Assessing Impacts in California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) Presentation to Demand Assessment Working Group George Simons, Director Itron

Assessing Impacts in California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP)

Presentation to Demand Assessment Working Group

George Simons, Director

Itron

August 16, 2013

2

Itron, Inc. Overview

Leading technology provider to global utility industry

110 million communication modules

8,000+ customers in 130 countries 8,000 employees $2.4 billion (2011 USD)

© 2009, Itron Inc. 3

Itron: Consulting and Analysis Group

Who we are: Part of Itron’s Professional Services Group Staff of ~80 C&A Professionals

Economists, Engineers, Statisticians, Load and Market Researchers Offices in Oakland, CA; San Diego, CA; Davis CA, Vancouver, WA; and Madison, WI

What we do: Energy Efficiency Demand Response Renewables and Distributed Generation Load Research Market Research Integration of Resources (IDSM and Smart Grid)


Renewables and Distributed Generation Strongly focused on generation located on the distribution side of

the electricity system Includes solar (PV and thermal), wind, biomass and conventional and

renewable-fueled generation and combined heat and power (CHP) Services include:

Market assessments for DG/renewables/CHP Program and project performance evaluations Cost-effectiveness and economic analyses Advanced DG technology cost and performance assessments Sub-metering for evaluation and performance monitoring Assistance related to integrating DG technologies into the grid


Itron’s Role in the SGIP Itron has been the SGIP prime evaluator since 2001 Services:

Impacts evaluation Process evaluation Performance metering Cost-effectiveness analysis Topical reports and products

Examples of products 11 annual impact evaluations 22 semi-annual renewable fuel reports DG cost-effectiveness framework (2005) SGIP cost-effectiveness evaluation (2007) DG Cost-effectiveness study and model (SGIPce) 2011 Optimizing Dispatch and Location of Distributed Generation (2010)


SGIP Impacts Evaluations Evaluations cover:

Status of program Critical trends Energy impacts

Annual Coincident peak demand

Transmission and distribution impacts Compliance with efficiency requirements

Useful thermal (waste heat recovery) Overall system efficiency

Reliability and performance Greenhouse gas impacts Foreward look at SGIP


Overall Approach on Assessing Impacts SGIP population of technologies is varied

Legacy systems (IC engines, microturbines, gas turbines, fuel cells, wind) New systems (fuel cells, wind, storage)

Based on statistical sampling Targeting 90% confidence with 10% precision

Some legacy systems we can only achieve 70/30 Determine sample based on strata

Metered data needed: Fuel consumed by SGIP generator Net electricity produced by SGIP generator (interval data) Useful thermal energy recovered (for CHP systems)

Metered data sources: Host sites, project developers, utilities Third party providers

Performance data providers (PDPs) emerging in SGIP Itron installed metering (on behalf of PAs)

Net electricity (over 190) Useful thermal energy (over 120)


Data Collection for Impacts Evaluation Not a one time process

Data collected on an on-going basis throughout the preceding year

Data collection and processing Converting multiple sources of data in different formats to

common formats Time/date stamp alignment

Site-Level

QA/QC

Site Inspection Reports

Monitoring Plans

Weather Data

Electrical, Thermal, Fuel Raw Interval Data

Data validation When does zero mean zero

generation vs no communication? QA/QC

Verifying that values “look” correct


SGIP: A Closer Look at Operational Status SGIP represents legacy projects installed over the past eleven years and newer projects Important to distinguish “on-line” versus decommissioned projects

Decommissioned defined as equipment has been out of service and removed from the site On-line projects may be temporarily down at times Not always able to accurately identify decommissioned projects Loss of contacts and reporting from older projects leads to “unknown” designations

Technology

On-line Decommissioned Unknown

No. of Projects

Rebated Capacity

(MW)

Percent Total

Rebated Capacity

No. of Projects

Rebated Capacity

(MW)

Percent Total

Rebated Capacity

No. of Projects

Rebated Capacity

(MW)

Percent Total

Rebated Capacity

IC Engines 176 115.4 62% 33 14.9 76% 46 25.9 57%

Fuel Cells 109 28.6 15% 6 1.3 6% 16 8.4 19%

Gas Turbines 7 24.5 13% 0 0 0 1 1.2 3%

Microturbines 92 18.3 10% 21 3.4 17% 27 3.1 7%

Wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6.8 15%

Total 384 186.8 100% 60 19.6 100% 100 45.3 100%

© 2009, Itron Inc. 10

SGIP: Capacity and Utilization Capacity reflects program participation

Enables measurement of trends by technology, fuel, etc. Utilization reflects use of capacity

Critical in assessing impacts Also provides valuable information on aging trends

© 2009, Itron Inc. 11

Examples of Trending with Utilization and Capacity

Utilization trending can help identify how project age affects capacity factor Figure at left shows clear increase in off-line capacity with age and associated

decline of average annual capacity factor Capacity trending can show impacts due to capacity changes

Graph at right demonstrates how lower growth in IC engine capacity affected annual energy delivery from IC engines over time

© 2009, Itron Inc. 12

Treatment of Calendar vs Year in Operation (Age) Calendar year provides information that allows year to year comparisons and

trending Figure on left shows annual capacity factor trends by year

Year in operation (year) provides information on how performance of technologies vary with time in the field Figure on right shows changes in capacity factor as the technology ages

© 2009, Itron Inc. 13

SGIP: Annual Energy Impacts Annual energy impacts

estimated at different levels and timeframes: Program-wide and at

Program Administrator level

Broken out by technology and fuel type

By quarter and annual Trended over time

Can be by technology or portfolios

© 2009, Itron Inc. 14

SGIP: Peak Demand We look at peak impacts at

various levels CAISO system demand

Summer peak Impacts at top 210 hours

Utility system peak demand Peak at distribution feeders Peak at customer site

Intent is to determine influence of SGIP technologies on resource adequacy Are SGIP DG technologies

available when needed? Assess using hourly capacity

factors during peak

© 2009, Itron Inc. 15

SGIP: Transmission and Distribution System Impacts With increasing amounts of DG

capacity projected for the future, peak impacts occurring below the CAISO and utility peak demand become more important Began examining DG

generation impacts on distribution feeder peaks

Significantly different investigation

Findings: DG can help unload

distribution feeder peaks Unloading impact tied to DG

capacity and may become more pronounced with increasing amounts of DG

DG impacts tied to feeder characteristics (e.g., customer mix, length, etc)

© 2009, Itron Inc. 16

SGIP: Optimizing DG Dispatch Feeder studies showed DG

can help unload distribution system Occurred haphazardly;

without design by project or utility

Shown by example in top figure

Can DG resources be operated to meet both needs of site and utility? Led to study on optimizing

dispatch and location of DG resources under the SGIP

Bottom figure shows how load following generator can help address feeder demand

Same demand curve

© 2009, Itron Inc. 17

SGIP: Optimizing DG Dispatch (cont’d) Affects of blending multiple

DG resources? Looked at same

representative feeder with intermittent PV and multiple load following DG

Multiple DG not only addresses feeder demand but firms intermittent PV

Created representative “look-up” tables

Full set of results in topical report: “Optimizing Dispatch and

Location of Distributed Generation”

Same demand curve

© 2009, Itron Inc. 18

SGIP: Combined Heat & Power Efficiencies CHP makes up an increasing amount of SGIP capacity Important to determine efficiencies

Useful thermal energy efficiency Overall system efficiency

𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦= 𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 (𝐿𝐻𝑉) 𝐸𝐶𝐸= 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 (𝐿𝐻𝑉)

© 2009, Itron Inc. 19

SGIP: Useful Thermal Energy Investigated applications

for thermal energy The majority of projects

recovered waste heat to offset boilers

However, a significant amount of CHP capacity used recovered energy for combined heating and cooling

Electric only DG technologies have emerged in recent years

Useful waste heat recovery rates vary by building type also

© 2009, Itron Inc. 20

SGIP: Overall System Efficiencies Non-renewable CHP

systems must achieve a high overall system efficiency to achieve GHG benefits Represents sum of

electrical and thermal energy efficiency

Several observations: Gas turbines achieved the

highest system efficiencies, followed by IC engines

All electric fuel cells achieve modest system efficiencies

Realizable useful thermal efficiencies dependent on thermal loads at host sites and coincidence to electrical loads

© 2009, Itron Inc. 21

SGIP: Trending of Electrical and Thermal Energy We examined delivery of energy by electricity and thermal from inception of the SGIP going

forward Interestingly, fuel cells have increasing capacity and associated electricity delivery but provide

little thermal energy delivery We’re seeing growth in fuel cell capacity. Most of emerging fuel cell capacity tied to all electric

fuel cells. Implications to GHG aspects?

© 2009, Itron Inc. 22

SGIP: Greenhouse Gas Emissions A primary goal of

SGIP is to achieve net GHG emissions reductions (relative to baseline use) Reductions tied

to: Electrical load Heating load Cooling load Also affected

by use of renewable fuels

Estimates based on 8760 hour per year treatment

© 2009, Itron Inc. 23

SGIP: GHG Emissions from Non-Renewable CHP Electricity:

Baseline: CA mix of resources and GHG from E3 calculator

SGIP: generated electricity on 8760 basis

Heating: Baseline: boiler fuel used on-

site SGIP: useful waste heat is

assumed to offset boiler fuel Cooling:

Baseline: on-site cooling from electric chillers

SGIP: useful waste heat directed to absorption chillers

Observations: Fuel cells and gas turbines

showed net GHG emission reductions for non-renewable CHP

What is happening and why?

© 2009, Itron Inc. 24

SGIP: CHP Electrical Efficiency & GHG Emissions SGIP net GHG emissions driven by

several factors: CA electricity mix

Historically driven by mostly natural gas fueled central station systems– Most of the year, the grid

supplies electricity from efficient (45% plus) combined cycle systems

– During peak (< 500 hrs per year) is generated from older, less efficient (30-35%) combustion turbines

SGIP CHP resources With exception of fuel cells,

SGIP CHP have low electrical efficiency– Can’t “beat” combined cycle

for most of the year on an efficiency basis

– Results in grid having lower GHG emissions than SGIP generator

© 2009, Itron Inc. 25

SGIP: Thermal Efficiency & GHG Emissions Except for all electric fuel

cells, non-renewable CHP can’t rely on electrical conversion efficiency to obtain net GHG reductions Instead, must rely on useful

heat recovery to obtain net GHG reductions

Examined SGIP CHP historical useful heat efficiencies

Compared to theoretical useful heat recovered needed to obtain net GHG reductions In general, non-renewable

CHP must consistently have higher than observed useful waste heat recovery to achieve net GHG emission reductions

© 2009, Itron Inc. 26

2030 technical potential

Source: ICF

SGIP: Looking to the Future (CHP)

© 2009, Itron Inc. 27

These are the greatest areas of CHP potential in the industrial sector at 2030• Chemicals and food industries represent

over 1,300 MW in CHP sizes up to 5 MW• Over 700 MW of potential in the 5 – 20

MW range

Smaller scale CHP has good potential across the commercial sector• Commercial buildings, hotels, hospitals and

govt buildings represent over 3,000 MW of potential capacity in CHP sizes up to 5 MW

• Universities have over 500 MW of technical capacity at sizes larger than 5 MW

SGIP: Getting to There from Here (CHP)

© 2009, Itron Inc. 28

Meet the CARB Scoping Plan GHG target for CHP• 6.7 MTons of GHG

reductions by 2020• Be cost effective

GHG methodDevelop DG/CHP that is responsive to utility and customer needs• Provides ramping

as needed• Cost effective peak

relief measure• Helps firm the

electrical grid

Capacity Growth is Only One Goal

© 2009, Itron Inc. 29

Decisions being made now are fashioning the future grid

Growth of DG and CHP

Significant Reductions in GHG Emissions

Interconnection of intermittent renewables

Increasing and Competing Demands in the Next Decade

50% of RPS interconnected by 2013; 65% by 2016; and 75% thereafter

6.7 million metric tons from CHP alone by 2020

12,000 MW of DG and 6,500 MW of CHP by 2020

© 2009, Itron Inc. 30

How CHP systems respond to thermal or electrical demand can affect GHG emission outcomes

Mixed GHG reductions

Consistent GHG reductions

Many Peak Demand Targets

High Volatility When Unplanned

GHG Emissions Peak Demand

DG and CHP projects currently target customer demand; not utility demand. Left unplanned, future DG & CHP projects may exacerbate peak demand and congestion issues

How to realize these benefits

from mixing and blending projects

Begin by examining site electrical and

thermal demands

among high potential end

uses

Currently, Conflicting Results from SGIP Projects

© 2009, Itron Inc. 31

Smaller scale CHP has good potential across the commercial sector• Commercial buildings, hotels, hospitals and

govt buildings represent over 3,000 MW of potential capacity in CHP sizes up to 5 MW

• Universities have over 500 MW of technical capacity at sizes larger than 5 MW

We have 8760 hourly electrical and thermal demand profiles for each of these commercial end uses based on SitePro

We can use these profiles to determine:• Sizing to meet thermal demand

and reduce GHG emissions• Sizing to meet on-site electrical

demand that does not lead to thermal dumping

• Identification of possible electricity export to the grid

Investigating High Opportunity Approaches

© 2009, Itron Inc. 32

“Peak” electrical demand for 13 hours(7 am to 8 pm) ranging from approximately 250 kW to 350 kW

Targeting this electrical load with a self generator could help offset the hospital’s peak demand over typical summer weekdays

14 hrs duration ~ 350 kW

Electrical Demand: Inland Hospital Summer Weekdays

© 2009, Itron Inc. 33

This is the hospital’s thermal load that could be offset using waste heat recovery from a CHP system. Note that only thermal uses are offset (i.e., cannot offset cooking from natural gas with CHP)

15 hrs duration

A minimum of 1 million Btu/hr of thermal demand for 15 hours(5 am to 8 pm)

~ 1 MM Btu/hr

Thermal Demand: Inland Hospital Summer Weekdays

© 2009, Itron Inc. 34

If an ICE CHP system is used to meet the 1 MMBtu/hr thermal demand at the hospital, a heat recovery rate of at least 4 kBtu/kWh is needed to achieve GHG reductions.• Generator = (1,000 kBtu/h)/4 kBtu/kWh • Generator = 250 kW

15 hrs duration

From earlier work, we know that heat recovery rates between 2 to 6 kBtu/kWh are needed to achieve GHG reductions for non-renewable CHP systems.

GHG reductions can be achieved at realistic heat recovery rates

Example of Optimizing GHG Reductions

© 2009, Itron Inc. 35

15 hrs duration14 hrs duration 250 kW CHP system for thermal and some

electrical needs

To optimize GHG reductions, we set the CHP system to recover 4 to 5 MBtu per kWh of generated electricity. Per our example, to ensure consistent recovery of 1 MM Btu/h of thermal energy using 4 MBtu per kWh, this could mean using an ICE CHP generator capacity of 250 kW.

100 kW fuel cell for remaining electrical needs

Note that this also provides the customer site with 250 kW of “peak” electricity that does not have to be procured and delivered by the utility. However, a 250 kW CHP system does not fully meet the electrical needs of the site. An all electric fuel cell with a rating of up to 100 kW could provide the remaining electrical need and not increase GHG emissions (i.e., no thermal dumping of waste heat that could not be used by the site).

Matching Electrical to Thermal Demand: Inland Hospital Summer Weekdays

© 2009, Itron Inc. 36

16 hrs duration

“Peak” electrical demand for 16 hours(6 am to 10 pm) ranging from 125 kW to 250 kW

Targeting this electrical load with a self generator could help offset the hotel’s peak demand over typical summer weekdays

~ 250 kW

Hotels are another example of a high potential end use

Electrical Demand: Inland Hotel Summer Weekdays

© 2009, Itron Inc. 37

15 hrs duration

This is the hotel’s thermal load that could be offset using waste heat recovery from a CHP system. Note that only thermal uses are offset

A minimum of ~ 600,000 Btu/hr of thermal demand for 15 hours(5 am to 8 pm)

~ 600,000 Btu/hr

Thermal Demand: Inland Hotel Summer Weekday

© 2009, Itron Inc. 38

16 hrs duration

15 hrs duration

To optimize GHG reductions, we set the CHP system to recover 4 to 5 MBtu per kWh of generated electricity. To ensure consistent recovery of 600,000 Btu/h of thermal energy using 4 MBtu per kWh, this could mean using an ICE CHP generator capacity of 150 kW.

100 kW fuel cell for remaining

electrical needs

150 kW CHP system for thermal and some electrical needs

Note that this also provides the customer site with 150 kW of “peak” electricity that does not have to be provided by the utility. However, a 150 kW CHP system does not fully meet the 250 kW electrical needs of the site. An all electric fuel cell with a rating of up to 100 kW could provide the remaining electrical need and not increase GHG emissions (i.e., no thermal dumping of waste heat that could not be used by the site)

Matching Electrical to Thermal Demand: Inland Hotel Summer Weekdays

© 2009, Itron Inc. 39

14 hrs duration17 hrs duration

15 hrs duration 15 hrs duration

Winter electrical demand is 50% of summer demand but more consistent and of longer duration

Winter thermal demand (magnitude and duration) is about the same as the summer demand but more consistent

This suggests that the CHP unit be sized to meet the thermal demand and meet lower electrical demand to be operated year round. Use of an all electric fuel cell would be limited to meeting increased hospital demand during the summer and could provide export during winter.

What About Differences Between Summer and Winter Demands?

© 2009, Itron Inc. 40

However, this doesn’t address responsiveness for utility needs; must also balance electrical generation with distribution and transmission needs. Possible interplay of DG within microgrid settings.

Achieving Simultaneous GHG and Responsiveness BenefitsRequires:

- Thermal and electrical demand profiles (8760 profiles ideally)

- Balancing of thermal and electrical loads - May require multiple generation systems to achieve GHG reductions and peak relief

Establish GHG Baseline

Identify: - Minimum thermal demand across largest duration

- Extent to which thermal demand varies (ramping) - CHP heat recovery rate needed to achieve GHG reductions (based on technology)

Size Electrical Developed on: - Electrical generation tied to thermal load - Any additional generation needed to meet customer electrical demands - Identification of amount and timing of any generation that has potential for export to grid

Summary of Matching Electrical and Thermal Demands to Coordinate Benefits

Documents

Assessing Impacts in California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) Presentation to Demand Assessment Working Group George Simons, Director Itron