Documenting Success Eric Hirs t

T here are several reasons why I

think demand-side manage-

ment programs are likely to grow

over the next couple of decades.

One is the increased emphasis on

integrated resource planning,

which recognizes conservation

and load management as re-

sources equivalent to and substi-

tutable for power plants. The sec-

ond is environmental concerns,

including global warming. The

third is financial incentives, which

Harrison Wellford and Earle Tay-

lor also mentioned. Last is a

growing recognition that utilities

can play an important role in over-

coming the market barriers that

stand between Amory Lovins

holding an efficient lightbulb in

his hand and an electricity user ac-

tually getting it screwed into a fix-

ture.

I developed a very simple

spreadsheet model at Oak Ridge

National Laboratory and used it

to simulate the effects of an ambi-

tious scenario of demand-side

management programs over the

next 20 years. My results are sum-

marized in Figure 1. The top

curve is the forecast from the En-

ergy Information Administration,

which EIA developed for the De-

partment of Energy’s National En-

ergy Strategy. The bottom curve

is my forecast, which shows how

much electricity consumption

could be reduced with aggressive

DSM programs. This amounts to

about a 20% reduction by 2010, Table 1: Ambitious DSM Programs

consistent with the estimates Reduction in electricity use

made by a number of utilities from DSM in year 2CKKl

which are conducting aggressive Southern California Edison 13% DSM programs (see Table 1). Long Island Lighting 9%

Some other beneficial effects of Consolidated Edison 6%

ambitious DSM programs include: Seattle Cii tight 7% Northeast Utilities 7%

l cutting electric bills to New England Electric 7% customers in all sectors by more Wisconsin Electric 7%

than $60 billion per year; Pacific Gas & Electric 6%

l cutting total U.S. emissions of

carbon dioxide - not just elec- credible and consistent fashion

tric utility emissions -by the fact that they really do pro-

about 9%; and vide gigawatt-hours and cut

l eliminating the need to build megawatt requirements at times

over 400 new power plants. of system peak load.

This all sounds wonderful. But A part of documentation is the

I have a warning: I want to em- need to develop widely used defi-

phasize the need for a stronger an- nitions for DSM programs. Right

alytical basis for DSM programs. now, when we talk about partici-

I second the point that Earle Tay- pation, program costs, and energy

lor and Roger Sant made about savings, we all have different con-

the need for comprehensive and cepts and different terms in mind.

competent evaluations of DSM But just as we have developed

programs. If we are serious about terms for power plants, such as

treating demand-side manage- heat rate and capacity factor, we

ment programs as a resource, have to do the same thing on the

then we have to document in a demand side. n

Figure 1: DSM Can Make a Big Diirence in the Next 20 Years

ELECTRICITY USE (BkWh) 5,000

EIA/NES

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

December 1991 55