Load Management SMUD & Demand Response Jim Parks CEC Load Management Standards Scoping Workshop March 3, 2008.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
In the Post 06 Environment November 9, 2006 Jim Eber Demand Response.
Advertisements

SmartPOWER Critical Peak Pricing (CPP) June 3, 2008.
Achieving Price-Responsive Demand in New England Henry Yoshimura Director, Demand Resource Strategy ISO New England National Town Meeting on Demand Response.
Demand Response: The Challenges of Integration in a Total Resource Plan Demand Response: The Challenges of Integration in a Total Resource Plan Howard.
California Energy Commission 1 Energy Workshops for W&WW Agencies UTILITY STRATEGIES FOR SHIFTING PEAK DEMAND PERIOD WATER & ENERGY USE REGIONAL STRATEGIES:
Introduction Build and impact metric data provided by the SGIG recipients convey the type and extent of technology deployment, as well as its effect on.
BG&E’s PeakRewards SM Demand Response Program Successful Approaches for Engaging Customers August 20, 2014.
Time-of-Use and Critical Peak Pricing
1 The Potential For Implementing Demand Response Programs In Illinois Rick Voytas Manager, Corporate Analysis Ameren Services May 12, 2006.
24 May 2007 PROGRESS & PROMISE ON DR/AMI Dr. Eric Woychik Executive Consultant, Strategy Integration, LLC APSC Workshop on DR and AMI.
Home Area Networks …Expect More Mohan Wanchoo Jasmine Systems, Inc.
Critical Peak Pricing Gulf Power’s Experience Dan Merilatt, V.P. Marketing Services GoodCents Solutions, Inc. Stone Mountain, GA September 9, 2002.
SMUD’s SmartPricing Options Marketing Strategy Jennifer Potter July 31, 2014 Powering forward. Together.
The Benefits of Dynamic Pricing of Default Electricity Service Bernie Neenan UtiliPoint International Prepared for Assessing the Potential for Demand Response.
Smart Meters, Demand Response and Energy Efficiency GRIDSCHOOL 2010 MARCH 8-12, 2010  RICHMOND, VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC UTILITIES ARGONNE NATIONAL.
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response: Separate Efforts or Two Ends of a Continuum? A Presentation to: Association of Edison Illuminating Companies Reno,
Enhancing Interruptible Rates Through MISO Demand Response: WIEG Annual Meeting June 19, 2008 Presented by: Kavita Maini, Principal KM Energy Consulting,
1 SMUD’s Small Business Summer Solutions Pilot: Behavioral response of small commercial customers to DR programs (with PCTs) Karen Herter, Ph.D. Associate.
SmartMeter Program Overview Jana Corey Director, Energy Information Network Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
ON IT 1 Con Edison Energy Efficiency Programs Sustaining our Future Rebecca Craft Director of Energy Efficiency.
ANALYZING YOUR ELECTRIC BILL Bob Walker Met-Ed November 7, 2007.
Advanced Metering Infrastructure
Smart Meter. 2 Seattle City Light Vision Vision To set the standard and deliver the best customer service experience of any utility in the nation. Mission.
Herbert E. Hirschfeld, P.E. and Joseph S. Lopes Applied Energy Group, Inc. Metering America 2005 April 13, 2005 Submetering Case Studies with Load Management.
Presentation Overview
1 Demand Response Update April, Strategic Perspective Demand Response  Aligns with PGE’s Strategic Direction; helping to provide exceptional.
California Statewide Pricing Pilot Lessons Learned Roger Levy Demand Response Research Center NARUC Joint Meeting Committee on Energy.
1 SmartMeter™ Delivering Customer Benefits Jana Corey Director, Policy Planning Integrated Demand-side Management Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Overview of Residential Pricing/Advanced Metering Pilots Charles Goldman Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory SMPPI Board Meeting August 3, 2005.
+ Customer-side Smart Grid Technologies How will they change utility offerings? Karen Herter, Ph.D. Association of Women in Water, Energy, and Environment.
Green Energy Program Redesign Wilson Mallard – Georgia Power Company NARUC Staff Subcommittee on Accounting and Finance Fall Meeting October 13, 2008 Wilson.
Overview of OpenADR May 4, 2011 Integrating Demand Response, Efficiency, Renewables and Smart Grid Sila Kiliccote Deputy, Demand Response Research Center.
Innovative approach to DSM through Open Access Jayant Deo MD & CEO, Indian Energy Exchange
MEC: Customer Profitability Models Topic DSM – DR, Advanced EE and Dispatch Ability Jesse Langston, OG&E Oct 20 th 2013.
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION Status Report Demand Responsive Building Program William J. Keese California Energy Commission March 30, 2001.
Demand Response: Keeping the Power Flowing in Southwest Connecticut Presented by: Henry Yoshimura Manager, Demand Response ISO New England September 30,
OVERVIEW OF ISSUES DR AND AMI HELP SOLVE Dr. Eric Woychik Executive Consultant, Strategy Integration, LLC APSC Workshop on DR and AMI.
Demand Response and the California Information Display Pilot 2005 AEIC Load Research Conference Myrtle Beach, South Carolina July 11, 2005 Mark S. Martinez,
“Demand Response: Completing the Link Between Wholesale and Retail Pricing” Paul Crumrine Director, Regulatory Strategies & Services Institute for Regulatory.
Linking the Wholesale and Retail Markets through Dynamic Retail Pricing Presented by: Henry Yoshimura Manager, Demand Response ISO New England September.
Smart Grid: What’s In It for the Customer? Wharton Energy Conference 2010 Wayne Harbaugh, Vice President, Pricing & Regulatory Services.
Smart Grid Workforce Education Presentation Smart Grid – A Framework for Change Brad Gaskill, CEO - Poudre Valley REA May 29, 2009.
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.
California’s Proposed DR Cost-Effectiveness Framework January 30, 2008.
Idaho Power Company Demand Response & Dynamic Pricing Programs PNDRP December 5, 2008 Darlene Nemnich Pete Pengilly.
Commercial & Industrial Customer Implications of Smart Metering Allan Boucher Capgemini Canada.
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.
Dynamic Pricing Case Studies. Digi International.
An Overview of Demand Response in California July 2011.
Government’s Evolving Role in Resource Planning and Environmental Protection Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission April 19, 2002.
1 Proposed Policies to Increase the level of Demand Response Energy Action Plan Update April 24 th, 2006, Sacramento, CA Mike Messenger, CEC.
Utility Benefits of Demand Response Trevor Lauer DTE Energy Marketing Executive Conference Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.
CEC Public Workshop Order Instituting Informational and Rulemaking Proceeding (08-DR-01) March 3, 2008.
CEC Load Management Standards Workshop March 3, Update on the CPUC’s Demand Response and Advanced Metering Proceedings Bruce Kaneshiro Energy Division.
San Diego Gas & Electric February 24 th, 2016 Energy Matinee Pricing Tariff Proposal.
Demand Response 2010 and Beyond April 28, 2011 Pete Pengilly.
Program Overview Solar resource will be built by j uwi, (pronounced “you-vee”), a developer based out of Boulder, Colorado. Solar farm will be located.
Los Angeles County Community Choice Aggregation Regional CCA Task Force Meeting October 28, 2015.
Village of La Grange Municipal Aggregation Hearing January 28, 2013 and February 11, 2013 What is Electricity Aggregation?
Customer Concerns with Implementing Demand Rates NASUCA and NARUC Conferences Austin, Texas November 2015 David Springe Consumer Counsel Kansas Citizens’
1 City of Palo Alto Utilities Large Commercial Customer Pilot Demand Response Program Customer Meeting March 8, 2012.
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.
SMECO Demand Response filing
Time of Use Rates: A Practical Option – If Done Well
Mass Market Demand Solutions in PJM
Affordable Energy Production from Renewable Fuel
System Control based Renewable Energy Resources in Smart Grid Consumer
State Allocation Board Hearing Solar Energy and Energy Efficiency Project Options for California Schools Mark Johnson, Energy Solutions Manager - Schools.
Presentation transcript:

Load Management SMUD & Demand Response Jim Parks CEC Load Management Standards Scoping Workshop March 3, 2008

SMUD SMUD System Load Highest 50 hours responsible for 500 MW System load projected to grow by 15% over next 10 years (including EE) Resource gap projected in 2012 and beyond due to expiring bilateral and renewable contracts

SMUD SMUD Customer Policies Preservation of local decision-making and control are vital to ensure public power systems can provide solutions that best meet the needs of their customers  The District is primarily accountable to its customer-owners  Community citizens have a direct voice in utility decisions Compact with the Customer ―To meet anticipated load growth while balancing environmental and customer service goals, SMUD must implement:  Integrated EE programs which focus on peak  A robust AMI infrastructure  Rates which reflect time-differentiated costs  Strong and active dispatchable LM programs  Construction of clean, renewable plant Held series of ~40 focus groups around compact with customer concepts with all customer classes August – November 2007

SMUD AMI Activities December 2005: Completed initial AMI Business Case March 2006: Presented AMR drive-by strategy December 2006: Board approved AMR contract January 2007: Began converting routes to AMR January 2007: Board requested AMI Business Case Update May 2008: Presented AMI Business Case Update May 2008: SMUD embarked on AMI project

SMUD AMI Requirements Two-way communications Communications protocol agnostic Robust, secure, and scalable Interval data and TOU capabilities Home Area Network agnostic Enables programmable communicating thermostat control and in home displays Enables end-to-end system efficiencies―from generator to end use

SMUD AMI Project Timeline AMI RFP – 2 nd Quarter 2008 AMI Selection – 4 th Quarter 2008 AMI Acceptance Test – 2 nd Quarter 2009 Full Deployment –

SMUD SMUD Rates Policy District’s rates will be designed to balance and achieve the following goals:  Reflect the cost of energy when it is used  Reduce use on peak  Encourage energy efficiency and conservation  Minimize “sticker” shock in the transition from one rate design to another  Offer flexibility and options  Be simple and easy to understand  Meet the needs of people with fixed incomes and severe medical conditions  Equitably allocate costs across customer classes

SMUD Rate Concepts Under Consideration Large Commercial (1> MW)  Basic TOU – 4-month summer, 3 pricing period TOU rate that is energy only  TOU Demand – Same as Basic TOU with addition of a super-peak demand charge  Critical Peak Pricing – Basic TOU with a risk discount and a critical peak price on call days  Real Time Pricing – Hourly energy prices on a day-ahead basis Medium Commercial (300 kW – 999 kW)  Basic TOU  TOU Demand  Critical Peak Pricing Small Commercial (<300 kW)  Basic TOU  Critical Peak Pricing Residential  3-Tier Increasing Block – Standard rate with price risk premium  TOU/Tier – Standard tier rate with 3-hour super peak period  Critical Peak Pricing – TOU/Tier with risk discount and critical peak price on call days

SMUD Focus Group Findings on Rates General:  Customers readily understood that SMUD’s cost of supplying energy is higher in the summer, especially in very hot weather  Customers understood that they would pay higher rates over fewer summer months and lower rates over more winter months  Most like a narrow (3-hour) super peak period Commercial:  Customers who find it difficult to shift load and/or have flat load prefer a demand charge, and vice versa  Customers want a minimum of 24-hour notice for CPP  Prefer fewer CPP hours with higher prices vs. more hours with lower prices Residential:  Customers with flexible lifestyles said they will shift activities off peak  Want energy savings (from TOU vs. Tier) shown on bill  Basically like the idea of having pricing choices

SMUD Focus Group Findings on LM/DR General:  Most customers said they would respond to public pleas for energy conservation during periods of peak demand  Customers want the ability to override DR events  Generally more receptive to temperature reset than to AC cycling Commercial:  Small and medium customers want education on DR—more likely to participate in DR when it was explained to them  Some find it challenging to curtail/shift energy usage during peak periods due to industry type or business situation  Customers were creative in finding ways to adjust their business operations around peak periods  Many want event notification by cell phone or Residential:  Households with ill or elderly members said personal control of their AC is critical  Renters find DR challenging because they don’t own the AC or have window AC units  Responses were mixed regarding preference for manual controls vs. “set it and forget it” controls

SMUD Current LM and DR Programs Curtailment contracts―14 MW Temperature-Dependent Rate―8 MW Demand Bid―5 MW Used only in emergencies:  Voluntary Emergency Curtailment Program―~45 MW  Peak Corps (residential AC cycling)―97 MW cycling, 135 MW shed Total dispatchable load = 111 to 149 MW  Using AC cycling, and special curtailment contracts Total non-dispatchable load = 0 to 58 MW  Using Temperature-Dependent Rate, Demand Bid and VECP

SMUD Proposed LM and DR Offerings Currently being evaluated in IRP process Designed to be used for active LM and DR Residential Customers  Air conditioning cycling  Air conditioning temperature reset  Choice of time-of-use rates, critical peak pricing  Public appeal to reduce electrical load Commercial Customers  Air conditioning temperature reset (<300 kW)  Aggregator program (300 kW – 999 kW)  Special curtailable contacts with the largest accounts (1> MW)  Choice of time-of-use rates, critical peak pricing, real time pricing  Technical assistance to evaluate demand response potential  Technology incentives for enabling equipment  Public appeal to reduce electrical load

SMUD LM/DR Program Redesign Timeline Develop new program concepts – 4 th Quarter 2007 Initial program screening – 1 st Quarter 2008 Evaluate programs through resource planning model – 3 rd Quarter 2008 Determine LM/DR resource mix and goals for next 10 years – 4 th Quarter 2008 Implement programs –

SMUD SMUD Position on PCT Standard Participation in programs should be voluntary (opt-in and/or opt-out) Override capability should be offered to participants in cycling and temperature reset programs SMUD prefers PCT standard because:  Offers customers more energy control options  Reduces costs of SMUD’s t-stat programs  Provides potential for greater participation with temperature reset option  Grows programs faster with opt-out for new construction and dwellings/buildings with existing equipment Opt-out retention rate of 60%-70% over 3 years Opt-in growth rate of 1.5%-2.5% annually, total of 5%-8% over 3 years  Reduces price of t-stats with bulk purchase power and lower installation costs in new construction  Increases control functionality and integration through greater sales  Grows DR infrastructure faster