Everyone is in favor of more demand response, but little gets delivered when system operators need it the most.
Despite overwhelming theoretical and empirical evidence, we aren’t seeing more DR when it is needed most—during emergency periods. The reasons boil down to two obstacles, both of which must be addressed before widespread DR implementation can move forward.
Using demand response to mitigate rate shocks.
In the minds of many policy-makers, DR has become associated with rate shocks, rate volatility, unpredictability, and loss of control over energy costs—the very things DR was designed to overcome. What can be done to change this?
How demand response programs contribute to energy efficiency and environmental quality.
Demand response reduces overall energy usage, but the magnitude of the reduction depends on whether the technologies are developed and deployed with efficiency in mind.
Is DER competitive with traditional utility investments, and if so, what are the costs and benefits?
Utilities must make hard tradeoffs regarding which distribution investments offer the greatest value. How should they quantify DER as integrated into the grid?
How does the DuPont Model—a hybrid of which provides the methodology behind the Fortnightly 40 rankings—actually work? The author shares lessons learned during implementation of the hybrid model this year.
(September 2006) How does the DuPont Model—a hybrid of which provides the methodology behind the Fortnightly 40 rankings—actually work? The author shares lessons learned during implementation of the hybrid model this year.
David Powell, Southeast Lineman Training Center: I enjoyed reading “Baby Boom Blues”. What amazes me is although there is a great need it seems the only people who see the need are the utility companies themselves.
David Sumner, CEO, ARRL: Even the “cloudy” outlook for BPL reported in your article &ldquoA Hard Look at BPL: Utilities Speak Out” is overly optimistic.
Each DR portfolio will have a different set of AMI needs, based on overall technology infrastructure.
Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) evaluations will benefit greatly from creating an appropriate DR portfolio as part of the overall solution.
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), Congress sent a strong message to electric utilities, consumers, and industry regulators that they need to get serious about advanced metering, time-based rates, and demand response (DR).
To underline this point, EPACT states:
Smart metering is coming of age. Is the utility world ready for it?
Some states, including Illinois, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas, have been considering smart-metering questions as part of rate cases and resource-planning discussions. Other states, such as Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, and Virginia, have initiated EPACT Section 1252 inquiries separately from other proceedings. The tenor of the discussion also varies from state to state, with high-cost power states generally more attracted to AMI than low-cost states are.
During the 1980s and early 1990s, integrated resource planning (IRP) was a required practice for many utilities. Then competitive wholesale markets, merchant generation, and restructuring initiatives led many utilities to abandon IRP.
While wholesale competition generally has been successful, the regulatory process changes it brought were less so. And utilities now are getting back into long-term resource planning studies to provide decision support for their “back to basics” business strategies.
Congress renews PURPA’s call for conservation and load management, but the world has changed since the 1970s.
The “N-word” in the title first appeared in this journal more than 20 years ago, courtesy of the celebrated environmentalist Amory Lovins and his widely quoted piece, “Saving Gigabucks with Negawatts” (Fortnightly, 1985). Scroll forward a few decades. With restructuring of wholesale electric markets at FERC, plus formation of regional transmission organizations and independent system operators, the game was changed.