Price and Cost Impacts of Utility DSM Programs *

Abstract

More U.S. utilities are running more and larger demand-side management (DSM) programs. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of these programs raises difficult questions for utilities and their regulators. In particular, should these programs aim to minimize the total cost of providing electric-energy services or should they minimize the price of electricity?

Most of the debates about the appropriate economic tests to use in assessing utility programs do not address the magnitude of the impacts. As a result, questions remain about the relationships among utility DSM programs and acquisition of supply resources and the effects of these choices on electricity prices and costs. This study offers quantitative estimates on the tradeoffs between total costs and electricity prices. A dynamic model is used to assess the effects of energy-efficiency programs on utility revenues, total resource costs, electricity prices, and electricity consumption for the period 1990 to 2010. These DSM programs are assessed under alternative scenarios for three utilities: a “base” that is typical of U.S. utilities; a “surplus” utility that has excess capacity, few planned retirements, and slow growth in fossil-fuel prices and incomes; and a “deficit” utility that has little excess capacity, many planned retirements, and rapid growth in fossil-fuel prices and incomes. Model results show that DSM programs generally reduce electricity costs and increase electricity prices. However, the percentage reduction in costs is usually greater than the percentage increase in prices. On the other hand, most of the cost benefits of DSM programs can be obtained without raising electricity prices.

Keywords

Electric utilities DSM US Energy efficiency Electricity prices Diamond model

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission 1987, Standard Practice Manual, Economic Analysis of Demand-Side Management Programs, San Francisco and Sacramento, CA, December.

Cavanagh

R.C.

(1986), “Least-Cost Planning Imperatives for Electric Utilities and Their Regulators,” The Harvard Environmental Law Review 10(2), 299-344.

Electricity Consumers Resource Council 1990, Profiles in Electricity Issues: Demand Side Management, No. 14, Washington, DC, December.

Electric Power Research Institute

1986, TAG—Technical Assessment Guide, Volume 1: Electricity Supply—1986, EPRI P-4463-SR, Palo Alto, CA, December.

Energy Information Administration 1989, Electric Power Annual 1988, DOE/EIA-0348(88), U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, December.

Energy Information Administration 1991, Annual Outlook for U.S. Electric Power 1991, Projections Through 2010, DOE/EIA-O474(91), U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, July.

Faruqui

(1990), Impact of Demand-Side Management Programs on Future Customer Electricity Demand: An Update, EPRI CU-6953, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, September.

Flaim

Miedema

A. K.

Clayton

C. A.

(1989), “The Impact of Financial Incentives on the Cost-Effectiveness of DSM Programs: Some Experimental Results,” Demand-Side Management: Partnerships in Planning for the Next Decade, Proceedings of the ECNE National Conference on Utility DSM Programs, EPRI CU-6598, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, November.

Gettings

Hirst

Yourstone

(1991), DIAMOND: A Model of Incremental Decision Making for Resource Acquisition by Electric Utilities, ORNL/CON-315, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, February.

10.

Hirst

(1989), “The Great Demand-Side Bidding Debate Rages On,” The Electricity Journal 2(2), 41-43, March.

11.

Hirst

(1991a), Possible Effects of Electric-Utility DSM Programs, 1990 to 2 010, ORNL/CON-312, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, January.

12.

Hirst

(1991b), The Effects of Utility DSM Programs on Electricity Costs and Prices, ORNL/CON-340, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, November.

13.

Hobbs

B.H.

(1991), “The ‘Most Value’ Test: Economic Evaluation of Electricity Demand-Side Management Considering Customer Value,” The Energy Journal 12(2), 67-91.

14.

Lovins

(1989), “The Great Demand-Side Bidding Debate Rages On,” The Electricity Journal 2(2), 34-40, March.

15.

Marnay

Comnes

G. A.

(1990), Ratemaking for Conservation: The California ERAM Experience, LBL-28019, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, March.

16.

Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities 1988, Investigation by the Department ... into the Pricing and Ratemaking Treatment..., D.P.U. 86-36-F, Boston, MA, November.

17.

Michigan Department of Commerce (1987), Michigan Electricity Options Study, Working Group #4 Report—New Utility Power Plant Options, Lansing, MI, August.

18.

Ruff

L.E.

(1988), “Least-Cost Planning and Demand-Side Management: Six Common Fallacies and One Simple Truth,” Public Utilities Fortnightly 121(9), 19, April 28.