We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byAracely Clayson
Modified about 1 year ago
January 20, 2004 California’s Statewide Pricing Pilot Larsh Johnson – President and Chief Technical Officer, eMeter Sanjoy Chatterjee – Principal, Chatterjee Associates
2 © eMeter Corporation 2004 Agenda History of small customer dynamic pricing Overview of California Statewide Pricing Pilot Statewide Pricing Pilot results to date
3 © eMeter Corporation 2004 The Goal of Dynamic Pricing Avoid the need to construct additional peaking power plants or to make expensive wholesale power purchases during price spikes Top 1% of the hours in PJM Top 10% of demand Top 90% of prices
4 © eMeter Corporation 2004 How Is Residential Load Distributed? Back to publication Source: Florida Solar Energy Center Annual consumption by major end use
5 © eMeter Corporation 2004 How Much Does Residential Load Contribute to Peak? Source: California Energy Commission
6 © eMeter Corporation 2004 History of Dynamic Pricing – Small Consumers 1957Steiner academic paper on “Peak Loads and Efficient Pricing” 1960s Time-of-use rates begin in Europe, growing to large scale 1970sFirst time-of-use rate experiments in U.S. 1980s A few larger time-of-use rate programs as metering costs begin to decline (Arizona Public Service, Salt River Project, Pacific Gas & Electric) 1985First integrated critical peak pricing + automated response experiment in U.S. (Southern Company) 1992First CPP program without automated response (Electricite de France) 2000First regular CPP + automated response program (Gulf Power) 2003First experiment testing CPP with and without automated response (California Statewide Pricing Pilot) and first residential hourly pricing program (Chicago Community Cooperative)
7 © eMeter Corporation 2004 Residential Dynamic Pricing Results: Price Elasticity –Fifty-six analyses and projects in the past 25 years –Average of -0.3 own-price elasticity Equals 30% usage reduction for 100% price increase (off-peak to peak) –California’s pilot providing one more data point Residential Own-Price Elasticities Recorded in Experiments/Programs More peak demand reduction Average result =-0.30 California data U.S./international data Source: King and Chatterjee, Public Utilities Fortnightly, July 1, 2003
8 © eMeter Corporation 2004 Residential Dynamic Pricing Results: Peak Demand Reduction –Results of 30 residential time-of-use and critical peak pricing programs –Results expressed as a percentage of customer’s total demand under non-time-based pricing Average reduction 24% More peak demand reduction
9 © eMeter Corporation 2004 Response on Different Day Types Very hot day Average day Cool day –Graph of the difference between participants and control customers Usage above the blue line is increased use resulting from time-of-use rates Usage below blue line is reduced use Control customers Peak hours Off peak hours Source: Dennis Aigner and Lee Lillard
10 © eMeter Corporation 2004 Conservation Effect of Dynamic Rates –Payback or pre-cooling occurs for some end uses, such as air conditioning –No payback for other end uses, such as turning off lights –On average, there is net conservation in dynamic pricing programs Average reported conservation in 16 time-of-use and critical peak pricing programs was 4.0% – i.e. Gross reduction ( ) less payback and pre-cooling ( ) = 4.0% kW 1 24 Pre-cooling Hour of Day 12 Peak hours Payback Peak reduction
11 © eMeter Corporation 2004 California Statewide Pricing Pilot – Background California joint agencies demand response proceeding –PUC, Energy Commission, and Power Authority –Rulemaking , begun June 2002 –Establishing state policies for advanced metering and demand response Goal: avoid a repeat of the 2001 Energy Crisis Source: Mike Messenger, California Energy Commission Projected Reserve Margins Rolling Blackouts
12 © eMeter Corporation 2004 California Rulemaking Progress Three subgroups –WG1: Policy –WG2: Large customer programs (>200 kW) –WG3: Small commercial and residential programs Decisions to date –Mar 2003: Adopted statewide goal of meeting 5% of peak demand via dynamic pricing by 2007 –Jun 2003: Established regular dynamic pricing tariffs for large customers –Jun 2003: Ordered implementation of Statewide Pricing Pilot –Nov 2003:Ordered development of business case methodology, including utility filings due March 31 regarding 2004 activities to meet 2007 goal
13 © eMeter Corporation 2004 Statewide Pricing Pilot Overview Statewide –Pacific Gas & Electric, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison –Sample of 2,500 customers statistically representative of the entire state –Residential and small commercial customers Goals –Measure peak demand reductions –Measure total consumption reductions –Assess customer preferences via participant experiences and market surveys Customers put in three primary treatment groups –Time-of-Use (TOU) Peak (2-7 pm weekdays) and off-peak Peak to off-peak price ratio about 2:1 –Critical Peak Pricing-Fixed (CPP-F) Peak (2-7 pm weekdays) and off-peak Much higher price – about 5x higher – during critical peak period (2-7 pm) on up to 15 days a year, with day-ahead notification –Critical Peak Pricing-Variable (CPP-V) Three differences from CPP-F – Critical peak period varies from 1 to 5 hours from 2-7 pm – Notification varies from day ahead to 4 hours ahead – All customers have smart thermostat programmed for automated response
14 © eMeter Corporation 2004 Critical Peak Pricing Rates Off-Peak Peak (2-7 pm) Critical Peak (2-7 pm) Critical Peak Notification to Customer (by 5 p.m.)
15 © eMeter Corporation 2004 Monthly Bill Summary
16 © eMeter Corporation 2004 CPP With Automated Response Technology provided to all CPP-V customers –Both residential and small commercial Outbound paging signal to thermostat Thermostat automatically adjusted up 4 degrees during critical peak hours Curtailment Signal Interval Meter Thermostat Status, Override Load Data Source: Karen Herter, California Energy Commission
17 © eMeter Corporation 2004 Statewide Pricing Pilot Results - Residential Rates went into effect July 1, events called during summer 2003 Analysis by Charles River Associates (contractor to joint utilities) completed January 16, 2004 (draft report; final data may differ) Performance MeasureAverage from the Literature California SPP Result Price elasticity (mean own price)-0.30CPP-F: CPP-V: TOU: Peak demand reduction – TOU20%24% Peak demand reduction – CPP without automated response 24%20% Peak demand reduction – CPP with automated response 44%49% Total usage reduction (conservation effect) 4%CPP-F: 6% CPP-V: 28% TOU: 9%
18 © eMeter Corporation 2004 Statewide Pricing Pilot Results – Small Commercial Same schedule and events as residential Small commercial groups did not include CPP-F Literature for small commercial is extremely limited Performance MeasureCalifornia SPP Result Price elasticity (own-price)(Still being analyzed) Peak demand reduction – TOU15% Peak demand reduction – CPP with automated response 67% Total usage reduction (conservation effect) (Still being analyzed)
19 © eMeter Corporation 2004 Conclusions and Next Steps California results consistent with the literature Other states can learn from this rich body of data and research, including California’s pilot and hundreds of other pilots around the country Does demand response make AMI cost-effective? –California’s PUC estimates of long-term value Demand: $85 per kW-year, the levelized cost of a peaker plant Consumption: 6.6 cents per kWh –Advanced metering costs about $12 per customer-year more than electromechanical metering, once utility meter reading savings are deducted –Result: Benefit-Cost Ratio of 3.7 for residential customers Next steps in California’s rulemaking –Develop detailed business case methodology –Proposals filed last Friday, January 16 th –Utilities will file rollout applications, including business cases, later this year
20 © eMeter Corporation 2004 Epilogue “The essence of knowledge is, having it, to apply it.” – Confucius
© 2011 IBM Corporation Pricing for Retail Electricity INFORMS Revenue Management & Pricing Section Conference John Quillinan – IBM Global Business Services.
C HARLES R IVER A SSOCIATES The Economics of Critical-Peak Pricing (CPP) for Mass Markets September 23, 2004 Electricity Pricing for Rate Cases An EUCI.
A Common Framework for Defining and Measuring Retail Demand Response Prepared for NAESB Meeting, February 12, 2009 Prepared by Bernie Neenan EPRI.
MyPower Pricing Pilot Final Findings myPower Pricing Pilot Segments Final Evaluation Report Presentation at National Town Meeting on Demand Response Washington,
Defaulting Customers onto CPP – Lessons from Actual Experience, 2009 Defaulting Customers onto CPP – Lessons from Actual Experience Josh Bode, FSC July.
Can Residential Customers Respond to Dynamic Pricing? NANCY BROCKWAY Multi-Utility Sector Chief National Regulatory Research Institute A presentation to.
Antitrust/Competition Commercial Damages Environmental Litigation and Regulation Forensic Economics Intellectual Property International Arbitration International.
SmartPOWER Critical Peak Pricing (CPP) June 3, 2008.
Dynamic Pricing - Potential and Issues Joe Wharton and Ahmad Faruqui Kansas Corporation Commission Workshop on Energy Efficiency March 25, 2008.
Grace Hu Chief Economist District of Columbia Public Service Commission Thimpu, Bhutan October 7, 2002 Least Cost Plan & Electric Restructuring.
Energy Efficiency Policy Trends A Look Nationally Katrina Pielli Clean Energy Program Manager Climate Protection Partnerships Division U.S. Environmental.
1 Arizona Public Service Company |June 24, 2010 Integration of Residential Demand Response & Smart Grid Programs.
Residential Real-Time Pricing in Illinois: The Policy Implications of Measuring and Evaluating the Impact of Dynamic Pricing Anthony Star Director of Policy.
Smart Buildings for a Smart Grid Technology & Services to Make Buildings Grid Responsive James Dagley, Vice President of Channel Marketing and Strategy.
California Energy Commission - Public Interest Energy Research Program Page 0 Transmission Research Program Strategic Benefits Quantification for Transmission.
1 Getting More Demand Response From the Small Business Customer Mark S. Martinez Manager, DSM Program Development Southern California Edison PLMA Fall.
ISO New England Demand Resource Measurement & Verification Standards Manual Overview April 11, 2007 NAESB Development of DSM/EE Business Practices Washington,
Lightening Strikes Twice: California Faces a Real Risk of A Second Power Crisis Lake Tahoe Energy Conference July 30, 2004 CONFIDENTIAL This report is.
National Town Meeting on Demand Response Demand Response Policy Overview Dan Delurey Demand Response Coordinating Committee June 2, 2008.
Summary of Utility DSM Efforts John Masiello Director, DSM & Alternative Energy Strategy Progress Energy Florida Dennis BrandtFP&L John FloydGulf Power.
National Town Meeting on Demand Response Focus on Pepcos Washington, DC Residential Smart Meter Pilot Program Presented By Steve Sunderhauf July 14, 2009.
Non-Residential Program Impact Evaluation Methods Gary Cullen, Summit Blue Consulting (360)
Dan Delurey Policy Overview Dan Delurey National Town Meeting on Demand Response and Smart Grid Washington, DC July 13-14, 2009.
1 Utility Deregulation and Energy Management George R Owens PE CEM, President Energy and Engineering Solutions, Inc
Load Impact Estimation for Demand Response Resources Nicole Hopper, Evaluation Manager July 14, 2009 National Town Meeting on Demand Response and Smart.
Achieving Price-Responsive Demand in New England Henry Yoshimura Director, Demand Resource Strategy ISO New England National Town Meeting on Demand Response.
The 3rd Electric Generation Supplier (EGS) Conference Wednesday, May 16, 2012 ArtsQuest – Steel Stacks 101 Founders Way Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
1 Ruminations on demand response – a view from Chicago Bob Lieberman Illinois Commerce Commission Presented to Restructuring Roundtable October 28th, 2005.
Reducing Toxic Pollution from Power Plants March 14, 2012 Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)
© Tantalus Systems Corp. COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE SMART GRID SMART GRID IMPLICATIONS FOR CABLE OPERATORS Matt Haile Tantalus
© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.