1 / 6

DSWG Update to WMS

DSWG Update to WMS. August 16, 2006. Vote to Reaffirm DSWG Chair and Affirm Vice Chair. Votes Needed: Vote to reaffirm Mary Anne Brelinsky as Chair of DSWG due to company change Now employed by Mpower (REP/QSE) Vote to affirm Nelson Nease as Vice Chair of DSWG to replace prior Vice Chair

vilina
Download Presentation

DSWG Update to WMS

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. DSWG Update to WMS August 16, 2006

  2. Vote to Reaffirm DSWG Chair and Affirm Vice Chair Votes Needed: • Vote to reaffirm Mary Anne Brelinsky as Chair of DSWG due to company change • Now employed by Mpower (REP/QSE) • Vote to affirm Nelson Nease as Vice Chair of DSWG to replace prior Vice Chair • Represents Nucor Steel

  3. Next DSWG Meeting Scheduled for September 8th Items already identified for September meeting: • Load Participation Update (Krein) • Nodal Update (Patterson) • Demand Response Survey preparation (Brelinsky) • Overview of PJM Demand Response Opportunities • Demand Response Programs in the Competitive Electric Market; PUC project number is 32853 (PUC) • Brainstorming Session for Demand Response Possibilities: Stage 2

  4. Load Participation and Price Responsiveness DSWG was asked to quantify how much load responded during the April 17th event: • April 17th Event Facts for Load Price Responsiveness: • 1,150 MWs of Load committed to sell Responsive Reserve on April 17th • Over 1,300 MWs of Load was manually shed by LaaR • MCPE did not post above $599 for any interval and was later adjusted downward • Event was unexpected and public appeal for curtailments was delayed • There is no systematic way to determine how much non LaaR load responded to price at either the ERCOT or the QSE level • Interviewed multiple REPs, brokers, and consultants who shared similar responses for the lack of Price Responsive load participation on April 17th: • Magnitude and duration of prices did not warrant the shut down of commercial facilities • Expectation that high prices would not “stick” • Few QSE/REPs have communication chains in place to quickly/effectively notify loads • We believe that 100 – 500 MWs of non-LaaR load may have responded to price

  5. April 17th MCPE

  6. Demand Response Survey • ERCOT has offered to administer a Demand Response Survey • DSWG to finalize questions for the survey at next meeting (Sept 8) • Input from Market Participants will be confidential • Sample questions include: • Are REPs currently offering price response programs? To which customer segments? If not, why not? • To what extend will the nodal market change Price Response programs that are in use today, or that might be envisioned? • Is the cost of IDR metering a significant barrier to price response programs? To which segments? Is it the same across all TDSPs or is it a bigger problem at some than at others? • What types of incentives are required in order to entice a customer to formally disclose its plans to curtail at certain price levels to the market (as opposed to simply voluntarily or passively responding to price signals)?

More Related