Download 2.revised forecast summary

California Energy Commission
California Energy Demand (CED)
2011 Revised Electricity and
Natural Gas Forecast
February 3, 2012
Chris Kavalec
Demand Analysis Office
Electricity Supply Analysis Division
[email protected] / 916-654-5184
California Energy Commission
Changes from Preliminary Forecast
• Economic/demographic projections updated
(October 2011)
• Econometric models re-estimated
• Climate change formulation led to higher
impacts on peak
• Revised (lower) electric vehicle forecast
• Incorporation of Television Standards
2
California Energy Commission
Statewide Electricity Consumption
• Average annual growth of 1.56%, 1.10%, and 0.83%
from 2011-2020 in the high, mid, and low scenarios,
respectively, compared to 1.29% in the 2009 IEPR
forecast (CED 2009)
• Lower starting point vs. CED 2009
• Slightly lower in all three scenarios vs. preliminary
2011 forecast (0.73% lower in 2022 in mid case)
because of Television Standards, lower electric
vehicle forecast, and slightly lower income growth
3
California Energy Commission
Electricity Consumption: CED 2011
Revised vs. CED 2009
4
California Energy Commission
Electricity Consumption: CED 2011
Revised vs. CED 2011 Preliminary (Mid
Case)
5
California Energy Commission
Statewide Peak Demand
• Average annual growth of 1.97%, 1.58%, and 1.05%
from 2011-2020 in the high, mid, and low scenarios,
respectively, compared to 1.29% in the 2009 IEPR
forecast (CED 2009)
• Mid and high case growth higher than CED 2009
because of climate change impacts
• Slightly lower in mid and low cases vs. preliminary
2011 forecast (0.39% lower in 2022 in mid case)
because of lower starting point. Peak is higher in high
demand case vs. preliminary because of higher
climate change impacts
6
California Energy Commission
Peak Demand: CED 2011 Revised vs.
CED 2009
7
California Energy Commission
Peak Demand: CED 2011 Revised vs.
CED 2011 Preliminary (Mid Case)
8
California Energy Commission
Revised Forecast Efficiency Impacts
• Programs, standards, and “price and other” effects
• Includes impacts from Huffman and Television
Standards
• Higher by 2022 vs. preliminary forecast (7k GWh in
mid case) because of television standards and
inadvertent omission of 2005 residential building
standards in preliminary
• Efficiency savings inversely related to demand
outcome
9
California Energy Commission
Revised Forecast Efficiency Impacts
10
California Energy Commission
Self-generation
• Distributed generation and CHP (demand
side)
• CHP held constant
• Residential PV from predictive model, nonresidential using historic trends
• Self-gen higher than CED 2009 by 2020
mainly because of residential PV; slightly
higher than preliminary forecast because of
non-residential adjustment
11
California Energy Commission
Self-generation Peak Impacts
12
California Energy Commission
Electric Vehicles
• Used high and low scenarios from Plug-in Electric
Vehicle Collaborative
• 500,000 EVs on the road in 2020 in low case, 1
million in high case
• Staff extrapolated to 2022, distributed to planning
areas based on DMV data
• Mid case is average of high and low
• Lower forecast than CED 2009 (and preliminary) by
1,600 GWh in mid case (2022)
13
California Energy Commission
Electric Vehicle Consumption
14
California Energy Commission
Climate Change Impacts on Peak
Demand
LADWP
PGE
SCE
SDGE
SMUD
State
2015
2020
2022
2015
2020
2022
2015
2020
2022
2015
2020
2022
2015
2020
2022
2015
2020
2022
Annual Maximum
Average631 (°F),
Mid Demand
Scenario
Annual Maximum
Average631 (°F),
High Demand
Scenario
Peak Impact,
Mid Scenario
(MW)
Peak Impact,
High Scenario
(MW)
84.0
84.5
84.7
86.0
86.4
86.6
86.2
86.6
86.8
78.6
79.0
79.2
85.4
85.7
85.9
----
84.2
85.0
85.2
86.1
86.6
86.8
86.3
87.0
87.2
78.6
79.1
79.3
85.6
86.2
86.5
----
35
83
105
114
277
348
121
293
368
27
66
84
13
31
39
316
768
965
54
131
165
143
349
440
171
421
533
28
70
88
23
57
72
430
1,056
1,334
15
California Energy Commission
CED 2011 Revised vs. Pure
Econometric Forecast
• Econometric forecasts slightly higher:
(consumption 1 percent higher and peak 2
percent higher in 2022 in mid case)
• Differences come from aggregate vs.
disaggregate approaches and accounting for
efficiency
• Goal is to explicitly account for efficiency in
econometric models for better comparison
16
California Energy Commission
Consumption: CED 2011 Revised vs.
Pure Econometric Forecast (Mid Case)
17
California Energy Commission
Peak: CED 2011 Revised vs. Pure
Econometric Forecast (Mid Case)
18