Navigant Research Blog

Distributed Energy Resources Hit the Auction Blocks in California and New York

— August 30, 2016

Cyber Security MonitoringAs we head into the fall fantasy football season, this summer has been good practice for those in the distributed energy resource (DER) world to value their portfolios and bid into auctions to provide their services. In both California and New York, utilities recently held auctions to procure DER to address electric grid needs. Although the outcomes are similar, the methodologies to get there were quite different.

First, California’s investor-owned utilities—Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDGE)—ran the second edition of the state’s Demand Response Auction Mechanism (DRAM). Since the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) does not have a capacity market, the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) ordered the utilities to offer DRAM as a way to incentivize DER to provide similar product characteristics to capacity. In total, the utilities procured almost 82 MW, about 4 times the minimum requirement of 22 MW. However, a group of bidders is currently petitioning the CPUC, arguing that the utilities could have procured even more resources within their budgets.

New York took the spotlight in the form of Consolidated Edison’s (ConEd’s) Brooklyn Queens Demand Management (BQDM) auctions in July. Unlike DRAM, which is concentrated on statewide capacity issues, BQDM is a focused effort to relieve distribution constraints in a targeted area of high load growth. While final results are not yet public, initial information from ConEd states that 22 MW of resources were procured for 2018 from 10 bidders, with clearing prices ranging from $215/kW/year to $988/kW/year. These prices are much higher than ConEd’s existing demand response programs, which pay in the area of $90/kW/year, and the New York Independent System Operator’s (NYISO) capacity market, which offers around $130/kW/year in ConEd’s territory.

Different Mechanisms

There are some notable differences between the DRAM and BQDM mechanisms. First, DRAM has one product with a standard set of requirements that all bidders must meet and compete against. BQDM has two separate product types that bidders must choose to offer, one for the 4-8 p.m. time period and another for the 8 p.m.-12 a.m. period. These 4-hour blocks were created to allow energy storage devices with 4-hour charging capacities to participate.

Another major difference is the auction process itself. DRAM is a pay-as-you-bid format, where bidders submit their offers by a deadline and then the utilities review them and select the least-cost combination of bids, with each bidder receiving its submitted price. BQDM, on the other hand, is a live, descending clock auction, in which bidders log into an auction platform at a given time and can submit bids as prices are displayed. The price keeps decreasing until the auction reaches its desired number of megawatts. Then all remaining bidders receive that uniform clearing price, even if they would have bid lower than that price. The pay-as-you-bid versus uniform clearing price debate is a classic economic debate that has raged for years.

As usual, there are multiple paths that can achieve similar goals. Best practices and lessons learned will be observed with experience—but I doubt if California and New York will ever admit that the other did something better.


National Town Meeting on Demand Response Confronts Key Industry Issues

— August 3, 2016

Power PlantIn the heat of the summer demand response (DR) season, industry thought leaders met in Washington, D.C. for the 13th annual National Town Meeting on Demand Response and Smart Grid. This was the first year that the Smart Electric Power Alliance (SEPA) took over responsibility for the event since subsuming the Association of Demand Response and Smart Grid. The transition appeared to be smooth, as the program included all of the successful ingredients from the past town meetings.

The event kicked off with a greeting from Julia Hamm, the president of SEPA, who expressed her excitement at being involved. She moderated a panel of industry experts on SEPA’s 51st State Initiative, which is intended to envision an ideal state regulatory and market structure for clean energy starting from a clean slate. That session was followed by an intimate discussion with Phil Moeller, former commissioner at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and current senior vice president at the Edison Electric Institute. Phil opined on many industry issues, including the FERC Order 745 saga, about which he said that FERC jurisdiction was just a distraction from the more relevant concern about DR compensation levels.

Changing Utility Landscape

Next, a group of state public utility commissioners (PUCs) from across the country provided thoughts on the changing landscape in the energy industry and what it means for regulators. Willie Phillips, Commissioner on the Washington, D.C. PUC, noted three P’s that should be the focus: policy, prices, and people. He also commented that industry restructuring promotes competition and competition promotes innovation. Utility executives had an opportunity to respond on their own panel and talk about new business models and revenue drivers. Paul Lau, Chief Grid Strategy Officer for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), highlighted that SMUD’s peak load occurred 10 years ago and has been flat or declining since then, a trend that is affecting many utilities.

The second day of the conference was broken into three distinct tracks reflecting the diversity and broad scope that DR and smart grid are touching upon. The Grid Integration track covered technology trends such as distributed energy resource management systems, solar and storage partnerships, microgrids, automated DR, and electric vehicle integration. The Emerging Models and Markets track included panels on time varying rates, cost-benefit analysis for grid modernization, policy and regulatory evolution, the future of regional transmission organization markets, and distribution planning tools. Finally, the Consumer Engagement track looked at modernizing communications and outreach, advanced customer engagement, consumer-driven technology adoption, data analytics for customer engagement, and innovative commercial and industrial DR programs.

The breadth of this year’s National Town Meeting represents the growing importance and integration of all types of resources on the electric grid. By the time of the 2017 meeting, we might have entirely new terminology to describe these trends on a system level, rather than talking about individual technologies and policies.


Washington Utility Tests New Path to Integrating EVs

— July 27, 2016

EV RefuelingEastern Washington isn’t an especially well-known plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) market, given most PEV sales in the state are concentrated in Seattle and along the Pacific coast. However, the utility serving a large portion of eastern Washington, Avista, has made an ambitious and refreshingly unique move in preparation for the emerging technology. On July 27, Avista announced it will develop a pilot to demonstrate vehicle-grid integration (VGI) technologies in partnership with Greenlots across 200 Level 2 chargers and seven direct current (DC) fast chargers at residential, workplace, and public charging sites.

The purpose of the pilot is to determine how much PEV load can be shifted from peak load times to off-peak times without using time-of-use (TOU) rates. The hope is that the pilot will show that PEV load may be managed in a manner that reduces grid operating costs and increases grid reliability, thus optimizing potential benefits of PEVs to both utilities and ratepayers.

A Unique Approach

What makes Avista’s pilot unique is its holistic approach encompassing all forms of charging and the use of more nuanced demand-side management mechanisms than TOU rates. Including residential, workplace, and public charging within the pilot enables Avista to collect data on the uninfluenced charging behavior of program participants and then assess how demand response (DR) signals sent to PEV owners changes charging behavior across the charging network. The use of DR signals rather than TOU rates prevents new peak creation at the beginning of off-peak periods and maintains higher levels of revenue per kWh consumed by PEVs than would a TOU rate while still providing energy savings to PEV owners.

The pilot kicks off this August and will run for 2 years. Single-family and multi-unit dwelling residences will have 120 chargers installed, while the remaining 80 chargers will be placed at select workplaces or public locations alongside the seven aforementioned DC fast chargers. The chargers will be integrated into Greenlots’ SKY charge management platform, which is also being leveraged in a similar pilot for Southern California Edison that looks specifically at workplace charging.

Fast Growing Customer Base

Avista’s pilot comes in response to the strong possibility that its PEV population is going to increase dramatically. Washington’s Electric Vehicle Action Plan seeks to ensure 50,000 PEVs are on the state’s roads by 2020, up from the 12,000 registered in early 2015. As of the writing of the action plan, only a few hundred of these registrations were in counties served by Avista. Yet, the market for PEVs is anticipated to increase significantly in the next 3 years as 200-mile range battery EVs (BEVs) at under $40,000 are introduced.

On behalf of mass market long-range BEVs, Navigant Research forecasts in its Electric Vehicle Geographic Forecasts report that Washington will meet its 2020 goal sometime in 2018, with sales expanding into suburban and rural markets. If the PEV market lives up to this forecast, then PEV populations in eastern Washington counties are expected to be at least 7 times greater than current levels by the end of 2020.

PEVs in Use in Eastern Washington Counties: 2016-2020

Washington PEV

(Source: Navigant Research)


Demand Response Prepares for the 2016 Summer Season

— June 24, 2016

??????????????????June has been a much less newsworthy month than May was for the demand-side management industry. But it does represent the traditional start of the summer demand response (DR) season, so we’ll see what Mother Nature has in store for the weather. Will it be a busy DR season or a light one, as the last few years have been?

Drivers of DR Growth

Meanwhile, macro-level factors continue to act as both drivers and barriers for the global growth of DR. California, for example, continues to offer new opportunities for DR participation. The most recent case is the California Public Utilities Commission approving a decision that allows Southern California Edison to spend an additional $8.7 million on DR programs this summer to mitigate potential natural gas shortages stemming from the Aliso Canyon natural gas leak.

Outside of the United States, there are a number of examples of markets becoming more open and attractive for DR resources. From Canada to Europe to Asia, market structures are being reformed to allow DR to compete against generators for revenue. In Ontario, the Independent Electricity System Operator plans to launch a capacity market where DR will be able to compete with generation and other resources. Two of Europe’s largest electricity markets—France and the United Kingdom—plan to open capacity markets by 2017 that would allow DR participation. South Korea now allows DR to compete equally with generators in the electricity market.

And Barriers …

However, specific barriers to DR development still exist due to environmental and reliability concerns. The amount of DR capacity available for this summer was reduced due to the expiration of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) rules for emergency generators (EGs) for DR purposes. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned an EPA rule that allowed 100 hours of EG use for emergency DR programs. It granted the EPA a 1-year stay, which expired on May 1, 2016. The EPA has no plans to make changes to the rule, meaning that the court’s ruling will remain intact, affecting upward of 20% of DR resources in some markets.

The recent PJM capacity auction cleared less DR capacity than the previous year, mostly due to lower prices. But in the longer term, PJM is phasing out its summer DR categories in favor of annual participation requirements. Industrial customers may have fairly flat load profiles throughout the year, but many commercial customers rely on air conditioning (AC) measures to respond to DR events. On a portfolio level, it will come down to a risk/reward calculation. Residential DR that gets bid into the PJM market by utilities running their own DR programs are almost exclusively focused on summer-focused loads like AC and pool pumps. These programs offer virtually no winter DR capability and would not be eligible under the new rules unless they could combine a bid with a winter-type of resource.

All of these dynamics and more are covered in the Navigant Research report, Market Data: Demand Response. I look forward to seeing anyone who will be attending the National Town Meeting on DR in Washington, D.C. in July.


Blog Articles

Most Recent

By Date


Clean Transportation, Electric Vehicles, Finance & Investing, Policy & Regulation, Renewable Energy, Smart Energy Practice, Smart Energy Program, Smart Transportation Program, Transportation Efficiencies, Utility Innovations

By Author

{"userID":"","pageName":"Demand Response","path":"\/tag\/demand-response","date":"8\/31\/2016"}