1 / 9

Cost-Effectiveness Valuation Framework for Demand Response Resources: Guidelines and Suggestions

Cost-Effectiveness Valuation Framework for Demand Response Resources: Guidelines and Suggestions. Chuck Goldman Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory cagoldman@lbl.gov Pacific Northwest Demand Response Project Portland OR January 30, 2008. Purposes of C/E Valuation Framework.

vinnie
Download Presentation

Cost-Effectiveness Valuation Framework for Demand Response Resources: Guidelines and Suggestions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Cost-Effectiveness Valuation Framework for Demand Response Resources: Guidelines and Suggestions Chuck Goldman Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory cagoldman@lbl.gov Pacific Northwest Demand Response Project Portland OR January 30, 2008

  2. Purposes of C/E Valuation Framework • Propose workable methods for state PUC and utilities to value benefits & Costs of different types of DR resources • Use for ex ante screening of DR programs for C/E • Evaluate DR portfolio in utility resource plan • Document value of DR for ratesetting purposes

  3. Guidelines and Principles • Treat DR Resources on par with supply-side resources • Distinguish among DR programs based on purpose, response time, dispatchability, & certainty of load response • Account explicitly for all potential benefits • Incorporate temporal and locational benefits of DR programs • Include all DR program & participant costs • Standard Practice Manual provides starting place to compare and screen different DR programs • Role and primacy of TRC or societal test? • Conduct DR pilots to assess market readiness, customer barriers and performance • Focus on “non-firm” DR resources (pricing) to identify resource value

  4. DR Resources: Benefits & Costs BENEFITS • Avoided Generation Capacity Costs • Avoided Energy Costs • Avoid or Defer Investments in T&D System Capacity • Environmental Benefits • Reliability Benefits COSTS • Program Administration Costs • Customer Costs • Incentive Payments to participating customers

  5. Benefits: Avoided Generation Capacity Costs • New CT as benchmark proxy for market value of capacity avoided by DR resources ($50-85/kW-year) • Allocate avoided capacity costs to specific time periods appropriate for Pac NW • Linked to relative need for generation capacity in each hour (e.g. LOLE) • Adjusted upward for avoided T&D losses and reserve margin • Adjusted “downward” to include DR program operational constraints compared to use of CT • Is this approach reasonable to derive value for DR program screening?

  6. Benefits: Avoided Energy Costs • Load shifting or curtailments enable utilities to avoid energy costs • Expected wholesale market elect. price in each future time period is relevant opportunity cost for estimating value of elect. avoided by DR resource • BUT DR program events likely to be called in hours when prices are higher than expected • Need to address uncertainty in future loads, prices, hydro conditions in examining value of DR resources

  7. Benefits: Avoid or Defer T&D System Capacity • Key Elements of T&D System: Interties, Local Network Transmission, Local Distribution System • If DR resources can provide highly predictable load reductions on short notice in congested locations, then may be able to defer T&D investments • Need geographically specific T&D studies of DR market potential • Suggestion: Determine on a case-by-case basis

  8. Benefits: Environmental & Reliability • Environmental • DR resources may avoid emissions from peaking generation units and some potential conservation effects • Depends on emissions profile of utility generation mix and customer’s DR strategy (e.g. shifting, curtailment, onsite generation) • Reliability • Joint consideration of econmic and reliability benefits is challenging • Customers participating in a voluntary “emergency” program may not be counted on as system resource • Reasonable proxy for monetizing value of load curtailments is VOLL ($3-5/kWh) * Expected Unserved Energy

  9. Discussion • Are existing policies in the Pac NW for assessing/valuing DR resources adequate? • Are cost-effectiveness and valuation guidelines useful for screening of DR Resources? • Relationship between screening methods vs. analysis of value of DR as part of portfolio analysis in IRP process? • Areas of agreement and concern with proposed guidelines and screening?

More Related