1. Energy Efficiency in the
State of Minnesota
Prepared By:
Jessica Burdette
Conservation Improvement Program Supervisor
Jessica.burdette@state.mn.us

2. • Overview
• Performance
• New Guidance
• Moving Forward
• Q&A

3. OVERVIEW

4. • Long standing commitment to energy
efficiency in Minnesota
• National recognition for energy efficiency
work in Minnesota
• Regulations and programs continue to
evolve
• Partnerships with industry stakeholders
• Achievement of real results

6. Customer
(Utility Bill
Reduction)
Society
Utility
(System-
(Avoided
wide
Costs)
Benefits)

7. • Participating Customers
• Reduced Utility Bills
• Incentives
• Society
• System-wide Benefits
• Avoided rate hikes
• Non-energy benefits
• Utilities
• Avoided Production, Generation,
Transmission and Distribution Costs
• Energy Efficiency as the lowest cost resource

8. Regulatory
Agencies
Industry Trade Utilities
Allies
CIP
Environmental
State
Advocacy
Legislature
Groups
Consumers/
Ratepayers

9. PERFORMANCE

10. The greatest impact of the
2007 NGEA was the change
from a 1.5% spending goal to a
1.5% savings goal.
SPENDING SAVING

11. $25 140
1.4%
120
Annual Savings (in Millions of kWh)
$20
Expenditures (in Millions of $)
100
1.0%
$15 0.8%
80
Expenditures
Savings
60
$10
40
$5
20
$0 0
2008 2009 2010

12. $1.4 140,000
2.7%
$1.2 120,000
Expenditures (in Millions of $)
$1.0 1.4% 100,000
Annual MCF Savings
$0.8 0.5% 80,000
Expenditures
Savings
$0.6 60,000
$0.4 40,000
$0.2 20,000
$0.0 -
2008 2009 2010

13. Program Cost per kWh Saved
(Excluding Infrastructure Improvements)
0.018
0.016
$ per lifetime kWh @ the Gen.
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
2008 2009 2010

14. Program Cost per MCF Saved
2.5
2.0
$ per Lifetime MCF Saved
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2008 2009 2010

15. Electric Savings - MWh
1,000,000
900,000
34%
800,000
700,000 12%
MWh Savings
600,000 28%
500,000 14%
400,000 Electric
Savings -
300,000 MWh
200,000
100,000
-
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Note: % indicates annual increase in savings

16. Natural Gas Savings - MCF
3,000,000
2,500,000
42%
-8%
MCF Savings
2,000,000 18%
-18%
1,500,000 Natural
Gas
1,000,000 Savings…
500,000
-
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Note: % indicates annual increase/decrease in savings

17. NEW
GUIDANCE

18. • Low Income Programming in
Multifamily Buildings with 5+
Units
• What qualifies as Low Income?
• Guidance does not define
income guidelines, but provides
resources

19. • Buildings with at least 66%
units occupied by LI
households.
• Resources
• DOE Weatherization Assistance
Program (WAP) Lists
• Low Income Renter Certification
(LIRC) Report
• Use Restriction – Mortgage
Covenant

20. Qualifying Customers:
• Electric utility customers that
use delivered fuels for space
and water heating.
• Electric utility customers that
are served by municipal gas
utilities exempt from CIP.
• Low Income Only

21. Potential Measures:
• Thermal Efficiency Measures
(i.e. Insulation)
• Mechanical Efficiency Measures
(i.e. Furnaces)
• Water Heating Measures (i.e.
Low Flow Showerheads)

22. • Utilities may claim kWh savings
based on energy savings from
displaced fuel.
Fuel Unit kWh
#2 Fuel Oil Gallon 40
LP Gallon 27
Natural Gas MCF 293

23. LOOKING
AHEAD

24. • Energy Efficiency
• Cost/kWh or Cost/MCF
• Load Management
• Cost/kW
• Use ESP Analytics
• Review and Compare Program
Costs

25. Why Measurement & Verification?
• Measurement and verification (M&V)
validates energy and demand
savings
• Gives ratepayers assurance that CIP
$$ is delivering actual savings
• M&V reinforces notion of efficiency
as a resource

26. • Electric Utility Infrastructure
Upgrades
• Solar Energy Programs
• Codes and Standards
• Custom Projects/M&V

27. Energy Efficiency = Resource
• Lowest Cost Resource
• Cost Effective Investments
• Short/Long Term Benefits to
Customers
• Non-Energy Benefits (i.e.
Economic)

28. The state continues to have a
positive dialogue with utilities
to identify and work through the
goal implementation.

29. Questions
?