscape, washing laundry, and toilets,
with faucets and showers/baths closely following toilets in typical end use. Nine percent of the
average residential consumption of water is for leaks.
Figures D5: Statewide Average Water Usage
Source: Commercial Energy Use
California Residential Average Water Use
Toilets, 11%
Bath, 1%
Shower, 9%
Faucets, 10%
Dishwasher, 1%
Laundry, 12%
Other, 8%Leak, 9%
Irrigation, 39%
Source: 2009 Version of the Decision Demand Side Management Least Cost Planning Decision
Support System developed by Maddaus Water Management
APPENDICES
Nonresidential Water Use
38
About one third of the water used in Palo Alto is for commercial, industrial, and public buildings.
Much of this water, particularly for parks and large business campuses, is used for landscaping;
however, water is also used for toilets and faucets or process applications.
Figure D6: Water Use by Customer Class in Palo Alto
Palo Alto Customer Water Use
Residential, 62%
Commercial &
Industrial, 29%
City & Public, 9%
APPENDICES
39
A ing of Non-
ective and thus
the objective as
(May 3, 2010), which directed the Utilities Advisory
nal cost or
y supplies. The
asures and want
ome programs,
but are effective
with the related
rce Cost (TRC)
t programs are
er the TRC ranking, the less cost-effective the program.
ust have a benefit-to-cost ratio greater than 1.0 to be implemented.
There are four generally accepted cost-effectiveness tests for energy efficiency programs. The
), the utility, the
cipate. For EE
ctive is typically used; however, staff do
review all four ratios when setting rebate levels.
Electric-Nonresidential:
note that all of thes ms ha C less than 1.0 and cost
than purchasing supply. In these cases, the programs would
ed to incent the installation o uipme
Measure
To
Resource
Cost
Levelized
Cost/kWh
ppendix E: Analysis and List
Cost-Effective Program Measures
Staff regularly reviews programs to determine which ones are not cost-eff
should not be included in the efficiency portfolio. This enables CPAU to meet
expressed in a Council Colleague’s Memo
Commission to identify the rate of energy efficiency penetration where additio
program management is no longer preferable to purchasing renewable energ
charts below are provided for readers who may have an interest in specific me
to understand why they are not part of our programs.
Programs are first reviewed by commodity (electricity, natural gas, and water). S
such as washing machines, are not cost-effective for any individual commodity,
programs when looking holistically at all utility efficiency areas. Summaries are given below by
utility to show measures that have been found to be not cost-effective along
total resource cost test, where cost-effective programs have a Total Resou
benefit-to-cost ratio of greater than one. Costs and benefits to implemen
computed on a societal basis. The low
In general, programs m
cost-effective perspective can be from the point of view of the society (TRC
program participant or all utility customers, including those who do not parti
program planning and reporting, the societal perspe
In the program listing below,
d basis
e progra ve a TR
more on a levelize
addgenerally not be f this eq nt.
tal
Food Store: Package system A/C (>=63.3 tons, 10.2 EER) 0.47 0.33
Office: Large Vat Fryer 0.67 0.23
Health Facility/Hospital: Large Vat Fryer 0.67 0.23
Food Store: Large Vat Fryer 0.67 0.23
Misc: Large Vat Fryer 0.67 0.23
Office: Package system A/C (>=63.3 tons, 10.2 EER) 0.87 0.18
Office: Convection Oven 0.90 0.17
APPENDICES
40
0.17 Health: Convection Oven 0.90
Food Store: Convection Oven 0.17 0.90
Misc: Convection Oven 0.90 0.17
Health: Package system A/C (>=63.3 tons, 10.2 EER) 0.97 0.16
Misc: Package system A/C (>=63.3 tons, 10.2 EER) 0.99 0.15
Electric-Residential:
ure R
C
Levelized
Cost/kWh
Meas
Total
esource
ost Test
SF - Exist: Ground Source Heat Pump $ 3.0991 0.05
Multi-Family: Ground Source Heat Pump $ 3.0992 0.05
Res - New: Ground Source Heat Pump 0.05 $ 3.0993
SF - Exist: Dishwasher– Average 0.07 $ 2.1169
Multi-Family: Dishwasher– Average $ 2.1170 0.07
Res - New: Dishwasher– Average $ 2.1171 0.07
SF - Exist: Whole House Fan with Air Conditioning $ 2.0657 0.08
Multi-Family: Whole House Fan with Air Conditioning $ 2.0658 0.08
SF - Exist: CEE Tier 3 - Split AC 16 SEER (13 EER) $ 1.8590 0.09
SF - Exist: Clothes Washer $ 0.8714 0.18
Multi-Family: Clothes Washer 0.18 $ 0.8715
Res - New: Clothes Washer 0.18 $ 0.8716
SF - Exist: Ceiling Insulation, existing plus new to R- $ 0.8260 38 0.19
Multi-Family: Ceiling Insulation, existing plus new to $ 0.8261 R-38 0.19
Multi-Family: 19-21 SEER A/C Split System, Averag $ 0.7554 e 0.21
Res - New: 19-21 SEER A/C Split System, Average $ 0.7555 0.21
SF - Exist: Duct Sealing 0.27 $ 0.6045
Multi-Family: Duct Sealing 0.27 $ 0.6046
SF - Exist: Wall Insulation, R-13, blown-in 0.37 $ 0.4358
Multi-Family: Wall Insulation, R-13, blown-in 0.37 $ 0.4359
SF - Exist: Solar Hot Water Heater, replacing electric 0.68 $ 0.2137
Multi-Family: Solar Hot Water Heater, replacing electric 0.68 $ 0.2138
Res - New: Solar Hot Water Heater, replacing electric 0.68 $ 0.2139
SF - Exist: Hot Water Heater, electric high efficiency heater 0.95 $ 0.1594
Multi-Family: Hot Water Heater, electric high efficiency 0.95 $ 0.1595
Res - New: Hot Water Heater, electric high efficiency heater 0.95 $ 0.1596
Total Electric Portfolio:
Due to the increasing requirements to enhance electric energy efficiency programs and to use
these programs as the first resource when looking at supply needs, electric energy efficiency
programs continue to reach into less cost-effective areas. This has resulted in a cost-
APPENDICES
41
or TRC) for the entire portfolio that has
gotten lower over time. As the TRC goes under 1.0, programs are no longer cost-effective, as
CPAU is promoting less cost-effective programs. The cost to deliver programs was higher in FY
2008, primarily due to set-up charges for new efficiency programs.
effectiveness benefit-cost ratio (Total Resource Cost
Fiscal Year Net 1st Year kWh TRC (Above 1 is
Cost-Effective)
Total Resource
Cost per kWh
FY 06-07 4,710,731 2.83 $0.08
FY 07-08 5,162,474 2.43 $0.15
FY 08-09 4,667,711 2.45 $0.06
FY 09-10 5,266,354 1.92 $0.07
Natural Gas- Nonresidential
determined by the gas energy efficiency p l model to be not
ost test of less than one is not cost- tive.
C (A 1 is
st-Ef e for
Cost per
Therm
The following program areas were
C
otentia
cost-effective. A Total Resource effec
Measure
TR bove
Co fectiv
NG)
G2 Commercial (no MF): Solar Water Heat 0.26 3.485
G3 Large Commercial: Solar Water Heat 0.26 3.486
G2 Commercial (no MF): Combination Oven 0.56 1.645
G3 Large Commercial: Combination Oven 0.56 1.645
G2 Commercial (no MF): Power Burner Conveyor Belt Oven - Gas 0.57 1.607
G3 Large Commercial: Power Burner Conveyor Belt Oven - Gas 0.57 1.607
G2 Commercial (no MF): Solar Water Heat 0.68 1.345
G2 Commercial (no MF): Convection Gas Oven 0.68 1.353
G3 Large Commercial: Convection Gas Oven 0.68 1.353
G2 Commercial (no MF): Efficient Griddle - Gas 0.83 1.101
G3 Large Commercial: Efficient Griddle - Gas 0.83 1.101
G2 Commercial (no Multi-F MF): Gas Boiler Tune-u 0.88 1.035amily or p
G3 Large Commercial: Gas Boiler Tune-up 0.88 1.035
G6 Municipal: Gas Boiler Tune-up 0.88 1.035
Gas-Residential
Measure
TRC (Above 1 is
Cost-Effective for
NG)
Cost
per
Therm
($)
Single-Family: Replacement Window at U25 Rating 0.08 10.893
Multi-Family: Replacement Window at U25 Rating 0.08 10.893
APPENDICES
42
ir 12% Leakage 8 5.091 Multi-Family: Duct Sealing/Repa 0.1
Single-Family: Passive Solar Water Heat 0.20 4.589
Single-Family: Duct Sealing/Repair 12% Leakage 4 2.700 0.3
Multi-Family: Condensing Water Heater 0.45 2.041
Single-Family: Condensing Water Heat Energy Factor (EF) 4 1.703 0.5
Multi-Family: Efficient Dishwasher - .75 EF 0.60 4.196
Single-Family: Efficient Dishwasher - .75 EF 4 3.494 0.6
Single-Family: Wall Insulation Upgrade at R13 Rating 5 1.405 0.6
Multi-Family: Wall Insulation Upgrade at R13 Rating 0.65 1.405
Multi-Family: Clothes Washer – Most Efficient (Tier 3 >
with electric or no
= 2.2 MEF)
dryer 2 7.551 0.8
Multi-Family: Low Flow Shower 0.88 1.034
Multi-Family: Clothes Washer – Most Efficient (Tier 3 >= 2.2 MEF)-
with gas dryer 0.89 4.564
Single-Family: Clothes Washer – Most Efficient (Tier 3
with electric or no 0.99 6.259
>= 2.2 MEF)
dryer
Water-Residential and Non-Residential
Present Value
of T
Community
Benefits Over
30 Years
Total
Community
Benefit-
Cost Ratio
Measure Name
otal
Rebates on Commercial Urinals $ 65,350 0.08
Regulations on New Development (Outdoor) $ 1,234,400 0.13
Replace inefficient water using equipme $ 72,925 0.14nt
Promotion of water efficient plantings at new homes $ 49,370 0.23
Incentives for retrofitting sub-metering $ 34,124 0.47
Incentives for replacement of washers in coin-operated laundries $ 29,763 0.49
Education/Training External Water Use Efficiency $ 572,590 0.60
Require sub-metering in multifamily units $ 530,683 0.63
Replacement of Residential ULF Toilet $ 142,509 0.82
Classes--Homeowner irrigation $ 777,436 0.85
APPENDICES
43
CMUA for its
ciation report to
the success of
oes not include
natural gas or water programs. E equired to be the first resource used
by the electric utility. The programs are also required to be cost effective, which in state terms
means that the programs achieve a Total Resource Cost (TRC) score of at least 1.0. Palo
ms are ef ith effe ess o s quired level.
Appendix F: Electric DSM Report to
report to the California Energy Commission
The information below will be included with a California Municipal Utilities Asso
the California Energy Commission. The report, required by state law, shows
Palo Alto’s efficiency programs in reducing electric consumption; this report d
fficiency programs are r
Alto’s progra cost-fective w an ctiven ratio tw times the tate’s re
Palo Alto R S mesource avings Su mary
Program Secto
rt)
Ne
Demand
v
(kW
Pe
Gross
An l
al
s
Lifecycle
vings
Net
Lifecycle
GHG
Reduce
(Tons)
r
(Used in CEC Repo
Units
Install
t
Sa ings
)
Net
ak
kW
Saving
nua
kWh
Savings
Net
Annu
kWh
Saving
Net
kWh
Sa
Res Clothes Wash rs 3 74 4 388e 528 5 5 87,84 70,2 702,74
Res Cooling 11 1 53 82 62,683 4014,3 3,4
Res Dishwashers 298 2 2 11,931 9,545 2 69124,08
Res Heating 3 7,202 47 2 2 50 402
Res Lighting 3,607 3 175,386 3 1,325444 382 219,23 2,482,13
Res Pool Pump 1 00 0 620 8 4 14,000 11,2 112,00
Res Refrigeration 524 9 303,303 59,458 2,9624747379,12 5,4
Res Shell 10,367 2,445 14 331 1 2732,445 30,4 24,483,76
Res Water Heating 3 2,148 1 537 430
Res Comprehensive 17
Non-Res Cooling 267 20 20 309,007 247,206 3,313,998 1,777
Non-Res Heating
Non-Res Lighting 6, 0 99,851 12,190 520 469 444 2,853,737 2,282,99 21,9
Non-Res Refrigeration 2,472 172 1 748,03 63 935,04 3 5,220,633 2,799
8,988 14 14 152,796 122,237 1,222,368 680Non-Res Shell
Non-Res Process
Non-Res
Comprehensive 1,514,924 1,514,924 1,211,939 1,211,939 674
T&D
Other 379 3 8 73,480 58,784 307,840 168
Total 1,548,922 3,630 3,438 6,586,928 5,269,542 42,712,840 23,412
EE Portfolio TRC 1.92
TRC is Total Resource Cost Test where a score greater than 1 equals benefits are greater than costs for society.
TRC for FY 08/09 Programs was 2.45
TRC for FY 07/08 Programs was 2.43
44
APPENDICES
ontrolling
als and Implementation
455:05 Water Management Plan
:07 quisition Plan (LEAP)
:0
CMR 134:08
CMR 218:10 y Efficiency Plan; approved in May 2010
2020
AB 1470 (2007) 2007. Requires the
erning body of each publicly owned utility providing gas service to retail end-
water heating
AB 1890 (1996) sistance programs,
research, development and
ectric generation
SB 1037 (2005) ring energy, to first
resources that are
d feasible. Requires each local publicly owned electric
Commission (CEC),
grams.
AB 1881 (2006) o adopt the updated
developed by the Department of
Water Resources (DWR) or an equivalent ordinance which is “at least as
effective as” the DWR Model Ordinance in reducing landscape water usage.
Requirements include enforcing water budgets, planting and irrigation system
specifications to meet efficiency criteria.
AB 2021 (2006) Requires the CEC on or before November 1, 2007, and every 3 years thereafter,
in consultation with the commission and local publicly owned electric utilities, to
develop a statewide estimate of all potentially achievable cost-effective electricity
and natural gas efficiency savings and establish statewide annual targets for
energy efficiency savings and demand reduction over 10 years.
APPENDIX G: State and City Mandates C
Program Go
Title Description
CMR 431:05 &2005 Urban
CMR 158 Long Term Electric Ac
CMR 211:07 Climate Protection Plan
CMR 216 7 2007 Ten Year Energy Efficiency Plan
CMR 435:07 Climate Protection Plan
Gas Utility Long Term Plan (GULP)
2010 Ten Year Electric Energ
CMR 212:10 Approval of a Goal to Have a 20% Reduction of Water Use by
Establishes the Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of
gov
use gas customers, to adopt, implement, and finance a solar
system incentive program.
Requires electric utilities to fund low-income ratepayer as
public purpose programs for public goods
demonstration, demand-side management and renewable el
technologies
Requires each local publicly owned electric utility, in procu
acquire all available energy efficiency and demand reduction
cost-effective, reliable, an
utility to report annually to its customers and to the Energy
its investment on energy efficiency and demand reduction pro
Requires cities and counties, no later than January 1, 2010, t
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance