CHAPTER 1 5. UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

15.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 15-1

15.2 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 15-1

15.3 UTILITY IMPACT RESULTS ..................................................................................... 15-2

15.3.1 Installed Capacity ............................................................................................. 15-3

15.3.2 Electricity Generation ....................................................................................... 15-6

15.3.3 Results Summary ............................................................................................ 15-10

LIST OF TABLES

Table 15.3.1 Single Package Vertical Units: Summary of Utility Impact Results ............... 15-10

Table 15.3.2 Single Package Vertical Units: Summary of Utility Impact Results (EPC A

Baseline) .......................................................................................................... 15-10

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 15.3.1 Single Package Vertical Units : Total Electric Capacity Reduction ................... 15-3

Figure 15.3.2 Single Package Vertical Units : Coal Capacity Reduction ................................. 15-4

Figure 15.3.3 Single Package Vertical Units : Nuclear Capacity Reduction ............................ 15-4

Figure 15.3.4 Single Package Vertical Units : Gas Combined Cycle Capacity Reduction ...... 15-5

Figure 15.3.5 Single Package Vertical Units : Peaking Capacity Reduction ............................ 15-5

Figure 15.3.6 Single Package Vertical Units : Renewables Capacity Reduction ..................... 15-6

Figure 15.3.7 Single Package Vertical Units : Total Generation Reduction ............................. 15-7

Figure 15.3.8 Single Package Vertical Units : Coal Ge neration Reduction .............................. 15-7

Figure 15.3.9 Single Package Vertical Units : Nuclear Generation Reduction ........................ 15-8

Figure 15.3.10 Single Package Vertical Units : Gas Combined Cycle Generation

Reduction ........................................................................................................... 15-8

Figure 15.3.11 Single Package Vertical Units : Peaking Generation Reduction ........................ 15-9

Figure 15.3.12 Single Package Vertical Units : Renewables Generation Reduction .................. 15-9

15 -iCHAPTER 15. UTILITY IMPACT ANALY SIS

15.1 INTRODUCTION

In the utility impact analysis

, the U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) analyze s the changes

in electric installed capacity and power generation that result for each trial standard level (TSL).

The utility impact analysis uses a variant of the DOE Energy Information Administration

(EIA)’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). a NEMS is a public domain, multi- sectored,

partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector. Each year, DOE/EIA uses NEMS to produce

an energy forecast for the United States, the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) . DOE uses a variant

of this model, referred to a s NEMS

- BT, b to account for selected utility impacts from energy conservation standards. DOE’s analysis consists of a comparison between model results for the

most recent AEO Reference Case and for cases in which energy use is decremented to reflect the

imp act of standards. For the analysis of standards for single package vertical air conditioners

(SPVACs) and single package vertical heat pumps (SPVHPs), or collectively single package

vertical units (SPVUs) , DOE used the version of NEMS based on AEO 201 3

. 2

NEMS -BT has a number of advantages that have led to its use in the analysis of energy

conservation standards:

• NEMS -BT uses a set of assumptions that are well known and fairly transparent,

due to the exposure and scrutiny each AEO re ceives.

• NEMS -BT is updated each year, with each edition of the AEO, to reflect changes

in energy prices, supply trends, regulations, etc.

• The comprehensiveness of NEMS- BT permits the modeling of interactions

among the various energy supply and demand sectors.

15.2 METHODOLOGY

DOE uses NEMS

- BT to estimate the marginal impacts of re duction in energy demand on

the energy supply sector. In principle, marginal values should provide a better estimate of the

actual impact of energy conservation standards . In practice, the numerical differences between

marginal and average values may turn out to be smaller than the intrinsic uncertainties in the

AEO.

a For more information on NEMS, refer to the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

documentation. A useful summary is National Energy Modeling System: An Overview

. 1

b DOE/EIA approves use of the name NEMS to describe only an official version of the model without any

modification to code or data. Because this analysis entails some minor code modifications and the model is run

under various policy scenarios that are vari ations on DOE/EIA assumptions, DOE refers to it by the name NEMS

BT (BT is DOE’s Building Technologies Program, under whose aegis this work has been performed).

15 -1NEMS uses predicted growth in demand for each end use to build up a projection of the

total electric system load growth . The system load shapes are converted internally to load

duration curves, which are then used to estimate the most cost

- effective additions to capacity.

When electricity demand deviates from the AEO reference case, in general there are three inter

related effects: the annual generation ( terawatt hours, TWh) from the stock of electric generating

capacity changes, the total generation capacity itself ( gigawatts

, GW) may change, and the mix

of capacity by fuel type may change. Each of these effects can vary for different types of end

use. The change in total generating capacity is sensitive to the degree to which the end

- use is

peak coincident, while the capacity mix is sensitive to the hourly load shape associated with the

end use.

To model the impact of a standard, DOE inputs a reduction to annual energy demand for

the corresponding end use in the appropriate start year. The NEMS -BT model is run with the

decremented energy demand to determine the modified build -out of capacity and total

generation. Regional effects of a standard can be accounted for by defining the energy demand

decrement as a function of census division.

The output of the NEMS- BT analysis includes the effective marginal heat rate (ratio of

the change in energy consumption in quads to the change in generation in TWh), and the

capacity reduction by plant type for a given reduction in total generation. DOE uses the site

energy savings multiplied by a transmission

- and

- distribution ( T&D ) loss factor to estimate the

reduction in generation f or each TSL. The relationship between a reduction c in electricity

generation (TWh) and the reduction in capacity (GW) is estimated based on the output of

NEMS -BT model runs using the end- use specific energy demand decrement. Details on the

approach used may be found in Coughlin (2013 ). 3

NEMS -BT provides output for the following capacity types: coal, nuclear,

combined cycle (natural gas), renewable sources, oil and natural gas steam,

combustion turbine/diesel, pumped storage, fuel cells, and distributed generation (natural gas).

DOE grouped oil and natural gas steam and combustion turbine/diesel into a “peaking” category,

and grouped pumped storage, fuel cells, and distributed generation (natural gas) into an “other”

category.

In general, energy conservation standards i mpact primarily fossil combustion (coal,

natural gas and diesel) and renewables. Pumped storage and nuclear power are very insensitive

to small changes in demand, while fuel cells and distributed generation make up a very small

fraction (less than 1 percent) of the generation capacity base.

15.3 UT ILITY IMPACT RESULTS

This section presents results of the analysis for all of the capacity types except “Other”,

for which the impacts are very small.

c These reductions are defined relative to the AEO Reference case.

15 -215.3.1 Installed Capacity

The figures in this section show the changes in U.S. electricity installed capacity that

result for each TSL by major plant type for selected years. The changes have been calculated

based on factors ( megawatts ( MW ) of capacity reduction per gigawatt hours ( GWh ) of

generation reduction) estimated from a NEMS

- BT model run that simulated a decrement in

energy demand for a load shape that approximates SPVUs

. Note that a positive change means a

reduction in capacity under a TSL.

Figure 15.3.1 Single Package Vertical Units : Total Electric

Capacity Reduction 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 14002015202020252030203520402045205020552060206520702075208020852090MW Total

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

15 -3Figure 15.3.2 Single Package Vertical Units : Coal Capacity

Reduction

Figure 15.3.3 Single Package Vertical Units: Nuclear Capacity

Reduction 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1802015202020252030203520402045205020552060206520702075208020852090MW Coal

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

-25 -20 -15 -10

-5 02015202020252030203520402045205020552060206520702075208020852090MW Nuclear

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

15 -4Figure 15.3.4 Single Package Vertical Units: Gas Combined Cycle

Capacity Reduction

Figure 15.3.5 Single Package Vertical Units : Peaking Capacity

Reduction 0 50 100 150 200 2502015202020252030203520402045205020552060206520702075208020852090MW NGCC

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 8002015202020252030203520402045205020552060206520702075208020852090MW Peaking

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

15 -5Figure 15.3.6 Single Package Vertical Units : Renewables Capacity

Reduction

15.3.2 Electricity Generation

The figures in this section show the annual change in electricity generation that result for

each TSL by plant type. The change by capacity type has been calculated based on shares

(percentage of generation reduction for each capacity type over total generation reduction)

estimated from a NEMS -BT model run that simulated a decrement in energy demand for a load

shape that approx imates SPVUs

. Note that a positive change means a reduction in generation

under a TSL. Coal -fired power plants account for most of the generation reduction. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 902015202020252030203520402045205020552060206520702075208020852090MW Renewable

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

15 -6Figure 15.3.7 Single Package Vertical Units : Total Generation

Reduction

Figure 15.3.8 Single Package Vertical Units : Coal Generation

Reduction 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 16002015202020252030203520402045205020552060206520702075208020852090GWh Total

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12002015202020252030203520402045205020552060206520702075208020852090GWh Coal

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

15 -7Figure 15.3.9 Single Package Vertical Units : Nuclear Generation

Reduction

Figure 15.3.10 Single Package Vertical Units : Gas Combined Cycle

Generation Reduction -180 -160 -140 -120 -100

-80 -60 -40 -20

02015202020252030203520402045205020552060206520702075208020852090GWh Nuclear

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

0 100 200 300 400 500 6002015202020252030203520402045205020552060206520702075208020852090GWh NGCC

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

15 -8Figure 15.3.11 Single Package Vertical Units : Peaking Generation

Reduction

Figure 15.3.12 Single Package Vertical U nits : Renewables

Generation Reduction 0 50 100 150 200 2502015202020252030203520402045205020552060206520702075208020852090GWh Peaking

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 602015202020252030203520402045205020552060206520702075208020852090GWh Renewable

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

15 -915.3.3 Results Summary

Table 15.3.1 presents a summary of the utility impact results estimated for SPVUs

. Although DOE is statutorily required to evaluate impacts of this rulemaking relative to the

ASHRAE baseline, for in format ional purposes only

, Table 15.3.2 shows the impacts compared

to the current federal standards (i.e., EPCA baseline)

.

Table 15.3.1 Single Package Vertical Units : Summary of Utility Impact Results

TSL

1 2 3 4

Installed Capacity Reduction (MW)

2020 17 35 68 81

2025 82 177 338 396

2030 172 389 728 834

2035 225 537 973 1079

2040 266 667 1146 1215

Electricity Generation Reduction (GWh)

2020 40 83 163 195

2025 144 311 597 698

2030 247 557 1043 1195

2035 306 732 1324 1470

2040 331 833 1429 1516

Table 15.3.2 Single Package Vertical Units : Summary of Utility Impact Results ( EPCA

Baseline )

TSL

1 2 3 4

Installed Capacity Reduction (MW)

2020 57 75 109 122

2025 288 383 544 602

2030 622 839 1178 1284

2035 835 1148 1583 1690

2040 987 1389 1867 1937

Electricity Generation Reduction (GWh)

2020 138 181 261 293

2025 508 675 960 1062

2030 892 1202 1688 1840

2035 1137 1563 2155 2301

2040 1231 1733 2329 2416

15

- 10REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Energy- Energy Information Administration, National Energy

Modeling System: An Overview , 2009. Report No. DOE/EIA-0581(2009).

< http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview / >

2. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with Projections to

2040 , 2013. Washington, DC. < http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2013).pdf >

3. Coughlin, K., H. Shen, P. Chan, B. McDevitt, and A. Sturges, Marginal Utility Sector

Impacts of Reduced Electricity Demand , 2012.

15

- 11