Customer Preferences for Metering and Connectivity Metering Americas 2004 San Diego, CA March 24-26, 2004 Lynn Fryer Stein Primen.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Case Study of Demand Response: Con Edison Business Program by Eileen Egan-Annechino Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
Advertisements

NAESB UPDATE MEETING MAY 30, 2008 DSM EE RETAIL GROUP.
DISPUTES & INVESTIGATIONS ECONOMICS FINANCIAL ADVISORY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING Early Lessons Learned from DOE-EPRI Framework Experience Melissa Chan MA DPU.
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.
January 20, 2004 California’s Statewide Pricing Pilot Larsh Johnson – President and Chief Technical Officer, eMeter Sanjoy Chatterjee – Principal, Chatterjee.
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.
San Diego Opera Web Survey Detailed Report August 28, 2013.
Our task Smart Grid, Smart City Customer Research Findings Arup | Energeia | Frontier Economics | Institute for Sustainable Futures Industry Forum 28 th.
E-Mon Energy™ Energy Monitoring Software
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,
The Smart Grid: Green IT and Data Centers February 2, 2011: 4:10 p.m. Charles O’Donnell, Vice President, Engineering Liebert AC Power Emerson Network.
Introductions Energy Curtailment Specialists, Inc. Confidential – Property of ECS, Inc Paul Tyno, Executive Vice President Program Development − Responsible.
SmartMeter Program Overview Jana Corey Director, Energy Information Network Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
Utility Analysis. Baseline Electricity Analysis  Understanding and documenting current energy use is called developing a baseline. Developing a baseline:
ANALYZING YOUR ELECTRIC BILL Bob Walker Met-Ed November 7, 2007.
Advanced Metering Infrastructure
Presentation Overview
PROJECTED RIDERSHIP OF THE HOUSATONIC RAILROAD STUDY Presented by Julie Pokela, Ph.D. August, 2010.
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.
Getting ready for Advanced Metering Infrastructure Paper by : Rajesh Nimare Presented by : Prashant Sharma.
CABA – IIBC - Toronto Slide 1 Utility Information Services for Facility Professionals or “Energy Management by Dollars and Sense” Bob Dixon Sr. Director.
1 ______ ___ ____ ___ _____ _______ Seattle City Light Rate Design Outreach November 1, 2013 Summary of Online Survey Results 11/1 Review Panel Discussion.
Demand Side Management The Natural Purview of Utilities The Customer Viewpoint Rates on the Rise in a Rough Economy - Responding to New Realities Marketing.
Chapter 2: Statistics of One Variable
Future of Smart Metering Kansas Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Conference September 26, 2007.
Facilities Management and Design
© 2009 IBM Corporation Smart Grid Research Consortium Customer Operations Transformation Global E&U Industry January 2011.
Mobile Payments & Alert Communications: Changing Your Bottom Line Art Coutcher Utility Sales Manager direct:
Technical Conference on Net Metering Load Research Study November 5, 2014.
FERC Assessment of Demand Response & Advanced Metering 2006 APPA Business & Financial Conference September 18, 2006 – Session 11 (PMA) Presented by: Larry.
In-Premise Devices and Grid Interoperability Michel Kohanim Universal Devices, Inc.
Page 1 Schedule Experimental Energy Reduction (EER) updated 2005 Note: This program is available to qualified participants within the EntergyArkansas,
2011 Residential HAN Pilots Evaluation Results © 2011San Diego Gas & Electric Company. All copyright and trademark rights reserved. 1.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Existing Demand Response Programs Kurt Castleberry Director, Operating Committee Support May 24, 2007.
EvergreenEcon.com ESA 2011 Impact Evaluation Draft Report Public Workshop #2 August 7, 2013 Presented By: Steve Grover, President.
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.
Smart Grid Workforce Education Presentation Smart Grid – A Framework for Change Brad Gaskill, CEO - Poudre Valley REA May 29, 2009.
Results of a survey relating to Siemens Enterprise Communications at the CeBIT 2007 exhibition in Hanover Results of a market research survey Produced.
Mediascope Europe The Digital Generation Pan-European May 2006 Conducted by SPA/Synovate.
Chicago Advanced Energy Demand Response & CSP Evolution Kellen Bollettino Comverge Inc. 10/23/14.
Using Interactive Voice Technologies to Reduce the Burden on IS, Customer Service and Finance Utility Payment Conference.
1 Knowing Your Customers Better Through Load Research Presented By: Lawrence M. Strawn Senior Retail Pricing Coordinator Orlando Utilities Commission September.
Idaho Power Company Demand Response & Dynamic Pricing Programs PNDRP December 5, 2008 Darlene Nemnich Pete Pengilly.
© 2002 J.D. Power and Associates. All Rights Reserved 2002 Electric Utility Residential Customer Satisfaction Study Cedar Rapids, Iowa August 7, 2002 Presented.
Dynamic Pricing Case Studies. Digi International.
LOAD RESEARCH Irrigation Load Study Utah Cost of Service Task Force August 25, 2005.
Demand Forecast Deviations Working Group Presented to: Stakeholder Advisory Committee Presented by: Pat Doran January 24, 2007.
AMIT/DSWG Workshop ERCOT Demand Side Working Group Meeting September 30, 2011 Jay Zarnikau, Frontier Associates.
VI.PROPERTY PERCEPTIONSp. 46 Table of Contents I.METHODOLOGYp. 3 III.RESPONDENT PROFILEp. 8 IV.SPONSORSHIP SPENDING AND INVOLVEMENTp. 12 V.RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONSp.
CEC Public Workshop Order Instituting Informational and Rulemaking Proceeding (08-DR-01) March 3, 2008.
Sports Market Research. Know Your Customer How do businesses know their customers needs and wants?  Ask them/talking to customers  Surveys  Questionnaires.
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.
BGE Smart Grid Initiative Stakeholder Meeting September 17, 2009 Wayne Harbaugh, Vice President, Pricing and Regulatory Services.
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.
Advanced Meter School August 18-20,2015 Time of Use and Load Profile Jeremiah Swann.
Pay-As-You-Go Final 2012 Report. Agenda PAYG Refresher Pilot Goals & Overview Voice of the Customer Front Office Impacts Back Office Impacts Financial.
Load Response Products from Constellation NewEnergy
Behavior Modification Report with Peak Reduction Component
Mike Mumper & Brian Kick Good afternoon
Smart meters and energy usage: a survey of energy behaviour among those who have had a smart meter, and those who have yet to get one April 2019.
Presentation transcript:

Customer Preferences for Metering and Connectivity Metering Americas 2004 San Diego, CA March 24-26, 2004 Lynn Fryer Stein Primen

2 Agenda  Study methodology  Participant characteristics  Notifications times and modes  Tools to encourage participation in DR  Conclusions

3 Quantitative Survey Method  Data collected between August 19 and September 10, 2004  All interviews conducted via telephone  Respondents included facility manager, building manager, operations manager and chief engineer  Average survey length was 24 minutes  Survey focused on four utility programs –Energy information –Innovative pricing –Demand response –Outage notification

4 Respondent Distribution All results were weighted to reflect actual population and avoid being skewed by over-sampling across segmentation categories Size of company Type of companyEstimated peak demand 

5 The Main Job of Customers is Not Energy How often do you attend to energy?

6 How Much Time Do You Spend on Energy? Percent

7 Customers and Utilities Don’t Speak the Same Language

8 Familiarity with Energy Terms We asked how familiar with the following terms:  Demand response  Interval meters  Load shapes  Peak demand  Kilowatt  Kilowatt hour Assigned score of 0-5

9 Primary Energy Concerns Facing Customers %

10 When Do Customers Want to Communicate?  When they “need” their utility  The most pressing need is outage notification –Out of 25 questions related to value of helpfulness of communication programs only two were rated at a “10” by a majority of respondents Notification of when power is to be restored (52%) Ability to retrieve estimate of power restoration (54%)  Value of other programs – pricing, demand response, energy information – limited to niche markets and smaller groups of customers

11 Outage Communications – Phone Calls Preferred

12 Non-outage Issues – One-way Communications Preferred  45% of customers prefer an , page or text message  Only 3% find such communication methods unacceptable  A utility employing a broadcast system that could send , page or text messages would meet the needs of 97% of the C&I population

13 Outages Are a Major Concern  56% of customers state avoiding downtime due to power outages is a major concern  However, lengthy power outages are rare: –58% experienced no more than two outages lasting < 5 minutes –71% experienced no more than two outages lasting > 5 minutes –28% experienced no power outages at all

14 Usefulness of Outage Notification Programs

15 Outage Notification – Additional Information

16 Little Interest in Demand Response Likelihood of participating in load curtailment Percent of time spent on energy Those who spend more time on energy are more likely to participate

17 What is Minimum Advance Notice You’d Need to Participate in Curtailment Program?

18 Preferred Communication Modes for Curtailment Notification

19 Tools to Aid Participation in DR Helpfulness of demand response tools There is less interest in post-event savings estimates (20% to 40%) among LES similar C&I states

20 Flexible Demand Response Communications Preferences for communication method by minimum advanced notice of curtailment period Minimum advance notice required for demand response by size

21 Automated Controls Need to Interface With Variety of Equipment With customer override, 30% of very large, 40% of large and 47% of mass market customers would allow utility to remotely control equipment

22 Exception Reporting and Benchmarking Valued

23 Preferences for Energy Consumption Data

24 The Frequency of Receiving Energy Information Impacts Technology Selection Customer preferences for method of receiving energy consumption data Preferred method of receiving information Preferred frequency for receiving data Mass (<150 kW) Large (150 kW kW) Very large (1500 kW) Monthly With monthly bill - 54% - 24% Website - 10% Fax - 12% With monthly bill - 42% - 32% Website - 19% Fax - 8% With monthly bill - 19% - 45% Website - 28% Fax - 7% Daily With monthly bill - 25% - 27%| Website - 29% Fax - 20% With monthly bill - 12% - 46% Website - 32% Fax - 10% - 42% Website - 58% Every 15-minutesN/A Website - 87% - 13% Note:This table shows customer preferences for the means of receiving energy consumption as a function of their preferences for how frequently to receive that information. Note that 25% of the mass market and 12% of the large segment indicate a preference with which no utility could comply — to receive information daily, but have it included with their monthly bill.

25 Larger Customers Can Tolerate Shorter Notice Time

26 Tools That Help with Pricing Customer communication preferences for innovative rates - services that would be helpful when participating in a variable pricing program % rating

27 Conclusions Customers really want to communicate with utility about outages  Energy information systems could share infrastructure with outage notification/management systems  Meter/machine to utility communications are transparent to customer Demand response and energy information are of interest to a small subset of customers  Controlling energy costs is a major concern  Most customers do not have tools to manage energy costs  Energy information and automated control would help customers participate in demand response programs

28 Discussion Lynn Fryer Stein x335