Upload
e-source-companies-llc
View
2.764
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
www.esource.com
Hot or Not
DLC Program Benchmarks: How Do
You Compare?
Jonathan Nelson
Research Analyst, E Source
Advanced Load Control Alliance-Spring 2012
Meeting
Thursday, April 5th, 2012
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source
Agenda
Overview and Preface
DLC Survey Results and Analysis
Musings on the Future of DLC
2
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 3
Who is E Source
Mission Statement: To advance the efficient and
environmentally sound use and provision of energy.
Membership-based energy advisory service
Utilities are our focus
Unbiased research and analysis
Fuel-neutral
Product-neutral
Vendor-neutral
Program-neutral
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 4
2011 Heat Wave Rolls Across the U.S.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 5
RTO
Peak demand
(MW) Date
MISO 103,975 July 20, 2011
PJM 158,450 July 21, 2011
ERCOT 68,379 August 3, 2011
Background: 2011 Regional Demand
Records
© E Source; data from ERCOT, MISO, PJM
July New electricity demand records:
ERCOT, MISO, and PJM
Economic and emergency DR events
initiated in Mid-Atlantic (e.g. BGE)
NYISO and ISO-NE just barely missed
their records.
August Lingering heat in southern states
ERCOT sets another record
Two DR events on the shoulders of the
month (August 4 and 24)
Dallas news headline: ERCOT warns
of ‘high probability’ of rolling blackouts
as heat wave strains power grid
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 6
DLC Member Inquiries
What kind of baselines
are used in direct-load
control programs?
What vendors deliver and
manage DLC programs?
What’s the mix between 1-way
and 2-way communicating
technologies for DLC?
What kind of incentives do
utilities give to customers
participating in DLC programs?
What are typical participation
rates for DLC programs?
Can you provide attrition rates
from other DLC programs?
What roles do enabling
technology and utility DLC
programs play in dynamic
pricing?
What are some typical figures
for load per customer in other
utility DLC programs?
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 7
2012 DLC Benchmarking Effort
Industry-wide
benchmarking analysis of
DLC programs
Source to inform utilities on
trends in technology, DLC
program design and
performance
Current sample includes data
from 23 utilities
Data includes:
Participation
Load impacts
Incentives
Technologies
Vendors
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 8
Participation
Source: E Source
3,800
7,100
11,199
25,500
27,600
32,000
32,177
35,146
37,000
41,433
46,400
48,000
51,000
63,129
71,000
73,000
104,921
123,000
138,700
149,000
164,950
375,000
819,500
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000
Roseville Electric - City of Roseville
Hoosier Energy
KCP&L-Greater Missouri Operations
Wisconsin Public Service
Vectren Energy
SMECO
PNM
Dominion
Idaho Power
KCP&L
Dakota Electric Association
Alliant Energy
Duke Energy (IN)
MidAmerican Energy
Progress Energy Carolinas
Commonwealth Edison
Rocky Mountain Power
Duke Energy (NC)
Louisville Gas and Electric
Xcel Energy (CO)
Pacific Gas and Electric
Xcel Energy (MN)
Florida Power and Light
Current Total Participants
Current Total Participants (Res and SB)
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 9
Participation Rates
Source: E Source
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
Pa
rtic
ipa
tio
n R
ate
To
tal R
es
ide
nti
al C
usto
me
rs
Residential Participation Rates
Total Residential Customers Residential Participation Rate
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 10
Participation Rates
Source: E Source
Xcel Energy (MN)
PNM Pacific Gas and Electric
Louisville Gas and Electric
Florida Power and Light
Vectren Energy
Dakota Electric
Association
Eligible SB Customers 200,000 49,437 450,000 100,000 330,000 20,000 5,000
SB Participation Rate 7% 6% 1% 5% 6% 3% 28%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
Part
icip
ati
on
Rate
Elig
ible
Sm
all B
usin
ess C
usto
mers
Small Business Participation Rates
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 11
Participation Rates by Program Age
Source: E Source
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Part
icip
ati
on
Rate
Pro
gra
m A
ge
Residential Participation vs. Program Age
Program Age (years) Residential Participation Rate Linear (Residential Participation Rate)
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 12
Incentives
Source: E Source
Non-Cash Incentive 9%
Yearly incentive 39%
Monthly Bill Credit 39%
One-time Enrollment Incentive
9%
Monthly Bill Discount 4%
Distribution of Incentive Methods
n = 23
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 13
Does Incentive Type Impact Participation
Rates?
Utility Incentive Type Residential
Participation Rate
Louisville Gas and Electric monthly bill credit 17.4% Idaho Power monthly bill credit 9.4%
Commonwealth Edison monthly bill credit 2.1% Alliant Energy monthly bill credit 11.8%
Hoosier Energy monthly bill credit 2.6% Vectren Energy monthly bill credit 21.1%
Dakota Electric Association monthly bill credit 48.0% Duke Energy (NC) monthly bill credit 7.8%
Wisconsin Public Service monthly bill credit 6.7% Xcel Energy (MN) monthly bill discount 33.2%
KCP&L no cash incentives 9.2% KCP&L-Greater Missouri Operations no cash incentives 4.1%
Pacific Gas and Electric onetime enrollment incentive 3.5% Duke Energy (IN) onetime enrollment incentive 7.5% Xcel Energy (CO) yearly 12.9%
Rocky Mountain Power yearly 14.9% PNM yearly 6.5%
Progress Energy Carolinas yearly 6.6% Florida Power and Light yearly 20.0%
Dominion yearly 1.7% Roseville Electric yearly 8.1%
MidAmerican Energy yearly 11.5% SMECO yearly 23.5%
Source: E Source
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 14
Do Incentives Impact Participation?
Source: E Source
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
Com
monw
ealth E
dis
on
Louis
vill
e G
as a
nd E
lectr
ic
Vectr
en E
nerg
y
Idaho P
ow
er
Alli
ant
Energ
y
Duke E
nerg
y (N
C)
Hoosie
r E
nerg
y
Wis
consin
Public
Serv
ice
Dakota
Ele
ctr
ic A
ssocia
tion
Rosevill
e E
lectr
ic -
City o
f R
osevill
e
Rocky M
ounta
in P
ow
er
Flo
rida P
ow
er
and L
ight
PN
M
Pro
gre
ss E
nerg
y C
aro
linas
Mid
Am
erican E
nerg
y
Dom
inio
n
Xcel E
nerg
y (C
O)
SM
EC
O
Monthly Bill Credit Yearly Incentive
Pen
etr
ati
on
Rate
Incentive amount probably doesn't matter so much!
Incentive Amount Residential Participation Rate (entire territory)
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 15
Participation Rates
Take Away: One size doesn’t fit all
Program participation rates depend on various factors
that are defined by individual utility needs and strategic
planning
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 16
Load Impacts: Overall Program
Source: E Source
4
9
11
25
32
35
36
36
37
39
47
67
90
112
138
150
152
175
395
999
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Roseville Electric
Hoosier Energy
KCP&L-Greater Missouri …
Vectren Energy
Wisconsin Public Service
Dominion
KCP&L
Alliant Energy
SMECO
PNM
Idaho Power
MidAmerican Energy
Progress Energy Carolinas
Commonwealth Edison
Pacific Gas and Electric
Xcel Energy (CO)
Louisville Gas and Electric
Duke Energy (NC)
Xcel Energy (MN)
Florida Power and Light
MW Controlled
Total Available Capacity (MW)
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 17
Load Impacts: kW per Participant
Source: E Source
1.11
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
kW
Co
ntr
olle
d
Utility
kW Controlled/Program Participant
kW per Participant Average
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 18
Marketing DLC Programs
Basic is the mainstay
Direct-mail and email are the most cost-effective
Nearly as effective as traditional options (TV, print, radio,
telemarketing)
Value Propositions that Motivate Customers
Cash
Convenience
Ease of participation
Serving the collective good
Segmentation Matters
Different customer segments are motivated by different
messages Source: E Source
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 19
Marketing and New Participants
Source: E Source
Alliant Energy
Roseville
Electric
Commonwealth Edison
MidAmerican
Energy
Florida Power
and Light
SMECO Idaho Power
Louisville Gas and
Electric
Pacific Gas and
Electric
Dominion
Xcel Energy (CO)
Progress
Energy Carolina
s
Marketing Spending Last Year $15,000 $17,000 $30,000 $36,202 $43,916 $66,000 $184,680 $762,000 $1,319,4 $1,320,0 $1,770,0 $1,800,0
New Participants 1,200 300 5,000 574 8,163 13,312 6,156 20,140 17,057 24,890 19,000 32,000
(5,000)
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
$2,000,000
Ne
w P
art
icip
an
ts
Ma
rke
tin
g S
pe
nd
ing
Marketing Spending & New Participants
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 20
DLC Vendors
Source: E Source
*Some programs use more than one
Technology Vendor Utilities Using Vendor*
Cooper 13
Comverge 9
Honeywell 3
Aclara 3
Entek 1
Gridpoint 1
Tantalus 1
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 21
How Advanced Are They?
Utility Real-time participation
verification? Web-enabled remote
programming of devices? KCP&L no yes
KCP&L-Greater Missouri Operations no yes Xcel Energy (CO) no no Xcel Energy (MN) no no
Rocky Mountain Power no no PNM no no
Progress Energy Carolinas no no Pacific Gas and Electric no yes
Louisville Gas and Electric no no Idaho Power no no
Florida Power and Light yes, via power-line carrier no Dominion no no
Commonwealth Edison yes, via customer's meter yes Alliant Energy no no
Hoosier Energy yes, via power-line carrier no Roseville Electric no no Vectren Energy no no
Dakota Electric Association no no Duke Energy (NC) no no
MidAmerican Energy no no Duke Energy (IN) no no
Wisconsin Public Service no no SMECO no no
Source: E Source
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 22
What About Dynamic Pricing?
Source: E Source
Utility Customers can participate in
dynamic pricing?
What kind of dynamic pricing
program?
KCP&L yes TOU
KCP&L-Greater Missouri Operations yes TOU
Pacific Gas and Electric yes CPP, PTR
Commonwealth Edison yes HP
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 24
Where Do We Go From Here?
Most programs are still legacy programs
Old technology + limited functionality = limited options
New opportunities for DLC
FERC Order 745: DR can compete with supply side
resources in electricity markets – PJM first to comply
(4/2/2012)
Ancillary Services: Non-Spinning and Spinning Reserves,
Frequency Regulation (FERC Order 755)
Requires more advanced programs and technology
Rather than just shaving the peaks, DLC can be a robust
tool to meet routine demand needs.
What needs to happen to get us there?
www.esource.com || © 2012 E Source 25
For More Information
Jonathan Nelson
Research Analyst, Research, E Source
303-345-9164 [email protected]
Have a question? Ask our experts: www.esource.com/question