Upload
shamus
View
29
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
NSTAR Smart Energy Pilot Update. Presented to the MA DPU Grid Modernization Working Group May 22, 2013. Smart Grid Communications and Enabled Capabilities. This pilot is testing customer reaction to rates and near real-time information, comparing results from 4 treatment groups. 3. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
DISPUTES & INVESTIGATIONS • ECONOMICS • FINANCIAL ADVISORY • MANAGEMENT CONSULTING
NSTAR Smart Energy Pilot UpdatePresented to the MA DPU Grid Modernization Working Group
May 22, 2013
Smart Grid Communications and Enabled Capabilities
Page 2
Existing AMR meters allow “drive-by” meter reads
NSTAR is now intercepting the AMR signal and sending load data back to the utility using the internet
NSTAR can provide organized billing information back to the customer
DR events can also be called via broadband; and evaluated with the available customer data
3
This pilot is testing customer reaction to rates and near real-time information, comparing results from 4 treatment groups
3
Group Smart Thermostat / Direct Load Control
Target Number of Customers
1 Enhanced Information No 878
2 Peak Time Rebate 323
3 Time-of-Use (TOU) Rate plus Critical Peak Pricing (CPP)
309
4 No 917
Total 2,427
Access to Web Portal
•View and manage household energy consumption online
•Receive messages from NSTAR
•Analyze historical usage patterns
4
In Home Display
Programmable Thermostat
Internet Gateway / HAN
•Zigbee device
•Real-time power demand
•Billing period electricity consumption & cost
•Price of electricity
•Up to 4 programmable set points per day
•Controllable over the Internet via the Web Portal
•Critical Event management and control
•Home Area Network (HAN) to enable two-way communication between the customer and NSTAR
All Participant Groups Load Control
All participants received real-time information on usage and cost
1,594Currently Enrolled
3600Customers Enrolled
2,700Customers Installed
53,000Customer contacts
6.7% Response
25% Dropout prior to Install
40% Dropout after install
Challenging to convert “interest” to “install” and to sustain interest long- term
66
Peak Period Savings Up to 16% for TOU Rate
» TOU rate saved ~0.15 kW (summer afternoons and winter late afternoons/evenings)
» TOU savings: 10 -16% depending on customer loads» Non-TOU summer savings of ~4%
6
* Findings based on 9 months of data, may not be indicative of results at pilot end
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Group 1:Enhanced Info
Group 2:Rebate+LC
Group 3:TOU/CPP+LC
Group 4:TOU/CPP
Ave
rage
Loa
d R
educt
ion (k
W)
Average Impacts, 90% Confidence Interval
Summer
Winter
Load reductions during summer events vary with the rate and technology
» Load control reductions ~0.5kW during summer events (~20-25%)
» Predicted baseline usage closely matches actual loads
7
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Group 1:Enhanced Info
Group 2:Rebate+LC
Group 3:TOU/CPP+LC
Group 4:TOU/CPP
Ave
rage
Loa
d R
educt
ion (%
)
Average Impacts, 90% Confidence Interval
Customers generally report that they are satisfied but are not using technology in significant numbers
» According to our mid-point survey, the majority of participants have characterized their pilot experience as positive› 75% rated their experience as “somewhat positive” or “very positive”› TOU participants are more satisfied that non-TOU participants
» Customers in the TOU participant group have indicated that the in-home display has helpful
» Participants rarely if ever take advantage of the web-portal
Key findings to date
» Load and Energy Impacts› Load reductions of ~0.5 kW during summer events with load control› 10-16% peak reduction from TOU rates (control group difficult to match
without pre-pilot interval data)› Energy impacts (kWh) are modest (0-6%) but not statistically significant as
of the last analysis
» Technology Usage› Customers are not using technology in significant numbers› Newer pilots use mobile devices and push-messaging
» Participation › Significant drop out rate – even among a sample of relatively “engaged”
customers› May not work for all customers
U.S. Experience with Time Based Rates
Navigant interviewed 9 utilities to learn why pilots have or have not progressed to implementation
» Questions focused on…› Rate design and technologies offered› Reasons why the pilot was or wasn’t offered permanently› Customer enrollment and satisfaction› Regulator response to the rate› Type of metering used (AMI vs. AMR)
» Interviews were 20-60 minutes by phone» Utilities were selected that have recently ran time-based rate
pilots (TOU, CPP, VPP, PTR, RTP)
Page 11
Status of the 9 pilots vary
Page 12
Only pilots that demonstrate a strong business case and achieve stated goals move on to full rate deployment
Page 13
Pilots that moved forward
Pilot ResultsRationale for Decision to
Move ForwardDeployment Experience
(post-pilot)
• Large pilot participation
• Understanding of customer response to time-based rates
• BG&E customers preferred PTR rate options that provided higher benefits
• Strong regulatory support
• High participation rates in pilot
• CA utilities used pilot results to make the business case for AMI investments
• BG&E received ARRA grant for AMI deployment
• Future enrollment is uncertain– Commonwealth
Edison system-wide customer enrollment for the permanent program is 1% even though there was large pilot participation
Page 14
Pilots that have not gone forward
Pilot ResultsRationale for Decision to Not
Move Forward
• Understanding of customer response
• Communication technology proof-of-concept
• Customers seldom visited web portal
• Following initial enrollment for web portal, customers’ usage dropped off
• Understanding how customers used smart thermostats that were offered
• Ratepayer opposition• Customer enrollment and
engagement costs are high• Unattractive business case
Page 15
Only a few programs have achieved significant participation rates over the past decade
Page 16Data Source: FERC. Assessment of Demand Response & Advanced metering, 2006 report.
These are the 9 highest subscribed residential TOU programs in the US based on 2006 FERC data
Conclusions
» Cost-benefit analysis must demonstrate benefits to customers› Understand whether additional benefit is gained by installing AMI if
AMR is already in place» Complexity of rate design affects customer response and
satisfaction› Utility staff training is needed to support customers› Customer education is needed to enhance their response
» Customer engagement is a crucial element of successful time-based rate pilots
» Low enrollment during deployments suggests that high customer interest during pilot phases may be misleading
Page 17
Contact
Doug Horton
NSTAR
(781) [email protected]
Stuart Schare
Navigant
(303) [email protected]
Page 18
David Walls
Navigant
(781) [email protected]