Maximizing the Value of Responsive Load

Electricity Journal

Volumn 25, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 6-16

  Cutter, Eric ^a   Woo, C K ^b   Kahrl, Fredrich ^a   Taylor, Andy ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c SHEFFIELD HALLAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867435066     PISSN: 10406190     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tej.2012.08.004     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Commonly used metrics include the planning reserve margin (PRM) to ensure that installed generation capacity exceeds forecasted peak loads by a given percentage (~15 percent), loss of load probability (LOLP) to ensure that the probability of load exceeding available generation in any given hour is below a given threshold (e.g., once in 10 years) and contingency criteria (e.g., N - 1) to ensure that the grid can continue reliable operations with the loss of a major generator or transmission line.
2. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Assessment of Demand Response and Advanced Metering Staff Report, Feb. 2011, at 33, at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/2010-dr-report.pdf.
3. Due to the economic slowdown, 2007 is the last year in which a high number of DR calls were made in California.
4. CAISO, 2011 Market Issues & Performance Annual Report, April 2012, at 48, at http://www.caiso.com/ Documents/2011AnnualReport- MarketIssues-Performance.pdf.
5. Peter Cappers et al., Demand Response in U.S. Electricity Markets: Empirical Evidence, 35 ENERGY 1526- 1535 (2010), at http://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0360544209002461.
6. Christensen Associates. 2010 Load Impact Evaluation of California Statewide Demand Bidding Programs, for Non- Residential Customers: Ex Post and Ex Ante Report, CALMAC Study ID SCE0298.01, Mar. 2011, at 18, at http://www.calmac.org/publications/PY10_DBP_Ex_Post_Ex_Ante_Report_Final.pdf.
7. Freeman, Sullivan & Co., 2010 California Statewide Non-Residential Critical Peak Pricing Evaluation, CALMC Study ID SCE0297, April 2011, at 6, at http://www.calmac.org/publications/2010_California_Non_Residential_CPP_Evaluation_-_FINAL.pdf.
8. Rahul Walawalkar et al., Evolution and Current Status of Demand Response (DR) in Electricity Markets: Insights from PJM and NYISO, 35 ENERGY 1553-1560 (2010), at http:// linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0360544209004034.
9. Peter Cappers et al., supra note 5.
10. The distinction between emergency DR and economic DR is blurred when the trigger is based on energy prices or when the utility initiates a curtailment event by sending an administratively determined price signal.
11. Because utility loss of load probability(LOLP) studyresults are not widely available, we use system loads as an imperfect but reasonable proxy indicator of when capacity resources are needed, as there is usually a fair degree of overlap between hours of peak system load and high LOLP.
12. M. King et al., Customer Sovereignty: Why Customer Choice Trumps Administrative Capacity Mechanisms, ELEC. J., Jan./Feb. 2007, at 38-52, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2006.12.002.
13. C. Woo, Managing Electricity Procurement Cost and Risk by a Local Distribution Company, ENERGY POLICY, 32(5) (2004), at 635-645, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02) 00317-8.
14. Jay Zarnikau and Ian Hallett, Aggregate Industrial Energy Consumer Response to Wholesale Prices in the Restructured Texas Electricity Market, 30 ENERGY ECON, at 1798-1808 (2008), at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2007.11.003.
15. Nicole Hopper et al., Customer Response to Day-Ahead Market Hourly Pricing: Choices and Performance, 14 UTIL. POLICY 126-134 (2006), at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2005.10.001.
16. Ahmad Faruqui et al., Fostering Economic Demand Response in the Midwest ISO, 35 ENERGY 1544-1552 (2010), at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.09.014.
17. Ahmad Faruqui, Ryan Hledik and Sanem Sergici, Rethinking Prices, 148 PUB. UTIL. FORTNIGHTLY 31-39 (2010), at http://www.fortnightly.com/uploads/01012010_RethinkingPrices.pdf.
18. Katie Coughlin et al., Estimating Demand Response Load Impacts: Evaluation of Baseline Load Models for Non-Residential Buildings in California. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory-Demand Response Research Center, Jan. 2008, LBNL- 63728, at 23, at http://eetd.lbl.gov/ ea/EMS/EMS_pubs.html.
19. Monitoring Analytics, State of the Market Report for PJM, 2 Analysis (2010), at 25.
20. Jay W. Zarnikau, Demand Participation in the Restructured Electric Reliability Council of Texas Market, 35 ENERGY 1536-1543 (2010), at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009. 03.018. (Note: In 2011 ERCOT proposed removing the 50 percent limit. The proposal is undergoing stakeholder review.)
21. Jin-Ho Kim and Anastasia Shcherbakova, Common Failures of Demand Response, 36 ENERGY 873-880 (2011), at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.energy.2010.12.027.
22. Reza Dashti and Saeed Afsharnia, Demand Response Regulation Modeling Based on Distribution System Asset Efficiency, 81 ELEC. POWER SYS. RES. 667- 676 (2011), at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.epsr.2010.10.031.
23. Robert Borlick, Paying for Demand- Side Response at the Wholesale Level: The Small Consumers' Perspective, ELEC. J., Nov. 2011, at 8-19, at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2011.10.012.
24. Jonathan Falk and Michael B. Rosenzweig, in letters exchange, ELEC. J., Jan./Feb. 2012.
25. Robert Borlick, Joseph Bowring and James Bushnell, 29 Motion of Robert Borlick, Joseph Bowring, James Bushnell, and 18 Other Leading Economics for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Petitioners (2012), at http://www.hks.harvard.
26. Robert Borlick, Joseph Bowring and James Bushnell, 29 Motion of Robert Borlick, Joseph Bowring, James Bushnell, and 18 Other Leading Economics for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Petitioners (2012), at http://www.hks.harvard.
27. FERC, Assessment of Demand Response and Advanced Metering, Nov. 2011, at 13, at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/11-07-11-demand-response.pdf.
28. See FERC Docket No. ER11-3322- 00 on Alternative DR Transition Credit for Curtailment Service Providers (CSPs) for PJM.
29. http://pjm.com/~/media/about-pjm/newsroom/2011-releases/20111122-news-release-dr-firmsparticipate-regulation-service.ashx and http://pjm.com/~/media/about-pjm/newsroom/2011-releases/20111122-news-release-dr-firmsparticipate-regulation-service.ashx.
30. Naveen Venkatesan, Jignesh Solanki and Sarika Khushalani Solanki, Residential Demand Response Model and Impact on Voltage Profile and Losses of an Electric Distribution Network, APPLIED ENERGY (2012), at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.apenergy.2011.12.076.
31. Energy and Environmental Economics, Technical Potential for Local Distributed Photovoltaics in California (2012), at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/ NR/rdonlyres/8A822C08-A56C- 4674-A5D2-099E48B41160/0/ LDPVPotentialReportMarch2012.pdf.
32. Paul Wade and Brunner Conrad, Energy-Efficiency Policy Opportunities for Electric Motor- Driven Systems (2011), at http://www.iea.org/papers/2011/EE_for_ElectricSystems.pdf.
33. CAISO, 2010 Market Issues & Performance Annual Report (2011).
34. Itron, Assistance in Updating the Energy Efficiency Savings Goals for 2012 and Beyond Task A4, 1 Final Report: Scenario Analysis to Support Updates to the CPUC Savings Goals Main (2007), at 37, at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D72B6523-FC10-4964-AFE3-A4B83009E8AB/0/GoalsUpdateReport.pdf.
35. Itron, 2006-2008 Evaluation Report for PG&E Fabrication, Process and Manufacturing Contract Group. Feb. 2010. CALMAC Study ID: CPU0017.01, at http://www. calmac.org/publications/ PG&E_Fab_06-08_Eval_Final_ Report.pdf.
36. Itron, 2006-2008 Evaluation Report for the Southern California Industrial and Agricultural Contract Group. Feb. 2010, CALMAC Study ID: CPU0018.01, at http://www.calmac.org/publications/SCIA_06-08_Eval_ Final_Report.pdf.