ICF presented their findings at the 2018 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings Conference

1. we are
Meegan Kelly
August 13, 2018
ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings
1
A National Review of Combined Heat
and Power Programs in Utility
Energy Efficiency Portfolios

2. Why CHP?
Research approach and survey
questions
Results and 3 key observations
New trends in future utility programs
Overview

3. CHP Programs Diversify the Measure Mix
and Meet a Diverse Set of Utility Needs
3

4. Research Approach
Survey methods for data collection
 Online, public outreach materials
 Utility regulatory filings
 Phone interviews
 Email questionnaire
 Outreach to technical assistance providers, other stakeholders
Challenges with data availability
 Some utilities don’t disaggregate and report savings from CHP in program filings
 Limited information available in public materials
4

5. Research Questions
Qualitative review of program experience
 What led to the creation of a specific CHP program for your utility?
 What are the biggest benefits to the utility from the CHP program?
 What are the biggest challenges with creating or running this program?
 How does the CHP program compare to other EE measures in your portfolio?
 Has the CHP program met the goals or had the intended effect laid out during its creation?
Estimates of quantitative program metrics
 Number of projects installed?
 Average project size?
 Total capacity installed?
 Dollars of incentive paid?
5

6. Results and Key Observations
6

7. 7

8. 8
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Southwest Gas
Eversource
National Grid
(MA)
Baltimore Gas
& Electric
Pepco
Delmarva
Phildelphia
Gas Works
National Grid
(RI)
PECO
Nicor Gas
ComEd
Dayton Power
& Light
SoCalGas
PPL
PSEG Long
Island
Puget Sound
Energy
ConEdison
AEP Ohio*
First Energy
(PA)
UGI
*AEP Ohio supported CHP projects through special arrangements since 2012. More recently, AEP proposed to establish a standalone CHP program that would provide $0.035 per kWh for systems >1MW
and $0.05 per kWh for systems less <1 MW

9.  Standalone vs. Custom
 10 utilities implement standalone CHP programs designed to provide more focused
expertise.
 Incentive Structure
 Utilities generally support feasibility assessment and/or offer 2 types of incentives –
capacity incentives and production incentives
 Capacity incentives range from $75 per kW to $1,800 per kW
 Production incentives range from $0.02 per kWh to $0.30 per kWh. Typical timeframes
are 12 to 18 months.
9

10. New Trends in Future Programs
 Joint Gas and Electric Program
 ComEd and Nicor
– Accounting method in Illinois TRM allows electric utility to claim savings for kWh and natural gas utility to
claim savings for thermal efficiency
– Joint incentives for feasibility assessment, ComEd offers $0.07/kWh production incentive, and Nicor Gas
offers $1/therm (capped)
 MicroCHP Pilot Programs
 Philadelphia Gas Works
– In 2017, the Pennsylvania PUC approved a pilot focused on smaller commercial sites for CHP under 50 kW
 National Grid
– MicroCHP Gas REV Demonstration Project in New York City and Long Island for units under 5 kW
 CHP as a Non-Wires Solution
 ConEdison (see map)
– Over 2 MW of load relief capacity from CHP systems with ~1 MW in 2017; 1 MW expected in 2018
– Program incentive is contingent upon summer performance
10

11. 11
Source: BQDM Quarterly Expenditures and Program Report – Q4 2017

12. 12
Meegan Kelly
Senior Associate
301-572-0978
meegan.kelly@icf.com
On The Rise: A Fresh Look at Growth and Diversity in
Utility Combined Heat and Power Programs:
https://www.icf.com/blog/energy/combined-heat-and-
power-program-growth