DISPUTES & INVESTIGATIONS ECONOMICS FINANCIAL ADVISORY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. May 7, 2014 Navigant Reference: 170652 Impact.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Demand Response Forecasting, Measurement & Verification Methods/Challenges/Considerations National Town Meeting on Demand Response Washington, DC - June.
Advertisements

DISPUTES & INVESTIGATIONS ECONOMICS FINANCIAL ADVISORY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING Can Today's Demand Response Programs Support Integration of Renewable Energy.
The Marginal Utility of Income Richard Layard* Guy Mayraz* Steve Nickell** * CEP, London School of Economics ** Nuffield College, Oxford.
Load Impact Estimation for Demand Response Resources Nicole Hopper, Evaluation Manager July 14, 2009 National Town Meeting on Demand Response and Smart.
1 The Potential For Implementing Demand Response Programs In Illinois Rick Voytas Manager, Corporate Analysis Ameren Services May 12, 2006.
Authors: J.A. Hausman, M. Kinnucan, and D. McFadden Presented by: Jared Hayden.
2013 Statewide BIP Load Impact Evaluation Candice Churchwell DRMEC Spring 2014 Load Impacts Evaluation Workshop San Francisco, California May 7, 2014.
Automated Demand Response Pilot 2005/2004 Load Impact Results and Recommendations Final Report © 2005 Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) Research & Consulting.
2013 SDG&E Summer Saver Load Impact Evaluation Dr. Stephen George DRMEC Spring 2014 Load Impacts Evaluation Workshop San Francisco, California May 7, 2014.
California Energy Commission Resource Adequacy Demand Forecast Coincidence Adjustments R Resource Adequacy Workshop January.
Linear Regression.
Chapter 12 - Forecasting Forecasting is important in the business decision-making process in which a current choice or decision has future implications:
Dealing With Uncertainty
Forecasting.
1 Econometric Load Forecasting Peak and Energy Forecast 06/14/2005 Econometric Load Forecasting Peak and Energy Forecast 06/14/2005.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. 6 Point Estimation.
2011 Long-Term Load Forecast Review ERCOT Calvin Opheim June 17, 2011.
Overview – Non-coincident Peak Demand
Applied Business Forecasting and Planning
1 CHAPTER M4 Cost Behavior © 2007 Pearson Custom Publishing.
Presentation Overview
Linear Regression Inference
DISPUTES & INVESTIGATIONS ECONOMICS FINANCIAL ADVISORY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING ©2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. July 6, California Potential and.
Farmers Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation 2006 Load Forecast Prepared by: East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. Forecasting and Market Analysis Department.
Baseline Analysis CBP, AMP, and DBP Steve Braithwait, Dan Hansen, and Dave Armstrong Christensen Associates Energy Consulting DRMEC Spring Workshop May.
Lecture 14 Sections 7.1 – 7.2 Objectives:
Why Normal Matters AEIC Load Research Workshop Why Normal Matters By Tim Hennessy RLW Analytics, Inc. April 12, 2005.
California SONGS\OTC Plants Assumptions TEPPC – Data Work Group Call Tuesday, September 15, 2015.
Grayson Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation 2006 Load Forecast Prepared by: East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. Forecasting and Market Analysis Department.
ERCOT Long-Term Demand and Energy Forecasting February 20, 2007 Bill Bojorquez.
Yaomin Jin Design of Experiments Morris Method.
2013 California Statewide Critical Peak Pricing Evaluation Josh L. Bode Candice A. Churchwell DRMEC Spring 2014 Load Impacts Evaluation Workshop San Francisco,
Techniques for Evaluating Wildfire Smoke Impact on Ozone for Possible Exceptional Events Daniel Alrick 1, Clinton MacDonald 1, Brigette Tollstrup 2, Charles.
1 Overview of Experimental Design. 2 3 Examples of Experimental Designs.
Discussion of PJM Forecasting Model Tim McClive OPSI Annual Meeting October 12, 2015.
NEEA DEI Study Data Analysis Plan October 28, 2005 RLW Analytics, Inc. Roger L. Wright, Chairman, and Principal Consultant.
Guidelines Revisions Defining What RTF Means by “Savings” December 17,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University 1 ME250: Statistics & Probability ME 250: Design & Manufacturing I School of Mechanical Engineering.
2016 Long-Term Load Forecast
DSWG – March 9, 2015 Four-CP Response in ERCOT Competitive Area Carl L Raish.
Business Statistics for Managerial Decision Farideh Dehkordi-Vakil.
DR issues in California discussed last year in March Historical DR in California: some background issues –Twenty years of programs/tariffs I/C and AC cycling.
Blue Grass Energy Cooperative Corporation 2006 Load Forecast Prepared by: East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. Forecasting and Market Analysis Department.
Licking Valley Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation 2006 Load Forecast Prepared by : East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. Forecasting and Market Analysis.
Heat Pump Research Project Sponsored by the Heat Pump Working Group April 5, 2005.
An Overview of Demand Response in California July 2011.
Long Term Study Task Force Update Modeling Emerging Resources Through 2030 January 13, 2012 LTSTF.
Evaluation Institute Qatar Comprehensive Educational Assessment (QCEA) 2008 Summary of Results.
Overview of Governing Document for Weather-Sensitive ERS Pilot Project Stakeholder Workshop Mark Patterson, ERCOT Staff March 1, 2013.
Document number Anticipated Impacts for FRRS Pilot Program ERCOT TAC Meeting September 7, 2012.
Building Blocks for Premise Level Load Reduction Estimates ERCOT Loads in SCED v2 Subgroup July 21, 2014.
Demand Response as a Distributed Energy Resource presented by: Mark S. Martinez Manager, Program Development PLMA Fall Conference September 2004.
2015 California Statewide Critical Peak Pricing Evaluation DRMEC Spring 2016 Load Impact Evaluation Workshop San Francisco, California May, 2016 Prepared.
LOAD FORECASTING. - ELECTRICAL LOAD FORECASTING IS THE ESTIMATION FOR FUTURE LOAD BY AN INDUSTRY OR UTILITY COMPANY - IT HAS MANY APPLICATIONS INCLUDING.
Project VIABLE - Direct Behavior Rating: Evaluating Behaviors with Positive and Negative Definitions Rose Jaffery 1, Albee T. Ongusco 3, Amy M. Briesch.
2013 Load Impact Evaluation Capacity Bidding Program (CBP) Steve Braithwait, Dan Hansen, and Dave Armstrong Christensen Associates Energy Consulting DRMEC.
DRMEC Spring 2016 Load Impacts Evaluation Workshop San Francisco, California May 10, SDG&E Summer Saver Load Impact Evaluation.
Multi-Area Load Forecasting for System with Large Geographical Area S. Fan, K. Methaprayoon, W. J. Lee Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Technical.
2015 SDG&E PTR/SCTD Evaluation DRMEC Spring 2016 Load Impact Workshop George Jiang May 11 th, 2016 Customer Category Mean Active Participants Mean Reference.
2013 Load Impact Evaluation of Southern California Edison’s Peak Time Rebate Program Josh Schellenberg DRMEC Spring 2014 Load Impact Evaluation Workshop.
2015 Load Impact Evaluation of Southern California Edison’s Peak Time Rebate Program May 11, 2016 Prepared by: Eric Bell Jenny Gai.
Analysis of Load Reductions Associated with 4-CP Transmission Charges in ERCOT Carl L Raish Principal Load Profiling and Modeling Demand Side Working Group.
Customer Specific Regression Overview DRMEC Spring 2016 Evaluation and Enrollment Workshop – Session 3 Kelly Marrin, Director, Applied Energy Group.
Principal Load Profiling and Modeling
Statistics Stratification.
Emergency Response Service Baselines
Chapter Six Normal Curves and Sampling Probability Distributions
Elementary Statistics
Resource Adequacy Demand Forecast Coincidence Adjustments
Introduction Last comprehensive review was undertaken in 2012/2013
Presentation transcript:

DISPUTES & INVESTIGATIONS ECONOMICS FINANCIAL ADVISORY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. May 7, 2014 Navigant Reference: Impact Evaluation of SCE’s 2013 Summer Discount Program DRMEC Meeting, San Francisco

1 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. 3Results 2Impact Estimation Approach 1Introduction SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Presentation Outline 4Conclusions and Recommendations

2 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. »The vast majority of residential participants are subject to 100% cycling and are located in the “LA Basin” Local Capacity Area (LCA) »The distribution is very similar for commercial participants, although commercial participants may also choose to be subject to 30% cycling SDP is an A/C direct load control program with approximately 300,000 residential participants and 10,000 commercial participants SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Introduction

3 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Commercial customers come from a variety of industries, but A/C tonnage controlled is primarily in schools SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Introduction

4 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Residential participants were curtailed 11 times and commercial participants were curtailed four times through the summer of 2013 SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Introduction

5 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. 3Results 2Impact Estimation Approach 1Introduction SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Presentation Outline 4Conclusions and Recommendations

6 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. »Residential Impacts –Estimated using a sample of ~75% of total enrolled participants –Data were divided into six “strata” corresponding to unique combinations of cycling strategy and LCA –Separate regressions were estimated for each stratum –Separate regressions were used for ex-post and ex-ante results »Commercial Impacts –Estimated using a sample of ~95% of total enrolled participants –Separate regressions were estimated for each of 14 “sub-group” of interest For example: o sub-group 1 includes all commercial participants, o sub-group 3 includes all participants from the “Outside LA Basin” LCA, o sub-group 7 includes all participants subject to 100% cycling strategy and o sub-group 10 includes all Retail Store participants. –Separate regressions were used for ex-post and ex-ante results All impacts were estimated using fixed-effects regressions applied to panel data SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Impact Estimation Approach

7 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. »Data set used includes only the hours from noon to midnight on non-holiday weekdays »Nearly identical specification used for commercial customers, except that no snapback (s s,r,t ) included »Decision to not explicitly model snapback for commercial customers based on a combination of results when variables are included (either trivial or spuriously large) and simple visual examination of commercial sub-group load profiles on event days The Residential Ex-post regression models impacts as a function of each unique event hour observed in 2013 SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Impact Estimation Approach

8 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. »Data set used includes only the hours from noon to midnight on non-holiday weekdays »Snapback is modeled as a function of how many hours it has been since the event occurred, interacted with the cumulative cooling degree hours observed during the event itself »As above, commercial model is nearly identical, but without any snapback variables included The Residential Ex-ante regression models impacts as a function of cooling degree hours SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Impact Estimation Approach

9 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. 3Results Conclusions and Recommendations4 2Impact Estimation Approach 1Introduction SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Presentation Outline

10 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. »For most stratum/event combinations, fitted values track actuals very closely and implied baselines appear reasonable. In some cases fits are remarkably good, as in example below for September 6 th residential event »Similar plots for all events, by strata and aggregations of strata (for residential participants) and by sub-group (for commercial participants) can be found in Appendix E of Navigant’s final impact evaluation report Inspection of fitted values and estimated baselines vs. actuals suggests that estimated models are a reasonable representation of reality SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Results

11 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. »Also excluding the final summer event, the average impact of snapback in the first hour immediately following an event was 0.4 kW »Note that the final summer event (Sept 30 th ) was only a single hour, between 7pm and 8pm and occurred when the average outdoor temperature was only 73 degrees F. No significant impact was estimated for that event. »Average impacts are highest in the most populous participant group: LA Basin customers subject to 100% cycling »Estimated average impacts are considerably higher than in PY2012 principally because curtailment is no longer “staggered” as it was in PY2012. Staggering curtailment resulted in the first curtailment group’s snapback offsetting second group’s DR impact, reducing overall average DR impact Excluding the final summer event, the average Residential Ex-post DR impact in 2013 was 0.9 kW per participant SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Results Impacts by LCA/Cycling Strategy

12 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. »The average forecast impact of snapback in the first hour immediately following an event is 0.9 kW. »This is considerably higher than the first hour estimated snapback for historical impacts due to the embedded ex-ante assumption that forecast curtailment events are 5 hours long. In PY2013, the average event length was only 2 hours, and the longest event was 4 hours »As expected given ex-post results, average impacts per participant are highest in the most populous participant group »Estimated average ex-ante impacts are very similar to those estimated in PY2012. Overall average estimated impact for a 1-in-10 weather year on a typical event day from the PY2012 evaluation was 0.9 kW per participant For a 1-in-10 weather year, and “typical event day”, the average forecast Residential Ex-ante impact per participant is 1 kW SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Results Impacts by LCA/Cycling Strategy

13 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. »No snapback was estimated because no consistent or reasonable parameter estimates were obtained when snapback variables were included and because a visual inspection of the data indicate that, if present, snapback is trivial. »As would be expected, customer sub-groups that on average have more tons of A/C also on average contribute more of an impact. The average Commercial Ex-post DR impact overall was 3.8 kW per participant, but varied considerably by sub-group. SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Results

14 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. »Note that all PY2013 observed events were only a single hour in length, whereas the ex ante forecast events are all five hours in length. Although no snapback was observable in the data set available to Navigant, it is reasonable to suppose that for longer (i.e., five hour) events some snapback will be present. The average Commercial Ex-ante DR impact overall for a 1-in-10 weather year on a “typical event day” was 4.6 kW per participant. SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Results

15 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. »Average impact excludes the final September 30th event. In PY2013, the SDP program delivered an average of 171 MW of DR per event. SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Results

16 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. The forecast ex ante impact of the SDP program, given 2015 forecast enrollment is 350 MW for a typical event day, in a 1-in-10 weather year SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Results

17 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. 3Results Conclusions and Recommendations4 2Impact Estimation Approach 1Introduction SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Presentation Outline

18 ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. »Residential ex ante estimates have been very consistent year-over-year indicating that the capacity offered by these customers is consistent and predictable »Residential snapback effects in the hour immediately following each event are consistent with previous years –Navigant recommends that customers be dispatched in sub-groupings or on a regional basis, rather than being dispatched all together for the duration of the SDP events »Commercial events in PY2013 were only a single hour long, however ex ante forecast impacts cover a five-hour period –Navigant recommends that SCE call commercial participants for longer periods in each event in PY2014. Residential SDP capacity is reliable and consistent. Commercial SDP capacity is less certain. SCE SDP Impact Evaluation » Conclusions and Recommendations

Key C O N T A C T S ©2010 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. Key C O N T A C T S ©2010 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. Key C O N T A C T S ©2010 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. Key C O N T A C T S ©2014 Navigant Consulting, Inc. 19 Greg Wikler, Project Manager Director San Francisco, CA Peter Steele-Mosey, Lead Analyst Managing Consultant Toronto, ON peter.steele- Greg Wikler, Project Manager Director San Francisco, CA Peter Steele-Mosey, Lead Analyst Managing Consultant Toronto, ON peter.steele-