1 / 11

DR issues in California discussed last year in March

DR issues in California discussed last year in March. Historical DR in California: some background issues Twenty years of programs/tariffs I/C and AC cycling (mostly) Loads in California Interruptible contracts for many years The Vision of DR in California Current MW “available” from DR

justus
Download Presentation

DR issues in California discussed last year in March

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. DR issues in California discussed last year in March • Historical DR in California: some background issues • Twenty years of programs/tariffs I/C and AC cycling (mostly) • Loads in California • Interruptible contracts for many years • The Vision of DR in California • Current MW “available” from DR • Efforts to promote DR • Various tariffs are available • CPUC seems inclined to make CPP mandatory for all customers this summer, excluding those on interruptible contracts • Statewide Pricing Pilot • Business Cases for Automated Metering Infrastructure • Filings on March 15 • Valuing DR in different time frames (long-term, day-ahead, real time, etc.)

  2. A year later • The attempt to implement price sensitive DR has moved more slowly than some would like • Rate Design and rate offerings in California • Large customers • DR funding • A settlement has been reached but not yet approved by CPUC • Advanced Metering Infrastructure continues thru the CPUC review process for PG&E • Standard method of evaluating DR cost effectiveness • Has been deferred to a different proceeding • An update of Standard Practices Manual • Demand Response Research Center • Programmable Communicating Thermostats – incorporating into California Building Standards in 2008 • Workshops currently underway • And relationship of all of this to Resource Adequacy Requirement at the CPUC

  3. DR Policy • Joint Proceeding – CEC and CPUC (R.02-06-001) • Peevey, Rosenfeld and McPeak • Working Group 2 > 200 kW • All have interval meters and TOU tariff • 26 MW on CPP tariff • Working Group 3, Residential and Small Commercial • 2,500 customers in a Statewide Pricing Pilot (SPP) • Utility Business Plans for Automated Meter Infrastructure • In preliminary filings, PG&E and Sempra appear favorable toward AMI; SCE disinclined • Early Goal for Price Sensitive Demand Response • ~ 1% per year = 5% 5 years after t=0

  4. Vision – Customer Choice • If economic, customers should have a choice of the following rates: • Residential and Small Commercial (< 200 kW) • Default: Critical Peak Pricing • Options: Time Of Use • Large Customers (200 kW to 1 MW) • Default: Critical Peak Pricing • Options: Time Of Use, Real Time Pricing • Very Large Customers (> 1 MW) • Default: Real Time Pricing • Options: Time Of Use, Critical Peak Pricing • Early Goal for Price Sensitive Demand Response • ~ 1% per year or ~ 4% of 45 GW or 1,800 MW by 2006

  5. Large Customers and Price Sensitive Demand • Demand Bidding and Critical Peak Pricing have been offered to all large customers for the last two summers • However, these are not very popular • ~ 30 MW for CPP • ~ 100 MW for Demand Bidding • The CPUC is considering making CPP the default tariff for large customers, possibly after the summer of 2006. A decision is expected within a month or two.

  6. DR funding levels and estimated enrollment • Settlement is before the CPUC • Sets three year funding levels for DR at: • PG&E $109 million • SCE $101 million • SDG&E $53 million • With expected enrollment by 2008 (based on utility filings) • PG&E 876 MW • SCE 1,911 MW • SDG&E 384 MW • Many different programs/tariffs • In 2006, about 1,800 MW of response will be available but most of this is not considered “price sensitive demand response” • The 5% goal likely will be reconsidered

  7. Advanced Metering Infrastructure • PG&E proposes to install new electronic meters with communication for all customers • CPUC in the process of reviewing this application • Hearings are on-going • Of specific interest might be: • Tariff structure (voluntary and a rider on existing tariffs) • Expected response to CPP tariff (enrollment and response) • How to value such response (avoided cost, value of combustion turbine) • SDG&E expected to file AMI application within a few months

  8. More Generally: CPUC and DR • By April 3, 2006, CPUC staff shall prepare a set of draft protocols for estimating load impacts from DR • coordinated with R.01-08-028, and R.04-04-003, • The draft should address whether the load impacts of all types of demand response programs (e.g., bidding programs, time-differentiated tariffs, reliability programs, interruptible tariffs) should be measured by the protocols. The draft protocols should include • a list of data that must be collected on energy use or customer load profiles, • program capital and operating costs, and incremental customer costs, including comfort changes or customer costs during curtailments. • Staff shall propose a rulemaking or recommend an alternative procedural approach for Commission consideration no later than six months after the draft protocols are circulated.

  9. Programmable Communicating Thermostats • Could respond in an automated manner to price or system emergency signals • For emergencies, response could not be overridden • With exceptions for certain customers • Current Thinking about the PCT • One PCT for all of CA (US) • Retail purchased at hardware stores • Consumer owned, installed, maintained • Common signaling throughout California • Works with any minimum AMI system • Signals synched with AMI resolution • Compatible with legacy technologies • However, at a recent workshop considerable concern was raised • Especially, regarding communication infrastructure • Either one or two way communication capabilities • Who controls the signal, be if either price or emergency

  10. Demand Response Research Center • 2 Research Opportunity Notices were issued and contracts let • Establish the Value of Demand Response • Develop an Integrated Efficiency / Demand Response Framework • Demand Response Rates and Program Design • Reports are in; some additional work forthcoming next month • http://drrc.lbl.gov/

  11. Resource Procurement and DR • CPUC will require all load serving entities to contract in advance to meet 115% to 117% of monthly peak load • DR can count if it meets certain requirements • Available for at least 48 hours during a summer • However, if a 2 hour response (possibly air conditioning cyclers) could only count to a maximum of 0.89% of monthly peak • Still figuring out who how to coordinate who determines when these are used (the CAISO or the load serving entity, for example) • Non-dispatchable DR simply reduces demand forecast • Some effort expected to develop a forward capacity market • Some debate about how the requirement will impact energy market prices

More Related