# LADWP Territorial Potential

D raft Report

Volume I

Submitted to Los An geles Department of Water and Po wer

Submitted by Nexant

In partnership with Cadmus and RetroCom Energy Strategies

June 24 , 2014LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft i 

# C ONTENTS

VOLUME I

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ............... 3

1.1 P ROJECT 

### O VERVIEW AND 

### O BJECTIVES



### ................................ ................................ ................. 3

1.2 D EFINITIONS OF 

### E NERGY EFFICIENCY 

### P OTENTIAL



### ................................ ................................ .... 3

1.3 S UMMARY OF 

### R ESULTS



### ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 5

1.3.1 Acquisition of Conservation Resources

................................ ................................ ..... 8



### 1.4 P LANNING 

### I MPLICATIONS



### ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 8

1.5 O RGANIZATION OF 

### R EPORT



### ................................ ................................ ............................. 11



## 2 GENERAL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

................................ ............. 12

2.1 G ENERAL 

### A PPROACH



### ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 12

2.1.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 12

2.1.2 Objectives

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 12

2.1.3 Defini tions of Energy

- Efficiency Potential

................................ ............................... 12



### 2.2 O VERVIEW



### ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13

2.2.1 Develop Baseline Forecasts

................................ ................................ ..................... 14

2.2.1.1 Segmenting the Market

................................ ................................ ......................... 14

2.2.1.2 Forecast Baseline Consumption

................................ ................................ ............. 17

2.2.1.3 Future Codes and Standards

................................ ................................ .................. 18

2.2.1.4 Define Efficiency Measures and Technologies

................................ ....................... 18

2.2.1.5 Compile Measure Data and Populate Model

................................ ......................... 18



### 2.3 E STIMATING 

### P OTENTIAL



### ................................ ................................ ................................ . 19

2.3.1 Estimating Technical Potential

................................ ................................ ................ 19

2.3.2 Estimating Economic Potential

................................ ................................ ............... 20

2.3.3 Estimating Maximum Achievable and Program Potentials

................................ .... 20



## 3 TECHNICAL AND ECONOM IC POTENTIAL

................................ .................. 25

3.1 S COPE OF 

### A NALYSIS



### ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 25

3.2 T ECHNICAL AND 

### E CONOMIC 

### P OTENTIAL 

### R ESULTS



### ................................ ................................ . 26



## 4 ACHIEVABLE AND PROGR AM POTENTIAL

................................ ................. 27

4.1 S COPE OF 

### A NALYSIS



### ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 27

4.2 D ETAILED 

### M AXIMUM 

### A CHIEVABLE 

### P OTENTIAL



### ................................ ................................ .... 31

4.2.1 Residential Sector

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 31

4.2.2 Commercial Sector

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 33

4. 2.3 Institutional Sector

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 36Contents

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– D raft ii 

### 4.2.4 Industrial Sector

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 39



### 4.3 P ROGRAM 

### P OTENTIAL 

### S CENARIOS



### ................................ ................................ .................... 42



## 5 PLANNING CONSIDERATI ONS

................................ ................................ ... 50

5.1 S COPE OF 

### A NALYSIS



### ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 50

5.2 P ROGRAM 

### P LANNING 

### S CENARIOS



### ................................ ................................ ..................... 54



## VOLUME II

APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TERMS

................................ ................................ .................. A

- 1

APPENDIX B DETAILED TECHNICAL A ND ECONOMIC POTENTIA L METHODOLOGY

....... B

- 1

D EVELOPING A 

### B ASELINE 

### F ORECAST



### ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... B

- 2

C OMPILING 

### E NERGY



### - E FFICIENCY 

### T ECHNOLOGY 

### D ATA



### ................................ ................................ .............. B

- 3

E STIMATING 

### T ECHNICAL 

### P OTENTIAL



### ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... B

- 5

E STIMATING 

### E CONOMIC 

### P OTENTIAL



### ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... B

- 6

S UMMARY OF 

### K EY 

### S TUDY DECISIONS AND 

### A SSUMPTIONS



### ................................ ................................ ......... B

- 9



### APPENDIX C ASSESSMENT OF PREVIO US STUDY

................................ ............................ C

- 1

APPENDIX D DETAILED RE SULTS BY SECTOR, SEGMENT A ND END

- USE

......................... D

- 1

S ECTOR 

### L EVEL 

### R ESULTS BY 

### S EGMENT



### ................................ ................................ ................................ ... D

- 1

S ECTOR 

### L EVEL 

### R ESULTS BY 

### E ND 

### U SE



### ................................ ................................ ................................ .... D

- 3

S EGMENT 

### R ESULTS BY 

### E ND 

### U SE



### ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... D

- 5



### APPENDIX E DETAILED RESULTS FOR PROGRAM POTENTIAL SCENARIOS

...................... E

- 1

APPENDIX F DETAILED RESULTS FOR 15% SAVINGS SCEN ARIOS

................................ .... F

- 1

APPENDIX G MEASURE PERFORMANCE DATA AND COSTS

................................ ............ G

- 1LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 3



# 1 E XECUTIVE 

# S UMMARY



# 1.1 P ROJECT 

# O VERVIEW AND 

# O BJECTIVES

This rep ort summarizes the results of a comprehensive assessment of the long

- run electric energy

efficiency potential study for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) territory

from 2014

- 2033 1 

### . LADWP commissio ned this study to support its business plan and energy

efficiency goals for 2020. LADWP retained Nexant, in collaboration with its subcontractors Cadmus

and RetroCom Energy (the Nexant team), to perform this work

. This study encompasses the

residential, co mmercial, institutional (City of Los Angeles buildings and facilities), and industrial

sectors.

The results of the study take into account annual program expenditure levels necessary for

achieving the cumulative targets for energy savings and peak demand r eduction potential, but

exclude demand response potential.

Although the timeframe of the study is 20

- years, t he focus was to estimate cumulative savings

potential achievable by 2020 and 2023 . LADWP recently adopted a goal of 10% cumulative savings

of the load forecast between 2010 and 2 020, with an aspirational target of 15%. This study includes

an assessment of the feasibility and cost

- effectiveness of achieving these savings targets

, as well as

three additional scenarios, provided below

. In addition, th e study develops a range of program

- level

planning scenarios with varying cost and delivery assumptions to identify the range of budgetary

requirements to achieve the 15% savings target.

This report presents the results for the study prior to the completio n of the potential for energy and

demand savings in the City of Los Angeles buildings and facilities, involving 68 site visits to these

facilities. The impact of that asses sment will be completed in June 2014.



# 1.2 D EFINITIONS OF 

# E NERGY EFFICIENCY 

# P OTENTIAL

Th e following are the definitions of the types of potentials available in a utility’s territory:

• Technical potential: The quantification of savings that can be realized if energy efficiency

measures passing the qualitative screening are applied in all feasible instances, regardless of

cost.

• Economic potential: A subset of technical potential, where measures are cost

- effective from

the Total Resource Cost ( “ TRC ” ) perspective, without regard t o cross

- subsidies.

1 Representing LADWP’s fiscal years(FY) 2013

- 14 to 2032

- 33

### SECTION 1 E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 4 

### • Maximum a chievable potential: The energy savings that can possibly be achieved through

assuming maximum market penetration of all measures. Individual m easures are not

necessarily cost

- effective in this scenario, though measures with a l ow TRC benefit

- cost ratio

are excluded.

• Program potential: The energy savings that can possibly be achieved through utility

programs or codes and standards. Individual m easures are not necessarily cost

- effective in

this scenario, though measures with a low benefit

- cost ratio , as determined through the

T otal R esource C ost (TRC) test, are excluded.

This study estimated program potential for five top

- down policy intervention scenarios

, corresponding to varying incentive levels provided to end

- use consumers and an acquisition rate

of 10 years for retrofit measures

, as well as two additional scenarios that considered accelerated

acquisition rates under the advanced and extreme scenarios :

o Low scenario : Monetary incentives to customers equaling 25% of incremen tal costs of

energy efficiency improvements 2



### , and administration and marketing costs equaling 20 %

of incremental costs. This scenario assumes retrofit opportunities are acquired within 10

years.

o Moderate scenario : Monetary incentives to customers equaling 50% of incremental

costs of energy efficiency improvements

, and administratio n and marketing costs

equaling 35 % of incremental costs. This scenario assumes retrofit opportunities are

acquired within 10 years.

o Hig h scenario : Monetary incentives to customers equaling 75 % of incremental costs of

energy efficiency improvements

, and administration and marketing costs equaling 40 %

of incremental costs. This scenario assumes retrofit opportunities are acquired within 10

years.

o Advanced scenario : Monetary incentives to customers equaling 90 % of incremental

costs of energy efficiency improvements and administration and marketing costs

equaling 65 % of incremental costs. This scenario assumes retrofit opportunities are

acquir ed within 10 years.

o Advanced accelerated scenario: Same incentives and administration and marketing

costs as the “advanced scenario”, but retrofit opportunities are assumed to be acquired

in 8 years.

2 Incremental costs are either based on the difference between a standard and efficient unit or the total cost to install a

measure compared to existing conditions.

### SECTION 1 E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 5 

### o Extreme scenario : Monetary incentives to customers, equ aling 100% of incremental

costs of energy efficiency improvements

, and administration and marketing costs

equaling 75% of incremental costs. This scenario assumes retrofit opportunities are

acquired within 10 years

.

o Extreme accelerated scenario: Same incentives and administration and marketing costs

as the “extreme scenario”, but retrofit opportunities are assumed to be acquired in 7

years.



# 1.3 S UMMARY OF 

# R ESULTS

The technical and economic potential s in FY 2032

- 33 are provided in Table 1

- 1

.

Table 1

- 1 . Technical and Economic Potential



### Sector Baseline

Sales

(GWh) Technical Potential Economic Potential

GWh % of

Base

Sales MW GWh % of

Base

Sales MW Percent of

Technical

Potential

-

Energy Percent of

Technical

Potential

-

Demand

Residential 9,985 3,334 33% 1, 940 1,625 16% 471 49% 24%

Commercial 14,798 3,332 23% 851 2,188 15% 505 66% 59 %

Institutional 756 143 19% 37 110 15% 27 77% 72%

Industrial 2,195 314 14% 66 265 12% 56 84% 85 %

Codes and

Standards a N / A 1, 690 N / A 3 12 1, 690 N / A 3 12 100% N / A

Other b 838 N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A

Total 28,57 1 8, 813 31% 3,2 05 5,877 21 % 1, 3 71 67 % 43 %

a Includes savings from Huffman Bill, Title 24 codes, and Title 20 standards, as well as federal standards not covered by

California standards.

b Other includes components for which energy efficiency potential was not considered, such as port electrification and rooftop

solar. Plug

- in electric vehicles were excluded from baseline forecasts



### Study results indicate 8,813 GWh of technically feasible energy efficiency potential by FY 2032

- 33,

the end of the 20

- year pla nning horizon, with approximately 5,877 GWh of these resources proving

cost

- effective. Technical potential amounts to 31% of forecasted load with c odes and s tandards, and

25% of forecasted load without codes and standards. Economic potential represents sav ings from

measures that have a B/C ratio that is greater than or equal to 1 .0 . By FY 2032

- 33, savings from

these measures can account for 21 % of baseline sales with codes and standards and 15% of baseline

sales without codes and standards.

The maximum achi evable potential, which assumes aspirational levels of market adoption with no

infrastructure or resource constraints, is provided is Table 1

- 2

.

### SECTION 1 E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 6 Table 1

- 2 . Maximum Achievable Potential



### Sector Baseline Sales

- GWh Maximum

Achievable

-

GWh % of Base

Sales Maximum

Achievable

–

MW

Residential 9,985 1,830 18% 591

Commercial 14,798 2,998 20% 771

Institutional 756 134 18% 35

Industrial 2,195 306 14% 64

Codes and Standards NA 1,690 NA 312

Other 838 NA NA NA

Total 28,571 6,958 24% 1,773



### Finally, Table 1

- 3 provide s the program potentials for FY 2019

- 20 and FY 2022

- 23. In addition to the

potential, this table also provid es the overall benefit

- to

- cost (B/C) ratio and net benefits, based on a

TRC perspective, as well as the portfolio utility levelized cost.

### SECTION 1 E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 7 Table 1

- 3 . Program Potential Scenarios



### Low Moderate High Advanced Extreme

Normal Accelerated Normal Accelerated

Target Year 2020: Inclusive of 2010

- 2011 to 2012

- 2013 Accomplishments

Baseline Sales ( FY2019

- 20) 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388

Cumulative Potential (GWh) FY2019

- 20 1,947 2,485 2,737 2,933 3,383 3,014 3,825

2010

- 2011 to 2012

- 2013 Program Accomplishments 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6

Potential as % of Baseline Sales without Accomplishments 7.7% 9.8% 10.8% 11.6% 13.3% 11.9% 15.1%

Average Annual Savings as a % of Baseline Sales

(2014

- 2020) * 1.1% 1.4% 1.5% 1.7% 1.9% 1.7% 2.2%

Potential as % of Baseline Sales with Accomplishments 10.1% 12.2% 13.2% 14.0% 15.8% 14.3% 17.5%

Target Year 2023: Excludes 2010

- 2011 to 2012

- 2013 Accomplishments

Baseline Sales ( FY2022

- 23) 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220

Cumulative Potential (MWh) FY2022

- 23 2,943 3,714 4,075 4,356 4,357 4,475 4,496

2010

- 2011 to 2012

- 2013 Program Accomplishments 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6

Potential as % of Baseline Sales without Accomplishments 11.2% 14.2% 15.5% 16.6% 16.6% 17.1% 17.1%

Average Annual Savings as a % of Baseline Sales

(2014

- 2023) * 1.1% 1.4% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7%

Potential as % of Baseline Sales with Accomplishments 13.6% 16.5% 17.9% 19.0% 19.0% 19.4% 19.5%

Scenario Economics (Over 20

- Year Study Horizon)

TRC Benefit Cost Ratio 1.55 1.38 1.33 1.13 1.13 0.90 0.90

Net TRC Benefits ($000s) $912,082 $978,192 $997,745 $497,037 $497,508

- $517,094

- $535,621

Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.024 $0.046 $0.063 $0.085 $0.085 $0.115 $0.115

* These values represent the average annual level of savings required through programs to achieve the potential by the target year.

### SECTION 1 E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 8 

## 1.3.1 Acquisition of Conservation Resources

An assumption of the rate of acquisition for these resources is implicit in the program potential. For

equipment measures, the assumption is that they will be adopted when the existing equipment

burns out (replace

- on

- burnout). As such, the acquisition is dictated by the assumed measure life.

This is also true for new construction, when the savings can only be realized when the new building

is completed. Although retrofit or discretionary measures can t heoretically be installed in year one

, in reality the adoption of these measures is limited by the existing infrastructure and available

resources. Thus the assumed ramp rate for these measures depends on whether the measure is part

of a current program, whether it is an emerging technology, and the aggressiveness of the scenario.

Figure 1

- 1 illustrates the ramp rates for the retrofit measures . The low and moderate scenarios have

the same ramp rates where retrofit measures are adopted within 10 years (2023 ); in order to

achieve the advanced and extreme targets, t he ramp rate needed to be accelerated to eight and

seven years , respectively, for adoption of retrofit measures.

Figure 1

- 1

. Ramp Rates for Discretionary (Retrofit) Measures



# 1.4 P LANNING 

# I MPLICATIONS

As illustr ated in Table 1

- 3 above, the range of cumulative savings f rom FY 2013

- 14 through FY 2019

-

20 varies from 7.7% to 15.1% of baseline sales depending on the level of program intervention, and

identifies that LADWP’s aspirational goal of 15% savings as a percentage of FY 2019

- 20 baseline

sales 1 

### is achievable and cost

- effective from the TRC perspective. However, as LADWP develops its

program pl ans, it will not use a single set of incentive rates for all measures, each program will have

1 15% savings represents cumulative savings through FY 2019

- 20 inclusive of program accomplishments from 2010

- 2013.

### SECTION 1 E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 9 

### unique admi nistration and marketing costs, and the programs may not include all identified

measures. To provide some context to the budgetary requirements of actu ally achieving these

savings, the Nexant team explored several scenarios to reach 15% of baseline energy sales by 2020,

based on a more granular approach to the assumptions.

With LADWP’s guidance, the Nexant team produced ten program planning scenarios to demonstrate

how changing assumptions on program delivery, including incentives, admin/marketing, benefit

- cost

thresholds, and ramp rates can create a range of budgets require d to reach roughly 15% savings by

2020. Table 1

- 4 shows the detai led results for each of these scenarios in FY 2019

- 20 and FY2022

- 23

, including energy savings, demand savings, average annual budget, benefit cost ratios, and levelized

costs.

### SECTION 1 E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 10 Table 1

- 4 : Detailed Program Planning Scenario Results (2020 and 2023 )

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10

Target Year 2019

- 2020

Baseline Sales (GWh) FY2019

- 20 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388

Cumulative Potential (GWh) FY2019

- 20 3,094 2,962 2,726 2,859 2,596 2,593 2,601 2,614 2,583 2,610

Cumulative C&S Savings (GWh) FY2019

- 20 466 466 466 466 466 466 466 466 466 466

2010

- 2011 to 2012

- 2013 Program

Accomplishments 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616

Potential as % of Baseline Sales without

Accomplishments 14.0% 13.5% 12.6% 13.1% 12.1% 12.0% 12.1% 12.1% 12.0% 12.1%

Average Annual Savings as a % of Baseline

Sales (2014

- 2020) 2.0% 1.9% 1.8% 1.9% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7%

Potential as % of Baseline Sales with

Accomplishments 16.4% 15.9% 15.0% 15.5% 14.5% 14.5% 14.5% 14.6% 14.4% 14.5%

Cumulative Acquisition Budget ($Million) in

FY2019

- 20 $2,723 $2,280 $1,342 $1,695 $1,250 $1,129 $1,727 $1,567 $1,100 $1,057

Average Annual Acquisition Budget ($Million) $389 $326 $192 $242 $179 $161 $247 $224 $157 $151

Target Year 2023

Baseline Sales ( GWh ) FY2022

- 23 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220

Cumulative Potential ( GWh ) FY2022

- 23 3,592 3,441 3,166 3,323 3,021 3,015 3,390 3,406 3,038 3,029

Cumulative C&S Savings (GWh) FY2022

- 23 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566

2010

- 2011 to 2012

- 2013 Program

Accomplishments 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6

Potential as % of Baseline Sales without

Accomplishments 15.9% 15.3% 14.2% 14.8% 13.7% 13.7% 15.1% 15.2% 13.7% 13.7%

Average Annual Savings as a % of Baseline

Sales (2014

- 2023) 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4%

Potential as % of Baseline Sales with

Accomplishments 18.2% 17.6% 16.6% 17.2% 16.0% 16.0% 17.4% 17.5% 16.1% 16.1%

Cumulative Acquisition Budget ($Million) in

FY2022

- 23 $3,165 $2,661 $1,570 $1,990 $1,474 $1,327 $2,261 $2,050 $1,306 $1,225

Average Annual Acquisition Budget ($Million) $316 $266 $157 $199 $147 $133 $226 $205 $131 $122

Scenario Economics (Over 20

- year Study Horizon)

TRC Benefit Cost Ratio 1.11 1.26 1.20 1.30 1.46 1.35 1.27 1.17 1.37 1.28

Net TRC Benefits ($Million) $448 $867 $637 $932 $1,129 $930 $869 $599 $958 $775

Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.085 $0.074 $0.050 $0.058 $0.048 $0.043 $0.064 $0.060 $0.042 $0.039

### SECTION 1 E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 11 

# 1.5 O RGANIZATION OF 

# R EPORT

The report presents the study’s findings in two volumes. Volume I (this document), presents

methodologies and findings and includes the following sections:

1. Executive Summary

2. General Approach and Methodology

3. Technical and Economic Potential

4. Achievable and Program Potential

5. Planning Considerations

Volume II presents supplemental technical information, assumptions, data, and other relevant

d e tails as the following appendices:

 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms

 Appendix B: Detailed Technical and Economic Potential Methodology Appendix C : Detailed

Methodology

 Appendix C: Assessment of Previous Study

 Appendix D : Detailed Results by Sector, Segment, and End Use

 Appendix E : Detailed Results for Program Potentia l Scenarios

 Appendix F: Detailed Results for 15% Program Planning Scenarios

 Appendix G : Measure Performance Data and CostsLADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 12



# 2 G ENERAL 

# A PPROACH AND 

# M ETHODOLOGY



# 2.1 G ENERAL 

# A PPROACH

2.1.1 Introduction

This report presents findings from the electric energy efficiency technical, economic, maximum

achievable, and program potentials study, intended to support LADWPs long

- term planning. The

study’s horizon covers 2014

– 20 3 3 1 

### , encompassing the residential, commercial, institutional (City of

Los Angeles) and industrial sectors.



## 2.1.2 Objectives

This study includes the following key objectives:

• Estimat e cumulative savings potential achievable by 2020, through five scenarios based on

utility expenditures through incentives

, marketing

, and other administrative activities. We

also estimated budgets to acquire these resources.

• Estimate cumulative savings p otential achievable by 2023, through five scenarios based on

utility expenditures through incentives

, marketing

, and other administrative activities. We

also estimated budgets to acquire these resources.



## 2.1.3 Definitions of Energy

- Efficiency Potential

The follo wing are the definitions of the types of potentials available in a utility’s territory:

• Technical potential: The quantification of savings that can be realized if energy efficiency

measures passing the qualitative screening are applied in all feasible inst ances, regardless of

cost.

• Economic potential: A subset of technical potential, where measures are cost

- effective from

the Total Resource Cost ( “ TRC ” ) perspective, without regard to cross

- subsidies.

• Maximum a chievable potential: The energy savings that can possibly be achieved through

assuming maximum market penetration of all measures

. Individual m easures are not

necessarily cost

- effective in this scenario, though measures with a low TRC benefit

- cost ratio

are excluded.

• Program p otential: T he energy savings that can possibly be achieved through utility

programs or codes and standards. Individual m easures are not necessarily cost

- effective in

this scenario, though measures with a low TRC benefit

- cost ratio are excluded.

1 Representing LADWP’s FY 2013

- 14 to 2032

- 33

### SECTION 2 G ENERAL A PPROACH AND M ETHODOLOGY

LADWP Te rritorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 13 

### This study estimated program potential for five policy intervention scenarios, corresponding to

varying incentive levels provided to end

- use consumers and an acquisition rate of 10 years for

retrofit measures

, and two additional accelerated acquisition rates under the advanced and

extreme scenarios :

o Low scenario : Monetary incentives to customers equaling 25% of incremental costs of

energy efficiency improvements 1



### , and administration and marketing costs equaling 20% of

incremental costs. This scenario assumes retrofit opportuni ties are acquired within 10 years.

o Moderate scenario : Monetary incentives to customers equaling 50% of incremental costs of

energy efficiency improvements

, and administration and marketing costs equaling 35% of

incremental costs. This scenario assumes retrofit opportunities are acquired within 10 years.

o High scenario : Monetary incentives to customers equaling 75% of incremental costs of

energy efficiency improvements

, and administration and marketing costs equaling 40% of

incremental costs. This scenari o assumes retrofit opportunities are acquired within 10 years.

o Advanced scenario : Monetary incentives to customers equaling 90% of incremental costs of

energy efficiency improvements and administration and marketing costs equaling 65% of

incremental costs. This scenario assumes retrofit opportunities are acquired within 10 years.

o Advanced accelerated scenario: Same incentives and administration and marketing costs as

the “advanced scenario”, but retrofit opportunities are assumed to be acquired in 8 years.

o Extreme scenario : Monetary incentives to customers, equaling 100% of incremental costs of

energy efficiency improvements, and administration and marketing costs equalin g 75% of

incremental costs. This scenario assumes retrofit opportunities are acquired within 10 years.

o Extreme accelerated scenario: Same incentives and administration and marketing costs as

the “extreme scenario”, but retrofit opportunities are assumed to be acquired in 7 years.



# 2.2 O VERVIEW

The general methodology is described here, further details are provided in Appendix C . The

methodology used can best be described as a hybrid “top

- down/bottom

- up” approach. As

1 For this study incremental costs represent the difference in costs between the baseline techno logy and efficient

technology. For equipment replacement measures that are assumed to occur at burnout, when the equipment would

naturally be replaced, the incremental costs include the difference between the efficient replacement option and the

standard replacement option. For non

- equipment measures (such as additional attic insulation) or early retirement

equipment measures, incremental costs include the total cost to install a measure compared to existing conditions.

### SECTION 2 G ENERAL A PPROACH AND M ETHODOLOGY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 14 

### illustrated in Figure 2

- 1

, we began by examining the current energy forecast, and then breaking

down the for e cast into its constituent customer

- class and end

- use components. The team then

examined the effects for a range of energy efficiency approaches and practices for end use, while

accounting for fuel shares, current market saturations, technical feasibility, and costs. We then

aggregated these unique impacts to produce resource potentia ls, estimates at end use, customer

class, and system levels.

Figure 2

- 1

. Methodology for Estimating Technical, Economic, Maximum Achievable and Program Potential



## 2.2.1 Develop Baseline Forecasts

2.2.1.1 Segmenting the M arket

The Nexant team’s first key activity in assessing the territorial energy efficiency potential was to

identify the appropriate level of granularity for the analysis. For this, we utilized the following steps:

1. Create a model for each sector (residential, commercial

, institutional [City of Los Angeles

Facilities], and industrial ).

### SECTION 2 G ENERAL A PPROACH AND M ETHODOLOGY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 15 

### 2. D isaggregate the analysis to specific market segments within each sector (dwelling,

business, or industry type).

Table 2

- 1 provides the segments by sector

.

Table 2

- 1

. Market Segments Included



### Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial

Multifamily Assembly Assembly Agriculture

Multifamily Low

Income Education College Civil Services Chemical Manufacturing

Single Family Education Primary (K

12) Industry Electronic Equipment

Manufacturing

Single Family Low

Income Grocery Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing

Health Office Space Industrial Machinery

Lodging Park Lumber Wood Products

Miscellaneous Transportation

-

Institutional Mining

Office Large Utilities Miscellaneous Manufacturing

Office Small Wastewater

-

Institutional Paper Manufacturing

Restaurant Water

- Institutional Petroleum Refining

Retail Large Primary Metal Manufacturing

Retail Small Stone Clay Glass Products

Storage Street Lighting

Warehouse Transportation Equipment

Manufacturing

Wastewater

Water



### The Nexant team relied on housing stock forecasts of residential single family and multifamily units

for the City of Los Angeles, provided by LADWP

. We disaggregated housing stock forecasts into

single family low income and m ultifamily low income segments by identifying the share of

households that fall below the eligibility threshold for LADWP’s Low Income Discount Program

. 1



### S egmentation of the commercial, institutional, and industrial sectors relied on an analysis of

LADWP’s c ustomer i nformation s ystem (CIS) data. LADWP provided 2012 sales and customer

information for nonresidential customers. The Team first worked with LADWP to identify

institutional customers, so we could determine the share of non

- residential forecasted sales that

institutional customers account for. The Nexant team then identified the appropriate market

1 U.S. Census Bureau American Commu nity Survey housing microdata for California:

http://www2.census.gov/acs2012_5yr/pums/csv_hca.zip

### SECTION 2 G ENERAL A PPROACH AND M ETHODOLOGY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 16 

### segment for each non

- residential customer based on the customers’ standard industrial

classification (SIC) code

.

The Nexant team further segmen ted e ach of the identified markets into major end uses, such as

lighting, cooling, ventilation, plug load, and other applications expected to be relevant to the

esti mation of potential. The Nexant team model relied on the following end use data :

• Saturations : For the residential sector, saturations reflect the average number of units in a

household. For commercial and institutional sectors, saturations reflect the perc ent of floor

space to which the end use applies (for lighting

, this is percent of floor space lit ; for heating,

this is percent of floor space heated, etc .)

. The Nexant team relied on the 2009 California

Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) and t he California Commercial End Use

Survey (CEUS) to calculate residential and commercial/institutional saturations, respectively.

For end uses where these sources could not provide saturations, t he Nexant team relied on

other secondary sources such as Energy Information Agency’s ( EIA’s ) Residential Energy

Consumption Survey (RECS) and Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS).

• Efficiency Shares : Efficiency shares reflect the current saturation of efficient equipment. The

Nexant team consul ted a variety of secondary sources , including the California RASS,

California CEUS, EIA RECS, EIA CBECS, and the California Stat e wide IOU 1 

### Goals and Potential

Study. The Team made additional adjustment to the efficiency shares from these sources to

account for LADWP’s program accomplishments over the last decade.

• End Use Consumption : Residential per

- unit end use consumption is expressed in annual

kWh per unit. Also referred to as unit energy consumption (UEC), these reflect average

annual kWh consumption b y end use. The Nexant team relied on the 2009 California RASS

and the 2013 California Goals and Potential Study for residential end use consumption.

Commercial and institutional end use consumption is expressed as end use intensities (EUIs)

which reflect e nergy consumption per square foot for a given end use. The Team used the

2006 California CEUS, as well as other secondary sources such as the statewide Goals and

Potential Study and EIA’s CBECS.

1 Investor

- owned utilities

### SECTION 2 G ENERAL A PPROACH AND M ETHODOLOGY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 17 

### Table 2

- 2 summarizes the data sources the Nexant team used to disaggregate LADWP’s sales.

Table 2

- 2 . Data Sources



### Data Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional

Sales

Forecast LADWP Official LADWP Official

(institutional removed) LADWP Official

(institutional

removed) LADWP Official;

Disaggregated from

commercial and

industrial

Customer

Forecasts LADWP Housing Stock

Forecast; U.S. Census

Bureau American

Community Survey

(ACS) LADWP Floor Space

Forecast N/A LADWP Floor Space

Forecast

Saturations California Residential

Appliance Saturation

Survey RASS; EIA RECS California Commercial

End Use Survey (CEUS);

EIA CBECS N/A California Commercial

End Use Survey (CEUS);

EIA CBECS

End Use

Consumption California Statewide

IOU 2013 Potential and

Goals Study; Secondary

Sources California CEUS;

California Statewide

IOU 2013 Potential and

Goals Study; Secondary

Sources EIA

Manufacturing

Energy

Consumption

Survey (MECS);

Secondary

Sources California CEUS;

California Statewide

IOU 2013 Potential and

Goals Study; Secondary

Sources

Efficiency

Shares California Statewide

IOU 2013 Potential and

Goals Study; California

RASS; Adjusted for

LADWP Program

Accomplishments California Statewide

IOU 2013 Potential and

Goals Study; California

CEUS; Adjusted for

LADWP Program

Accomplishments N/A California Statewide

IOU 2013 Potential and

Goals Study; California

CEUS; Adjusted for

LADWP Program

Accomplishments



### 2.2.1.2 Forecast Baseline Consumption

The Nexant team created the baseline forecast by combining the inputs compiled above to obtain

average consumption estimates (by customer segment, construction vintage, and end use) summed

up to the sector level. Using the bottom

- up forecast

, we assume d no future energy efficiency

program activity. The Nexant team also used this approach for estimating technical potential for

each sector, market segment, construction vintage, and end use, based on the following :

• Current customer counts by secto r

• Base

- year conditions (equipment and measure saturations, fuel shares, etc.)

• New construction forecasts

• Natural equipment turnover rates

### SECTION 2 G ENERAL A PPROACH AND M ETHODOLOGY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 18 

### • Future codes and standards 1



### The Nexant team calibrated baseline forecasts to LADWP’s gross load forecasts. Future

programmatic energy efficiency savings were excluded from baseline forecasts to avoid under

estimating potential.



### 2.2.1.3 Future Codes and Standards

The Nexant team ’s study will quantify effec ts of the changes already in place and the changes that

have been enacted but have not yet taken effect in their entirety. The most significant changes are

these:

• General service lighting requirements established by the Huffman bill 2



### • Commercial lighting efficiency standards set in a 2009 Department of Energy rulemaking

• Federal e lectric water heating standards

• Federal s tandards for appliances, central air conditioners, and heat pumps



### 2.2.1.4 Define Efficiency Measures and Technologies

The Nexant team’s process be gins with compiling a comprehensive database of technical and

market data on all energy efficiency measures applicable to all end uses in various market segments

, including emerging technologies. We began with the measure list used in the 2013 California E nergy

Efficiency Potential and Goals Study completed for the California Public Utilities Commission. 3 

### We

supplemented this list with our own measure databases and input from LADWP staff. The final

measure list included 560 unique measures and 6,608 permut ations across segments. For this study,

we assumed that the 2013 Title 24 standards are in effect from the beginning of the study horizon.

As such, any affected measure will assume this standard as the baseline for new construction or

replace

- on

- burnout.



### 2.2.1.5 Compile Measure Data and Populate Model

For each end use

, t he Nexant team populate d the database with the following information:

• Costs (full or incremental, depending on the measure)

• Energy and capacity savings as a fraction of end

- use consumption (U E C)

1 The base

- case forecast will include codes and standards already established, even if they do not take effect until

future years. It will not, however, attempt to predict how codes and standards may change in the future.

2 California Assembly Bill 1109 (enacted October, 2007): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07

- 08/bill/asm/ab_1101

-

1150/ab_1109_bill_20071012_chaptered.pdf

3 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/29ADACC9

- 0F6D

- 43B3

- B7AA

C25D0E1F8A3C/0/2013CaliforniaEnergyEfficiency PotentialandGoalsStudyNovember262013.pdf

### SECTION 2 G ENERAL A PPROACH AND M ETHODOLOGY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 19 

### • Expected useful life (EUL)

• Applicability (such as technical feasibility and current saturation)

• Adjustments for interactions with other end uses (including lighting and HVAC)

• Competition with other measures (to avoid double

- counting of savings)

• Non

- energy benefits (such as water savings), if applicable



# 2.3 E STIMATING 

# P OTENTIAL

2.3.1 Estimating Technical Potential

Technical potential is the theoretical maximum amount of energy and capacity that could be

displaced by efficiency, regardless of cost and other barriers that may prevent the installation or

adoption of an energy efficiency measure. Technical potential is constrained only by technical

factors such as technical feasibility and applicability of measures. In theory, this potential (with the

exception of the ne w construction market) could be acquired immediately by including the early

replacement of functioning equipment.

The Nexant team utilizes an industry

- standard bottom

- up approach for estimating phase

- in

technical potential . We estimate d the phase

- in techn ical potential by introducing all technically

feasible measures into the baseline forecast and calculating the resulting impacts. For the purpose

of modeling, we will separate measures into two distinct classes:

• Equipment measures save energy by upgrading the efficiency of end

- use equipment at the

time the equipment would naturally be replaced. The technical potential assumes that all

customers will install the most efficient , technically feasible option at the time the

equipment needs to be replaced.

• Retro fit measures save energy by reducing end

- use consumption without affecting

equipment efficiency. Examples of such measures are insulation, faucet aerators, and

lighting controls. For measures that compete for the same savings (e.g., different levels of

ins ulation), the technical potential assumes the most

- efficient option is installed, wherever

technically feasible to do so.

In developing the end

- use level savings, the Nexant team captured the interactive effects associated

with installation of multiple measures, both between and within the measure classes described

above.

• The equipment measure analysis accounts for the exclusivity of high

- efficiency measure

installations. For example, a re sidential customer cannot replace a single air conditioner

with two air conditioners at different efficiency levels or else potential will be double

counted . The analysis also takes into account the effects that retrofit measures will have on

the potential of equipment measures.

### SECTION 2 G ENERAL A PPROACH AND M ETHODOLOGY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 20 

### • The retrofit analysis accounts for the reduction in consumption due to high

- efficiency

equipment installation, while accounting for the interactive effects and competition

between different retrofit measures applied to the same end use.



## 2.3.2 Estimating Economic Potential

The economic potential is a subset of the technical potential, but only includes measures that have a

TRC B/C ratio greater than 1.0. The economic potential assumes that all customers will install the

most efficient technically feasible measure available that is also cost

- effective . For example, the

technical potential may assume all customers install a SEER 18 a ir conditioner, but if that measure is

not cost effective and the SEER 16 unit is, the economic potential will assume all customers will

install that lower efficiency SEER 16 unit.



## 2.3.3 Estimating Maximum Achievable and Program Potential s

The maximum achievable potential is also a subset of the technical potential. This potential

represents the total potential available when taking market impacts into account

. S imilar to the

approach used in the 2013 California Energy Efficiency Potential and Goals Study of the state’s

IOUs

, 1 

### this study relaxes the measure

- level cost

- effectiveness thresholds and focuses on the sector

and portfolio level cost effectiveness in determining achievable and program potentials

. In order to

continue targeting sector and portfolio level c ost

- effectiveness for the majority of scenarios,

a pplicability adjust ments a re made to the non

- cost effective measures bas ed on the ir TRC (B/C)

ratio

. For all except the extreme scenario, measures with a ratio less than 0.3 are excluded. In order

to reach the targets of the extreme scenario, this applicability was relaxed to include measures

down to a B/C of 0.15 in the commercial, institutional, and industrial sectors. For the residential

sector across all scenarios , additional caps were applied so that th e sector

- level B/C is greater than

1.0. These caps are provided in Table 2

- 3 . In other words, a measure that has a B/C between 0.3 and

0.5 would at most achieve 5% market penetration. These thresholds were developed for this study

through an iterative process to ensure the sector

- level B/C was greater than 1.0.

1 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/29ADACC9

- 0F6D

- 43B3

- B7AA

C25D0E1F8A3C/0/2013CaliforniaEnergyEfficiencyPotentialandGoalsStudyNovember262013.pdf

### SECTION 2 G ENERAL A PPROACH AND M ETHODOLOGY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 21 Table 2

- 3 . Applicability adjustme nts for the residential sector



### Benefit

- to

- Cost Ratio Applicability Adjustment

Up to 0.3 0%

0.3 to 0.5 5%

0.5 to 0.8 15%

0.8 to 1.0 30%

1.0 and above 100%



### The program potential for energy efficiency measures is often analyzed deterministically, ignoring

several sources of uncertainty in market conditions that affect utility customers’ willingness

— and

ability

— to participate in utility

- sponsored energy efficie ncy programs. One important area of

uncertainty concerns the amount of technical or economic potential that may be expected to be

achievable, given barriers that may prevent consumers from adopting energy efficiency measures

.

Like many studies of energy e fficiency potential, achievable potential is based on somewhat

arbitrary, fixed values. 1 

### In this study, we consider the levels of program potential as following a

normal market diffusion curve, first introduced in 1963 by Frank Bass. The Bass market diffus ion

model is one of the most widely used methods for predicting market adoption and diffusion of new

products. 2 

### It provides a framework for estimating future trends in the adoption of innovations,

which is also applicable to the adoption of energy

- efficien t technologies. According to this approach,

participation in energy efficiency programs and the adoption of energy efficiency measures and

practices are characterized by a logistic (S

- shaped) function with the following analytic form:

( ) ( )

1 In the Northwest, for example, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council assumes that 85% of economic

potential is achievable. Other utilities have used similar static point estimates of about 50% to 70%, depending on

incentives and other expenditures.

2 The Bass diffusion curve is historically presented as adoption as a function of time; however, this curve more generally

represents a logistic function for adoption.

### SECTION 2 G ENERAL A PPROACH AND M ETHODOLOGY

LADWP Territorial Pote ntial

– Volume I

– Draft 22 

### In this formula, N

t 

### indicates t he percent of the market adopting the energy efficiency measures. The

three critical parameters that define the functional form of this model are:

 

### m = maximum market potential; the total number of people who will eventually participate in a

program

– in this study this value is set at 85%, indicating the maximum fraction of the market

likely to participate in a program and the starting point of the curve is set at 20 %, indicating the

current saturation and natural adoption for most measures.

 

### p= the coefficient of external influence; the likelihood that customers who are not participating

in a program will begin to adopt measures due to information and education campaigns

sponsored by the utility or other external factors.

 

### q= the coefficient of internal influence; the likelihood that customers who have not participated

in a program will participate due to the influences from those already participating in the

pro gram.

The standard market diffusion curve follows a logistic (S

- shaped) curve illustrated in Figure 2

- 2 . In

this study, it is assumed that the parameters of the mode l are essentially a function of the utility’s

marketing efforts (with the effect of raising awareness and providing education) and financial

incentives (with the effect of mitigating the importance of up front cost as a barrier to participation

in an energy efficiency program).

### SECTION 2 G ENERAL A PPROACH AND M ETHODOLOGY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 23 Figure 2

- 2 . Typical Market Diffusion Curve



### As this graphic illustrates, increases in marketing and incentives will increase adoption, though the

relationship is non

- linear. That is, a bove a certain level, increases in expenditures will result in

diminishing returns on adoption. This is based on market theory and supported by surveys of

willingness to pay.

Note that although marketing plus incentives may be greater than 100%, the scale on the y

- axis is

indexed to 100%, where the model assumes equal weighting of the two factors.

The program potential scenarios are outlined in Table 2

- 4

.

In this table, the administration/marketing and incentives as a percent of incremental cost scenarios

are chosen to represent a spread of expenditures used by utilities around the country. The “high”

scenario most closely represents LADWP’s c urrent expenditure amounts. It should be noted that at

the extremes of expenditure levels, minimal data are available against which to benchmark the

adoption.

### SECTION 2 G ENERAL A PPROACH AND M ETHODOLO GY

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 24 Table 2

- 4 . Program potential scenarios



### Assumption /Scenario Definition Low Medium High Advanced Extreme

Minimum TRC B/C Threshold Measures below this benefit

- cost ratio

threshold are excluded from program

potential. 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.15

Incentive as a percent of incremental

cost Measure incentive expressed as a fraction

of incremental cost 25% 50% 75% 90% 100%

Administration/Marketing as a

percent of incremental cost Utility marketing and administrative

expenditures expressed as a fraction of

incremental cost 20% 35% 40% 65% 75%

Program potential as a percent of

maximum achievable potential Program potential, expressed as a fraction

of maximum achievable potential.

Accounts for market barriers to adoption. 54% 64% 72% 79% 81%

Discretionary ramp rate Time period over which all retrofit

(discretionary) savings are acquired 10 Year 10 Year 10 Year •2020: 8 Year

•2023: 10 Year •2020: 7 Year

•2023: 10 YearLADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 25



# 3 T ECHNICAL AND 

# E CONOMIC 

# P OTENTIAL



# 3.1 S COPE OF 

# A NALYSIS

This study separately assessed technical, economic, maximum achievable, and achievable program

potential for the residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors. The study further

distinguished between applicable end uses within each segment . Analysis began by assessing the

technical potential for unique energy efficiency measures, representing a comprehensive set of

electric energy efficiency measure s applicable to local climate and customer characteristics. Table

3

- 1 shows counts of the number of unique measures and measure permutations for each sector.

Table 3

- 1

. Counts of Unique Measures and Measure Permutations



### Sector Unique

Measures * Permutations Across

Market Segments and

Vintages

Residential 88 834

Commercial 121 2,759

Institutional 202 1,574

Industrial 149 1,441

Total 560 6,608



### * Represents unique measures within a sector. Institutional sector measures

are identical to measures considered in the commercial and industrial

sectors.



### Consideration of all permutations of these measures, across applicable customer sectors, market

segments, fuels, and end uses, resulted in customized data, compiled and analyzed for over 6,600

measures. Appendix G describes all measures analyzed

.

### SECTION 3 T E CHNICAL AND E CONOMIC P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 26 

# 3.2 T ECHNICAL AND 

# E CONOMIC 

# P OTENTIAL 

# R ESULTS

Table 3

- 2 shows technical and economic potential for each sector.

Table 3

- 2 . Technical and Economic Energy Efficiency Potential (Cumulative 2033) by Sect or



### Sector Baseline

Sales

(GWh) Technical Potential Economic Potential

GWh % of

Base

Sales MW GWh % of

Base

Sales MW Percent of

Technical

Potential

-

Energy Percent of

Technical

Potential

-

Demand

Residential 9,985 3,334 33% 1, 940 1,625 16% 471 49% 24%

Commercial 14,798 3,332 23% 851 2,188 15% 505 66% 59 %

Institutional 756 143 19% 37 110 15% 27 77% 72%

Industrial 2,195 314 14% 66 265 12% 56 84% 85 %

Codes and

Standards N / A 1,690 N / A 3 12 1,690 N / A 3 12 100% N / A

Other 838 N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A

Total 28,571 8,813 31% 3,2 05 5,877 21% 1, 3 71 67% 43 %



### Study results indicate 8, 813 GWh of technically feasible energy efficiency potential by FY2032

- 33,

the end of the 20

- year planning horizon, with approximately 5,877 GWh of these resources proving

cost

- effective. Technical potential amounts to 31% of forecasted load with Codes and Standards,

and 25 % of forecasted load without codes and standards. Economic potential represents savings

from measures that have a B/C rati o that is greater than or equal to 1. By FY2032

- 33, savings from

these measures can account for 21 % of baseline sales with codes and standards and 15 % of baseline

sales without codes and standards.

Overall, economic potential is roughly 67 % of technical potential. A larger share of technical

potential is cost

- effective in the industrial and institutional sectors than the commercial and

residential sectors. Economic potential accounts for 8 4 % of technical potential in the industrial

sector and 77% of techn ical potential in the institutional sector.

When codes and standards are excluded, the commercial sector makes up 47% of technical

potential and 52% of economic potential. Commercial’s large share of total potential is largely a

function of LADWP’s sales. The sector accounts for 51% of total baseline sales, and 53% of baseline

sales considered for modeling. The residential sector also accounts for roughly 47% of technical

potential, but only 39% of economic potential. This difference is due to lower overal l cost

effectiveness in the residential sector.

A ppendix D provide s detailed summaries of technical potential findings , by sector and end

- use

.LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 27



# 4 A CHIEVABLE AND 

# P ROGRAM 

# P OTENTIAL



# 4.1 S COPE OF 

# A NALYSIS

This study considers one maximum achievable scenario and seven program potential scenarios.

Maximum achievable potential represents a scenario where the standard measure

- level economic

s creen is relaxed, and only sector level cost

- effectiveness is considered. The installation of measures

with benefit

- cost ratios below one are restricted until each sector’s aggregate benefit

- cost ratio

exceeds one. Section 2.3.3 provides a detailed summary of how the Nexant team applied this

approach. Maximum achievable potential provides an upper bound on long

- term energy efficiency

potential, if LAD WP acquired all technically feasible savings, while preserving sector cost

effe ctiveness.

However, maximum achievable potential does not provide a realistic estimate for planning. Other

constraints, such as customers’ willingness

- to

- adopt energy efficienc y measures and the maturity of

the market for a measure can limit the amount of savings that can be achieved. The Nexant team

constructed five program potential scenarios that account for market barriers, and the impact of

steps LADWP can take to overcome them, such us spending on incentives on marketing. The five

program potential scenarios include:

• Technical potential: The quantification of savings that can be realized if energy efficiency

measures passing the qualitative screening are applied in all feas ible instances, regardless of

cost.

• Economic potential: A subset of technical potential, where measures are cost

- effective from

the Total Resource Cost ( “ TRC ” ) perspective, without regard to cross

- subsidies.

• Maximum a chievable potential: The energy savings that can possibly be achieved through

assuming maximum market penetration of all measures. Measures are not necessarily cost

effective in this scenario, though measures with a low TRC benefit

- cost ratio are excluded.

• Program potential: The energy savings that can possibly be achieved through utility

programs or codes and standards. Measures are not necessarily cost

- effective in this

scenario, though measures with a low TRC benefit

- cost ratio are excluded. This study

estimated program potential for five pol icy intervention scenarios, corresponding to varying

incentive levels provided to end

- use consumers and an acquisition rate of 10 years for

retrofit measures, and two additional accelerated acquisition rates under the advanced and

extreme scenarios:

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 28 

### o Low s cenario : Monetary incentives to customers equaling 25% of incremental costs of

energy efficiency improvements 1 

### , and administration and marketing costs equaling 20%

of incremental costs. This scenario assumes retrofit opportunities are acquired within 10

years.

o Moderate scenario : Monetary incentives to customers equaling 50% of incremental

costs of energy efficiency improvements, and administration and marketing costs

equaling 35% of incr emental costs. This scenario assumes retrofit opportunities are

acquired within 10 years.

o High scenario : Monetary incentives to customers equaling 75% of incremental costs of

energy efficiency improvements, and administration and marketing costs equaling 4 0%

of incremental costs. This scenario assumes retrofit opportunities are acquired within 10

years.

o Advanced scenario : Monetary incentives to customers equaling 90% of incremental

costs of energy efficiency improvements and administration and marketing costs

equaling 65% of incremental costs. This scenario assumes retrofit opportunities are

acquired within 10 years.

o Advanced accelerated scenario: Same incentives and administration and marketing

costs as the “advanced scenario”, but retrofit opportunities are assumed to be acquired

in 8 years.

o Extreme scenario : Monetary incentives to customers, equaling 100% of incremental

costs of energy efficiency improvements, and administration and marketing costs

equalin g 75% of incremental costs. This scenario assumes retrofit opportunities are

acquired within 10 years.

o Extreme accelerated scenario: Same incentives and administration and marketing costs

as the “extreme scenario”, but retrofit opportunities are assumed to be acquired in 7

years.

Table 4

- 1 shows maximum achievable potential and program potential for each scenario, by sector.

Technical and economic potential are also in cluded, for reference.

1 For this study, incremental costs represent the difference in costs between the baselin e technology and efficient

technology. For equipment replacement measures that are assumed to occur at burnout, when the equipment would

naturally be replaced, the incremental costs include the difference between the efficient replacement option and the

s tandard replacement option. For non

- equipment measures (such as additional attic insulation) or early retirement

equipment measures, incremental costs include the total cost to install a measure compared to existing conditions.

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVAB LE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 29 Table 4

- 1 . Technical, Economic, Maximum Achievable, and Program Potential by Sector, Cumulative FY2032

- 33*



### Potential Type Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial Codes and

Standards Total

Baseline Sales (GWh) 9,985 14,798 756 2,195

- 27,734



### Energy Savings (GWh)

Technical Potential 3,334 3,332 143 314 1,690 8,813

Economic Potential 1,625 2,188 110 265 1,690 5,877

Max Achievable 1,830 2,998 134 306 1,690 6,958

Achievable Low 829 1,351 14 125 1,690 4,009

Achievable Medium 1,150 1,875 36 174 1,690 4,925

Achievable High 1,300 2,121 50 197 1,690 5,358

Achievable Advanced 1,417 2,311 81 214 1,690 5,714

Achievable Extreme 1,541 2,368 96 219 1,690 5,914



### Percent of Baseline Sales

Technical Potential 33% 23% 19% 14%

- 32%

Economic Potential 16% 15% 15% 12%

- 21%

Max Achievable 18% 20% 18% 14 %

- 25%

Achievable Low 8% 9% 2% 6%

- 14%

Achievable Medium 12% 13% 5% 8%

- 18%

Achievable High 13% 14% 7% 9%

- 19%

Achievable Advanced 14% 16% 11% 10%

- 21%

Achievable Extreme 15% 16% 13% 10%

- 21%



### *Excludes LADWP program accomplishments from 2010

- 2011 to 2012

- 2013

For each program potential scenario, the Nexant team considered the following two target years :

1. 2020 Target Year S cenarios , which include LADWP’s 2010

- 2011 to 2012

- 2013 program

accomplishments, as well as codes and standards accomplishments in these years.

2. 2023 Target Year Scenarios , which exclude historic program accomplishments and codes and

standards

Table 4

- 2 summarizes results from these two groups of scenarios. All numbers reflect the target y ear

for which each scenario is based. Benefit

- cost ratios reflect the portfolio TRC benefit

- cost ratio. The

acquisition budgets reflect cumulative spending for FY2013

- 14 to the target year for the scenario.

These were calculated by multiplying program pote ntial in each year by assumed dollar per kWh

spending. Dollar per kWh spending changes with each scenario due to changes in assumed

administrative and incentive costs. Levelized costs are UCT levelized costs, meaning only utility

incentive and administrati ve costs are considered.

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Pote ntial

– Volume I

– Draft 30 Table 4

- 2 . Program Potential Scenario Summary



### Low Moderate High Advanced Extreme

Normal Accelerated Normal Accelerated

Target Year 2020

Baseline Sales ( GWh ) FY2019

- 20 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388

Cumulative Potential (GWh) FY2019

- 20 1,947 2,485 2,737 2,933 3,383 3,014 3,825

2010

- 2011 to 2012

- 2013 Program Accomplishments 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6

Potential as % of Baseline Sales without Accomplishments 7.7% 9.8% 10.8% 11.6% 13.3% 11.9% 15.1%

Average Annual Savings as a % of Baseline Sales

(2014

- 2020) * 1.1% 1.4% 1.5% 1.7% 1.9% 1.7% 2.2%

Potential as % of Baseline Sales with Accomplishments 10.1% 12.2% 13.2% 14.0% 15.8% 14.3% 17.5%

Target Year 2023

Baseline Sales ( GWh) FY2022

- 23 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220

Cumulative Potential ( G Wh) FY2022

- 23 2,943 3,714 4,075 4,356 4,357 4,475 4,496

2010

- 2011 to 2012

- 2013 Program Accomplishments 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6

Potential as % of Baseline Sales without Accomplishments 11.2% 14.2% 15.5% 16.6% 16.6% 17.1% 17.1%

Average Annual Savings as a % of Baseline Sales

(2014

- 2023) * 1.1% 1.4% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7%

Potential as % of Baseline Sales with Accomplishments 13.6% 16.5% 17.9% 19.0% 19.0% 19.4% 19.5%

Scenario Economics (Over 20

- Year Study Horizon)

TRC Benefit Cost Ratio 1.55 1.38 1.33 1.13 1.13 0.90 0.90

Net TRC Benefits ($000s) $912,082 $978,192 $997,745 $497,037 $497,508

- $517,094

- $535,621

Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.024 $0.046 $0.063 $0.085 $0.085 $0.115 $0.115



### * These values represent the average annual level of savings required through programs to achieve the potential by the target y ear.

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 31 

# 4.2 D ETAILED 

# M AXIMUM 

# A CHIEVABLE 

# P OTENTIAL

This section provides the maximum achievable potentials by sector with segment and end

- use

granularity

.



## 4.2.1 Residential Sector

Study results indicate residential customers account for about 35% of forecasted electricity sales.

The Nexant team disaggregated residential sales across four segments: single family, multifamily,

low

- income single family, and low

- income multifamily. Table 4

- 3 and Figure 4

- 1 summarize

residential maximum achievable potential by segment.

Table 4

- 3 . Residential Maximum Achievable Potential By Segment, Cumulative FY 2032

- 33



### Segment Baseline Sales (GWh) Maximum Achievable Potential

GWh % of Base Sales MW

Single Family 4,820 1,087 23% 336

Multifamily 3,496 445 13% 159

Single Family Low Income 935 211 23% 65

Multifamily Low Income 734 87 12% 31

Total 9,985 1,830 18% 591

Figure 4

- 1 . Residential Maximum Achievable Potential by Segment

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 32 

### Residential maximum achievable potential amounts to 18 % of forecasted FY 2032

- 33 sales. Single

family homes comprise the majority of the potential ( 59 % ) , followed by multifamily ( 24 %), with low

inc ome single family and multifamily making up the remainder.

Table 4

- 4 and Figure 4

- 2 summarize residential technical and economic potential by end use group.

Table 4

- 4

. Residential Maximum Achievable Potential by End Use



### End Use Goup Baseline Sales (GWh) Maximum Achievable Potential

GWh % of Base

Sales MW

Appliances 1,997 834 42% 176

Plug Load 2,033 162 8% 19

Cooking 329 0 0% 0

Cooling 2,197 97 4% 182

Heat Pump 222 71 32% 134

Heating 263 0 0% 0

Lighting 1,839 663 36% 79

Other 569 0 0% 0

Water Heater 272 3 1% 0

Pool Pump 264 0 0% 0

Total 9,985 1,830 18% 591

Figure 4

- 2 . Residential Maximum Achievable Potential by End Use



### Nearly 82 % of maximum achievable potential comes from two end use groups

— appliances ( 46 %),

lighting ( 36%). LED lighting across a number of applications (interior, exterior, specialty, pool

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 33 

### lighting, and holiday lights) makes up the majority of lighting savings. High performance T8s make

up a smaller share of residential lighting potential, due to the low relative saturation of linear

fluorescents. Refrigerator recycling accounts for roughly 82 % of total savings in the appliance end

use group. Other appliance measures have limited savings for a variety of reasons. For example,

emerging refrigerators have r educed savings because of upcoming standards, and efficient clothes

washers have limited savings due to the low saturation of electric water heaters.



## 4.2.2 Commercial Sector

Commercial customers, excluding Los Angeles city facilities, account for 52% of total f orecasted FY

2032

- 33 sales. 1 

### These customers span multiple broad segments including education, office, storage,

and retail, among others. Table 4

- 5 presents a comprehensive list of the commercial segments the

Nexant team considered, and summarizing baseline sales, and maximum achievable potential by

segment. Figure 4

- 3 shows the distribution of commercial technical potential by segment.

Table 4

- 5 . Commercial Maximum Achievable Potential by Segment, Cumul ative FY 2032

- 33



### Segment Baseline Sales (GWh) Maximum Achievable Potential

GWh % of Base

Sales MW

Assembly 361 61 17% 16

Education College 317 56 18% 13

Education Primary 359 81 23% 19

Grocery 824 262 32% 48

Health 714 86 12% 20

Lodging 333 48 14% 11

Miscellaneous * 5,325 884 17% 244

Office Large 3,106 668 22% 195

Office Small 571 126 22% 37

Restaurant 846 253 30% 46

Retail Large 1,305 316 24% 86

Retail Small 309 80 26% 21

Storage 346 72 21% 16

Warehouse 83 4 5% 1

Total 14,798 2,998 20% 771

* The miscellaneous sector is composed of both other classified and unclassified accounts . Unclassified accounts did not have a

SIC code in LADWP’s customer data base and represent roughly 60% of sales in the miscellaneous sector. The remaining 40%

of the miscellaneous sector are distributed across more than 100 different business types that do not map to a broad

segment.



### Study results indicate maximum achievable pot ential can meet 20 % of forecasted baseline sales in

FY 2032

- 33. Much of the savings is in the miscellaneous ( 29 % of total), large office ( 22 % of total),

1 LA facilities are include d in the institutional sector.

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 34 

### large retail ( 11 % of total), and grocery ( 9 % of total) segments. This distribution of savings reflects

the distribution of baseline sales across the segments. These four segments account for both 71% of

baseline sales and 71% of technical potential in FY2032

- 33. As noted above, the miscellaneous

sector is approximately 60% unclassified accounts

. 1 

### The remain ing 40% of the miscellaneous sector

are distributed across more than 100 different business types that do not map to a broad segment.

Figure 4

- 3 . Commercial Maximum Achievable by Market Segment

1 The miscellaneous sector is composed of both other classified and unclassified accounts . Unclassified accounts did not

have a SIC code in LADWP’s customer data and represent roughly 60% of sales in the miscellaneous sector . The remaining

40% of the miscellaneous sector are distributed across more than 100 different business types that do not map to a broad

segment.

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 35 

### Table 4

- 6 and Figure 4

- 4 show commercial achievable technical potential by end use group.

Table 4

- 6 . Commercial Maximum Achievable Potential by End Use Group, Cumulative FY 2032

- 33



### Segment Baseline Sales (GWh) Maximum Achievable Potential

GWh % of Base

Sales MW

Cooking 474 91 19% 0

HVAC 4,614 1,000 22% 408

Lighting 4,457 1,456 33% 288

Miscellaneous 2,457 43 2% 9

Office Equipment 1,284 139 11% 28

Refrigeration 1,347 256 19% 36

Water Heat 166 11 7% 2

Total 14,798 2,998 20% 771

Figure 4

- 4 . Commercial Maximum Achievable by End Use Group



### Savings from lighting measures account for nearly half ( 49 % ) of maximum achievable potential in

FY2032

- 33. More than half of lighting savings ( 55 %) comes from the linear fluorescent end use,

while high intensity discharge fixtures account for 25 % of total lighting savings, interior screw

- base

fixtures account for 14 %, and exterior/other fixtures account for 6 %. While the majority of lighting

saving s comes from the installation of more efficient equipment ( 80 %), a significant share of savings

comes from occupancy sensors and improved controls ( 20 %).

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 3 6 

## 4.2.3 Institutional Sector

The Nexant team identified LADWP’s institutional customers and developed a separ ate sector for

modeling. Institutional buildings have characteristics similar to commercial segments (e.g.

, office

and assembly) and industrial segments (e.g.

, water and wastewater). The Nexant team employed a

bottom

- up modeling approach for commercial

- lik e segments and a top

- down modeling approach for

larger industrial

- like accounts. Overall, the institutional sector accounts for nearly 3% of total

forecasted baseline sales. Table 4

- 7 and Figure 4

- 5 summarize institutional sector maximum

achievable potential by segment.

Table 4

- 7 . Inst itutional Maximum Achievable Potential by Segment, Cumulative FY 2032

- 33



### Segment Baseline Sales (GWh) Maximum Achievable Potential

GWh % of Base

Sales MW

Assembly 115 19 16% 5

Civil Services 96 20 21% 6

Industry 5 1 18% 0

Miscellaneous 21 4 18% 1

Office Space 91 19 21% 6

Park 71 13 18% 4

Transportation * 194 34 18% 10

Utilities 17 3 18% 1

Wastewater * 69 14 20% 2

Water * 77 9 11% 2

Total 756 134 18% 35

* Modeled using a top

- down approach

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 37 Figure 4

- 5 . Institutional Maximum Achievable Potential by Segment



### Nearly one

- quarter of maximum achievable potential in the institutional sector comes from the

transportation segment. This segment includes both the Port of Los Angeles and Los Angeles

Internatio nal Airport; this segment also accounts for roughly one

- q uarter of baseline institutional

sales. Other segments that represent a significant share of savings in the institutional sector include

assembly ( 14 %), civil services ( 15 %), and office space ( 14 %).

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 38 

### Table 4

- 8 and Figure 4

- 6 show maximum achievable potential by end use group.

Table 4

- 8 . Institutional Maximum Achievable Potential by End Use, Cumulative FY 2032

- 33



### End Use Group Baseline Sales (GWh) Maximum Achievable Potential

GWh % of Base

Sales MW

Cooking 7 0 1% 0

HVAC 198 49 25% 20

Indirect Boiler 5 0 0% 0

Lighting 149 45 30% 9

Miscellaneous 72 1 2% 0

Motors Other 64 3 5% 0

Office Equipment 50 6 11% 1

Other 15 1 8% 0

Process 86 18 21% 3

Pumps 85 10 11% 1

Refrigeration 21 1 7% 0

Water Heat 5 0 6% 0

Total 756 134 18% 35

Figure 4

- 6 . Institutional Maximum Achievable Potential by End Use



### Lighting and HVAC collectively account for 70 % of institutional sector savings. Process, an end use

that only ap plies to the transportation, water, and wastewater segments, accounts for 13 % of total

institutional maximum achievable potential. Other miscell aneous end uses such as pumps, office

equipment, and motors account for the remaining 17 % of maximum achievable potential.

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 39 

## 4.2.4 Industrial Sector

Modeling industrial energy efficiency potential presents a unique challenge, due to variability within

industrial segments. While a prototypical commercial office, for example, can easily be

characterized, it is more difficult to do so for a prototypical industrial segment. For this reason, the

Nexant team employed a top

- down model to estimate industrial potential, co vering a total of 17

industrial segments. Table 4

- 9 and Figure 4

- 7 present max imum achievable potential by industrial

segment.

Table 4

- 9 . Industrial Maximum Achievable Potential by Segment, Cumulative FY 2032

- 33



### Segment Baseline Sales (GWh) Maximum Achievable Potential

GWh % of Base Sales MW

Agriculture 0 3% 0 0

Chemical Manufacturing 37 14% 7 7

Electronic Equipment Manufacturing 13 20% 3 3

Food Manufacturing 37 18% 7 7

Industrial Machinery 23 17% 7 6

Lumber Wood Products 5 22% 1 1

Mining 1 2% 0 0

Miscellaneous 0 0% 0 0

Miscellaneous Manufacturing 34 18% 10 10

Paper Manufacturing 10 17% 2 2

Petroleum Refining 57 17% 13 12

Primary Metal Manufacturing 1 11% 0 0

Stone Clay Glass Products 2 15% 0 0

Street Lighting 34 20% 7 7

Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 11 18% 3 3

Wastewater 36 20% 5 5

Water 5 11% 1 1

Total 306 14% 66 64

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 40 Figure 4

- 7 . Industrial Maximum Achievable Potential by Segment

In the figure above, “Other” includes: Miscellaneous, Agriculture, Primary Metal Manufacturing, Mining, Stone Clay Glass

Products, Water, Lumber Wood Products, Paper Manufacturing



### Petroleum refining makes up nearly 19 % of maximum achievable potential. Food manufacturing,

chemical manufacturing, and wastewater account for an additional 36 % of maximum achievable

potential ( 12 % each), and wastewater miscellaneous manufacturing and street lighting each

represent 11% of the potential. Table 4

- 10 and Figure 4

- 8 summarize maximum achievable potential

by industrial end use.

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LAD WP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 41 Table 4

- 10

. Industrial Maximum Achievable Potential by End Use, Cumulative FY 2032

- 33



### End Use Baseline Sales (GWh) Maximum Achievable Potential

GWh % of Base Sales MW

Fans 104 8 8% 3

HVAC 264 58 22% 24

Indirect Boiler 29 0 0% 0

Lighting 360 56 15% 11

Motors Other 397 19 5% 3

Other 80 5 6% 1

Process AirComp 277 56 20% 8

Process Electro Chemical 30 0 0% 0

Process Heat 180 31 17% 4

Process Other 21 1 5% 0

Process Refrig and Cooling 217 45 21% 6

Pumps 236 27 12% 4

Total 2,195 306 14% 64

Figure 4

- 8 . Industrial Maximum Achievable Potential by End Use Group



### Approximately 37 % of industrial savings are in lighting and HVAC end uses. Process end uses

represent an additional 43 % of total maximum achievable potential (such as process air

compression, process refrigeration and cooling, and process heat). The remaining maximum

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 42 

### achievable potential comes from other measures that go to miscellaneous end uses such as pumps,

motors, and fans.



# 4.3 P ROGRAM 

# P OTENTIAL 

# S CENARIOS

This sect ion provides tabular summaries of each of the seven program potential s cenario s. Tables

correspond to the scenarios shown in Table 4

- 11

.

Table 4

- 11

. Tables for Program Potential Scenarios



### Scenario Table

Low Table 4

- 12

Moderate Table 4

- 13

High Table 4

- 14

Advanced Table 4

- 15

Extreme Table 4

- 16

Advanced Accelerated Table 4

- 17

Extreme Accelerated Table 4

- 18

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 43 Table 4

- 12

. Low Program Potential Summary

Category FY2013

- 14 FY2014

- 15 FY2015

- 16 FY2016

- 17 FY2017

- 18 FY2018

- 19 FY2019

- 20 FY2020

- 21 FY2021

- 22 FY2022

- 23

Incremental Program

Potential (MWh) 186,872 185,834 197,314 198,210 208,202 201,640 210,072 200,330 204,985 196,215

Cumulative Program Potential

(MWh) 186,872 372,707 570,021 768,231 976,433 1,178,073 1,388,145 1,588,476 1,793,461 1,989,676

Cumulative Program Potential

(MWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 623,072 808,907 1,006,221 1,204,431 1,412,633 1,614,273 1,824,345 2,024,676 2,229,661 2,425,876

Cumulative Savings from

Codes and Standards 195,645 252,234 314,394 374,362 432,266 583,116 738,243 881,024 1,011,821 1,132,324

Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,969,813 24,109,873 24,301,748 24,552,888 24,837,064 25,113,801 25,387,855 25,746,348 25,985,817 26,219,677

Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 2.6% 3.4% 4.1% 4.9% 5.7% 6.4% 7.2% 7.9% 8.6% 9.3%

Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 3.4% 4.4% 5.4% 6.4% 7.4% 8.7% 10.1% 11.3% 12.5% 13.6%

Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- year 1 3.4% 4.4% 5.4% 6.4% 7.4% 8.7% 10.1% 10.4% 10.9% 11.2%

Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 51 49 52 52 54 53 55 54 54 54

Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 51 100 152 204 258 311 366 419 473 527

TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0631 $0.0631 $0.0631 $0.0631 $0.0631 $0.0631 $0.0631 $0.0631 $0.0631 $0.0631

UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0235 $0.0235 $0.0235 $0.0235 $0.0235 $0.0235 $0.0235 $0.0235 $0.0235 $0.0235

1 Rolling 10

- year savings include the impacts of savings achieved (program accomplishments + codes & standards ) starting with the 2010

- 2011 program year.

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 44 Table 4

- 13 . Moderate Program Potential Summary

Category FY2013

- 14 FY2014

- 15 FY2015

- 16 FY2016

- 17 FY2017

- 18 FY2018

- 19 FY2019

- 20 FY2020

- 21 FY2021

- 22 FY2022

- 23

Incremental Program

Potential (MWh) 259,315 257,874 273,804 275,047 288,913 279,807 291,508 277,989 284,449 272,279

Cumulative Program Potential

(MWh) 259,315 517,188 790,992 1,066,039 1,354,952 1,634,759 1,926,266 2,204,256 2,488,705 2,760,984

Cumulative Program Potential

(MWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 695,515 953,388 1,227,192 1,502,239 1,791,152 2,070,959 2,362,466 2,640,456 2,924,905 3,197,184

Cumulative Savings from

Codes and Standards 195,645 252,234 314,394 374,362 432,266 583,116 738,243 881,024 1,011,821 1,132,324

Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,969,813 24,109,873 24,301,748 24,552,888 24,837,064 25,113,801 25,387,855 25,746,348 25,985,817 26,219,677

Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 2.9% 4.0% 5.0% 6.1% 7.2% 8.2% 9.3% 10.3% 11.3% 12.2%

Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 3.7% 5.0% 6.3% 7.6% 9.0% 10.6% 12.2% 13.7% 15.1% 16.5%

Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- year 1 3.7% 5.0% 6.3% 7.6% 9.0% 10.6% 12.2% 12.8% 13.5% 14.2%

Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 71 68 72 73 75 74 76 74 75 75

Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 71 138 210 283 358 432 508 582 657 732

TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0732 $0.0732 $0.0732 $0.0732 $0.0732 $0.0732 $0.0732 $0.0732 $0.0732 $0.0732

UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0459 $0.0459 $0.0459 $0.0459 $0.0459 $0.0459 $0.0459 $0.0459 $0.0459 $0.0459

1 Rolling 10

- year savings include the impacts of savings achieved (program accomplishments + codes & standards) starting with the 2010

- 2011 program year.

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 45 Table 4

- 14 . High Program Potential Summary

Category FY2013

- 14 FY2014

- 15 FY2015

- 16 FY2016

- 17 FY2017

- 18 FY2018

- 19 FY2019

- 20 FY2020

- 21 FY2021

- 22 FY2022

- 23

Incremental Program

Potential (MWh) 293,221 291,592 309,605 311,011 326,690 316,393 329,624 314,338 321,642 307,881

Cumulative Program Potential

(MWh) 293,221 584,813 894,419 1,205,429 1,532,119 1,848,511 2,178,135 2,492,473 2,814,115 3,121,996

Cumulative Program Potential

(MWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 729,421 1,021,013 1,330,619 1,641,629 1,968,319 2,284,711 2,614,335 2,928,673 3,250,315 3,558,196

Cumulative Savings from

Codes and Standards 195,645 252,234 314,394 374,362 432,266 583,116 738,243 881,024 1,011,821 1,132,324

Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,969,813 24,109,873 24,301,748 24,552,888 24,837,064 25,113,801 25,387,855 25,746,348 25,985,817 26,219,677

Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 3.0% 4.2% 5.5% 6.7% 7.9% 9.1% 10.3% 11.4% 12.5% 13.6%

Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 3.9% 5.3% 6.8% 8.2% 9.7% 11.4% 13.2% 14.8% 16.4% 17.9%

Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- year 1 3.9% 5.3% 6.8% 8.2% 9.7% 11.4% 13.2% 13.9% 14.8% 15.5%

Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 80 76 82 82 85 84 86 84 85 84

Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 80 156 238 320 405 488 574 658 743 827

TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0766 $0.0766 $0.0766 $0.0766 $0.0766 $0.0766 $0.0766 $0.0766 $0.0766 $0.0766

UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0627 $0.0627 $0.0627 $0.0627 $0.0627 $0.0627 $0.0627 $0.0627 $0.0627 $0.0627

1 Rolling 10

- year savings include the impacts of savings a chieved (program accomplishments + codes & standards) starting with the 2010

- 2011 program year.

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 46 Table 4

- 15 . Advanced Program Potential Summary

Category FY2013

- 14 FY2014

- 15 FY2015

- 16 FY2016

- 17 FY2017

- 18 FY2018

- 19 FY2019

- 20 FY2020

- 21 FY2021

- 22 FY2022

- 23

Incremental Program

Potential (MWh) 319,613 317,838 337,472 339,004 356,094 344,870 359,293 342,631 350,592 335,592

Cumulative Program Potential

(MWh) 319,613 637,451 974,923 1,313,927 1,670,021 2,014,892 2,374,184 2,716,815 3,067,407 3,403,000

Cumulative Program Potential

(MWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 755,813 1,073,651 1,411,123 1,750,127 2,106,221 2,451,092 2,810,384 3,153,015 3,503,607 3,839,200

Cumulative Savings from

Codes and Standards 195,645 252,234 314,394 374,362 432,266 583,116 738,243 881,024 1,011,821 1,132,324

Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,969,813 24,109,873 24,301,748 24,552,888 24,837,064 25,113,801 25,387,855 25,746,348 25,985,817 26,219,677

Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 3.2% 4.5% 5.8% 7.1% 8.5% 9.8% 11.1% 12.2% 13.5% 14.6%

Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 4.0% 5.5% 7.1% 8.7% 10.2% 12.1% 14.0% 15.7% 17.4% 19.0%

Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- year 1 4.0% 5.5% 7.1% 8.7% 10.2% 12.1% 14.0% 14.8% 15.8% 16.6%

Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 87 83 89 90 92 91 93 92 93 92

Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 87 170 259 349 441 532 626 717 810 902

TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908

UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850

1 Rolling 10

- year savings include the impacts of savings achieved (program accomplishments + codes & standards) starting with the 2010

- 2011 program year.

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territor ial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 47 Table 4

- 16 . Extreme Program Potential Summary

Category FY2013

- 14 FY2014

- 15 FY2015

- 16 FY2016

- 17 FY2017

- 18 FY2018

- 19 FY2019

- 20 FY2020

- 21 FY2021

- 22 FY2022

- 23

Incremental Program

Potential (MWh) 330,360 327,857 348,469 350,474 368,350 357,211 372,291 355,489 363,655 348,074

Cumulative Program Potential

(MWh) 330,360 658,217 1,006,686 1,357,159 1,725,509 2,082,720 2,455,011 2,810,501 3,174,155 3,522,230

Cumulative Program Potential

(MWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 766,560 1,094,417 1,442,886 1,793,359 2,161,709 2,518,920 2,891,211 3,246,701 3,610,355 3,958,430

Cumulative Savings from

Codes and Standards 195,645 252,234 314,394 374,362 432,266 583,116 738,243 881,024 1,011,821 1,132,324

Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,969,813 24,109,873 24,301,748 24,552,888 24,837,064 25,113,801 25,387,855 25,746,348 25,985,817 26,219,677

Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 3.2% 4.5% 5.9% 7.3% 8.7% 10.0% 11.4% 12.6% 13.9% 15.1%

Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 4.0% 5.6% 7.2% 8.8% 10.4% 12.4% 14.3% 16.0% 17.8% 19.4%

Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- year 1 4.0% 5.6% 7.2% 8.8% 10.4% 12.4% 14.3% 15.1% 16.2% 17.1%

Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 89 86 91 92 95 94 96 94 95 95

Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 89 175 266 359 454 547 644 738 833 928

TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151

UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.1147 $0.1147 $0.1147 $0.1147 $0.1147 $0.1147 $0.1147 $0.1147 $0.1147 $0.1147

1 Roll ing 10

- year savings include the impacts of savings achieved (program accomplishments + codes & standards) starting with the 2010

- 2011 program year.

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 48 Table 4

- 17

. Advanced Accelerated Program Potential Summary

Category FY2013

- 14 FY2014

- 15 FY2015

- 16 FY2016

- 17 FY2017

- 18 FY2018

- 19 FY2019

- 20 FY2020

- 21 FY2021

- 22 FY2022

- 23

Incremental Program

Potential (MWh) 379,265 378,333 398,353 400,207 417,532 406,769 421,171 404,553 106,303 91,276

Cumulative Program Potential

(MWh) 379,265 757,598 1,155,951 1,556,158 1,973,690 2,380,459 2,801,630 3,206,184 3,312,487 3,403,762

Cumulative Program Potential

(MWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 815,465 1,193,798 1,592,151 1,992,358 2,409,890 2,816,659 3,237,830 3,642,384 3,748,687 3,839,962

Cumulative Savings from

Codes and Standards 198,577 258,228 323,577 386,861 448,188 602,550 761,266 907,752 1,025,544 1,133,041

Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,969,813 24,109,873 24,301,748 24,552,888 24,837,064 25,113,801 25,387,855 25,746,348 25,985,817 26,219,677

Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 3.4% 5.0% 6.6% 8.1% 9.7% 11.2% 12.8% 14.1% 14.4% 14.6%

Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 4.2% 6.0% 7.9% 9.7% 11.5% 13.6% 15.8% 17.7% 18.4% 19.0%

Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- year 1 4.2% 6.0% 7.9% 9.7% 11.5% 13.6% 15.8% 16.8% 16.8% 16.6%

Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 102 99 104 105 108 107 109 107 31 31

Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 102 200 304 409 517 624 733 840 871 902

TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908 $0.0908

UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850 $0.0850

1 Rolling 10

- year savings include the impacts of savings achieved (program accomplishments + codes & standar ds) starting with the 2010

- 2011 program year.

### SECTION 4 A CHIEVABLE AND P ROGRAM P OTENTIAL

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 49 Table 4

- 18

. Extreme Accelerated Program Potential Summary

Category FY2013

- 14 FY2014

- 15 FY2015

- 16 FY2016

- 17 FY2017

- 18 FY2018

- 19 FY2019

- 20 FY2020

- 21 FY2021

- 22 FY2022

- 23

Incremental Program

Potential (MWh) 437,567 436,179 457,783 460,339 478,590 468,160 482,959 105,855 112,768 97,276

Cumulative Program Potential

(MWh) 437,567 873,746 1,331,530 1,791,869 2,270,460 2,738,619 3,221,579 3,327,434 3,440,202 3,537,478

Cumulative Program Potential

(MWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 873,767 1,309,946 1,767,730 2,228,069 2,706,660 3,174,819 3,657,779 3,763,634 3,876,402 3,973,678

Cumulative Savings from

Codes and Standards 201,225 263,715 332,110 398,580 463,183 620,890 783,006 913,195 1,030,940 1,138,353

Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,969,813 24,109,873 24,301,748 24,552,888 24,837,064 25,113,801 25,387,855 25,746,348 25,985,817 26,219,677

Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 3.6% 5.4% 7.3% 9.1% 10.9% 12.6% 14.4% 14.6% 14.9% 15.2%

Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 4.5% 6.5% 8.6% 10.7% 12.8% 15.1% 17.5% 18.2% 18.9% 19.5%

Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- year 1 4.5% 6.5% 8.6% 10.7% 12.8% 15.1% 17.5% 17.3% 17.3% 17.1%

Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 116 113 119 120 123 122 125 32 32 32

Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 116 229 348 468 591 713 838 870 903 934

TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.1155 $0.1155 $0.1155 $0.1155 $0.1155 $0.1155 $0.1155 $0.1155 $0.1155 $0.1155

UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151 $0.1151

1 Rolling 10

- year savings include the impacts of savings achieved (program accomplishments + codes & standards) starting with the 2010

- 2011 program year.

### SECTION 5 P LANNING C ONSIDERATIONS

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 50 

# 5 P LANNING 

# C ONSIDERATIONS



# 5.1 S COPE OF 

# A NALYSIS

The program potential scenario s detailed in Section 4 represent a broad

- brush approach to

estimating potential based on assumed incentive and administration/marketing costs , and identified

that LADWP’s aspirational goal of 15% savings as a percentage of 2020 baseline sales 1 

### is achievable

and cost

- effective from the TRC perspective . H owever, as LADWP develops its program plans, it will

not use a single set of incentive rates for all measures , and each program will hav e unique

administration and marketing costs. In addition, although all measures with a TRC B/C ratio greater

than 0.30 were included in this scenario, not all measures are likely to be included in the programs.

To provide some context to the budgetary requ irements of actually achieving these savings, the

Nexant team explored several scenarios to reach 15% of baseline energy sales by 2020 , based on a

more granular approach to the assumptions.

LADWP provided the Nexant team with program categories and assign ed all measures to these

program categories. Example program categories include : Residential Lighting, Residential Envelope,

Commercial Refrigeration, and Direct Install (DI). The Nexant team then applied program

- specific

adoption assumptions to each categ ory. The drivers of the adoption are:

1. Incentive expenditure s

– varies between 30% to 100% of incremental measure cost

2. Administrative and marketing expenditures

– varies between 20% to 60 % of incremental

measure cost

3. Ramp rates

– accounts for program maturit y . The ramp rates were designed to accelerate

sufficient adoption to reach 15% in 2020 and assume more aggressive market and outreach

to reach market saturation of some measures within 7 or 8 years . As such, the majority of

the discretionary savings will b e captured by 2020, resulting in a drop

- off in annual

acquisition in later years.

In addition, the codes and standards savings assumptions found through the potential model

presented in the prior analysis represent high

- level market results that quantify t he overall impacts

of identified codes and standards that take effect during the planning horizon of this study

. However, LADWP programs target specific C&S improvements. For these planning scenarios, the

Nexant team used the LADWP expected savings for C&S programs based on LADWP’s share of the

identified C&S attributable savings for the state.

1 15% savings represents cumulative savings through 2020 inclusive of program accomplishments from 2010

- 2013.

### SECTION 5 P LANNING C ONSIDERAT IONS

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 51 Table 5

- 1 . LADWP Projected Savings from Codes and Standards



### Year GWh MW

2014

- 15 76.48 11.6

2015

- 16 84.41 13.7

2016

- 17 77.89 13.0

2017

- 18 62.28 11.3

2018

- 19 50.18 9.9

2019

- 20 44.65 9.1

2020

- 21 38.81 8.3

2021

- 22 33.34 7.7

2022

- 23 28.60 7.2



### With LADWP ’s guidance , t he Nexant team produced ten program planning scenarios to demonstrate

how changing assumptions on program delivery, including incen tives, admin/marketing, benefit

- cost

thresholds, and ramp rates can create a range of budgets required to reach roughly 15% savings by

2020. These scenarios are intended to provide preliminary guidance for LADWP’s progra m planning

process but do not represent all possible program delivery options, and input assumptions may be

further refined to reflect LADWP’s delivery strategy for each program offering. Table 5

- 2 shows the

assumptions, average annual budget, and the cumulative savings as a percent of forecasted baseline

sales for each scenario. Table 5

- 3 shows additional detail for each of these scenarios in FY2019

- 20

and FY2022

- 23, including energy savings, demand savings, benefit cost ratios, and levelized costs.

### SECTION 5 P LANNING C ONSIDERATIONS

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 52 Table 5

- 2

. Program Planning Scenario Assumptions Scenario

Incentive/Admin Assumption Minimum

B/C

Threshold Ramp

Assumption Average

Annual

Budget

(Million $) Cumulative Savings as a Percent of Baseline Sales *

2013

-

2014 2014

-

2015 2015

-

2016 2016

-

2017 2017

-

2018 2018

-

2019 2019

-

2020 2020

-

2021 2021

-

2022 2022

-

2023

1 Incentive 90% of incremental cost; 60%

admin

– all programs 0.3 Logistic ramp $389 3.9% 5.3% 7.4% 9.7% 12.2% 14.4% 16.4% 17.3% 17.8% 18.2%

2 Incentive 90% of incremental cost; 60%

admin

– all programs 0.5 Logistic ramp $326 3.8% 5.2% 7.2% 9.5% 11.8% 14.0% 15.9% 16.7% 17.3% 17.6%

3 Incentives range from 30% to 100% of

incremental cost by program;

Admin ranges from 20% to 60% by program 0.3 Logistic ramp $192 3.8% 5.1% 6.9% 9.0% 11.2% 13.2% 15.0% 15.8% 16.3% 16.6%

4 Incentives Range from 50% to 90% of

incremental cost by program;

Admin ranges from 40% to 60% by program 0.5 Logistic ramp $242 3.8% 5.2% 7.1% 9.3% 11.5% 13.6% 15.5% 16.3% 16.8% 17.2%

5 Incentives range from 50% to 100% of

incremental cost by program;

Admin fixed at 40% for all programs 0.5 Logistic ramp $179 3.7% 5.0% 6.7% 8.8% 10.8% 12.8% 14.5% 15.2% 15.7% 16.0%

6 Incentives range from 30% to 100% of

incremental cost by program;

Admin ranges from 20% to 40% by program 0.5 Logistic ramp $161 3.7% 5.0% 6.7% 8.8% 10.8% 12.8% 14.5% 15.2% 15.7% 16.0%

7 Incentives 100% of incremental cost for all

programs;

Admin ranges from 20% to 60% by program 0.5 9 Year Linear

Ramp $247 4.3% 6.1% 7.9% 9.7% 11.4% 12.9% 14.5% 15.9% 17.3% 17.4%

8 Incentives range from 50% to 100% of

incremental cost by program;

Admin ranges from 20% to 40% by program 0.3 9 Year Linear

Ramp $224 4.3% 6.1% 7.9% 9.7% 11.4% 13.0% 14.6% 15.9% 17.4% 17.5%

9 Incentives range from 30% to 100% of

incremental cost by program;

Admin ranges from 20% to 40% by program; 0.5 8 Year Linear

Ramp $157 4.3% 6.1% 7.9% 9.6% 11.3% 12.9% 14.4% 15.8% 16.0% 16.1%

10 Incentives defined by target incentive rates

for program groups 0.5 for direct

install; 0 for

all other

program

groups Logistic ramp $151 3.7% 5.0% 6.8% 8.8% 10.9% 12.8% 14.5% 15.3% 15.8% 16.1%

*Includes accomplishments from 2010

- 2013 programs

### SECTION 5 P LANNING C ONSIDERATIONS

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 53 Table 5

- 3

. Detailed Program Planning Scenario Results (2020 and 2023)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10

Target Year 2020

Baseline Sales (GWh) FY2019

- 20 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388 25,388

Cumulative Potential (GWh) FY2019

- 20 3,094 2,962 2,726 2,859 2,596 2,593 2,601 2,614 2,583 2,610

Cumulative C&S Savings (GWh) FY2019

- 20 466 466 466 466 466 466 466 466 466 466

2010

- 2011 to 2012

- 2013 Program

Accomplishments 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616

Potential as % of Baseline Sales without

Accomplishments 14.0% 13.5% 12.6% 13.1% 12.1% 12.0% 12.1% 12.1% 12.0% 12.1%

Average Annual Savings as a % of Baseline

Sales (2014

- 2020) 2.0% 1.9% 1.8% 1.9% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7%

Potential as % of Baseline Sales with

Accomplishments 16.4% 15.9% 15.0% 15.5% 14.5% 14.5% 14.5% 14.6% 14.4% 14.5%

Cumulative Acquisition Budget ($Million) in

FY2019

- 20 $2,723 $2,280 $1,342 $1,695 $1,250 $1,129 $1,727 $1,567 $1,100 $1,057

Average Annual Acquisition Budget ($Million) $389 $326 $192 $242 $179 $161 $247 $224 $157 $151

Target Year 2023

Baseline Sales ( GWh ) FY2022

- 23 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220 26,220

Cumulative Potential ( GWh ) FY2022

- 23 3,592 3,441 3,166 3,323 3,021 3,015 3,390 3,406 3,038 3,029

Cumulative C&S Savings (GWh) FY2022

- 23 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566

2010

- 2011 to 2012

- 2013 Program

Accomplishments 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6 615.6

Potential as % of Baseline Sales without

Accomplishments 15.9% 15.3% 14.2% 14.8% 13.7% 13.7% 15.1% 15.2% 13.7% 13.7%

Average Annual Savings as a % of Baseline

Sales (2014

- 2023) 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4%

Potential as % of Baseline Sales with

Accomplishments 18.2% 17.6% 16.6% 17.2% 16.0% 16.0% 17.4% 17.5% 16.1% 16.1%

Cumulative Acquisition Budget ($Million) in

FY2022

- 23 $3,165 $2,661 $1,570 $1,990 $1,474 $1,327 $2,261 $2,050 $1,306 $1,225

Average Annual Acquisition Budget ($Million) $316 $266 $157 $199 $147 $133 $226 $205 $131 $122

Scenario Economics (Over 20

- year Study Horizon)

TRC Benefit Cost Ratio 1.11 1.26 1.20 1.30 1.46 1.35 1.27 1.17 1.37 1.28

Net TRC Benefits ($Million) $448 $867 $637 $932 $1,129 $930 $869 $599 $958 $775

Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.085 $0.074 $0.050 $0.058 $0.048 $0.043 $0.064 $0.060 $0.042 $0.039

### SECTION 5 P LANNING C ONSIDERATIONS

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 54 

# 5.2 P ROGRAM 

# P LANNING 

# S CENARIOS

This section provides tabular summaries of each of the ten planning scenario summaries. Tables

correspond to the scenarios shown in Table 5

- 4

.

Table 5

- 4

. Tables for Program Potential Scenarios



### Scenario Table

1 

### Table 5

- 5

2 

### Table 5

- 6

3 

### Table 5

- 7

4 

### Table 5

- 8

5 

### Table 5

- 9

6 

### Table 5

- 10

7 

### Table 5

- 11

8 

### Table 5

- 12

9 

### Table 5

- 13

10 

### Table 5

- 14

See the tables in Appendix F for additional details on methodology, assumptions, and results for

each scenario.

### SECTION 5 P LANNING C ONSIDERATIONS

LADWP Territorial Potent ial

– Volume I

– Draft 55 Table 5

- 5

. Detailed Results

- Scenario 1



### Row

# Category 2013

- 14 20 14

- 15 20 15

- 16 20 16

- 17 20 17

- 18 20 18

- 19 20 19

- 20 20 20

- 21 20 21

- 22 20 22

- 23

1 Incremental Program Potential

(GWh) 245 275 423 519 568 556 506 239 152 107

2 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) 245 521 944 1,463 2,032 2,588 3,094 3,333 3,485 3,592

3 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 682 957 1,381 1,900 2,468 3,024 3,530 3,770 3,921 4,028

4 Incremental Savings from Codes

and Standards 71 76 84 78 62 50 45 39 33 29

5 Cumulative Savings from Codes

and Standards (w/ 2011

- 2013) 249 326 410 488 550 600 645 684 717 746

6 Annual Savings Target

(Program + Codes & Standards) 317 352 508 597 631 607 550 278 185 136

7 Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,970 24,110 24,302 24,553 24,837 25,114 25,388 25,746 25,986 26,220

8 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 2.8% 4.0% 5.7% 7.7% 9.9% 12.0% 13.9% 14.6% 15.1% 15.4%

9 Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 3.9% 5.3% 7.4% 9.7% 12.2% 14.4% 16.4% 17.3% 17.8% 18.2%

10 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- Year (excludes 2011

- 2013) 3.9% 5.3% 7.4% 9.7% 12.2% 14.4% 16.4% 16.4% 16.2% 15.9%

11 Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 67 74 115 142 154 154 138 66 40 31

12 Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 67 141 256 398 553 706 844 910 950 981

13 Total Budget ($000) $216,585 $239,542 $372,542 $459,489 $502,774 $486,825 $444,874 $210,642 $135,144 $96,516

14 TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0916 $0.0916 $0.0916 $0.0916 $0.0916 $0.0916 $0.0916 $0.0916 $0.0916 $0.0916

15 UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0855 $0.0855 $0.0855 $0.0855 $0.0855 $0.0855 $0.0855 $0.0855 $0.0855 $0.0855

### SECTION 5 P LANNING C ONSIDERATIONS

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 56 Table 5

- 6

. Detailed Results

- Scenario 2



### Row

# Category 2013

- 14 20 14

- 15 20 15

- 16 20 16

- 17 20 17

- 18 20 18

- 19 20 19

- 20 20 20

- 21 20 21

- 22 20 22

- 23

1 Incremental Program Potential

(GWh) 235 264 406 497 545 532 484 229 146 103

2 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) 235 499 904 1,401 1,946 2,478 2,962 3,191 3,337 3,441

3 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 671 935 1,341 1,837 2,382 2,914 3,398 3,627 3,774 3,877

4 Incremental Savings from Codes

and Standards 71 76 84 78 62 50 45 39 33 29

5 Cumulative Savings from Codes

and Standards (w/ 2011

- 2013) 249 326 410 488 550 600 645 684 717 746

6 Annual Savings Target

(Program + Codes & Standards) 306 340 490 575 607 582 529 268 180 132

7 Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,970 24,110 24,302 24,553 24,837 25,114 25,388 25,746 25,986 26,220

8 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 2.8% 3.9% 5.5% 7.5% 9.6% 11.6% 13.4% 14.1% 14.5% 14.8%

9 Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 3.8% 5.2% 7.2% 9.5% 11.8% 14.0% 15.9% 16.7% 17.3% 17.6%

10 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- Year (excludes 2011

- 2013) 3.8% 5.2% 7.2% 9.5% 11.8% 14.0% 15.9% 15.9% 15.7% 15.3%

11 Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 64 70 109 136 147 146 131 63 39 30

12 Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 64 134 244 379 526 672 804 867 905 935

13 Total Budget ($000) $181,811 $199,519 $312,399 $384,336 $422,577 $405,371 $373,611 $178,742 $118,003 $84,357

14 TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0792 $0.0792 $0.0792 $0.0792 $0.0792 $0.0792 $0.0792 $0.0792 $0.0792 $0.0792

15 UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0739 $0.0739 $0.0739 $0.0739 $0.0739 $0.0739 $0.0739 $0.0739 $0.0739 $0.0739

### SECTION 5 P LANNING C ONSIDERATIONS

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 57 Table 5

- 7

. Detailed Results

- Scenario 3



### Row

# Category 2013

- 14 20 14

- 15 20 15

- 16 20 16

- 17 20 17

- 18 20 18

- 19 20 19

- 20 20 20

- 21 20 21

- 22 20 22

- 23

1 Incremental Program Potential

(GWh) 216 243 373 457 501 490 446 211 135 94

2 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) 216 459 832 1,289 1,790 2,280 2,726 2,937 3,072 3,166

3 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 652 895 1,268 1,725 2,226 2,716 3,162 3,373 3,508 3,603

4 Incremental Savings from Codes

and Standards 71 76 84 78 62 50 45 39 33 29

5 Cumulative Savings from Codes

and Standards (w/ 2011

- 2013) 249 326 410 488 550 600 645 684 717 746

6 Annual Savings Target

(Program + Codes & Standards) 287 319 458 535 563 540 491 250 168 123

7 Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,970 24,110 24,302 24,553 24,837 25,114 25,388 25,746 25,986 26,220

8 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 2.7% 3.7% 5.2% 7.0% 9.0% 10.8% 12.5% 13.1% 13.5% 13.7%

9 Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 3.8% 5.1% 6.9% 9.0% 11.2% 13.2% 15.0% 15.8% 16.3% 16.6%

10 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- Year (excludes 2011

- 2013) 3.8% 5.1% 6.9% 9.0% 11.2% 13.2% 15.0% 14.9% 14.7% 14.2%

11 Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 54 60 93 115 125 124 111 53 32 24

12 Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 54 114 207 323 447 571 683 736 768 792

13 Total Budget ($000) $107,197 $117,459 $183,961 $225,142 $249,045 $237,734 $221,345 $105,942 $71,921 $50,300

14 TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0684 $0.0684 $0.0684 $0.0684 $0.0684 $0.0684 $0.0684 $0.0684 $0.0684 $0.0684

15 UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0495 $0.0495 $0.0495 $0.0495 $0.0495 $0.0495 $0.0495 $0.0495 $0.0495 $0.0495

### SECTION 5 P LANNING C ONSIDERATIONS

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 58 Table 5

- 8

. Detailed Results

- Scenario 4



### Row

# Category 2013

- 14 20 14

- 15 20 15

- 16 20 16

- 17 20 17

- 18 20 18

- 19 20 19

- 20 20 20

- 21 20 21

- 22 20 22

- 23

1 Incremental Program Potential

(GWh) 227 254 391 479 526 513 468 222 142 100

2 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) 227 481 873 1,352 1,878 2,391 2,859 3,081 3,223 3,323

3 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 663 917 1,309 1,788 2,314 2,827 3,295 3,517 3,659 3,759

4 Incremental Savings from Codes

and Standards 71 76 84 78 62 50 45 39 33 29

5 Cumulative Savings from Codes

and Standards (w/ 2011

- 2013) 249 326 410 488 550 600 645 684 717 746

6 Annual Savings Target

(Program + Codes & Standards) 298 331 476 557 588 563 512 261 176 129

7 Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,970 24,110 24,302 24,553 24,837 25,114 25,388 25,746 25,986 26,220

8 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 2.8% 3.8% 5.4% 7.3% 9.3% 11.3% 13.0% 13.7% 14.1% 14.3%

9 Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 3.8% 5.2% 7.1% 9.3% 11.5% 13.6% 15.5% 16.3% 16.8% 17.2%

10 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- Year (excludes 2011

- 2013) 3.8% 5.2% 7.1% 9.3% 11.5% 13.6% 15.5% 15.4% 15.2% 14.8%

11 Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 59 65 101 126 136 135 122 58 36 28

12 Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 59 125 226 352 488 624 745 803 839 867

13 Total Budget ($000) $135,544 $147,384 $232,327 $284,169 $315,217 $299,580 $280,332 $135,482 $93,530 $65,972

14 TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0714 $0.0714 $0.0714 $0.0714 $0.0714 $0.0714 $0.0714 $0.0714 $0.0714 $0.0714

15 UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582

### SECTION 5 P LANNING C ONSIDERATIONS

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 59 Table 5

- 9

. Detailed Results

- Scenario 5



### Row

# Category 2013

- 14 20 14

- 15 20 15

- 16 20 16

- 17 20 17

- 18 20 18

- 19 20 19

- 20 20 20

- 21 20 21

- 22 20 22

- 23

1 Incremental Program Potential

(GWh) 206 231 356 435 478 465 425 202 131 92

2 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) 206 437 793 1,227 1,705 2,170 2,596 2,798 2,929 3,021

3 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 642 873 1,229 1,664 2,141 2,607 3,032 3,234 3,365 3,457

4 Incremental Savings from Codes

and Standards 71 76 84 78 62 50 45 39 33 29

5 Cumulative Savings from Codes

and Standards (w/ 2011

- 2013) 249 326 410 488 550 600 645 684 717 746

6 Annual Savings Target

(Program + Codes & Standards) 277 307 440 513 540 516 470 241 164 121

7 Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,970 24,110 24,302 24,553 24,837 25,114 25,388 25,746 25,986 26,220

8 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 2.7% 3.6% 5.1% 6.8% 8.6% 10.4% 11.9% 12.6% 13.0% 13.2%

9 Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 3.7% 5.0% 6.7% 8.8% 10.8% 12.8% 14.5% 15.2% 15.7% 16.0%

10 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- Year (excludes 2011

- 2013) 3.7% 5.0% 6.7% 8.8% 10.8% 12.8% 14.5% 14.3% 14.1% 13.7%

11 Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 52 56 88 109 118 117 105 51 32 25

12 Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 52 108 196 305 423 540 645 696 728 752

13 Total Budget ($000) $100,337 $108,181 $171,649 $209,267 $233,237 $219,810 $207,410 $101,272 $71,735 $50,607

14 TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582 $0.0582

15 UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0476 $0.0476 $0.0476 $0.0476 $0.0476 $0.0476 $0.0476 $0.0476 $0.0476 $0.0476

### SECTION 5 P LANNING C ONSIDERATIONS

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 60 Table 5

- 10

. Detailed Results

- Scenario 6



### Row

# Category 2013

- 14 20 14

- 15 20 15

- 16 20 16

- 17 20 17

- 18 20 18

- 19 20 19

- 20 20 20

- 21 20 21

- 22 20 22

- 23

1 Incremental Program Potential

(GWh) 206 231 355 434 477 465 424 202 130 91

2 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) 206 437 792 1,226 1,703 2,168 2,593 2,794 2,924 3,015

3 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 642 873 1,228 1,663 2,140 2,605 3,029 3,231 3,360 3,451

4 Incremental Savings from Codes

and Standards 71 76 84 78 62 50 45 39 33 29

5 Cumulative Savings from Codes

and Standards (w/ 2011

- 2013) 249 326 410 488 550 600 645 684 717 746

6 Annual Savings Target

(Program + Codes & Standards) 277 307 440 512 539 515 469 240 163 119

7 Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,970 24,110 24,302 24,553 24,837 25,114 25,388 25,746 25,986 26,220

8 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 2.7% 3.6% 5.1% 6.8% 8.6% 10.4% 11.9% 12.5% 12.9% 13.2%

9 Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 3.7% 5.0% 6.7% 8.8% 10.8% 12.8% 14.5% 15.2% 15.7% 16.0%

10 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- Year (excludes 2011

- 2013) 3.7% 5.0% 6.7% 8.8% 10.8% 12.8% 14.5% 14.3% 14.1% 13.7%

11 Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 52 57 89 110 119 118 106 51 31 24

12 Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 52 109 198 308 427 545 651 702 733 756

13 Total Budget ($000) $90,485 $98,216 $155,067 $189,060 $210,565 $198,339 $186,951 $90,571 $63,706 $44,528

14 TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0594 $0.0594 $0.0594 $0.0594 $0.0594 $0.0594 $0.0594 $0.0594 $0.0594 $0.0594

15 UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0426 $0.0426 $0.0426 $0.0426 $0.0426 $0.0426 $0.0426 $0.0426 $0.0426 $0.0426

### SECTION 5 P LANNING C ONSIDERATIONS

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 61 Table 5

- 11

. Detailed Results

- Scenario 7



### Row

# Category 2013

- 14 20 14

- 15 20 15

- 16 20 16

- 17 20 17

- 18 20 18

- 19 20 19

- 20 20 20

- 21 20 21

- 22 20 22

- 23

1 Incremental Program Potential

(GWh) 355 351 372 373 389 374 387 370 375 43

2 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) 355 706 1,078 1,451 1,840 2,214 2,601 2,972 3,347 3,390

3 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 791 1,142 1,514 1,887 2,276 2,651 3,037 3,408 3,783 3,826

4 Incremental Savings from Codes

and Standards 71 76 84 78 62 50 45 39 33 29

5 Cumulative Savings from Codes

and Standards (w/ 2011

- 2013) 249 326 410 488 550 600 645 684 717 746

6 Annual Savings Target

(Program + Codes & Standards) 426 427 457 451 451 424 432 409 409 72

7 Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,970 24,110 24,302 24,553 24,837 25,114 25,388 25,746 25,986 26,220

8 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 3.3% 4.7% 6.2% 7.7% 9.2% 10.6% 12.0% 13.2% 14.6% 14.6%

9 Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 4.3% 6.1% 7.9% 9.7% 11.4% 12.9% 14.5% 15.9% 17.3% 17.4%

10 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- Year (excludes 2011

- 2013) 4.3% 6.1% 7.9% 9.7% 11.4% 12.9% 14.5% 15.0% 15.7% 15.1%

11 Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 98 93 100 100 103 101 103 101 101 13

12 Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 98 191 291 391 493 595 698 799 900 913

13 Total Budget ($000) $235,148 $227,949 $247,314 $249,357 $262,298 $246,259 $259,065 $246,745 $252,958 $33,979

14 TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0644 $0.0644 $0.0644 $0.0644 $0.0644 $0.0644 $0.0644 $0.0644 $0.0644 $0.0644

15 UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0640 $0.0640 $0.0640 $0.0640 $0.0640 $0.0640 $0.0640 $0.0640 $0.0640 $0.0640

### SECTION 5 P LANNING C ONSIDERATIONS

L ADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 62 Table 5

- 12

. Detailed Results

- Scenario 8



### Row

# Category 2013

- 14 20 14

- 15 20 15

- 16 20 16

- 17 20 17

- 18 20 18

- 19 20 19

- 20 20 20

- 21 20 21

- 22 20 22

- 23

1 Incremental Program Potential

(GWh) 357 353 374 375 391 377 389 372 377 43

2 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) 357 709 1,083 1,458 1,849 2,225 2,614 2,986 3,363 3,406

3 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 793 1,145 1,520 1,894 2,285 2,661 3,051 3,423 3,800 3,843

4 Incremental Savings from Codes

and Standards 71 76 84 78 62 50 45 39 33 29

5 Cumulative Savings from Codes

and Standards (w/ 2011

- 2013) 249 326 410 488 550 600 645 684 717 746

6 Annual Savings Target

(Program + Codes & Standards) 428 429 459 452 453 427 434 411 410 72

7 Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,970 24,110 24,302 24,553 24,837 25,114 25,388 25,746 25,986 26,220

8 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 3.3% 4.8% 6.3% 7.7% 9.2% 10.6% 12.0% 13.3% 14.6% 14.7%

9 Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 4.3% 6.1% 7.9% 9.7% 11.4% 13.0% 14.6% 15.9% 17.4% 17.5%

10 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- Year (excludes 2011

- 2013) 4.3% 6.1% 7.9% 9.7% 11.4% 13.0% 14.6% 15.1% 15.8% 15.2%

11 Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 94 90 96 96 99 97 99 97 98 12

12 Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 94 184 280 377 475 573 672 769 866 878

13 Total Budget ($000) $212,100 $206,877 $224,381 $226,032 $238,656 $223,204 $235,590 $222,883 $229,116 $30,888

14 TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0705 $0.0705 $0.0705 $0.0705 $0.0705 $0.0705 $0.0705 $0.0705 $0.0705 $0.0705

15 UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0604 $0.0604 $0.0604 $0.0604 $0.0604 $0.0604 $0.0604 $0.0604 $0.0604 $0.0604

### SECTION 5 P LANNING C ONSIDERATIONS

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 63 Table 5

- 13

. Detailed Results

- Scenario 9



### Row

# Category 2013

- 14 20 14

- 15 20 15

- 16 20 16

- 17 20 17

- 18 20 18

- 19 20 19

- 20 20 20

- 21 20 21

- 22 20 22

- 23

1 Incremental Program Potential

(GWh) 354 350 370 370 385 371 383 366 51 38

2 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) 354 704 1,074 1,444 1,829 2,200 2,583 2,948 2,999 3,038

3 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 790 1,140 1,510 1,880 2,265 2,636 3,019 3,385 3,436 3,474

4 Incremental Savings from Codes

and Standards 71 76 84 78 62 50 45 39 33 29

5 Cumulative Savings from Codes

and Standards (w/ 2011

- 2013) 249 326 410 488 550 600 645 684 717 746

6 Annual Savings Target

(Program + Codes & Standards) 425 426 454 448 447 422 428 404 84 67

7 Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,970 24,110 24,302 24,553 24,837 25,114 25,388 25,746 25,986 26,220

8 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 3.3% 4.7% 6.2% 7.7% 9.1% 10.5% 11.9% 13.1% 13.2% 13.2%

9 Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 4.3% 6.1% 7.9% 9.6% 11.3% 12.9% 14.4% 15.8% 16.0% 16.1%

10 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- Year (excludes 2011

- 2013) 4.3% 6.1% 7.9% 9.6% 11.3% 12.9% 14.4% 14.9% 14.4% 13.7%

11 Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 90 86 91 92 94 93 94 92 11 10

12 Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 90 176 267 359 453 545 639 731 742 752

13 Total Budget ($000) $149,507 $144,943 $157,496 $158,605 $167,762 $156,450 $165,574 $155,981 $28,773 $21,194

14 TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0585 $0.0585 $0.0585 $0.0585 $0.0585 $0.0585 $0.0585 $0.0585 $0.0585 $0.0585

15 UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0419 $0.0419 $0.0419 $0.0419 $0.0419 $0.0419 $0.0419 $0.0419 $0.0419 $0.0419

### SECTION 5 P LANNING C ONSIDERATIONS

LADWP Territorial Potential

– Volume I

– Draft 64 Table 5

- 14

. Detailed Results

- Scenario 10



### Row

# Category 2013

- 14 20 14

- 15 20 15

- 16 20 16

- 17 20 17

- 18 20 18

- 19 20 19

- 20 20 20

- 21 20 21

- 22 20 22

- 23

1 Incremental Program Potential

(GWh) 207 233 357 437 479 470 427 202 127 90

2 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) 207 440 798 1,235 1,714 2,184 2,610 2,812 2,940 3,029

3 Cumulative Program Potential

(GWh) w/ 2011

- 2013 643 876 1,234 1,671 2,150 2,620 3,047 3,248 3,376 3,465

4 Incremental Savings from Codes

and Standards 71 76 84 78 62 50 45 39 33 29

5 Cumulative Savings from Codes

and Standards (w/ 2011

- 2013) 249 326 410 488 550 600 645 684 717 746

6 Annual Savings Target

(Program + Codes & Standards) 278 310 442 515 541 520 471 240 161 118

7 Baseline Sales (LADWP Gross) 23,970 24,110 24,302 24,553 24,837 25,114 25,388 25,746 25,986 26,220

8 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

(no standards) 2.7% 3.6% 5.1% 6.8% 8.7% 10.4% 12.0% 12.6% 13.0% 13.2%

9 Savings as % of Baseline (with

Standards) 3.7% 5.0% 6.8% 8.8% 10.9% 12.8% 14.5% 15.3% 15.8% 16.1%

10 Savings as % of Baseline Sales

Rolling 10

- Year (excludes 2011

- 2013) 3.7% 5.0% 6.8% 8.8% 10.9% 12.8% 14.5% 14.4% 14.1% 13.7%

11 Incremental Demand Savings

(MW) 52 57 89 110 119 118 106 50 31 24

12 Cumulative Demand Savings

(MW) 52 109 198 307 426 544 650 701 731 755

13 Total Budget ($000) $84,597 $94,742 $144,932 $177,633 $193,758 $189,789 $171,939 $80,876 $50,648 $35,723

14 TRC Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0620 $0.0620 $0.0620 $0.0620 $0.0620 $0.0620 $0.0620 $0.0620 $0.0620 $0.0620

15 UCT Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.0394 $0.0394 $0.0394 $0.0394 $0.0394 $0.0394 $0.0394 $0.0394 $0.0394 $0.0394The Power of Experience



### Nexant, Inc.

1255 Crescent Green Drive

Suite 460

Cary, North Carolina 27518

T) ( 919) 334

- 7651

F) (919) 851

- 3006

www.nexant.com