1. Automated Demand Response Project History and Future Directions Presentation to the California Maritime Academy Mary Ann Piette Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Sponsored by CEC, PG&E, DOE, and SDG&E May 2, 2007 drrc.lbl.gov

2. Presentation Overview DR Research Center Executive Summary on Automated Demand Response Key Results, Participants and Strategies for DR Evaluation Methods and Technology Economics 2007 AutoDR Utility Program Plans Future Directions

3. Objective Scope Method Stakeholders to develop, prioritize, conduct, and disseminate multi-institutional research to facilitate DR technologies, policies, programs, strategies and practices, emphasizing a market connection Partners Planning Committee, Annual R&D Plan  State Policy Makers  Researchers  Information and Metering System Developers  Aggregators  Program Implementers  Utilities  Industry Trade Associations  Building Owners / Operators  Building Equipment Manufacturers  End-Use customers DR Research Center

4. Current /Recent Projects Strategic and Policy Research Rate Design for Capturing Energy Efficiency and Demand Response DR Value Research DR Systems Integration AutoDR Demand Response Automation Server (DRAS) Statewide IOU/ISO Automated Demand Response Collaboration Behavior and DR for residential and small commercial customers Buildings Wireless Demand Response Controller for HVAC Demand Response Strategy Assessment Tools Demand Shifting with Thermal Mass Advanced Demand Response Lighting Residential Thermostats Industrial, Agriculture and Water Commercial and Industrial Submetering for Demand Response Monitoring DR Economic Tools

5. AutoDR Project Background Goals Develop a low-cost, fully automated infrastructure to improve DR capability in California Evaluate “readiness” of (commercial) buildings and industrial facilities to receive common signals Evaluate capability of control shed strategies and measurement of sheds to improve future buildings

6. AutoDR Executive Summary AutoDR Technology Concept – “OpenADR” Open, two-way, interoperable industry standard for automating DR Repeatable, reliable, secure, low-cost economic or reliability DR Internet based real-time link to energy management systems Demonstrated in 40 buildings over 4-year period, under commercialization by all three IOUs for 2007 High reliability for Auto-CPP, continued through 2006 heat wave Average peak reductions of 10 to 15% (3 to 6 hour events) Greater potential for shorter events Challenges with CPP Economics Low bill savings (less than 1%, avg 3 cents/ft 2 ) Technical Potential ~1 GW - Economic Demand Response 5 GW - Reliability Demand Response

7. AutoDR Background and Definition Goals Develop low-cost, fully automated infrastructure to improve DR capability Evaluate “readiness” of (commercial) buildings to receive common signals Evaluate capability of control shed strategies Definition Automated Demand Response can be defined as fully automated DR initiated by a signal from a utility or other appropriate entity to provide full automated connectivity to customer end-use control strategies. Signaling – The AutoDR technology should provide continuous, secure, reliable, two-way communication with end-use customers to allow sites to be identified as listening and acknowledging receipt of signals. Industry Standards - Automated DR consists of open, interoperable industry standard control and communications technologies designed to integrate with both common energy management systems and other end-use devices that can receive a dry contact relay or similar signals (such as internet based XML). Timing of Notification - Day ahead and day of signals are provided by AutoDR technologies to facilitate a diverse set of end-use strategies such as pre-cooling for "day ahead“ notification, or near real-time communications to automation "day of" control strategies. Timing of DR automation server (DRAS) communications must consider day ahead events that include weekends and holidays.

8. Sample Results from 2006 130,000 ft 2 County Office

9. Aggregated Results – June 26, Avg Max Temp 88 F, Zone 2 OAT and CPP Baselines show different results 1.3 MW reduction during high price period

12. 2006 Auto-CPP Participants (n=24) Wide variety of building types

13. Auto-CPP Control Strategies Global temperature reset migrating to Title 24 code

14. Evaluation Methodology Two baselines evaluated Outside Air Temperature Regression - Based on morning load (kW), outside air temperature, and 10 previous weekdays plus morning adjustment CPP - on morning load (kW), outside air temperature, and 10 previous weekdays Individual, site specific daily and group aggregated impact Post-event survey of “acceptability and problems” Technology and communications performance Customer bill impact

15. Variation of Results and Comparison with CPP Baseline -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 ACWD B of A Chabot 2530 Arnold 50 Douglas MDF Echelon Gilead 300Gilead 342Gilead 357 IKEA EPaloAlto Oracle Rocklin Target Hayward Average demand savings for 6 hrs. (kW) kW savings with CPP baselinekW savings with OAT Baseline Average of site 6 hr. average savings OAT Baseline: 949 kW (11%) CPP Baseline: 367 kW (6%) Key Finding - CPP about 1/3 of OAT Baseline

16. CPP Economics 11 or 13 saved $ under CPP

17. AutoDR Technical Potential Total Commercial Space 4,920,000 kft 2 (5 Billion) Commercial Area 1/3 rd have Energy Management Systems Avg reduction over 40 sites – 0.5 W/ft 2 Technical Potential: 0.8 GW Value $40/kW  $33,000,000 Higher value for reliability, environmental externalities, energy savings spill over

18. 2007 AutoDR PG&E Program  Follows plan outlined by PG&E in 8/30/06 letter to CPUC (pp 27-29) and CPUC decision 11/30/06  Program Developed with Global Energy Partners (GEP)  Program implementation expenditure of $2 million (derived from existing PG&E TA/TI funds)  Peak demand reduction of 15 MW  Commercialization of AutoDR program delivery  DR program focus for 2007 includes Critical Peak Pricing (CPP) and Demand Bidding (DBP), with other reliability programs assessed for future years

19. SDG&E and SCE AutoDR San Diego Gas and Electric Co. Under Emerging Technologies LBNL/DRRC demonstration with retail chains Offering AutoDR programs under DR programs Goals still under development In discussion with Akuacom to host DRAS internally Southern California Edison Prime contract with GEP moving forward Sub to LBNL, Akua and C&C Controls 10 to 20 sites for 2007-2008 All previous DR audit sites Currently there are 200 Assessment of CPP economics underway No recruiting bonus or direct payment to sites Therefore customer economic motivation limited

20.  Ideal start - good commissioning, retro-commissioning, advanced/new controls  HVAC - Direct digital control (DDC) global temperature adjustment In process for Title 24 2008 Closed loop  Lighting Continuum - Zone Switching, Fixture Switching, Lamp Switching, Stepped Dimming, Continuous Dimming  Maybe you “can” use a strategy every day? Linking DR and Energy Efficiency

21. Future Directions Deployment Pursue OpenADR as standard for all DR programs Collaborate with ISO to implement the ISO-Utility link Educate controls vendors Research Pursue full RTP design Embed in controls – consider for Title 24 2011 Pursue small buildings and larger industrial sites Improve building technologies, e.g., dimming systems Improve tools to estimate kW savings Improve economic feedback