ET25SWE0041 - Load Shape Planning Tool Development
The creation of new usage load shapes is planned for PA’s (“Program Administrators”) to complete before the next CA program cycle, as outlined in the most recent DEER (“Database for Energy Efficiency Resources“) resolution. The intensive measure development period in preparation for the 2028 cycle must be completed – including planning, measure packages updates, and measure packages approvals - by July 31, 2026. The project will identify load shapes for different usage types and determine the appropriate level of granularity in data collection for application to DEER28 updates.
This long-awaited work is so important because load shapes are one of the top drivers of cost effectiveness and TSB (“Total System Benefit“) and load shapes are only becoming more critical as the energy market changes. Two examples of changes that make usage load shapes more relevant are: (1) cost avoidance values are becoming more time-dependent, so the correct relationship between energy usage and energy savings is more impactful to TRC (“Total Resource Cost“) and TSB, and (2) load flexibility/load shifting measures are becoming more common and rely upon the value of energy usage during certain parts of the day. This usage load shape work will naturally begin with the measure package development for the next program cycle, starting with a development plan submitted by PA’s to the CPUC (“The California Public Utilities Commission“) in 8/2025.
This project will examine, at least, five different types of electric load shapes in the portfolio of deemed measures (including cooling only, heating and cooling, fuel substitution, water heating, continuous) and their sensitivity to TRC and TSB as compared to the other significant knobs of kWh/therms, EUL (“Expected Useful Life”), and NTG (“Net to Gross”). This project will answer a critical question for measure development that should be decoupled from the hectic development process: To what level of granularity should new usage load shapes be created? TRC Engineers, Inc (“Implementer”) and their subcontractor Second Hand Energy, LLC (“Second Hand Energy”) under the direction of Cohen Ventures, Inc DBA Energy Solutions (“Energy Solutions”) (collectively, the “Project Team”) will explore if/when load shapes can be consolidated or need to be split based on important parameters, such as:
o Climate zones
o Building types
o Varying base cases
o Varying measure cases
The addition of new usage load shapes for each permutation could add great value to cost effectiveness results, but the cost of implementing that solution could challenge many systems' abilities that include eTRM (“Energy Trading and Risk Management“) storage, CET (“Cost Effectiveness Test”) processing, and PA/implementer data access. Recommending when more detail is valuable will help (1) create the best set of load shapes during measure development that are still usable by all downstream systems and (2) set us up for success when developing new load shapes for load flexibility/load shifting measures.
California’s transition from legacy impact profiles to consumption load shapes is a critical step in improving the valuation of deemed energy efficiency measures for the 2028 program cycle. As avoided costs become increasingly time dependent and load flexibility becomes more important to portfolio performance, the timing of energy consumption and savings has a larger influence on Total System Benefit and cost effectiveness results. This project addressed a key implementation question for statewide measure development: what level of consumption load shape granularity is justified, and when can load shapes be consolidated without materially reducing analytical value?
The project developed and applied a repeatable framework for creating, comparing, and coalescing electric consumption load shapes across 10 representative deemed measure packages. These measure packages spanned five major load shape categories: cooling only, heating and cooling, fuel substitution, water heating, and continuous loads. The analysis used modeled EnergyPlus outputs where available, supplemented by non-modeled data sources where appropriate, and integrated avoided costs to compare load shape value across building location, building type, base case variation, and measure case variation.
The results show that substantial reductions in the number of consumption load shapes are possible while maintaining relatively low variation in unitized electric benefit. For some modeled HVAC measure packages, individual curves can be reduced from approximately 18,000 to 336 through building type and location grouping, and further reduced to 16 grouped curves with only modest increases in average standard deviation. Across the analyzed measures, coalescing reduced load shape volume by orders of magnitude while generally keeping average standard deviation near or below 6 percent. Overall, the findings demonstrate that structured load shape coalescing can improve implementation practicality while preserving meaningful cost effectiveness precision for California’s statewide energy efficiency tools.