Energy Intensive Industrial Customer Work Group March 24, 2014.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
BG&E’s PeakRewards SM Demand Response Program Successful Approaches for Engaging Customers August 20, 2014.
Advertisements

1 The Potential For Implementing Demand Response Programs In Illinois Rick Voytas Manager, Corporate Analysis Ameren Services May 12, 2006.
October 8, 2013 Eric Fox and Mike Russo. AGENDA »Recent Sales and Customer Trends »Preliminary State Sales and Demand Forecast »Building a No DSM Forecast.
Keystone Energy Efficiency Conference 2011 September 20, 2011.
Critical Peak Pricing Gulf Power’s Experience Dan Merilatt, V.P. Marketing Services GoodCents Solutions, Inc. Stone Mountain, GA September 9, 2002.
Valuing Load Reduction in Restructured Markets Supply Cost Curve Regressions Market Price vs. Value of Load Reduction Photovoltaic Case Study William B.
1 COST OF SERVICE OBJECTIVES & METHODOLOGY Utah Cost of Service Taskforce May 23, 2005 Dave Taylor.
Energy and Environmental Economics 1 Avoided Cost and E3 Calculator Workshops Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. October 3, 2005.
1 Northeast Public Power Association Electric Utility Basics Electric Rates and Cost of Service Studies.
Solutions to California’s Energy Crisis: Real-Time Pricing by Frank Wolak Chairman, Market Surveillance Committee March 17, 2001.
1 Tankless Water Heaters – Deemed Savings Issues May 7, 2002.
ANALYZING YOUR ELECTRIC BILL Bob Walker Met-Ed November 7, 2007.
NARUC Energy Regulatory Partnership Program The Georgian National Energy Regulatory Commission and The Vermont Public Service Board by Ann Bishop Vermont.
RETAIL RATE REVISIONS August 1, 2015 Presented By:
The Efficiency of Energy Efficiency Program Tom Van Paris Vice President-Member Services & Communications October 18, 2012.
California Statewide Pricing Pilot Lessons Learned Roger Levy Demand Response Research Center NARUC Joint Meeting Committee on Energy.
1 Load Forecast and Scenarios David Bailey Customer Energy & Forecasting Manager Soyean Kim Rate Design Manager.
Rate Design June 23, 2015 Laurie Reid. 2 Overview 1.A little bit of physics 2.The Ratemaking Process 3.Generally Accepted Ratemaking Principles 4.What’s.
Vermont Electric Energy Efficiency Potential Study – Draft Findings April 10, 2006.
Contributions In Aid of Construction Mark Beauchamp Business & Finance Workshop Utility Financial Solutions
Cost of Service Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc. (INDIEC) Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc. (INDIEC) presented by Nick Phillips Brubaker.
© 2007, Itron Inc. VELCO Long-Term Demand Forecast Kick-off Meeting June 7, 2010 Eric Fox.
Energy Efficiency Programs for Your AG Business Randy Vagnini Connecticut Light & Power & Yankee Gas.
Technical Conference on Net Metering Load Research Study November 5, 2014.
Utah Cost of Service and Rate Design Task Force
Why is WPL filing a rate case?  Last Base Case Rates were set January, 2007  Cost of our utility investments must be reflected in prices our customers.
Highlights of AESC 2011 Report Vermont Presentation August 22, | ©2011 Synapse Energy Economics Inc. All rights reserved.
Energy-Intensive Industrial Rates Workgroup Update May 22, 2014.
© 2009 AirAdvice, Inc. Energy Benchmarking The On-Ramp to Delivering Energy Services.
1  The IPM model projects increases in electricity prices as a result of the RGGI policy scenarios which, by themselves, would increase the household.
1 City of Port Angeles Strategic Planning Presentation June 7, 2011 Presented by: Gary Saleba, President EES Consulting, Inc. A registered professional.
The Secrets to Successful AMI Deployment – The Ontario Experience Paul Murphy, President & CEO Independent Electricity System Operator February 19, 2007.
COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION: TECHNICAL STUDY RESULTS Peninsula Clean Energy September 24,2015.
1 WPL Regulatory Update Scott R. Smith Director, Regulatory Affairs.
Demand Response: Keeping the Power Flowing in Southwest Connecticut Presented by: Henry Yoshimura Manager, Demand Response ISO New England September 30,
From an Intervener's Perspective by Matt White.  An intervener is a non-utility that participates in a rate case to advocate its interest  Interveners.
September 24, 2007Paying for Load Growth and New Large Loads APPA September 2007.ppt 1 Paying for Load Growth and New Large Loads David Daer Principal.
Rate Design Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc. (INDIEC) Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc. (INDIEC) presented by Nick Phillips Brubaker &
Linking the Wholesale and Retail Markets through Dynamic Retail Pricing Presented by: Henry Yoshimura Manager, Demand Response ISO New England September.
M ICHIGAN P UBLIC S ERVICE C OMMISSION Energy Optimization Plans 2011 Biennial Review Pre-Filing Update Rob Ozar, Manager Energy Optimization Section March.
Dominion VA Power Credit Risk Management October 20, 2010 Pam Kemper Utility Payment Conference.
1 ACT 61 INCREASED INVESTMENT AND SAVINGS SCENARIOS Summary Of Methods Used To Develop Inputs For Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness and Rate Impact John Plunkett.
May 03, UFE ANALYSIS Old – New Model Comparison Compiled by the Load Profiling Group ERCOT Energy Analysis & Aggregation May 03, 2007.
1 Knowing Your Customers Better Through Load Research Presented By: Lawrence M. Strawn Senior Retail Pricing Coordinator Orlando Utilities Commission September.
1 Demand Response A 28 Year History of Demand Response Programs for the Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas by Forest Kessinger Manager, Rates and Forecasting.
Carnegie Mellon University Evaluating Rooftop Solar Parity for Commercial Customers Shelly Hagerman, Paulina Jaramillo, M. Granger Morgan Carnegie Mellon.
NASUCA Annual Meeting Austin, Texas November 10, 2015 Scott J. Rubin, Attorney + Consultant 333 Oak Lane + Bloomsburg, PA Office: (570)
Energy Services Harsha Holalu Ramakrishna Energy Extension Specialist Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.
South Texas Electric Cooperative Load Forecasting Methodology ROS Meeting, 6/10/10.
LOAD RESEARCH Irrigation Load Study Utah Cost of Service Task Force August 25, 2005.
Wisconsin’s Focus on Energy - Program Update John Nicol, PE Industrial Program Manager.
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION Page 1 Energy Policy Report Proceeding Docket 02-IEP-01 Staff Workshop Paper Publication F Sylvia Bender Demand.
New Large Single Loads and Economic Development Considerations Draft Assessment.
Variable Load on Power Stations
PPL Electric Utilities Act 129 Phase 3 Non-Residential Programs April 20, 2016.
Demand Response 2010 and Beyond April 28, 2011 Pete Pengilly.
2015 ElectriCities Advanced Meter School. Rate Design Goals The two primary goals of rate design are to (a)provide rates that lead to utility revenues.
1 Energy Storage Settlements Consistent with PUCT Project & NPRR461 ERCOT Commercial Market Operations November 2, 2012 – RCWG Meeting.
1 The End Of Price Freeze Service (PFS) For Schedule P Customers Presentation To The Maryland Public Service Commission by Wayne Harbaugh March 4, 2002.
Advanced Meter School August 18-20,2015 Time of Use and Load Profile Jeremiah Swann.
Smart Grid Tariff Changes
Irvine Ranch Water District Distributed Energy Storage Case Study
SMECO Demand Response filing
Time of Use Rates: A Practical Option – If Done Well
2018 VELCO IRP Forecast Preliminary results
Springfield Utility Board Proposed 5.0%
City of Lebanon, Missouri Electric Department
The network value of distributed generation
2019 Water and Waste Water Rates
Beartooth Electric Cooperative Rate Design Analysis
Presentation transcript:

Energy Intensive Industrial Customer Work Group March 24, 2014

A. Cost Allocation using 100% Demand DescriptionWho benefitsWho pays more Modifies the allocation of production capacity costs from the current weighting of 4 CP 50/25/25 (50% demand, 25% on-peak energy, 25% total energy using 4 coincident peaks) to 4 CP 100% demand. The emphasis on summer months’ demands results in the allocation of a higher portion of the total cost for seasonal air conditioning use to residential customers and lowers the cost burden for industrial customers who use energy more consistently from month-to-month. Primary Customers (both commercial and industrial), including large and mid-sized industrial customers, Primary Municipal (water & sewage pumping) customers, some large Primary Hospitals and medical centers, Big-box store retailers, universities, hotels and casinos Mostly residential and to some extent secondary customers

Annual Electric Load Profile by Class JanFebMar AprMayJun JulAug Sep Oct NovDec 1/6 2/9 4/8 3/4 5/26 6/22 7/7 8/31 9/1 10/20 11/30 12/9 12CP is the average of the 12 monthly coincident peaks (dates noted above) 4CP is the average of the 4 summer monthly coincident peaks (6/22, 7/7, 8/31 and 9/1)

B. Large High Load Factor DescriptionWho benefitsWho pays more Establishes a new cost-based rate for Primary customers, greater than 2.5 MW load with a load factor of at least 70%. Separating high load factor customers in the Cost Study results in lower costs on a per kWh basis. This is a cost shift within the Primary class and does not impact Residential or other Secondary customers. High Load Factor Primary Customers (both commercial and industrial), including large and mid-sized industrial customers, Primary Municipal (water & sewage pumping) customers, large Primary Hospitals and medical centers, Big- box store retailers, universities, hotels and casinos Primary customers with less than 2.5 MW load and/or with load factors less than 70%

C. Expiration of Rate E-1 DescriptionWho benefitsWho pays more Elimination of $64.5 million subsidy when Large Industrial Economic Development Primary Rate E-1 expires in November 2015 All residential, secondary, and primary customers not on the E-1 rate Assumes E-1 load goes on standard tariff rates

Regulatory Options Rate Design Action Total Annual Revenue Impact Residential IndustrialCommercial Total Primary Total Secondary Other Large High Load Factor Primary Other Industrial Primary Industrial Secondary Total IndustrialPrimary Secondary A. Cost Allocation Based on 100% Demand $53 million Cost Shift +3% + $51 mils (5%) +0.2%(3%)(5%)+0.2%(4%) ($50 mils) +0.2% +$2 mils (9%) ($3 mils) B. Large Industrial Tariff High Load Factor 2.5 MW Load and 70% Load Factor $9 million Cost Shift No Change(4%) ($7 mils) +1% $ 2 mils No change(1)%+1% $2 mils No change (0.3)% ($3 Mils) No change C. Potential Incremental Impacts post Rate E-1 $64.5 million savings (1.7%) ($30 mils) (1.7%) ($3 mils) (1.7%) ($6 mils) (1.7%) ($2 mils) (1.7%) ($11 mils) (1.7%) ($8 mils) (1.7%) ($15 mils) (1.7%) ($18 mils) (1.7%) ($17 mils) No change Total Impact (A+B+C) + 1.3%(10.7%)(5.7%(1.5%)(5.7%) (1.5%)(6%)(1.5%)(9%)