The PUCO was not, and never will be, in a position to ensure terms of PPAs meet requirements of FPA.
Letter to the Editor
To the Editor:
In our recent paper (“Energy Efficiency and Demand Response: Twins, Siblings, or Cousins? ” Fortnightly, March 2005), we included in Table 1 the conservation effect reported at the time for California’s statewide pricing pilot. As noted in our paper, that effect was analyzed for weekdays only, and showed conservation of 5.7 to 8.7 percent resulting from time-of-use rates and critical peak prices, including some customers with smart thermostats. A subsequent report (Charles River Associates, Impact Evaluation of the California Statewide Pricing Pilot , March 16, 2005) extended the analysis to include weekends as well for critical peak pricing customers without smart thermostats, and found the total annual conservation effect for these customers to be much lower than the weekday-only effects—specifically 0.04 percent in Zone 1 of the pilot, 0.01 percent in Zone 2, -0.02 percent in Zone 3, and 0.01 percent in Zone 4.Chris King and Dan Delurey