February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 1 /29 Temperature Effects on Residential Electric Price Response Karen Herter February 23, 2006.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
SmartPOWER Critical Peak Pricing (CPP) June 3, 2008.
Advertisements

Dynamic Pricing - Potential and Issues Joe Wharton and Ahmad Faruqui Kansas Corporation Commission Workshop on Energy Efficiency March 25, 2008.
Time-of-Use and Critical Peak Pricing
January 20, 2004 California’s Statewide Pricing Pilot Larsh Johnson – President and Chief Technical Officer, eMeter Sanjoy Chatterjee – Principal, Chatterjee.
1 The Potential For Implementing Demand Response Programs In Illinois Rick Voytas Manager, Corporate Analysis Ameren Services May 12, 2006.
An Analysis of Residential Demand Response Design Potential from Consumer Survey Data CURENT REU Seminar July 17 th 2014 Hayden Dahmm and Stanly Mathew.
Automated Demand Response Pilot 2005/2004 Load Impact Results and Recommendations Final Report © 2005 Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) Research & Consulting.
Critical Peak Pricing Gulf Power’s Experience Dan Merilatt, V.P. Marketing Services GoodCents Solutions, Inc. Stone Mountain, GA September 9, 2002.
Experience you can trust. Statewide Single-Family Rebate Program Evaluation: Lighting CALMAC/MAESTRO Meeting San Francisco, CA July 26, 2006 Tami Rasmussen.
Energy and Environmental Economics 1 Avoided Cost and E3 Calculator Workshops Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. October 3, 2005.
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response: Separate Efforts or Two Ends of a Continuum? A Presentation to: Association of Edison Illuminating Companies Reno,
Automated Demand Response Project History and Future Directions Presentation to the California Maritime Academy Mary Ann Piette Lawrence Berkeley National.
1 SMUD’s Small Business Summer Solutions Pilot: Behavioral response of small commercial customers to DR programs (with PCTs) Karen Herter, Ph.D. Associate.
1 Customer Experience with Dynamic Rates: Load Impacts, Satisfaction Levels and Lessons Learned from the California Pricing Pilot Load Management and Demand.
How Energy Efficiency and Demand Response can Help Air Quality Presentation to the California Electricity and Air Quality Conference October 3, 2006 Mary.
Developing Critical-Peak Pricing Tariffs with the PRISM Software Ahmad Faruqui May 30, 2007.
Real-time Pricing for Illinois Consumers Anthony Star Community Energy Cooperative Demand Response Coordinating Committee Webinar December 15, 2006.
Overview – Non-coincident Peak Demand
What Drives the Response in Demand Response? Craig Boice Boice Dunham Group Metering, Billing, CRM/CIS America 2005 Las Vegas, Nevada April 13, 2005 BOICE.
California Statewide Pricing Pilot Lessons Learned Roger Levy Demand Response Research Center NARUC Joint Meeting Committee on Energy.
Overview of Residential Pricing/Advanced Metering Pilots Charles Goldman Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory SMPPI Board Meeting August 3, 2005.
Overview of the 2009 LIEE Impact Evaluation Workshop 1: “Overview of Lessons Learned” October 17, 2011.
+ Customer-side Smart Grid Technologies How will they change utility offerings? Karen Herter, Ph.D. Association of Women in Water, Energy, and Environment.
Pricing Enabled by AMI What Types? What are the Benefits? Dr. Steven D. Braithwait Christensen Associates Energy Consulting EUCI Webinar September 12,
Measurement, Verification, and Forecasting Protocols for Demand Response Resources: Chuck Goldman Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Honey, I’m Home - How Are Electricity Prices for Tomorrow? Lawrence Kotewa Project Manager, Community Energy Cooperative April 13, 2005 Community Energy.
Overview of OpenADR May 4, 2011 Integrating Demand Response, Efficiency, Renewables and Smart Grid Sila Kiliccote Deputy, Demand Response Research Center.
1 OpenADR Taskforce Chair – Albert Chiu Co-chair – Ed Koch Technical Editors – Bruce Bartell, Gerald Gray.
Summary: Automated Demand Response in Large Facilities Mary Ann Piette, Dave Watson, Naoya Motegi, Building Technologies Dept., LBNL Osman Sezgen, Energy.
2011 Residential HAN Pilots Evaluation Results © 2011San Diego Gas & Electric Company. All copyright and trademark rights reserved. 1.
© 2012 Portland General Electric. All rights reserved. PGE Schedules 7 & 32 Portfolio Time-of-Use Portfolio Options Committee Meeting February 18, 2014.
California Energy Commission California Energy Demand Preliminary Electricity Forecast July 7, 2015 Chris Kavalec Energy Assessments Division.
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION Status Report Demand Responsive Building Program William J. Keese California Energy Commission March 30, 2001.
Avoided Cost and E3 Calculator Workshops Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. October 4, 2005.
Demand Response and the California Information Display Pilot 2005 AEIC Load Research Conference Myrtle Beach, South Carolina July 11, 2005 Mark S. Martinez,
California Energy Commission - Public Interest Energy Research Program Demand Response Research Center Research Overview Load Management Informational.
“Demand Response: Completing the Link Between Wholesale and Retail Pricing” Paul Crumrine Director, Regulatory Strategies & Services Institute for Regulatory.
2013 California Statewide Critical Peak Pricing Evaluation Josh L. Bode Candice A. Churchwell DRMEC Spring 2014 Load Impacts Evaluation Workshop San Francisco,
March 25, 2004 California’s Statewide Pricing Pilot Larsh Johnson – President and Chief Technical Officer, eMeter.
Linking the Wholesale and Retail Markets through Dynamic Retail Pricing Presented by: Henry Yoshimura Manager, Demand Response ISO New England September.
CPUC Workshop on Best Practices & Lessons Learned in Time Variant Pricing TVP Pilot Design and Load Impact M&V Dr. Stephen George Senior Vice President.
CPUC Workshop on Best Practices & Lessons Learned in Time Variant Pricing TVP Load & Bill Impacts, Role of Technology & Operational Consideration Dr. Stephen.
Leading the Way in Electricity TM Tariff Programs & Services Customer Services Business Unit Overview of Demand Response At Southern California Edison.
CEC 08-DR-1 Efficiency Committee Workshop 3/3/08.
Idaho Power Company Demand Response & Dynamic Pricing Programs PNDRP December 5, 2008 Darlene Nemnich Pete Pengilly.
The State of Demand Response in California Ahmad Faruqui, Ph.D. Principal June 13, 2007.
California’s Statewide Pricing Pilot Summer 2003 Impact Evaluation 17 th Annual Western Conference, San Diego, California Ahmad Faruqui and Stephen S.
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.
© 2004 San Diego Gas and Electric. All copyright and trademark rights reserved Demand Response Programs Backup Material.
Demand Response Research Center Accomplishments and Future Directions Mary Ann Piette Research Director - Demand Response Research Center State Energy.
EDISON INTERNATIONAL® SM Smart Grid Value Proposition October 4, 2010 Lynda Ziegler.
An Overview of Demand Response in California July 2011.
Demand Response Programs: An Emerging Resource for Competitive Electricity Markets Charles Goldman (510) E. O. Lawrence Berkeley.
Government’s Evolving Role in Resource Planning and Environmental Protection Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission April 19, 2002.
Extra electricity slides
New Incentives for Pursuing Demand Response Scott Strauss and Sean Flynn Spiegel & McDiarmid APPA Legal Seminar San Francisco – November 2004.
1 Proposed Policies to Increase the level of Demand Response Energy Action Plan Update April 24 th, 2006, Sacramento, CA Mike Messenger, CEC.
CEC Public Workshop Order Instituting Informational and Rulemaking Proceeding (08-DR-01) March 3, 2008.
Overview Review results Statewide Pricing Pilot Review results Anaheim Rebate Pilot Compare performance of models used to estimate demand response peak.
CEC Load Management Standards Workshop March 3, Update on the CPUC’s Demand Response and Advanced Metering Proceedings Bruce Kaneshiro Energy Division.
IMPACT EVALUATION OF BGE’S SEP PILOT Ahmad Faruqui, Ph. D. Sanem Sergici, Ph. D. August 12, 2009 Technical Hearings Maryland Public Service Commission.
2015 California Statewide Critical Peak Pricing Evaluation DRMEC Spring 2016 Load Impact Evaluation Workshop San Francisco, California May, 2016 Prepared.
Communicating Thermostats for Residential Time-of-Use Rates: They Do Make a Difference Presented at ACEEE Summer Study 2008.
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.
Introducing Smart Energy Pricing Cheryl Hindes
Allegheny Power Residential Demand Response Program
Preliminary Electricity Rate and Time of Use Rate Scenarios
Summary: Automated Demand Response in Large Facilities
Retail Rate Options for
Presentation transcript:

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 1 /29 Temperature Effects on Residential Electric Price Response Karen Herter February 23, 2006

Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 2 /29 Overview Questions to Answer  Do critical peak pricing (CPP) tariffs reduce peak demand?  How does local climate affect residential customer response to CPP events? Motivation – why CPP?  Economics: better link wholesale and retail markets  Reliability: respond to local or system emergencies  Customer service: the California Statewide Pricing Pilot (SPP) participants liked the experimental CPP rates

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 3 /29 Economics: California Power Costs, 2000 Avg.

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 4 /29 Reliability: still working on response time & technology issues

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 5 /29 Customer Service: SPP Post-pilot Survey (N=196) Why? Save money 58% Control/save energy 17% I like it 12% Why Not? Need more time to decide 58% Too much hassle 22% 23% 77% New Rate Old Rate 25% 62% Should it be offered to other customers? Definitely Probably 13% Definitely/ probably not Why? Save energy 19% Save money 17% It’s good/we like it 15% Conservation awareness 13% Chance to participate 12% Control/manage energy use 5% Would you stay on the new rate? Source: Momentum 2004 (only about 50% actually did stay on the CPP rate once the pilot participation incentive was removed)

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 6 /29 I. Background

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 7 /29 CA Statewide Pricing Pilot, Cooperative effort  CEC, CPUC joint proceeding  PG&E, SCE and SDG&E joint pilot Pilot design  ~2000 residential customers  3 new revenue-neutral rates  15-minute load data Data stratification  By climate zone (4)  By building/usage type (3)  Bayesian sampling determined sample sizes for each of 12 strata

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 8 /29 Experimental CPP Tariff (approximate average values) $ Hour of the day $0.10 $0.20 $0.60 critical peak price peak price off-peak price

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 9 /29 CA System Loads as a function of Temperature

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 10 /29 Two Groups Considered in this Analysis Manual Group  CPP rate  Information on how to respond PCT Group  CPP rate  Information on how to respond  Programmable communicating thermostat (PCT) programmed to automatically respond to CPP signals

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 11 /29 II. Manual Response (no automated controls)

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 12 /29 Data Analysis for Manual Group Divide hourly data (24-hour load shapes)  5°F peak temperature bins  Normal/critical days Average daily load shapes across days, by customer   2 load shapes per customer - one normal and one critical Average customer load shapes across customers, by stratum   2 load shapes per stratum - one normal and one critical Average stratum load shapes across strata, weighted by population and sample share   2 final load shapes - one normal and one critical - representing the average response of SPP participants exposed to the given temperature and weighted to reflect the CA population

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 13 /29 For those who had coffee this morning… Response ij = (Hourly Usage on Critical Days) - (Hourly Usage on Normal Days) =

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 14 /29 Manual Response, by 5°F Temperature Bin

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 15 /29 Manual Group: Diurnal Load Shapes, °F (Hot) Average Response = -13%

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 16 /29 Manual Group: Diurnal Load Shapes, 60-95°F (Mild) Average Response = -4%

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 17 /29 Manual Group: Diurnal Load Shapes, 50-60°F (Cold) Average Response = -9%

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 18 /29 Manual Response as a Fraction of Normal Load

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 19 /29 III. Response with PCTs (Programmable Communicating Thermostats)

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 20 /29 Data Analysis for PCT Group Divide hourly data (24-hour load shapes)  5°F peak temperature bins  Normal/critical days Average load shapes across days for each customer Average load shapes across customers  PCT sample not stratified

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 21 /29 PCT Response, by 5°F Temperature Bin

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 22 /29 5-hour PCT Response, 90-95°F Average Response = -25%

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 23 /29 2-hour PCT Response, 90-95°F Average Response = -41%

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 24 /29 2-hour PCT Response, 80-85°F Average Response = -16%

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 25 /29 Average Normal Load Shapes: Manual and PCT Groups, 70-95°F

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 26 /29 Manual vs. PCT Response, by 5°F Temperature Bin

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 27 /29 California System Response Potential under Mandatory CPP: Recent ISO Emergencies A. Date B. Peak Load C. Temperature Exposure D. All Manual Response E. Manual and PCT Response Res. (GW) System (GW) >90°F (%) >95°F (%) Res. (%) Res. (GW) System (%) Res. (%) Res. (GW) System (%) 7/10/ /22/ /21/ /9/ /28/ /29/

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 28 /29 Conclusions In hot weather, households on CPP tariffs alone (without technology) reduced peak load by 13% over a 5-hour critical event period In hot weather, households on CPP tariffs coupled with programmable communicating thermostats reduced peak load by 25% over a 5-hour critical event period and 41% over a 2-hour critical peak period Comparable groups with and without PCTs responded similarly in mild weather, but PCT customers outperformed manual customers in hot weather Assuming similar response by all California customers, residential CPP tariffs could have reduced system load by 1- 4% during recent California ISO events

February 23, 2006Karen Herter, LBL/CEC/UCB-ERG 29 /29 The End Full report available at: (or just search the LBL library for LBNL-58956)