SCE’s Calibration Conclusion SCE recognizes that calibration is an essential component of the modeling process, and that choosing how the model is calibrated can significantly affect the results. Model calibration is intended to achieve three main purposes: Ground the model in actual market conditions and ensure the model reproduces historic program achievements Ensure a realistic starting from which future projects are made Account for varying levels of market barriers across different of technologies and end uses Significant changes to SCE EE Program cost structures are on the horizon and are already in process. It is not reasonable to ground the PG Model to a significantly changing data structure (budgets) will that will not provide the forecaster or stakeholders with a high degree of confidence, reasonableness, or provide reliable model output. EE program success or failure is judged by comparing savings goals (GWh and MW) to program results (GWh and MW). Budgets are currently controlled by applying a portfolio test, and are not directly related to claimed savings. Calibrating to anything else (Budgets, etc.) will not help provide reliable or feasible results. SB 350 requires the Public Utilities Commission to consider the results of energy efficiency potential studies that are not restricted by previous levels of utility energy efficiency savings. This can be accomplished in more ways than simply changing the model calibration methodology. Identifying barriers to capturing EE savings will help bound the uncertainty inherent in the forecasting process, and supply if” scenarios that would remove perceived restrictions associated past calibration “what techniques. These Scenario could then be used by Regulators, Policy Makers and EE Program Administrators to optimize an EE program savings goal, and help assure the program goals are reliable, feasible, and cost-effective. Scenarios Little usable historical program information and even smaller amounts of research is available to reliably estimate the program ability to cost-effectively capture savings required by the states legislature: Doubling the efficiency of existing buildings Capturing below code savings Reintroducing the retrocommissioning to SCE EE portfolio Increasing savings from behavior programs Introducing operational efficiency programs Emerging Technologies Impacts of select Codes and Standards on EE lighting program Inherent in all the aforementioned items are significant sources of uncertainty that impact EE program goal reasonableness, attainability, and feasibility. Accounting for modeling uncertainty in the Scenario methodology would yield alternatives designed bound the realm of the possible (High, Med, Low) saving impacts found in EE rapidly changing environments.
SCE’s Calibration Conclusion SCE recognizes that calibration is an essential component of the modeling process, and that choosing how the model is calibrated can significantly affect the results. Model calibration is intended to achieve three main purposes: Ground the model in actual market conditions and ensure the model reproduces historic program achievements Ensure a realistic starting from which future projects are made Account for varying levels of market barriers across different of technologies and end uses Significant changes to SCE EE Program cost structures are on the horizon and are already in process. It is not reasonable to ground the PG Model to a significantly changing data structure (budgets) will that will not provide the forecaster or stakeholders with a high degree of confidence, reasonableness, or provide reliable model output. EE program success or failure is judged by comparing savings goals (GWh and MW) to program results (GWh and MW). Budgets are currently controlled by applying a portfolio test, and are not directly related to claimed savings. Calibrating to anything else (Budgets, etc.) will not help provide reliable or feasible results. SB 350 requires the Public Utilities Commission to consider the results of energy efficiency potential studies that are not restricted by previous levels of utility energy efficiency savings. This can be accomplished in more ways than simply changing the model calibration methodology. Identifying barriers to capturing EE savings will help bound the uncertainty inherent in the forecasting process, and supply “what if” scenarios that would remove perceived restrictions associated past calibration techniques. These Scenario could then be used by Regulators, Policy Makers and EE Program Administrators to optimize an EE program savings goal, and help assure the program goals are reliable, feasible, and cost-effective. Scenarios Little usable historical program information and even smaller amounts of research is available to reliably estimate the program ability to cost-effectively capture savings required by the states legislature: Doubling the efficiency of existing buildings Capturing below code savings Reintroducing the retrocommissioning to SCE EE portfolio Increasing savings from behavior programs Introducing operational efficiency programs Emerging Technologies Impacts of select Codes and Standards on EE lighting program Inherent in all the aforementioned items are significant sources of uncertainty that impact EE program goal reasonableness, attainability, and feasibility. Accounting for modeling uncertainty in the Scenario methodology would yield alternatives designed bound the realm of the possible (High, Med, Low) saving impacts found in EE rapidly changing environments.
09.SCE%20Scenario_Calibration_etc%20Final.docx