40 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Determining Utility System Value of Demand Flexibility From Grid-interactive Efficient Buildings
This report focuses on ways current methods and practices that establish the value to electric utility systems of distributed energy resource (DER) investments can be enhanced to determine the value of demand flexibility in grid-interactive efficient buildings that can provide grid services. The report introduces key valuation concepts that are applicable to demand flexibility that these buildings can provide and links to other documents that describe these concepts and their implementation in more detail.The scope of this report is limited to the valuation of economic benefits to the utility system. These are the foundational values on which other benefits (and costs) can be built. Establishing the economic value to the grid of demand flexibility provides the information needed to design programs, market rules, and rates that align the economic interest of utility customers with building owners and occupants. By nature, DERs directly impact customers and provide societal benefits external to the utility system. Jurisdictions can use utility system benefits and costs as the foundation of their economic analysis but align their primary cost-effectiveness metric with all applicable policy objectives, which may include customer and societal (non-utility system) impacts.This report suggests enhancements to current methods and practices that state and local policymakers, public utility commissions, state energy offices, utilities, state utility consumer representatives, and other stakeholders might support. These enhancements can improve the consistency and robustness of economic valuation of demand flexibility for grid services. The report concludes with a discussion of considerations for prioritizing implementation of these improvements
Recommended from our members
Cost of saving natural gas through efficiency programs funded by utility customers: 2012–2017
This study estimates the cost of saving a therm of natural gas from energy efficiency programs funded by utility customers during the period 2012 to 2017. Berkeley Lab researchers compiled and analyzed efficiency program data reported by investor-owned utilities and other program administrators in a dozen states representative of the four U.S. Census regions — Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Utah. Depending on the year, the dataset accounts for about 50 percent to 70 percent of annual national spending on natural gas efficiency programs.
The estimated cost of saving natural gas during the study period is $0.40 per therm. The analysis also includes estimates of the program administrator cost of saved energy for three core sectors for natural gas: commercial and industrial, residential, and low-income households. It aggregates these sectors to provide regional and national values. Our metrics include savings-weighted averages, unweighted medians, and interquartile ranges (25th and 75th percentiles) of the levelized program administrator cost of saving gas, in constant 2017 dollars. In addition, the study analyzes cost trends during the study period, finding that average program costs trended downward.
The U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Office supported this work
Recommended from our members
Cost of Saving Electricity Through Efficiency Programs Funded by Customers of Publicly Owned Utilities: 2012–2017
This report finds that energy efficiency programs for customers of publicly owned utilities saved electricity at an average cost of 2.4 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) from 2012 to 2017.
Utilities use such cost performance metrics to assess effectiveness of efficiency program portfolios, determine what programs to offer customers, and, more broadly, ensure electricity system reliability at the most affordable cost as part of electric utility resource adequacy planning and resource procurement processes.
The study analyzed efficiency program data reported by 111 program administrators for 219 publicly owned utilities in 14 states — about 90 percent of the municipal utilities and public utility districts that report the data to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). The data represent 88 percent of all spending and 75 percent of all savings that publicly owned utilities reported to EIA in those years. Berkeley Lab used data from several sources, including data provided directly by American Public Power Association members, publicly available annual reports and regional data collections
Laser Writing of Semiconductor Nanoparticles and Quantum Dots
Silica aerogels were patterned with CdS using a photolithographic technique based on local heating with infrared (IR) light. The solvent of silica hydrogels was exchanged with an aqueous solution of the precursors CdNO3 and NH4 OH, all precooled to a temperature of 5°C. Half of the bathing solution was then replaced by a thiourea solution. After thiourea diffused into the hydrogels, the samples were exposed to a focused IR beam from a continuous wave, Nd-YAG laser. The precursors reacted in the spots heated by the IR beam to form CdS nanoparticles. We lithographed features with a diameter of about 40 µm, which extended inside the monoliths for up to 4 mm. Samples were characterized with transmission electron microscopy and optical absorption, photoluminescence, and Raman spectroscopies. Spots illuminated by the IR beam were made up by CdS nanoparticles dispersed in a silica matrix. The CdS nanoparticles had a diameter in the 4-6 nm range in samples exposed for 4 min to the IR beam, and of up to 100 nm in samples exposed for 10 min
Recommended from our members
AVOIDED ELECTRICITY SUBSIDY PAYMENTS CAN FINANCE SUBSTANTIAL APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY INCENTIVE PROGRAMS: CASE STUDY OF MEXICO
Recommended from our members
Deferred Payment Loans for Energy Efficiency: Case Study of a Low- and Moderate-Income Home Improvement Financing Model and Potential Application to Energy Efficiency Projects
Energy efficiency can provide important benefits for low- and moderate-income households such as lower utility bills and healthier, more comfortable homes, but the upfront costs of efficiency improvements are often a barrier. Extending financing to these households can help overcome this barrier but presents its own challenges, including the financial burden of monthly payments and the risk of incurring the repercussions of nonpayment.
The deferred payment loan model can give low- and moderate-income households access to energy efficiency without the financial burden of monthly payments while mitigating the risk of nonpayment. From a program sponsor perspective, when grant funds are limited or unavailable, the model provides certain advantages of both grants and financing. Like a grant, target recipients have minimal risk, but like a loan, funds can serve multiple participants since the funding can be revolved. Organizations in several parts of the country have employed the model to provide safe, healthy homes by paying for home repair and home improvement.
This case study provides a detailed overview of the deferred payment loan program for home improvements known as the Home Repair Program run by the Opportunity Council, a Community Action Agency (CAA) serving three counties in Washington State. This case study also considers two other CAA-administered deferred payment loan programs – one in Wisconsin and another in Michigan
Recommended from our members
Practices for Demonstrating Energy Savings from Commercial PACE Projects
Nearly three-fourths of U.S. states have authorized local governments to use voluntary special assessments on commercial properties to finance energy improvements that boost economic development, create jobs, increase property values and advance energy goals. Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) financing allows building owners to repay the borrowed capital — from private or public sources — over time using their property as security.
Berkeley Lab is supporting the Department of Energy’s Commercial PACE Working Group by developing a series of C-PACE issue briefs. The second brief in this series, Practices for Demonstrating Energy Savings from Commercial PACE Projects, looks at common practices for demonstrating energy savings to support state and local governments that sponsor C-PACE programs and want to track their energy impacts. This brief reviews:
-The value proposition and trade-offs of conducting energy impact assessments for C-PACE programs;
-Methods to quantify energy savings impacts from energy efficiency building improvements; and
-Available resources and tools to support energy impact assessments.
C-PACE programs may benefit from energy impact assessments for many reasons, including:
-Validating the public benefits of the programs
-Demonstrating that C-PACE can deliver participant benefits
-Illustrating program impacts on public policy goals
-Generating data to help improve program performance
Many C-PACE programs are collecting data on project energy savings impacts, and these data can be leveraged to further support decision making and program implementation. Potential drawbacks to energy impact assessments may include added cost and burdens on property owners (e.g., the need to collect building energy consumption data). Where these burdens are considerable, they might slow program uptake. State and local governments can balance the benefits of energy impact assessments with the range of costs and accuracy inherent to available assessment methodologies.
Additionally, depending on the policy context in the state or local government, a C-PACE program may be able to leverage existing efforts (e.g., building energy benchmarking programs) to reduce impact assessment costs, align with building owner practices and expectations, and efficiently assess program impact
Recommended from our members
Commercial PACE Project Origination: Leverage Points for Growing the Project Pipeline
Greater use of Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) financing within communities where it is enabled will increase energy savings, drive economic development, and result in additional public benefits. Some states with active C-PACE programs have ramped up activity significantly while others have not achieved and sustained a high volume of transactions. This brief details C-PACE project origination trends, barriers, and market practices for state and local government C-PACE program sponsors looking to grow their C-PACE project pipeline.
Based on the results of a questionnaire of C-PACE stakeholders, this brief provides new information on project origination trends and strategies for how state and local governments and third-party partners can increase the volume of projects leveraging C-PACE financing. The questionnaire results support the following observations about the C-PACE financing market:
-Marketing and education: Program administrators and capital providers agree that direct outreach to property owners (e.g., one-on-one or in small groups) to explain the benefits of C-PACE financing is the most effective strategy to originate projects.
-C-PACE capital providers: Specialty C-PACE capital providers—private lenders with deep knowledge of and a significant focus on C-PACE financing—are the primary source of capital for most C-PACE programs according to program administrator respondents. The share of capital provided by specialty C-PACE providers grew from 2019 to 2020. However, some C-PACE programs (two in this study) are structured so that they use exclusively public capital.
-C-PACE project entry point into a program: Most program administrators report that over 75% of financing volume comes from projects with pre-selected capital providers,1 meaning that property owners have connected with capital providers before making contact with the C-PACE program. Transaction sizes for these projects grew from 2019 to 2020 (most are now over $1 million), helping to drive industry growth.
-Smaller C-PACE projects: Small and medium projects often do not have a pre-selected capital provider and may need additional support from a program administrator to navigate the transaction process. This is significant given that some programs have goals to serve small- and medium-sized businesses.2
-Messaging to property owners: The features property owners find most attractive about C-PACE financing are the long repayment period and the fact that it does not require a personal guarantee.
1 In open C-PACE programs, multiple capital providers compete to fund C-PACE projects. Most program administrators in our questionnaire administer open programs; however, some administer closed programs and several administer both open and closed programs. It is unclear how to interpret the responses of program administrators who work entirely or in part in closed programs, where there is not a choice among capital providers.
2 For example, Minnesota, Michigan, and Colorado, which are profiled in Improving Access to C-PACE for Smaller Businesses (National Association of State Energy Officials, 2021)