This report consists of a detailed assessment of the New Jersey energy efficiency market

This study addresses energy efficiency potential and informs the Comprehensive Resource Analysis process in the following ways:
* Determines markets to address with energy efficiency programs
* Finds the potential for energy savings for the 2013-2016 period
* Provides high-level recommendations regarding programs

Prepared for: New Jersey Board of Public Utilities		Prepared By: EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting		Date: August 31, 2012
Volume 1 - Executive Summary 10.17.12   Volume 2 - Final Report 10.17.12           Appendices 10.17.12   Phase 2: Program Level Results 07.25.13
Addendum: Program Budget Development 07.09.13

Identify opportunities to accelerate deployment of renewable and clean technologies in New Jersey for the years 2013-2016.

1. Provide timely and insightful results to assist the BPU in making programmatic decisions for the years 2013-2016.
2. Provide a foundation for developing next generation policies and regulations.
3. Evaluate New Jersey's potential for renewable and clean energy technologies, including on-shore wind energy; marine hydrokinetic; small hydropower; energy storage technologies and fuel cells.

• Onshore wind resources in NJ are good (Class 3 and 4 winds) in locations near the coast, but generally limited elsewhere.  NJ has about 132 MS of technical potential for onshore wind power.
• The technical potential for NJ inland hydropower is low compared to other US states - there is about 126 MW of technical potential for inland hydropower and about 975 MW of ocean wave hydropower potential.
• The technical potential for Renewable Energy (RE) - related storage is 750 MW for shifting and 52.5 MW for frequency regulation.
• Current technical potential in NJ for renewable fuel cells at wastewater and landfill is 22 MW; potential could be higher if other markets are included

Prepared for: NJBPU / CEEEP	Prepared By: Navigant Consulting	Date: Aug 06, 2012
Market Assessment Report (2 MB)

This report attempts to quantify the benefits of renewable energy technologies and the impact of such technologies on the market price of electricity.

1. Discuss some of the important issues that policy makers are confronting in monetizing externalities that are relevant to decision making.
2. Employ a simple approach under different environmental externality assumptions to illustrate the comparison of the social costs of renewable technologies.
3. Discuss the issue of lower electricity prices due to policies that spur investment in renewables.

1. The report provides a summary of the range of externality values based on a review of existing literature.
2. The report provides a summary of the net environmental externality cost compared to coal and natural gas associated with meeting the goals of 90 MW of PV by 2008.
3. The report compares the cost of renewable generation to traditional generation with and without externalities.
4. The report discusses the net transfer and efficiency benefits that result from market improvements due to renewable energy technologies.

Prepared for: NJBPU	Prepared By: CEEEP	Date: October 7, 2004
CEEEP Impacts of Environment (61.9 KB)

This assessment provides the technical, economic and market potential for renewable energy technologies in New Jersey.

1. Screen and prioritize among the Class I renewable energy technologies.
2. For leading options, assess the market potential and estimate market penetration through 2020.
3. Review progress towards the Clean Energy Program goals (gap analysis).
4. Review the effectiveness of current programs towards meeting Clean Energy Program goals and suggest modifications to programs and new programs.

1. Financial support is necessary to achieve significant PV market penetration, but RECs may be more cost effective per MW than rebates.
2. New Jersey can likely decrease the amount of the rebate and still meet its 2008 objective of 90 MW of PV.
3. The Clean Energy Program can ensure that cost-effective RE options are developed by 2008, while also focusing on the larger, longer-term potential of offshore wind power, central station PV and biomass gasification.
4. Digester gas from wastewater treatment and landfill gas offer the potential for the lowest electricity costs, followed by onshore wind power options.
5. When the additional revenues from RECs are considered, several resources appear economically viable by 2008, even with modest REC prices.
6. By 2020, NJ may have significant RE potential that is economic, depending on the REC price and the viability of offshore wind power.
7. The 90 MW PV goal can be met with adequate funding of existing programs, but other programs may help control costs.
8. The 300 MW Class I goal appears to be a stretch due to near-term resource constraints, but the Clean Energy Program can do several things to help meet the goal.
9. Achieving the goal of 1.5X of Class I RPS load served via green power is an aggressive target but the Clean Energy Program is starting to address it.
10. The ability to enter into long-term contracts for energy and RECs is critical for project financing and development.

Prepared for: NJBPU / CEEEP	Prepared By: Navigant Consulting Inc.	Date: August 2, 2004
Final Report (2.2 MB)

This assessment provides the technical, economic and market potential for energy efficiency technologies in New Jersey.

Objective:

This study assesses energy-efficiency potential for saving electricity and natural gas in all sectors in New Jersey. It calculates technical, economic, and achievable potential savings through 2020, and is restricted to energy-efficiency measures and practices that are presently commercially available. This study leverages recent research conducted by the major investor-owned utilities in New Jersey and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU), which provided an extensive foundation for estimates of potential in existing commercial, industrial, and residential buildings.

Major Findings :

If all the technically feasible energy-conservation measures analyzed in this study were implemented regardless of economics, the overall technical peak-demand savings could amount to some 6,275 megawatts (MW) by 2020. If, however, only the measures that are economic (i.e., cost-effective when compared to supply-side alternatives) were implemented, potential peak-demand savings would be roughly 4,186 MW—33 percent lower than the technically feasible amount. These savings correspond to the equivalent of 8-12 mid-sized (500 MW) power plants. The residential sector contributes the most to both technical and economic savings potential, followed by the commercial sector.

Economic potential assumes that all economically feasible measures will, in fact, be installed (for example, every incandescent light bulb in every house in New Jersey will be replaced by a compact fluorescent bulb). This of course is not feasible. For this reason, in order to provide reasonable estimates of impacts from energy-efficiency programs, KEMA developed estimates of achievable potential, which are based on assumptions regarding the success of measure adoption. Since the latter depends to a large degree on programmatic support, KEMA estimated potential savings under alternative future investment scenarios.

Achievable (or program) potential refers to the amount of energy saved as a result of a specific program’s funding levels and incentives provided. These savings are above and beyond those that would occur naturally in the absence of any market intervention (estimated at 372 MW in 2008 and 462 MW in 2020).

Net program peak-demand savings potential ranges from over 540 MW by the year 2020 under the current program configuration (Business-as-Usual scenario) to some 970 MW if funding levels are significantly increased under very aggressive program activity (Advanced-Efficiency scenario).

Prepared for: NJBPU / CEEEP	Prepared By: KEMA, Inc.	Date: August 2004
Report (2.3 MB)	Appendices A - F (2.9 MB)