OPSI Annual Meeting October 13, 2015. 2 Session 6 Reliability Pricing Model: Are Further Changes Necessary? Reluctantly…yes But States should also be.

Slides:



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

Achieving Price-Responsive Demand in New England Henry Yoshimura Director, Demand Resource Strategy ISO New England National Town Meeting on Demand Response.
NAESB Measurement and Verification Model Business Practice Retail Electric Demand Response 5/29/09 update.
INSULATING PRICE RESPONSIVE LOAD FROM RUC CAPACITY SHORT CHARGE Mark W. Smith J. Kay Trostle August 2008 DSWG.
Demand Response: The Challenges of Integration in a Total Resource Plan Demand Response: The Challenges of Integration in a Total Resource Plan Howard.
Gloria Godson VP, Federal Regulatory Policy Reliability Pricing Model Part 2.
PJM©2014www.pjm.com Winter 2014 Overview & Recent and Upcoming Market Rule Changes Adam Keech Director, Market Operations.
Resource Adequacy in PJM
NARUC-FERC Demand Response Collaborative Meeting NARUC Fall Meeting Anaheim, CA T. Graham Edwards President & CEO November 11, 2007.
Enhancing Interruptible Rates Through MISO Demand Response: WIEG Annual Meeting June 19, 2008 Presented by: Kavita Maini, Principal KM Energy Consulting,
Susan Covino Senior Consultant, Emerging Markets March 31, 2015
September 15, 2006 Mending the Fractured Value Chain Through Functional Use of Demand Response.
1 RELIABILITY AND COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKETS POWER Research Conference UC Berkeley March 19, 2004 Paul Joskow MIT, CEEPR, CMI and Jean Tirole IDEI,
The Efficiency of Energy Efficiency Program Tom Van Paris Vice President-Member Services & Communications October 18, 2012.
Economic Analyses of FPL’s New Nuclear Projects: An Overview Dr. Steven Sim Senior Manager, Resource Assessment & Planning Florida Power & Light Company.
Demand Response in MISO Markets NASUCA Panel on DR November 12, 2012.
Economic Demand Response Sheldon Fulton Executive Director, IPCAA November 4, 2008.
© 2013 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC October 17, 2013 Robert A. Weishaar, Jr. ON SITE ENERGY – INTERPLAY WITH PJM DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS Harrisburg, PA.
Demand Resources: Challenges and New Initiatives for ISO New England Henry Yoshimura, ISO New England NEW DEMAND RESPONSE PRODUCTS IN ELECTRICITY MARKETS.
Highlights of Commission Activities Little Rock ASHRAE Monthly Meeting October 12, 2011 Presented By: John P. Bethel.
1 Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) “Utility of the Future” Tom Mimnagh Consolidated Edison Co of New York New York Energy Week April 23, 2015.
World Forum on Energy Regulation IV Athens, Greece October , 2009 "Reducing Regulatory and Technological Barriers to Demand Side Participation“
Consumer Advocates of the PJM States Who we are and our policy focus OPSI Annual Meeting Raleigh, NC October 8, 2013.
MEC: Customer Profitability Models Topic DSM – DR, Advanced EE and Dispatch Ability Jesse Langston, OG&E Oct 20 th 2013.
Demand Response in Midwest ISO Markets February 17, 2008.
GB Electricity Market Reform: The implementation challenges ahead IAEE International Conference Stockholm, June 20 – Dorcas Batstone
Overview of the North American and Canadian Markets 2008 APEX Conference in Sydney, Australia October 13, 2008 Hung-po Chao Director, Market Strategy and.
Retail Competition: Managing a Difficult Transition David L. O’Connor Commissioner Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources (DOER) Presentation to National.
The Secrets to Successful AMI Deployment – The Ontario Experience Paul Murphy, President & CEO Independent Electricity System Operator February 19, 2007.
“Demand Response: Completing the Link Between Wholesale and Retail Pricing” Paul Crumrine Director, Regulatory Strategies & Services Institute for Regulatory.
Demand Response Workshop September 15, Definitions are important Demand response –“Changes in electricity usage by end-use customers from their.
Smart Grid Workforce Education Presentation Smart Grid – A Framework for Change Brad Gaskill, CEO - Poudre Valley REA May 29, 2009.
PJM©2013www.pjm.com Economic DR participation in energy market ERCOT April 14, 2014 Pete Langbein.
PJM©2012www.pjm.com PJM’s Experience with Capacity Markets Terry Boston President & CEO PJM Interconnection Power Across Texas September 21, 2012.
Demand Side Products in PJM Joseph BowringCornell University January 17, 2011.
AER Consumers Forum Brisbane 18 December 2014 Thoughts on DM in the QLD network businesses’ regulatory proposals.
Demand Response: Next Steps OPSI Annual Meeting October 1, 2012 Howard J. Haas.
Chicago Advanced Energy Demand Response & CSP Evolution Kellen Bollettino Comverge Inc. 10/23/14.
PJM© Demand Response in PJM 2009 NASUCA Mid-Year Meeting June 30, 2009 Boston, MA Panel: Price Responsive Demand – A Long-Term Bargain.
Demand Response: What It Is and Why It’s Important 2007 APPA National Conference San Antonio, Texas June 26, :00 a.m. to Noon Glenn M. Wilson Director.
What Was Learned From the 2015 Transition and Base Residual Auction Results? October 13, 2015 OPSI Annual Meeting CP Auction results – A DR perspective.
Measurement & Verification at the Wholesale Market Level David Kathan FERC NAESB DSM/EE Business Practices Washington, DC April 11, 2007 The author’s views.
1 Demand Response A 28 Year History of Demand Response Programs for the Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas by Forest Kessinger Manager, Rates and Forecasting.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON® SM Preferred Resources Pilot August 17, 2015
Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) A Success Story… In Progress Ingmar Sterzing United States Association of Energy Economics (USAEE) Pittsburgh.
BUILDING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR DISTRIBUTED ENERGY WITH LOCAL NETWORK CREDITS AND VIRTUAL NET METERING Jay Rutovitz, Institute for Sustainale Futures.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council Overview of Draft Sixth Power Plan Council Meeting Whitefish, MT June 9-11, 2009.
Electric Capacity Market Performance with Generation Investment and Renewables Cynthia Bothwell Benjamin Hobbs Johns Hopkins University Work Supported.
© 2015 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC OPSI Annual Meeting October 13, 2015 Session 6 – Reliability Pricing Model: Are Further Changes Necessary?
Demand Response
Economic Assessment of Implementing the 10/20 Goals and Energy Efficiency Recommendations – Preliminary Results Prepared for : WRAP, AP2 Forum Prepared.
To Buy or To Build Is it really one or the other? APPA New Generation Workshop Portland, Oregon August 1, 2007.
Programs/Products that ERCOT Does Not Presently Offer ERCOT Demand Side Working Group New DR Product Options Subgroup Jay Zarnikau Frontier Associates.
OPSI Annual Meeting October 8 th Should all capacity resources be paid the same? -Demand Response operational deployment.
PJM©2014www.pjm.com State of Demand Response Stu Bresler Vice President- Market Operations PJM Interconnection 10 th OPSI Annual Meeting October 13, 2014.
©2003 PJM 1 Presentation to: Maryland Public Service Commission May 16, 2003.
BGE Smart Grid Initiative Stakeholder Meeting September 17, 2009 Wayne Harbaugh, Vice President, Pricing and Regulatory Services.
JOINT WORKSHOP ON MULTIPLE-USE APPLICATIONS. AMS’S 50 MW FLEET FOR SO. CAL EDISON MULTIPLE USE CASE #5: BEHIND- THE-METER DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES.
SMECO Demand Response filing
National Grid Rhode Island: Piloting Wireless Alternatives
Mass Market Demand Solutions in PJM
Allegheny Power Residential Demand Response Program
Engaging Energy Consumers Energy Action, Fuel Poverty & Climate Action Conference - March 2017 Aoife MacEvilly Commissioner for Energy Regulation Regulating.
OPSI 10th Annual Meeting Improving Generation Performance
The Future of Demand Response in New England
Draft 2013 Energy-Efficiency Forecast
Key Findings and Resource Strategy
Preserving Competition and Promoting Clean Energy (for All)
New England Resource Adequacy
Energy Efficiency in New England: Resource Opportunities
Presentation transcript:

OPSI Annual Meeting October 13, 2015

2 Session 6 Reliability Pricing Model: Are Further Changes Necessary? Reluctantly…yes But States should also be thinking beyond RPM

3 Problem CP rules virtually eliminate ability of summer demand response (DR) to continue as capacity resources Why? 1.Elimination of Base Capacity in 20/21 2.Performance Criteria – New Measurement & Verification (M&V)

4 Issue #1 – Elimination of Base Capacity RPM - Limited & Summer Extended DR Summer peaking system and summer available demand resources Least cost procurement Capped total amount CP through 19/20 - Base Capacity (similar to Limited & Extended Products) Summer peaking system and summer available resources Least cost procurement Capped total amount CP 20/21 and beyond – NO Base Capacity PJM procuring year round for summer peak

5 ISSUE #2 – M&V TODAY Peak Load Contribution (PLC) Customers billed for capacity based on PLC DR performance measured relative to PLC DR customers commit to a Firm Service Level (FSL) Customer’s level of uninterruptible service Must drop to that level when dispatched Customers receive credit for difference between FSL and PLC

6 ISSUE #2 – M&V FUTURE UNDER CP Customers still billed for capacity based on PLC DR as CP measured against estimate of what customer would have consumed ( i.e. “winter demand” not PLC) DR as CP participation limited to lesser of summer or winter capability Why? – customers must commit to both an FSL (i.e. level of uninterruptible service) AND to reducing load from their winter demand. Winter peak often well below summer peak, so most load’s ability to provide DR will be reduced This will cause many customers to “leave MWs on the table” in summer, or exit market & peak shave

7 ISSUE #2 M&V Example -Customer has 1 MW PLC which sets capacity costs -Customer can reduce to zero in summer, shut down in winter, so already at zero consumption -Today: Customer can commit to DR, register 1 MW to get to FSL of zero -Hedged capacity costs through interruptible portion of load -Under CP: Customer can no longer serve as a capacity resource because limited to “lesser of” - Customer not consuming in winter, but still paying for 1 MW of capacity year round -PJM will have to procure 1 MW of other resources to replace lost customer, even though that 1 MW not needed in winter

8 IMPACT Range of potential DR that could exit market: 3,300 – 7,600MW. 27% of DR from HVAC which can’t perform in the winter Roughly 3,300 MWs 18/19 BRA, only 38% of DR offered as capacity performance If other 62% doesn’t convert to CP roughly 7,645 MWs of DR lost In 18/19 BRA, 6,252 MWs of DR offered as Base Capacity ONLY, no commitment to CP at any price Existing “Annual DR,” at its peak represented 68% of DR offers If 68% switches to CP, remaining 32% (3,547MW) could be lost. HOWEVER Annual DR subject to different penalties and under current M&V, so should not expect full 68% to transition to CP

9 IMPACT Capacity Cost Impact of Losing 3,330 – 7,600 MWs of DR Previous PJM RPM scenario analysis Loss of 3,000 MWs of capacity = $946 million to $1.8 billion increase in annual capacity costs Loss of 6,000 MWs of capacity = $1.9 - $3.3 billion increase in annual capacity costs

10 IMPACT Market Efficiency RPM no longer least cost alternative to meeting reliability Procuring year round for a summer peak Reliability 1000s of MWs of customers converting to peak shaving a unique challenge to PJM operators Economic Capacity: $1 - $3 Billion above increases already seen in 18/19 BRA Energy: Potential increase in uplift because of lost control & transparency of DR that converts to peak shaving

11 SOLUTIONS 1.Reinstate Base Capacity 2.Keep a summer only product, but with CP penalty structure 3.Fix M&V rules so full value of summer reduction capabilities captured 4.Seasonal procurement 5.Others? **Stakeholder Process Before** ** 20/21 BRA in May 2017**

12 Order 745 is the….. BUT… Regardless of SCOTUS decision Regardless of whether DR is wholesale or retail Regardless of M&V rules Reality is…. Demand response in some form is needed for reliability and efficient market outcomes For demand response in any form… Need customer engagement

13 Changes Outside RPM To future proof your utilities from… Whatever happens with Order 745 Unfavorable DR participation rules Demand or emission reduction targets Increasing choices (solar, distributed generation, EE, etc) Key is… Customer engagement at all levels

14 Changes Outside RPM Successful customer engagement… Allows customers and utilities to deal with market changes, whether GOOD or BAD Keys to successful customer engagement… Provide incentives for utilities to invest in new technology E.g. cost recovery for investments in energy intelligence software and cloud computing technology