1

Energy Efficiency

Advisory GroupMeeting # 13 Notes

August 4th, 2009

Web Conference Call

22

Purpose of Meeting

• Review and comment on the EE sections of the draft Roadmap

• Decide on how the group would like modeling results used in the Roadmap

• Get updated on system model EE results and underlying model assumptions

33

Meeting AgendaTuesday, August 4th

• 9:00 Introductions, agenda review, and overview of steps remaining

• 9:10 Discussion of the Roadmap

• 9:30 Use of modeling results in Roadmap

• 9:45 System model results and underlying assumptions

• 10:20 Timeline and next steps

• 10:30 Adjourn

Introductions

• Attending: Charlie Higley, Paul Tucker, Liz Marshall, Carl Nelson, Jane Ruliffson, Lola Schoenrich, John Rohlf, Becky Schneider

4

Overview of the Roadmap outline

• Roadmap will start with an executive summary. Each advisory committee picked four action items for inclusion in the Exec Summary. The full document will have an introduction and four technology chapters.

5

Process and Timeline for Commenting on EE chapter and

Exec. Summary

• Comments due by COB Friday, 8/7

• MGA is sending full document to governor’s staff on Aug. 24th for edits

• Please send suggestions about example programs, maps and graphs to Liz or Jane.

6

Update on White Paper

• ECW will email near final draft for comments from Advisory Committee members.

• Printed copies of document and a 2 page summary will be available at the MGA Forum

7

Discussion of modeling results in Roadmap

• Proposed “story” of results:– EE is an immediate priority because it is the clean energy option

with a net benefit to the economy and to consumers. (graph showing impact on consumers)

– Together, the policy options proposed by the EEAG are projected to achieve the Governors’ EE goal. (CCS graph)

– The goal is largely met through utility EE programs. Codes, standards, and government lead by example make smaller, important contributions. (Show both electric and heating fuels)

– Emission reductions (graph showing emission reductions)– Electric fuel mix with EE (graph showing fuel mix)

• Modeling in each chapter will show how fuel mix changes

8

Underlying Model Assumptions

• Liz reported on reference case (base line) assumptions and model behavior. Reference case assumes no RES in place.

• Because of the model structure, can only include RES in reference case if it’s the same in all states

• Used most recent DOE numbers for energy demand- are not specific to Midwest. In the Roadmap will use projections that go out to 2030

9

Discussion of Underlying Assumptions (con’t)

• Model uses one cost figure for the life of the plant.

• In base case: new nuclear declines over time, wind costs increase due to expiration of PTC

• GPI to conduct more analysis this fall concerning the sensitivity of price and other assumptions.

10

Underlying Model Assumptions (con’t)

• Discussion about electricity as transportation fuel– Liz reported that it doesn’t show up in fuel

technology pathways but it’s possible it will as it becomes more cost-effective against gasoline.

– Operation costs of electric vehicles should be lower than gasoline prices? Liz explained why that wasn’t expressed.

• Liz explained that the model is a good tool for visually illustrating the impact of policy on the technology mix

11

Timeline and Next Steps

• Roadmap comments due by COB on Friday, 8/7

• GPI staff to provide edits in the Exec. Summary

• Summit registration link on MGA main page (draft agenda is also up)

• Interest in the work having a life beyond the Summit. MGA and others developing next steps.

12