ETAPAS DE LA MICROPROPAGACION

life of the end use measure. In order to convert this into an annual energy savings, the value in tonnes of CO2-e must first be converted to kWh using the state based full fuel cycle emissions factors²³⁰ and then the energy savings must be spread out over the life time of the measure. For the purposes of this report, in the absence of more specific data, an average lifetime of five years has been assumed. This assumed medium-term lifetime reflects the fact that the majority of the measures are lighting replacements with a significant proportion of savings also coming from replacing conventional resistance water heaters.²³¹ Energy savings by networks and for the three aforementioned programs are shown below in Table 30.

Table 30: Energy Efficiency Savings in the NEM Year NSP analysis from the desired 1990 baseline impossible.

The combined energy savings from the programs and initiatives described above can be compared to the savings achieved by the Mandatory Energy Performance Standards and energy rating labelling at approximately 6,600 GWh in 2010²³², or roughly six times the energy saved from initiatives within the NEM.

While no world average was found as a benchmark for performance, reporting on US energy savings programs is collated by the Energy Information Administration under the US

68 Department of Energy in their Electric Power Annual Report.²³³ These data are shown below in Table 31.

Table 31: Energy Savings in the United States Financial available was the US. There do not appear to be any technical or structural barriers to limit Australian performance in terms of energy savings from energy efficiency programs to be in line with numbers from the US. Therefore, in the absence of more comprehensive date the US performance at approximately 2% of energy saved as a share of total energy produced seems a reasonable benchmark for Australian performance from energy efficiency programs. A comparison of the relative performance of the US and Australian systems is shown below in Table 32. Based on this target, a grading scale is shown in Table 33 below.

Table 32: Relative Comparison of US and Australian Energy Efficiency Performance Financial

Table 33: Energy Efficiency grading scale (Method 1) Grade Explanation

A Exceeds US EE performance by more than 50%

B Meets or exceeds US EE performance by up to 50%

As the percentage of energy efficiency in Australia was less than 50% of the performance in the US, but did increase from the previous year, the NEM receives a D for energy efficiency.

69 4.3.9. DEMAND MANAGEMENT - GRADE D

KPI: Proportion of peak demand met through demand management programs (% of total MW peak)

Demand management (DM) programs include efforts by Network Service Providers to reduce consumer electricity demand during peak times. DM was first introduced in Australia over 80 years ago with residential off peak water heating.²³⁴ DM is generally understood to include load management, energy efficiency, distributed generation and time of use meters. Despite multiple successful DM programs, many barriers remain caused at least in part by the large number of stakeholders including customers, DNSPs, retailers and market operators.

In the 2009-2010 financial year, the NEM peak electricity requirement reached 33,741 MW.

This is a reduction from the previous summer peak of 34,843 MW.²³⁵ Average annual growth since the 2004/05 year has been 3.5%.²³⁶ Maximum demands by state in the 2008/9 and 2009/10 fiscal years are shown below in Figure 27.

Figure 27: Peak Demand by State

Coincident peak historical and 50% probability of occurrence medium growth scenario predicted demand for the NEM is shown below in Figure 28. ²³⁷ Coincident peak demand refers to the maximum demand that occurs in all NEM jurisdictions simultaneously and is less than the sum of peak demands for each state in the NEM. The 50% probability of occurrence medium growth scenario is the predicted NEM peak demand under a medium demand growth scenario where there is a 50% chance that the predicted peak demand will occur.

70 Figure 28: NEM Peak Demand

A recent report prepared for the Australian Alliance to Save Energy²³⁸ analysed the results from a survey of electricity network service providers in Australia. In addition to programs delivered by NSPs, electricity market DM delivered by retailers also needs to be considered.

The most recent AEMO Statement of Opportunities report²³⁹ outlines these electricity market DM initiatives. These are added to state based programs primarily targeted at energy efficiency, but assumed to have a demand reduction impact calculated by assuming that the initiatives are spread evenly across each 24 hour period. These programs include EES, REES and VEET all discussed in more detail in section 4.3.8. All of these types of programs/measures are shown below in Figure 29. Combining network, energy market and state based DM, total DM in the NEM is also shown in Table 34 below.

Table 34: NEM Total Demand Management

Year Peak Demand

Reduction (MW)

2008/09 281

2009/10 340

2010/11 (forecast) 723

30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

NEM Peak Demand (MW)

Historical Demand Predicted Demand

71 Figure 29: Peak Demand Reduction from Network and Energy Market DM

As with EE, there does not appear to be a world average benchmark for DM. Furthermore, there is no national target against which to benchmark or data as far back as 1990. While some comparison could be made against results from the WA market, the relatively small number of programs in WA makes it difficult to compare to the NEM. However, reporting on DM programs is done by the Energy Information Administration under the US Department of Energy in their Electric Power Annual report.²⁴⁰

Table 35: US Demand Management reductions because of peak load management programs versus energy efficiency programs.

Unfortunately, it appears that no data exists for Demand Management performance in Australia further back than 2008, precluding analysis from the desired 1990 baseline.

0.00%

72 Figure 30: US Peak Demand Reduction

As with energy efficiency, there do not appear to be any technical or structural barriers to limit Australian performance in terms of electricity savings from DM programs as proportion of peak demand to be in line with numbers from the US where reductions of approximately 4.3% of total peak demand have been achieved. This target can also be justified due to the relatively low expenditure-to-savings ratios outlined in the recent A2SE report.²⁴²

A comparison of the relative performance of the US and Australian systems is shown below in Table 36.

Table 36: Relative Comparison of US and Australian Demand Management Performance Year Australian / US savings ratio

2008/09 18.8%

2009/10 22.8%

2010/11 47.0%

Based on this target, a grading scale is shown in Table 37 below.

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000

Peak Demand Reduction (MW)

Year