Costbenefit methodology used in the EFFLOCOM project

1
Cost/benefit methodology used in the EFFLOCOM
project

• Casper Kofod, Energy piano
• 17-18. August in Ballerup

2
Cost/benefit methodology
From Guidebook for B/C Evaluation of DSM and
Energy Efficiency Service Programs
prepared for the EU Commission in 1996.
3
EFFLOCOM pilots
4
Characterise
5
Specification

• Decision on which impacts to include in the
  evaluation in EFFLOCOM
• Infrastructure capital investments
• Operational costs
• Rationalisation of services
• Load reduction
• Alternative generation capacity costs
• Energy taxes

6
Evaluation Quantative method

B/C Benefit/Cost ratio NPVB-C (Net
present value)
7
Evaluation Qualitative method

• Trading of benefits and cost to find
  the best solution.
• Automatic Meter Reading
• Stakeholders network owner, Supplier
• Benefits
• Improved metering quality and rationalisation
  (netw. red. costs)
• Improved metering quality and new market options
  (supplier)
• Costs
• Investment and operational costs for new meters
  and commu.

8
Evaluation Qualitative method

• Remote Load control
• Stakeholders network owner, Supplier, customer
• Benefits
• Reduced needs for investment in network
  (network owner)
• Potential income from sales of this service to
  Supplier Customer (network o.)
• Potential profit of new products (supplier)
• Potential of reduced costs (customer)
• Potential of demand side bidding (customer)
• Costs
• Investment and operational costs (network owner)

9
Evaluation Qualitative method

• Customer Information System and
  Meter Value Database
• Stakeholders network owner, Supplier
• Benefits
• Improved quality of metered data (network owner
  and supplier)
• Potential of sales of meter values (network
  owner)
• Costs
• Investment and operational costs (network owner)

10
Evaluation Qualitative method

• Web Based Services
• Stakeholders All
• Benefits
• Improved service level (all)
• Potential of sales of meter values (network
  owner)
• Costs
• Investment and operational costs (network owner,
  Supplier and
• Service providers)

11
Pilot VI

• Benefits included there are others but no
  cooperation)
• More efficient meter handling
• More accurate accounting
• postpone network investment
• Costs (initial cost which are extraordinary
  high)
• Investment and operational costs
• C 94 Euro/point, year B 24 Euro/point,
  year NPV -70 Euro/point, year
• Significant potential of improvement but
  financial contribution from authorities,
  suppliers and customers (they benefit) seems
  needed.

12
Pilot I

• Benefit
• Alternative investment in gas turbines cost 80
  Euro/kW (10 years payback, 7)
• Customers saved in average 80 Euro by offering
  flexible heating and extra 40 Euro by energy
  saving
• Potential customer savings by including customer
  facilities for interrupting the heating in
  periods during day and/or night
• Cost
• Investment costs 31 Euro/kW (10 years, 7)
• Operational Cost ?