ML052010211
| ML052010211 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/2004 |
| From: | Staples G Xcel Energy |
| To: | George Wilson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State of MN, Dept of Commerce |
| Davis J, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-3835 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML052010211 (300) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:Iv XcelEnergysm 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993 June 1, 2004 Glenn Wilson, Commissioner Minnesota Department of Commerce 85 East 7th Place, Suite 500 St. Paul, MN 55101-2198 RE: ELECTRIC AND GAS CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BIENNIAL PLAN FOR 2005 AND 2006 DOCKET No. EG002/CIP
Dear Commissioner Wilson:
Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy, ("Xcel Energy" or the "Company') submits for Minnesota Department of Commerce ("Department') review the 2005/2006 Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) Biennial Plan. The Company respectfully requests that the Department approve this filing to guide our Minnesota electric and natural gas conservation and load management activities for 2005 and 2006. The proposed Plan represents a budget of nearly $81 million, 361 GWh in electric energy and 184 MW in demand savings, and 808,250 MCF in gas savings. The 2005/2006 Biennial Plan fulfills Minn. Stat. §216B.241,*subd. 2(a), which requires that public utilities file conservation improvement plans by June 1. In 2001 Xcel Energy received Department approval to file a combined gas and electric Biennial Plan, and continues this approach with the current filing. By copy of this transmittal letter, Xcel Energy is notifying individuals on the service list of the document's availability. Requests to receive a copy of this filing, as well as any comments or questions, should be addressed to Bridget McLaughlin, Regulatory Analyst, at 612.330.2931 or bridget.mclaughlin(xcelenergy.com. Sincerely, GREY S. STAPLFEs K) MANAGER, RESTRUCTURING & REGULATORY STRATEGY c: CIP Service List (Letter Only)
I> Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................. i Compliance & General Information ........................ ...................... 1
> Compliance with Rules and Statutes 1
> Support of Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) goals 4 Commercial & Industrial Segment ................................................ 8 Conservation
> Boiler Efficiency 22 Sk Compressed Air Efficiency 23
> Cooling Efficiency 24
> Custom Efficiency 25
> Distributed Generation Incentive Program 30
> Energy Analysis 31
> Energy Design Assistance 31
> Financing 33
> Lighting Efficiency 34
> Motor Efficiency 37
> Recommissioning 38
> Refrigeration Efficiency 40
> Roofing Efficiency 40 Load Management 92
> Electric Savings Reduction 92
> Saver's Switch 92 Small Business Segment ................. 104 Conservation
> Boiler Efficiency 117
> Compressed Air Efficiency 117
> Cooling Efficiency 117
> Custom Efficiency 118
> Energy Analysis 118
> Energy Design Assistance 119
> Financing 120
> Furnace Efficiency 120 9> Lamp Recycling 121
> Lighting Efficiency 121
> Motor Efficiency 123
> Refrigeration Efficiency 124
> Roofing Efficiency 124 Load Management
> Electric Savings Reduction 172
> Saver's Switch 172
Residential Segment................................................................. 183 Conservation
> Consumer Education 197
> Energy Loans 197
> ENERGY STAR'e 198
> High Efficiency Showerheads 201
> Home Efficiency 201
> Home Energy Audit 203
> Home Lighting Direct Purchase 204
> Lamp Recycling 205 Load Management
> Saver's Switch 226 Low Income Energy Services Segment ............................. 234 Planning and Research Segment ............................. 245 Planning.
> DSM Regulatory Affairs 245
> CIP Training 245 Research
> CIP Market Research/Evaluation 246 P. CIP Product Development 247 Other
> U of M Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Enyironment 247 Appendix ...... 252
)> Budget Categories 252
> Analysis Key 253
> BENCOST Inputs 254
> Program Modifications 257
> Executive Summary Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy, ("Xcel Energy" or the "Company") submits for Minnesota Department of Commerce ("Department") review the 2005/2006 Consenration Improvement Program (CIP) Biennial Plan.1 The Company respectfully requests that the Department approve this filing to guide the Company's Minnesota electric and natural gas conservation and load management activities for 2005 and 2006. The proposed plan represents a budget of nearly $81 million, electric energy savings of 361 'GWh, electric demand savings of 170 MW, and gas energy savings of 808,250 MCF during the biennium.2 Xcel Energy is the fourth-largest combination electricity and natural gas energy company in the United States. We offer a comprehensive portfolio of energy-related products and services to 3.2 milion electricity customers and 1.7 million natural gas customers. Northern States Power Company (Minnesota) is one of Xcel Energy's largest regulated operating companies and is subject of the current filing. Purpose and Scope The 2005/2006 Biennial fulfills Minn. Stat. §216B.241, subd. 2(a),'which requires that public utilities file conservation improvement plans by June 1. In 2001 Xcel Energy received Department approval to file a combined gas and electric Biennial Plan, and continues this approach with the current filing.3 In developing the current Biennial Plan, Xcel Energy took into account the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and the Company's years of experience managing conservation and load management programs in its service territory. Minn. Stat. 216B.241 (Energj Conservation Imprnvement) establishes the basis for utility Conservation Improvement Programs. ' In addition, Minn. Stat. §216B.2422 (Resourceplannin&rewable ener) imposes on public utilities requirements to fully consider conservation resources in determining the set of resource options used to meet customer electric service needs. 4 Minnesota Rules Chapter 7690 (Enercj ConservationImprovement provides further detail with which to interpret the relevant statutory requirements. The 2005/2006 Biennial, following a structure used for the last three Biennial Plans, breaks the Plan into the customer segments served, namely Commercial & Industrial, Small Business, Residential, and Low Income Energy Services.' Additionally, the Planning and Research Segment includes indirect impact programs that support CIP direct impact programs and other statutorily required items (e.g. University of Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment). The remaining sections of the Biennial Plan provide information about compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements I We will refer to this document as the "2005/2006 Biensiial", "Biennial Plan" or the "Plan". 2 As discussed later in this section, these totals do not include budget, or electric energy and demand savings from alternative filings although the Company anticipates that such filings will contribute meaningfully to the Company's finally approved totals. 3The current variance request is within the Compliance with Rules and Statutes Section of this document. 4 No such similar requirement exists to meet gas customer service needs. i
(Compliance and General Information), as well as cost-benefit analyses and technology assumptions (Appendix). Xcel Energy tailors its marketing efforts to each customer segment based on the number of customers in the segment, relative energy and demand use of customers in the segment, and amount of conservation potential at a customer site. The Company generally uses a more personal sales approach for large commercial and industrial customers because they generally offer greater and more complex conservation and load management opportunities. In contrast, conservation potential for an individual residential customer is small and costs per participant need to be strictly controlled; therefore, for this segment, the Company relies more heavily on advertising and promotion. In structuring our Biennial Plan in this manner, the Company requests that the Department approve the proposed goals and budgets by Segment. This approach will allow us greater flexibility in managing the cost effectiveness of our CIP. An overview of each Segment and its proposed goals and budgets follows. Commercial & Industrial Segment The C&I Segment is defined as customers with aggregated demand of over 500 kW or 200 MCF per day. Demand-side management (DSM) sales to this customer segment are achieved through Xcel Energy's account managers, end-use equipment vendors, and energy service companies (ESCOs). These sales channels have been highly successful because they couple relationship selling with a profitable source of business for external vendors. The Company's proposed goals and budgets for the Commercial & Industrial Segment follow:
- 319.8 GWh in electric energy and 476,880 MCF in gas savings during the biennium;
* $32.4 million in electric budget and $2.1 million in gas budget during the biennium, and
- 3,582 electric and 564 gas participants during the biennium.
Xcel Energy targets the Commercial and Industrial (C&I) segment for the majority of the planned energy and demand savings in this Biennial Plan. Although economies of scale enable this customer segment to provide the lowest cost DSM per unit of energy saved, C&I conservation and load management is some of the most difficult to achieve over time. This occurs because C&I customers tend to require very short paybacks on investments and do not necessarily readily respond to traditional mass marketed appeals. Small Business Segment The electric Small Business Segment consists of a wide variety of businesses with demand of less than 500 kW and 200 MCF per day. Small Business customer questions and concerns are handled by the Company's Business Solutions Center. Typical customers include: light manufacturing, churches, restaurants, retail shops, strip malls, service establishments, and small office buildings. Energy usage varies by type of customer, but most businesses of this size have similar end-use applications including: lighting, space conditioning, process load, refrigeration, and water heating. ii
The Company's proposed goals and budgets for the Small Business segment during the biennium follow:
- 27.1 GWh in electric energy and 84,158 MCF of gas savings;
* $7.8 million in electric budget arid $614,866 in gas budget; and
- 107,034 electric and 792 gas participants.
Residential Segment Based on 2003 annual data, the Company's electric Residential Segment in Minnesota' consists of over one million households including single-family dwellings, apartments and condominiums. The gas segment, which generally includes the St. Paul area and surrounding suburbs, consists of nearly 400,000 households. The Company's proposed goals and budgets for the Residential Segment during the biennium follow:
- 12.2 GWh in electric energy and 224,650 MCF of gas savings;
- S24.4 niillion in electric budget and $2.5 million in gas budget; and
- 796,209 electric and 298,934 gas participants during the biennium.
This CIP Biennial Plan utilizes a balance of direct impact programs, indirect-impact services and traditional educational tools. Xcel Energy developed this plan to recognize that this market requires: choices of conservation opportunities that accommodate various lifestyles, convenient participation, and information to make wise energy choices presented in useable and understandable forms and formats. Low Income Energy Services Segment The Low-Income Energy Services Segment consists of the Low-Income Weatherization and Home Efficiency programs. The primary objective of the Low-Income Energy Services Segment is to reduce energy consumption in low-income customers' homes and thereby lower low-income customer bills. Low-Income Weatherization will continue to be administeried through Community Action Agencies (CAAs) throughout Xcel Energy's Minnesota service territory. CAAs are able to, combine Xcel Energy's funding with DOE Weatherization Assistance funding, Emergency-Related Repair, and other agencies' funding, and have the infrastructure in place to effectively deliver weatherization services. The Company's proposed goals and budgets for the Low-Income Energy Services Segment during the biennium follow:
- 2.2 GWh in electric energy and 22,554 MCF in gas savings;
* $1.5 million in electric budget and $1.4 miillion in gas budget, and
- 10,980 electric and 1,002 gas participants.
iii
Planning and Research Segment The Planning and Research Segment is a revised version of the Research, Planning and Development Segment included in the Company's 2003/2004 CIP Biennial Plan. This segment houses the indirect impact programs that are not directly affiliated with a specific direct impact program. Planning includes Regulatory Affairs and CIP Training; Research includes Product Development (subject to the Research and Development cap), Market Research (a portion of which is subject to the Evaluations cap) and funding for the University of Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment. The Company's proposed budgets for the Planning and Research Segment during the biennium are:
* $7.3 million in electric budget and S758,944 in gas budget.
Trends Xcel Energy's 2005/2006 Biennial Plan does not embody significant overall changes from prior plans. Although shifts in program and segment goals and achievements continue to occur there are few notable wholesale modifications. The lack of significant change is a testament to the fact that most of the Company's programs are functioning well and that other factors that would drive major modifications (such as a severe economic slowdown, changes to resource plan goals, or statutory/regulatory changes, code changes) have been limited. In the proposed plan, the Commercial & Industrial & Small Business Custom Efficiency, Energy Design Assistance, and Lighting Efficiency programs constitute approximately 71 percent of the total business program's energy savings goals and 62 percent of the Company's total CIP energy savings goals. This concentration generally results from the fact that major efficiency improvements for businesses exist in the areas of lighting, building envelope and general design, and industrial process changes. The most obvious example of the way the Company's CIP has adapted to changing marketplace needs is the approximately 176 percent increase in goals experienced by the Custom Efficiency program when compared with the 2003/2004 Biennial Plan. The Custom Efficiency program serves as the avenue for business customers with technology and process change projects that do not readily fit into one of the Company's prescriptive rebate programs. The Custom Efficiency model, although typically more resource-intensive than prescriptive business programs, provides opportunities for significant efficiency improvements within large and small businesses. Other changes from the last Biennial Plan includes:
- Addition of the Distributed Generation Incentive program (Ihe Department originally approved this program for 2004, and so the 2005/2006 Biennial is the first full biennium for the new program);
- Inclusion of Custom Efficiency Influenced Savings policy changes (The Department originally approved this policy as part of the Company's 2002 CIP Status Report and 5 For more detail, please refer to the Program Modifications table located in the Appendix of this Plan.
subsequently approved clarifications to the policy in 2003; 2005/2006 is the first Biennial Plan to include the policy. The Company is also requesting changes to the policy as part of the 2005/2006 Biennial Plan.);
- Addition of new lighting'technologies, on-line energy assessments, and various Custom Efficiency technologies such as Energy Management Systems;
- Inclusion of funding for the University of Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment (as required by 2003 amendments to Minn. Stat. §216B.241),
and
- Continued integration of gas and electric programs in order to leverage efficiencies and market opportunities.
Goal Setting Xcel Energy draws upon a variety of sources to develop its Biennial Plan. One of the major' sources is the Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process and the Company's continuing effort to comply with the DSM goals established by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) in its 2000-2014 Resource Plan Order (DocketNo.-E-002/RP-00-787)."' The Company strongly believes that the goals embodied in the current proposal maintain our ability. to meet the aggressive requirements imposed in the 2000 resource plan.7 Xcel Energy is scheduled to file a new IRP in November 2004, which could affect goal setting for the 2007/2008 Biennial Plan. The other major factors guiding development of the current Plan are Xcel Energy's understanding of the potential for cost effective conservation and load management within our service territory and known or anticipated changes in the marketplace during the 2005/2006 biennium. In 2003, Xcel Energy completed a comprehensive assessment of. conservation potential within the Company's Minnesota service territory. Although the detailed results from this assessment will find their most meaningful manifestation in the Company's upcoming November 2004 IRP filing, results related to specific technologies and customer segments have also helped guide goal setting. The most significant changes in the Company's marketplace that can be foreseen, though, are expected to come from modifications to the Minnesota State Energy Code. By the Company's estimates, these modifications when implemented will reduce CIP potential by about 20 GWh per year." By increasing minimum efficiencies and establishing new, equipment standards, changes to the State Energy Code likely constitute some of the most cost effective means by which to effect greater levels of conservation and energy efficiency. However, in terms of Xcel Energy's CIP, such changes reduce the amount of energy and demand savings for which the Company can take credit. This occurs because such energy and demand savings .will take place whether or not Xcel Energy encourages their adoption. - 6The relationship between the current Biennial filing and goals from the 2000-2014 Resource Plan is further discussed in the Compliance and General Information'section of this document. As discussed in' the Compliance and General Information section, Xcel Energy committed in its 2002 Resource Plan update to maintain its commitment to the 2000 Plan Ordered goals. ' $Although not incorporated into the 2005/2006 Biennial Plan, the increase in federal ninimum efficiency standards for residential central air conditioning units will have a substantial effect on Xcel Energy's 2007/2008 Residential Segment. v
In the current Biennial Plan, Xcel Energy has assumed that revisions to the Minnesota Energy Code will be adopted for the 2005/2006 biennium. These revisions will be particularly apparent in goals for the Company's Energy Design Assistance (EDA) program, as EDA is the main program that deals with new commercial construction. Xcel Energy used these parameters to help develop the energy and demand savings and budget goals included in the current filing. For the electric portion of the Biennial Plan, marketing staff started with the 2005 IRP goal of 225 GWh and reserved approximately 27 GWh for presumed alternative filings. The Company, in turn, further subtracted 20 GWh, which was the estimated reduction in available energy savings caused by changes to the State Energy Code. The result was an "in-house" target of approximately 178 GWh. Using the 178 GWh target as a guide, Xcel Energy's marketing staff built program goals and budgets based on historical achievements and knowledge about the specific segments and technologies. In certain cases, certain programs such as Custom Efficiency and Recommissioning were forced to increase goals to make up for anticipated losses to programs such as Energy Design Assistance. The anticipated net 207 G\Vh in 2005 and 208 GWh in 2006 overall goals (including anticipated alternative filings) compare favorably with the kWh goals the Department approved for the 2003/2004 Biennial (208 GWh for 2003 and 209 GVh for 2004). For the gas portion of the Biennial Plan, the Company attempted to keep consistent with 2003/2004 energy savings and spending goals. The Company proposes ambitious but reasonable overall electric goals of approximately 207 GWh for 2005 and 208 GWh for 2006.9 Because Xcel Energy has run comprehensive conservation and load management programs for well over a decade, the potential to achieve cost effective conservation and load management is lessening. This occurs because there is a finite amount of cost effective available conservation and load management. It should be noted, though, that cost effectiveness as it applies to conservation and load management is not static; rather, with each Biennial Plan and, more directly, with each Resource Plan, the Company updates its understanding of electric and gas system costs that conservation and load management programs defer or avoid. If one assumes that avoided costs are fixed, then the cost to achieve various levels of conservation and load management is increasing, mainly due to high levels of saturation for more efficient technologies. Historical Achievements The 2005/2006 CIP Biennial Plan continues Xcel Energy's longstanding commitment to demand-side management. Although DSM activities in many states around the country have ebbed and flowed with changes to laws regarding electric and gas utility regulation and differing philosophical views about the most appropriate way to stimulate more efficient use of energy, Minnesota and Xcel Energy as its largest utility have generally maintained a fairly consistent approach to DSM as manifest in the CIP program. This longstanding commitment and dedication to excellence in running cost effective conservation and load management programs places the Company among the nation's top utilities in terms of energy and demand saved. 9 Again this total indudes 27 GWh from anticipated alternative filings. vi
Between 1992 and 2003, Xcel Energy has invested over $450 million (nominaD resulting in 3,147 GWh of electric energy savings, 1,439 MW of electric demand savings and an estimated 3,429 MCF of natural gas demand and 3,428,537 MCF of gas energy savings. Conclusion Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy submits for Department of Commerce approval the 2005/2006 CIP Biennial Plan. The Plan does not constitute a significant change from the 2003/2004 Biennial Plan and continues to meet the aggressive Resource Plan goals for conservation and load management established by the Minnesota Public Utilities Cormission. The Company respectfully requests that the Department approve this filing and the goals and budget provided herein.
. . I . - .
vii
Xcel Energy Total CIP Project Information Sheet <s~* i..t;-005'Bti'dsit g*;> l;,0,,4fl-A.twixiX2006 B tidpi t;.? i4:Eletrcl.SEI '-,AntasifiE iXst~ l!i Cost Components Project Delivery S10,182,324 S1,569,613 $11,751,936 $10,375,211 S1,649,644 $12,024,855 Utility Administration S2,227,083 S322,686 S2,549,769 $2,279,424 $312,823 $2,592,247 Other Project Administration _3,528,473 S153,374 S3,681,847 $3,499,196 $153,979 S3,653,175 Advertising/Promotion Q32 292,508 $3,652,640 $3,396,301 $293,378 $3,689,679 Evaluations S89,828
$532,134 $621,962 $567,509 $90,304 $657,813 R _D S400,000 $0 S400,000 S400,000 $0 S400,00u Incentives (Rebates) S14,776,979 _ S102,490 S15,879,469 $14,542,522 S1,102,490 $15,645,012 Other $1,799,934 S151,013 $1,950,947 S1,799934 S151,013 $1,950,947 Less Revenues (S151,820) ($32,100) ($183,920) ($151,820) ($42,100) ($193,920)
Total Budget $36,655,238 S3,649,411 S40,304,650 $36,708,277 $3,711,531 $40,419,808 Total Number of Participants 458,907 150,646 459,198 150,646 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) 179,974,955 181,272,824 Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 181,348,066 182,568,062 Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 86,063 84,375 Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) 404,125 404,125 Prolect Type Percentage Expenditure Residential _ _ _ _ _ Small Business C&l Combined Other R&D Low-Income Participation ()_ Participants (#) Budget ($) Renter Participation (%I Participants (U) Budget (S) Societal BIC Results Net Present Value $761 $28,809,271 $804 $28,809,271 B/C Ratio 24.12 2.39 61.62 2.39 Participant BIC Results Net Present Value $815 S47,674,429 S840 $47,674,429 BIC Ratio INF 2.25 INF 2.25 Rate Impact BIC Results Net Present Value (S51) $13,807,010 (S42) S13_807,010 B/C Ratio 0.94 1.42 0.95 1.42 Revenue RequIrements BJC Results Net Present Value $585 S39,728,939 $597 S39,728,939 B/C Ratio 4.42 6.95 4.44 6.95_ Prolect Type Auditl/nfo R&D _ _ I Renewable Direct Impact Type of Incentive Loan/Grant Rebate __ __ __ Direct Installation End-Use Target (%) _ Lighting +
- Process 4. 4 Motor _
Refrigeration 4. 4 Space Cooling 4. 4 Space Heating Water Heating *1 9 Weatherization ... - I'N GeneraVOther _ _ _ Ratemaking treatment: expensed X X xI X viii
I> Total Minnesota Electric CIP l Net Present Worth.Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test SIkW S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation - N/A S293 S293 $293 - S293 T&D N/A 178 178 178 178 Marginal Energy N/A 285 285 285 285 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 39 Subtotal N/A S755 S755 S755 S794 Xcel EnergyProjectCosts N/A S171 S171 S171 S171 Subtotal N/A S171 S170.88 S171 $171 Revenue Reduction S676 N/A S635 $0 S0 Subtotal S676 N/A S635.42 S0 S0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S291 N/A N/A S286 $286 Incremental O&M ' (364) N/A N/A' (358) (358) Rebates (65) N/A N/A (65) . (65) Subtotal (S139) N/A N/A (S138) (S138) NetPresentBenefit(Cost) S815 S585 (S50.86) S723 ' S761 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S0.065 S0.047 (S0.004) S0.058 $0.061 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S2,001 $1,434 ($125) $1,773 S1,868 BenefitCostRatio INF 4.42 0.94 22.94 24.12 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 9.65% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= 845 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 93.2% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 788 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.1% Net kWWear Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (Dy(i-(E))= *839 (F) Gross Customer kW . . (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 98.4% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 0.984 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 38.89% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(HY)(l-(E))= - 0.408
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime . $0.014
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S419.2 ix
> Total Minnesota Electric CIP I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kNV $/kW S/kW VSkW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $297 $297 $297 $297 T&D N/A 183 183 183 183 Marginal Energy N/A 290 290 290 290 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 47 Subtotal N/A $771 $771 $771 $818 Xcel Energy Project Costs N/A $173 $173 $173 $173 Subtotal N/A $173 $173.43 $173 $173 Revenue Reduction $679 N/A $639 $0 $0 Subtotal $679 N/A $639.19 $0 $0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $294 N/A N/A $290 $290 Incremental O&M (389) - N/A N/A (383) (383) Rebates (67) N/A N/A (67) (67) Subtotal ($162) N/A N/A ($160) ($160) Net Present Benefit (Cost) $840 $597 ($42.09) $757 $804 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.066 $0.047 ($0.003) $0.059 $0.063 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $2,075 $1,474 ($104) $1,869 $1,986 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 4.44 0.95 58.07 61.62 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 9.85% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= 863 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 93.3% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 804 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.1% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (Dy(l-(E))= 856 (F) Gross Customer kW I (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 98.4% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 0.984 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 38.66% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(HY)(l (E))= 0.405
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.014
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $428.1 x
Total Minnesota Electric CIP 2005 2006
. (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 0.47 0.46 (B I) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) : 98.4% 98.4%
(C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B1)= 0.46 0.45 (D) Coincident factor 38.9% 38.7% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.1% 6.1% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/( -E)= 0.19 0.19 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 845 863 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G)= 395 398 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) / 93.2% 93.3% (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year. (B)*(H)= -368 371 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year. (I)/(1-E)= 392 395 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 458,907^ 459,198 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 214,511 211,665 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 211,144 208,298 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 86,063 84,375 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year (H)*(K)= 169,032,992, 182,568,062 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (D)*(K)= 179,974,955 170,252,988 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year (J)*(K)=: 179,974,955 181,272,824 Total Budget $ 36,655,238 S '36,708,277 xi
-- I Total Minnesota Electric Conservation Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test (5/kWV) (S/kNV) (S/kW) (S/k V) (S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $578 S578 S578 $578 T & D. N/A S353 S353 S353 S353 Marginal Energy N/A Sl,033 Sl,033 S1,033 S1,033 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A $142 Subtotal N/A S1,965 S1,965 S1,965 S2.107 Xcel Energy Project Costs N/A S489 S489 $489 $489 Subtotal N/A $489 $489 S489 $489 Revenue Reduction S1,872 N/A S1,722 S0 S0 Subtotal $1,872 N/A S1,722 S0 S0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S1,068 N/A N/A $1,006 S1,006 Incremental O&M -$1,338 N/A N/A -$1,261 -S1,261 Rebates -S241 N/A N/A -$241 -S241 Subtotal -$511 N/A N/A -S496 -S496 Net Present Benefit (Cost) $2,383 $1,476 -S246 51,971 S2,113 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S0.044 S0.027 (S0.005) $0.036 S0.039 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S3,161 $1,957 (S327) S2,614 S2,803 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 4.02 0.89 INF INF Project Assumptions:
Measure Lifetime (Years) 18 (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 35.09% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= 3,074 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 93.1% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)- 2,863 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.1% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (Dy(l -(E))= 3,048 (F) Gross Customer kW 1 (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 94.2% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 0.942 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 75.16% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(Hy(l-(E))= 0.754
- Xced Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.009
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $648.7 xii
> Total Minnesota Electric Conservation Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test .Test (S/kW) (S/kWt) (S/k;) (S/k V) ($"kW) Avoided Revenue Requirements
. Generation N/A S574 $574 $574 $574 T&D . N/A. $361 $361 * $361 $361 Marginal Energy N/A $1,037 $1,037 $1,037 $1,037 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A $169 Subtotal N/A $1,972 $1,972 $1,972 $2,142 Xcel Energy Project Costs N/A $488 $488 $488 $488 Subtotal N/A $488 $488 $488 $488 Revenue Reduction $1,842 N/A $1,699 $0. so Subtotal $1,842 N/A $1,699 $0 $0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $1,065 N/A N/A $1,004 .$1,004 Incremental O&M . ($1,407) N/A N/A ($1,326) ($1,326)
Rebates ($243) N/A N/A .($243) . . ($243) Subtotal ($585) N/A N/A ($565) ($565) Net Present Benefit (Cost) $2,427 $1,484 -$215 $2,049. $2,218 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.047 $0.029 ($0.004) $0.040 $0.043 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $3,241 $1,981 ($287) $2,736 $2,962 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 4.04 0.90 INF INF Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 17 (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 34.18% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= 2,994 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 93.0% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 2,783 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.1% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)/(1-(E))= 2,963 (F) Gross Customer kW l (Cl) Free Driver/Frce Rider Factor (Demand) 94.2% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 0.942 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 74.63% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)/(1 HE))= 0.749
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.009
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $652.3 xiii
Total Minnesota Electric Conservation 2005 *2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 0.14 0.14 (B 1) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 94.2% 94.2% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(BI)= 0.13 0.13 (D) Coincidentfactor 75.2% 74.6% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.1% 6.1% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(I-E)= 0.11 0.10 (G) Gross kWhNear saved per Customer kW 3,074 2,994 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year (A)*(G)= 429 418 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 93.1% 93.0% (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= 400 389 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (IY(1-E)= 425 414 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 418,294 418,594 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 58,363 58,492 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 54,996 55,125 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 41,468 41,281 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year (H)*(K)= 179,425,579 175,114,006 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year (1)*(K)= 167,110,505 162,798,931 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year (J)*(K)= 177,918,904 173,332,124 Total Budget S 28,546,082 S 28,571,221 - xiv
> Total Minnesota Electric Load Management Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test ent-vlr
- cn.-o env.?x
-IW K% -aISiV ba/Kw -ZlW a
Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $186 $186 $186 $186 T&D N/A 112 112 112 112 Marginal Energy N/A 5 5 5 5 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A - - 0 Subtotal N/A $303 $303 $303 $304 Xcel's Project Costs N/A $52 $52 - $52 -S52 Subtotal N/A $52 $52 $52 $52 Revenue Reduction - $229 N/A $229 - $0 SO Subtotal $229 N/A $229 $0 so Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $0 N/A N/A So so Incremental O&M 0 I/A N/A 0 0
- Rebates - 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Subtotal $0o N/A N/A $0 -S:
Net Present Benefit (Cost) $229 $252 $22 $252 $252 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime - $S1.297 $1.422 - 50.125 1.A22 $1.424 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $803 $881 $78 $881 $882 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 5.84 1.08 5.84 5.85 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) .14 (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.14% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= 12 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor:(Energy) 100.0% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)=- 12 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.5% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)/(1-(E))= 13 (F) Gross Customer kW 1 (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) I 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 26.72% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)/(l (E))= 0.286
- Xcel Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.294
- Xcel Project Cost per kW at Gen $181.8
- - sJ
> Total Minnesota Electric Load Management Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW $/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $191 S191 S191 S191 T&D N/A 115 115 115 115 Marginal Energy N/A 5 5 5. 5 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 Subtotal N/A S312 $312 $312 $312 Xcel Energy Project Costs N/A S53 S53 $53 $53 Subtotal N/A 553 $53 $53 $53 Revenue Reduction $235 N/A S235 so $0 Subtotal $235 N/A $235 so s0 Participants Net Costs Incremental Capital so N/A N/A $0 s0 Incremental O&M 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Rebates 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Subtotal $0 N/A N/A $0 $0 Net Present Benefit (Cost) S235 S258 S24 S258 $259 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime SI.458 SI.607 $0.149 $1.607 $1.610 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $834 S919 $85 $919 $920 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 5.87 1.08 5.87 5.87 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 14 (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.13% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= 12 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 12 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 0.0% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)/(1-(E))= 12 (F) Gross Customer kW I (C l) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 28.13% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)/(I-(E))= 0.281
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.330
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $188.8 xvi
Total Minnesota Electric Load Management 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 3.84 3.77 (B 1)Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(BI)= 3.84 3.77 (D) Coincident factor 26.7% 28.1% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.5% 0.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/( 1.10 1.06 (G) Gros's kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 12 12 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)" 46 . 43 (B)Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0% (I)Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H. 46 43 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (1)1(1-l 49 43 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 40,613 40,604 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 156,148 153,173 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 156,148 153,173 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 44,596 43,094 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)= 1,870,336 1,761,558 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (I)*(K)= 1,870,336 1,761,558 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 1,999,366 1,761,558 Total Budget $ 8,109,156 S 8,137,055 XVii
Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Company: Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: Total CIP wl Indirect Participants Summary Information Input Data Company: Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project:
- 1) Retail Rate ($/MCF) $8.81 15) Utility Project Costs (First Year)
Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = $1,201,486 Cost Summary Direct Operating Costs $1,350,435
- 2) Commodity Cost ($/MCF) = $4.58 Incentive Costs = $1,097,490 Utility Cost per Participant (First Year) = $24.31 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Total Ulitily Project Costs $3,649.411 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = $25.08
- 3) Demand Cost (SlUniVYr) $93.88 15a) Utility Project Costs (Second Year) Tolal Energy Reduction (MCF) 12,251,867 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = $1,299,577 Societal Cost per MCF $1.68 Direct Operating Costs = $1.368,300
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor = 1.00% Incentive Costs = $1,097,490 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year) = $28.10 Total Ulitiiy Project Costs = $3,765,367 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year) = $28.39
- 5) Variable O&M ($IMCF) = $0.0761 Escalation Rate = 2.10% 16) Direct Participant Costs (S/Part.) = 51.5 I
- 6) Environmental Damage Factor $0.3000 17) Other Participant Costs (Annual $/Part.) 0.7 I Escalation Rate = 2.17% Escalalion Rate = 2.10% I
- 7) Total Sales = 78.428.047 18) Project Life (Years) 15 Growth Rate = 0.60%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) 4.08% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers = 395,842 Growth Rate = 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/Part.) = 66.7 NPV BIC
- 9) Utility Discount Rate 7.47% 21) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (First Year Program) z 2.7 Cost Comparison Test $13,822,716 . 1.42 21 a) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (Second Year Program) 2.7
- 10) Social Discount Rate = 4.72% Revenue Requirements Test $39,744,644 6.97
- 22) Number of Participants (First Year Program) = 150,145
- 11) General Input Data Year 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program) = 150,145 Societal Benefit Test $28,824,976 2.40
- 12) Project Analysis Year 1 2005 23) Incentive/Participant (First Year Program) = $7 Participant Test $47,688,559 2.25 12a) Project Analysis Year 2 2006 23a) Incentive/Participant (Second Year Program) = $7
- 13) Effective Fed & State Income Tax Rate = 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Taxes 6.75%
as % Total Operating Income (
C C Conservation Improvemrent Prograin (CiP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Anatysis ConsierVation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Company- Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: Total CIP Direct Participants &Costs Only Summary Information Input Data I Company. Xcel Energy (Natural Gas)
- 1) Retail Rate ($SMCF) = $8.81 15) Utility Project Costs (First Year)
Escalation Rale= 2.10% Administrative Costs: $807,189 Cost Summary Direct Operating Costs $1,002,755
- 2) Commodity Cost ($IMCF) $4.58 Incentive Costs $1,097,490 Utility Cost per Participant (First Year): $139.35 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Total Utility Project Costs = $2,967,434 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = $140.15
- 3) Demand Cost ($/tUnittYrj $93.8-3 15a) Utilily Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) 12,251,887 Escalation Rate - 2.10% Administrative Costs: $878,210 Societal Cost per MCF $1.58 Direct Operating Costs: $1,010,838
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor = 1.00% Incentive Costs = $1,097,490 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year): $26.43
*.-- **Total Utility Project Costs: $2,984,338 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year): $28.48
- 5) Variable O&M ($IMCF) - $0.0781 Escalation Rate= 2.10% 16) Direct Participant Costs ($IPart.)- 382.81
- 6) Environmental Damage Factor= $0.3000 . 17) Other Participant Costs (Annual S/Part.)= 4.80 Escalation Rate: 2.17% Escalation Rate = , 2.10%
- 7) Total Sales *78,428,047 18) Project Llfe (Years) = 15 Growth Rate- 0.60% ,,
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) = 4.08% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers - 395,842 Growth Rate= 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/Part.)= 470.12 NPV 3BIC
- 9) Utlilty Discount Rate = 7.47% 21) Avg. MCF;Part. Saved (First Year Program) 19.18 Cost Comparison Test $15,133,517 1.48 21a) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (Second Year Program): 19.18
- 10) Social Discount Rate = 4.72% Revenue Requirements Test $41,055,446 8.68
- 22) Number of Participants (First Year Program): 21,295
- 11) General Input Data Year- 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program) U 21,295 Societal Benefit Test $30,135,778 2.56 2Q05 23) Incentive/Participant (First Year Program)
- 12) Project AnalysIs Year 1 $52 Participant Test $61,364,267 4.07 12a) Project Analysls Year 2 2008 23a) Incentive/Participant (Second Year Program)= $52
- 13) Effective Fed & State Income Tax Rate= 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Taxes 0.75%
as % Total Operating Income
'Fn2I.G is.:a.Jw-:agt.X.:'7e-'I.N.:.2..I<f.> - ,...I,. .
- 9>; - , o- .t . § I4t Electric Electic l Electric EElectric Earketing Genertor Generator Gas Energy Participation Electric Budge Demand (kW) Demand (kW) Enerty (kWh) Gs Participation Gas Budget Savings (MCF)
CommercIal & IndustriMl Seqnent II__i_____ lBoiler Efficiency - - - l 2331 sso.o000 150994 _ComressedAi Efiien 69 5563,115 1,742 21,650 11.026,22 - _l Coolmt Efficiny 70 S1229.434 3.526 2,549 5.331,750 _
- _ .
= = Effiam 194 S2,691 .600 9,422 5.944,
_DC Imoui Fnrpgn 7 S490.0Z0 .. _Enemy Aradysis 13 S72976 .. 1 3 57.4U4 _Er DetAs 37 S4,90,O000 7,661t 7.563 25995,330 5 5150.000 22.7S5 _F Drit 10 S61,349 . . 2 S2351 9 Lit)e Efincy 459 s2,6n2.357 S,141 7,162 31tl44.197 - . _ Mosor Effien 27S S1,451.316 7.096 2,617 17.995,0e3 . _Recomssionrin 49 SS76,410 2.240 1,769 7.co93a9 20 575.403 SS500 _ Rctriigmiron Effiien 9 5395,Z 1.050 S12 6.001.055. _too6Dht Effcider 3 Sl 2S250 513 471 283938 I Enery Rcxon SMs 471 S369,750 15.725 7.938 611.674 i S3Ws Svfitchfor Busss 545I S3OS1 3.205 1999 81.171.. ICommerd2IlaldwtraITotaI 1,790 $16,267.218 60,351 39AS0 159.249,192 1 2nI n OS1,<306 23s.44 I Cgnsion T. 1.16S Sl<-923.1 t2 l < 1.421 30.367 15!.55634S 277 S1,005Z453 23t,444 IaMem TOW1 sn2 S720311 18t930 S936 692.S4 -I Non. 30 5624325 . 5 S30.953 SmaIlBsnine" Sement _ _ _ i~ollerEmcidenc lo! 91 S130.474 20.034 CompEssedfirde.xicn 14 s72-9761 I'll 183 9S7355 1- - CoolntEfrrc 120 389,716 108 645 1.021.24 1 , _ , CustornEtEci 57 S30_Sl 678 3SS 3.467.263 i 45 S50.610 16,755 lEner !nisT 115 5198.S9_ - - _ 1 25 S47.233 EnwryDrsignAssmssnce 4 S120, 243 240 547,777 1 5 S23,010 1,7S0 66 S59_366 . 1 2 S7.745
- _ __- _ ____ 130D S45,691 3.510 p~e~dit l 4S.066 SSI42z0-ll4 Lihint Effxxcievcy 176 520990 j.09_ S31 4,466.111it - _ -_
E 7__ 46 S76.795, 267 171i 998.682 - - l Rfrierio Effn6imuo 1 S45.0Z0l too lI3 500,004 I IRoofir Edfdcin 70 1365-SO 1.462 1-341 710.862
- ., :_1 .;1 :
IErttr Reduction SivisIt 16 565 2C 2.775 1 566 122.613 4-905l S169.693i 2 411 s~oit 730.535 1 - I __I 53X65 53.659I352 I 36.352 14.454 j 13,552,457 1 396 3104,7701 _42.09 497 11.55.4341 4,736 1 3,90 12.6993101 369 ,92 42.079 4.921 12.934.943 31.616 10.554 I 153.141 48147 S35- _.__ .__ 271 5.7 1l> 1 L I I I II Il
- - - - - -- - - ^v
- - - -^et 175.000 1229.14f I 23.0W0 569.0t1 15000
,5679414 1.9921 65141 3.739-917 ! .94jj 1612.17611 70.100 too s7.l tC 60 S35.114 14.000 S130.32 27.510 24 - S252.4481 13.945 42591 iSS.961. .
. - II IRtesidential'total
-1 -
T1,25l20441 Itzs2 I Corstervaion Total S994.951A 112.325 I.cad Mantement Total sol 0 INonInparcs s263,093A 0 Lo-incone Enersr Sericts Setment llav Intane Rane EfE;cinw 706 iLoabone= eanon 5.49s* S756.' I. I Lo--Ineome Total 5.90 S756,2001 1,o09 i 113 L 1.091.160 MbnnLn, & Rearch Serments lpanninv 575 00
-amv Arfais 1636.129 c.s. ... C11125 I.3. - .3. . I . I 1400.0001 I S.799s341 - I . I . I !i Si515i.013T S3Ag-2AS2l S332.9531 l
Tase U-9~
, - -u-w- - -- -*
li;_oA1 2381 214511 36.063 1 179.974955 1 150,646 1 _ 3.649.4111i_ 40_.125 xx
-',7006Go i ___________
Electric Electric Electric evtlIdsru et Electric Marketing Generator Generator Gas Gas Energy _____________Partildpation Electric Budget Demand (kW) Demand (k*V) Energy (kWh) PartlClpatlon Gas Budget Savings (MCF) Boiler Eficienc -- 233 5504 558 150,9114 CompnsedAir Efficiec 69 SS73.195 1.742 ,*,jO 11,026,322-Cooling Efficienc 701 S1233,327 3,2 2,A49 5,3311,7S0 - ____ _ - CustomsEfficienc 199 12752,400 9,965 6,216 49,456,736 19 5283, 50 59.375 OG Incentive 7 5490,000 -- Euc Analyis 13 S75,06 -3 17,932 Ese Desig Assistasc 40 54,600000O 66936 6,749 23,195.937 5 S153,059 227855 Finaricins I0 £63,139 -2 524,037 Lighting Effici y459 52,692.0371 ,..,.,.. .1......! 7,6 38,144.197-M~otorEtliciny276 53.457.516 7,9 2,617 17,995,083 -______ Recounmissioning 52 $9175,236 2,2 2,4 6.5 1 376 20 11%,561 ,0 Refrigeaion Efficienc 9 1396,494 JJO 632 6,003,055-Roofsn ELoucd 3 £3281600 513 471 263,938 EnryReduction Savins 36 1369,750 12,750 6,436 495 352 - Suves Slwitch for Business 545 1352,07 3,205 999 61.171 CommEercyeial& IssisturnceTta 3.9 599.10;00 33,4 133 2209 2_____2_ 3123777 2________ LoaudMraeen oa 663 £610395 1-95 2 2 179357 Nou-rnpactsiie 30-2,4 33 S34661931 oiltin Efficien 3769£2015719903132446633 Ctompressdirfiieci 46 £77691 267 173- 998612 5 CooliongEfficinc 10 452 30 653 1502.0248-- CustRoom Ellicicy 70 S366.600 738 41 3,740.12 -5 -5,1 ,7-Enefl Analysionsaig it6 £65,250 25 -S1,56932,61 SEnergDswigntorssines 4,0 S190.602 13,23 6.96 256,93S ___23 __7_1_78 Sbriinai 66IesTta $69101 5~j 6,6,0 9 2 3904,7 Funtae Esicienoy 0 1 19 67366 3755 1369 52563214 0791 Ladmp icy tuin 48,23 5327052 1056053634 Notorm 41iiec47 53509 267277157 2 64 ReRefriageratinEfcnc 0 4524to3 0,4 Cosuerg ReducationSvn 6 6532509 2,77 I0I" t2361 SaEe Loitns fo3usnss00 570.96690 3,3 6020"s Enor taryoToa 50 53,564,279 46992 3490 327399372 3690 £634832 706079 LoadManagementTtl491 - $9605 -0241 33945 £253179 Nontelinpais Detudt 4006 £2361 2325073 362536 27 -5, ConswervaEdonation 17,0 15817.938,...2AL,0 jj4 $5099865 32 EnerydLansentioa too0 1547446 50 1000 60 SO 04 None3m S090614,O 645,W,76 S" -,1 11299159039 5261132030 Lowmnoe Effcinytue 48 $2317 3s4 C_otsrati200 TonestaCI 549,196 $56,870,896 1111 6,8 25,7,40,646 $3,711,51 I04125M xxi
Compliance with Rules and Statutes This section outlines the relevant portions of Minn. Stat. and Rules applicable to the 2005/2006 Biennial Plan.
> Biennial Plan Filing Requirements Minn. Stat. §216B.241, subd. 2(a) requires that public utilities file conservation improvement plans by June 1.
> Combined Electric and Gas Variance Request Xcel Energy requests a variance to Minn. Rule 7690.0500 to allow for a combined natural gas and electric CIP filing. The variance was originally granted in the December 21, 2001 Dedision in Docket Nos. E002/CIP-99-1057.03 and G002/CIP-98-723.02.
I > Minimum Spending Requirements I Minn. Stat. §216B.241, subd. 1(a) states that: Each public utility shall spend and invest for energy conservation improvements under this subdivision and subdivision 2 the following amounts: (1) for a utility that furnishes gas service, 0.5 percent of its gross operating revenues from service provided in the state; (emphasis added) (2) for a utility that furnishes electric service, 1.5 percent of its gross operating revenues from service provided in the state; and (3) for a utility that furnishes electric service and that operates a nuclear-powered electric generating plant within the state, two percent of its gross operating revenues from service provided in the state. (emphasis added) Electric Miniim Snei ndinar Rpnmirements 2003 Gross Operating Revenu&e (GOR)'0 - $1,836,186,023 2003 CIP Exempt Customer Revenue" $ 36,251,550 Adjusted GOR $1,799,937,473 Statutory Spending Requirement (Percent of GOR) 2.0% 2005/2006 Minimum Spending Requirements $ 35,998,749 2005 Proposed Electric Spending 36,655,238 2006 Proposed Electric Spending $ 36,708,276 Proposed Budget Approximate Percent of 2003 GOR 2.04% 10 2003 Minnesota AnnualJurisdictional Report E-30 iThe 2003/2004 electric exempt customer revenue inadvertently excluded the main account for International Paper. The minimum spending requirements reported in the 2003/2004 CIP Biennial Plan should have been lower than originally calculated. :
.1
- I I Natural Gas Minimum Spending Requirements:
2003 Gross Operating Revenue (GOR)12 $615,157,089 2003 CIP Exempt Customer Revenue $11,105,240 Adjusted GOR $604,051,849 Statutory Spending Requirement (Percent of GOR) 0.5% 2005/2006 CIP Minimum Spending Requirements $3,020,259 2005 Proposed Natural Gas Spending $3,649,411 2006 Proposed Natural Gas Spending $3,711,531 Approximate Proposed Percent of CIP Funding of 2003 GOR 0.61%
> Low Income Requirement Minn. Stat. §216B.241, subd. 2() states that (f) The commissioner shall ensure that a portion of the money spent on residential conservation improvement programs is devoted to programs that directly address the needs of renters and low-income persons, in proportion to the amount the utility has historically spent on such programs based on the most recent three-year average relative to the utility's total conservation spending under this section, unless an insufficient number of appropriate programs are available.
The Company interprets the low-income requirement to specifically target low-income customers, and does not track programs that serve renters as a specific population. The Company's Lowv-Income Energy Services Segment exclusively focuses on low-income customers and is used as the basis for meeting the statutory requirement. Low Income Achievements 3-Year Avera e Electric Participation Spending Gen kW Gen kWh Total CIP LI as a % Spending of Total 2001 1,997 $570,702 44 405,026 $37,154,938 1.54% 2002 1,140 5472,160 35 284,953 538,328,482 1.23% 2003 1,898 $634,300 49 287,136 $42,164,788 *1.50% 3 Year 1,678 $559,054 43 325,705 $39,216,069 1.42% Average _ Gas Participation Spending MCF Total CIP LI as a% G Spending of Total 2001 360 $625,716 13,346 $3,297,906 18.97% 2002 398 $610,238 6,510 $2,715,615 22.47% 2003 466 $596,564 11,858 $3,933,423 15.17% 3 Year 408 $610,839 10,571 $3,315,648 18.87% Average 12 2003 Minnesota Annual Jurisdictional Report P-38 & 39 2
I > Lighting Requirement I Minn. Stat. §216B.241, subd. 5 requires the Company to include, as part of its CIP, a project to "strongly encourage the use of fluorescent and high intensity discharge lamps". The statute also requires the Company to establish a program to reclaim or recycle fluorescent and high intensity discharge lamps. Xcel Energy has met these requirements in its C&I Segment through its Lighting Efficiency program. In the Small Business Segment, the Company has met the requirements though its Lighting Efficiency and Lamp Recycling programs. In the Residential Segment compliance is met through the Home Lighting Direct Purchase, Consumer Education and Residential Lamp Recycling programs. I > Evaluation Spending Cap Minn. Stat. §216B.241, subd. 2(h) prohibits a utility from spending more than 3 percent of its minimum-spending requirement on "program pre-evaluation, testing and monitoring and audit and evaluation". The Company's proposed evaluation spending for electric is $532,134 (1.5 percent) in 2005 and $567,509 (1.6 percent> in 2006. The proposed spending for gas is $89,828 (3.0 percent) in 2005 and $90,304 (3.0 percent) in 2006. l Research and Development Spending Cap Minn. Stat. §216B.241, subd. 2(c) prohibits a utility from spending more than 10 percent of its minimum-spending requirement on research and development projects. The Company's proposed R&D spending for electric is $400,000 (1.1 percent) in 2005 and $400,000 (1.1 percent) in 2006. The Company has not budgeted for any gas R&D.
> Renewable Energy Research Minn. Stat. §216B.241, subd. 6 requires a public utility with nuclear facilities to contribute five percent of its minimum gas and electric spending requirement to support basic and applied research and demonstration activities at the University of Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment (U of M IREE). Xcel Energy has met this requirement in its 2005/2006 CIP Biennial Plan proposal to annually contribute to the U of M IREE $1,799,934 from its electric budget and $151,013 from its gas budget.
I > Distributed Energy Resources Minn. Stat. §216B.2411 (DistributedEnerg Resourres) authorizes a public utility to spend up to five percent of its minimum-spending requirement on distributed energy resources (DG). In the 2005/2006 CIP Biennial Plan, the Company proposes to include as an indirect impact C&I program the Distributed Generation Incentive program. Total program costs equal $490,000 in 2005 and $490,000 in 2006, or approximately 1.4 percent of Xcel Energy's minimum electric spending requirement. 3
I> Support of Integrated Resource Plan Goals I In establishing energy and demand savings goals for the Conservation Improvement Program, Xcel Energy seeks direction from regulatory. and statutory requirements and the Company's own understanding of demand-side management (DSM) potential within its service territory. The specific regulatory requirements that guide electric goal setting include Minnesota Public Utilities Commission decisions in Docket Nos. E-002/RP-00-787 (In the Matter ofNorthern Statcs Power Companj d/bIa XcelEnergy'sApplicationforApproval ofits 2000-2014 Resource Plan) and E-002/RP-02-2065 (In the MatterofNorthern States Power Companys ApplicationjorApproval ofits 2003-2017 Resource Plan). The specific statutory requirements that guide goal setting include the provisions of Minn. Stat. Chapter 216B and its implementing Rules. In its August 29, 2001 Order Approving Xcel Energy's 2000-2014 Resource Plan, As Modified, the Minnesota PUC required that the Company adhere to goals associated with the "175 percent incentive scenario," which includes 3,253 cumulative GWh and 1,174
-cumulative MW over the planning period. On March 9,2004, the PUC approved Xcel Energy's request to withdraw its 2003-2017 Resource Plan and, implicitly, left in place the need for the Company to proceed with the 2000 Resource Plan's ordered goals. As shown in the table below, the Company has worked very hard to achieve the savings that are derived from these goals. To date, as reported in our annual Status Reports, we have exceeded energy and demand savings goals for fewer dollars than projected."3 CIP Energy and Demand Savin vs. IRP IRP IRP IR(Ahive Achieved Spending Achieved ()Demand Aiee() Energy Ga Dmn
_e5 Spending ADemand Goal Denmnd Edegy Goa Demand YerAchievements Goar Goal Spending C Acveveent mDos Achievenents detdenet mls)b oa (Goa~sl u n eet Achievem ents (Mmilo)(mlions) (DIM (~X (M~) (GWh) (~h 2000 533 535 52 84 116 32 182 246 64 2001 533 540 57 84 139 55 176 254 78 2002 568 S41 -S27 . 108 121 13 '244 267 23 2003 564 542 .522 90 1 70 20 231 245 14 2004 $62 J42 420 23A. 1If 224 212 -12 2005 $66 $37 -$29 .80 86 6 225 207 -18.1
-6 $66 $37 429 79 4 5 6 208 -17.7 Surplus/Defxcitvs.IRP -4119 142 . 1312 We note that the actual or estimated GWh and MW numbers reported in the'table above are the achievements (and projected achievements) as reported in the Company's annual CIP Status Reports. The load management portion of these numbers will not directly correlate with the amount of load management the Company'has under contract. This result occurs because Xcel Energy's Status Reports provide gross energy and demand savings achieved by the Company from the approved CIP program. -The Status Report, which examines the prior year's accomiplishments 'against goal,' does not include reductions in total load under control resulting from cust6mers leaving the load management program or degradation of per switch kW over time.
13All budget ;iumbers are in nominal dollars. Numbers for 2004 are projections based on goal. Proposed goals for the 2005 and 2006 Plan, including anticipated altemative filings, are also included for reference. 4
l - - For Resource Planning purposes, it is important to consider Xcel Energy's conservation and net load management achievements. The table below presents the IRP MW goals along with reported amounts of MW from conservation and load management activities. It also provides the net incremental amount of load management as registered on the Northern States Power-Minnesota system. The last column displays the cumulative difference between IRP MW goals and the sum of MW from conservation and net load management. CIP and System Realized Demand Savings vs. IRP IRP Biennial Status Resyrtstem Realized Totals yer emand emn D DeadPU oe tanead Load Management Total AlivcetDemand Net Load aaeetInrse LSurplu/ Deficit vs. (MWDeGoal __ad (Adikvemnts YraGoal Management I n NtDmn s (NM 2MX0 84 85 53 64 117 54 107 23 2001 84 93 61 78 139 35 96 35 2002 108 96 64 57 121 28 92 19 2003 90 85 59 52 III 2 61 .10 2(14 83 94 60 34 94 34 91_ 2005 so S6 41 45 87 33 74 -5 2006 79 81
; 41 43 632 73 .10 As presented above, based on amounts of load management and conservation currently proposed in the 2005/2006 Biennial plan and expectations regarding changes in the amount of system-realized load management, the Company falls into a slight deficit against its MW IRP goals in 2005 and 2006.14 Recognizing this potential shortfall against IRP goals, Xcel Energy is taking steps to increase its load management program performance. One such step is the implementation of changes to the Residential Saver's Switch program to incorporate technology improvements developed by Xcel Energy's engineers and Cannon Technologies. These technology improvements will allow the Company to increase per switch load reductions for Saver's Switch participants. The Minnesota Public Utility Commission on May 26, 2004 approved the Company's request to revise its Saver's Switch tariff in order to implement this new technology in 2004 (Docket No. E002/M-04-370). With actions such as these, Xcel Energy believes that the GWh and MW goals proposed for the 2005/2006 Biennial plan are consistent with the goals established by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in its August 29, 2001 Order approving the 175 percent incentive scenario.
While we are taking steps to address the issue, we also believe that, in many respects, we are reaching levels of saturation for load management programs that will make it difficult to substantially increase programmatic achievements. For example, approximately one in five NSP-MN residential customers has a Saver's Switch installed on their air conditioner and the Company has more than 2,500 business customers on its Electric Reduction Savings (formerly "Peak Controlled Rates") program. In addition to high levels of saturation, 14 The projected amount of "Net Load Management Increase" for 2005 and 2006 are based on currently proposed goals. 5
increased environmental regulation of customer back-up generation will likely further hinder the ability to grow the business load management programs. The Market Assessment Study performed by a team of consultants including Summit Blue Consulting, RER (Itron), and Xenergy (KEMA), identified that the potential for conservation and load management in our service area is lessening. New building codes are anticipated to take effect during the 2005/2006 biennium, which will cut roughly 20 GWh from potential savings. Through creative realignment, the Company believes it has compensated for this result in the short-run, but notes that these goals will be more difficult to achieve over the planning period. Further, market saturation and the reduced ability to take CIP credit for new constructions energy savings will make achieving the targeted goals more challenging as we move forward. Our commitment in this filing is to stay on track with the Commission's 2000 Integrated Resource Planning goal. However, we caution that this goal should be viewed as a "stretch goal" and not a "business-as-usual" goal. Without simply raising the cost of CIP (for example, through higher rebate amounts), which brings with it policy issues related to free riders and the appropriate role of CIP in the total level of conservation achieved in society, we believe that our plan to meet current goals is aggressive and will be difficult to sustain over the long run. Further, in November 2004, Xcel Energy will file a new Resource Plan covering the 2005-2019 planning period. As part of this plan, the Company will likely propose new DSM goals, goals that will indicate the optimum level of DSM relative to other resources available to meet customer load growth. In so doing, the Company will evaluate DSM in relation to other resource alternatives, a process which is not completed for the Biennial. To the extent changes in goals may be appropriate, we will seek to incorporate these changes in our Resource Plan filing, taking into account the Company's achievements against goals in the 2000 Resource Plan, and the feasibility of continuing to plan for the savings through the planning period. We would then work in prospective CIP filings to implement any changes that the Commission's order in the upcoming Resource Plan proceeding requires. 6
.US-l 2005/2006 CIP Biennial Segments and Programs l 7
I Sk Commercial and Industrial Segment l Segment
Description:
The Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Segment contributes the majority of Xcel Energy's planned conservation and load management achievements in this Biennial Plan. Planned achievements of 319.8 GWh and 476,880 MCF over the two-year period-account for 89 percent of the total electric energy savings goal and 59 percent of the total natural gas goal. While C&I customers typically have the largest DSM projects, driving down cost per GWh or MCF saved, this trend is slowing due to increased saturation and market conditions. The C&I Segment consists of business customers with aggregated electric demand over 500 kW. Conservation and Load management sales to this customer segment are primarily accomplished via Xcel Energy's account managers, end-use equipment vendors or trade allies, and energy services companies. Although sales to C&I customers typically require personal visits, Xcel Energy also utilizes newsletters, customer events, and direct mail to reach this customer segment. Segment Highlights: C&I segment energy savings will come primarily from the following four programs: Custom Efficiency, Energy Design Assistance, Lighting Efficiency, and Boiler Efficiency. This Biennial Plan includes significant changes for some of these programs to more accurately account for their impacts in Xcel Energy's CIP. The Custom Efficiency program contributes 96.2 GWh and 118,350 MCF of planned C&I achievement. During 2003, Xcel Energy received approval from the Department of Commerce (DOC) for 1) six unique scenarios for calculating Custom Efficiency project savings; and 2) a specific process for authorizing Influenced Savings projects. Also in 2003, the Company launched the new Energy Management Systems (EMS) program. The EMS program utilizes the Custom Efficiency preapproval process. The Energy Design Assistance (EDA) program contributes 49.2 GWh and 45,570 MCF of planned C&I achievement. As detailed in the following pages, this program's planned achievement is seriously hampered by two important market changes. First, although new construction starts are increasing, the average square footage per project is decreasing. Second, anticipated Minnesota Energy Code changes will increase minimum efficiencies and new equipment standards, thereby further decreasing the potential conservation impact for each new commercial construction project These trends have been incorporated into the EDA goals for this Biennial Plan. The Lighting Efficiency program 76.3 GWh of planned C&I electric achievement. Lighting Efficiency continues to be a mainstay of Xcel Energy's CIP. Higher levels of market saturation are requiring more individualized sales efforts to reach remaining retrofit customers. Further, new lighting technologies have been added to combat this trend and help maintain the Lighting Efficiency program's large contribution to the C&I segment's planned achievements. 8
LL-1 The Boiler Efficiency program contributes 301,968 NICF of planned C&I natural gas achievement. Xcel Energy's customers are more aware of natural gas price volatility than ever before and, therefore, are more likely to participate in gas business conservation programs. Marketing efforts have increased program awareness among our target markets, and our account managers and trade allies have been effective at working with Xcel Energy customers to improve their boiler system efficiencies. Lastly, the load management programs continue to provide Xcel Energy with cost effective DSM. The Electric Reduction Savings program, formerly Peak Controlled Rates, has significant controllable load under contract in Minnesota. A new notification system has been implemented during the spring of 2004 that will enhance communication efficiency. 9
Xcel Energy Commercial & Industrial Segment _J~Project Information Sheet 05'B d d 40 i; 2006 Budge to , Electric _ _ .4- I Gas ___ Total Electric Gas Total Cost Comoonents Project Delivery S4,097,813 $313,476 $4.411,289 S3,9,755 S320,696 S4,320,451 Utlity Administrabon S854,814 S115,665 S970,479 S878,086 $119,139 S997,225 Other Project Administration S331,406 $25,143 S356,549 $315,522 $25,143 $340,665 Advertising/Promotion $1,297,357 S105,602 $1,402,959 $1,304,353 $106,054 S1,410,407 Evaluatons -19,559 S0 $19,559 $20,146 $0 $20,146 R&D $0 $0 S0 $0 $0 $0 Incentives (Rebates) S9,669,870 S477,420 $10,147,290 $9,645,345 $477,420 $10,122,765 Other - $0 - $0 $0 - S - -- $0 $0 Less Revenues ($3,000) ($900) ($3,9001 ($3,000 (S900) ($3,900) Total Budget $16,267,818 $1,036,406 $17,304,224 $16,160,207 $1,047,552 S17,207,759 Total Number of PartlcIpants 1,790 282 1,792 282 Total En. SavIngs-Generator fkWh) 159,249,192 160,531,018 _ Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 162,009,315 163,214,231 . Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 39,804 38,209 Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) 238,444 238.444 _ Prolect Type Percentage Expenditure Residential - _-_. Commercial _______. _.._ Industrial - C&I Combined 100% 100% 100% 100% Other R&D . Low-Income ParrUcipation (%) N/A N/A NUA N/A - Participants (#) . Budget (S) . Renter Partlcdpatlon (W) N/A NIA N/A N/A Participants (#) . _. . Budget (S) - . Societal B/C Results Net Present Value S1,974 S22,160,227 $2,156 $22,160,227 B/C Ratio INF 4.30 INF 4.30 Participant B/C Results Net Present Value -2,124 $38,128,097 $2.257 S38,128,097 B/C Ratio INF 7.21 INF 7.21 Rate Impact BIC Results Net Present Value ($110) $12,342180 ($89) _12,342_180Q BIC Rato 0.94 1.84 0.95 1.84 Revenue Requirements B/C Results . Net Present Value S1,398 $25,216,742 S1,62 S25,216,742 B/C Ratio 6.19 14.46 6.21 14.46 Project Type Audit/Info X X x x R&D Renewable . Direct Impact X X x x_ _ _ Type of Incentive . LoanlGrant X X x x Rebate X X x x Direct Installation End-Use Target (%) Lighting 37% 0% 37% 0% Process 22% 0% 22% 0% Motor 7% 6% 7% 6% Refrigeration 12% 0h 12Yo 0% Space Cooling 18% 27% 18% 27% / Space Heating 0% 66% 0% 66% Water Heating 0% 0% 0°h 0% Weatherization 0°6 0'°/. 0°h 0% Genera/Other 5% 1% 5% 1% Ratemaking treatment: expensed X X x x 10
I > Commercial & Industrial Segment Total I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test StkW S/kW S/kW S/kW sVkW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $478 $478 S478 S478 T&D N/A 291 291 291 291 Marginal Energy N/A 899 899 899 899 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 123 Subtotal N/A $1,667 $1,667 S1,667 $1,791 Xcel Energys Project Costs N/A S270 $270 S270 S270 Subtotal N/A S270 S270 $270 S270 Revenue Reduction $1,653 N/A $1,507 S0 S0 Subtotal $1,653 N/A $1,507 S0 S0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S827 NIA N/A $781 $781 Incremental O&M (1,146) N/A N/A (1,082) (1,082) Rebates (152) N/A N/A (152) (152) Subtotal ($471) N/A N/A (S453) (S453) NetPresentBenefit(Cost) S2,124 S1,398 ($S10) $1,851 S1,974 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.055 SO.036 ($0.003) SO.048 S0.05i NetPresentBenefit(Cost) perGenerator $3,040 S2,001 (S157) $2,649 S2,826 BenefitCostRatio INF 6.19 0.94 INF INF Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 30.64% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)-- 2,684 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 92.4% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)- 2,480 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l-(G))- 2,639 (1)Gross Customer kW 1 (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 94.4% (K) Net Customer kW: (1)'(1)= 0.944 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 69.54% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(LY(lI-(G))= 0.699
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.007
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $385.9 11
I > Commercial & Industrial Segment Total I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis
.2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant. Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW /kW SMkW S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S489 $489 $489 $489 T&D N/A 308 308 308 . 308 Marginal Energy N/A 945 945 945 945 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 157 Subtotal N/A $1,742 $1,742 $1,742 $1,900 Xcel Energy's Project Costs . N/A $281 $281 $281 $281 Subtotal N/A $281 $281 $281 $281.
Revenue Reduction $1,696 N/A $1,551 $0o. so Subtotal $1,696 N/A '$1,551 $0 $0 articipants Net Costs Incremental Capital $866 N/A N/A $815 $815 Incremental O&M (1,265) N/A N/A (1,191) (1,191) Rebates (162) N/A N/A (162) (162) Subtotal ($561) N/A N/A (S538) ($538) Net Present Benefit (Cost) $2,257 S1,462 (S89) $1,999 $2,156 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.054 $0.035 ($0.002) $0.048 $0.052 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $3,202 $2,074 ($126) $2,836 $3,059 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 6.21 0.95 INF INF Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetirue (Years) 15 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 32.36% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 2,835 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 92.5% (F) Net kWhfYear saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 2,621 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(1-(G))= 2,788 (I) Gross Customer kW l (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 94.2% (K) Net Customer kW: (1)*(J)= 0.942 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 70.38% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(1.(G))= 0.705
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.007
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $398.2 12
Commercial & Industrial Segment Total 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 33.72 32.13 (B I) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 94.4% 94.2% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (AY*(B 1)= 31.83 30.25 (D) Coincident factor 69.54% 70.38% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6% 6% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)(l -E)= 23.55 22.65 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 2,684 2,835 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G)= 90,508 91,079 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 92.4% 92.5% (1)Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year. (B)*(H)= 83,628 84,207 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year. (ly(l-E)= 88,966 89,582 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 1,790 1,792 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 60,351 57,574 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 56,983 54,206 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 39,804 38,209 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)' 162,009,315 163,214,231 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year (I)*(K)= 149,694,241 150,899,157 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year. (J)*(K)= 159,249,192 160,531,018 Total Budget S 16,267,818 S 16,160,207 13
I> Commercial & Industrial Segment Conservation Total Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary - Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test . Test Test Test Test S/kW SIkW S/kW S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $616 S616 S616 S616 T&D N/A 377 377 377 377 Marginal Energy N/A 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 Externality Willingness N/A N/A NIA N/A 180 Subtotal NIA $2,298 $2,298 S2,298 S2,477 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A S360 S360 $360 S360 Subtotal N/A $360 S360 S360 S360 Revenue Reduction S2,352 N/A -2,141 - 0 - S0 Subtotal S2,352 N/A $2,141 S0 S0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S1,206 N/A N/A $1,108 -SI,108-Incremental O&M (1,670) N/A N/A (1,535) (1,535) Rebates (221) N/A N/A (221) (221) Subtotal ($686) N/A N/A (S648) ($648) Net Present Benefit (Cost) $3,038 S1,937 ($203) S2,586 S2,765 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime -0.043 S0.027 (S0.003) S0.037 $0.039 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S3,746 $2,388 (S250) S3,187 S3,409 Benefit Cost Ratio -- - INF - 6.38 - 0.92- - INF INF Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 18 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 44A7% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)" 3,896 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 92.4% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customr kW: (D)*(E)= 3,598 (G) Transmission Loss Factor - .6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)(l-(G))= 3,828 (I) Gross Customer kW I
*(3) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 91.9%
(KC)Net Customer kW: (D)*(J)= 0.919 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 83.00% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(LY)(l.(G))= 0.811
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.005
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $444
*14
.- I I > Commercial & Industrial Segment Conservation Total I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test
$/kW 51kW 51kW S/kNV S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $607 $607 $607 $607 T&D N/A 385 385 385 385 Marginal Energy N/A 1,304 1,304 1,304 1,304 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 217 Subtotal N/A $2,296 $2,296 $2,296 $2,513 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A $356 $356 $356 $356 Subtotal N/A $356 $356 $356 $356 Revenue Reduction $2,299 N/A $2,098 $0 $0 Subtotal $2,299 N/A $2,098 $0 $0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $1,198 N/A N/A $1,101 $1,101 Incremental O&M (1,750) N/A N/A (1,608) (1,608)
Rebates (224) N/A N/A (224) (224) Subtotal ($776) N/A N/A ($731) ($731) Net Present Benefit (Cost) $3,075 $1,940 ($158) $2,671 $2,888 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.046 $0.029 ($0.002) $0.040 $0.044 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $3,822 $2,412 ($196) $3,320 $3,590 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 6.45 0.94 INF INF Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 18 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 43.07% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 3,773 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 92.2% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 3,477 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l -{G))= 3,699 (I) Gross Customer kW I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 91.9% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)= 0.919 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 82.28% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(1-(G))= 0.805
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.005
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $442.3 15
Commercial & Industrial Segment Conservation Total 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 35.46 35.30 (B 1)Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 91.9% 91.9% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B I)= 32.58 32A4 (D) Coincident factor 83.00% 82.28% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6% 6% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(l -E)= 28.77 28.40 (G) Gross kWb/Year saved per Customer kW 3,896 3,773 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year. (A)*(G)= 138,149. 133,190 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 92.4% 92.2% (a)Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year (B)*(H}- 127,605 ; 122,745 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year. (1)/(1 -E)= 135,750 130,580 (K) Estimated participant.penetration rates 1,168 1,179 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 41,421 41,619 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 38,054 38,252 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 30,867 30,775 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year, (H)*(K)= 161,358,042 157,031,389 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year (I)*(K)= 149,042,967 144,716,314 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year- (J)*(K)= 158,556,348 153,953,526 Total Budget $14,923,182. $14,809,005 16
I > Commercial & Industrial Segment Load Management Total I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S176 $176 $176 $176 T&D N/A 103 103 103 103 Marginal Energy N/A 9 9 9 9 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal N/A $288 $288 $288 S288 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A $38 $38 $38 $38 Subtotal N/A $38 $38 $38 $38 Revenue Reduction $122 N/A $122 so $0 Subtotal $122 N/A $122 so $0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $0 N/A N/A s0 s0 Incremental O&M 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Rebates 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Subtotal $0 N/A N/A S0 so Net Present Benefit (Cost) $122 $250 $128 $250 $250 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.498 $1.019 S0.521 51.019 $1.022 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $258 $529 $270 $529 $530 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 7.56 1.80 7.56 7.58 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 7 (B) Customer Rate G eneral Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.39% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 34 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 34 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l .(G))= 37 (I) Gross Customer kW 1 (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (1)*(1)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 44.38% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(1l(G))= 0.472
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.155
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $80.6 17
I> Commercial & Industrial Segment Load Management Total -1 Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource - Societal Test - Test Test .ITest -Test C11,11
.V TIDfrtV en-LOW 01111
.V / lVT 01 c IL t Zi 1f"
. .- 0c111U
.wV Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $182 $182 . 182 .182 T&D. N/A 107 107 107 107 Marginal Energy N/A 9 9' 9 9 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A I Subtotal N/A S298 S298 S298 S299 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A S45 $45 $45 $45 Subtotal N/A S45 $45 S45 $45 Revenue Reduction $123 N/A S123 So so Subtotal $123 N/A $123 so so Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $0 N/A N/A $0 $0 Incremental O&M 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Rebates, 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Subtotal $0 N/A N/A $0 $0 Net Present Benefit (Cost) S123 $253 S130 $253 $254 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.486 50.998 50.512 $0.998 S1.00 1 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $265 $543 $278 $543 $545 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 6.59 1.77 6.59 6.60 Project Assumptions:
(A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 7 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.39% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 34 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 34 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6% (H) Net kWhfYear Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l-(G))= 36 (I) Gross Customer kW I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 43.80% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(LY)(1-(G))= 0.466
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.179
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S97.2 18
Commercial & Industrial Segment Load Management Total 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 31.98 27.37 (B I) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100% 100% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B I)= 31.98 27.37 (D) Coincident factor 44.38% 43.80% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6% 6% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(1-E)= 15.10 12.75 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 34 34 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G)= 1,100 931 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100% 100%,'o (1)Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= 1,100 931 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (1)/(1-E)= 1,170 990 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 592 583 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 18,930 15,955 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 18,930 15,955 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 8,936 7,435 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)= 651,274 542.495 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (I)*(K)= 651,274 542,495 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 692,844 577,122 Total Budget S 720,311 S 722,557 19
C ( Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS-. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Company. Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: C&8Segment wl Indirect Participants Summary InformatIon Input Data Company. Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: . C&t Segment wt Indirect Particitl
- 1) Retail Rate (5/MCF) = 58.33 15) Utilily Project Costs (First Year)
Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = $304,224 Cost Summary Direct Operating Costs = S259,762
- 2) Commodity Cost ($/MCF) = $4.58 Incentive Costs = S472,420 Utility Cost per Participant (First Year) = $3,675.20 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Total Utility Project Costs = S1.036,408 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = $3,714.72
- 3) Demand Cost ($/UniUYr) = $93.88 15a) Utility Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) 7.152.930 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = S309.596 Societal Cost per MCF $0.94 Direct Operating Costs = $265,536
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor = 1.00% Incentive Costs = S472.420 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year) = $14.70 Total Utility Project Costs = S1,047.552 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year) = $14.74
- 5) Variable O&M ($SMCF) = S0.0761 Escalation Rate = 2.10% 16) Direct Participant Costs (S/Part.) = 8,510.0 0 6) Environmental Damage Factor = S0.3000 17) Other Participant Costs (Annual S/Part.) = 241.4 Escalation Rate = 2.17% Escalation Rate = 2.10%
7)Total Sales 78.428,047 18) Project Life (Years) = 15 Growth Rate= 0.60%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) 2.76% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers = 395.842 Growth Rate = 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/Part.) = 30.590.2 NPV B/C
- 9) Utility Discount Rate = 7.47% 21) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (First Year Program) = 845.5 Cost Comparison Test S12.343.797 1.84 21a) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (Second Year Program) = 845.5
- 10) Social Discount Rate = 4.72% Revenue Requirements Test $25.218,359 14.48
- 22) Number of Participants (First Year Program) 282
- 11) General Input Data Year 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program) = 282 Societal Beneflt Test $22,161,843 4.30
- 12) Project Analysis Year I - 2005 23) Inceniive/Participant (First Year Program) = $1,675 Participant Test S38.128.098 7.21 12a) Project Analysis Year 2 s 2006 23a) Incentive/Participant (Second Year Program) = $1,675
- 13) Effective Fed & State Income Tax Rate = 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Taxes 6.75%
as % Total Operating Income
Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS-- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Company: Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: C&I Segment Direct Participants & Costs Only Summary Information Input Data Company: Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: 1)Retail Rato (S/MCF) - $8.33 15) Utility Project Costs (First Year) Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = 5284,909 Cost Summarv Direct Operating Costs = S248,124
- 2) Commodity Cost ($/MCF) $4.58 Incentive Costs = $472,420 Utility Cost per Participant (First Year) = $3,629.79 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Total Utility Project Costs = 51,005,453 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = $3,666.36
- 3) Demand Cost (S/UniVYr) $93.86 15a) Utility Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) 7,266,502 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = S289.403 Societal Cost per MCF $0.92 Direct Operating Costs = $253.760
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor = 1.00% Incentive Costs = $472.420 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year) = $14.34 Total Utility Project Costs = $1,015,583 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year) = $14.38
- 5) Variable O&M ($/MCF) = 50.0761 Escalation Rate = 2.10% 16) Direct Participant Costs ($/Par.) = 8,663.66 t 6) Environmental Damage Factor =0.3000 17) Other Panicipant Costs (Annual S/Pat.): 245.77 Escalation Rate = 2.17% Escalation Rate = 2.10%
- 7) Total Sales = 78.428.047 18) Project Life (Years) = 15 Growth Rate = 0.60%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) = 2.81% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers = 395,842 Growth Rate = 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/Part.) = 31,148.52 NPV B/C
- 9) Utility Discount Rate 7.47% 21) Avg. MCF/Pan. Saved (First Year Program) = 874.43 Cost Comparison Test 512,625,981 1.85 21a) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (Second Year Program) = 874.43
- 10) Social Discount Rate 4.72% Revenue Requirements Test $25.704.961 15.16
- 22) Number of Participants (First Year Program) = 277
- 11) General Input Data Year 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program): 277 Societal Benefit Test $22,676,838 4.41
- 12) Project Analysis Year 1 = 2005 23) Incentive/Participant (First Year Program) = $1,705 Participant Test $38,816,466 7.33 12a) Project Analysis Year 2 2006 23a) Incentive/Participant (Second Year Program) = S1,705
- 13) Effective Fed & State Income Tax Rate 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Taxes 6.75%
as % Total Operating Income ( ( (
I> Commercial and Industrial Conservation A. Description
- 1. Boiler Efficiency The Boiler Efficiency program targets natural gas savings for commercial and industrial (C&I) customers who use natural gas or dual-fuel boilers for heating or process loads. The rebates are designed to promote the installation of high-efficiency boilers and boiler system auxiliaries that improve combustion and seasonal efficiency. The objective is to provide education and incentives that motivate customers to run boilers at optimum efficiency and offset incremental costs associated with the tune-up or modification of existing boiler systems.
- 1) Energy Efficient Boiler Systems Xcel Energy has standardized minimum efficiency levels that exceed those contained in the 1999 Minnesota State Energy Code and proposed standards established by ASHRAE 90.1 and the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP).
Rebates are based on the following:
- Incentives are weighted with respect to efficiency. The higher efficiency equipment purchased, the larger the incentive; and O Incentives are based on the whole "boiler system" which can include combinations of controls and features that increase the overall system combustion and/or seasonal efficiency.
Capacity 1Hot Water -Low Pressure High Pressure Rcbate Cap per
-(MB Boilers Steam Boiler Steam Boiler BoilerSystem
< 301 83%AFUE 83%AFJE 81.5%AFUE $750 301-1,000 83% 83% 81.5%- $2,500 1,001-10,000 83% 83% 81.5% $5,000
>10,001 83% 83% 81.5% $7,500 Rebate S400/MMBTUH SSO/MIMBTUH S300/M1MBTUH
+SISON/MMBTU +S230/NMBTUH x +S150/N1MBTUH x v H x (EFF-83) (EFF-83) (Eff- 81.5)
Notes: 1 -Boiler must use natural gas fuel as the primary fuel but can have dual fuel capability for backup. 2 -Efficiency based on either thermal or combustion efficiency (natural gas fuel) or efficiency determined from a combustion analyzer test (boiler systems with optional controls). 3 -IMBTUH is based on boiler input capacity. 4 -AFUE (Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency Rating).
- 2) Retrofit Controls. Heat Recovery and System Improvements The performance of a boiler system can be enhanced with controls, heat recovery systems and system efficiency improvements. Xcel Energy proposes to rebate the following: (Note: All rebates based on equipment cost.)
22
- u jI a) Boiler Tune-Ups: 25% up to $250
- Boiler Tune-Ups include:
- Adjusting draft control;
- Installing flue restrictions;
- Checking adequacy of the combustion
- Cleaning fire-side of the heat exchanger;
- Sealing the combustion chamber; and
- Uprate or derate the fuel input.
b) Boiler Efficiency Retrofits:
- Modular Burner Controls
- 5 to 1 Turndown Ratio Minimum 25% up to $2,500
- 10 to I Turndown Ratio or Greater 25% up to $5,000
- Turbulators 25% up to $400
- O2Trim Controls 20% up to $5,000
- Outdoor Air Reset Controls 25% up to $500
- Stack Dampers 25% up to $250 c) Boiler System Improvements:
- Steam Trap Replacement/Parts: 25 % up to $250/trap maximum of $10,000 Modifications:
Stack Economizers, blowdown heat recovery, self-contained radiator valves, and piping insulation are now being evaluated under the gas Custom Efficiency program. The variability in energy savings for these technologies requires them to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Based on three years of financial trends, the Company is extending from six months to one year the effective date for accepting invoices for Boiler efficiency improvements.
- 2. Compressed Air Efficiency The objective of the Compressed Air Efficiency program is to encourage customers to operate their compressed air systems as efficiently as possible. The focus of this program is a systems approach as well as an equipment approach. A leaky and/or inefficient system can waste thousands of dollars per year. This program offers funding for compressed air efficiency studies and incentives through the Custom Efficiency program for installing projects that offer energy savings over standard options.
Efficiencv Studies: This study is intended for customers with electric driven air compressors, with total capacity of at least 50 horsepower (hp) that operate at least 40 hours per week. The primary target market for this product is an industrial customer with over 500 kW of demand. However, we encourage all customers with at least 50 hp or greater to consider participating in a study. It is very important for customers to size their systems in relation to their specific production needs. 23
The study consists of utilizing an authorized Xcel Energy contractor to perform an efficiency study of the customer's compressed air system. Evaluation tasks involve establishing system baseline by measuring supply and demand, identifying and tagging leaks, and making system recommendations with-associated paybacks. Xcel Energy partially funds the study costs; dependent on compressor size: 50 to 74 hp - Xcel Energy pays 100% of study costs up to$2,000.
- 75 to 99 hp - Xcel Energy pays 100% of study costs up to' 2,500.
- 100 hp and greater - Xcel Energy pays up to 75 percent of study costs up to $15,000.
Preapproval is required and payment is contingent on the customer making repairs resulting in reducing estimated air-loss by a minimum of 50 percent. Compressed Air: Custom Efficiency incentives are available to offset the cost of energy-efficient equipment for the customer's compressed air system to improve the overall system operation. Each case is individually evaluated, and incentives are determined based on expected kW demand savings for the entire compressed air system. Customers who have 50 hp or greater can earn incentives of up to $200 per kW saved if they participate in a study. If customers choose not to participate in a study, they can earn incentives of up to $50 per kW saved. Customers with systems of less than 50 hp can qualify for Custom Efficiency incentives of up to $200 per kW saved. Modifications: None.
- 3. Cooling Efficiency The Cooling Efficiency program provides financial incentives for energy efficient electric cooling equipment The program offers incentives for most of the air conditioning technologies available to customers and encourages the highest practical efficiency in each category. Funding for cooling system replacement Engineering Assistance Studies is available. Xcel Energy funds up to 50 percent of the customer's study cost (not to exceed $15,000). Minimum cooling system efficiency requirements exceed the 1999 State Energy Code and increasingly reward higher efficiencies. The Cooling Efficiency program continues to offer chiller rebates on a full load orpart load value.'
The Cooling Efficiency program includes the following components:
- Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTAC).
- Water Source Heat Pumps
- Rooftop Units
- Split Systems
- Condensers
- Chillers 24
0 Oversized Cooling Towers Variable Air Volume (VAV) box. Cooling Efficiency requirements and incentives include: EER IPLV Base Incremental Rebate Equipment (Energy (Integrated Rebate (S/ton per 0.1 EER efficiency Part Load (S/ton) above base) ________ _R ating) V alue) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PI'.AC Units with Electric Resistance 9.20 $7.50 S1.25 with Heat PumpHeating 9.20 $7.50 S2.50 Water Source Heat Pumps 12.00w $10.00 $1.00 Rooftop Units
<65,000 Btuh 11.00 SEER $14.00 $4.00 65,000 X <135,000 10.30 10.60 $14.00 $4.00 135,000
- x < 240,000 9.70 9.90 $14.00 54.00 240,000 < x <760,000 9.50 9.70 514.00 S4.00 2 760,000 9.20 9.40 $14.00 S4.00 Split Systems SEER
<65,000 Btuh 13.0 - 13.4 $250 N/A 13.5 -13.9 $300
. 14.0 + $350 Condensing Units 65,000 5 X <135,000 10.30 $14.00 $4.00 2 135,000 10.10 514.00 54.00 Chillers (Full Load) Base Full Base Load Base rebate Incremental rebate, S/ton Load NPLV S/ton per 0.010 kWV/ ton-below kW/ton base
<150 tons (Screw and 0.650 N/A S20.00 $5.00 Centrifugal 2 150 tons(Screw and 0.600 N/A $20.00 55.00 Centrifugal)
Chillers (Part Load) 2 1;0 0.600 .560 517.50 S2.00 tons . Oversized Cooling Towers - $3/nominal tower ton VAV Boxes- $200/VAV box Rebates are available on a dollar per ton basis with an incremental rebate based on the dollar per ton per 0.1 EER above the base minimum efficiencies (for chillers, rebates are based on a dollar/ton per 0.01 kW/ton below base). TIie incentive calculation rewards customers who choose equipment that is more energy-efficient than the minimum requirements. Centrifugal chillers over 150 tons will qualify for rebates based on either the full or part load efficiency requirements. To qualify for rebates on part load efficiency, the chiller must also meet full load minimums. Air conditioning equipment, which is not covered under the Cooling Efficiency prescriptive rebate but which saves energy, will be evaluated under the Custom Efficiency program. This aspect of the program allows for the evaluation of innovative technology that can become the efficiency mainstays of the future. Technologies such as energy recovery ventilators, evaporative condensing systems 25
and air economizer retrofits are all projects that may be evaluated in the Custom Efficiency - Cooling program. Modifications: Cooling Efficiency proposes to raise rebate levels for rooftop units in all sizes by 40 percent to bring the program in line with market equipment cost increases. The program also proposes to match split systems under 65,000 btuh with the Residential Segment's Energy Star Central A/C program rebate levels to improve consistency within Xcel Energy's CIP. Despite continued marketing efforts, two years with no customer participation and no future prospects have caused Xcel Energy to discontinue the prescriptive Gas Cooling program. Any future projects will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through the Custom Efficiency - Gas prograni. Xcel Energy believes that the price volatility for natural gas is making it difficult for customers to choose this technology. However, Xcel Energy is committed to encouraging the most appropriate and economic system for its customers.
- 4. Custom Efficiency The Custom Efficiency program was designed to encourage customers to implement energy saving projects or process changes that are not covered by our prescriptive equipment programs. Since energy applications and building system complexity can vary greatly by customer type, this program addresses the unique needs of our customers and encourages them to develop and implement innovative, cost effective energy-efficient measures. To encourage implementation of efficiency measures, Xcel Eneigy uses a systems approach to provide customized incentives. The Company also helps customers quantify the greater non-energy related benefits of these applications by considering other items such as-maintenance and process improvements. Each application is reviewed for cost effectiveness before a Custom Efficiency incentive is offered.
This program encourages innovative energy conservation through the following features:
* "Custom" rebates based on expected savings up to 50 percent of incremental costs and up to $200 per kW saved or $2 per MCF saved.
- Engineering assistance to help -determine project viability, energy savings, and business case development. Xcel Energy pays up to 50 percent of the study cost (not to exceed $15,000).
The Custom Efficiency program is' primarily marketed by Xcel Energy account managers due to the "custom" aspect of the program. Customers may have difficulty conceptualizing which projects qualify or what information needs to be submitted for the analysis because of the broad nature of the program. The Custom Efficiency review process for custom incentives has three steps:
- 1. The customer submits an application for preapproval - The application must be submitted, and subsequently preapproved, prior to project/product 26
purchase or installation. The application form requests a description of the project, operating hours and estimated demand and energy savings.
- 2. Xcel Energy conducts an Engineering review of application - A professional engineer reviews the proposal with emphasis on the demand and energy savings of the proposed system relative to industry standards and the interactive energy effects of the system components. Projects must pass the Societal and Participant Tests, and to qualify for an incentive, the project must have a payback of 1 - 15 years.
- 3. Xcel Energy notifies the customer if the project qualifies for a rebate. Xcel Energy offers incentives of up to $200 per kW saved and up to $2 per MCF saved.
The Custom Efficiency process is used for conservation opportunities not covered by other programs. Custom Efficiency is available for, but not limited to, the following applications:
- Compressed air systems and components;
- Motors and motor systems;
- Lighting,
- Refrigeration systems and components;
- Cooling systems and components; and
- Custom - all other (heat recovery, humidification, welders, controls, etc.).
Xcel Energy's Custom Efficiency program offers incentives based on energy savings for new equipment purchases and process changes that exceed standard efficiency options. They tend to be unique to each customer's business. Xcel Energy uses six different ways to analyze conservation projects. The type of analysis used is matched with the conservation project circumstances to best reflect true energy savings. Following are descriptions for the Custom Efficiency calculation scenarios the Company employs:
- Option 1: Xcel Energy customer replaces old equipment with new more efficient equipment. Xcel Energy will offer an incentive to a customer if s/he replaces an old inefficient system with a new more efficient system. Production or output remains constant.
- Option 2: Xcel Energy customer purchases more efficient equipment than standard equipment for new construction or added production. Xcel Energy will offer a rebate to the customer if s/he buys the more efficient equipment instead of standard efficiency equipment. Production or output will increase accordingly.
- Option 3: Xcel Energy customer replaces more than one piece of old equipment with one new more efficient piece of equipment. Xcel Energy will offer a rebate for a customer to replace multiple old inefficient systems with one new more efficient system. Production or output remains constant.
27
- Option 4: Xcel Energy customer increases production with current old equipment by adding a second shift or adds production using new more efficient equipment. Xcel Energy will offer a rebate to the customer to buy a new more efficient system that can handle the increased production instead of adding a second shift to an old inefficient system. Production or output would double.
- Option 5: Xcel Energy customer adds standard efficiency production to an old inefficient existing line or replaces the old line with a new larger-standard efficiency line. Xcel Energy will offer a rebate for the customer to replace an old
'inefficient system with a new more efficient system. Rebates and energy savings will be given for the production or output levels of the original production level.
- Option 6: Xcel Energy customer adds standard efficiency production to an old inefficient existing line or replaces the old line with a new larger high efficiency line. Xcel Energy will offer a rebate for the customer to buy the most efficient equipment instead of standard efficiency equipment. Production or output will increase accordingly, and total energy and demand savings are considered on a case-by-case basis.
Influenced Savings The term "Influenced Savings" refers to projects for which Xcel Energy played a significant role in the customer's decision to implement an energy efficiency measure, and for which the customer participated in the normal Custom Efficiency project submission process, including a preapproval review, yet whose cost-effectiveness analysis, benefit-cost tests, or payback period failed. Effectively, these are projects that differ in one significant way from other projects - a rebate was not paid. For such projects, Xcel Energy denies the customer any rebate for their efficiency measure, but claims Influenced Savings in order to appropriately account in the Company's conservation results for the implementation of the higher energy efficiency technology and to recognize the often significant labor investment involved in the project. InJanuary 2004, the Commissioner approved Influenced Savings projects under the following guidelines:
- Preapproval analysis must be conducted prior to purchase and installation.
- Projects must pass the Participant and Societal tests. Xcel Energy understands that projects that fail the payback period of 1 - 15 years are eligible for Influenced Savings if they meet all other Influenced Savings guidelines herein.
- Projects 2 GWh and greater require separate Department of Commerce review. All other projects will be reviewed as part of the Status Report.
- Influenced Savings cannot account for more than 1% of Xcel Energy's annual CIP achievements.
- Documentation must be provided to show that Xcel Energy's involvement was an important factor that caused'the customer to implement the energy savings measures.
28
Xcel Energy respectfully requests that the Commissioner modify the Influenced Savings guidelines to permit:
- Influenced Savings claims of up to four percent of the Company's annual CIP achievements, and
- Consideration for energy savings credit for projects that stem from recommendations proposed in an Engineering Assistance Study.
The change from one to four percent would, based on the total CIP goals filed in the 2005/2006 Biennial, increase the cap on Influenced Savings projects to 7.483 generator GWh and 16,165 MCF in 2005 and 7.594 generator GWh and 16,165 MCF in 2006. The reasoning for the proposed changes is as follows:
- Prrapprovalanalysis- The Custom Efficiency preapproval analysis makes the customer aware of the energy savings option. The analysis results help the customer build the business case justification to select the more efficient option.
- Channelofdistribution - The Custom Efficiency program is primarily marketed by Xcel Energy account managers due to the "custom" aspect of the program. Customers may have difficulty conceptualizing which projects qualify or what information needs to be submitted for the analysis because of the broad nature of the program. Xcel Energy reviews over 1,100 projects per year. Of this number, only 350 or approximately 30% are approved and rebated.
Engineering Assistance Studies are one component of the Custom Efficiency program. Xcel Energy is requesting that the Commissioner allow Influenced Savings claims identified in our Engineering Assistance Studies are implemented within one year from the final payment of the study. The study-induced savings would fall within the Influenced Savings cap of four percent of our annual CIP achievements. All Influenced Savings project guidelines listed above would apply except the first guideline, which requires a preapproval analysis prior to purchase and installation. Xcel Energy recommends claiming credit for these projects because we believe it more accurately represents our involvement for the following reasons: Formal process - There is a formal process to preapprove Engineering Assistance Study funding levels and scope. The level of funding is based on estimated energy savings for the project.
- Study scope - The scope of the studies is focused on a particular end-use or process versus broad applications. Opportunities unique to the customer's operation would not be identified without the study.
- Recommendations - Customers are made aware of energy conservation opportunities from the studies recommendations. Many opportunities identified in the study are very cost effective with lucrative short payback periods and don't require additional incentives to encourage implementation.
29
Xcel Energy appreciates the Commissioner's consideration of the above two proposed modifications to the existing Influenced Savings guidelines within the Custom Efficiency program. Modifications: In the 2003/2004 biennium, the Custom Efficiency program offered a prescriptive gas rebate for thermostats, infrared heaters and hot water heaters. The incentive was for 15 percent of equipment costs up to $1,500 whichever was the lesser of the two. Xcel Energy is no longer offering prescriptive incentives for these end-uses due to cost effectiveness. Energy Management Systems (EMS) is a new Xcel Energy CIP business program that was launched in second quarter 2003. This program uses the current Custom Efficiency preapproval process to measure electric energy savings for adding control points to an existing system, or to install a new core system that controls multiple energy-using functions within a building (i.e. lighting, cooling, ventilation, etc.).
- 5. Distributed Generation Incentive Program The Distributed Generation (DG) Incentive Program was launched in May of 2004.
This program will provide funding to offset the costs of emerging DG technology. Xcel Energy electric and gas customers in Minnesota will be eligible to participate with system installations utilizing microturbines, fuel cells, Stirling engines, and other types of emerging technology continuous generation. Eligible systems will be designed for continuous operation (8760 hrs/yr), and have
-higher efficiency with lower emissions as compared to coal-fired generation. A higher level of funding ($/kW) will be available for Combined Heat & Power (CHP),
Combined Cooling Heating & Power (CCHP) systems, and systems using methane-rich biogas as fuel. The following rebate structure has been established for the incentive program:
. ... ..a . .Maximum EligibleEliibe Fel oFure Minimum System System m amu Maximu .% of Incentive Technologies Source Efficiency-- System Project Level Efficency Costs ______
Level I Microturbines, fuel Bio-gas 25% 250 kW 35% $l,250/kW cells, Stirling engines; no CHP. . .- .: .___. Level 2 Level I technologies Natural 65% 250 kW 30% $1,000/kW _ith CHP or CCHP Gas .. Level 3 Level 1 technologies Bio-gas 65% 230 kW 40% $1,500/AW
._._._. ,ithCHP or CCHP . . - . .___.-__
These rebate structures are based on' customer type (electric, gas, 'or both), efficiency
- of the system and fuel used. The rebate amount will increase as system efficiency
'increases in order to promote installation of higher efficiency'systems Rebate
- awards will have a $/kW or percent of equipment cost maximum amount. The lower of the amounts will be awarded to provide rebates to'vanous projects with the 30
-U I limited funding available for the DG incentives. Simple payback for qualifying distributed generation systems will be no less than two years and no greater than fifteen.
In 2006, the DG Incentive Program will be evaluated to determine if the program should be converted to direct impact for 2007/2008 biennium. Modifications: None
- 6. Energy Analysis The goal of this indirect impact program is to provide a low-cost way for commercial and industrial (C&I) customers to learn how their businesses use energy today and to identify measures that will help them save energy and reduce operating costs in the future. This service focuses on a customer's core energy efficiency opportunities.
Participants in the analyses receive a report they can use as a basis for prioritizing and making energy decisions. Xcel Energy targets customers who will be motivated to take action and implement the energy conservation measures that are suggested.
- a. Online Energy Assessment - provides basic technical and economic assessment information per regional averages and information input by the customer into the tool. This free tool is available for customer use at:
wwvw,.xcelenerg.com. The tool will help customers identify energy saving strategies that they can implement at their business.
- b. On-site Energy Assessment - provides technical and economic assessment information per an on-site audit performed by one of Xcel Energy's contracted auditors. This full facility audit includes an energy end-use profile and rate analysis. The audit also identifies and helps prioritize energy saving projects.
The assessment price paid by the customer is $200 for buildings less than 25,000 square feet or $300 for buildings equal to or greater than 25,000 square feet. If a customer has both Xcel Energy electric and natural gas service, the assessment is counted as two participants (one electric participant and one gas participant) since the assessment analyzes both services. Modifications: Engineering Assistance Studies are now located within the end-use programs (Custom Efficiency, Refrigeration Efficiency, Cooling Efficiency).
- 7. Energy Design Assistance For new construction and major renovations, Energy Design Assistance (EDA) influences building owners, architects, and engineers to include energy-efficient systems and equipment in their designs and actual construction. Participants benefit from professional energy consulting and comprehensive, whole-building energy analysis to provide information on costs, savings and payback to aid in decision-making. Xcel Energy also provides financial incentives to building owners for implementing energy-efficient system strategies in the new space, as well as compensation to customers' architects and engineers for any additional program 31
efforts. With 2005 starting the 13t' year of this program as part of Xcel Energy's CIP offering, over 200 architects and engineers have participated in the program and many are now repeat Energy Design Assistance participants. Goals for the Energy Design Assistance program have been set lower than prior years due to potential Minnesota State Energy Code revisions. Potential Minnesota State Energy Code revisions include increases in rninimum efficiencies and new equipment standards. These changes will directly impact the EDA program by potentially lowering the amount of energy savings credit achieved, particularly in areas such as cooling efficiency. The possible decrease in EDA savings has been estimated at 34 percent. EDA projects that will be verified in 2005 began design and construction in 2003 or 2004. These projects will be completed under the current Energy Code. Therefore, the EDA goal is higher in 2005 than in 2006. Depending on when the new Energy Code is made effective, 2006 may represent the completion and verification of more projects being calculated at the new Energy Code levels. The Company has assumed
- that the code will become effective in 2006.
Another reason for lower targets is the construction trend toward smaller buildings and building types that tend to have less energy saving potential. The year 2003 saw a record setting numberof project starts in the Energy Design Assistance program, but the lowest average square footage per project. This construction trend will impact 2005 and 2006 program results. The Energy Design Assistance program consists of two levels of service: Custom Consulting and Plan Review. Custom Consulting: Custom Consulting provides customers and their architects and engineers with custom information for their building on the savings, costs and paybacks of energy efficient options. This well-executed service provides information for a design team to make informed tradeoff decisions between costs, savings and technologies. Energy Design Assistance offers a system model of anticipated energy performance with hourly, whole-building computer simulations (utilizing the Department of Energy's DOE2e modeling system). Multiple combinations of different energy system strategies are modeled independently, providing the design team with a choice of solutions. Custom Consulting focuses on modeling various building systems (HVAC, lighting, window glazing, controls) to determine their interactive effects on energy use and summer peak kW savings.- Custom Consulting provides financial incentives to the building owner for implementing the comprehensive energy conservation strategies and also includes measurement and verification processes to ensure that the selected strategies are installed and operating as intended. The target market for Custom Consulting includes projects in new construction and major renovations of existing buildings over 50,000 square feet that are early in the 32
design process. Projects too far along in the design process to incorporate potential energy savings are referred Xcel Energy's individual technology programs. Electric rebates to building owners range from $170 to S273 per kW saved based on the percent of peak kW saved. The baseline for these rebate calculations is the estimated peak kW the building would have used if built to simply comply with the Minnesota State Energy Code. In Xcel Energy's natural gas service territory, natural gas incentives are provided at $2.00 per MMBTU saved. Customers are also provided the design assistance, verification, and validation services that are part of Custom Consulting Modifications: None. Plan Review: Plan Review offers a streamlined program for cost-effective delivery to smaller new construction/major renovation projects 15,000 to 50,000 square feet. Like Custom Consulting, Plan Review makes recommendations for energy-efficient upgrades and promotes their adoption during the design phase of new construction projects. Differing from a Custom Consulting energy model, a Plan Review professional engineer reviews Construction Documents for a customer's project. The program focuses on energy conservation measures for the following: heating and cooling strategies, lighting, building envelope insulation, windows, controls, and discount rate programs. Incentives to buildin,: owners are $170 to 5200 per peak kW saved and S2.00 per MMBTLJ saved in Xcel Energy's natural gas service territory. Plan Review is also provided free of charge to customers. Modifications: A Plan Review analysis conducted in late 2003 proved that Xcel Energy could cost-effectively reduce the minimum qualifying square footage from 25,000 to 15,000. The modification, which broadens the potential market for this product, was effective January 2004.
- 8. Financing Financing is used as a tool to help promote and sell Xcel Energy's electric and natural gas conservation products and services. Financing helps customers pay for the costs of purchasing and installing energy-efficient equipment that qualifies for our electric and natural gas conservation programs. Loans are reviewed and generated through a third-party bank. Customers pay their loan installments via their Xcel Energy bill. This program offers customers competitive financing rates, and the potential energy savings are used to help offset loan payments. Minimum loan is
$1,000. Maximum term is 60 months. The customer uses their incentive/rebate/study funding to buy down the loan amount or interest rate.
Modifications: Xcel Energy introduced a new subsidized rate option for customers. If the customer chooses the subsidized rate, they are authorizing Xcel Energy to use their rebate dollars to buy down the interest rate from the bank. The subsidized rate is 33
customized for each loan and could get as low as zero percent. The customer still has the option to choose the standard bank market rate and use their rebate to buy down the loan amount.
- 9. Lighting Efficiency Xcel Energy offers rebates to customers who purchase and install qualifying energy-efficient lighting products in existing and new construction buildings.
The target market consists of customers with inefficient lighting in their buildings and customers who are constructing -newbuildings. Lighting continues to have one of the largest impact contributions to the business segments however, as the market continues to approach saturation, sales efforts become much more individualized in an effort to reach the remaining customers who have not retrofitted their entire facilities. Marketing efforts have continued to introduce new lighting technologies to the Lighting Efficiency program in order to encourage customers to adopt increased efficiency lighting. 34
I Xcel Energy Lighting Rebate Schedule: Retrofit New Construction Rebates Technology er unit (per unit) Fluorescentlamps with electronic ballasts T8 & T8 high output (HO) 55.00-510.00 S1.00-S1.75 Super T8 $11.00- $2.25-54.50
$20.00 T5 S10.00- $2.00-52.50
$16.00 Reflectors S0.50/sq ft N/A High-bay fluoresentfixtures zvith electronic ballasts 6 or 8-lamp high-bay T8 S75.00 $12.00*
4-lamp high-bay T5 HO $75.00* $12.00* HardwiredCompactJluorescent S8.00-S24.00 $3.00-$8.00 fixtures Industrialmulti-CFL fxtures S25.00 N/A High intensioy discharefixtures _ _ _____ High pressure sodium and $17.00- $6.00 metal halide- S45.00 _ Pulse start metal halide S25.00- $6.00-518.00 S65.00 Controls Occupancy sensors $12.00- N/A
$36.00 Photocells $12.00 N/A .LED _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
LED exit signs and retrofit $6.00 N/A kits LED traffic signals (red and $15.00- N/A green balls and red arrows) $65.00 LED pedestrian signals $25.00- N/A S40.00
- New product offering Modifications:
In 2003, multi-lamp fluorescent fixtures and LED red traffic arrows were approved for retrofit rebates. In 2004, Super T8 Fluorescent Systems were approved for retrofit and new construction rebates. These new products are listed in the chart above. Xcel Energy respectfully requests approval to add the following new products to the Lighting Rebate Schedule:
- Multi-lamp fluorescent fixtures (6 or 8-larmp high-bay T8 fixture) - New Construction 35
- High-bay T5 high output fluorescent lamps with electronic ballasts - Retrofit and New Construction Technical information and cost benefit analysis have been provided in attachments to this segment.
After review of the cost benefit and assumption information for each technology, Xcel Energy determined that the following equipment rebates should be removed or lowered: 2003/2004 Rebate 2005/2006 Rebate Equipment Retrofit New Retrofit New Construction Construction Fluorescent T8 fixture 4' $9.00 $1.75 $5.00 $1.00 or less 1 & 2 lamp Fluorescent T8 fixture'4' $15.00 S2.25 $10.00 $1.15 or less 3 & 4 lamp Screw-in CFL <18W $4.00 $1.00 N/A N/A Screw-in CFL 19W- $9.00 $1.75 N/A N/A 32W - Screw-in CFL >33W' $12.00 $1.75 - N/A N/A Hardwired CFL <18W $4.00 $1.00 8.00
' $3.00 Hardwired CFL 19W- $9.00 $1.75 $18.00 $5.00 32W Hardwired CFL 33W to $12.00 $1.75 $24.00 $8.00 56W _
Industrial multi-CFL $8.00 N/A fixtures - -_- Metal halide and high $28.00 S6.00 $28.00 N/A pressure sodium 151W-250W Metal halide and high $45.00 - $10.00 $45.00 N/A pressure sodium >251W Metal halide and high $30.00- N/A pressure sodium (all * $65.00 wattage ranges) with 2- - level automatic switching. '_;_ Pulse start metal halide $35.00- N/A (all wattage ranges) with $85.00-2-level automatic switching . . . New construction auto $1.25-$15.00 N/A controls on all equipment ' Lastly, the New Construction Lighting program currently takes demand savings of 0.3-watts/square foot of lighted area. We determined it would be more accurate to take credit by the equipment being installed, similar to how we do with Retrofits. 36
The revised New Construction methodology determines a savings level for a given type of fixture by comparing its energy use to the less costly, lower efficiency standard option.
- 10. Motor Efficiency The Motor Efficiency program provides customer rebates to support the installation of premium efficient motors and energy-efficient adjustable speed drives (ASDs) in existing and new construction facilities.
Premium efficiency motors are designed to reduce internal loss, generate less heat, and outlast standard energy efficient equipment. By installing NEMA PremiumTM efficiency motors, customers can reduce downtime, maintenance and labor costs, as well as increase the quality of output. Installing ASDs can increase a customer's overall machine operating efficiency while saving energy and reducing maintenance costs. ASDs to lower costs by extending the productive life of a motor as a result of reduced stresses and fewer revolutions. Motor Efficiency offers the following rebates for installing premium efficiency motors and/or ASDs: Description Horsepower (hp) Rebate Amount Plan A: New NEMIA 1 hp. - 200 hp $5/hp PremiumTM motor application (due to new equipment installation or burnout) Plan B: Upgrading an existing 1 hp - 200 hp $16.50/hp operating motor to a NEMA Premium efficiency motor ASDs 1 hp - 200 hp $30/hp Custom motor or ASD N/A* Individually determined applications under the Custom Efficiency program
*Custom motor eraluation may include, but axr not lmited to: motors andASDs over 200 hp; replacement of oversized motor: with propery sized motor:; orimplementing overallproce:s improvement resulting in eneSrand demandsatingsdue to new motors.-
Prescriptive motor rebates cover motors from one horsepower to 200 horsepower when they meet or exceed the NEMA Premium efficiency standards and offer the following features:
- AC polyphase induction motor;
- Squirrel cage rotor design;
- National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMIA) design B torque characteristic; and
- Synchronous speeds of 3600, 1800, or 1200 RPM.
37
Prescriptive ASD rebates cover ASDs from one horsepower to 200 horsepower when they:
- Operate at least 4,000 hours per year;
- Run at two or more operating points less than 55 percent loaded, 75 percent of the time;.
- Are tied to an automated control system;
- Are installed on qualifying applications; and
- Have a true power factor of 0.90 and above.
Modifications: On May 1, 2003 it was determined that ASDs over 200 hp should be evaluated through the Custom Efficiency program. The change provides consistency between the motor and ASD rebate offerings and allows for more accurate energy saving calculations for large horsepower ASDs. NEMA Premium'TmMotor Efficiency Standards Open Drip-Proof Totally Enclosed Fan-Cooled (ODP) (TEFC) HP 1200 1800 3600 1200 1800 3600 RPM RPM RPM RPM RPM RPM 1 82.5 85.5 77.0 82.5 85.5 77.0 1.5 86.5 86.5 84.0 87.5 86.5 84.0 2 87.5 86.5 85.5 88.5 86.5 .85.5 3 88.5 89.5 85.5 89.5 89.5 86.5 5 89.5 89.5 86.5 89.5 89.5 88.5 7.5 90.2 91.0 88.5 91.0 91.7 89.5 10 91.7 91.7. - 89.5 91.0 91.7 90.2 15 91.7 93.0 90.2 91.7 92.4 91.0 20 92.4 93.0 91.0 91.7 93.0 91.0 25 93.0 93.6 91.7 93.0 93.6 91.7
.30 93.6 94.1 91.7 . 93.0 93.6 91.7 40 94.1 94.1 92.4 94.1 94.1 92.4 50 94.1 94.5 .93.0 94.1 94.5- 93.0 60 94.5 95.0 93.6 94.5 95.0 93.6 75 94.5 95.0 . 93.6 94.5 - 95.4 93.6 100 95.0 95.4: 93.6 95.0 95.4 94.1 125 95.0 95.4 94.1 95.0 95.4 95.0 150 95.4 95.8 94.1 95.8 95.8 95.0 200 95.4 95.8 95.0 95.8 96.2 95.4
- Nomnal FullLoad Efdfaenade
- 11. Recommissioning -
The Recommissioning program, formerly named Building Recommissioning, is designed to assist Xcel Energy's electric and/or natural gas commercial and industrial customers improve the efficiency of existing buildings' operating systems. The program supports the investigation and implementation plan to improve the existing 38
--___ u-l building's operation and maintenance with the combined goal of reducing energy use, obtaining energy cost savings for customers and reducing peak electric demand for Xcel Energy.
Recommissioning entails the systematic investigation of building equipment system operations for comparison to intended or design operation by focusing on the existing building's HVAC and building controls. Recommissioning is intended to C"tune-up" existing functional systems to run as efficiently as possible through low or no cost improvements and is not intended for diagnosis of retrofit opportunities. Xcel Energy offers rebates for recommissioning studies and/or implementing recommissioning measures. Recommissioning study incentives: Xcel Energy funds up to 50 percent of the customer's Recommissioning study cost (up to S15,000). Implementation incentives:
- Customers can qualify for up to $200 per kW and up to S2.00 per MCF saved for implementing recommissioning measures.
- If a customer chooses not to use our study funding and commissions a study on their own, they still can qualify for implementation incentives as long as the study meets our criteria.
- Customers may receive implementation rebates for measures with paybacks between 1 and 15 years. If we have already provided the customer a study rebate, we will take credit for implemented measures with less than a one-year or greater than a 15-year payback. Xcel Energy believes that because we have co-funded the study to find the savings measures, we do not need to provide an additional rebate for measures that fail the payback period. Without having completed the study, the customer most likely was not aware of the opportunity to save energy.
- Measures that save kWh only are converted to "implied kW" savings by dividing kWh by 8760 (the average operating hours per year). Xcel Energy will then give an incentive of up to $200 per kW based on the calculated kW savings.
- As directed by the Department of Commerce in 2003 regarding secondary credit for the Custom Efficiency Program, Recomnuissioning will offer rebates and take credit for measures that have secondary benefits in addition to on-site energy benefits. These secondary benefits could include purchased chilled water, city water, et al. The electricity 'embedded' in these secondary benefits will be added to the on-site reductions.
Modifications: Customers who complete a study will be counted towards the Company's participant goal. In prior years, Xcel Energy only counted customers who implemented recommissioning measures. This modification improves our ability to track all customers influenced by Xcel Energy CIP programs. 39
- 12. Refrigeration Efficiency The Refrigeration Efficiency program influences customers to choose more energy efficient refrigeration equipment and associated operations by providing rebates. By using the Custom Efficiency pre-approval process and cost benefit model, the Refrigeration program has strengthened its presence in specialized markets with unique refrigeration needs. To encourage evaluation and improvement of refrigeration systems Xcel Energy funds up to-50 percent of engineering study costs up to $15,000.
Refrigeration Efficiency applications include both chlorofluoro carbon (CFC)-based and ammonia-based refrigeration systems such as those used in refrigerated warehouses, food processing plants or ice arenas. Refrigeration systems can represent 30 to 70 percent of the energy used in these facilities. A systems approach examines proposed energy saving strategies by modeling the interactive energy effects of the refrigeration system components. Each application is reviewed individually through the Custom Efficiency process, and rebates are based on the energy savings and demand reductions. Modifications: None.
- 13. Roofing Efficiency The Roofing Efficiency program is designed to encourage business customers to install Energy Star approved roofing materials that will improve the efficiency of their facility by deflecting solar heat gain through their roof. This program uses the current Custom Efficiency preapproval process to measure electric energy savings and offers incentives up to $200 per kW saved.
The target market for the program is customers whose existing roofs have little insulation and low reflectivity. To qualify for a Roofing Efficiency rebate the customer's facility must be air conditioned and have an economizer on the air conditioning system. Modifications: Per the Roofing Reflectants Evaluation filed on January 15, 2004, Xcel Energy added the requirement that all Roofing Efficiency projects must have an economizer on the air conditioning system. B. Project Information Sheet Project Information Sheets are provided at the end of this section. C. Effect on Peak Demand and Energy Consumption & List of Assumptions for each Technology All services in the Energy Analysis program are indirect impact, having no measurable conservation. Xcel Energy uses this program to encourage overall energy conservation and to direct customers into other specific end-use products that result in direct demand and energy reductions. 40
.u- l All services in the Financing Program are indirect impact, having no direct measurable conservation impact. Xcel Energy uses this program to encourage overall energy conservation and to direct customers into other specific end-use products that result in direct demand and energy reduction savings.
Effects on peak demand and energy consumption are provided in the Project Information Sheets and Benefit/Cost Analyses located at the end of this segment. Technology assumptions are also provided at the end of this segment. D. Relationship of Program to Resource Plan As part of Xcel Energy's Conservation Improvement Program, this program will support attainment of Xcel Energy's Resource Plan DSMI goals. Not applicable to natural gas utilities. E. Cost Effectiveness See Project Information Sheet. F. Estimated Low-Income and Renter Participation See Project Information Sheet. G. Budget See Project Information Sheet. H. Ratemaking Treatment & Cost-Recovery Method The ratemaking and cost-recovery procedures for this CIP follow those approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in Docket Nos. E002/GR-92-1185, G002/GR-97-1606, and E,G-999/CI-98-1759. I. Participation See Project Information Sheet. J. Involvement of Community Energy Organizations Providers of these services are selected through a bidding process. Local energy firms provide the majority of the activity. Community-based energy experts perform many of the energy analysis necessary to deliver C&I programs to customers. For Energy Design Assistance Custom Consulting, the design assistance is performed by The Weidt Group, and the measurement and verification are performed by Herzog/Wheeler & Associates. For Energy Design Assistance Plan Review, three qualified engineers are picked in an RFP process to provide these services. For Recommissioning, local engineering firms and recommissioning providers may perform studies for their customers. K Evaluation Plan All products will continue to be evaluated through the product management process of tracking the market: interacting with manufacturers, vendors, and customers, and reviewing the effects of promotion and other market activities. 41
All buildings participating in Energy Design Assistance will be subject to verification upon project completion. A consultant or representative of Xcel Energy will perform a site validation before an incentive check is issued to the building owner. Xcel Energy will conduct an assessment to evaluate the market, process and/or impact of the following programs:
> Boiler Efficiency.
> -Lighting Efficiency
> Motor Efficiency
> Large C&I Peak Control Program L. Renewable Energy Information See Distributed Generation Incentive Program M. Additional Information N/A 42
- U-Xcel Energy Commercial & Industrial Boiler Efficiency Project Information Sheet 2005 Budoet 2006 Budget Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total Cost Com ponents Proect Delivery $111.606 $111.606 $114.504 $114.504 Utilty Administration S47.281 547.281 S48.699 S48,699 Other Proect Administration 520.043 520.043 $20.043 520.043 Advertisinat Promotion S61.070 S61.070 $61 .312 S61 .312 Evaluation Labor & Expenses SO SO _ __ s so Incentives $260.000 $260.000 5$260.000 $260.000 Revenue so S0 __ _ _ _ _SO _ SO Total Budget So $500,000 $500 000 SO $504,558 $504,558 Total Number of Participants 233 233 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) _
Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) Total Demand Savings Generator (kW)t Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) 150.984 150.984 Project Type Percentage Expenditure Commercial & Industrial 1000°_ __ _ _ _ _ _ 1 0 0%_ _ _ _ _ Small Business Consumer Low Income Other Low-Income Participation (%) N/A Parti pants (_ _ NIA Budcet (S) Renter Participation % N/A __ _____ _ v N/ T__ _ _ _ _ _ Paiticipants (#) Budoet (S) Societal BIC Results Net Present Value S16.332.293 S516.332.293 B/C Ratio 9.36 9.36 Participant B/C Results Net Present Value S26.312.022 $26.312.022 B/C Ratio 17.02 17.02 Rate Impact B/C Results Net Present Value S8.099.500 , $8.099.500 B/C Ratio 1.89 1.89 Revenue Requirements B/C Results Net Present Value S16.252.185 516.252.185 B/C Ratio 19 02 19.02 Project Type Audit/info R&D Renewable Direct Impact X Type of Incentive Loan/Grant Rebate X Direct Installation End-Use Target 1%i Lighting 0%_6 _ _ __ __ _ _ _0 % _ _ _ _ _ Process 0% __ __ _ _ ~0% _ _ _ Motor 0% __ __ _ _ ~0% _ _ _ Refngeration o0% _ ___ __ __ __ _ _ _0 % _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Space Cooling 0% _ ___ __ __ _ _ _ _0 % _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Space Heatn_ 100%A _ __ __ __ _ _ _ 10 0% _ _ _ _ _ Water Heat ng 0% 0%_ _ _ _ _ _ Weatheenzabon 0% __ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _0 % _ _ _ _ _ _ _ General/Other 0% __ __ _ _ ~0% _ _ _ Ratemaking treatment: expensed X ,_ x 43
C C I : I Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Company. Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: C&l Boller Efficiency Summary Information
.~~~~~~~ . ..............
.I input Data Company:
Project: Xcel Energy (Natural Gas)
- 1) Retail Rate ($SMCF) = ; : $8.33 15) Utility Project Costs (First Year) C&l Boller Efficiency Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = $100,000 Cost Summary Direct Operating Costs = $140,000
- 2) Commodity Cost ($SMCF) = $4.58 Incentive Costs = $260,000 Utility Cost per Participant (First Year) = $2.145.92 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Total Utility Project Costs = $500,000 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = $2,165.48
- 3) Demand Cost ($/UnitlYr) = $93.88 15a) Utility Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) 4,529.520 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = $100,000 Societal Cost per MCF $0.43 Direct Operating Costs = $144,558
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor = 1.00%, Incentive Costs = $260,000 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year) = $8.91 Total Utility Project Costs = $504,558 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year) = $8.94
- 5) Variable O&M ($/MCF) = _0.0781 Escalation Rate = 2.10% ^ 16) Direct Participant Costs (S/Part.) = $3,630.00
- 6) Environmental Damage Factor' =0.3000 17) Other Participant Costs (Annuai S/Part.) = $0.00 ,
Escalation Rate = 2.17% Escalation Rate = 2.10%
- 7) Total Sales 78,428.047 l 18) Project Life (Years) = 15 Growth Rate = 0.60%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) 1.85% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers = 395,842 Growth Rate = 2.20%; 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/Part.) = 35,027.03 NPV.- BIC
- 9) utility Discount Rate 7.47% 21) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (First Year Program) 648.00 Cost Comparison Test $8,099,500 1.89 21a) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (Second Year Program) =
- 648.00
- 10) Social Discount Rate = ;* 4.72% Revenue Requirements Test $16,252.185 19.02
- 22) Number of Participants (First Year Program) 233
- 11) General Input Dala Year = 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program)= 233 Societal Benefit Test $16,332,293 9.36
- 12) Project Analysts Year 1 2005 23) IncentiverPartIcipant (First Year Program) $1,116 Participant Test $26,312,022 17.02 12a) Project Analysis Year 2= 2006 23a) Incentive/Participant (Second Year Program)= $1,116 ,
- 13) Effective Fed & State income 1rax Rate = 41.37%
- I'
- 14) Nei Operating Income Before' raxes 8.75%
as % Total Operating Income
. I .
Xcel Energy Commercial & Industrial Compressed Air Efficiency Project Information Sheet
'-.00.de A
Electric I Gas I Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components _ Project Delivery 93438 S93.438 596,241 S96,241 Utility Administration S43 799 S43,799 $45,113 S45_113 Other Proiect Administration $7.300 S7,300 S7,300 S7,300 AdvertisingtPromotion S22.260 S22,260 $22.523 S22,523 Evaluations 50 S0 SO __ _ _ _ _ $0 S0 S0 $0 so R&D incentives (Rebates) S402$018 S402,018 S402,018- S402.018 Other S0 s0 SO . SO Less Revenues $0 S0 so _ _ _ _ _ _so Total Budget S568,815 So 5568S515 S573.195 S0 S573.195 !Total Number of Participants 69 _ 69 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) _11.026822 11,026,822 Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 10_365_213 10,365.213 Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 1.680 1.680 Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) I Prolect Type Percentage Expenditure Commercial & Industrial 100% 100%°/ Small Business Consumer Low-Income I Dther Low-income Parttilpao on (%/)) NUA NIA Participants (#) Budget (S) Renter Participation ()NIA N/A I Parlicipants(# 3udaet (S) Societal BIC Results Net Present Value BIC Ratio S2.420 4.16 _ 52.485 4.24 I Participant B/C Results Net Present Value S2.390 8/C Ratio 6.44 6.44 Rate Impact BIC Results Net Present Value (S235) r ($176) B/C Ratio 0.93 0.94 Revenue Requirements BIC Results _ Net Present Value 52 594 S2,652 B/C Ratio 8.94 9.06 Prolect Type Audit/Info X R&D x X_ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ Renewable Direct Impact X Type of Incentive _ LoantGrant Rebate X Direct Installation End-Use Target (N) Lighting 0% 0% Process 85% 85% Motor 0% 0% Refrigeration 0% 0% _ Space Cooling 0% 0% Space Heating 0% 0% Water Heating 0% . 0% Weatherization 0% 0% GeneralOther 15% _ 15% Ratemaking treatment: expensed X x 45
I Commercial & Industrial Segment Compressed Air Efficiency I ) Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW SlkW S/kW S/kW SlkW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S753 $753 $753 S753 T&D N/A 460 460 460 460 Marginal Energy N/A 1,707 1,707 1,707 1,707. Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 265: Z1.113011 - N/A NZ,~z I 5ZL,YZI 2)L,VLI . - Z3,160
.Xcel Energys Project Costs N/A S327 S327 S327 $327 Subtotal N/A $327 $327 $327 $327 Revenue Reduction S2,829 N/A S2,829 So So Subtotal $2,829 N/A S2,829 S0 S0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $1,053 -. N/A N/A S1,053 51,053 Incremental O&M (383) N/A N/A (383) (383)
Rebates (231) N/A N/A (231) (231) Subtotal S439 N/A N/A S439 S439 Net Present Benefit (Cost) $2,390 $2,594 (S235) S2,155 $2,420 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime -S0.022 S0.024 (SO.002) S0.020 $0.022 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $2,478 $2,690 (S243) S2,235 $2,510 Benefit Cost Ratio -- 6.44 -8.94 --0.93 - 3.81 4.16 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 17 : Customer Rate General Service (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 67.92% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= 5,950 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0%0/ - (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 5,950 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0%/o Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)/(l.(E))= 6,330 (F) Gross Customer kW 1, (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% I (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= I 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 90.65% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)I(I-(E))= 0.964
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.003
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen 5338.6 46
U I > Commercial & Industrial Segment Compressed Air Efficiency -- 1 Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S772 S772 S772 $772 T&D N/A 461 461 461 461 Marginal Energy N/A 1,748 1,748 1,748 1,748 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A NIA 272 Subtotal N/A S2,981 $2,981 $2,981 53,253 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A S329 S329 S329 $329 Subtotal N/A S329 $329 S329 $329 Revenue Reduction 52,829 N/A $2,829 so so Subtotal $2,829 N/A S2,829 so so Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $1,053 N/A N/A $1,053 S 1,053 Incremental O&M (383) N/A N/A (383) (383) Rebates (231) N/A N/A (231) (231) Subtotal $439 N/A N/A S439 $439 Net Present Benefit (Cost) $2,390 S2,652 ($176) $2,213 S2,485 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime 50.022 S0.024 (S0.002) SO.020 SO.023 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S2,478 S2,750 ($183) S2,295 $2,577 Benefit Cost Ratio 6.44 9.06 0.94 3.88 4.24 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 17 Customer Rate General Service (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 67.92% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A) *(8760)= 5,950 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 5,950 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)/(l-(E))= 6,330 (F) Gross Customer kW I (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 90.65% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)/(I -(E))= 0.964
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime SO.003
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S341.2 47
j Commercial & Industrial Segment Compressed Air Efficiency 2005 2006-(A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 25.25 25.25 (B 1) Free DriverlFree Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B1)= -25.25 25.25 (D) Coincident factor 90.6% 90.6% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% 6.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(1-E)= 24.35 24.35 (G) Gross kWhYear saved per Customer kW .5,950 5,950 ; (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G)= 150,220 150,220 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% :100.0% (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= 150,220 150,220 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (1)/(1-E)= 159,809 159,809 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates - 69 -69 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 1,742 1,742 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 1,742 1,742 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= . . 1,680 1,680 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year. (H)*(K)= 10,365,213 *-10,365,213 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (I)*(K)= 10,365,213 -10,365,213 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 11,026,822 11,026,822 Total Budget $ 568,815 $ 573,195 48
u-U- Xcel Energy Commercial & Industrial Cooling Efficiency Project Information Sheet _ 2005 Budget , _ . . 2006 Budget Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components Proiect Delivery S127.854
- S127.854 S129,890 $129,890 Utility Administration $53.856 S53,856 $55,471 $55,471 Other Proiect Administration $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 S30.000 Advertising/Promotion S178,070 S178,070 S178,312 $178.312 Evaluations So So S0 SO R&D so S0 So So Incentives (Rebates) $839.654 5839.654 S839.654 S839.654 Other So So $0 $0 Less Revenues $0 $0 Total Budget $S1229434 so S1 229 434 S1,233327 $0 S1.233,327 Total Number of Participants 70 70 _
Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) 5,338.750 5.338,750 Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 5.018.425' 5.018,425 Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 2.849 2.849 Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Project Type Percentage Expenditure Commercial & Industrial 100% 100% Small Business . Consumer Low Income Other Low-Income Participation (%) N/A NIA Participants (#) Budget (S) _ Renter Participation (%) N/A N/A Participants (#l Budget ($) Societal B/C Results Net Present Value S1 185 S1,229 B/C Ratio 2.80 2.87 Participant B/C Results Net Present Value S756 S772 _ BIC Ratio 3.45 3.50 Rate Impact BIC Results Net Present Value S353 $379 B/C Ratio 1.25 1.26 Revenue Requirements B/C Results Net Present Value 51 417 S1.459 _ _ BIC Ratio 5.06 5.17 Project Type Audit/Info R&D _ _______ ______ Renewable Direct Impact X Type of Incentive Loan/Grant Rebate X Direct Installation . - End-Use Target (N) Lighting 0% 0% Process 0% _ 0% Motor 0% 0% Refrigeration 0% ; 0% Soace Cooling 100% 100% Space Heating 0% 0% Water Heating 0% 0% Weatherizatio f0%. 0% reatment: expensed X I ________ x _ _ _ 49
I> Commercial & Industrial Segment Cooling Efficiency l Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test
$/kW S/kW s1kw SlkW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S719 5719 5719 S719 T&D N/A 441 441 441 441 Marginal Energy N/A 605 605 605 605 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 76 Subtotal N/A SI,766 SI,766 SI,766 S1.842 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A S349 S349 S349 S349 'Subtotal N/A S349 S349 S349 S349 Revenue Reduction . S;064 N/A S 1,064 So . So -
Subtotal S1,064 N/A S1,064 So So Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S544 N/A N/A S544 S544 Incremental O&M 0 N/A N/A 0 .. 0. Rebates (236) N/A N/A (236) (236) Subtotal S308 N/A N/A S308 S308 Net Present Benefit (Cost) . S756 S1,417 5353 SI,109 $1,185 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime - S0.025 S0.047 S0.012 50.037 S0.039 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator -S - S936 S1,754 S436 51,372 S1,466 Benefit Cost Ratio 3.45 - 5.06 1.25 2.69 2.80 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 20 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 16.25% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customner kW: (C)*(8760)= 1,423 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 1,423 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (Fy(l-(G))= 1,514 (I) Gross Customer kW - 1 (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) - 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (1)*(J)= I . 1.000 O (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 75.96% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)(l -(G))= 0.808.
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime 50012
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen 5431.5 50
I> Commercial & Industrial Segment Cooling Efficiency Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW S/kW S/kV S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S737 S737 S737 S737 T&D N/A 452 452 452 452 Marginal Energy NIA 620 620 620 620 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 78 Subtotal N/A $1,809 SI,809 S1,809 $1,887 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A $350 S350 S350 S350 Subtotal N/A S350 S350 $350 S350 Revenue Reduction S1,080 N/A S1,080 So SO Subtotal SI.080 N/A S1,080 so So - Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S544 N/A N/A S544 S544 Incremental O&M 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Rebates (236) N/A N/A (236) (236> Subtotal S308 N/A N/A S308 $308 Net Present Benefit (Cost) S772 S1,459 S379 S1,151 S1,229 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime SO.025 S0.048 S0.013 $0.038 S0.041 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S955 S1,806 $469 $1,424 $1,520 Benefit Cost Ratio 3.50 5.17 1.26 2.75 2.87 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 20 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 16.25% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 1,423 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D> 5(E)= 1,423 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l-(G))= 1,514 (1) Gross Customer kW I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (j)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 75.96% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(I-(G))= 0.808
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.012
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S432.9 51
Commercial & Industrial Segment Cooling Efficiency 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 50.37 50.37 (B!) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B 1)= -50.37 50.37 (D) Coincident factor -- 76.0% -76.0% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% 6.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)f(l -E)- .40.70 40.70 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 1,423 1,423 (H) Gross kV'h reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G)= 71,692 - 71,692 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0% (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= -71,692 71,692 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (I)/(l-E)= 76,268 76,268 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates - - 70 70 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)=
- 3,526 3,526 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 3,526 3,526 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 2,849 2,849 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)= 5,018,425 5,018,425 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year (I)*(K)= 5,018,425 5,018,425 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= '5,338,750 5,338,750 Total Budget S 1,229,434 S 1,233,327 K>
52
Xcel Energy Commercial & Industrial Segment Custom Efficiency Project Information Sheet 2005 Budget 2006 Budget Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components . Project Deliverv S182.862 S81.340 S264.202 S188.346 S83,790 S272,136 Utility Administration S215.768 S27.888 $243 656 S222.242 $28,728 $250,970 Other Proect Administration $89.875 $4,500 S94.375 $89,875 S4.500 S94.375 Advertising/Promotion $213.695 S37,972 S251.667 S213.937 538,182 S252,119 Evaluations S0 So So 50
$0 so SO so so R&D $0 $0 so Incentives (Rebates) S1.989.400 3128.350 $2.117.750 52,0383000 S128.350 S2.166.350 Other SO so SO so SO S$
Less Revenues so so so so $0 $0 Total Budget S2 691.600 S280.0so S2.971,650 S2.752,400 S283,550 S3,035,950 Total Number of Participants 194 19 199 19 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) 46.761.803 49.456.736 Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 43,955.095 46,489.332 Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 5.944 6.286 Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) 59_175 59 175 . - Project Type Percentage Expenditure _ Commercial & Industrial 100% 100% 100I/% 100% Small Business Consumer Low Income Other Low-Income Participation (%) NIA N/A N/A N/A Particioants #) Budget (5) Renter Participation (%) NIA NIA NIA NIA Particioants (#) Budget (S) Societal BIC Results Net Present Value S7.998 S3.047.012 58.078 53.047.012 BIC Ratio INF 1.74 INF 1.74 Participant BIC Results Net Present Value S8.217 S6.873.953 58.217 S6.873.953 BIC Ratio INF 2.66 INF 2.66 Rate Impact B/C Results Net Present Value ($460) S3.021.901 ($386) 33.021.901 BIC Ratio 0.85 1.82 0.88 1.82 Revenue Reguirements BIC Results Net Present Value S2.367 56.217.174 $2.441 S6.217,174 BIC Ratio 9.28 13.28 9.84 13.28 Project Type Aud/lInfo, R&D Renewable Direct Impact X X x x Type of Incentive Loan/Grant _ Rebate X X x x Direct Installation End-Use Target (%) Lighting 0% 0% 0% 0% Process 100% 100% 100% 100% Motor 0% 0% 0M 0% Refrigeration 0% 0% 0% 0% Space Coolinq 0% 0% 0% 0% Space Heating 0% 0% 0% 0% Water Heating 0% 0% 0% 0% Weatherization 0% 0% 0% 0% General/Other 0% 0% 0% 0% Ratemakinq treatment: expensed. X X x x 53
I Commercial & Industrial Segment Custom Efficiency I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test* S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW SIkW - Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $538 $538 $538 $538 T&D N/A 330 330 330 330 Marginal Energy N/A 1,784 1,784 1,784 1,784 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 241i Subtotal ' N/A $2,652 $2,652 $2,652 $2,894 Xcel Energy's Project Costs - N/A $286 S286 S286 $286 Subtotal N/A $286 $286 S286 $286 Revenue Reduction - $2,827 N/A S2,827 N/A N/A Subtotal $2,827 N/A S2,827 N/A - N/A Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $2,229 N/A N/A $2,229 $2,229 Incremental O&M (7,408) N/A N/A (7,408) (7,408) Rebates (211) N/A N/A - - (211) (211) Subtotal .($5,390) N/A - N/A (S5,390) ($5,390) Net Present Benefit (Cost) $8,217 $2,367 (S460) .$7,756 S7,998 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.087- $0.025 - ($0.005) -- $0.082 -- 0.085 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $13,025 $3,752 (S730) $12,295 $12,678 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 9.28 0.85 INF INF Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) ' '19 ' (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 53.26% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 4,665 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 4,665 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWhfYear Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l-(G))= 4,963 (I) Gross Customer kW *, :. I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) I 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)= 1.000' (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator - 59.3% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(l-(G))=. 0.631
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime 50.003
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $452.8 54
- - I I> Commercial & Industrial Segment Custom Efficiency I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW S/kWV S/kW S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $552 $552 $552 $552 T&D N/A 338 338 338 338 Marginal Energy N/A 1,828 1,828 1,828 1,828 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 247 Subtotal N/A $2,717 $2,717 $2,717 $2,965 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A $276 $276 $276 $276 Subtotal N/A $276 $276 $276 $276 Revenue Reduction $2,827 N/A S2,827 N/A N/A Subtotal $2,827 N/A $2,827 N/A N/A Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $2,229 N/A N/A $2,229 $2,229 Incremental O&M ($7,408) N/A N/A (7,408) (7,408)
Rebates ($211) N/A N/A (211) (211) Subtotal ($5,390) N/A N/A ($5,390) ($5,390) Net Present Benefit (Cost) $8,217 $2,441 ($386) S7,830 $8,078 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.087 $0.026 (S0.004) SO.083 $0.086 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $13,856 $4,116 (S651) $13,205 $13,622 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 9.84 0.88 INF INF Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 19 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 53.26% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 4,665 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 4,665 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l -(G))= 4,963 (I) Gross Customer kW 1 (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 59.3% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(I-(G))= 0.631
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.003
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S437.8 55
Commercial & Industrial Segment Custom Efficiency 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 48.57 50.08 (B 1)Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B1)= 48.57 50.08 (D) Coincident factor 59.3% 59.3% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% 6.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(1-E)= 30.64 31.59 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 4,665 4,665 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G)= 226,578 233,615 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0% (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year (B)*(H)= 226,578 233,615 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (I)/(1 -E)= 241,040 248,526 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 194 199 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 9,422 9,965 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 9,422 9,965 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 5,944 6,286 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)= 43,956,095 46,489,332 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (I)*(K)= 43,956,095 46,489,332 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 46,761,803 49,456,736 Total Budget S 2,691,600 S 2,752,400 56
Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS-- CostlEffectiveness Analysis ConservaUon Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- CostlEtfectiveness Analysis Company: Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: C&l Custom Efficiency Summary Information Input Data Company: Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project C&l Custom Efficiency
- 1) Retail Rate ($/MCF) $8.33 15) Utility Project Costs (First Year)
Escalation Rate = 2.10% Actministrative Costs = S151.700 Cost Summary Direct Operating Costs = $0
- 2) Commodity Cost (S/MCF) $4.58 Incentive Costs = $128.350 Utility Cost per Participant (First Year) = $14,739.47 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Total Utility Project Costs = $280,050 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = $14,923.68
- 3) Demand Cost ($/UnitlYr) = $93.86 15a) Utility Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) 1.775.250 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = $155,200 Societal Cost per MCF $2.32 Direct Operating Costs = $0
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor = 1.00% Incentive Costs = S128.350 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year) = $29.04 Total Utility Project Costs = $283,550 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year) = $29.10
- 5) Variable O&M ($SMCF) = $0.0761 Escalation Rate = 2.10% 16) Direct Participant Costs (S/Part.) = $72,137.00
- 6) Environmental Damage Factor = S0.3000 17) Other Participant Costs (Annual S/Part) = $3,583.00 Escalation Rate = 2.17% Escalation Rate = 2.10%
- 7) Total Sales = 78.428,047 18) Project Ufe (Years) = 15 Growth Rate = 0.60%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) 45.09% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers = 395.842 Growth Rate = 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/Part.) 6,908.00 NPV B/C
- 9) Utility Discount Rate 7.47% 21) Avg. MCF/PartL Saved (First Year Program) = 3,114.47 Cost Comparison Test $3,021,901 1.82 21a) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (Second Year Program) = 3,114.47
- 10) Social Discount Rate = 4.72% Revenue Requirements Test $6,217,174 13.28
- 22) Number of Participants (First Year Program) = 19
- 11) General Input Data Year = 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program) = 19 Societal Benefit Test $3,047,012 1.74
- 12) Project Analysis Year I = 2005 23) Incentive/Participant (First Year Program) = $6,755 Participant Test $6,873,953 2.66 12a) Project Analysis Year 2 = 2006 23a) Incentive/Participant (Second Year Program) = $6,755
- 13) Effective Fed & State Income Tax Rate = 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Taxes 6.75%
as % Total Operating Income ( ( (
Xcel Energy Commercial & Industrial DG Incentive ~,/ . Project Information Sheet
. . -- - 20 Budget - - I : 2006 Budget Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components Project Delivery S3.000 - S3.000 - -$3.000 - S3.000 Utility Administration $26.055 - S26055 S26,835 - - 26.835 Other Project Administration $250 S250 - -250 S250 AdvertisinglPromotion $10.695 S10.695 $9,915 - 'S9.915 Evaluations So -- sS0 So - SO R&D So _So0 - $0 .s .o Incentives (Rebates) S450.000 S450,000 S450.000 S450.000 Other So S0 SO . . so Less Revenues So S0 so .so Total Budget - S490,000 $D S490,000 5490,000 SO S490.000 Total Number of Participants 7 7 ,__
Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) _ _ _ Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Proiect Type Percentage Expenditure
- Commercial & Industrial 100% 100%
Small Business Consumer Low Income Low-Income Participation (%) Participants (#) Budget 1S) Renter Participation I%) . Participants (#) '___. Budget (S) Societal BIC Results ,, Net Present Value _-_-_- B/C Ratio - Participant BIC Results -
; Net Present Value B/C Ratio Rate Impact B/C Results -
Net Present Value B/C Ratio -_--. Revenue Requirements B/C Results -- Net Present Value B/C Ratio - - - - Project Type Audit/Info. - - - _ .. R&D - Renewable Direct Imoact Type of Incentive Loan/Grant Rebate X Direct Installation End-Use Target (%) Lighting Process Motor _ Refrigeration ' _._,_. Space Cooling Space Heating Water Heabnq Weatherizabion _ General/Other 100% .. . . 100% __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ratemaking treatment: expensed X x.. 58
Xcel Energy Commercial & Industrial Energy Analysis Project Information Sheet _111
- 4,*O Bdet.'dc ~i ,4tt& 20Bucdcqet'ik.~Ž.i-;,f Electric- 1-- Gas Electric Gas Total Total :
Cost Components - Project Delivery - 6048 6S43265 $49,313 S44,895 S6 500 S51,395 UtilityAdministration S29,981 S1.526 $31,507 S30,881 $ 1,572 S32,453 Other Project Administration S1$690 SS00 S2.190 S1 690 $500 S2,190 Advertising/Promotion -1$040 - S260 300 S1.040 $260 S1,300 Evaluations- So S0 S0 $0 $0 SO R&D S0 So $0 SO SO $0 Incentives (Rebates) S0 So S0 SO SO $0 Other $0 S0 So $0 $0 $0 Less Revenues -(S3000) (900. (3. 900 (S3 000) (900i) (S3,900I Total Budoet S72,976 S7.434 $80,410 S75.506 S7_932 S83 438 Total Number of Participnts 13 3 13 3 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Project Type Percentage Expenditure Commercial & Industrial 100% 100% _ _ 100% 100% Small Business Consumer Low Income Low4ncome Participation () _ _ Participants (#) Budget (51 Renter Participation M.) Participants (#) Budget (S1 Societal BIC Results Net Present Value BIC Ratio' Participant B/C Results Net Present Value -_- B/C Ratio Rate Impact B/C Results - Net Present Value BIC Ratio-- Revenue Requirements BIC Results - Net Present Value BIC Ratio Prolect TyPe Audit/lnfo R&D - - Renewable-Direct Impact Type of incentive Loan/Grant X X x x Rebate Diredt Installation End-Use Target ( /.) Lighting 10% 0% 10% 0% Process 10% 0% 10% 0% Motor 20% 5% 20% 5% Refriaeration 10% 0% 10% 0% __ _ _ _ _ Space Cooling 20% 5% 20% 5% _____ Space Heating 20% 30% 20% 30% ___ ___ Water Heating 0% 15% 0% 15% _ _ _ _ _ Weatherization 0% 15% 0% 115% _ _ _ _ _ GenerallOther 10% 30% 10% 30% _____ Ratemaking treatrment expensed X X x x__ _ 59
Xcel Energy Commercial & Industrial Energy Design Assistance <9 Project Information Sheet I-, - .' -.2005Budaet- :-'e~.-*' _ _ v
- , - _.2006Budciet-.%.1-'
Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components Project Delivery S2.875,167 S90.985 S2.966.152 S2.754,471 -91.700 S2.846.171 Utility Administration S85,959 S 11.445 S97,404 S88,537 S11,789 S100,326 Other Project Administration S17,325 so S17,325 so SO so AdvertisinglPromotion S351,045 S2,000 S 353,045 $355,612 S2.000 S357612 Evaluations SD S0 So so SO so R&D SD So So SO7 SO: 50 Incentives (Rebates) S1.570.505 S45.570 S1,616,075 S1.401,380 S45.570 S1.446,950 Other S0 So So so SO SO Less Revenues S0 S0 S0 SO SO SO Total Budget S4,900,000 S150,000 SSOSOO00 S4,600,000 S151.059 S4,751,059 Total Number of Participants 37 5 40 5 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) 25.995.330 23,195.937 . Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 24.435.610 21,804181 Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 7,563 6,749. Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) 22.785 22,785 Project Type Percentage Expenditure Commercial & Industrial 100% 100% 100% 100% Small Business Consumer -- . _ . Low Income ;_.... Other ._ ._._. - Low-income Participation (%/) NtA N/A N/A N/A Participants (#) . Budget (S) Renter Participation (%) NtA N/A N/A N/A Participants (#) - Budget (S) - Societal B/C Results -_-_. Net Present Value - S1.909 S2.436.411 S1.970 S2,436,411 BIC Ratio 3.03 8.54
- 3.00 8.54 Participant B/C Results .
Net Present Value S 1,874 54,085.507 $1,907 S4.085.507 B/C Ratio 7.25 29.21 7.36 29.21 Rate Impact B/C Results Net Present Value (S136) S1.088.069 ($136) - S1.088,069 BIC Ratio 0.95 1.73
- 0.95 - 1.73 Revenue Requirements B/C Results - ._._._.
Net Present Value S2,039 S2.318.391 S2.071 S2,318.391 B/C Ratio 4.19 9.58 4.08 9.58 Project Type . ._ ._. Audit(Info R&D ._._ __: .. Renewable Direct Impact X X x x Type of Incentive Loan/Grant _ Rebate X X Direct Installation X X x x End-Use Target ( /.) Lighting 35% 0% 35% 0% Process 25% 0% 25% 0% Motor 0% 0% 0% 0% Refrigeration 0% 0% . 0% 0% Space Cooling 30% 50% ., 30% 50% Space Heating 0% 50%O 0%0 *50% Water Heating 0 0% _ _ o 0% __ Weatherization 0% 0% 0% 0% r l_/% 0% I 10% 0% treatment: expensed I I X I x x 60
I > Commercial & Industrial Segment Energy Design Assistance I KJ Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test. S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW S&kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S868 $868 $868 $868 T&D N/A 533 533 533 533 Marginal Energy N/A 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 170 Subtotal N/A $2,678 S2,678 S2,678 S2,849 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A S640 S640 $640 $640 Subtotal N/A S640 $640 S640 S640 Revenue Reduction S2,174 N/A S2,174 N/A N/A Subtotal S2,174 N/A S2,174 N/A N/A Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $505 N/A N/A $505 S505 Incremental O&M 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Rebates (205) N/A N/A (205) (205) Subtotal S300 N/A N/A S300 $300 Net Present Benefit (Cost) S1,874 S2,039 (S136) S1,739 S1,909 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S0.028 = $0.030 (S0.002) SQ.026 S0.028 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S1,899 $2,065 (S138) S1,761 S1,934 Benefit Cost Ratio 7.25 4.19 0.95 2.85 - 3.03 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 20 (B) Customer Rate - General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 36.41% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)0(8760)= 3,190 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 3,190 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(1-(G))= 3,393 (1) Gross Customer kW 1 (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (1)*(TJ 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 92.80% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(I-(G))= 0.987
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime SO.009
- Xced Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S647.9 61
' Commercial & Industrial Segment Energy Design Assistance . Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW
. Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test ,Test Test Test Test S/kW S/kW S/cW S/kW SlkW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S889 S889 $889 S889 T&D N/A 546 -546 546 546 Marginal Energy . N/A 1,309 1,309 1,309 1,309 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A . N/A 175 Subtotal N/A S2,744 S2,744 S2,744 S2,918 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A S673 S673; S673 S673 Subtotal N/A S673 $673 S673 S673 Revenue Reduction S2,207 N/A S2,207 N/A N/A Subtotal S2,207 N/A S2,207 N/A N/A Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S505 N/A N/A S505 S505 lncremental O&M 0 N/A N/A 0 - 0 Rebates (205) N/A N/A (205) (205)
Subtotal S300 N/A N/A .S300 S300 Net Present Benefit (Cost) $1,907 S2,071 (S136) S1,771 S1,945 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.028 S0.031 (S0.002) S0.026 S0.029 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S1,932 S2,097 (S138) S1,793 S1,970 Benefit Cost Ratio 7.36 4.08 0.95 2.82 3.00 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 20 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 36.41% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 3,190 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 3,190 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWb/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (Fy(l-(G))= 3,393 (I) Gross Customer kW 1 (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 92.80% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(I-(G))= 0.987
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime SO.010
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S681.6 62
Commercial & Industrial Segment Energy Design Assistance 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 207.05 170.90 (B 1) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B 1)= 207.05 170.90 (D) Coincident factor 92.8% 92.8% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% 6.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)I(1-E)= 204.41 168.72 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per asdomer kW 3,190 3,190 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year. (A)*(G)= 660,422 545,105 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0% (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year. (B)*(H)- 660,422 545,105 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year. (I)I(1-E)= 702,576 579,898 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 37 40 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 7,661 6,836 Total Net liteomer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 7,661 6,836 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 7,563 6,749 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)= 24,435,610 21,804,181 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year (I)*(K)= 24,435,610 21,804,181 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year. (J)*(K)= 25,995,330 23,195,937 Total Budget S 4,900,000 $ 4,600,000 63
(. C E FI Conservailon Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effedifveness Analysis Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Company: Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: C&l Energy Design Assistance* Summary Information Input Data Company Project: Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) I) Retail Rate (5/MCF). S8.33 15) Utility Project Costs (First Year) C&i Energy Design Assistance Escalation Rate. 2.10% Administrative Costs = S23.879 Cost Summary Direct Operating Costs. S80.551
- 2) Commodity Cost (S/MCF). $4.58 Incentive Costs . S45.570 Utility Cost per Participant (First Year) = S30.000.00 Escalation Rate = . 2.10%. Total Utility Project Costs. $150.000 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = S30,211.80
- 3) Demand Cost (SlUnKtYr) ! $93.86 I5a) Utility Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) 683,550 Escalation Raie = 2.10% Administrative Costs . 524.594 Societal Cost per MCF 50.47 Direct Operating Costs. $80.895
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor
- 1.00Y. Incentive Costs. S45.570 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year). 59.87 Total Utility Project Costs- S151,059 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year). 59.92
- 5) Variable O&M (S/MCF) - S0.0761..,
Escalation Rate. 2.10% 16) Direct Participant Costs (S/Part.)= $15.000.00
- 6) Environmental Damage Factor. S0.3000' 17) Other Participant Costs (Annual S/Part.) = S0.00 Escalation Rate. 2.17% Escalation Rate. 2.10 %
- 7) Total Sales ; 78,428,047 1S) Project Life (Years). 15 Growth Rate = -0.60%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project)* 25.00% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers* 395,842 Growth Rate. 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/Part.) = 18,228.00 NPV B/C
- 9) Utiliiy Discount Rate ; 7.47%h 21) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (First Year Program) 4,557.00
- CostCompartsonTest ; 51.088,069 1.73 21a) Avg. MCFlPart. Saved (Second Year Program)- 4,557.00
- 10) Social Discount Rate - 4.72% Revenue Requirements Test S2.318,391 9.58
- 22) Number of Partcipants (First Year Program):
- 11) General Input Data Year. 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program). .5 Societal Benefit Test 52,436.411 8.54
- 12) Project Analysis Year 1I - 2005 23) Incentive/Partictipant (First Year Program). $9,114 !Participant Test I S4,085.507 29.21 12a) Project Analysts Year 2. 2006 23a) IncentivelParticipant (Second Year Program)- S9,114
- 13) Effective Fed & State Income Tax Rate = 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Taxes 6.75%
as % Total Operating Income
- . I I
- . J I, I .1 I
- .I i . I.I ;,
. . . i
; . . I i I ,,
i , - :- , I
Xcel Energy Commercial & Industrial Financing Project Information Sheet _J z2OO5 Budaot'- Electric I Gas Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components ___ _______ Project Deliver $S36,263 S14,167 S50430 S37,i51 S14,593 S51,944 UtilityAdministration S15316 l S S18,368 S15177 $3,144 S18,920 Other Project Administration $100 S100 S200 S100 $100 $200 Advertising/Promotion S9 670 S1,200 S10,870 S9,912 S1.200 ; S11,112 Evaluations S0 S0 So so so so R&D S0 S0 $0 so $0 so Incentives (Rebates) So 5 0Q0 Ss 000 So S5000 $5000 Other $0 S0 $0 SO SO SO Less Revenues So $0 So SO SO SO Total Budget S61.349 S23.519 S84,868 $63,139 S24.037 $87,176 Total Number of Participants 10 2 10 2 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Prolect T Percentage Expenditure Commercial & Industrial 100% 100% 100% 100% Small Business Consumer Low Income Low-Income Participation (V.) Participants (#) Budget (S) Renter Participation (N/.) Particioants (M) Budget (S) Societal B/C Results Net Present Value B/C Ratio Participant B/C Results Net Present Value B/C Ratio Rate Impact B/C Results Net Present Value B/C Ratio -_-_- Revenue Requirements B/C Results Net Present Value B/C Ratio Prolect Type Audit/Info R&D Renewable Direct Impact Type of Incentive Loan/Grant X X x x_ _ _ Rebate Direct Installation End-Use Target (0/.) Lighting 35% 0% 35% 0% __ _ _ _ _ Process 15% 0% 15% 0% __ _ _ Motor 15% 20% 15% 20% __ _ _ _ _ Refrigeration 15% 0% 15% 0% __ _ _ Space Cooling 15% 20% 15% -20% __ _ _ _ _ Space Heating 0% 20% 0% 20% _ _ _ _ Water Heating 0% 20% 0% 20% _ _ _ _ _ _ Weatherization 0% 0%°/ 0% 0% _ General/Other 5% 20% 5% 20% Ratemaking treatment: expensed X X x x_ _ _ 65
Xcel Energy Commercial & Industrial Lighting Efficiency Project Information Sheet - .
-417;14111 77'"7-7777t.9-7-06 B~dt i$';J'
- - E1.
Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components _________._ Project Delivery S211,332 S211,332 $217,603 _217.603 Utility Administration S10S5576 S105.576 $108,743 X108,743 Other Project Adrninistration S6.000 S6.000 S6,000 $6,ODO AdvertisinotPrornotion S177,070 5177,070 5177312 $177,312 Evaluations so S0 So SO R&D so S0 S So SO Incentives (Rebates) S2,182,379 S2.182.379 $2,182,379 _2,182,379 Other So S0 SO __ _ _ _ _ SO Less Revenues S-0 _- S0 ' -- So ' So Total Budget S0 S2,682.357 s2o682.357 $2,6920037 so S2,692.037 Total Number of Participants 459 . 459 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) 38_144_197 38,144,197. Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) - 35 855.545 35.M5,545 Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 7.162 .7,162_ Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Prolect Tpe Percentage Expenditure Comnercial & Industrial 100° - 100% _ _ _ _ Small Business - - Consumer _ Low Income Other - _ - Low-income Participation (%) NIA Participants (#) - Budqet (S) - . Renter Participation (Vi/.) NIA Participants (#) ._. Budget (S) Societal BIC Results - Net Present Value - 1,133 BIC Ratio; : 1.61 1.65. Participant BIC Results 31,105 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Net Present Value S1.066 . BIC Ratio 1.70 1.73 _ _ _ _ _ Rate Impact BIC Results _____ __________ Net Present Value (S154) ($126) __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ B/C Ratio 0.95 0.96 0% _ Revenue Requirements BIC Results Net Present Value S2.435 . 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ BIC Ratio 8.39 8.57 0 = _ '___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Proiect Type xU X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Audit/info R&D Renewable Direct Impact X Type of Incentive Loan/Grant Rebate X Direct Installation End-Use Target (V.) Lighting 100% 100% _ _ _ _ Process 0%/0 Motor 0°XO Refngeration _0%_0 0% __ _ Space Cooling 0%_0 .0% _ _ Space Heating 0%_ _ 0% .
'0% _ _ _ _ _
Water Heatinq --A 0 I _ _ _ Weathernzation 0%_0 GeneralVOther 0% Ratemaking treatment: expensed X 66
I i I> Commercial & Industrial Segment Lighting Efficiency I
*Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW S/kW S1kW S1kW S1kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S721 5721 S721 S721 T&D N/A 440 440 440 440 Marginal Energy N/A 1,604 1,604 1,604 1,604 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 220 Subtotal NIA S2,765 S2,765 $2,765 $2,985 Xcel Energy's Project Costs NIA S329 S329 $329 S329 Subtotal N/A $329 $329- $329 $329 Revenue Reduction S2,589 N/A $2,589 $0 $0 Subtotal S2,589 N/A S2,589 so SO Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $1,264 N/A N/A $1,264 $1,264 Incremental O&M 527 N/A N/A 527 527 Rebates (268) N/A N/A (268) (268)
Subtotal 51,523 N/A N/A $1,523 $1,523 Net Present Benefit (Cost) $1,066 S2,435 ($154) - S913 S1,133 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.013 S0.029 (S0.002) SO.011 $0.013 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator Cost Benefit Ratio S1,212 1.70
= $2,768 8.39
($175) 0.95
$1,037 1.49
= S1,288 1.61 Project Assumptions:
(A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 18 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 50.28% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760) 4,404 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 4,404 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(-(G))= 4,685 (1) Gross Customer kW I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)=s 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 82.70% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(1-(G))= 0.880
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.004
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S374.5 J
67
> Commercial & Industrial Segment Lighting Efficiency I
Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test - Test I Test -' - Test '.Test S/kW S/kW- S/kW S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements - - Generation N/A S738 $738 $738 S738 T&D N/A 451 451 451 451 Marginal Energy - N/A 1,643 1,643 1,643 1,643 Externality Willingness N/A N/A 'N/A -. N/A 226 Subtotal N/A S2,832 $2,832 $2,832 S3,058
,Xcel Energys Project Costs N/A S331 $331 - $331 S331 Subtotal - N/A S331 S331 $331 $331 Revenue Reduction S2,628 N/A S2,628 S0 So Subtotal -; S2,628 N/A S2,628 S0 S0 Participants'Net Costs Incremental Capital S1,264 NiA N/A S$1,264 S1,264 Incremental O&M 527 N/A N/A 527 527 Rebates (268) N/A' N/A (268) (268)
I> Subtotal - Net Present Benefit (Cost) S1,523
$1,105 N/A
$2,502 NIA (S126)
S1,523 S979
$1,523
$1,204 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime SO.013 $0.030 (S0.001) S0.012 $0.014 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator Cost Benefit Ratio S1,256 = S2,844 ($144) $1,113 S1,369 1.73 8.57 0.96 1.53 1.65 Project Assumptions:
(A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 18 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 50.28% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 4,404 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 4,404 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l-(G))= 4,685 (I) Gross Customer kW 1 (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (J)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 82.70% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(l-(G))= 0.880
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.004
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S375.9 68
Commercial & Industrial Segment Lighting Efficiency 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 17.74 17.74 (B 1) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B1)= 17.74 17.74 (D) Coincident factor 82.7% 82.7% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% 6.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(1-E)= 16 16 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 4,404 4,404 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year (A)*(G)= 78,117 78,117 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0% (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year. (B)*(H)= 78,117 78,117 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year (I)/(l-E)= 83,103 83,103 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 459 459 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 8,141 8,141 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 8,141 8,141 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 7,162 7,162 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year (H)*(K)= 35,855,545 35,855,545 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year. (I)*(K)= 35,855,545 35,855,545 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year (J)*(K)= 38,144,197 38,144,197 Total Budget S 2,682,357 $ 2,692,037
`_>/
69
Xcel Energy Commercial & Industrial Motor Efficiency Project Information Sheet _2005 Budget - 2006 Budgoe Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components Project Delivery S133.144 S133.144 S137.101 S137.101 Utility Administration 566.688 S66.688 S68.689 S68.689 Other Project Administration S1.600 51,600 S1.600 S1.600 Adverlising/Promotion S153.070 S153.070 5153.312 5153.312 Evaluations 50 So S0 SO R&D 'S0 S0 50 _ __5 so___ Incentives (Rebates) S1.096.814 S1.096.814 S1.096.814 S1.096.814 Other S0 S0 so.- .so- SO Less Revenues S0 S0 50 so Total Budget ' 1.451.S16 S0 S1.451.316 51.457,516 So S1.457,516 Total Number of Participants 278 278 Total Elec En. Savings-Generator (kWh) 17.995.083 17.995.083 Total Elec En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 29.230.452 29.230.452 Total Elec Demand Savings Generator (kW) 2.617 -- 2.617 Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) N/A WNA Total Natural Gas Demand Savings (MCF) N/A N/A Project Type Percentage Expenditure g Commercial & Industrial 100% 100% Small Business Consumer Low Income ' Low-Income Participation Participants (U) Budget (5) Renter Participation Participants (U) - -- Budget (S) - - Societal B/C Results Net Present Value 5960 5997 BIC Ratio 2.61 2.67 Participant SIC Results _ _ NetPresent Value -1.846 51.848 BSC Rato 3.08 3.08 Rate Impact BIC Results - Net Present Value (S272) (5240) BIC Ratio 0.84 0.86 Revenue Requirements BIC Results Net Present Value 51.225 51259 BIC Ratio 6.99 7.13 Project Type Audit/lnfo R&D Renewable Direct Impact X x ___________ _ Type of Incentive Loan/Grant Rebate X Direct Installation End-Use Target (Vh) Lighting 0% 0% Motor 100% 100% Process 0% 0% Refrigeration 0% _ 0% Space CoolinglDehumidification 0% 0% Space Heating 0% 0% Water Heating 0% 0% Weatherization 0% 0% GeneraVOther 0% 0% Ratemaking treatment: expensed X X 70
I > Commercial & Industrial Segment Motor Efficiency UI
-Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW S/kW S/kW' S1kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S324 S324 $324 S324 T&D N/A 199 199 199 199 Marginal Energy N/A 906 906 906 906 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 127 Subtotal N/A S1,429 SI,429 S 1,429 S1,556 Xcel Energys Project Costs N/A S205 5205 S205 S205 Subtotal N/A S205 S205 S205 S205 Revenue Reduction S2,733 N/A S1,496 S0 So Subtotal S2,733 N/A S1,496 So So Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $1,041 N/A N/A S547 S547 Incremental O&M 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Rebates (155) N/A N/A (155) (155)
Subtotal S886 N/A N/A S392 S392 Net Present Benefit (Cost) Sl,846 $1,225 (S272) S832 S960 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S0.036 50.024 (S0.005) 50.016 $0.019 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S5,005 S3,320 (S737) S2,256 S2,601 Benefit Cost Ratio 3.08 6.99 0.84 2.39 2.61 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 20 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 47.02% (D) Gross kWhYear saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 4,119 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 57.9% (F) Net kWh/Ycar saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)- 2,384 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWhIYear Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l.(G))= 2,536 (I) Gross Customer kW 1 (J) Free Driveiree Rider Factor (Demand) 52.5% (K) Net Customer kW: (1)*(J)- 0.525 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 65.99% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(Ly(l-(G))= 0.369
- Xccl Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime SO.004
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $554.5 71
I > Commercial & Industrial Segment Motor Efficiency I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility , Impact . Resource Societal Test ' Test Test . - Test - - Test
-/kW Vi1kW $/kW S/kW S/kW
/-
Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S332 $332 S332. S332 T&D N/A 204 204 204 204 Marginal Energy N/A 928 928 928 928 Externality Willingness N/A N/A - N/A N/A 130 Subtotal N/A S1,464 51,464 S',464 .'S1,594 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A 5205 $205 S205. S205 Subtotal N/A S205 S205 $205 S205 Revenue Reduction 52,735 N/A $1,498 so so Subtotal S2,735 N/A 51,498 So so Participants'Net Costs Incremental Capital S1,041 N/A N/A S547 S547
- Incremental O&M 0 N/A N/A .: 0 0 Rebates (155). N/A N/A (155) (155)
Subtotal S886 N/A N/A S392 S392 Net Present Benefit (Cost) S1,848 S1,259 (S240) $866 S997 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime SO.036 SO.025 (SO.005) $0.017 S0.020 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S5,010 S3,412 (S650) $2,348 S2,702 Benefit Cost Ratio 3.08 7.13 0.86 2A5 2.67 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 20 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 47.02% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 4,119 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 57.9% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 2,384 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l-(G))= 2,536 (I) Gross Customer kW I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 52.5% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)=- 0.525 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 65.99% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(1I(G))= 0.369
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.004
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $556.8 72
K>2 Commercial & Industrial Segment Motor Efficiency 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 25.53 25.53 (B I) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 52.5% 52.5% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B1)= 13.41 13.41 (D) Coincident factor 66.0% 66.0% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% 6.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(1-E)= 9.42 9.42 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 4,119 . 4,119 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year (A)*(G)= 105,146 105,146 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 57.9% 57.9%. (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year- (B)*(H)= 60,847 60,847 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (1)/(l-E)= 64,731 64,731 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 278 278 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 7,096 7,096 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 3,729 3,729 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 2,617 2,617 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)= 29,230,452 29,230,452 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year (1)*(K)= 16,915,378 16,915,378 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year (J)*(K)= 17,995,083 17,995,083 Total Budget $ 1,451,316 S 1,457,516 73
Xcel Energy Commercial & Industrial Recommissioning \ Project Information Sheet _
- 2005 Budoet - --2006Buae-.~'
Budget ifs ' a-: #
- = v
;.Electric .2005Gas Total sip -tr Electric Gas Total Cost Components Proiect Delivery S26.401 S9.330 S35.731 527.193 S9,609 $36,802 Utility Administration S59.739 S24.473 $84,212 561,531 25.207 $86,738 Other Project Administration S500 S0 $500 $500 So $500 AdvertisinglPromotion $19.270 S3.100 S22,370 519.512 53.100 $22,612 Evaluations So S0 S0 so so so*
R&D
- So S0 So SO SO 50 Incentives (Rebates) S770.500 S38.500 S809 000 $866.500 538.500 $905,000 Other So S0 So so 50 so Less Revenues So S0 So SO so - S Total Budget S876.410 $75,403 $951,813 S975.236 576,416 51,051,652 Total Number of Participants 49 20 52 20 Total En. Savinas-Generator (kWh) 7.009.368 8,511.376 Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 6 _588_806_ 8,000.693 Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 1 769 2.148 ,
Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) 5,500 5.500 Project Type Percentage Expenditure Commercial & Industrial 100% 100% 100% 100% Small Business - Consumer Low Income Other - Low-Income Participation (1,) N/A N/A NIA NIA Participants (#) - Budget (S) - Renter Participation (%) NIA NIA N/A NIA Participants (#) Budget (S) - Societal BIC Results Net Present Value S1.096 S110.388 -1.429 S110,388 BIC Ratio -- - - 53.23 -- 1.42 . ' INF 1.42 Participant BIC Results Net Present Value S1.310 S426.919 S1.597 $426.919 BIC Ratio INF 3.04 INF 3.04 Rate Impact BIC Results Net Present Value (S287) S47.963 (S243) S47.963 B/C Ratio 0.78 1.16 0.81 1.16 Revenue Requirements BIC Results Net Present Value S652 $214.871 S710 5214.871 BIC Ratio 2.67 2.58 2.98 2.58 Prolect Type . Audit/Info R&D Renewable Direct Impact X X x _ _ _ Type of Incentive
- Loan/Grant Rebate X X x x __ _
Direct Installation . X X x ' End-Use Target (N.) - Lighting 5% 0%o 5% 0% Process 0% 0%° 0% 0% __ Motor 0% 0% Refrigeration 0% 0% 0% 0% Space Cooling 70% 5% 70% 5% Space Heating 10% 70% 10% 70% Water Heating 5% 10% ' 5% -0%' -_10%-_' Weatherization 0% 0% I 0%
- 0% ' _,_._-
General/Other 10% 15% 10% 15% _ _ Ratemaking treatment: expensed X X x x 74
I> Commercial & Industrial Segment Recommissioning Net Present Worthb Benefit Analysis
.2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S340 $340 $340 S340 T&D N/A 198 198 198 198 Marginal Energy N/A 505 505 505 505 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 73 Subtotal N/A S$,044 SI,044 $1,044 S,117 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A $391 S391 $391 S391 Subtotal N/A $391 $391 $391 $391 Revenue Reduction S940 N/A S940 N/A N/A Subtotal S940 N/A $940 N/A N/A Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S752 N/A N/A S752 $752 Incremental O&M (782) N/A N/A (782) (782)
Rebates (344) N/A N/A (344) (344) Subtotal ($374) N/A N/A ($374) (S374) Net Present Benefit (Cost) $S,314 $652 ($287) S1,026 Sl,099 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime, S0.060 - $0.030 ($0.013) S0.047 SO.050 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S1,663 S826 (S364) $1,299 $1,392 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 2.67 0.78 60.36 64.59 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 7 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 33.58% (D) GToss kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 2,941 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 2,941 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l-(G))= 3,129 (I) Gross Customer kW I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)- 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 74.2% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(1-(G))- 0.790
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.01 8
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S495.4 75
I ~Commercial & Industrial Segment Recommissioning I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test' Test Test S/kW - S/kW S/kW S/kW ' S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S348 S348 S348 S348 T&D N/A 203 203 203 - 203 Marginal Energy N/A 517 517 .517 517 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 75 Subtotal N/A S1,069 $1,069 $1,069 $1,144 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A S359 359 $359 S359 Subtotal N/A S359 S359 $359 . S359 Revenue Reduction S954 N/A S954 N/A . N/A Subtotal 5954 S N/A S954 N/A N/A Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S702 N/A 'N/A- $702 S702 Incremental O&M (1027) N/A NIA (1027) (1027) Rebates (319) N/A N/A '(319) (319) Subtotal (S644) N/A N/A ($644) (S644) NetPresent Benefit (Cost) S1,598 S710 - ($243) S1,355 -S1,430 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime SO.073- SO.032 (S0.01 1) S0.062 -0.065 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S2,023 $900 (S308) S1,715 S1,810 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 2.98 0.81. (3.74) (4.00) Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 7 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 33.58% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 2,941 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 2,941 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(1-(G))= 3,129 (I) Gross Customer kW I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 74.24% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(l-(G))= 0.790
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.016
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S454.0 76
1-a-
.9 Commercial & Industrial Segment Recommissioning 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 45.71 52.31 (BI) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0%
(C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(Bl)= 45.71 52.31 (D) Coincident factor 74.2% 74.2% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% 6.0% (F) Net Summner Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(l-E)= 36.11 41.31 (G) Gross kWhfYear saved per Customer kW 2,941 2,941 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year. (A)*(G)= 134,465 153,859 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0% (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= 134,465 153,859 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (I)/(1-E)= 143,048 163,680 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 49 52 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 2,240 2,720 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 2,240 2,720 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 1,769 . 2,148 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)= 6,588,806 8,000,693 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (I)*(K)= 6,588,806 8,000,693 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year. (J)*(K)= 7,009,368
- 8,511,376 Total Budget $ 876,410 S 975,236 77
C.-
- 1. i I . I , .
I; I Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-EfectIveness Anilysis Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) I; ! . .i -iENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Company: Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) ; J: ' Project: C&l Recommissioning .! I I I Summary informatlon Input Data Company: . . Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: C&I Recommissioning
- 1) Retall Rate ($SMCF) - $8.33 15) UliTiy Project Costs (First Year)
Escalation Rate a 2.10% Administrative Costs . S9.330 Cost Summary Direct Operating Costs - $27.573
- 2) Commodity Cost ($IMCF) - $4.58 Incentive Costs - $38,500 Utility Cost per Parlicipant (First Year) - . S3.770.15 Escalation Rate - 2.10% A Total Utitdy Project Costs - $75,403 Uililty Cost per participant (Second Year). $3,820.80
- 3) Demand Cost (S/Untir). 193.86 I 5a) Utility Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) 77.002 Escalation Rate- 2.10% Administrative Costs- S9 509 Societal Cost per MCF . $3.40 Direct Operating Costs. $28,307
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor. 1.00% Incentive Costs - $38,500 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year). $33.43
; IS -- Total Utility Project Costs = $76,416 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year) = , $33.61
_ 5) Variable O&M ($SMCF) 0.076t oo Escalation Rate ; I - . 2.10% 16) DIrect Participant Costs ($5Part.) . $5,422.00 Ij;
- 6) Environmental Damage Factor 0.3000 17) Other Participant Costs (Annual $/Part.) I '$0.00 Escalation Rate
- 2.17% Escalation Rate= '2.10% , t
- 7) Total Sales- 78.4: 28.047 18) Project Life (Years). 7 Growth Rate. 0.60%:
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) 2.25% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers- . . 31)5,842, Growth Rate. 2.20%A 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/Paui.) 12,222.50 NPV BIC
- 9) Utility Discount Rate. 7.47% 21) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (First Year Program) = 275.01 Cost Comparison Test $47,963 - 1.16 21a) Avg. MCFIPart. Saved (Second Year Program). 275.01,
- 10) Social Discoutnt Rate. 4.72% Revenue Requirements Tiest $214,871 2.58
- 22) Number of Participants (First Year Program) = 20
- 11) General Input Data Year - 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program). 20 Societal Benefit Test S 10,388 1.42
- 12) Project Analysis Year 1 - 2005 23) IncentivelPartlielpant (First Year Program) . $1,925 Participant Test $426.919 3.04 12a) Project AnalysIs Year 2. 2006 23a) Incentive/Partlcipant (Second Year Program) . S1.925
.1
- 13) Effective Fed & Slate Income Tax Rate - 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Ineomne Before Taxes 6.75%
as % Total Operating Income I
Xcel Energy Commercial & Industrial Refrigeration Efficiency Project Information Sheet <-
'~Budget--005 Budaet-f"* ;. .:2006 Budoet-:. V'z Gas Total Electric Total Electric Gas Proiect Delivery 571,706 S71.706 S72,416 S72,416 Utility Administration S26,110 S26,110 $26.894 S26 894 Other Project Administration -S4000 S4,000 S4,000 $4,000 Advertising/Promotion S27.184 S27,184 S27,184 S27.184 Evaluations S0 So SO so R&D So S0 Incentives (Rebates) S266,000 S266,000 S266,000so __ _$ 5266 000 so__
Other So $0 So SO Less Revenues So S0 Total Budget S395,000 So $395.000 S396,494 So S396.494 Total Number of Participants 9 Total En. Savings-Generator (kvVh) 6,001.055 6,001,055 Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) - 5,640.992 5,640,992 Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 812 812 Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Prolect Type Percentage Expenditure - _ Commercial & Industrial 100%°/ 100% _ Small Business Consumer Low Income . Other . Low-Income Partlci pation (%} N/A mN/ A __ _ _ _ __ _ Participa nts W#) Budoet (S) Renter Partcipation (N.) N/A N/A . - Participants (#) Budget (S) Societal B/C Results Net Present Value $1,743 $1,805 B/C Ratio 3.01 3.08 Participant B/C Results Net Present Value S1.891 $1,891 B/C Ratio 4.79 4.79 Rate Impact B/C Results Net Present Value (S380) (S323) _ BIC Ratio 0.86 0.88 _ _ Revenue Requirements BIC Results - Net Present Value S2,Oil 52,067 B/C Ratio 6.50 6.63 Prolect Type _ Audit/Info _ R&D Renewable , Direct Impact X _____ Tvpe of Incentive Loan/Grant Rebate X Direct Installation End-Use Target (.) Lighting 0% . 0% _ Process 0% 0% __ Motor 0% . 0% Reftriqeration 100% 100% Space Cooling 0% 0% Space Heating 0% _ 0%° Water Heatina 0% 0% Weatherization 0% 0% _ General/Other 0% 0% _ _ Ratemaking treatment: expensed X x 79
I> Commercial & Industrial Segment Refrigeration Efficiency I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal
. Test Test Test Test Test
*I S/kW S/kW S/kW $/kW S.kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $556 S556 $556 $556 T&D N/A 336 336 336 336 Marginal Energy N/A 1,484 1,484. 1,484 - 1,484 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 232 Subtotal . ' .-- N/A - $2,377 $2,377 S2,377 $2,608 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A $366 $366 $366 $366 Subtotal - - N/A - $366 - $366 $366 -'$366 Revenue Reduction $2,391 N/A $2,391 N/A N/A Subtotal . $2,391- - NIA S2,391- - N/A NIA Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $1,013 NIA N/A $1,013 $1,013 Incremental O&M (314) NIA N/A (314) (314)
Rebates (200) NIA NIA (200) (200) Subtotal . . - $.$499 N/A - N/A $499 - $499 NetPresentBenefit(Cost) -- $1,891 S2,011- '($380) $1,512 .$1,743 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime -0.023 - $0.024 -($0.005) $0.018 $0.021 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $2,517 $2,676 ----($505) $2,011 $2,319 Benefit Cost Ratio - . - 4.79 -6.50 0.86 2.75 - 3.01 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF),. 59.62% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)&= 5,223 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW:'(D)*(E)= '5,223 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generatorper Customer kW: (F)/(l-(G))= 5,557 (l) Gross Customer kW I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 70.64% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(1-(G))=-- 0.751
- ;
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime 50.004 I
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $486.7 80
I> Commercial & Industrial Segment Refrigeration Efficiency -- 1 Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis ror une customer KW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $570 $570 $570 $570 T&D N/A 5345 S345 $345 $345 Marginal Energy N/A $1,520 $1,520 $1,520 $1,520 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A $237 Subtotal N/A $2,435 S2,435 $2,435 $2,672 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A $367 $367 $367 $367 Subtotal N/A $367 $367 $367 $367 Revenue Reduction $2,391 N/A $2,391 N/A N/A Subtotal $2,391 N/A $2,391 N/A N/A Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $1,013 N/A N/A $1,013 $1,013 Incremental O&M ($314) N/A N/A ($314) ($314) Rebates ($200) N/A N/A ($200) ($200) Subtotal S499 N/A N/A $499 $499 NetPresentlBenefit(Cost) -- $1,891 $2,067 ($323) $1,568 $1,805 Ne; Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S0.023 $0.025 ($0.004) $0.019 $0.022 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $2,517 $2,751 ($430) $2,087 $2,402-Benefit Cost Ratio 4.79 6.63 0.88 2.81 3.08 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 59.62% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760) 5,223 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 5,223 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l -(G))= 5,557 (I) Gross Customer kW 1 (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(TJ 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 70.64% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)I(l-(G))= 0.751
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.004
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $488.5 81
- - Commercial & Industrial Segment Refrigeration Efficiency 2005 - 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant -120.00 120.00
.(B1) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demaiid) 100.0% 100.0%
(C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B1)= 120.00 - 120.00 (D) Coincident factor 70.6% 70.6% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% -6.0% (F) Net Sunmer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(l-E)= 90.18 90.18 , - (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW - 5,223 5,223 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G) 626,777 626,777 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) - 100.0% -100.0%
- (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year (B)*(H)= 626,777 626,777 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (I)/(1-E)= 666,784 . .666,784 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 9. - 9 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= -1,080 1,080.
Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= .1,080 1,080 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (FI)*(K)= - 812 812
-Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year- (H)*(K)= 5,640,992 5,640,992 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (I)*(K)= 5,640,992 5,640,992 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 6,001,055 6,001,055 Total Budget .i . $ 395,000 S 396,494 82
Xcel Energy Commercial &Industrial Roofing Efficiency Project Information Sheet <2 2005 Budget 2006 Budget; - - I ,its I Electric oI i Gas Total Electric so Gas Total so I flitv Atministrativn S1R614 SIR.14 S19,170 519,170 Other Project Administration S1,800 S1.800 S1 800 t, 1.800 Advertisinq/Promotion S5,23S $5,236 S5,230 S5.230 Evaluations SO SO R&D $S0 So So SO Incentives (Rebates) -102,6W S102.600 S102,600 S102,600 Other S0 So .$0S SO Less Revenues So So .$0 SO Total Budaet S0
.128.2 $128,2W S128S00t S128,800 Total Number of Participants 3 3 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) 283.938 283,9381 Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 266,902 266,902 :0 Total Demand Savings Generator (WA 471 471 __
Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Project Type Percentage Expenditure Cornmercial & Industrial 100%°h 100% Small Business _ Consumer Low Income Other Low-Income Participation (%) N/A NIA Participants (#) Budget (S) Renter Participation (%) N/A Participants (#) - _A______ Budget (S) lNI Societal BIC Results Nel Present Value St,679 S1,716 B/C Ratio INF Participant B/C Results Net Present Value S941 $941 B/C Ratio INF INF Rate Impact BIC Results Net Present Value S710 $747 _ B/C Ratio 1.85 1.89 Revenue Requirements B/C Results Net Present Value 51,3v0 S1,337 _ B/C Ratio 6.20 6.32 _ _ _ _ _ _ Project Type Audit/Info R&D Renewable 63 _ _____ Direct Impact X x Type of Incentive Loan/Grant Rebate X Direct Installation End-Use Target (N.) ighting 0% 0% _ Process 100%°/ 100% Motor 0%_ 0%° Refrigeration 0%° 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Space Cooling 0% 0% _ _ Space Heating 0% 0% __ _ __ _ _ Water Heating 0% 0% Weatherization 0% 0%°/ < I General/Other 0%°h 0% Ratemaking treatment: expensed X x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 83
I > Commercial & Industrial Segment Roofing Efficiency. :I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary I Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW S/kW .. SlkW S/kW $/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation ' N/A S807 S807 S807 S807 T&D N/A 495 495 495 495 Marginal Energy N/A 248 248 248 248 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 28 Subtotal N/A S1,550 S1,550 S1,550 SI,578 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A S250 S250 S250 .S250 Subtotal N/A S250 S250. S250 S250 Revenue Reduction S590 N/A S590 N/A N/A Subtotal . S590 N/A S590 N/A N/A Participants' Net Costs
-.Incremental Capital ' 1,672 N/A N/A S 1,672 S1,672 Incremental O&M (1,823) N/A N/A (1,823) (1,823)
Rebates (200) N/A N/A (200) (200) Subtotal (S351) N/A N/A (S351) (S351) Net Present Benefit (Cost) S941 S1,300 S710 S1,651 SI,679 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S0.085 SO.117 50.064 SO.149 S0.152 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S1,025 Sl,416 S773 - S1,798 SI,828 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 6.20 1.85 INF INF Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 20 (B) Customer Rate General Service' (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 5.94% (D) Gross kWhfYear saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= - 520 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) -. 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 520 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l-(G))='
- 553*
(I) Gross Customer kW I . . I. (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) ' 100.0%' (K) Net Customer kW: (1)*(J)= '.' ' 1.000-(L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 86.3% - (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(I -(G))- -0.918
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime 50.023
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S272.3 84
I Commercial & Industrial Segment Roofing Efficiency I K> Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test SlkW S/kW S/kW S/kW Sn&W Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $827 S827 S827 S827 T&D N/A 507 507 507 507 Marginal Energy N/A 254 254 254 254 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 28 Subtotal N/A S1,588 S1,588 SI,588 S,616 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A $251 S251 S251 S251 Subtotal N/A S251 S251 S251 S251 Revenue Reduction S590 N/A 5590 N/A N/A Subtotal $590 N/A $590 N/A N/A Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $1,672 N/A N/A S1,672 S1,672 Incremental O&M (1,823) N/A NIA (1,823) (1,823) Rebates (S200) N/A N/A (200) (200) Subtotal (S351) N/A N/A (S351) ($351) Net Present Benefit (Cost) $941 - S1,337 S747 Sl,687 S,716 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S0.085 S0. 121 S0.067 S0.152
- SO. 155 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S1,090 S1,549 S865 SI,955 S1,988 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 6.32 I R9 INF INF Project Assumptions:
(A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 20 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 5.94% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 520 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)- 520 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (Fy(l-(G))= 553 (I) Gross Customer kW I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 86.3% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(LY(1.(G))= 0.918
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.023
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S273.5 85
Commercial & Industrial Segment Roofing Efficiency
- 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 171.00 171.00 (B1) Free Driver/Fiee Rider Factor (Dernand) 100.0% :100.0%
(C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B1)= 171.00 171.00 (D) Coincident factor 86.3% 863% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% 6.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(1-E)= 156.98 156.98 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW - 520 520 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G)= . 88,967 88,967 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0% (1)Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= 88,967 88,967 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (I)/(W-E)= 94,646 94,646 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates .3 3 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 513 513 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 513 513 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 471 471 Total Gross kVh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)= 266,902 266,902 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (I)*(K)= 266,902 266,902 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 283,938 -283,938 Total Budget $ 128,250 S 128,800 86
High Elficlency Baseline Expected Estimate of Estimate of Product I Efficient Baseline ProducU Product Annual Life of Parlicipant's Annual Estimate ol Estimate of Peak Technology Product Technology EfficIency Product Product Incremental Customer kWh Customer kW Generator kW Type of Measure Description Efficiency Level Description Level Volume Units Electric Rate (years) Rebate Level Cosr Savings Savings Savings C&l Compressed Air _ Compressed Air Study Leaks found and NotApplhcaable Existing System in NotAppicable 19 Facrlity Genuial 5 S306.lW S4.016 135.303 16.6t4 15.410 Repaired which Leaks Have Service Average Not Been Repaired Compressed Alr Custom New or Misc New or Misc Old or ess El. Oldor les Ell. 1.419 Customer General 20 $2001kW S1.154 5.451 28.400 28.100 Systems Systems kW Service average C&i Cooling Elfcl :lency I Cooling Efficiency New or Misc. New or Misc. Old or less EL. Old or less Enf. 2.926 Customer General 20 $240 $544 1.345 45.000 35.800 Prescriptive Systems Systems kW Service Cooling Efficiency New or Misc. New or Misc. Old or less Elf. Old or less Et. 300 Customar General 20 $189 $544 2,268 60.000 5S6.460 Custom SSystems ystems kW Service C&I Custom Efficiency Electric: . = Custom Elliciency New or Misc New orf Misc. Old of less Lit. Old or less Elf. 9.422 Cuslomer General 19 $21 I'KW $2,229 4,665 48.570 30.700 _ Systems Systems kW Service average C&i Energy Design Assistance Electric Energy Design Newor MocW Newor Misc. Old or less EU. Od or lass El. 7.661 Customer General 20 $205 $505 3.190 207.054 204.410 Assistance 2005 Systems Systems kW Service Energy Design New or Misc. New or Misc. Old or less EU. Old or less EU. 7.661 Customer General 20 $205 $505 3.190 170.900 168.720 00 Assistance 2006 Systems Systems kW Service -4 C&8 Prescriptive Lighting TOBallasts. 4ALor tess. I8 ballasts 86 hIvW Tt2 ballasts 60 kXI 57.586 fixture General 18 SG $53 68 0.016 0.015 I and 2 lamp I Service T Ballasts 4 fL or less T8 baltasts 86 mkvW T2 ballasts 60 fivW 49.160 fixture General 18 10 $35 145 0.034 0.031 Sand 4 lamp ServIce TS Ballasts, Length > 4 18 ballasts 86 kmWW T12 ballasts 60 ImIW 2.774 fixture General $9 SS $56 178 0.042 0.038 ftL and <- ft . Service I and 2 lamp Hlgh-bay Fluorescent 78 ballasts tnhW 110 Metal Halide 100 imJW 6.490 fixture General t8 $75 $265 1.047 0.248 0.223 Tlt 6 and f lamp Service Super T6 1and 2 Lamp Super T8 Lamps 103 bmvW T 12 lamps and 60 lIrW 4 564 fixture General 18 St $S40 148 0.035 0.032 Balasts ballasts Service _ _ _ __40_14__0_035_0_032 C ( (
C I High Efficiency l Productl Technology Effcient Product Baseline Product/ Technology Baseline Product Efficiency Expected Annual Product Life of Product Estimate of Partilipanrs Incremental Estimate of Annual Cuslomer kWh Estimsate of Estimate of Peak Cuslomer kW Generalor kW Typo of Measure DescrIptIon Efficiency Level DescriptIon Level Volume Untts Electric Rate (years) Rebate Level Cost Savings Savings Savings C&I Prescriptive Lighting (continued) SuperTe13and4Lemp SuperTBtLampsanr 103lmW Tt2 lamps and 601Imt 4.682 fixture General 18 $20 $44 284 0.067 0.060 Ballasts baltasts Service TS Ballasts I and 2 l TSballasts t00imoW T 12 ballasts 60 IrnW 841 fixture General 18 $10 $2? 62 0.015 0.013 Lamp Service _ TS Ballasts S and 4 T5 ballasts It00 ImW T 12 balasts 60 Im/W 165 fixture General 18 $16 $52 251 0.059 0.054 Lamp - Service T5 Ballasts HO 15 ItO ballasts 110 ImtW Metal Halide 60 Im/W 1.064 fixture General 18 $75 $270 956 0.226 0.204 __ I _ Service CFL 33 to StW CFL 65 lmNW Incandescent Io lmtW 818 fixture General 18 $5 $30 548 0.130 0.117
,_ _ Service Industrial Multi-CFL Mutti-CFL 95 ImtW Mercury Vapor. 70 ImtW 11 fixture General 18 $25 $125 728 0.172 0.155 llIPS. MH _ Service High Intensity Discharge MN. HPS t00 ImlW IncandescenitMerc 35 imtW 320 fixture General 18 $17 $179 366 0.086 0.078 (HID). <-1 50W . - ury r- Vapor Service HID. 151 to 250W MH, HPS 100 ImtW Incandescent/Merc 35 hmn/ 56 fixture General 18 $28 $173 673 0.159 0.143
= ury vapor Service HID. 251 to 1000W MH. HPS 100 1mW Incandeseent/Merc 35 ImtW 485 fixture General 18 $45 $180 2.601 0.615 0.554 ury Vapor Service Pulse-Start Metal Halide Pulse Start Metal 1t0 knW lIPS. MH 70 tmWN 574 fixture General 18 $25 $161 363 0.086 0.077
<175W alide_ Service 00 Pulse-Start Metal Halide Pulse Slart Melat 110Imn/W iPSM. 7m70 tnW 574 fixture General 18 $40 $281 654 0.155 0.139 00 176W4319W Halide - Service _
Pulse-Start Metal Halide, Pulse Start Metal 110 Irn/W HPS. MH 70 ImlW 5.864 fixture General 18 $55 $285 588 0.139 0.125 320W.749W . Hafide < Service Pulse-Star Metal Halid, Pulse Start Metal 1101mW lIPS. MN 7011mtW 652 fixture General 18 $S5 $381 1,134 0.268 0.242 750W+ Ihalide Service Rtelector Htih efficiency Not Applicable No reflector Not applicable 55.130 tt2 General 18 $0.50 $12 41 0 010 0.009 reflector __ Servsce Wall mount occupancy Occupancy Sensor Not applicable No occupancy Not applicable 913 fixture General 18 $12 $60 338 0.080 0.072 sensor sensor Service Ceiling mount OccupancySensor Not applicable No occupancy Not applicable 191 fixture General 18 $36 $175 888 0.210 0.189 occupancy sensor . sensor Service Photocell Photocell Not applicable No sensor Not applicable 2 fixture General 18 $12 S80 381 0.090 0.081 _SServIce
High Efficiency Baseline Expected Estimate of Eslimato ol Product i Efficient Gaseline ProductU Product Annual Life of Particlpantrs Annual Estimate of Estimate o1Peak Technology Product Technology Efficiency Product Product Incremental Customer kWh Customer kW Generator kW Type ol Measure Description Elficbmncy Level Description Level Volume Units Electric Rate (years) Rebate Level Cost Savings Savings Savings C&I Prescriptive Lighting (con Inued) Exit sign retrofit and Light Emilting o tnVWd kncandescent 101mVi 3.716 fixtwe Generai 18 S6 $175 140 0.033 0.030 replacement Diodes (LED) Service ir Red Llght Emitting LED lo0inW Incandescent 10 tmrW 5.199 fixture General 18 $65 $125 567 0.134 0.121 Diode (LED) Traffic Service SIgnal 8 Red LED Traffic LED 10 tmN incandescent 10 imJW II fixture General 18 $15 $85 250 0.059 0.053 Signal Service 1r Green LED Traffic LED 1I iWm Incandescent 10 tM/W 764 fixture General 18 $65 $275 550 0.130 0.117 Signal Service S Green LED Traffic LED 10IhW Incandescent 10 hlmW I fiature General $40 S8 $175 233 0.055 0.050 Signal Service Pedestrian Traffic LED 10 Irn/W Incandescent to tr/W 268 fixture General 18 $40 $175 254 0.060 0.054 Signal ir Size and Service larger Pedestrian Traffic LED 10 tmNW Incandescent 1o ImIW 782 fixture General I8 $25 $175 254 0.060 0.054 Signal SiSlze __Service RED LED Traffic Arrow LED 1l0mtnW Incandescent la ktniw 563 fixture General 18 S25 $134 518 0.122 0.110 Signal _ Service C&i Now Constr uction Lightin T8 allasts 4 R.or less. TOballasts 86 ItbnV 112 ballasts 60 ImIW 5.744 fixture Grneral 18 $1.00 $2.03 a 0.002 0.002 00 1 and 2 lamp' Service '.0 T8Batlasts 4 IL or ess, T ballasts 861tn/W T12 balasts 60 ImlW 7.734 fixtute General 18 $1.15 S4.41 70 0.016 0.015 3 and 4 lamp Service TS Balasts Lengttt >4 T8 ballasts 86iNMM T12 bailasts 60 trnW 919 fixture General 18 $1.75 $8.30 86 0.020 0.018 t and<- (L. Service I and 2 lamp High-Say Fluorescent T8 ballasts 110 rnNW Metal Halide 100 inmNV 645 fixture General 18 $12.00 $85.00 1.047 0.248 0.223 Tt. e and 8 lamp Service Super T81 and 2 Lamp Super T8 Lamps and 103 ImfeV T 12 armps and 60 inmW 871 fixture General 18 $2.25 S7.80 148 0.035 0.032 Ballasts ballasts Service_ _ Super'l83and4Lamp SuperT8Lampsand 103lmIW T12 lampsand 60tm/W 871 fixture General 18 $1.00 $7.80 148 0.035 0.032 Ballasts ballasts Service TS Ballasts I and 2 75 ballasts 100 imfN T12 ballasls 60 kn/W 602 fixture General 18 $2.00 $18.11 132 0.031 0.028 Lamp - Servicer T58Ballasts 3 and 4 TS ballasts 100Im/I T12 bailasts 60 hV/W 189 fixture General 18 $2.50 $21.54 241 0.058 0.053 Lamp Servicer TS Ballasts HO 151HO1baiiasts 110IM W Ti2batiasis 60 bnhS 215 fixture General 18 $12.00 $90.00 956 0.226 0.204 Service I C (
C C, High Eflclency Baseline Expected Estimate of Estimate of Producti Efflicent Baseline ProducU Producl Annual Life of Parlilcpant's Annual Estimate of Estimate of Pea, Technology Product Technology Efclency Product Product Incremental Customer kWh Customer kW Generalo, tPW Type of Measure j Doicrlptlon Efficiency Level Description Level Volume Units Electric Rate (years) Rebate Level Cost, Savings SavIngs Savings C&i New Construction Lightin I (continued)I HIgh Intensity Discharge Mit tHpS 100 ImJW IncandescenitMerc 35 Im(W 2.170 fixture General 18 $8.00 $91.93 368 0.086 0.078 (HID). -15W ury Vapor Service Pulse-Start Melal Halide, Pulse Start Metal I10IornW HPS, Mit 70 ImlW 2.660 fixture General 18 $8.00 $72.24 302 0.072 0.064
' 175W Halide Service Pulse-Start Metal Halide, Pulse Start Metal I 10 InVW liPS. MH 70 Im/W 296 fixture General 18 $8.00 $118.81 654 0.155 0.139 176WJ319W Ilande Service Pulse-Start Metal Halide, Pulse Start Metal 110imiNV HPS. MiH 70lmrvi 1.373 fixture General 18 $12.00 $49.84 588 0.139 0.125 320W.749W Halide Service Pulse-Slart Metal Halide, Pulse Start Metal 110 Im/N HPS, Mil 70 Im1W 153 fixture General 18 $18.00 $70.80 1.134 0.268 0.242 750W. Halide Service C&I Custom Lighting .
Custom Lighting Varies Varies Varies Varies I8 project General 18 $200 $33,128 282.400 41 34 Service C&i Motor Efficle ncy _ _ _ ASDs New or Misc. New or Misc Old or less Eli. Old or less Enf 5,102 Customer General 20 $141 $1.000 3.657 34 22 Systems Systems kW Service New Motors New or Misc. New or Misc Old or less Eli. Old or less Eli 230 Cuslomer General 20 $83 $692 6.892 9 7 Syslems Systems kW Service _ v0 Replacement Motors New or Misc. New or Misc Old or less Eli. Old or less Ett 997 Customer General 20 $206 $1,363 6,892 11 8 O Systems -Systems tW Service Custom Motors Newor Misc. New or Misc Old or less Elf. Old or less Elf 767 Cuslomer General 20 $200 $1,000 2.758 45 35
!I Systems Systems I kW Service C&i Recommiss oning Electric _ . . . . : .
Recommlssloning Optirnied Building Improved Existing Building Exisling 12 Facility General 7 Study - Up to $89.902 487.952/611 166 154 Syslems; Syslem System . Not System -Service 50%. up to Effciency Tuned or Optimized Efficiency $15,000 _ Measures.
- 1. . .2/MCF C&I Refrigeration Efficlency . . : . . .. ._. _. ._._
Custom RefrIgeratIon Systems Approach Varies Varies Varies 8 Project General 15 $200hW $121,560 622.800 120 90 I , Service Average C&i Roofing Efmlclency - . . . . .__.._ Roofing Efficiency Energy Slar Cusltomer General 20 $200hW $1,672 520 171 157 11Energy Star Roof Roof Old ortless Eff. Oldoriless Eff. 513 trW Service _____ average _________________ _____
ProductI Product ProductU Product Annual Life of Estimale of Savings per Estimate of Present MCF Technology Efficiency Technology Efficiency Product Product Rebate Participanrs participant per MCF Savings Consumption Type of Measure Description Level Description Level Volume Units Gas Rate (years) Level Incremental Cost Yr per ParldClpant per Participant C&l Boiler Efficiency Boiler Elficiency New or Msc New or Misc. Old or less Eli. Old or less 150,984 MCF Large 15 $1.721 MCF $3.630 50 648 35.027 Systems Systems Elf. Commercial average Flrm C&I Custom Eff iciency Gas . . . Custom Efficiency New or Misc. New or Misc. OldorlessEll. Oidorless 59.175 MCF Large 15 $2.17iMCF $72.137 S3.583 3,114 6.908 Systems Systems EN. Comnercial average Firm C&l Energy De lgn Assistance Gas _ Energy Design New or Misc. New or Misc. Old or less Elf. Old or less 22.785 MCF Large I1 S2 00MCF S15.000 $0 4.557 18.228 Assistance Systems Systems Elf. Commercial average Firm C&I Recommissioning Gas _ _ Recommissioning Optimized Improved Existing Building Existing 12 Facility Large 7 Study - Up to $89,902 $0 611 12.223 Bulding System System - Not System Commercial 50%. up to Systems Efficency Tuned or Efficency Flrm 515(00G
.___ 1 Optimized
._ _ 1200/kW Measures -
'.0 C (, (.
> Commercial and Industrial Load Management A. Load Management Xcel Energy's commercial and industrial electric customers have two load management options, Electric Reduction Savings and Saver's Switch. These products offer customers rate discounts if they agree to assist Xcel Energy by reducing electric load on days with peak demand for electricity (control periods).
Electric Reduction Saxings The Electric Reduction Savings program, formerly the Peak Controlled Rates program, is Xcel Energy's largest load management product, offering discounts to business customers who agree to reduce their electric usage during times of high demand on the electric system. Participants save as much as 60 percent on demand charges the over entire year for the demand they agree to reduce during control periods. Electric Reduction Savings and Saver's Switch are generally utilized on hot, humid summer weekdays when Xcel Energy's load in the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP) region is expected to exceed peak capacity. Controls may also occur during times when, in Xcel Energy's opinion, the reliability of the system may be at risk. The target market for the Electric Reduction Savings program is commercial and industrial customers interested in reducing their montlyl electric bills and who are. willing and able reduce at least 50 kW during control periods. Currently- the Electric Reduction Savings program is promoted directly through Xcel Energy's sales force. Saver's Switch Saver's Switch is Xcel Energy's secondary load management product for commercial and industrial customers. Customers who either choose not to participate in Electric Reduction Savings or do not qualify can elect to join Saver's Switch.- - 4 - Saver's Switch participants receive electric bill discounts during the summer months-for agreeing to have Xcel Energy control electric central air conditioners during times of peak electric demand.. Approximately five percent of Saver's Switch participants are commercial and industrial customers. In addition to enrolling new participants, the Saver's Switch maintenance program will continue in 2005/2006. Maintenance of units maximizes load relief from existing participants and prolongs unit life. Additionally, Xcel Energy is proactively replacing 150 switches each in 2005 and 2006 that have been identified by our vendor has having a faulty microchip that could lead to a higher failure rate. The equipment vendor will fund the change outs. Saver's Switch is promoted through a combination of marketing materials and Xcel Energy's sales force. Customers are initially contacted via direct mail and newsletters and are followed up by the sales force. 92
Electric Reduction Savings and Saver's Switch have been successful products for Xcel Energy. These products have offset the need for additional generation and have helped reduce the impact of escalating demand and prices for peak electricity. As a result, all Xcel Energy's customers have benefited from the features of Electric Reduction Savings and Saver's Switch. Modifications: None B. Project Information Sheet Project Information Sheets are provided at the end of this section. C. Effect on Peak Demand and Energy Consumption & List of Assumptions for each Technology Effects on peak demand and energy consumption are provided in the Project Information Sheets and Benefit/Cost Analyses located at the end of this section. Technology assumptions are also provided at the end of this section. D. Relationship of Program to Resource Plan As part of Xcel Energy's Conservation Improvement Program, this product will support attainment of Xcel Energy's Resource Plan DSM goals. Not applicable to natural gas utilities. E. Cost Effectiveness See Project Information Sheet. F. Estimated Low-Income and Renter Participation See Project Information Sheet. G. Budget See Project Information Sheet. H. Ratemaking Treatment & Cost-Recovery Method The ratemaking and cost-recovery procedures for this CIP follow those approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in Docket Nos. E002/GR-92-1185, G002/GR-97-1606, and E,G-999/CI-98-1759. I. Participation See Project Information Sheet. J. Involvement of Community Energy Organizations N/A K Evaluation Plan Continual review of accomplishments and expenditures are made throughout the year to verify energy achievements and cost effectiveness. Load research is analyzed at the end of each control season to evaluate load relief from Xcel Energy's load management products. 93
L. Renewable Energy Information N/A
*M. Additional Information
- As required in 2004, Xcel Energy will continue tracking stand-by generators used for
- compliance with new Electric Reduction Savings contracts in 2005 and 2006.
. 1,
. . .i K) -
94
Xcel Energy Commercial & Industrial Electric Reduction Savings Project Information Sheet 2005Btud .tS'u? M, Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components Proiect Delivery 5104,087 5104_087 S104,087 S104.087 Utility Administration S78.983 S78.983 S78,983S78.983 Other Project Administration S107.848 S107.848 S10784J3S107.848 Advertising/Promotion $78,832 S78.832 S78,832 $78,832 Evaluations S0 S0 So SO R&D So So $0 SO Incentives (Rebates) So _ S0 So SO Other S0 So SO SO___5 Less Revenues So So SOO S Total Budget S369,750 So $369,750 $6 970 S0369,750 Total Number of Participants 47 38 _ Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) 611,674 495,9521 Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 574,973 466.1951 Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 7,938 6.436 Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Project Type Percentage Expenditure Commercial & Industrial 100% 100%° Small Business Consumer Low Income Other Low-Income Participation (0/6) N/A Participants (#) NIA Budqet (S) Renter Participatlon (%) N/A Participants #) Budqet (S) Societal B/C Results Net Present Value 245.74 246.82 B/C Ratio 11.45 9.51 Participant B/C Results Net Present Value 122.48 124.32 BIC Ratio INF INF Rate Impact BIC Results Net Present Value 122.57 121.80 B/C Ratio 1.84 1.79 Revenue Requirements B/C Results Net Present Value 245.05 246.12 B/C Ratio 11.42 9.49 Project Type Audit/info R&D Renewable Direct Impact X Tvpe of Incentive Loan/Grant Rebate Direct Installation End-U se Target (M) N/A NUA _ _ _ _ _ _ Ughting Process Motor Refrigeration Space Cooling Soace Heating _ Water Heating _ Weatherization . General/Other x Ratemaking treatment: expensed X x 95
I> Commercial & Industrial Segment Electric Reduction Savings I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test
kW - /kW 'SkW wKW 3Icw - -
Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S165 S165 S165 S165 T&D N/A 95 95 . 95 95 Marginal Energy N/A 8 8. 8 8 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A I Subtotal . N/A S269 S269 S269 S269 Xcel Energys Project Costs N/A S24 S24 S24 S24 Subtotal N/A S24 S24 S24 S24 RevenueReduction, $122 N/A $122 N/A N/A Subtotal S122 N/A S122 N/A N/A Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital So N/A N/A S0 So Incremental O&M 0 N/A N/A 0 0
-Rebates - - - - O N/A - N/A - - 0 0 Subtotal - - So N/A N/A S0 --- SO Net Present Benefit (Cost) $122 S245 S123 $245 S246 Net Benefit (Cost) per.kWh Lifetime . 0.630 Sl.260 - S0.630 -S1.260 S1.263 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S243 S485 S243 $485 S487 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 11.42 1.84 11.42 - 11.45 Project Assumptions:
(A) Measure Lifetime (Years) '.5 (B) Customer Rate - . . ; General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) *-. - 0.42% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)-' - 37 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) *'100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)I(E)=' 37*. (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l-(G))= . 39 (1) Gross Customer kW (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) '100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (1)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 47.45% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(LY(l-(G))= 0.505
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.121
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S46.6 96
I > Commercial & Industrial Segment Electric Reduction Savings . Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test SlkW S/kW S/kW S/kW S1kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S169 $169 $169 $169 T&D N/A $98 $98 $98 $98 Marginal Energy N/A S9 $9 $9 $9 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A Sl Subtotal N/A S275 S275 S275 S276 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A S29 $29 $29 $29 Subtotal N/A S29 $29 $29 $29 Revenue Reduction S124 N/A S124 N/A N/A Subtotal S124 N/A S124 N/A N/A Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital 50 N/A N/A SO So Incremental O&M So N/A N/A SO s0 Rebates SO N/A N/A SO so Subtotal so N/A N/A So So Net Present Benefit (Cost) S124 S246 S122 S246 $247 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime SO.639 Sl.265 S0.626. S1.265 $1.269 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator Benefit Cost Ratio 5246 INF
$488 9.49 S241 1.79
= $488 9.49 S489 9.51 Project Assumptions:
(A) Measure Lifetime (Years) S (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.42% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 37 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 37 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (Fy(l-(G))= 39 (I) Gross Customer kW 1 (I) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (l)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 47.45% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(Ly(l-(G))= 0.505
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime SO. 149
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S57.4 97
Commercial & Industrial Segment Electric Reduction Savings 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 334.57 - 335.53 (B I) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B I)= - 334.57 335.53 -- (D) Coincident factor 47.4% 47A% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% 6.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(I-E)= 168.89 169.37 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW -- - - 37 37 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year (A)*(G)= 12,233 12,268 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0%
- (I) Net kWh ieduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= 12,233 12,268 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year. (I)/(1-E)= 13,014 13,051
- (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 47 - 38 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 15,725 - 12,750 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 15,725 12,750 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= - 7,938 6,436 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)= ---
574,973 466,195 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year. (I)*(K)= ' 574,973 466,195 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 611,674 495,952 Total Budget $ 369,750 $ 369,750 98
Xcel Energy Commercial & Industrial Savers Switch Project Information Sheet 2005 Budget 2006 Budget Electric Gas I Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components _ Project Delivery S189.294 S189.294 S187,161 S187,t6t Utility Administration S28.370 S28.370 529.221 S29,221 Other Project Administration S63.118 . S63,118 S64,559 S64,559 Advertising/Promotion S50,220 S50.220 S5t 720 S5t 720 Evaluations S19,559 .19.559 S20,t46 S20,t46 R&D S0 S0 Incentives (Rebates) S0 $S0 so SO _ _ _ _ ___ _so _3 SO__ Other S0 S0 Less Revenues S0 So Total Budget S350S561 So S350.561 S352,807 SO So S352,807 SO2.0 Total.Number of Participants 545 545 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) 81_171 81,171 Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 76,300 78,300 __ Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 999 999 _ Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Proiect Type Percentage Expenditure . Comnercial & Industrial 100% Small Business Consumer Low Income Other Low-Income Participation (%) N/A N/A Participants (#) Budget (S) Renter Participation IN) NIA NIA Participants (#) . Budget (S) Societal BIC Results Net Present Value 3273 S282 B/C Ratio 3.50 3.56 Participant BWC Results Net Present Value S119 3119__ _ _ _ _ B/C Ratio INF INF Rate Impact B/C Results Net Present Value 3153 S161 B/C Ratio 1.67 1.70 Revenue Requirements BIC Results Net Present Value 3272 S281 BIC Ratio 3.49 3.55 Project Type Audit/nto R&D Renewable Direct Impact X Type of Incentive Loan/Grant Rebate Direct Installation End-Use Target I%M_ _ Lighting 0% 0% Process 0%° 0% Motor 0% 0%_ Refrigeration 0% 0% Soace Cooling 100% 100% __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Space Heating 0% _ _ 0% Water Heating 0%°X 0%_ Weatherization 0% 0% _ General/Other 0% 0X Ratemaking treatment: expensed X x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 99
I > Commercial & Industrial Segment Saver's Switch l Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total
. Participant.- Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test enA, cn',V Cnow enAu
- eIw Avoided Revenue Requirements - -
Generation N/A S231 S231 S231 $231
-T&D .. N/A 139 139 139 139 Marginal Energy N/A 11 11 1 11 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal N/A S381 $381 S381 S382 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A - $109 $109 - 0-9
$109 Subtotal N/A $109 $109 S109 $109 Revenue Reduction SI-19 N/A $119- SO - So Subtotal 'S119 N/A $119 $0 So Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital s0 N/A N/A $0 so Incremental O&M 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Rebates 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Subtotal $0 N/A N/A $0 $0 Net Present Benefit (Cost) SI19 S272 S153 S272 S273 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.314 $0.716 $0.402 $0.716 SO.718 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $382 $873 $490 S873 $876 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 3.49 1.67 3.49 3.50'-
Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 - (B) Customer Rate . Small General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) -.. 0.27% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 24 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) -100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)=-.. 24 (G) Transmission Loss Factor - 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l-(G))= . 25 (1)Gross Customer kW .. I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) I 00.0%. (K) Net Customer kW: (1)*(J)= 1.000 . (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 29.29% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(1I(G)) 0.312 Reduction at Customer kW/unit 5.880 Peak Reduction at Customer kW/unit 2.176
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.288
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S351.0
.100
I > Commercial & Industrial Segment Saver's Switch l Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kNw S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $236 $236 $236 $236 T&D N/A 143 143 143 143 Marginal Energy N/A 11 11 11 11 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A I Subtotal N/A $391 $391 $391 $392 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A $110 $110 $110 .$110 Subtotal N/A $110 $110 $110 $110 Revenue Reduction $119 N/A $119 $0 $0 Subtotal $119 N/A $119 $0 $0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $0 N/A N/A $0 $0 Incremental O&M 0 N/A NIA 0 0 Rebates 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Subtotal $0 N/A N/A $0 So Net Present Benefit (Cost) $119 $281 $161 $281 $282 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.314 $0.738 $0.425 $0.738 SO.741 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $382 $900 $518 $900 $904 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 3.55 1.70 3.55 3.56 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 (B) Customer Rate Snnall General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.27% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 24 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWb/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 24 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l-(G))= 25 (I) Gross Customer kW I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 29.29% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(I -{G))= 0.312 Reduction at Customer kW/unit 5.880 Peak Reduction at Customer kW/unit 2.176
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.290
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $353.3 101
Commercial & Industrial Segment Saver's Switch
- 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 5.88 5.88 (B 1) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0%
(C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(BI)= 5.88 5.88 (D) Coincident factor 29.3% 29.3% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% 6.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(1-E)- 1.83 1.83 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 24 24 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G)= 140 140 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0% (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= 140 140 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year. (I)/(1-E) 149 149 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 545 545 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 3,205 3,205 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 3,205 3,205 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 999 999 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year. (H)*(K)= 76,300 76,300 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year (I)*(K)= 76,300 76,300 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 81,171 81,171 Total Budget $ 350,561 S 352,807 102
High Efficiency Efimclent Baseline Expected _of Estimate of Estimat Product I Product Baseline Produc Product Annual LUe of Participants Annual Estimate of Estimate of Technology Efficiency Technology Efficiency Product Electric Product Incremental Cutomer kWh Customer kW Peak Gnrator Type of Measure Description Level Descripflon Level Vowume Units Rate (years) Rebe Level Costt Savings Savings Savings C&l Saver's Switch - _ . .. . :_._::. New Installations Utlity load control Not Applicable No air condioner tlot Applcable 1,735 Customer General 15 Not So 30 5.880 2.310 of air conditioner load control kW Service -AC Applicable Rider Maintenance Utility load control Not Applicable Bad air conditioner Not Applicable 1.470 Customer General 15 Not $0 18 5.880 1.260 of air conditioner load control kW Service -AC Applicable _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___ __ ___ _ _ _ _ __ ___ __ _ _ __ R ider 0 W, ( (. (.
I > Small Business Segment 'II Segment
Description:
The Small Business Segment consists of an extensive variety of businesses with usage less than 500 kW or 200 MCF. Typical customers include light manufacturing, churches,. restaurants, retail shops, strip malls, service establishments, and small office buildings. Energy usage varies by type of customer, but most businesses in this segment have energy usage concentrated in the following end uses: lighting, space conditioning, process load, refrigeration, and water heating. .
'Planned energy saving achievements for the Small Business Segment are 27.1 GWh and
. 84,158 MCF during this Biennial Plan which account for 8 percent of the electric and 10 percent of the gas CIP achievements. --
Xcel Erierg)"s strategy for the Small Business Segment is to continue building awareness of our CIP programs, and subsequently drive participation, by leveraging our Business Solutions Center to handle customer calls and our trade allies to-effectively sell CIP
' programs to their customers in Xcel Energy's service area. Further marketing efforts for this segment include newsletters, customer events, and direct mail to reach target customers.
Small Business Segment energy savings will come primarily from the Lighting Efficiency and Motr Efficiency programs, secondairilyfrom the Energy Design'Assistance, Boiler Efficiency, and Furnace Efficiency programs.
- Similar to the C&I segment, the Lighting Efficiency program continues to be a mainstay of
- Xcel Energy's Small Business CIP. New lighting technologies, high bay lighting in'particular, are planned to have an increased impact within this segment.
The Motor Efficiency program is popular among Small Business customers because of the impact of our trade allies marketirig'NEMA Premium' efficient motors and energy efficient adjustable speed drives within Xcel Energy's service area.- - - The Boiler'Efficiency pro'gram is the largest natural gas conservation program in the Small
- Business segment. -As we see in the C&I segment, our customers are more aware of natural
-- gas price volatility recently and have increased interest in gas conservation programs to help control their utility expenses. _ . .. - -y 104
Xcel Energy Small Business Segment Project Information Sheet _ . . . . 2005 Budget 2006 Budaet Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components _.___._ ____.____ Project Delivery S1.564.828 S108.696 _St673.524 S1.592.424 $112.601 S1.705.025 Utility Administration S376.608 S47,764 5424,372 S387.1 33 S49.187 5436.320 Other Project Administration S617,418 S17,590 S635,008 5631.088 S17.590 S648.678 Advertisina/Promotion $349.638 S28.650 S378.288 $354,369 S28.650 5383.019 Evaluations So S0 S0 $0 SO SO R&D So so S0 SO so so Incentives (Rebates) S970.859 $107,070 S1.077.929 S960,927 S107.070 S1.067.997 Other S0 so so s0 $0 $0 Less Revenues (S20.000) (S5,000) (S25.000) (S20.000) (S5,000) (S25.000) Total Budget S3.859352 S304,770 S4,164122 S3,90S,941 S310,096 S4,216,037 Total Number of Participants 53,665 396 53.669 396 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) 13,552,457 . 13.568.500 . Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 12,739,310 12.754.390 Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 14,454 14.361 _ _ Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) 42,079 42.079 Project Type Percentage Expenditure Residential Small Business 100% 100% 100% 100% C&8Combined Other R&D Low-Income Participation (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A Participants (#) Budget (S) Renter Participation (%) NMA N/A NIA N/A Participants (#) . Budoet (S) Societal BIC Results Net Present Value $621 $S1800.194 _ S645 S1,800,194 B/C Ratio INF 1.55 INF 1.55 Participant B/C Results Net Present Value $430 S4,770.224 $449 S4.770.224 B/C Ratio INF 2.52 INF 2.52 Rate Impact B/C Results Net Present Value 5174 S1.888.394 S178 51,888.394 B/C Ratio 1.41 1.65 _ 1.42 1.65 Revenue Requirements B/C Results Net Present Value S489 S4.217.601 S498 S4,217.601 BIC Ratio 5.60 8.52 5.63 8.52 Proiect Type Audit/info X X x x R&D Renewable _ Direct Impact X X x x Type of Incentive Loan/Grant X X x x_ _ _ Rebate x x x x Direct Installation X X x x End-Use Target (%) Liahtinq 68% 0% 68% 0%o Process 44% 0% 4% 0% Motor 14% 46% 14% 46% Refrigeration 4% 0% 4% 0% Space Cooling 5% 23%° 5% 23% Space Heating 3% 31% 3% 31% Water Heating 0% 0% 0% 0% Weatherization 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 2% 0% General/Other Ratemakin treatment: expensed X X x I x _ 105
SmallBusiness Segment Total I l
- Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kbNN S/kW S/kU' S/kW' S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S289 S289 $289 $289 T&D - N/A 175 175 175 175 Marginal Energy N/A 131 131 131 131 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 17 Subtotal NIA S595 5595 $595 5612 Xvrpi Pner~v's p-,-t rCot. 'MI/A cin.< 910X5 cinA Ulna
-rn -1 . y .
Subtotal N/A S106 S106 S106 $106 Revenue Reduction $315 NIA S315 SO .. $0 Subtotal ' $ S315 N/A S315 SO SO Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital -$156 N/A N/A -S156 $156 Incremental O&M (246) N/A N/A (246) (246) Rebates (26) N/A N/A (26) . (26) Subtotal (5115) N/A N/A (S115) ($115) Net Present Benefit (Cost) S430 $489 $174 S604 $621 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S0.078. S0.089 - $0.032 $0.110 S0.1 13 - Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator . S1.082 S 1.229 .5.437 .- S 1,519 S1.562 Benefit Cost Ratio - INF 5.60 1.41 INF -INF Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) - 4.00% . (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 350 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW)V: (D)* (E)= 350 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6% . (H) Net kWh/Ycar Saved at Generator per Customer k-W: (F)/(l-(G))= 373 (I) Gross Customer kW I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) ,:100% (K) Net Customer k}W: (1)*(J)= ' I 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 37.38% (M) Generator Adjusted k;W: (K)*(L)/(l-(G))= 0.398
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.019
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $267.0 106
I > Small Business Segment Total I K>1 Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test s/kw SIkM SikW* S/kW SIW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S294 S294 $294 $294 T&D N/A 178 178 178 178 Marginal Energy N/A 134 134 134 134 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 18 Subtotal N/A $606 S606 5606 S624 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A $108 $108 S108 $108 Subtotal N/A $108 $108 S108 $108 Revenue Reduction S320 N/A $320 $0 so Subtotal S320 N/A $320 so $0 Participants' Net Costs Incremefital Capital S158 N/A N/A $158 $158 Incremental O&M (262) N/A N/A (262) (262) Rebates (26) N/A N/A (26) (26) Subtotal (S129) N/A NIA (S 129) (S129) Net Present Benefit (Cost) S449 $498 $178 S628 $645 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime SO.082 SO.090 $0.03? $0.114 S0.117 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S1,135 S1.259 $451 $1.586 S1,630 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 5.63 1.42 INF INF Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 4.01% (D) Gross kWVhYear saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 352 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 352 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(1-(G))= 374 (I) Gross Customer kW I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100% (K) Net Customer kW: (1)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 37.20% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(I-(G))= 0.396
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime SO.020
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S272.0 107
Small Business Segment Total 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 0.68 0.68 (B1) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100% -. 100% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(BI)= 0.68 0.68 (D) Coincident factor 37.38% 37.20% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6% 6% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)I(l-E)= 0.27: 0.27 (G) Gross k'h/Year saved per Customer kW 350 352 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G)= 237 238 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy). -100% 100% (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= 237
- 238 (J)Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (I)/(l -E)= .253 253 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 53,665 53,669 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 36,352 36,283 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 36,352 36,283 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 14,454 14,361 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)= 12,739,310 12,754,390 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (I)*(K)= 12,739,310 12,754,390 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 13,552,457 13,568,500 Total Budget S 3,859,352 S 3,905,941 108
I > Small Business Segment Conservation Total I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW S/kW SMkNV S/kW S/kNV Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S702 $702 $702 $702 T&D N/A 430 430 430 430 Marginal Energy N/A 934 934 934 934 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 125 Subtotal N/A $2.066 S2,066 $2,066 S2,192 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A S335 S335 S335 $335 Subtotal N/A S335 S335 S335 $335 Revenue Reduction S1,606 N/A SI,606 So SO Subtotal SI.606 N/A $1.606 So SO Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S1,200 N/A N/A S1,200 S,200 Incremental Q&M (1,885) N/A N/A (1,885) (1,885) Rebates (201) N/A N/A (201) (201) Subtotal ($885) N/A N/A (S885) (S885) Net Present Benefit (Cost) S2,491 S1.732 $126 S2,617 S2.742 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.049 S0.034 S0.002 S0.052 S0.054 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $3.025 $2.103 $153 S3.178 S3,330 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 6.17 1.07 INF INF Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 19 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 28.77% (D) Gross kWhfYear saved per Customer kW: (CQ*(8760)= 2,521 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 2,521 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)I(l-(G))= 2,681 (1) Gross Customer kW 1 (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (1)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 77.40% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(LY( l-(G))= 0.823
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime SO.007
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $406.5 109
I > Small Business Segment Conservation Total I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility ..Impact Resource, Societal Test Test . Test - Test - Test S/kW' S/kW S/k1W , S/kW;V $/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $711 S711 $71i $711 T&D N/A 435 , 435 435 435 Marginal Energy N/A 968 968 968 968 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 130 Subtotal N/A S2,114 52,114 $2,114 S2,244 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A $340 $340 $340 S340 Subtotal N/A $340 $340 -$340 S340 Revenue Reduction S1,664 N/A, $1,664 so so Subtotal S1,664 N/A S1,664. SO $0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $1,230 N/A N/A $1,230 S1,230 Incremental O&M (2,034) N/A N/A -(2,034) (2,034) Rebates (202) . N/A N/A -(202) (202) Subtotal (S1,006) N/A N/A - (S1,006) ($1,006) Net Present Benefit (Cost) S2.670 S.774 sl0 $2.779 $2.910 Net Benefit (Cost) per klWh Lifetime $0.052 S0.035 $0.002 SO.054 $0.057 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $3.273 S2.175 $135 S3,408 $3.567 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 6.21 1.05 INF INF Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 19 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 29.24% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 2,561 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100% (F) Net kl;Bh/Year saved per Customer k}W: (D)*(E)= 2,561 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l-(G))= 2,725 (I) Gross Customer kW 1 (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 76.67% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(I-(G))= 0.816
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.007
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S417.3 110
X-I Small Business Segment Conservation Total 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 9.53 9.32 (B I) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100% 100% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(BI)= 9.53 9.32 (D) Coincident factor 77.40% 76.67% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6% 6% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(1-E)= 7.85 7.60 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 2,521 2,561 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year (A)*(G)= 24,019 23,857 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100% 100% (1) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= 24,019 23,857 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (l)/(1-E) 25,552 25,380 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 497 501 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 4,736 4,667 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 4,736 4,667 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 3,900 3,806 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)= 11,937,351 11,952,431 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (1)*(K)= 11,937,351 11,952,431 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 12,699,310 12,715,352 Total Budget $ 1,585,434 S 1,588,591 111
> Small Business Segment Load Management Total -. I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW
- C .
Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test SlkX ' S/kAN? S/kW S/kW S/kUV
- Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S227 S227 $227 $227
.T&D N/A 137 137 137 137 Marginal Energy N/A 11 11 11 ' 11 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal N/A S374 $374 S374 $375 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A $61 $61 S61 -<$61 Subtotal N/A $61 $61 $61 $61 Revenue Reduction.. S121 N/A S121 $0 So Subtotal S121 N/A $121 so So Participants' Net Costs .
Incremental Capital so N/A N/A $so $0 Incremental O&M - N/A NA- -
- Rebates - NIA N/A -
Subtotal So N/A N/A so $0 Net Present Benefit (Cost) $121 S313 S192 S313 $314 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S0.318 S0.821 0.503 $0.821 S0.824 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator - $363 $938 $574 $938 $941 Benefit Cost Ratio - INF 6.11 2.05 6.11 - 6.13 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 14 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.29% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= . 25 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) - 100.0% I (F) Net kVh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 25 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (Hi Net kNVh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)1(1-(G))= 27 . (1) Gross Customer kWV . (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 31.38% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)I(I -(G))= 0.334
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.161
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $183.3 112
Small Business Segment Load Management Total Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test snkw S/kW S/kWV S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S232 $232 $232 $232 T&DD N/A 140 140 140 140 Marginal Energy N/A 11 11 11 11 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal N/A S383 $383 S383 S384 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A S62 S62 S62 562 Subtotal N/A $62 S62 S62 $62 Revenue Reduction S122 N/A S122 so $0 Subtotal $122 N/A S 122 so $0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital ' $0 N/A N/A S0 so Incremental O&M - N/A N/A - - Rebates N/A N/A - - Subtotal $0 N/A N/A $0 So Net Present Benefit (Cost) $122 S321 $200 S321 S322 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S0.319 $0.843 S0.524 $0.843 SO.845 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S364 $962 S598 $962 S965 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 6.16 2.09 6.16 6.18 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 14 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.29% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 25 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 25 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(I -(G))= 27 (I) Gross Customer kW l (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 31.38% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(l-(G))= 0.334
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.163
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $186.4 113
Small Business Segment Load Management Total
.2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 6.42 6.42 (B 1)Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100% 100%
(C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*,(BI)= . 6.42 6A2 (D) Coincident factor 31.4% 33.4% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% 6.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)f(l-E)= 2.14 2.14 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 25 25 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G)= 163 163 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100% 100% (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year. (B)*(H)= 163 163 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (1)1(1 -E)= 173 163 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 4,921 4,921 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 31,616 31,616 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 31,616 31,616 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K})= 10,554 10,554 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)= - 801,959 801,959 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year. (1)*(K)= 801,959 801,959 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year (J)*(K)= 853,148 801,959 Total Budget $ 1,934,943 5 1,967,052 114
Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS-- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Company; Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: Small Business Segment w/ Indirect Participants Summary Information Input Data Company. Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project:
- 1) Retail Rate ($/MCF) = S8.40 15) Utility Project Costs (First Year)
Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administralive Costs = $110,847 Cost Summary Direct Operaling Costs = S86.853
- 2) Commodity Cost (S/MCF) = $4.58 Incentive Costs = 5107.070 Utility Cost per Participant (First Year) = 5769.54 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Total Utility Project Costs = S304.770 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = $782.99
- 3) Demand Cost ($SUniUYr) = 593.86 15a) Utility Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) 1,261.784 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = $113,628 Societal Cost per MCF $2.60 Direct Operating Costs = $89,398
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor = 1.00% Incentive Costs = S107.070 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year) = $37.60 Total Utility Project Costs = $310.096 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year) = $37.73
- 5) Variable O&M (S/MCF) = S0.0761 Escalation Rate = 2.10% 16) Direct Participant Costs ($/Part.) = 3,137.2 vJ 6) Environmental Damage Factor $0.3000 17) Other Participant Costs (Annual 5/Part.) = 86.2 Escalation Rate = 2.17% Escalation Rate = 2.10%
- 7) Total Sales = 78.428,047 18) Project Life (Years) = 15 Growth Rate 0.60%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) = 7.93% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers = 395.842 Growth Rate = 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/Part.) = 1,339.0 NPV BIC
- 9) Utilily Discount Rate = 7.47% 21) Avg. MCF/ParI. Saved (First Year Program) - 108.2 Cost Comparison Test $1,897,376 1.66 21a) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (Second Year Program) = 106.2
- 10) Social Discount Rate = 4.72% Revenue Requirements Test $4,226.582 8.66
- 22) Number of Participants (First Year Program) = 396
- 11) General Input Data Year = 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program) = 398 Societal Benefit Test $1.809,176 1.55
- 12) Project Analysis Year 1 = 2005 23) Incentive/Participant (First Year Program) = $270 Participant Test $4,770,237 2.52 12a) Project Analysis Year 2 = 2008 23a) Incentive/Participant (Second Year Program) = $270
- 13) Effective Fed & State Income Tax Rate = 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Taxes 6.75%
as % Total Operating Income ( ( . . S
(I C Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS.- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ConservatIon Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effecliveness Analysis Company Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: Small Business Segment Direct Participants & Costs Only Summary Information Input Data Company. Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: 1)Retail Rate (SIMCF) = $8.40 15) Ulitit I Project Costs (First Year) Escalation Rate = 2.10% Admii istrative Costs = S70.328 Cost Summary Direcl I Operating Costs = 572.394
- 2) Commodity Cost (SIMCF) = $4.58 Incen live Costs = S107.070 Utility Cost per Participant (First Year) = $676.87 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Total Utility Project Costs= $249,792 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = $685.11
- 3) Demand Cost ($SUnltiYr): $93.883 15a) Utif ity Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) 1.282.118 Escalation Rate 2.10% Admir nistrative Costs = $71,121 Societal Cost per MCF $2.52 DireclI Operating Costs = $74,841
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor = 1.00% Incen live Costs : S107.070 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year) = $38.28 Total Utility Project Costs = $252,832 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year): $36.35
- 5) VarIable O&M (S/MCF) = S0.0781 Escalation Rato = 2.10% 1E6)Direc:t Participant Costs (S/Part.) = 3,368.76
- 8) Environmental Damage Factor =
6'i $0.3000 17) Othe r Participant Costs (Annual S/Part.) = 92.51 Escalation Rate = 2.17% Escal atlon Rate = 2.10%
- 7) Total Sales: 78.428.047 18) Projl ict Life (Years): 1S Growth Rate = 0.60%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) = 7.93% Test Results 8)Total Customers 395.842 Growth Rate = 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/ParI.) = 1,438.92 NPV BIC
- 9) Utility Discount Rate = 7.47% 21) Avg. MCFlPart. Saved (First Year Program) = 114.00 Cost Comparison Test $1,998,780 1.72 21a) AvgS.MCF/Part. Saved (Second Year Program) = 114.00
- 10) Social Discount Rate 4.72% Revenue Requirements Test S4,328.582 10.59
- 22) Num ber of Participants (First Year Program) = 369
- 11) General Input Data Year 2003 22a) Nutniber of Participants (Second Year Program) = 369 SocIetal Benefit Test $1,911,259 1.60
- 12) Project Analysis Year1 = 2005 23) Incei itive/Participant (First Year Program) = $290 Participant Test $4,772,655 2.52 12a) Project Analysis Year 2 2008 23a) Ince3ntive/Participant (Second Year Program)= $290
- 13) Effective Fed & State Income Tax Rate
- 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Taxes 6.75%
as % Total Operating Income
I> Small Business Load Management A. Description Electric Reduction Savings and Saver's Switch' are both available to small business customers. Please refer to Commuercial and Industrial (CgI) Load Management description for general information about these load management products.
- 1. Electric Reduction Savings Program Xcel Energy's Electric Reduction Savings Program, formally the Peak Controlled Rates program, provides small business customers the opportunity to participate in the same rate discounts as large-use customers. Many business customers in this segment do not have electric demands high enough to participate in Electric Reduction Savings, so Saver's Switch offers a similar opportunity for discounts.
Modifications: None.
- 2. Saver's Switch Saver's Switch is the primary load management program for small business customers. Saver's Switch is an attractive product to small business customers because of the ease of enrollment, qualification, and summer savings. The main qualifier for a customer is that they have forced central air conditioning.
Participation in Saver's Switch is free and customers enroll through Xcel Energy promotions such as newsletters, direct mail, telemarketing, and site visits. Approximately 95 percent of Saver's Switch business participants are small business customers. Xcel Energy expanded its Saver's Switch maintenance program in 2003-2004 to the Small Business and Commercial & Industrial Segments and will continue to maintain switches in 2005-2006. The purpose for maintenance is to maximize the existing load relief and prolong unit life. In addition to maintenance of units that are identified as no longer working, our equipment vendor identified a faulty microchip that could lead to an increased failure rate switches installed in 2001-2002. The goal is to complete the change out effort of the potentially faulty units by 2006. The vendor will fund these change outs. Saver's Switch is promoted to small business customers through a combination of marketing materials and Xcel Energy's sales force. Customers are contacted through direct mail, newsletters, telemarketing, and direct sales. . Modifications:., None B. Project Information Sheet Project Information Sheets are provided at the end of this section.
-172
C. Effect on Peak Demand and Energy Consumption & List of Assumptions for each Technology Effects on peak demand and energy consumption are provided in the Project Information Sheets and Benefit/Cost Analyses located at the end of this section. Technology assumptions are also provided at the end of this section. D. Relationship of Program to Resource Plan As part of Xcel Energy's Conservation Improvement Program, these programs will support attainment of Xcel Energy's Resource Plan DSM goals. Not applicable to natural gas utilities. E. Cost Effectiveness See Project Information Sheet. F. Estimated Low-Income and Renter Participation See Project Information Sheet. G. Budget See Project Information Sheet. H. Ratemaking Treatment & Cost-Recovery Method The ratemaking and cost-recovery procedures for this CIP follow those approved by the Mlinnesota Public Utilities Commission in Docket Nos. E002/GR 1185, G002/GR-97-1606, and E,G-999/CI-98-1759. I. Participation See Project Information Sheet at the end of this section. J. Involvement of Community Energy Organizations Xcel Energy utilizes local electrical & HVAC contractors for the installation of the Saver's Switch device at customer businesses. K Evaluation Plan A process evaluation was completed in 2000 for the Electric Reduction Savings program. Continual review of accomplishments and expenditures are made throughout the year to verify conservation achievements and cost effectiveness. L. Renewable Energy Information N/A M. Additional Information As required in 2004, Xcel Energy will continue tracking stand-by generators used for compliance with new Electric Reduction Savings contracts in 2005 and 2006. 173
Xcel Energy Small Business Electric Reduction Savings ' , Project Inforrnation Sheet - - - 1n5;- F - ____________ vs . -.. ni; I-t~~zo:ugt.La 06Budet Electric Gas Total Electric - Gas Total Cost Components _ _ _ Project Delivery S29,728 529,728 529.728 S29.728 Utility Administration S25,817 525,817 $525,817 S5817 M, Other Project Administration S2,727 S2,727 S2,727 S2,727 Advertising/Promotion S6,978 S6,978 S6.978 S6.978 Evaluations So So SO SO R&D S0 So SO _ _ _ _ _ _SO Incentives (Rebates) S0 So SO _ _ _ _ _ _SO Other S0 So SO _ _ _ _ _ _SO Less Revenues S0 So SOi __ _ _ _ _ SO Total Budget S65250 S0 S65,250 . 65.250 So $65,250 Total Number of Participants 16 16 . Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) 122,613 122,613 .. Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 115.256 115,256 Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 1.566 1 566 Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Project Type Percentage Expenditure . . Commercial & Industrial Small Business - 100% . . _._* 100% Consumer . Low Income - : Low-Income Participation (Y.) - NtA ParticiDants (#) Budget (S) ' ' . . Renter Participation (%) N/A N/A __ .._ .- Participants (#) Budget (S) . - Societal B/C Results . Net Present Value $278 .. $285 ._._ . BIC Ratio 12.81 _ 13.12 Participant B/C Results - - .. . . Net Present Value -144 $147 B/C Ratio INF INF Rate Impact B/C Resutts . . - Net Present Value $133 $138 B/C Ratio 1.79 1.81 Revenue Requirements B/C Results . - Net Present Value S277 $284 ; B/C Ratio 12.78 13.09 Prolect Type Audit/Info - . __-_._._. R&D - Renewable . - Direct Impact X : x . Type of Incentive Loan/Grant . . Rebate Direct Installation End-Use Target (%) N/A . -_._._ . A Liahting Process Motor - Refrigeration Space Cooling Space Heating Water Heatingq Weatherization . . General/Other . Ratemaking treatment expensed X x : 174
> Small S Business Segment Electric Reduction Savings Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $184 $184 $184 S184 T&D N/A 106 106 106 106 Marginal Energy N/A 10 10 10 10 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Subtotal N/A $300 $300 S300 $301 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A 24 $24 $24 $24 Subtotal N/A $24 $24 $24 $24 Revenue Reduction $144 N/A $144 N/A N/A Subtotal $144 N/A $144 N/A N/A Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $0 N/A N/A $0 $0 Incremental O&M 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Rebates 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Subtotal $0 N/A N/A $0 $0 Net Present Benefit (Cost) $144 $277 $133 $277 $278 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.654 $1.254 $0.600 $1.254 $1.257 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $256 $491 $235 $491 $492 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 12.78 1.79 12.78 12.81 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 5 (B) Customer Rate General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.47% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 42 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 42 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(I-(G))= 44 (I) Gross Customer kW I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 53.06% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)Y(l-(G))= 0.564
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.106
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $41.7 175
I > Small Business Segment Electric Reduction Savings I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test. Test. Test . . Test Test S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements . . . Generation N/A $189 $189 $189 $189 T&D N/A $109 $109 .$109 $109 Marginal Energy N/A. $10 $10. _$10 $10 Externality Willingness N/A N/A. N/A N/A - $1 Subtotal N/A S308 $308 $308 $309 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A $24. .$24 $24 $24 Subtotal N/A $24 $24 $24 $24 Revenue Reduction $147 N/A. $147 N/A N/A Subtotal $147 N/A $147 N/A N/A Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $0 N/A N/A . O $0 Incremental O&M $0 NiA N/A $ $0 Rebates , $0 N/A N/A $0 $0 Subtotal . S0 N/A N/AI $0 so
,Net Present Benefit (Cost) - $147 S284 $138 $284 S285 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.663 $1.287 S0.624 S1.287 $1.290 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $260 S504 $244 $504 $ .. 505 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 13.09 1.81 13.09 13.12 Project Assumptions:
(A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 5 (B) Customer Rate Gieneral Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.47% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 42 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 42 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWhYear Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)/(l-(G))= 44 (I) Gross Customer kW I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 53.06% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(Ly(l-(G))= 0.564
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.106
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $41.7 176
Small Business Segment Electric Reduction Savings 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 173.44 173.44 (Bl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B1)= 173.44 173.44 (D) Coincident factor 53.1% 53.1% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% 6.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(1 -E)= 97.90 97.90 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 42 42 (H)Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G)= 7,204 7,204 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0% (1)Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year. (B)*(H)= 7,204 7,204 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (I)I(1-E)= 7,663 7,663 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 16 16 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 2,775 2,775 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 2,775 2,775 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 1,566 1,566 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer peryear. (H)*(K)= 115,256 115,256 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (I)*(K)= 115,256 115,256 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 122,613 122,613 Total Budget $ 65,250 $ 65,250 177
Xcel Energy Small Business Saver's Switch < J~ Project Information Sheet _-_ ._ 2005 Budget -. .l ,..2006 Budget . . Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components Project Delivery S1,042,229 l1.042,229 S.054,5501054,550 Utility Administration SS2,774 S52,774 S54,358 S54.358 Other Project Administration 5S76,351 SS76,351 S590,021S590,021 Advertising/Promotion 339 __-_S198 1S98 339 $202,873 Evaluations So So SO SO R&D So So S' SO _ __ _ _ SO Incentives (Rebates) SO So Other -SO SO So SO Less Revenues SO0 So SO SO Total Budget S1,869.693 S0 S1,869,693 $1,901,802 S0 $1,901,802 Total Number of Participants 4.905 4,905 Total En. Savinas-Generator (kWh) 730,535 Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 686,703 Total Dernand Savings Generator (kW) 89 Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Proiect Type Percentage Expenditure Commercial & Industrial Small Business 100% 100% Consumer Low Income -- Low-Income Participation ( h) NIA N/A _ _ _ _ _ Participants (#) _ . Budget (I) - Renter Participation (Y) NMA Partidipants (#) Budget (S) Societal BIC Results . ; - Net Present Value $318 - 7326 . BIC Ratio -- 5.90 -
- 5.94 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Participant BIC Results . Net Present Value $119 $119 __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ BIC Ratio
- INF INIF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Rate Impact BIC Results Net Present Value S197 5206 __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ BIC Ratio 2.07 2.1 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Revenue Requirements BIC Results - Net Present Value S316 . 5325 __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ BIC Ratio 5.88 5.92 __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ Project Type - -_._. NI Audit/Info -'. R&D Renewable Direct Impact X Type of Incentive Loan/Grant - Rebate Direct Installation End-Use Target (0/.) Lighting 0% 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ Process 0% 0%__ _ _ _ _ Motor 0% 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ Refrigeration 0% 0%__ _ _ _ _ Space Cooling 100% 100% . Space Heating 0% 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Water Heating 0%°_ 0%__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Weatherizatior n n oi 0% __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-0%_ _ _ _ _
reatment: expensed I X I I 178
I > Small Business Segment Saver's Switch I'- I K>1-Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW S/kW S/kW SIkW SVkW. Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S231 $231 $231 $231 T&D N/A 139 139 139 139 Marginal Energy N/A 11 11 11 11 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A I Subtotal N/A S381 S381 $381 $382 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A $65 S65 S65 S65 Subtotal N/A $65 $65 $65 $65 Revenue Reduction S1 19 N/A 5119 so so Subtotal SI 19 N/A S119 so so Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital so N/A N/A $0 $0 Incremental O&M 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Rebates 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Subtotal so N/A N/A so $0 Net Present Benefit (Cost) $119 $316 S197 S316 "S318' Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.314 50.833 - $0.519 $0.833 50.836 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S382 S1,016 $633 $1,016 $1,019 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 5.88 2.07 5.88 5.90 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) is (B) Customer Rate Small General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.27% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 24 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 24 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)I(l.{G))= 25 (I) Gross Customer kW 1 (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (1)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 29.29% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(I -(G))= 0.312 Reduction at Customer kW/unit 5.880 Peak Reduction at Customer kW/unit 2.176
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.171
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $208.0 179
> Small Business Segment Saver's Switch for Business I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test . Test
'S/kW S/kW S/kW I$/kW 1$/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements - '
Generation N/A $236 $236 $236 $236 T&D N/A 143 143 .. 143 143 Marginal Energy N/A 11 11 1 11 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A I Subtotal -N/A $391 .$391 S391 $392 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A . $66 - $66 S66 S66 Subtotal .. N/A $66 $66 - $66 S66 Revenue Reduction $119. N/A $119 $0 so Subtotal $119 N/A $119 -so $0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $0 N/A N/A $0. so Incremental O&M 0. N/A 'N/A - 0' 0 Rebates 0 N/A .- N/A 0 0 I Subtotal - - .N/A $ - N/A $0 so Net Present Benefit (Cost) $119 $325 .- $206 . $325 $326 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.314 $0.855 $0.541 $0.855 $0.857 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $382 $1,042 $660 S1,042 $1,045 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 5.92 2.11 5.92 5.94 Project Assumptions: (A) Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 (B) Customer Rate Small General Service (C) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.27% (D) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (C)*(8760)= 24 (E) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (F) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (D)*(E)= 24 (G) Transmission Loss Factor 6.0% (H) Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (F)f(l -(G))= 25 (1)Gross Customer kW I (J) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (K) Net Customer kW: (I)*(J)= 1.000 (L) Coincidence Factor at Generator 29.29% (M) Generator Adjusted kW: (K)*(L)/(1 (G))-= 0.312 Reduction at Customer kW/unit 5.880 Peak Reduction at Customer kW/unit 2.176
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.174
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $211.6 180
Small Business Segment Saver's Switch 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 5.88 5.88 (B 1) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(BI)= 5.88 5.88 (D) Coincident factor 29.3% 29.3% (E) Transmission Loss Factor' 6.0% 6.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(1-E)= 1.83 1.83 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 24 24 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G)= 140 140 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0% (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= 140 140 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (I)/(1-E)= 149 149 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 4,905 4,905 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 28,841 28,841 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 28,841 28,841 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 8,988 8,988 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year (H)*(K)= 686,703 686,703 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (I)*(K)= 686,703 686,703 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 730,535 730,535 Total Budget $ 1,869,693 S 1,901,802 181
C ligi Efficiency Efficient Baseline Baseline Expected Estimate of Estimate of Estimate of ProductI Product Product Product Annual Life of Participantls Annual Estimate of Peak Technology Efficiency Technology Efficiency Product Product Incremental CusinmerkWh CuslomeriW GeneralorkW Type ol Measure Description Level Oeseription Level Volume Units Electric Rate (years) Rebale Level Cost, Savings Savings Savings SB Saver's SwItch __ New Installatlon Uldily load conlrol Nol Applicable No air conditionet Not Applcab!o 15.011 Customer General t5 Not $0 30 5.880 2.310 of air conditioner load control kW Service -AC Apphcablo l l Rider Maintenance Ulifly load control Not Applicable Dad air Not Applicable 13,230 Customer General 15 Not $0 la 5.880 1.260 of air conditloner conditioner load kW Service -AC Applicable control Rider 00 "3
Residential Segment Segment
Description:
The Residential segment consists of over 1 million electric households and nearly 400,000 natural gas households. Primary energy usage for this segment includes lighting, cooling, and heating. The strategy for the Residential segment is to build awareness and provide consumers a mix of conservation offerings including direct impact products, indirect-impact services and educational tools. Xcel Energy will utilize the following methods to market its products and services: direct marketing, newsletters, call center support, dealer networks and an increased use of the Internet (www.xcelenergy.com). Planned energy saving'achievements for the Residential segment are .12.1 GWh and 224,650 MCF during the two year span of this Biennial Plan which account for 3 percent of the electric and 28 percent of the gas CIP achievements. Dedicated programs, which exclusively address low-income programs, are addressed within the Low-Income segment write-up. Xcel Energy will continue to make available residential programs herein to all low-income consumers. Segment Highlights: Residential segment energy savings will come primarily from the ENERGY STARe cooling, heating and lighting products. The major indirect-impact service, Home Energy Audits, is expanding and will offer consumers opportunities to learn about improving their energy efficiency by either a in-home audit or from accessing an online audit. The ENERGY STAR program, which primarily focuses on cooling and heating rebates, continues to be the mainstay of the conservation portion of the Residential segment. Xcel Energy will continue to use 10 SEER and 13 SEER efficiencies for analytical and rebate purposes in 2005/06. Although the Company recognizes that the minimum SEER efficiency levels for central air conditioners is slated to increase in 2006, the unpredictability of dealer inventory and purchase cycles lead us pursue a two-year concurrent product offer and consumer message. The Lighting product continues to promote the benefits of energy efficient lighting and sell bulbs directly to consumers via direct marketing and the Internet. Xcel Energy is planning to carry on its participation in the ENERGY STAR Change A Light, Change The World campaign. The Home Energy Audit product is expanding to give consumers more flexibility and offerings. Consumers will have the option of participating in the new online audit tool or the standard in-home audit to receive educational tips to improve energy efficiency throughout their homes. Additionally, consumers who enroll for an in-home audit will have the new option of including infrared testing to further identify energy efficiency opportunities. These additions will increase awareness and participation while enhancing consumer benefits. 183
rn-I Xcel Energy also provides rate discounts as an incentive to participate in our load management product, Saver's Switch. For consumers with electric central air conditioning, Saver's Switch offers bill discounts in return for cycling air conditioners on hot summer afternoons when demand for electricity is at a peak. Xcel Energy will focus on enrolling new participants in addition to maintaining eisting Saver's Switch units on the program. With this Biennial filing, Xcel Energy has eliminated the Water Heater rebate product because it is no longer cost effective. The water heater National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) standard increased the minimum efficiency for natural gas water from a .62 EF to a .67 EF on January 20, 2004. Xcel Energy plans to notify consumers and participating dealers and retailers six months prior to the proposed program close date of December 31, 2004. Xcel Energy proposes to allow consumers six months after the date of purchases to submit Water Heater rebate applications for approval. Rebates will not be approved for applications submitted after June 30, 2005. 184
Xcel Energy Residential Segment Project Information Sheet -- 2005 Budget 2006 Budget Electric Gas Total - Electric Gas Total Cost Components ___ _ ___I_____ Proect Delivery S3.404.981 S414.451 S3.819.432 $3,420.924 S441.187 $3.862.111 UtiltyAdministration S505.161 5104.077 S609.238 'S519.204 $88.797 $608.001 Other Proiect Administration S2.563.319 S104.460 S2.667.779 $2.530.812 S104.460 S2.635.272 AdvertisinalPromotion S1.703.137 S154.256 S1.857.393 $1,727,579 S154.674 $1.882.253 Evaluations S27.258 So S27.258 S27.866 so. S27,866 R&D -. 7 SO -So So SO SO SO Incentives (Rebates) -S4136.250 S507.000 S4,643.250 $3.936.250 S507.000 S4443.250 Other - SO SO SO SO SO SO Less Revenues (S61 320) (S26.200) - (S87.5201 (S61.320) ($36.200) (S97.5201 Total Budget S12,278,786 S1 .258 044 S1 3536,830 $12,101,315 $1,259,918 S13,361,233 Total Number of Participants - 397.962 149.467 398.247 149.467 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) 6.075.146 6.073,061 . Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 5.589.134 5.589.134 Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 31.692 31.692 Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) 112.325 . _ _ .112.325 Project Type Percentage Expenditure Residential _ - 100% --100% 100% 100% ' Small Business C&8Combined . Other R&D Low-Income Participation I%) Participants (#) . Budoet ($) Renter Participation 1%) - Particioants (#) -_. Budget (S) - Societal BIC Results
- Net Present Value S214 S5,138.808 $223 S5.138.808______
B/C Ratio - - 2.68 1.52 2.78 1.52 _ _ _ _ _ Participant BIC Results -
- Net Present Value - S264 S11.411.229 $268 $11,411,229 _____
BJC Ratio 13.15 1.75 13.35 1.75 _ _ _ _ _ Rate Impact BIC Results 'X. . Net Present Value (S53j S2.674.523 ($47) $2.674.523 ______ BIC Ratio 0.87 1.23 0.88 - . 1.23 _ _ _ _ _ _ Revenue Requirements BIC Results Net Present Value S233 S10.609.180 $243 510.609.180______ BIC Ratio 3.22 3 99 3.34 3.99 __ _ _ _ _ Project Type - Auditinfo x x x . R&D Renewable : Direct Imoact X X Type of Incentive -_- LoanlGrant X X x x _ _ _ Rebate X X x x _ _ _ Direct Installation , X X x x End-Use Target ) Lighting 27% 0% 27% 0% ____ __ Process 0% 0% 0% 0% __ _ _ _ _ Motor 0% 0% 0% 0% ______ Refrigeration 23% 0% 23% 0% Scace Cooling 46% 0% 46% . 0% __ __ _.- Space Heating 0% 39% 0% 39% ____ __ Water Heating 0% 49% 0% 49% _ _ _ _ Weatherization 4% 12% 4% 12%. GeneralVOther 0% 0% 0% 0% _ _ _ _ Ratemaking treatment: expensed X X x x _ _ _ 185
l > Residential Segment Total I
'<2J Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test (S/kW) (S/kNV) (S/kW) (S/kWV) (S1kW)
Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S201 $201 S201 S201 T&D N/A 121 121 121 121 Marginal Energy N/A 16 16 16 16 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Subtotal N/A $338 S338 $338 S340 Xcel Energy Project Costs N/A S105 S105 S105 $105 Subtotal N/A $105 $105 S105 $105 Revenue Reduction $286 N/A $286 SO So Subtotal S286 N/A $286 SO so Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $55 N/A N/A S55 $55 Incremental O&M 0 N/A N/A 0 0 Rebates (34) N/A N/A (34) (34) Subtotal $22 N/A N/A $22 S22 Net Present Benefit (Cost) $264 = $233 = (S53) - S211 = $214 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S0.336 $0.297 (50.067) S0.269 SO.272 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $972 $859 (S194) S779 $787 Benefit Cost Ratio 13.15 3.22 0.87 2.67 2.68 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.55% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= 48 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 48 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (DY(I-(E))= 52 (F) Gross Customer kW 1 (C I) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)- 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 24.98% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)'(H)/(I-(E)) 0.272
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.134
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $387.4 186
I > Residential Segment Total Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility. Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test (-kW) (S/kW)) (S/k*N) ($/kW) (S/k") Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S206 S206 S206 $206 T&D N/A 124 124, 124 124 Marginal Energy N/A . 77. 1 ,; . 17 17 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Subtotal N/A S347 $347- $347 $349 Xcel Energy Project Costs N/A S104 S104 - $104 $104 Subtotal * -- N/A - S104 $104 $104 $104 Revenue Reduction. S290 N/A $290 $0 so
, Subtotal S290 N/A $290 $0 so Participants' Net Costs . Incremental Capital . $55 : N/A N/A S55 S55 Incremental O&M . -. 0: ' N/A N/A 0 0 Rebates ' (34) N/A N/A (34) (34) Subtotal $22 - N/A 'N/A. S22 $22 Net Present Benefit (Cost) S268 $243 (S47) $221 $223 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S0.341 $0.309 (S0.060) 50.282 $0.284 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S988 $895 ($173) $815 $823 Benefit Cost Ratio 13.35 3.34 0.88 2.76 2.78 Project Assumptions:
Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) .0.55% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= 48 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 48 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)/(1-(E))= 52 (F) Gross Customer kW I (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 24.98% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)/(1-(E))= 0.272
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.132
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S381.8 187
a-I Residential Segment Total 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 0.29 0.29 (B 1) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B1)= 0.29 0.29 (D) Coincident factor 25.0% 25.0% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% 8.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(Dy(l-E)= 0.08 0.08 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 48 48 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year. (A)*(G)= 14 14 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0% (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= 14 14 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (I)/(l-E)= 15 15 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 397,962 398,247 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 116,719 116,719 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 116,719 116,719 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 31,692 31,692 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year (H)*(K)= 5,589,134 5,589,134 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (I)*(K)= 5,589,134 5,589,134 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 6,075,146 6,075,146 < Total Budget S 12,278,786 S 12,101,315 K-> 188
I
)> Residential Segment Conservation Total 1-1 Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis
*2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test (S/k') (S/kWN) (S/kW) (S/kWN) (S/kW)
.Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S435 $435 - 43$ 435 T&D N/A 263 263 263 263 Marginal Energy N/A 146 146 146 146 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 Subtotal . N/A S844 $844 S844 $865 Xcel Energy Project Costs " N/A S533. S533 . $533 .$533 Subtotal -' N/A S533 S533 $533 $533 Revenue Reduction S331 N/A S331 S0 $0-Subtotal S331 N/A S331 S0 So
,Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S581 N/A NiA $581 $S581 Incremental O&M 0 N/A N/A 0 .-- O Rebates. (353) N/A N/A (353): : ;(353)
Subtotal $228 N/A N/A S228 S228-NetPresentBenefit(Cost) S103 $312 (S19) $84 S104
- Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime - - - SO.013 SO.039 (S0.002) - SO.010 S0.013 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator - S174 S526 - ($33) $141 S S175
.BenefitCostRatio'- --1.45 - 1.59 0.98 1.11 1.14 Project Assumptions:
Measure Lifetime (Years) 16 (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 5.26% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= - 461 - (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0%' (D) Net kWhlYear saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= - 461 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)/(l-(E))= ;. *501 (F) Gross Customer kW * - 1' (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) - , - -- - 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 1.000.: (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator -. 54.51% - Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)/(l(E))= : 0.593
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.066
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $899.0 189
I > Residential Segment Conservation Total I <2 Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW. Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test (S/kNV) (S/kW) (S/kAV) (SlkNV) (S/kN) Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S446 $446 S446 $446 T&D N/A 270 270 270 270 Marginal Energy N/A 149 149 149 149 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 21 Subtotal N/A $865 S865 $865 $886 Xcel Energy Project Costs N/A S522 $522 S522 $522 Subtotal N/A $522 S522 S522 $522 Revenue Reduction S336 N/A S336 so so Subtotal S336 N/A S336 $0 so Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S581 N/A N/A S581 $581 Incremental O&M 0 NIA N/A 0 0 Rebates (353) - N/A N/A (353) (353) Subtotal $228 N/A N/A $228 $228 NetPresentBenefit(Cost) $108 S343 S7 $114 $135 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.013 SO.043 $0.001 SO.014 S0.017 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S182 $578 $11 $193 S228 Benefit Cost Ratio 1.47 1.66 1.01 1.15 1.18 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 16 (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 5.26% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= 461 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (D) Net kWhlYear saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 461 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)/(1 -(E))= 501 (F) Gross Customer kW 1 (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 54.51% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)/(1-(E))= 0.593
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime SO.065
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $881.7 190
Residential Segment Conservation Total 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 0.21 0.21 (B 1) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(BI)= 0.21 0.21 (D) Coincident factor 54.5% I 54.5% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% 8.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(1-E)= 0.12 0.12 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 461
- 461 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G)= .. 95. 95 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) ' 100.0% 100.0%
(I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= - 95 . 95 () Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (I)/(l-E)= 103 .103 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates --54,086 - - 54,086 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 11,117 11,117 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= . 11,117 -- 11,117 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 6,587 6,587 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year. (H)*(K)= 5,119,879 5,119,879 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (I)*(K)= 5,119,879 5,119,879 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 5,565,086 5,565,086 Total Budget $ 5,921,366 . $ 5,807,891 I I 191
i >Residential Segment Load Management Total I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test (S/kNV) (S/kW) (S/kW.) (5/kWV) (S/kV) Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S176 S176 $176 S176 T&D N/A S106 $106 $106 $106 Marginal Energy N/A S3 $3 S3 S3 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 Subtotal N/A S285 $285 S285 $285 Xcel Energy Project Costs N/A $52 S52 S52 $52 Subtotal N/A S52 S52 S52 $52 Revenue Reduction S281 N/A S281 So $0 Subtotal S281 N/A S281 so $0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital So N/A N/A $0 S0 Incremental O&M So N/A N/A S0 so Rebates So N/A N/A So So Subtotal So N/A N/A so So Net Present Benefit (Cost) $281 S234 ($47) $234 $234 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S4.363 S3.626 (50.737) S3.626 $3.629 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $1,182 $982 (S200) S982 $983 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 5.52 0.86 5.52 5.52 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.05% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= 4 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 4 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)/(l-(E))= 4 (F) Gross Customer kW I (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 21.87% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)/(l-(E))= 0.238
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.802
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $217.2 192
I > Residential Segment Load Management Total IK Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test~ ' Test - Test' Test (51kW) (S/kWV) -(I/W) !(S/kW) (S/kVV') Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $180 $180 S180 S180 T&D N/A $109 $109 'S109 $109 Marginal Energy N/A S3 S3 - S3 S3 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A So Subtotal N/A $292 S292 $292 $292 Xcel Energy Project Costs N/A S52 'S52 S52 $52 Subtotal N/A- S52 S52 - S52 S52 Revenue Reduction $285 N/A $'-5285 SO s0 Subtotal -$285 N/A 'S285 o0 So Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital :$0 N/A N/A . $0 $0 Incremental O&M :SO N/A - N/A ' '0 So Rebates $0 N/A N/A S0 So Subtotal N/A- N/A $0o0 So Net Present Benefit (Cost) S285 S241 (S45) S241 S241 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S4.429 S3.735 ($0.694) S3.735 S3.738 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S1,200 $1,012 ($188) $1,012 S1,013 Benefit Cost Ratio INIF 5.66 0.87 5.66 5.67 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.05% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= 4 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 4 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% Net kWh'Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)/( 1-(E))= 4 (F) Gross Customer kW 1. (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 21.87% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)/(l-(E))= 0.238
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.801
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $217.0 193
vJ Residential Segment Load Management Total 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 3.01 3.01 (B 1) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(BI)= 3.01 3.01 (D) Coincident factor 21.9% 21.9% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% 8.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(1-E)= 0.72 0.72 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 4 4 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year (A)*(G)= 13 13 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy)
- 100.0% 100.0%
(I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= 13 13 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator peryear- (I)/(1-E)= 15 15 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 35,100 35,100 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 105,602 105,602 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 105,602 105,602 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 25,105 25,105 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)= 469,255 469,255 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (I)*(K)= 469,255 469,255 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 510,060 510,060 Total Budget $ 5,453,902 S 5,447,446 194
C Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ConservatIon Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Company. Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: Residential Segment w/ Indirect Participants Summary InformatIon Input Data Company: Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: 1)Retail Rate (S/MCF) = $8.82 15) Utility Project Costs (First Year) Escalation Rate = ... Z10% Administrative Costs = S659.199 Cost Summary Direct Operating Costs $91,845
- 2) Commodity Cost (S/MCF) = $4.58 Incentive Costs = S507.000 Utility Cost per Participant (First Year) = $8.42 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Total Utility Project Costs = 51,258.044 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = $8.43 3)Demand Cost (SlUnltYr) = $93.88 15a) Utility Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) 3,498,128 Escalation Rate 2.10% Administrative Costs = $688,695 Societal Cost per MCF 52.47 Direct Operating Costs = S84.223
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor = 1.00% Incentive Costs = S507.000 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year) = $45.58 Total Utility Project Costs S1.259,918 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year) = S45.59 5)Variable O&M (S/MCF) = S0.0781 i Escalation Rate = 2.10% 18) Direct Panricipant Costs (S/Part.) = 27.1
- 68) Environmental Damage Factor =0.3000 17) Other Participant Costs (Annual /Part.) =
UL Escalation Rate = 2.17% Escalation Rate = 2.10% I.
- 7) Total Sales = 78.428.047 18) Project Life (Years) 15 Growth Rate 0.60%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) = ; 14.82% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers : 395,842 Growth Rate = 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/Part.) = 5.3 NPV B/C
- 9) Utility Discount Rate 7.47% 21) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (First Year Program) = 0.78 Cost Comparison Test S3.559.195 1.37 21a) Avg. MCFIParI. Saved (Second Year Program) = 0.78
- 10) Social Discount Rate = 4.72% Revenue RequIrements Test $10.979,144 5.85
- 22) Numbero Participants (First Year Program) 149,487 I1) General Input Data Year = 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program)= 149,487 SocIetal Benefit Test S5.482.991 1.84
- 12) Project Analysis Year 1 - 2005 23) Incentive/Participant (First Year Program) = 53 PartIcIpant Test $10,880,432 1.78 12a) Project Analysis Year 2 = - 2006 23a) IncentivelParticipant (Second Year Program) $3
- 13) Effective Fed & State Income Tax Rate = 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Taxes 8.75%
as %Total Operating Income
Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS-- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Ellectiveness Analysis Company. Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: Residential Segment Direct Participants & Costs C Summary Information Input Data Company, Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project:
- 1) Retail Rate ($/MCF) = $8.82 15) Utility Project Costs (First Year)
Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = S487.951 Cost Summarv Direct Operating Costs = $0
- 2) Commodity Cost ($SMCF) $4.58 Incentive Costs = S507.000 Utility Cost per Participant (First Year) = $49.38 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Total Utility Project Costs = S994,951 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = $49.58
- 3) Demand Cost (SIUniUYr) $93.88 15a) Utility Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) 2.031.871 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = S491.615 Societal Cost per MCF $4.02 Direct Operating Costs so
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor = 1.00% Incentive Costs = $507,000 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year) = $74.54 Total Utility Project Costs = S998,615 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year) $74.59
- 5) Variable O&M ($/MCF) = $0.07G1 Escalation Rate = 2.10% 18) Direct Participant Costs (S/Part.) 201.17
- 68) Environmental Damage Factor =0.3000 17) Other Participant Costs (Annual $/Part.)
Ch Escalation Rate = 2.17% Escalation Rate = 2.10%
- 7) Total Sales = 78.428.047 18) Project Lile (Years) 15 Growth Rate 0.60%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) 14.62% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers = 395,842
, Growth Rate = 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCFIPart.) = 23.00 NPV BIC
- 9) Utility Discount Rate 7.47% 21) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (First Year Program) = 3.36 Cost Comparison Test $1,592.422 1.26 21a) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (Second Year Program) = 3.36
- 10) Sodal Discount Rate 4.72% Revenue Requirements Test $5,904,731 4.30
- 22) Number ol Participants (First Year Program) = 20,148
- 11) General Input Data Year 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program) = 20,148 Societal Benefit Test $42.518 1.01
- 12) Project Analysis Year 1 = 2005 23) IncentivelParticipant (First Year Program) = $25 Participant Test $5,786,302 1.69 12a) Project Analysis Year 2 = 2006 23a) IncentivelParticipant (Second Year Program) $25
- 13) Effective Fed &State Income Tax Rate 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Taxes 6.75%
as % Total Operating Income C (
> 'Residential Segment Conservation A. Description
- 1. Consumer Education Consumer Education is an indirect-impact service that creates awareness and provides residential consumers with information on energy conservation. The goal is to encourage consumers to incorporate conservation habits into their everyday lives.
The Residential Segment is demographically varied. To reach and impact this diverse market, energy conservation education needs to address different lifestyles, learning preferences and areas of interest To appeal to this broad market, Xcel Energy proNides a wide array of educational programs and products including:
> HeatShare Low Income workshops,
> Reference material publications, P Reference material in Spanish and Himong,
> A bi-monthly newsletter insert to all consumers, and
> Seminars and conference sponsorships for appropriate educational topics.
Modifications: None.
- 2. Energy Loans Program
.The Energy Loans program helps make energy efficient home improvements affordable. Energy Loans provides consumers with financing to cover the cost of purchasing and installing energy efficient equipment. Loans are provided by a third party bank, and require no down payment. Loans range from $500 to $10,000 with a mraxinium'term of 60 months. The interest rate changes on a quarterly basis.
Minimal processing fees are added to the loan amount: $75 processing plus county filing fees. Consumers can opt to pay their loan installments via their Xcel Energy bill or directly to the bank. To be eligible for a loan, applicants must be a Minnesota Xcel Energy residential consumer, purchase one of the 15 energy saving types of equipment listed below and be approved by the third party bank. The equipment must be ENERGY STAR rated or meet minimum efficiency levels. Eligible Equipment: . ;
- Central air conditioners;
- Air source heat pumps;
- Window air conditioners - .Ground source heat pumps;
- Boilers;
- Insulation;
- Ceiling fans; ' Radiant heat systems;
- Clothes washers; - Refrigerators;'--
- Dehumidifiers-
- Ventilation fans;
- Gas fireplaces;
- Water heaters;
' Gas furnaces;
- Windows.
197.
To increase participation in 2005/2006, Xcel Energy will more aggressively promote the program through a variety of media including cross marketing with central air conditioning and furnace rebates, bill inserts, newsletters and the Internet. Modifications: None.
- 3. ENERGY STARl Xcel Energy continues to dedicate resources toward increasing energy efficiency in residential homes by offering an ENERGY STAR program. This program will encourage consumers to conserve energy by purchasing energy-efficient appliances.
Xcel Energy offers consumers information and incentives for purchasing the following ENERGY STAR-labeled appliances:
> Central Air Conditioners;
> Ground Source (Geothermal) Pumps;
> Electric Air Source Pumps;
> Room Air Conditioners;
> Furnaces, and
> Boilers.
ENERGY STAR is a national symbol of energy efficiency. The ENERGY STAR label was developed by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to help consumers identify energy-efficient products. ENERGY STAR qualified products are up to 30 percent more efficient than current federal nminimum efficiency standards. The ENERGY STAR logo is attached to packaging, literature, advertising, and the products themselves, making it easy for consumers to identify those products and help save energy and the environment. Heating and cooling dealers are an important communication vehicle for the ENERGY STAR program. Dealers are a vital link to the Company's marketing strategy because they interface directly with consumers and heavily influence the final buying decision. Dealer sales representatives explain program details and often complete the rebate application on the consumer's behalf. There are over 1,700 participating heating and cooling dealers located throughout our Minnesota service territory. Xcel Energy's ENERGY STAR program provides many benefits, including
> Motivates consumers to purchase energy efficient equipment by providing cash incentives to reduce the initial cost of equipment. This allows consumers to lower their energy bills, potentially offers more comfort and upgrades the value of their home.
> Helps communicate a consistent, easy to understand message. In making a purchase decision, consumers can identify the ENERGY STAR logo and check with Xcel Energy to ensure all minimum qualifications exist with the chosen appliance to obtain a rebate.
198
> Creates an umbrella platform so it can be integrated into other Xcel Energy conservation products. This potentially allows Xcel Energy to reach a broader audience by promoting products that include a nationally recognized seal of approval.
ENERGY STAR: Central Air Conditioners The Xcel Energy seasonal energy efficiency rating (SEER) and rebate level is: Energy efficiency Rebate 13.0 SEER $250 13.5 SEER $300 14.0+ SEER $350 The Central Air Conditioner product has been successful since its inception in 1982 due to direct marketing efforts and use of our manufacturer, distributor and participating dealer networks. Promotional dollars and special incentives have an impact on preseason purchasing behavior and other factors, such as weather, also affect sales patterns. The 2005/2006 Biennial Plan represents a continuation of the 2003/2004 Biennial Plan using 10 SEER and 13 SEER efficiencies for analytical and rebate purposes. Xcel Energy recognizes that the change' in the minimum SEER efficiency slated for 2006 will affect ENERGY STAR labeling considerations and force changes in the Company's rebate structure. The unpredictability of dealer inventory and purchase cycles has led Xcel Energy to propose in the 20052/2006 Biennial filing a two-year concurrent product offer and message. Implementation of revised efficiency standards will be part of the 2007/2008 filing. Xcel Energy respectfully requests that the Commissioner approve continuation of rebates for 13 SEER efficiency units in 2006 for the following additional reasons:
> Conswmer edmeation Consumers, dealers, distributors and manufacturers will receive a consistent message for two years and notification that Xcel Energy requirements will change in 2007. Educating consumers about the value of higher efficiency may prove more challenging given the likely higher incremental equipment cost for 14+ SEER units.
> Marketing izlementation: Collateral materials and media campaigns to consumers can be effectively used for a two-year plan lifecycle, rather than a one-year lifecycle.
> Staffing:An efficient use of personnel can be used over the two-year'plan.
>ProducAvailabiiPy: Dealer inventory and new stock orders will be able to handle the modification with sufficient lead-time with their manufacturers and distributors.
199
ENERGY STAR: Ground Source (Geothermal) Pumps Ground Source and Air Source pumps have provided whole-house cooling relief since 2002 when they were introduced as a project modification. This serves a niche market of consumers who seek or who lack "traditional" cooling options. The success of this program has increased each year but represented less than 0.1 percent of total cooling activity. Because of the minimal activity and limited geographic areas of consumer interest, the marketing efforts used to promote these technologies are directed toward our existing HVAC dealer network and the Internet. Energy efficiency Rebate 14.0+ EER $350 ENERGY STAR: Electric Air Source Pumps As with Ground Source Pumps, this product has increased in popularity but continues to serve a niche market of residential consumers. Xcel Energy will continue to offer this cooling technology with the following efficiency and rebate offering Energy efficiency Rebate 13.0+ SEER $150 ENERGY STAR: Room Air Conditioners Room air conditioning technology, which offers spot cooling relief, was introduced in 2001. The product has grown modestly since its inception. Xcel Energy realizes that this is a reactive product and is somewhat of an impulsive purchase that occurs typically after consecutive hot summer days. Promotional dollars and special incentives have limited impact on this preseason purchasing behavior, and the advent of sustained periods of unseasonably hot weather is believed to drive consumers to purchase cooling relief from local retailers. As an incentive to purchase these units, Xcel Energy is offering consumer rebates for energy efficient units meeting the following existing criteria: Energy efficiency Rebate ENERGY STAR labeled $30 This product line is communicated to our consumers via direct mail, bill inserts, and Internet and retail channels. ENERGY STAR: Furnace Xcel Energy proposes to continue offering consumers a gas furnace rebate based on a two-tier efficiency schedule consistent with the 2003/2004 CIP Biennial Plan. Energy efficiency Rebate 90% AFUE $75 94% AFUE $100 200
ENERGY STAR: Boiler Xcel Energy proposes to continue offering consumers a boiler rebate based on the following schedule: Energy efficiency Rebate 85% AFUE $100 The goal for furnace and boiler rebates was increased by 20 percent in the 2003/2004 Biennial. Over the past two years, Xcel Energy has experienced challenges in reaching the new goal. To proactively address this issue in 2005/2006, Xcel Energy proposes adding promotional funding to the furnace/boiler budget to increase participation by promoting to residential consumers and strengthening the participating dealer network. Modifications: Consumers will have 12 months from the date of purchase to submit an application for rebate. Applications submitted after 12 months will no longer be eligible for a rebate.
- 4. High Efficiency Showerhead The High Efficiency Showerhead product has been highly successful by offering consumers free showerheads that lower water heater energy costs.
Xcel Energy proposes to continue the High Efficiency Showerhead program offering high efficiency showerheads to natural gas residential consumers. The showerheads help consumers save on hot water usage, thus saving energy and money. The Company will promote high efficiency showerheads to consumers through direct mail to natural gas consumers. Consumers will submit their enrollment forms directly to the third-party showerhead vendor, who in turn will ship the showerhead and instructions directly to the consumer. Modifications: None.
- 5. Home Efficiency The Home Efficiency program (formerly Premier Home) encou'rages homebuilders and homeowners to consider a "whole-house" approach to natural gas energy conservation. This approach combines energy saving construction methods with energy efficient appliances. Together they achieve significantly higher energy savings and provide the consumer with lower energy bills, fewer maintenance concerns, higher resale value and a more comfortable, quiet home.
Home Efficiency provides an incentive for homebuilders to promote and construct energy efficient residential homes. It offers free training, design assistance, construction site visits, blower door testing and ENERGY STAR certification. 201
Participants receive services from homebuilders valued at $955. Included in the Low Income Segment, Home Efficiency offers an additional $550 rebate per home for low-income customers living in subsidized housing. Xcel Energy will more actively promote the Home Efficiency in 2005/2006 to attain a higher level of participation by builder and consumer, and thus achieve the increased energy savings goal. Promotion will focus on motivating and training builders in the metro and greater Minnesota areas. In addition, Xcel Energy will provide collateral materials for homebuilders to use with prospective clients. ProgramComponents The following minimum energy conservation measures will be installed in each home:
- 1. Heating System Natural gas furnaces must have an Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) of 92 percent or greater and natural gas boilers must have an AFUE of 85 percent or higher.
- 2. Heat Recovery Ventilation Heat recovery ventilators must have a minimum recovery efficiency performance of 45 percent (at -13'F) and 70 percent (at 320 F) or better. The heat recovery ventilator must be capable of continuous operation and delivery of an effective air change of 0.35 air changes per hour (ACH) or 15 cubic feet per minute (chin) per bedroom plus an additional 15 cfm, whichever is greater.
- 3. Water Heating Sealed combustion or power vented natural gas water heaters with an energy factor of 0.67 or better.
- 4. Auto Setback Thermostat Participants receive a programmable thermostat. This will allow consumers to program the operation of their heating system to fit their lifestyle and conserve energy.
The energy design software allows homebuilders to flexibly interchange building equipment, insulation and windows. Homebuilders may select additional energy efficient options, beyond the requirements of the program, which can be evaluated for their effect on the home's energy efficiency. On-site inspections are conducted at each home at critical construction milestones to ensure that the building is actually being built to meet all prescriptive and performance specifications. On-site inspections occur twice during the construction process - prior to drywall installation, and after installation of drywall and the ventilation syste'M. A blower test is performed after the home is completed to help insure quality and compliance with the air tightness standards. 202
Modifications: The water heater National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) standard increased minimum efficiency from of natural gas water heaters from a0.62 EF to a 0.67 EF in 2004. Xcel Energy has incorporated these changes into the Home Efficiency cost benefit assumptions.
- 6. Home Energy Audit The Home Energy Audit program provides residential energy audits to Xcel Energy natural gas and/or electric consumers. The purpose of this product is to improve energy savtings by influencing homeowners' and renters' behavior through' conservation education. The program includes three product offerings: traditional home energy audits, an infrared audit option, and an on-line audit.
The essential elements of Xcel Energy audits are:
> Consumer energy bill analysis; > Client assessment and education; P Shell assessment;- > Mechanical and electrical equipment review; > Written energy savings recommendations; and > Optional blower door test.
Consumers will contribute a $35 co-pay on their Xcel Energy bill after the audit is complete, and low-income consumers are exempt from the co-payment. Xcel Energy will market the traditional audits through various methods, including general consumer inquiries regarding their energy bill, direct mailings, bill inserts, newsletters and cross-marketing efforts with other Xcel Energy residential conservation programs. Xcel Energy will offer a new infrared audit to non-low income natural gas consumers. This audit will include the standard elements with the addition of infrared imaging. Benefits of infrared testing include identifying insulation needs, moisture problems, and air leakage paths within walls, attics, windows and doors, as well as providing a quality check for existing insulation. Infrared testing, along with the required blower door test, will give consumers 'a more detailed list of structural conservation improvements available to them through-non-minvasive testing, thus increasing their potential savings. The $35 co-pay for the standard audit is replaced with a $100 co-pay for the infrared audit. Consumers will pay for this audit on their Xcel Energy bill. Xcel Energy will also 'offer' the addition of an online audit wVw.xcelenerg.com. Instead of paying' for an audit that consists of a vendor visiting the home, consumers can use the online audit free-of-charge. The online audit requests tihat consumers enter'information on their home: square footage, type of cooling and heating, age of the home' and family size. The audit takes approximately 10 minutes and offers' consumers suggestions on how to reduce their energy bill such as adding insulation, replacing old inefficient appliances, basic maintenance tips for heating systems, replacing old heating systems, as well as purchase of energy efficient products such 203
as showerheads and compact fluorescent lights. Once completing the audit, consumers will be given options of enrolling for the standard in-home audit or getting more information on Xcel Energy conservation rebate programs. Modifications: Infrared testing is now available to non-low income consumers for a $100 co-pay. A free online audit is also available to consumers on the Xcel Energy website at www.xceleneray.com.
- 7. Home Lighting Direct Purchase Xcel Energy's Home Lighting Direct Purchase program increases the use of energy-efficient lighting products in the consumer market and helps consumers save money and energy. The program uses two components to sell compact fluorescent lights:
direct sales and the ENERGY STAR Change-A-Light, Change The World promotion. The direct sales component sells a wide variety of compact fluorescent bulbs (listed below) through a third party vendor at competitive prices. The actual sale and fulfillment of the bulbs are handled through the lighting vendor who manages and owns the entire lighting inventory. Available Bulbs:
- Twist - wattages:
- 3-Way Twist 11/22/33 watt 13/15/20/23/27/42
- Capsule: 15 watt
- Reflectors - indoor: 15 watt,
- Bug Light: 15 watt outdoor: 19 watt
- Full Spectrum: 14/27 watt
- Globes: 15 watt
- Dimmable: 20/25 watt
- Decorative - standard or
- Wet Location: 20 watt candelabra: 5 watt
- Torchiere fixture or
- A-Line: 15 watt replacement bulbs: 58 watt Xcel Energy promotes the bulbs through direct mail, bill inserts, newsletters and the Internet. The communications focus on financial benefits and environmental messages. Consumers can order bulbs via mail, phone, Internet and fax.
Xcel Energy intends to participate in the national ENERGY STAR Change A Light, Change The World promotion. In this promotion Xcel Energy and a bulb manufacturer combine funds and provide direct incentives in the form of instant rebates for the purchase of compact fluorescent bulbs. The promotion period lasts for 45 days and the bulbs have typically been sold through an ENERGY STAR participating hardware store chain. Xcel Energy leverages the national ENERGY STAR campaign to promote a consistent nationwide message and cut promotion costs. The bulbs are promoted through print advertising and public relations efforts. 204
- 8. Lamp Recycling Lamp Recycling provides consumers with two convenient disposal methods for fluorescent light bulbs: local participating hardware stores and county hazardous waste sites. The program helps consumers dispose of the compact fluorescent lighting and prevents mercury-based lighting products from entering the waste stream while fulfilling Xcel Energy's obligations under Minn. Stat.§216B.241, Subd.
5. Xcel Energy provides an incentive to recycle by offering $0.50 discount coupons to consumers who take bulbs to one of the 100 nearby'participating hardware stores and reimbursement to 21 participating county recycling centers that provide free fluorescent bulb recycling to residential consumers. Consumers receive these benefits for recycling up to 10 bulbs per year. Lamp Recycling is promoted through the county, city and hardware store - - promotional efforts and through Xcel Energy cross-marketing efforts. Modifications: None. B. Project Information Sheet - Project Information Sheets are provided at the end of this section. C. Effect on Peak Demand and Energy Consumption & List of Assumptions for each Technology
*Effects on peak demand and energy consumption are provided in the Project Information Sheets and Benefit/Cost Analyses located at the end of this section.
Technology assumptions are also provided at the end of this section. D. Relationship of Program to Resource Plan As part of Xcel Energy's Conservation Improvement Program, this portfolio'will support attainment of Xcel Energy's Resource Plan DSM goals. Not applicable to natural gas utilities. - E. Cost Effectiveness See Project Information Sheet. F. Estimated Low-Income and Renter Participation See Project Information Sheet. G. Budget See Project Information Sheet. 205
H. Ratemaking Treatment & Cost-Recovery Method The ratemaking and cost-recovery procedures for this CIP follow those approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in Docket Nos. E002/GR-92-1185, G002/GR-97-1606, and E,G-999/CI-98-1759. I. Participation See Project Information Sheet. J. Involvement of Community Energy Organizations Xcel Energy provides compact fluorescent light bulbs at no charge to the Center for Energy and Environment for neighborhood workshops. Home Energy Audit providers are selected through competitive bid. Selected providers are local energy services firms. Low-income housing organizations can participate in the Home Efficiency program. Subsidized housing is eligible for a $550 rebate for each home that meets Home Efficiency requirements. K Evaluation Plan Xcel Energy is planning to conduct an evaluation of the Home Lighting Direct Purchase product in 2005. The evaluation will focus on product information, pricing, promotion, distribution, awareness, market transformation, free ridership, free drivership, and fluorescent light bulb disposal. The Home Energy Audit product has budgeted to conduct a survey in 2005 and 2006 to measure ongoing customer satisfaction and the value proposition of the product offering. For additional information regarding evaluation plans, please see the Market Research section of the Planning & Research Segment All products will continue to be evaluated through the product management process of tracking the market interacting with manufactures, vendors and consumers, and reviewing the effects of promotion and other market activities. L. Renewable Energy Information N/A M. Additional Information None. 206
Xcel Energy Residential Consumer Education Project Information Sheet Ir .%-.z200& Budaet
-<s~ 8< > 1*,¢O- -006 Budget 31t-,
Electric I Gas I Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components I Project Delivery -90,734 $19.672 110406 $82,865 S20 142 S103,007 Utility Administration .S27,605 S18 674 S46,279 S28,433 S0 )28,433 Other Project Administration So S0 So so SO ~SO so S so Advertising/Promotion S110.807 - S30672 S141,479 S47.690 S30 696 S78,386 Evaluations S0 So So SO SO SO so so so R&D So So S0 Incentives (Rebates) So S0 .S SO SO SO Other S0 S0 So so So so Less Revenues - so so so Total Budget -S229146 S69 018 S298,164 $j158988 S50,838 S209,826 Total Number of Participants 175,000 125.000 . - -175,000 - 125,000 Total En. Savinas-Generator (kWh) Total En. Savings-Meter (kWIh) Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Prolect Type Percentage Expenditure Commercial & Industrial Small Business Consumer 100% 100% 100% 100% Low Income Low-Income Participation (%) Participants # 26250 18750 26,250 18,750 Budget (S) 2,291 1 380 1,590 1,017 Renter Participation (%) Participants (#) 875 1 250 875 1 250 Budget(S) 1,146 690' 795 508 Societal BIC Results . Net Present Value BIC Ratio Participant BIC Results . Net Present Value I BIC Ratio Rate Impact BIC Results- . Net Present Value . . BIC Ratio Revenue Requirements BIC Results . Net Present Value . BIC Ratio .. Project Type ------- ------ Audit/lnfo X X x x. R&D__ _ _ ___ _ _ _ Renewable Direct Imoact Tvpe of Incentive . Loan/Grant Rebate Direct Installation _ End-Use Target (M.) Lighting 0% 0% 0% 0% __ _ _ Process 0% 0% 0% 0% __ _ _ Motor 0% 0% 0% 0% _____ Refrigeration 0% 0% 0% 0% _____ Space Cooling 0% 0% 0% 0% ____ __ Space Heatina 0% 0% 0% 0%- Water Heating 0% 0% 0% 0% _____ WeatheJzation 0% 0% . 0% 0% General/Other 100% 100%: _____ 100% 100% Raternakina treatment: expensed X X I x x_ _ _ 207
Xcel Energy Residential Energy Loans Project Information Sheet
. - -2005 Budqetiu:.
Electric I, Gas I Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components ; Project Delivery S12.372 S4.495 S16.867 S12,743 S4.630 S17,373 Utility Administration S16,238 S8,119 524,357 S16,725 $8,363 S25,088 Other Proiect Administration So S0 S0 So s0 So Advertising/Promotion S41,S00 - 22,500 S64,000 S41,500 $22,500 $64,000 Evaluations S0 So So So so so so R&D So S0 Incentives (Rebates) So S0 S0 so SO SO Other S0 So So SO SO SO so So S0 So so so Less Revenues otal Budget S70,110 S35,114 S105.224 $70,968 $35,493 S106.461 Total Number of Participants 100 60 100 60 Total En. Savinqs-Generator (kWh) Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) Totl Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Project Type Percentage Expenditure Commercial & Industrial Small Business _ Consumer 100% 100% 100% 100% Low Income Low-Income Participation (%) Participants (#) 1 1 1 1 ._ _ _ Budget (S) 701 702 710 710 . Renter Participation (M.) Participants() 1 I Budget (S) 351 351 355 355 Societal BIC Results Net Present Value B/C Ratio Participant B/C Results Net Present Value B/C Ratio Rate Impact BIC Results _ Net Present Value B/C Ratio Revenue Requirements BIC Results Net Present Value B/C Ratio Prolect Type . Audit/Info R&D Renewable Direct Impact. Type of Incentive LoanlGrant Xx x x_ Rebate Direct Installation. End-Use Target (N) Lighting
- 0% 0% 0% 0%
Process 0% 0% 0% 0% Motor 0% 0% _ 0% 0% Refrigeration 35% 0% 35% 0% _ _ _ _ Space Cooling 35% 20% 35% 20% ___ ___ Space Heating 0% 20% . 0% 20% __ _ _ Water Heating 0% 20% . - 0% 20% __ _ _ 20% 0% 20% Weatherizatio n
,, t e e 0%
v ,_ _ _ _ I 30% 20% treaftment: expensed I I X I x x 208
Xcel Energy Residential Energy Star < 2 Project Information Sheet 2005 Budoet . I2006 Budget Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total - Cost Components Project Delivery S479.320 l 27.809 S507,129 . S483.599 $28 644 S512.243 Utility Administration S120,801 $37,367 S158.168 S124,425 $38,488 S162.913 Other Project Administration 529,932 SO S29.932 S29,932 SO S29.932 AdvertisinglPromotion S912,838 S40.000 5952.838 S990,073 S40,000 S1.030.073 Evaluations S0 So SD so so so R&D $0 So so __ _ __ _ __s Incentives (Rebates) S4,136,250 . 4,136.250 $3,936.250 _ 3,936250 Other SO S507,000 S507,000 SO $507.000 S507.000 Less Revenues So So So SO .. SO . So Total Budget . S5,679,141 $612,176 S6,291,317 $5,564,279 5614.132 $6,178,411 Total Number of Participants 14.000 5,900 14,000 5,900 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) 3,739,917 3,739,917_ Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) , 3.440,724 3,440724 ; Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 6,514 Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) (MF0-70.800
. 70.600 Project Type Percentage Expenditure .
Commercial & Industrial - . Small Business - Consumer- -100% - -- 100% ' . . . , .. Low Income Low-income Participation (%) . . - Participants (#) 140 118 140 118 Budget (S) - 56.791 12.244 55.643 12,283 Renter Participation (N.) Participants (#) 70. 59 70 5 59 Budoet (S) - 28.396 6.122 . 27821_ 6,141 Societal BIC Results Net Present Value S115 S1,802.933 S152 SI1802933 , BlC Ratio - - - 1.13 1.27 __._.._.. 1.17 1.27 Participant B/C Results - - Net Present Value $47 S7.427,549 $52 S7,427,549 BIC Ratio 1.17 2.03 1.19 2.03 Rate Impact BIC Results Net Present Value S48 S2.434.867 $80 _2_434_867 B/C Ratio 1.05 1.43 1.08 1.43 Revenue Requirements BIC Results Net Present Value S373 S6.942.703 S410 -S6942,703 BIC Ratio 1.59 7.30 1.66 7.30 _ Proiect TyP e Audit/lnfo R&D Renewable Direct Impact X Type of Incentive Loan/Grant Rebate X Direct Installation - End-Use Target (%) .. Lighting 0% 0% _ _ _ _ Process 0% 0% _ _ _ _ Motor 0% 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ Refrigeration 30% . . - - 30% _ _ _ _ Space Cooling 50% .. 50% - . . Space Heating 20% - 20% 0% 0% ' _ _ _ _ Water Heating 0% 0% 20% Weatherization _______0%a/ S GenraUt/lher _______ AO/. '0 + 0% ' riatmakina t mnt-ian eanse __________________________________________ L X X_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 209:
I > Residential Segment Energy Star l Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW S/kW S/kNV S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S534 S534 S534 S534 T&D N/A S323 S323 S323 S323 Marginal Energy N/A S147 S147 S147 S147 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A S20 Subtotal N/A S 1,004 $1,004 S1,004 $1,024 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A S632 S632 S632 S632 Subtotal N/A S632 S632 $632 S632 Revenue Reduction S325 N/A S325 so so Subtotal S325 N/A S325. so SO Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $714 N/A N/A $714 $714 Incremental O&M SO N/A N/A 0 50 Rebates (S437) N/A N/A ($437) ($437) Subtotal $278 -N/A N/A S278 $278 Net Present Benefit (Cost) Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S47 = S373 = S48 = S95 S0.013
= S115 SO.006 S0.050 SO.006 SO.01S Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S65 S514 S66 S131 S158 Benefit Cost Ratio 1.17 1.59 1.05 1.10 1.13 Project Assumptions:
Measure Lifetime (Years) 18 Customer Rate Residential Service (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 4.37% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)>= 383 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0%/ (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Custolner kW: (B)*(C)- 383 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)I(l (E))= 416 (F) Gross Customer kW 1 (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 66.65% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)(Hy(l-(E))= 0.724
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.085
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S871.8 K>
210
I > Residential Segment Energy Star I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis I 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kIW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S/kW S/kNN' S/kW S/kW S/kU'
-Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $547 $547 'S547 'S547 T&D N/A $331 S331 'S331 S331 Marginal Energy N/A S151 S151 S151 S151 S
Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A 'N/A S20
*Subtotal N/A 1S,029' S1,029 Sl,029 '$1,049 Xcel Energys Project Costs N/A $619 S619 S619 $619 Subtotal N/A S619 S619 S619 $619 Revenue Reduction S330 N/A S330 S0 S0 Subtotal S330 N/A S330 S0 - S0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S714 N/A N/A $714 S714 Incremental O&M $0 N/A N/A 0 S0 Rebates (S437) N/A N/A ($437) (S437)
Subtotal S278 N/A N/A $278 S278 Net Present Benefit (Cost) $52 $410 $80 S132 S152
..Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime SO.007 S0.055 $0.01 1 S0.018 S0.020 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S72 $566 Sll S183 S210 Benefit Cost Ratio 1.19 1.66 1.08 1.15 1.17 Project Assumptions:
Measure Lifetime (Years) 18 Customer Rate Residential Service (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 4.37% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= 383 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 383 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)/(l-(E))= 416 (F) Gross Customer kW I (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 66.65% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)/(I-(E))= 0.724
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.083
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S854.2 211
'tyl Residential Segment Energy Star 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 0.64 0.64 (B 1) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0%
(C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B 1)= 0.64 0.64 (D) Coincident factor 66.6% 66.6% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% 8.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(1-E)= 0.47 0.47 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 383 383 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G)= 246 246 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0% (I) Net kNOh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= 246 246 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (I)/(l-E)= 267 267 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 14,000 14,000 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 8,992 8,992 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 8,992 8,992 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 6,514 6,514 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year. (H)*(K)= 3,440,724 3,440,724 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (1)*(K)= 3,440,724 3,440,724 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= 3,739,917 3,739,917 Total Budget S 5,679,141 S 5,564,279 212
C Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Company. Xcel Energy (Natural Gis) Project: Residential Energy Star Heating Summary Information Input Data Company Xce Energy (Natur al Gas) Project: Residen tial Energy' Star Heating
- 1) Retail Rate ($IMCF) = S8.82 15) Utility Project Costs (First Year)
Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = $105,176 Cost Summary Direct Operating Costs = $0
- 2) Commodity Cost ($/MCF) 4.58 . .Incentive Costs = $507,000 Utinty Cost per Participant (First Year) = $103.76 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Total Utility Project Costs = _ $812.176 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = $104.09
- 3) Demand Cost ($fUnitlYr) u 93.86 15a) Utirity Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) 2.124,000 Escalation Rate ,
$.s 2.10% Administrative Costs = $107.132 Societal Cost per MCF $3.19 Direct Operating Costs = $0
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor 1.00% Incentive Costs = $507,000 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year) = $60.40 Total Utility Project Costs = $614,132 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year) = $60.42
- 5) Variable O&M ($SMCF) = 0761 ;
bi Escalation Rate- 2.10% 18) Direct Participant Costs (S/Part.) = $621.00
., : 13000 17) Other Participant Costs (Annual $tPart.) $0.00
- 6) Environmental Damage Factor Escalation Rate - 2.17% Escalation Rate = 2.10%
- 7) Total Sales= 3,047 :18) Project Life (Years) = 15 Growth Rate = 0.60%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) = 11.54% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers =
- 39e5,842 Growth Rate = 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/Part.) = 104.00 NPV BIC
- 9) Utility Discount Rate = 7.47% 21) Avg. MCFlPart. Saved (First Year Program) = 12.00 Cost Comparison Test $2,434,867 1.43 21a) Avg. MCF/Parl. Saved (Second Year Program) = 12.00
- 10) Social Discount Rate - 1.72% Revenue Requirements Test $6,942,703 7.30
- 22) Number of Participants (First Year Program) = 5,900 1 t) General Input Data Year 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program) = 5,900 Societal Benefit Test $1,802,933 . 1.27
- 12) Project Analysis Year 1 = 2005 23) IncenthvelParticipant (First Year Program) = $86 Participant Test , $7,427,549 2.03 12a) Project Analysis Year 2 2006 23a) Incentive/Paftlcipant (Second Year Program) = $86
- 13) Effective Fed &State Income Tax Rate = 41.37% . :
6 . 7 .
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Taxes I -
6.75% - .
.. I;. .
as % Total OperatIng Income . iI I
- I . . . i
Xcel Energy Residential High-Efficiency Showerheads Project Information Sheet 2005 Budgct 2006 Budget Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total CostComponents _ ____ _ __ Project Delivery l _ _ So SD so so Utility Administration I S4.060 S4.060 5.013 $5.013 Other Project Administration S104.460 S S104.460 $104.460 S104.460 Advertisingl Promotion _ S21.807 l21,807 S21.831 S21.831 Evaluation Labor & Expenses _ So So Incentives _ So so _ _ 0 s0 Revenue _ So So Total Budget So 5130.327 5130.327 0 So131 ,304 S131 ,304 Total Number of Participants 14.000 ______________ 14.000 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) - Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) 27.580 27.580 Project Type Percenta e ExPenditure Commercial & Industrial Small Business Consumer 100%_i 100%O Low Income Low-Ineome Participation (%) Participants (#) 2.100 2,100 Budget ($) 19.549 I19.696 Renter Participation (%) Participants () 700 700 Budget (S) 6.516 6.565 Societal BIC Results Net Present Value _S3 105,439 S3.105.439 BIC Ratio Particliant BIC Results 14.22 14.22 K-> Net Present Value S5.220.655 S5.220.655 BIC Ratio 44.22 44.22 Rate Impact BIC Results Net Present Value S1.142.573 S1.142,573 B/C Ratio 1.57 , 1.57 Revenue Requirements BIC Results Net Present Value 52.898.592 _ $2.898.592 B/C Ratio 13.34 _ 13.34 Proiect Type __ Audinfo _ R&D = Renewable - _ Direct impact X Type of Incentive x Loan/Grant Rebate Direct Installation X End-Use Taraet (%_ Lighting 0% ____ 0% Process Motor 0% 0% __ __ _ _ ~0% _ _ _ Refrigeration 0% __ __ _ _ ~0% _ _ _ Space Coorsn_ 0% __ __ _ _ ~0% _ _ _ Space Heating 0% __ __ _ _ ~0% _ _ _ Water Heating 100°_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 100% _ _ _ _ _ Weathenzation 0% General/Other 0% 0% Ratemaking treatment expensed X _x _ 214
C( Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) - tENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysts Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Company: Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: Residential Hlgh-Eff. Showerheads Summary tntormatlon Input Data Company. Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Projed:
- 1) Retail Rate (SIMCF) - s8.82 15) Utility Project Costs (First Year)
Escalation Rate - 2.10% Adrninistrative Costs a $160.321 Cost Summary Direct Operating Coals = so
- 2) Commodity Cost (S/MCF)- :4.58 Incentive Cods - Utility Cost per Partipant (Fist Year) - 1.31 Escalation Rate* -* 2.10% Total Utility Project Costs" S130.327 Utliity Cost per partIcipant (Second Year)
- 1.38
- 3) Demand Cost (SlUnItlYr)* - S93.86 - 15a) titiiy Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) - 827.400 Escalatlion Rate
- 2.10% Administrative Costs
- 5131.304 Societal Cost per MCF . . . . 581.28 Direct Operating Costs = 50 Coat per Participant per MCF (First Year) *
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor - : -1.00%. Incentive Costs. 1.73
- Total Utiity Project Coats* S131304 Cost per Parllctpant per MCF (Second Year). . S41.76 tW 5) VarIable O&M (SIMCF) S0.0781; so .
Escalation Ratei 2.10% 16) Direct Participant Cosb (S'Part.) 50.00
- 6) Environmental Damage Factor - . 0.3000 17) Other Participant Costs (Annual S/Part.)l 5$0.00 Escalation Rate - 2.17% Escalation Rate.. 2.10%
- 7) Total Sales - 78.428.047 18) Project Life (Years)- I. 15i Growth Rate - 0 60%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Projed)- 19.85% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers * . 395,842 Growth Rate * : - 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/Part.) Y 9.92 NPV arC
- 9) Utlity Discount Rate = 7.47% 2 1) Avg. MCFlPart Saved (First Year Program). : 1.97 Cost Comparison Test S1.142.573 1.57 2la) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (Second Year Program)- 1.97
- 10) Social Discount Rate- 4.72% Revenue Requirements Test $2.898.592 13.34
- 22) Number of Pawticipanhs (First Year Program). 14.0I
- 11) General Input Data Year- 2003 22a) Number of Partidpants (Second Year Program). 14.000 Socletal Benent Test I: 3.105.439 14.22
- 12) Project AnalysIs Year I1 2005 23) tncentive/Pfaicpant (First Year Program). SO PartlelpantTest I
.$5220.655 44.22 12a) Project Analysis Year 2
- 2006 23a) Incentive/Participant (Second Year Program)* so I I
- 13) Effective Fed & State Income Ta,x Raie . 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Tai esg 6.75%
as % Total Operating Income I i I I . ..
. .I I I I I
. I I I I . ; . - .1
,- , 1 . I
. ; . II I; I I. ! .- ; I '. . - . !
t i., .
Xcel Energy Residential Home Efficiency Project Information Sheet 2005 Budget 2006 Budget Electric l Gas I Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components Project Delivery S204.333 S204.333 1204 442 S204 442 Utility Administration S20.742 S20.742 S21.365 S21.365 Other Proiect Administration So So so so Advertisingl Promotion S17.336 S17.336 S17.336 S17,336 Evaluation Labor & Expenses so so SO SO Incentives t10.037 S10.037 S10.037 S10037 Revenue So so so so Total Budget - SO $252,448 S252448 S0 S253,179 S253.179 Total Number of Participants 248E 248 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) 13.945 13.945 Project Type Percentage Expenditure Comrnercial & Industrial Small Business Consumner 100% 100% _ _= Low Income Low-income Participation (%) Particivants (C) 37 2 372 Budget (Sl 37.867 37.977 Renter Participation M%) _ Particioants (8) 12 4 124 Budget IS) 12.622 12.659 Societal BIC Results Net Present Value S535 421 S535 421 BIC Ratio 146 146 Participant BIC Results Nei Present Value S .931.537 S1.931.537 B/C Ratio 3 56 3.56 Rate Impact B/C Results Net Present Value S242 385 S242.385 BtC Ratio 1.18 1.18 Revenue Requirements BIC Results Net Present Value 51.130 247 51.130.247 BIC Ratio 349 349 Proiect Type Audritnfo R&D Renewable Direct Imoact X x Type of Incentive Loan/Grant Rebate X x Direct Installation End-Use Target 1%) Lighting . 0% __ __ _ _ 0% Process 0% __ _ _ _ _ ~0% _ _ _ Motor 0% __ _ _ _ _ ~0% _ _ _ Refnoeration 0% 0% _ _ _ Space Cooling 0% 0% _ _ _ Soace Heating 0% 0% _ _ _ Water Heating 100% 100% _ _ _ _ Weathen2zation 0% 0% x _ __ ___ ___ General/Other 0% _ 0% Ratemaking treatment: expensed X
<2a 216
.r I C C Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS-- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ConservatIon Improvement Program (CIP)
BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS-. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Companyv Xcel Energy(Natural Gas) I . Project: Residential Home Efficiency Summary Information ' Input Data Company. XcelEnergy (Natural Gas) Project: Residential Home Efficiency
- 1) Retail Rate (S/MCF) = $8.82 15) Utility Project Costs (First Year)
Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = $252,448 Cost Sumnmary - Direct Operating Costs = S0
- 2) Commodity Cost (S/MCF) 4.58 Incentive Costs = 50. Utility Cost per Participant (First Year) = .. $1,017.94 Escalation Rate = - - -2.12.10% Total Utility Project Costs = $252,448 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = $1,020.88
- 3) Demand Cost ($/UnitlYr) = - $93.86 15a) Utility Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) 418,342 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = $253,179 Societal Cost per MCF .2.76 Direct Operating Costs = $0
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor i 1.00% Incentive Costs = Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year) = 548.03 Total Utility Project Costs = $253,179 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year) = 546.08 5)Variable O&M (S/MCF) = S0.0761
- Escalation Rate = 2.10%. :16) Direct Participant Costs (S/Part.) $1,570.00
- 6) Environmental Damage Factor = S0.3000 17) Other Participant Costs (Annual $SPart.)= $0.00 Escalation Rate = 2.17% Escalation Rate = 2.10%,
- 7) Total Sales = 78,428,047 18) Project Life (Years) = 15 Growth Rate = 0.60%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) = 31.10% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers = 395,842 Growth Rate = 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/Part.) = 180.80 . . . .. INPV BIC
- 9) Utility Discount Rate = , . 7.47% 21) Avg. MCF.Part. Saved (Firs.t Year Program) 56.23 Cost Comparison Test $242,385 . 1.18 21a) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (Second Year Program)= * . 50.23 .
- 10) Social Discount Rate =, 4.72% Revenue Requirements Test S1,130,247'
$- 3.49
- 22) Number of Participants (First Year Program)I 248
- 11) General Input Data Year = 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program) = 248 Societal Benefit Test $S535,421 1.46
- 12) Project Analysis Year I= 2005 .c
- 23) IncentiverParticlpant (First Year Program) = $0 Participant Test $1,931,537 3.56 12a) ProJec Analysis Year 2= 2008 23a) Incentive/Participant (Second Year Program) - SO
- 13) Effective Fed & State Income Tax Rate = 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Taxes 6.75%
as % Total Operating Income
Xcel Energy Residential Home Energy Audits Project Information Sheet l--;-zs.'2005 Bde'igeo-;: Electric Gas. Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components Proect Delivery S368.992 S1S1,081 S520,073 S379,345 S176,308 S555,653 Utility Administration S48,170 S1383 -61973 S48,504 S14,217 S62,721 Other Proiect Administration S9.000 S0 $9,000 $9,000 $SO $9000 AdvertisinalPrmotion S113.685 S20,277 S133,962 S114.435 S20.647 $135,082 Evaluations So S0 S0 SO SO SO R&D SO S0 S0 SO SO SO Incentives (Rebates) So S0 S0 SO SO SO Other SO SO SO SO -'SO SO Less Revenues (IS61,320) (S26,200) (S87,5201 ($61,320) (S36.200) (S97,520 Total Budoet S478.527 S158.961 S637.488 S489.964 S174.972 $664i936 Total Number of Participants 8,130 4 259 8,415 4,259 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) _ Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) _ Proiect Type Percentage Expenditure Commercial & Industnal Small Business Consumer 100% 100% 100% 100% Low Income Low-Income Participation (%/6) Participants (#l 81 85 84 85 Budget ($) 4 785 3_179 4,900 3.499 Renter Participation %___ Participants 1#) 41 43 42 43 Budoet (I) 2.393 1 590 2,450 1.750 Societal BIC Results Net Present Value B/C Ratio' 7 Participant BIC Results Net Present Value B/C Ratio Rate Impct B/C Results Net Present Value _ B/C Ratio Revenue Requirements BIC Results . Net Present Value B/C Ratio Project Type Audit/Info X X x x R&D 7 Renewable . Direct Impact Type of Incentive Loan/Grant Rebate Direct Installation End-Use Target (%) Lighting 10% 0% 10% 0% Process 0% 0% 0% 0% Motor 0% 0% 0% 0% Refrigeration 5% 0% 5% 0% Space Cooling 50% 0% 50% 0%° Space Heating 15% 35%°/ 15% 35% Water Heating 5% 20%° 5% 20% Weatherization GeneraUOther 0% 15% 30% 15% 0% 15% 30%° 15% K)J Ratemakina treatment expensed X X x x 218
Xcel Energy Residential Home Ughting Direct Purchase \<9 Project Information Sheet . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ . get . Electric I Gas Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components . Proiect Delivery S7.073 $7,073 $7,286 S7_2861 Utility Administration 538_345 .S38345 S39,495 S39,495 Other Project Administration S0 - So $0 SO Advertising/Promotion St96,807 S196.807 S196.831 S196,831 Evaluations S0 So SO SO R&D S0 So $0 SO hcentives (Rebates) So S0 Other SO : SO SD
= so0 _ _ _so Less Revenues So S0 Total Budaet $242,225 S0 S242,225 S243S612 0 $243,612 Total Number of Participants 40.086 40,086 Total En. Savinrs-Generator (kWh) -i825,169 1,825,169 Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 1.679156 -1,679,156 Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 73 73 .
Total Natural Gas Energy Savinps (MCF) ._- Proiect Type Percentaae Expenditure ._ . Commercial & Industrial Small Business Consumer 100% 100% . Low Income - . Low-Income Participation (%) Participants (#) 401 Budget(S) -2422 Renter Participation (N.) Participants # 200 Budget (S) - 21 I Societal BIC Results -_-___-._._ _ Net Present Value - - $58 - . .. $62 __ __ __ __ BIC Ratio . - . 1A3 - _:_. Participant BIC Results Net Present Value $338 $344 BIC Ratio 18.81 19.10D _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Rate Impact B/C Results Net Present Value (S303) _ (S305) _ _ _ _ _ _ B/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 . - Revenue Requirements BIC Results _ . Net Present Value S54 -$57 __ _ _ BIC Ratio 1.477. 1.50. Prolect Type Audit/Info R&D Renewable ._ x ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Direct Impact X Tvpe of Incentive Loan/Grant Rebate Direct Installation X End-Use Target (".) Lichtina 100% - 100% . . - Process 0% 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ Motor 0% Refrigeration 0% 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ Space Cooling 0% 0% _ _ _ _ _ SPace Heatina 0% 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Water Heating 0% 0% _ _ _ _ __ _ _ Weatherization 0% General/Other 0% 01 0% _ _ Ratemaking treatment: expensed X 219
I > Residential Segment Home Lighting Direct Purchase. I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact- Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test S1kW S/kW S/kW SlkW SlkW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S17 S17 S17 S17 T&D N/A S10 S10 $10 S10 Marginal Energy N/A S141 S141 $141 S141 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A S22 Subtotal N/A S168 S168 S168 S190 Xcel Energy's Project Costs NIA S114 SI 14 SI 14 $114 Subtotal N/A SI 14 S114 S114 S114 Revenue Reduction S357 N/A S357 N/A' N/A Subtotal S357 N/A S357 N/A N/A Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S19 N/A N/A S19 S19 Incremental O&M SO N/A N/A 0 Rebates SO N/A N/A SO Subtotal S19 N/A - N/A $19 S19 Net Present Benefit (Cost) $338 S54 : (S303) - S35 S58 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S0.049 5 S0.008 (S0.044) S0.005 S0.008 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $9,868 $1,575 ($8,847) S1,021 S,677 Benefit Cost Ratio 18.81 1.47 0.36 1.26 1.43 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 8 Customer Rate Residential Service (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 9.02% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)- 790 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 790 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)/(1-(E))= 859 (F) Gross Customer kW 1 (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 3.16% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(HY(l-(E))= 0.034 kWhfYear Saved at Customer per unit 43 kWh/Year Saved at Generator per unit 47 Reduction at Customer kW/unit 0.054 Peak Reduction at Generator kW/unit 0.034
'K-)
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.017
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S3,323.3 220
I > Residential Segment Home Lighting Direct Purchase I Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis I 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test, Test Test Test SAMW SlkW SlkW S/kW SlkW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $18 S18 S18 S18 T&D N/A S1O S1O Slo S10 MarginalEnergy N/A S144 $144 S144 $144 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A S23 Subtotal N/A S172 S172 S172 S195 XcelEnergy'sProjectCosts N/A S115 $115 SIIS $115 Subtotal N/A S115 S115 S115 S115 Revenue Reduction S363 N/A S363 N/A N/A Subtotal S363 N/A S363 *N/A N/A Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S19 N/A N/A S19 S19 Incremental O&M . .SO N/A N/A 0 So Rebates . so N/A N/A S0 . . So Subtotal S19 N/A N/A S19 $19 Net Present Benefit (Cost) $344 S57 (S305) S38 S62 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S0.050 S0.008 (S0.044) S0.006 $0.009 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S10,024 $1,675 ($8,903) S1,121 $1,793 Benefit Cost Ratio 19.10 1.50 0.36 1.29 1.46 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 8 Customer Rate Residential Service (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 9.02% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)' 790 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 790 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (Dy(l-(E))= 859 (F) Gross Customer kW I (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 3.16% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)/(I(E))= 0.034 kWh/Year Saved at Customer per unit 43 k'h/Year Saved at Generator per unit 47 Reduction at Customer kW/unit 0.054 Peak Reduction at Generator kW/unit 0.034
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.017
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen S3,342.3 221
Residential Segment Home Lighting Direct Purchase 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 0.053 0.053 (B1) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 1.0 1.0 (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(Bl)= 0.053 0.053 (D) Coincident factor 3.16% 3.16% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% 8.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)I(l-E)= 0.00 0.00 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 790 790 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year (A)*(G)= 42 42 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0% (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year. (B)*(H)= 42 42 (3)Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year. (I)/(l-E)= 46 46 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 40,086 40,086 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 2,125 2,125 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 2,125 2,125 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 73 73 Total Gross kWh reducion at Customerper year. (H)*(K)= 1,679,156 1,679,156 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year. (I)*(K)=
- 1,679,156 1,679,156 Total Net kWh reduction at Generatorperyear. (J)*(K)= 1,825,169 1,825,169 Total Budget S 242,225 S 243,612 222
Xcel Energy Residential Lamp Recycling Project Information Sheet
~.06~gt;.A i-E Electric l Gas I Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components ____-____.__
Proiect Delivery S105.052 S105.052 S105,204 :105,204 Utility Administration S5.683 55.683 S5,854 S5,85-4 Other Proiect Administration So So . .. SO ........ .. ' S AdvertisinalPromotion S15.000 S15,000 S15.000 . 15,000 Evaluations So So -SO __ _ '__ SO~ R&D So S0 so __ _ _ __ o SO , __ _. _ __: SO Incentives (Rebates) So S0 Other S0 So SO __ .___ SOJ Less Revenues S0 So SO
. ' SO Total Budget sS3125,735 S125O735 S126.058 S0 $126,058 Total Number of Participants 125.546 125,546 7 ,
Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) Total Demand Savings Generator (kW!) Total Natural Gas Energy Savinqs (MCF) Project Type Percentage Expenditure Commercial & Industrial Small Business Consumer 100% 100% Low Income Low-4ncome Participation (%/.) Partidcpants (#) 1,255 1,255 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Budget (S) 1.257 Renter Participation (%) Participants (#) 628 628 _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Budget (S) 629 630 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Societal BIC Results Net Present Value BIC Ratio Participant B/C Results Net Present Value . B/C Ratio Rate Impact BIC Results Net Present Value B/C Ratio _ Revenue Requirements BIC Results Net Present Value B/C Ratio Project Type Audit/info X . - R&D Renewable Direct Impact Type of Incentive Loan/Grant _ . Rebate X Direct Installation End-Use Target (%) . Lighting 100% 100% __ _ _ __ _ _ Process 0%
- 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Motor 0%
- 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Refrigeration 0% 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Space Cooling 0% - 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Space Heating 0% 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Water Heating 0% 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Weatherization 0%
- 0% __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
General/Other 0% 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ratemaking treatment: expensed X x . ._ 223
High Efficiency Efficient Baseline Baseline Expected Estimate o1 Estimate ol Estimata of Product I Product ProductU Product Annual Life of Participant s Annual Estimate of Peak Technology Efficlency Technology Etfictency Product Electric Product Rebate Incremental Customer kWh Customer kW Generator tW Type of Measure Descriptlon Level Description Level Volume Units Rate (years) Level Cost Savings Savings Savings Res Energy Star Electric . . . Central A/C New or Misc. New or Misc. Old or less Eff. Old or less Eff. 8.888 Customer Res. Rate 18 S438 3715 384 0.685 0.494 Syslems Systems kW Room AIC New or Misc. New or Misc. Old or less El. Old or less Elf. 80 Customer Res. Rate 13 S375 S750 239 0.080 0.087 Systems Systems kW Ground Source Heat New or Misc. New or Misc. Old or less En. Old or less Enl. 4 Customer Res. Rale 18 S269 $654 384 1.250 0.637 Pumps Systems Systems kW Air Source Heat Pumps New or Misc. New or Misc. Old or less Eh. Old or less Elf. 19 Customer Res. Rate 18 $170 3284 384 0.864 0.440 Systems Systems kW _ Res Home Lighting Direct Purchase . Home LIghting Direct Newor Misc. NeworMisc. OldorlessElf. Old orlessEff. 2,125 Customer Res. Rate 8 30 S19 790 0.053 0.002 PPurchase Systems Systlems kW t 41. (. ( C
C High Efficiency Efficient B aseline Baseline Expected Estimate of Estimate O&M Product I Product ProducUl Product Annual Llte of Participant's Savings per Esttmate of Present MCF Technology Efficiency Technology Efficiency Product Product Rebate Incremental participant per MCf Savings Consumption Type of Measure Description Level Description Level Volume Units Gas Rate (years) Level CosO yr per Participant per Participant Res Energy Star Gas Heating System Newor Misc. Newor Misc. Old or less Elf. Old or less Elf. 70.800 MCF Residential 15 $7 $621 $0 12 104.000 Rebate I Systems Systems Firm Service ReS High Effi lency Showerheads . Showerheads New or Misc. New or Misc. Old or less Ei. Old orless Elf. 27.580 MCF Residential 15 S0 so S0 2 9.923 Sysltems Systems Firm Service Res Home Ef Iciency . Home Efficiency New or Misc. New or Misc. Old or less Ef. Old or less El. 13.945 MCF Residential 15 S0 51.570 S0 56 180.800 Systems Systems Firm Service tw qIL
l Residential Segment Load Management A. Description Saver's SwitchC, the sole residential load management product, offers consumers a rate discount for helping Xcel Energy manage electric peak demand periods during the summer months. A small control device is installed at the consumer's home that allows Xcel Energy to remotely cycle their enrolled equipment on and off during peak demand periods. Consumers with central air conditioning or central air conditioning and an electric water heating are eligible to participate.
- 1. Saver's Switch Saver's Switch has been a successful product for Xcel Energy since it originated in 1990. It has helped reduce the impact of escalating demand for peak electricity. As a result, all Xcel Energy consumers have benefited from peak day load reduction, which helps provide reliable electricity.
Participants on the air conditioning program receive a 15 percent discount on their June through September electric energy charges. Participants receive an additional two percent discount on their electric energy charges for electric bills issued throughout the year January - December) for enrolling their electric water heater. Saver's Switch is promoted through mass-market channels. All consumers are informed about the program via direct mail, bill inserts, the Internet and telemarketing. In addition to installing new Saver's Switch units and maintaining existing units that have failed, the Company's hardware vendor has identified a faulty microprocessor chip that could lead to an increased failure rate for units installed or maintained in 2001-02. The vendor has agreed to fund expenses related to replacing the faulty microprocessor. Xcel Energy will update the replaced units with a new adaptive algorithm technology that was implemented in 2004. This will increase load relief over the standard technology that was installed through 2003 and improve program integrity. Xcel Energy will fund the costs related to the upgrade in technology since the original units were purchased with the standard technology. Modifications' In XcelEnergy's contiruinng effort to maximize the Saver's Switch product's effectiveness, the Company has developed a new approach to cycling central air conditioning units. The new technology would shift the control methodology from 15 minutes on/1 5 minutes off to a control amount necessary to achieve a 50 percent reduction in demand per air conditioner during the control period. The result will be increased load reduction per switch and increased customer satisfaction for customers with properly sized air conditioners. 226
On May 26, 2004, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission approved the Company's request to modify its residential Saver's Switch tariff to allow the operation of the new switch using the different control methodology. The new technology will be installed on new participants' central air conditioners and as part of ongoing maintenance to existing switches. B. Project Information Sheet Project Information Sheets are provided at the end of this section. C. Effect on Peak Demand and Energy Consumption & List of Assumptions for each Technology Effects on peak demand and energy consumption are provided in the Project Information Sheets and Benefit/Cost Analyses located at the end of this section. Technology assumptions are also provided at the end of this section. D. Relationship of Program to Resource Plan As part of Xcel Energy's Conservation Improvement Program, this program will support attainment of Xcel Energy's Resource Plan DSM goals. Not applicable to natural gas utilities. E. Cost Effectiveness See Project Information Sheet. F. Estimated Low-Income and Renter Participation See Project Information Sheet. G. Budget See Project Information Sheet. H. Ratemaking Treatment & Cost-Recovery Method The ratemaking and cost-recovery procedures for this CIP follow those approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in Docket Nos. E002/GR-92-1185, G002/GR-97-1606, and E,G-999/CI-98-1759. I. Participation See Project Information Sheet. J. Involvement of Community Energy Organizations Saver's Switch installation vendors are selected through competitive bid. Selected vendors are local electrical contractors who provide installation, service and maintenance support. K Evaluation Plan Load Research evaluations are conducted annually to verify load reduction for forecasting purposes. Continual review of accomplishments and expenditures are made throughout the year to verify conservation achievements' and cost effectiveness. Saver's Switch equipment inventory will be reconciled on a monthly and quarterly basis as part of a process improvement plan started in 2003. 227
L. Renewable Energy Information
- N/A..
M. Additional Information None. I - I 228
Xcel Energy Residential Saver's Switch Project Information Sheet 2005 Budget 2006 Budget Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components Project Delivery S231438 ________1,4i38 $2,349882 =S2.349,882 Utility Administration $248.319 l l 248.319 S255.768 _2556768 Other Prolect Administration S2.524.387 S2.524.387 S2j491880 52_491_880 Advertising/Promotion S312.500 S312,500 S322,050 _ 322.050 Evaluations 527.258 S27.258 S27 866 27,866 R&D So So Incentives (Rebates) So So so __ _ _ _ _ _so SO _ __ _ __ _ SO Other So _ So Less Revenues So ; So so __ _ _ _ _ _so Total Budget . S05.453.902 5.453,902 $5,447.446 S0 S5,447,446 Total Number of Participants 35_100 35.100 Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) 510_060_. 510.060 Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 469.255 469.255 Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 25,105 25.105 Toal Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Project Type Percentage Expenditure Commercial & Industrial Small Business Consumer 100% 100% Low Income _ _ Low-Income Participation (%) Participants (#) 351 ; 351 Budget (S) 54_539 _. 54474 Renter Participation (%) Participants (#) 176 176 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Budget (S) 27_270 27.237 Societal 8/C Results Net Present Value S234 = S241 _ = BIC Ratio 5.52 5.67 Participant BIC Results Net Present Value S281 $285 BIC Ratio INF INF Rate Impact BIC Results Net Present Value 1547) . (S45) B/C Ratio 0.86 0.87 Revenue Requirements SIC Results Net Present Value 8234 ; S241 B/C Ratio 5.52 5.66 Project Type Auditinfo . R&D Renewable _ _______ Direct Impact X Tvpe of Incentive Loan/Grant Rebate Direct Installation X End-Use Target (/) _ Lighting 0%°_ 0% __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Process 0% . 0% Motor 0% 0% Refnigeration 0% 0% Space Cooling 100% 100%/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Space Heating 0% 0% Water Heating 0% 0% Weatherization 0%N 0% General/Other 0% 0% Ratemakingtreatment: expensed X . x 229
> Residential Segment Saver's Switch *I. Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test C1.", rn.,tir cnR., C nu,
.. .t JiVW 01KV/}T D/.K
. OkT ar.T Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $176 S176 S176 S176 T&D N/A S106 S106 S106 $106 Marginal Energy N/A S3 S3 S3. , S3 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A - SO Subtotal N/A S285 S285 $285 S285 Xcel Energys Project Costs N/A- S52 S52 $52: - S52 Subtotal N/A S52 $52 $52 S52 Revenue Reduction - S-281 N/A S281 o S0S Subtotal S281 N/A S281 So S0 Participants' Net Costs .
Incremental Capital So N/A N/A So So Incremental O&:M S0 N/A N/A S0 $0 Rebates S0 N/A N/A S0 S0 Subtotal S0 N/A N/A S0 S0 Net Present Benefit (Cost) S281 $234 (S47) $234 S234 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S3.878 $3.223 (S0.655) S3.223 S3.225 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $1.182 $982 (S200) $982 S983 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 5.52 0.86 *5.52 5.52 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.05%> (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)" 4 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)* (C)= 4 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.00/0 Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kU': (Dy(l-(E))= 5.. (F) Gross Customer kW (CI) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0%. (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(CQ= 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 21.87% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)/(1-(E))= 0.238 kU'h/Year Saved at Customer per unit 13 kU'hfYear Saved at Generator per unit 15 Reduction at Customer kW/unit 3.009 Peak Reduction at Generator kW/unit 0.658
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime SO.713
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $217.2 230.-
I > Residential Segment Saver's Switch l Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test SlkWV S/kW S/kW S/kW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A S180 S180 $180 $180 T&D N/A S109 S109 $109 $109 Marginal Energy N/A S3 $3 S3 $3 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A S0 Subtotal N/A $292 $292 S292 $292 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A S52 S52 $52 S52 Subtotal N/A $52 $52 $52 S52 Revenue Reduction $285 N/A $285 S0 S0 Subtotal $285 N/A $285 So S0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S0 N/A N/A $0 S0 Incremental O&M S0 N/A N/A S0 S0 Rebates S0 N/A N/A $0 S0 Subtotal $0 N/A N/A $0 So Net Present Benefit (Cost) $285 S241 ($45) $241 S241 Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime S3.937 S3.320 (S0.617) S3.320 S3.322 Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator S.200 S1.012 ($188) $1,012 S1,013 Benefit Cost Ratio INF 5.66 0.87 5.66 5.67 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 15 (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 0.05% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760) 4 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 4 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)/(l-(E))= 5 (F) Gross Customer kW I (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 21.87% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)/(1-(E))= 0.238 kWh/Year Saved at Customer per unit 13 kWh/Year Saved at Generator per unit 15 Reduction at Customer kW/unit 3.009 Peak Reduction at Generator kW/unit 0.658
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.712
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $217.0 231
Residential Segment Saver's Switch 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 3.01 3.01 (B 1)Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(BI)= 3.01 3.01 (D) Coincident factor 21.9% 21.9% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% 8.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/(l-E)= 0.72 0.72 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW 4 4 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)*(G)= 13 13 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0% (I) Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (B)*(H)= 13 13 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (I)/(l-E)= 15 - 15 (K)Estimated participant penetration rates 35,100 35,100 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 105,602 105,602 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 105,602 105,602 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 25,105 25,105 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)= 469,2S5 469,255 Total Net kWh reduction at Customer per year: (1)*(K)= 469,255 469,255 . Total Net kwh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)= S 10,060 510,060 Total Budget S 5,453,902 S 5,447,446 232
High Efilciency Eficient Baseline Baseline Expected Estimate of Estimate of Estimate of ProductI Product Productl Product Annual Life of Participant's Annual Estimate of Peak Technology Efficiency Technology Efficiency Product Electric Product Incrementil Customer kWh CustomerkW GeneratorkW Type of Measure Description Level Description Level Volume Units Rate (years) Rebate Level COst, Savings Savings Savings Res Saver's Switch New Installation -AC Utiity load contiol Nol Applicable No ar Not 30,000 Customer Res AC 15 Not S0 8 3.000 1.272 Only of air conditioner conditioner load Applicable kW Rate Applicable control New Installation .A/C Utility load control Not Applicable No air Not 602 Customer Res AC- 15 Not S0 7 6.020 1.592 and Water Heater of air conditioner conditionerlwale Applicable kW Wtr Rate Applicable
& electric water r heater load heater control Maintenance Utility load control Not Applicable Bad air Not 75,000 Cuslorner Res AC 15 Not S0 3 3.000 0.489 of air conditioner conditioner load Applicable kW Rate Applicable control w
( C (
l> Low-Income Energy Services Segment A. Description The Low-Income Energy Services Segment consists of the Low-Income Weatherization Program. This product analyzes gas and electric consumption for low-income customers and provides certain products that assist in lowering energy bills. Funding sources for the program remain separated by gas and electric and the benefits are determined by the services provided by Xcel Energy.! Customers served by Xcel Energy gas and electric service will have access to CIP funded improvements that cover both commodities. A major component of the program is home energy education. Trained agency employees provide education materials and explain customer's energy usage. Xcel Energy does not claim energy savings associated with the education component, but positive feedback from agencies and customers has been positive. Basic materials such as refrigerator thermometers and cleaning brushes are left for the customers use. Program Components. The proposed product will follow current state and federal guidelines for weatherization as designed and modified by the Federal Department of Energy (DOE) Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). Major components of weatherization services include:
> DOE standard energy audit including a blower door test;
> Mechanical repairs to ensure safety prior to weitherization work;
> Detailed specifications for all weatherization measures;
> Work assigned to appropriate contractors;
> Sidewall and attic insulation;
> Insulation of tuck-under garages, foundations, crawlspaces, and rim joists where needed;
> Blower door-assisted air sealing;
> Outdoor venting of dryers and exhaust fans;
> Quality control through inspections and on-site supervision;
>> Post-work diagnostic mechanical testing; and - -
> Client satisfaction through follow-up inspections and surveys. -
In addition to the DOE prescribed weatherization components, Xcel Energy's Weatherization product proposes to also include the following:
- 1. Limited funding for furnace replacement Heating system replacements would be allowed only for income eligible, owner-occupied residences and would follow the same rules as those for heating system
-replacements through the ENERGY STAR Program. Customers experiencing an immediate health and safety issue rmay receive priority. Xcel Energy does require prior approval for al special circumstances.
Total funding for heating system replacement through the Low-Income. AWeatherization product would be limited to $120,000 (50 participants @ $2,400). 234
- 2. Limited funding for refrigerator, freezer, and air conditioner recycling and/or replacement Xcel Energy contracted agencies will perform energy audits and analysis of -
energy consumption. As part of this analysis, refrigerators, freezers and air conditioners may be tested for energy efficiency. If these appliances meet the criteria for replacement, Xcel Energy will provide a new appliance to the household. For refrigerators and freezers, a co-payment will be required for a period of ten months. An air conditioner will be replaced at no cost to the household. Xcel Energy works with appliance provider if special circumstances exist with installation. However, prior approval is needed for any variations. All work will be specified on a house-by-house basis, with the auditor and/or crew determining the most efficient, cost-effective measures and the method of installation. Administration The proposed product will continue to be administered through community action agencies (CAAs) throughout Xcel Energy's service territory in Minnesota. Because the CAAs are able to combine Xcel Energy's weatherization funding with the DOE Weatherization Assistance funding, Emergency-Related Repair funding, and other agencies' funding, and because they have the infrastructure in place to effectively deliver weatherization services, Xcel Energy believes they are best positioned to deliver necessary weatherization services to the target market. Xcel Energy continues to work with providers in effort to provide comprehensive services to low-income Eligibility Requirements Qualifying participants must meet the following requirements:
> Participant must be an Xcel Energy electric or natural gas customer living in Minnesota,
> Participant must be a residential customer (four-unit dwelling or less),
> Participant must be a single-family homeowner or an owner or renter of a one- to four-unit rental property (renters must have landlord/owner approval. For rental properties with a single meter, Xcel Energy will fund 50 percent up to S2,500).
> Majority of participant's income must be equal to or less than 50 percent of the state median income guideline, and
> For refrigerator, freezer and air conditioner replacement, participant must have Xcel Energy electric service.
- Please see attached "Allowed Measures" table for specific fuel requirements for certain electric and natural gas weatherization measures.
Marketing The primary method used to attract participants to this product is referrals. The majority of referrals come from the Energy Assistance Program with additional 235
referrals anticipated through collaboration with Energy Cents Coalition and the Home Energy Audit product. In addition to referrals, two articles will be placed in newsletters accompanying customers' bills. If additional marketing is needed, direct mail will be utilized. Modifications: None B. Project Information Sheet Project Information Sheets are provided at the end of this section. C. Effect on Peak Demand and Energy Consumption & List of Assumptions for each Technology Effects on peak demand and energy consumption are provided in the Project Information Sheets and Benefit/Cost Analyses located at the end of this section. Technology assumptions are also provided at the end of this section. D. Relationship of Program to Resource Plan As part of Xcel Energy's Conservation Improvement Program, this program will support attainment of Xcel Energy's Resource Plan DSM goals. Not applicable to natural gas utilities. E. Cost Effectiveness See Project Information Sheet. F. Estimated Low-Income and Renter Participation This product is designed exclusively for low-income customers. See the Project Information Sheet for more details on low-income and renter participation and budgets. G. Budget See Project Information Sheet. H. Ratemaking Treatment & Cost-Recovery Method The ratemaking and cost-recovery procedures for this CIP follow those approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in Docket Nos. E002/GR-92-1185, G002/GR-97-1606, and E,G-999/CI-98-1759. I. Participation See Project Information Sheet. J. Involvement of Community Energy Organizations This product will be administered through community organizations in Xcel Energy's Minnesota service territory. K Evaluation Plan Xcel Energy will support local evaluation plans of agencies that may measure all services provided to a household. Xcel Energy also recognizes that the MN Department of 236
Commerce will be conducting a comprehensive analysis of CIP programs, including low-income gas and electric programs. L. Renewable Energy Information N/A M. Additional Information None. K>o 237
Xcel Energy Low Income Energy Services Project Information Sheet l . . 2005 Budget _-_-_-- .2006 Budget :. .- J Electric Gas Total Electric l Gas Total Cost Components Proiect Delivery S805.000 S696.158 S1.501 158 $805,ODO 5696.208 S1.501.208 Utility Administration S0 S680 - S680 'S0 5700 S700 Other Proiect Administration S9.300 S5.400 S14.700 S9.300 55.400 $14.700 Advertising/Promotion S10.000 S4.000 S14000 510.000 $4,000 514,000 Evaluations So So so SO SO SO R&D - - - S0 S0 So S0 So SD Incentives (Rebates) - So S1100 S11O 00 so S11.000 511.000 Other So S0 S0 SO SO SO Less Revenues * - (S67 500) SO . ($67,500) (567,500) 50 (567,500) Total Budget S756,800 S717,238 S1,474038 0756,800 $717,308 $1,474,108 Total.Number of Participants 5,490 501 5490 501 . Total En. Savings-Generator (kWh) 1 098 160 1.098,160 Total En. Savings-Meter (kWh) 1.010 307 1,010,307 . . Total Demand Savings Generator (kW) 113 113 . Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) 11,277 Project Type Percentage Expenditure . Commercial & Industrial . - Small Business Consumer Low Income 100% 100% _ _ _ _ _ _ Low-Income Participation (%) Participants (#) 55 10 55 10 Budget (S) 7.568 14.345 7,6 14.346 _ _ _ _ _ _ Renter Participation C'h) Participants (#) 27 . 5 27 5 Budget (S) - - 3.784 7.t72 3.784 7.173 _ _ _ _ _ _ Societal BIC Results - _ Net Present Value (S583) S36.131 . (575) - 36131 B/C Ratio 0.36 1.03 0.36 1.03 . Participant BIC Results Net Present Value S287 $2,032.631 5294 $2.032.631 _ _ _ _ _ _ B/C Ratio 2.36 550.58 2.40 550.58 Rate Impact BIC Results Net Present Value (5901) (S716.589) ($902) (S716.589) _ _ _ _ _ _ BIC Ratio 0.24 0.63 025 0.63 Revenue Requirements B/C Results : Net Present Value =(404) (S43.192) _ - (S397) (-43192)31 B/C Ratio -0.42 0.97 0.43 550.97
- Project Type Audit/Info R&D Renewable Direct Impact X X Type of Incentive X X _ _ _
Loan/Grant Rebate - X X Direct Installation End-Use Target (%) Liahtina 24% 0% 'X 24% M 0% ____ Process 0% 0% 0% 0% Motor 0% 0% 0% 0% _ _ _ _ _ _ Refrigeration 39% 0% v 39% -- '0% _.12 Space Cooling 5% - 0% 0.% . 0% * - _.97* _ Space Heating 0% 0% .% M Water Heating 0% 0% Weatherization 32% 100% 32% 100% ______ General/Other 0% 0% 0% 0% Ratemaking treatment: expensed X X. X3. '0% 238
I > Low Income Energy Services .1 Ti. I . .. Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2005 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test SlkW StkW SlkW 5tkW S/kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $63 $63 $63 $63 T&D N/A $37 $37 $37 $37 Marginal Energy N/A $191 S191 $191 $191 Externality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A $31 Subtotal N/A $291 5291 $291 $322 Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A $695 $695 $695 $695 Subtotal N/A $695 $695 $695 $695-Revenue Reduction S497 N/A $497 $0 so Subtotal 5497 N/A $497 $0 so Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital S210 N/A N/A $210 S210 Incremental O&M $0 N/A N/A 0 SO Rebates SO N/A N/A so $0 Subtotal $210 - N/A N/A - S210 $210 Net Present Benefit (Cost) $287 ($404) ($901) (S614) (S583) Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime SO.030 ($0.043) (SO.095) (S0.065) ($0.061) Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator 52,753 - ($3,879) (S8,650) (S5,897) (S5,596) Benefit Cost Ratio 2.36 0.42 0.24 0.32 0.36 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 9 Customer Rate Residential Service (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 10.59% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= 928 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 928 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)/(I-(E))- 1,008 (F) Gross Customer kW 1 (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 9.59% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)/(1-(E))= 0.104
*
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime S0.073
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $6,670.2 239
> Low Income Energy Services Net Present Worth Benefit Analysis 2006 Cost Benefit Summary Analysis For One Customer kW
'Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test
$5W, S/kW.' $/kW $/kW - &kW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A $64 $64 ' $64 S64 T&D N/A $38 '$38 $38- $38 Marginal Energy N/A $196 '$196 $196 $196 Externality Willingness N/A' N/A N/A . N/A $32 Subtotal 'N/A '$298 $298 $298 $330
'Xcel Energy's Project Costs N/A' $695 $695. $695 $695 Subtotal N/A S695 $695 $695 $695 Revenue Reduction S505 ; N/A $505 $0 s0 Subtotal $505 N/A $505 - f$0 s$0 Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital $210 N/A ' 'N/A $210 $210 Incremental O&M SO N/A N/A 0 $0 Rebates $0 - N/A N/A $0 $0 Subtotal $210 N/A 'N/A $210 $210 Net Present Benefit (Cost) $294 ($397) ($902) ($607) (S575)
Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime $0.031 ($0.042) ($0.095) ($0.064) ($0.060) Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator $2,825 ($3,811) ($8,654) ($5,829) ($5,520) Benefit Cost Ratio 2.40 0.43 0.25 0.33 0.36 Project Assumptions: Measure Lifetime (Years) 9 Customer Rate Residential Service (A) Gross Load Factor at Customer (LF) 10.59% (B) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (A)*(8760)= 928 (C) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% (D) Net kWh/Year saved per Customer kW: (B)*(C)= 928 (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% Net kWh/Year Saved at Generator per Customer kW: (D)/(l-(E))= 1,008 (F) Gross Customer kW 1 (Cl) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% (G) Net Customer kW: (F)*(C)= 1.000 (H) Coincidence Factor at Generator 9.59% Generator Adjusted kW: (G)*(H)/(l-(E))= 0.104
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kWh Lifetime $0.073
- Xcel Energy Project Cost per kW at Gen $6,670.2 240..
Low Income Energy Services 2005 2006 (A) Gross Customer kW reduction per participant 0.20 0.20 (BI) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Demand) 100.0% 100.0% (C) Net Customer kW reduction per participant: (A)*(B 1)= 0.20 0.20 (D) Coincident factor 9.6% 9.6% (E) Transmission Loss Factor 8.0% 8.0% (F) Net Summer Generator kW reduction per participant: (C)*(D)/( 0.02 0.02 (G) Gross kWh/Year saved per Customer kV 928 928 (H) Gross kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year: (A)' 184 184 (B) Free Driver/Free Rider Factor (Energy) 100.0% 100.0% (1)Net kWh reduction per participant at Customer per year (B)*(H 184 184 (J) Net kWh reduction per participant at Generator per year: (1)1(1-1 200 200 (K) Estimated participant penetration rates 5,490 5,490 Total Gross customer kW reduction: (A)*(K)= 1,089 1,089 Total Net Customer kW reduction: (C)*(K)= 1,089 1,089 Total Net Summer Generator kW reduction: (F)*(K)= 113 113 Total Gross kWh reduction at Customer per year: (H)*(K)/1000= 1,010,307 1,010,307 Total Net kWifreduction at Customer per year: (1)*(K)/1000= 1,010,307 1,010,307 Total Net kWh reduction at Generator per year: (J)*(K)/1000= 1,098,160 1,098,160 Total Budget $ 756,800 S 756,800 241
t (: Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ConservatIon Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Company. Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: Low-lncome Energy Services Segment Summary Inlormatton Input Data CompanyV Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project: 1)Retail Rate ($/MCF) = $8.82 15) Utility Project Costs (First Year) Escalation Rate 2.10% Administrative Costs = $24,001 Cost Summary Direct Operating Costs = 5682,237
- 2) Commodity Cost ($iMCF) = $4.58 Incentive Costs : . -11.000 Utilty Cost per Participant (First Year) $1,433.04 Escalation Rate= 2.10% Total Utility Project Costs = $717,238 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = $1,433.18
- 3) Demand Cost ($/Unlt/Yr)= $93.86 15a) UtiGity Project Costs (Second Year) , ,- Total Energy Reduction (MCF) - 337.669 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = $24,071 Societal Cost per MCF $3.92 Direct Operating Costs = $882,237
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor = 1.00% Incentive Costs = $11 .000 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year): $866.42 Total Utility Project Costs = $717,308 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year) = $66.43
- 5) Varlable O&M ($IMCF) = $0.0761 Escalation Rate 2.10% 16) Direct Participant Costs (S/Part.) = $60.74 t 6) Environmental Damage Factor = S0.3000 17) Other Participant Costs (Annual 5/Part.)= S0.00 Escalation Rate 2.17% Escalation Rate = . . 2.10%
- 7) Total Sales = 78,428,047 18) Project Life (Years) 15 Growth Rate = 0.80%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) 20.35% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers = 395.842 Growth Rate = 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/Part.) 110.51 NPV B/C
- 9) Utility Discount Rateo 7.47% 21) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (First Year Program) = 22.49 Cost Comparison Test . ($726.281) 0.64 21a) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (Second Year Program) = 22.49
- 10) Social Discount Rate = 4.72% Revenue Requirements Test _- (S9.614) 0.99
- 22) Number of Participants (First Year Program) 501
- 11) General Input Data Year: 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program)= 501 Societal Benefit Test $39,954 1.03
- 12) Project Analysis Year 1 2005 23) Incentive/Participant (First Year Program)= $22 Participant Test $2,125,652 34.89 12a) Project Analysis Year 2 = 2008 23a) Incentive/Participant (Second Year Program)= $22
- 13) Effective Fed & Stale Income Tax Rate = 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Taxes 6.75%
- as % Total Operating Income
Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS-- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conservatlon Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Company. Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project Low-income Weatherlzatlon Summary Information Input Data Company Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project Low-Income Weatherization
- 1) Retait Rate ($/MCF) = $8.82 15) Utility Project Costs (First Year)
Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = $10,763 Cost Summary Direct Operating Costs = $682,237
- 2) Commodity Cost ($/MCF) = $4.58 Incentive Costs = $0 Utility Cost per Participant (First Year) = $1,442.25 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Total Utility Project Costs = $693,000 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = $1.440.75
- 3) Demand Cost ($/UniVIYr) = $93.86 15a) Utility Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) 317,295 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = $10,763 Societal Cost per MCF $3.92 Direct Operating Costs = $682.237
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor = 1.00% Incentive Costs = $0 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year) = $65.56 Total Utility Project Costs = $693,000 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year) = $65.49
- 5) Variable O&M ($1MCF) = $0.0761 a Escalation Rate = 2.10% 16) Direct Participant Costs ($/Part.) = $0.00 I 6) Environmental Damage Factor = $0.3000 17) Other Participant Costs (Annual S/Part) $0.00 Escalation Rate = 2.17% Escalation Rate = 2.10%
- 7) Total Sales = 78,428.047 18) Project Life (Years) 15 Growth Rate = 0.60%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) = 20.00% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers = 395,842 Growth Rate = 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCF/Part.) = 110.00 NPV B/C
- 9) Utility Discount Rate = 7.47% 21) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (First Year Program) = 22.00 Cost Comparison Test ($716,589) 0.63 21a) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (Second Year Program) = 22.00 1o) Social Discount Rate 4.72% Revenue Requirements Test ($43,192) 0.97
- 22) Number of Participants (First Year Program) = 481
- 11) General Input Data Year = 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program) = 481 Societal Benefit Test $36,131 1.03
- 12) Project Analysis Year 1 =. 2005 23) Incentive/Participant (First Year Program) = $0 Participant Test $2,032,631 550.58 12a) Project Analysis Year 2 2006 23a) Incentive/Participant (Second Year Program) = $0
- 13) Effective Fed & Slate Income Tax Rate = 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Taxes 6.75%
as % Total Operating Income (. C. C
.7' C C Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS-- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conservation Improvement Program (CIP)
BENCOST FOR GAS CIPS- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Company: Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project Low-Income Home Efficiency Summary Information Input Data Company, Xcel Energy (Natural Gas) Project Low-income Home Efficiency
- 1) Retail Rate (S/MCF) = $8.82 15) Utility Project Costs (First Year)
Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = $13,238 Cost Summary Direct Operating Costs = SO
- 2) Commodity Cost ($IMCF) $4.58 Incentive Costs = SI 1.000 Utility Cost per Participant (First Year) $1,211.90 Escalation Rate 2.10% Total Utility Project Costs $24,238 Utility Cost per participant (Second Year) = $1,215.40
- 3) Demand Cost ($/UnitVYr) $93.86 1Sa) Utility Project Costs (Second Year) Total Energy Reduction (MCF) 21,176 Escalation Rate = 2.10% Administrative Costs = $13,308 Societal Cost per MCF $3.70 Direct Operating Costs = $0
- 4) Peak Reduction Factor = 1.00% Incentive Costs = $11,000 Cost per Participant per MCF (First Year) = $77.41 Total Utility Project Costs = $24.308 Cost per Participant per MCF (Second Year) = $77.51
- 5) Variable O&M (S/MCF) = $0.0761 Escalation Rate = 2.10% 16) Direct Participant Costs ($tPart.) = $1,520.00
- 6) Environmental Damage Factor =0.3000 17) Other Participant Costs (Annual $IPart.) = $0.00 Escalation Rate = 2.17% Escalation Rate = 2.10%
- 7) Total Sales = 78,428,047 18) Project Life (Years) 15 Growth Rate = 0.60%
- 19) Avg. Energy Reduction (Project) = 28.74% Test Results
- 8) Total Customers = 395,842 Growth Rate = 2.20% 20) Avg. Consumption (MCFIPart.) = 122.80 NPV siC
- 9) Utifity Discount Rate = 7.47% 21) Avg. MCF/Part. Saved (First Year Program) = 35.29 Cost Comparison Test ($8,345) 0.91 21a) Avg. MCFIPart. Saved (Second Year Program) = 35.29
- 10) Social Discount Rate = 4.72% Revenue Requirements Test $36,597 1.84
- 22) Number of Participants (First Year Program) = 20
- 11) General Input Data Year = 2003 22a) Number of Participants (Second Year Program) = 20 Societal Benefit Test $7,043 1.09
- 12) Project Analysis Year I = 2005 23) Incentive/Participant (First Year Program) = $550 Participant Test $98,416 2.68 12a) Project Analysis Year 2 2006 23a) IncentivelParticpant (Second Year Program) = $550
- 13) Effective Fed & Stale Income Tax Rate = 41.37%
- 14) Net Operating Income Before Taxes 6.75%
as % Total Operating Income
l> Planning & Research Segment A. Description"5 The Planning and Research Segment is a revised version of the Research, Planning and Development Segment included in the Company's 2003/2004 CIP Biennial Plan. This segment includes indirect impact programs that are not directly affiliated with a specific direct impact program. The Segment includes a Planning section, which consists of DSM Regulatory Affairs and CIP Training, and a Research section, which consisits of Product Development and Market Research. The Segment also includes funding for the University of Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment. Planning Planning provides overall electric and natural gas planning and analysis, CIP-related regulatory compliance and CIP-related training for Xcel Energy's marketing and sales staff. The overall scope of the Planning segment includes:
> Providing strategic direction for Xcel Energy's CIP
> Ensuring CIP-related regulatory compliance,
> Guiding Xcel Energy internal policy issues related to CIP
> Training Xcel Energy's Marketing & Sales staff for effective performance DSM\ Regulatory Affairs manages all CIP regulatory filings (including the annual CIP Status Report and the Biennial filing), directs cost-benefit analyses, provides tracking tools for energy conservation achievements, and analyzes and prepares cost recovery reports. The group also provides procedures for effectively addressing requirements for the CIP regulatory process. These functions are needed to ensure a cohesive and high-quality CIP that meets legal requirements as well as the expectations of Xcel Energy's customers, regulators and staff.
In addition, regulatory affairs supports the DSM component of resource planning, conducts economic analyses of CIP projects, and provides strategic evaluation planning and internal policy guidance. These functions are needed to ensure the cost effectiveness of CIP, to ensure the quality of CIP impact estimates, help generate ideas for future CIP projects, establish programmatic consistency, and manage CIP-related marketing information. Modifications: None. CIP Training provides Xcel Energy's marketing and sales staff current and consistent information on electric and natural gas energy-efficiency issues, updates on Xcel Energy CIP products and services, and DSM marketing and sales strategy and techniques.. 1'A separate project information sheet is provided for each Planning and Research section to clearly show cost details. 245
Training modules are provided for both skills and areas of knowledge, such as the certification process that is now required for all customer service representatives. The-functions provided by CIP Training ensure Xcel Energy provides its customers with a knowledgeable, competent customer service staff. Modifications: None Research The research component provides market research and evaluation, screening of new DSM products, and limited concept testing. The overall scope of Research and Development includes:
- Evaluate achieved energy and demand savings
- Quantify the various levels of market potential for projects (technical, economic and achievable)
- Provide segment and target market information
- Analyze overall effects of Xcel Energy's CIP program on customers' usage and overall system peak demand and system energy usage
- Measure overall customer satisfaction with Xcel Energy's DSM1 efforts
- Develop new DSM programs CIP Product Development CIP Product Development identifies, assesses, and develops new conservation. load management, and renewable energy products and services. This work enables Xcel Energy to identify and promote promising new conservation and load management opportunities for its customers.
The product development process begins with ideas and concepts from customers, regulators, energy professionals, and Xcel Energy staff. Time is spent on further research of the ideas, evaluation and screening, and sometimes testing of particular product ideas as we work through the development process. The process can also address making improvements to existing products in the area of operational efficiency, cost reduction, or customer satisfaction. During 2005/2006, CIP product development will review promising business and residential energy efficiency technologies in an effort to augment the Company's current mix of rebated products. Product Development will continue to research and evaluate Distributed Generation (DG) technologies. Modifications: In 2003 and 2004 Product Development managed R&D demonstrations of emerging DG technologies and developed a Distributed Generation Incentive Program. Future Product Development DG funding will support continuing research and evaluation of the industry. 246
CIP Market Research CIP Market Research provides leadership and technical management to effect large-scale assessment studies like the Home Use study and the energy awareness and interest around CIP conservation efforts. Market research to support CIP programs is placed, into two categories - GeneralResearrhprovides overall informational support for CIP programs and is not subject to the Evaluations cap. Pro~gramSpecific Research includes evaluations conducted on individual programs to enhance their effectiveness. Program specific research is subject to the Evaluations cap. Planned General & Program Specific Research Projects for 2005/2006 include: General Research P Residential: Energy Conservation Awareness Attitude and Usage Study
> Business: Energy Conservation Awareness Attitude and Usage Study
> Dun & Bradstreet small business list refresh
> Home Use Study
> Minnesota newsletter research evaluation
> Assessment of newsletter recall Program-Specific Research (subject to Evaluations cap)
> Business Motors/ASD Program Evaluation
> Business Lighting Program Evaluation-
> Boilers Program Evaluation
> Business Distributed Generation Evaluation
) Residential Lighting Program Evaluation
> Residential Energy Audits
> Large C&l Peak Control Program Evaluation
> Compressed Air in Small Business Market'Research Budget Component 2005 2006 Electric Gas Electric - Gas General CIP Research $96,102 _ 21,432 _252,428 _53,434 CIP Program Specific Research $485,317 $89,828 $519,497 S90,304 Total - - - - $581,419 I $111,260 $771,925 -S143,738
- Modifications: ' :- - '
The CIP Market Research budget now includes the'combined amounts for labor and program-specific evaluations. Historically, the evaluations were incorporated into the program-specific budgets while labor was held separately in the Market Research budget. University of Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment Xcel Energy has included in the Planning and Research Segment funding for the Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment (U of M IREE) at the University of Minnesota.... - Minn. Stat. §216B.241, Subd. 6, requires Xcel Energy to contribute to the U of M IREE five percent of the Company's minimurn gas and electric spending requirements. The contribution supports basic and applied research and demonstration activities for the 247
development of renewable energy sources and technologies. As approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Commerce on December 16, 2003, the University of Minnesota has no reporting obligation to Xcel Energy as part of this contribution and, therefore, these expenditures are not part of our calculation of the 10 percent limit on research and development projects under Mtinn. Stat. §216B.241, Subd. 2 (c). Modifications: None C. Project Information Sheet Project Information Sheets are provided at the end of the project. D. Effect on Peak Demand and Energy Consumption & List of Assumptions for each Technology All services in the Planning & Research Segment are indirect impact, having no measurable conservation. Xcel Energy uses this program to meet CIP-related regulatory requirements and to develop modifications and new products for the future. D. Relationship of Program to Resource Plan As part of Xcel Energy's Conservation Improvement Program, this program supports Xcel Energy's analysis of and compliance with Resource Plan DSM goals. E. Cost Effectiveness Work done by this group enhances the overall CIP effort, ensuring the best possible cost-effectiveness and outcome for Xcel Energy's CIP. F. Estimated Low-Income and Renter Participation See Project Information Sheet. G. Budget See Project Information Sheets. Details of the program budgets are provided below. Planning Planning Budget 2005 Electric 2005 Gas 2006 Electric 2006 Gas Regulatory Affairs $636,129 l $70,681 $737,154 $81,906 Training $75,000 l $75,000 Total $711,129 l S70,681 $812,154 $81,906 Research Research Budget 2005 Electric 2005 Gas 2006 Electric 2006 Gas Product Development $400,000 $400,000 Miarket Research $581,419 $111,259 $771,925 $143,738 Total S981,419 $111,259 $1,171,925 $143,738 248
University of Minnesota Initiative on Renewable Energy and the Envirornment
-2005 Electric 2005 Gas 2006 Electric 20'06 Gas UoMRE 1,799,934 $151,01 $1,799,934. $151,013, H. Ratemaking Treatment-& Cost-Recovery Method The ratemaking and cost-recovery procedures for this CIP follow those -approved by the
-Minn eot"Public Utilities Comniission in DoktNs-02G-218,G002/GR-97-1606, and E,G-999/CI-98-1759.-
I. -Participation See Project Information Sheet. J.Inivolvemie nt of Comimunity.Energy Organizations-Xcel Energyvwillseek input on DSM efforts from Community Energy Organiations
-.- t~hrough the CIP.Adv-isory Group.
-. ThbeCompany is engaged inan ongoing dialogue with stakeholders over their role in the--
---- U of MIREE; however, thieCompany doe'snot control the budget for this porm K. Evaluation Plan CIP? Mark-et Research - Please see information listed above.
-. L. -Renewable Energy Information.
U of M IREE - Although thi~s program is sp~cifically, targeted at advancing renew~ables'
-technologies, Xcel Energy has no specific role in the program's activities.-
. M. Additional Information I
- .--None. ... '
. . I %
I 249
Xcel Energy Planning Project Information Sheet 2005 Budget 2006 Budget Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components Proiect Delivery $213.600 515.400 $229.000 S304,680 S25.520 $330.200 Ublitv Administration S490.500 SS4.500 SS45.000 S495.000 $55000 S55000 Other Pnciect Administration S7.029 S781 S7.810 S12.474 $1.386 S13.860 AdvertsinvlPrornotion S0 S0 S0 $0 $0 $0 So sos Evaluations S0 S0 S0 SO so s R&D S0 S0 Incentives (Rebates) S0 so Other S0 S0 S0 S0 N0 $0 Less Revenues S0 So S0 Total Budget S711129 S70,681 $781,810 S81Z154 S81t906 S894,060 Total Number of Participants Total Elec En Savings-Generator (kWh) Total Elec En. Savings-Meter (kWh) t. Total Elec Demand Savings Generator (kW; Total Natvral Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Total Natural Gas Demand Savings (MCF) Project Type Percentage Expenditure Commercial & Industrial Smaa Business Consumer Other 100% 100% 100% 100% Low-income Participation Participants (#) Budtet (S) Renter Participation Participants (#) Budget (S) Socletal BIC Results Net Present Value BIC Ratio Participant B/C Results Nel Present Value B/C Ratio Rate Impact BIC Resutis Net Present Value BIC Ratio Revenue Requirements B/C Results Net Present Value B/C Ratio ProJect Type Auditflnfo R&D X X x x _ Renewable Direct Impact Tvpe of Incentive N/A NIA NIA N/A LoantGrant Rebate Direct Installation End-Use Target (V.) NIA MA N/1A NIA __ _ _ _ _ Cooking Uqhting Motor Process Refrigeration Space Coolin'Dehumidification Space Heating Water Heating Weatferization GeneraliOther 100% 100% 100% 100% Ratemaking treatment expensed X X x x 250
Xcel Energy Research & Development K ) Project Information Sheet 2005 Budget 2006 Budoet Electric Gas Total Electric Gas Total Cost Components Project Delivery S96.102 S21.432 51 17.533 S252.428 S53.434 S305.862 utility Adrninistration So SD So SO SO So Other Project Administration So SD So SO SO SO Advertising/Prombcion So S0 So SO SO SO Evaluatbons S485.317 S89,828 S575.14S S519.497 S90.304 S609.801 R&D S400.000 S0 S400.000 S400.000 S0 S400.000 hcentives So SRebates) So S0 SO : SO SO Other S1.799.934 S151.013 S1.950.947 S1.799,934 S151.013 S1950.947 Less Revenues So So So SO SO SO Total Budget - 2.781353 S262.272 #3.043,625 52,971,660 5294,751 S3.266,611 Total Number of Participants Total Elec En. Savings-Generator (kWh) Total Elec En. Savings-Meter (kWh) Total Elec Demand Savings Generator (kW) Total Natural Gas Energy Savings (MCF) Total Natural Gas Demand Savings (MCF) Project Type Percentage Expenditure Commrnercial & Industrial Snnatt Business Consumer 10 % Other 100% 100% 100% I 100% Low-Income PartIcipation Participants (N) 1.1 I__ Budget (S) Renter Participation _______ 4 4. Participants (U)
- 4. 1 Budoet tS)
SocIetal BIC Results - 4. Net Present Value 1 SIC Ratio Partcipant t31CResults _______ 4 4. Net Present Value BIC Ratio _______ 4 4. Rate Impact BIC Results 4. 1 Net Present Value BIC Ratio 4 4 Revenue Re utrements BIC Results 4. 1* Net Present Value 4. 4. BIC Ratio _______ 4. 4. Project Type Audit/info R&D X X x X Renewable Direct Impact Type of Incentive MA NIA NIA NIA Loan/Gitrant Rebate Direct Instatation End-Use Target tY) NIA N/A N/A NIA Cooking Lighting Motor Process Refnqeration Space CoolinglDehumidification Stace Heating Water Heating Weatherization General/Other 100% 1100Y% ¶00% 100% Ratemaklng treatment: expensed X X x x_ _ _ 251
l> Budget Categories The following chart indicates which expenses are attributed to each CIP budget category in this filing. Budget Category Components Project Delivery
- Internalsales, internal fulfillment and program support activities associated with delivering a program directly to the customer.
- Externalfulfillment and program support activities associated with delivering a program directly to the customer.
Utility Administration Equipment costs, equipment repair, telephone line rental, and leases for Saver's Switch transmitters. Training, educational seminars, pamphlets, videos, and computer games. Other materials and supplies. Other Project Administration
- Project planning, development and implementation.
Marketing and support staff including product managers, marketing assistants, developers, technical support staff, and inside contract labor associated with program planning, development, and implementation.
- Auditors, installation contractors, vendors, technical consultants, fulfillment contractors and alternative providers Xcel Energy contracts -with to provide DSM services.
Advertising and Promotion TV, radio, newspaper and print media; direct promotion and sales support materials; postage, promotional events; contracted outbound telephone sales; communication staff and others. Evaluations Internal market research staff, market research consultants, program evaluation expenses. R&D Internal product development staff, product development external consultants, product development research activities. Incentives (Rebates) Customer rebates, finance interest subsidies, subsidies for engineering studies, and trade incentives. Other University of Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment Revenues Program-related income that offsets the overall expense (e.g. income from audits, customer portion of cost sharing). All revenues are credited back to the program. 252
I> Net Present Worth Electric Benefit/Cost Analysis Key I 2005/2006 CIP Biennial Plan Net Present Worth Benefit/Cost Analysis For One Customer kW Rate Total Participant Utility Impact Resource Societal Test Test Test Test Test SlkWV SlkW StkW SlkW SlkW Avoided Revenue Requirements Generation N/A Al Al Al Al T&D N/A A2 A2 A2 A2 Marginal Energy N/A A3 A3 A3 A3 Extcenality Willingness N/A N/A N/A N/A A4 Subtotal N/A A A A A Xcel Energy's Project Costs NIA BI BI BI Bl Subtotal N/A B B B B Revenue Reductions Cl N/A Cl NIA NIA Subtotal C N/A C N/A N/A Participants' Net Costs Incremental Capital Dl NA NA Dl Dl Incremental O&M D2 NA NA D2 D2 Rebates D3 NA NA D3 D3 Subtotal D NA NA D D Net Present Benefit (Cost) E=(C-D) E=(A-B) E=(A-B-C) E=(A-B-D) E(A-B-D) Net Benefit (Cost) per kWh Lifetime G=EF/FIl G=E/F/H G=E/F/H G=E/F/H G=E/F/H Net Present Benefit (Cost) per Generator E/(NG) E'(NG) El(NG) El(NG) El(NG) Benefit Cost Ratio CID AIB Al(B+C) A/(B+D) Al(B+D) The Benefit/Cost ratio is the sum of all benefits divided by all costs. All negative costs (e.g. A or D) are considered benefits. Explanation of Inputs N/A = Not applicable DI = Participants incremental capital investment AI =Generated reduced before rebate A2 - Transmission and distribution reduced D2 = Participants increased O&M (Benefit) A3 = Marginal energy reduced D3 = Rebate from Xcel Energy (benefit) A4 = Willingness (added) avoided D = Participant new investment for project A - Total reduced revenue requirements E = Net present worth benefit (cost) per customer kW B I = Xcel Energy's project costs F = Generator kWh saved per year per Customer kW B - Xcel Energy's total prorject costs H G Program lifetime (Number of Years) C - Xcel Energy's lost revenues due to project NG Generator adjusted (corrected for line losses) General Assumptions Discount Rate - 7.95% Inflation Rate - Varies by year and specific input - overall rate assumed 2.44% through 2014, 3.43% beyond Transmission and Distribution Avoided Costs = S41.78/kW-year Generation Avoided Capacity Costs - S73.79tkW-year Environmental Externality values derived from values provided in MPUC Docket No. E9991CI-00-1 636 (4124/03 Update) Loadshapes determined by Regional Economic Research, Inc. 253
> General Inputs for the 2005/2006 Gas CIP BENCOST Model The margins, rates and "costs included in rates" used in the General Inputs of the Gas CIP BENCOST model were approved as part of Xcel Energy's most recent gas rate case (Docket No. G002/GR-97-1606) and went into effect in March 1999. The Company has updated these rates according to the guidelines provided in the Department of Commerce Advocacy Staff's March 12,2004 BENCOST memo to Minnesota public utilities ("Staff BENCOST Memo").
BENCOST Input 1 (Retail Rate) This value reflects the Company's currently approved tariff rate adjusted for the average purchased gas adjustment (PGA) forJanuary, February, and March 2003. This value does not include the annual true-up adjustment or the annual CIP Adjustment Factor. Retail Rate (S/MCF) Month Residential Small Comm Firm Large Comm Firm Medium Interrupt January 7.34 6.92 6.86 4.88 February 7.98 7.56 7.50 5.52 March 11.13 -10.71 10.65 8.68 rTOTAL (Average 8.82) (Average-8.40) (Average 8.33) (Average 636) t, Annual Escalation Rate , The Annual Escalation Rate of 2.10 percent was provided in the Staff BENCOST Memo. This vxalue was calculated using the average projected annual change between 2003 and 2019 of a the "Chained Price Index-Household Natural Gas" provided by Data Resources Incorporated. BENCOST Input 2 (Commodity Cost) The Commodity Cost, $4.58 per MCF, was provided in the Staff BENCOST Memo. This - value was calculated by deflating the U.S. Energy Information Administration's project wellhead price for natural gas in 2019 ($6.39/MCF) by the annual escalation rate provided above. BENCOST Input 3 (Demand Cost) The Demand Cost, $93.86, equals the Minnesota Total Demand (line 10) divided by the MN State Design Day (line 11) in Schedule APage 3 of the Company's February 27,2003 Derivation of Current PGA Costs (effective March 2, 2003).. Interruptible customers do not have demand costs. BENCOST Input 4 (Peak Reduction Conversion Factor) The Peak Reduction Conversion Factor, 1 percent, was provided in the Staff BENCOST Memo. This value represents an estimate of the percent of energy savings occurring on system peak. 254
BENCOST Input 5 (Variable O&M) The Variable O&M input, $0.0761 per MCF, is the Company's best estimate of its variable Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs, and is generally equal to its minimum transportation flexible rate. BENCOST Input 6 (Environmental Damage Factor) The Environmental Damage Factor, $0.30 per MCF saved, was provided in the Staff BENCOST Memo. BENCOST Input 7 (Total Sales) This value represents the total normalized MCF sales for calendar year 2003 excluding gas consumed by the Company, gas delivered to others for resale, and gas that is unaccounted for. Total Sales is reported'on pages 38 and 39 of Xcel Energy's 2003 Gas Jurisdictional Annual Report. Total sales for 2003 were 78,428,047 MCF. An average growth rate of 0.6 percent was derived from sales data reported in Xcel Energy's Gas Minnesota Jurisdictional Annual Reports for 2001, 2002 and 2003. This information is detailed in the table below. Year I MCF Percent Change 2003 78,428,047 j 4.1% 2002 75,309,927 2.9% 2001 73,170,668 1 -5.4% Average Growth Rate j 0.6% BENCOST Input 8 (Total Customers) This value is the Company's total number of retail (sales and transportation) gas customers in Minnesota. Total Customers is reported on pages 38 and 39 of Xcel Energy's 2003 Gas Jurisdictional Annual Report. Xcel Energy had a total of 395,842 natural gas customers in 2003. An average growth rate of 2.2 percent was derived from customer data reported in Xcel Energy's Minnesota Gas Jurisdictional Annual Reports for 2001, 2002 and 2003. This information is detailed in the table below. Year Customers Percent Change 2003 395,842 2.2% 2002 387,362 2.0% 2001 379,584 2.5% _ _ _ Average Growth Rate 2.2% BENCOST Input 9 (Utility Discount Rate) The Discount Rate of 7.47 percent is Xcel Energy's after-tax weighted average cost of capital from its 1998 rate case. BENCOST Input 10 (Societal Discount Rate) The Social Discount Rate, 4.72 percent, was provided in the Staff BENCOST Memo. BENCOST Input 11 (General Input Data Year) The General Input Data Year, 2003, was provided in the Staff BENCOST Memo. 255
BENCOST Input 12 and 12 a (Project Analysis Years 1 and 2) The Project Analysis Years are the years over which Xcel Energy's CIP Biennial Plan will be effective, 2005 and 2006, respectively. BENCOST Input 13 (Effective Federal and State Income Tax Rate) The Effective Federal and State Income Tax Rate of 41.37 percent is the value approved Xcel Energy's most recent rate case. BENCOST Input 14 (Net Operating Income Before Taxes as % of Total Operating Income) This value is the amount of net operating income before taxes for 2003 divided by the total operating income. This figure is used to estimate the actual tax portion of lost revenues from CIP projects, as reported in the Xcel Energy's 2003 Gas Jurisdictional Annual Report, page 2. Parameter 2003 Operating Income (Bottom Line) $31,339 Income Taxes (FERC Accts 409.1 to 411.4) $9,963 Pretax Net Operating Income S41,302 Operating Revenue (FERC Acct 400) $612,190 Pretax Net Operating Income/Operating Revenue 6.75% 256
J> 2005/2006 CIP Biennial Program Modifications Segment Program Modification Commercial & Boiler Efficiency Stack Economizers, blowdown heat recovery, self-contained Industrial radiator valves, and piping insulation are now being evaluated under the gas Custom Efficiency program. The variability in energy savings for these technologies requires them to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the Boiler Efficiency program will extend the effective date to accept _ ,_ invoices from 6 months to 1 year. Cooling Cooling Efficiency proposes to raise rebate levels for rooftop Efficiency units in all sizes by 40 percent to bring it in line with market equipment cost increases. The program also proposes to match split systems under 65,000 btuh with the residential program's rebate levels to improve consistency within Xcel Energy's CIP.
- Custom- The Custom Efficiency program offered a prescriptive gas Efficiency' incentive for'thermostats, infrared heaters and hot water heaters. Xcel Energy is no longer offering prescriptive
' ' incentives for these end-uses due to cost effectiveness.
Custom' Energy Management Systems (EMS) is a new Xcel Energy Efficiency business program that was launched in second quarter 2003. This program uses the current Custom Efficiency preapproval process to measure electric energy savings for adding control points to an existing system, or to install a new core system that controls multiple energy-using functions within a building (i.e.
. lighting, cooling, ventilation, etc.).
Custom Xcel Energy is requesting that the Commissioner modify the. Efficiency Influenced Savings guidelines to allow:
- Influenced Savings claims of up't6 four percent of the Company's annual'CIP achievements, and
;
- Consideration for energy savings credit for projects that
'stem from recommendations proposed in an Engineering Assistance Study.
Energy Analysis Engineering Assistance Studies are now located within the end-use programs-(Custom Efficiency, Refrigeration Efficiency, Cooling Efficiency). Energy Design ' We will cost-effectively reduce the minimum qualifying square Assistance - Plan footage' from 25,000 to 15,000 to broaden the potential market. Review - This modification was effective January 2004. 257
Segment Program Modificaition Commetrial & Financing Xcel Energy introduced a new subsidized rate option for Ind=Iiial customers. If the customer chooses the subsidized rate, they are authorizing Xcel Energy to use their rebate dollars to buy down the interest rate from the bank. The subsidized rate is customized for each loan and could get as low as zero percent. The customer still has the option to choose the standard bank market rate and use their rebate to buy down the loan amount. Lighting In 2003, the Department approved the addition of multi-lamp Efficiency fluorescent fixture and LED red traffic arrows retrofits to the list of rebated lighting technologies. In 2004, Super TS Fluorescent Systems were approved for retrofit and new construction rebates. Lighting Xcel Energy requests approval to add the following new Efficiency products to the Lighting Rebate Schedule:
- Multi-lamp fluorescent fixtures (6 or 8-lamp high-bay T8 fixture) - New Construction
- High-bay T5 high output fluorescent lamps with electronic ballasts - Retrofit and New Construction Motors Efficiency On May 1, 2003 it was determined that ASDs over 200 hp should be evaluated through the Custom Efficiency program.
The change provides consistency between the motor and ASD rebate offerings and more importantly allows for more accurate energy saving calculations for large horsepower ASDs. Recommissioning Customers who complete a study will be counted towards our participant goal. In prior years, we only counted customers who implemented recommissioning measures. This modification improves our ability to track all customers influenced by Xcel Energy CIP programs. Roofing All Roofing Efficiency projects must have an economizer on Efficiency the air conditioning system. SmallBusiness Boiler Efficiency Based on 3 years of financial trends, the Boiler Efficiency program plans to extend the effective date to accept invoices from 6 months to 1 year. Cooling Cooling Efficiency will raise rebate levels for rooftop units in all Efficiency sizes by 40 percent to bring them in line with market equipment cost increases. The program also plans to match split systems under 65,000 btuh with the residential program's rebate levels to improve consistency within Xcel Energy's CIP. 258
Segment Program Modification SmallBusiness Custom The Custom Efficiency program offered a prescriptive gas Efficiency incentive for thermostats, infrared heaters and hot water heaters. The rebate was 15 percent of equipment costs or
$1,500 whichever was the lesser of the two. Xcel Energy is no longer offering prescriptive incentives for these end-uses due to cost effectiveness.
Energy Analysis *Engineering Assistance Studies are now located within the end
. -use programs (i.e. Custom Efficiency, Refrigeration Efficiency,
. Cooling Efficiency).
Energy Design Xcel Energy will cost-effectively reduced the minimum Assistance - Plan qualifying square footage from 25,000 to 15,000 to broaden the Review potential market. This modification was effective January 2004. Financing I Xcel Energy introduced a new subsidized rate option that the customer can choose. If the customer chooses the subsidized rate, they are authorizing Xcel Energy to use their rebate dollars to buy down theinterest rate from the bank. The subsidized rate is customized for each loan and could get as low as zero percent. The customer still has the option to choose the
- standard bank market rate and use their rebate to buy down the loan amount.;
Lighting In 2003, multi-lamp fluorescent fixtures and LED red traffic Efficiency arrows were approved for retrofit rebates. In 2004, Super T8 Fluorescent Systems were approved for retrofit and new construction rebates.
. . Lighting Xcel Energy is requesting approval to add the following new Efficiency products to the Lighting Rebate Schedule:
. ;
- Multi-lamp fluorescent fixtures - New, Construction High-bay T5 high output fluorescent lamps with electronic ballasts - Retrofit and New Construction Lighting The New Construction Lighting program currently takes Efficiency demand savings of 0.3 watts/square foot of lighted area. To be more accurate, it was determined that the Company should take credit based on equipment installed, consistent with the retrofit program. The revised New Construction methodology determines a savings level for a given type of fixture by comparing its energy use to the less costly, lower efficiency standard option.
SmallBsiness Motor Efficiency On May 1,2003 it was determined that ASDs over 200 hp should be evaluated through the Custom Efficiency program. The change provides consistency between the motor and ASD rebate offerings and more importantly allows for more accurate energy saving calculations for large horsepower ASDs. 259
Segment Program Modification Small Business Roofing Per the Roofing Reflectants Evaluation filed onJanuary 15, Efficiency 2004, Xcel Energy added the requirement that all Roofing Efficiency projects must have an economizer on the air conditioning system. Residential ENERGY STAR Customers will have 12 months from the date of purchase to submit an application for rebate. Applications submitted after 12 months will no longer be eligible for a rebate. Home Efficiency The water heater National Appliance Energy Conservation Act Program (NAECA) standard increased minimum efficiency from of natural gas water heaters from a .62 EF to a .67 EF in 2004. Xcel Energy has incorporated these changes into the Home Efficiency cost benefit assumptions. Home Energy Infrared testing is now available to non-low income consumers Audit for a $100 co-pay. A free online audit is also available to consumers on the Xcel Energy website at www.xcelenergy.com. Planning e Product In 2003 and 2004 Product Development managed R&D Researrh Development demonstrations of emerging Distributed Generation (DG) technologies as well as developed a Distributed Generation Incentive Program. Future DG funding will be directed to our new Distributed Generation Incentive Program as well as continuing with research and evaluation of.the industry. It is our intent to pass on the knowledge gained from our demonstration projects in order to enable customers to purchase and install high-efficiency, low-emissions, new technology DG. Currently approved for implementation in 2004, the Distributed Generation Incentive Program is submitted within this biennial filing to continue in 2005 and 2006. NI 260}}