Statewide Joint IOU Study of Permanent Load Shifting Workshop #2: Expanding the Availability of Permanent Load Shifting in California

Similar documents
California s Energy Storage Summit California Energy Storage Association and Association of California Water Agencies

SDG&E Customer Distributed Generation Programs. Steve Jaffe Senior Market Advisor Customer Innovations Group September 14, 2009

California s RPS Program: Progress Towards California s 33% RPS Goal and the Role of Concentrating Solar Power CSP Conference

Reforming the TAC and Retail Transmission Rates. Robert Levin California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division August 29, 2017

California Energy Storage Policies. Carla Peterman Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission December 2016

Rate Impact of Net Metering. Jason Keyes & Joseph Wiedman Interstate Renewable Energy Council April 6, 2010

Updates. Pat Reiten President and CEO, PacifiCorp Transmission

Zero Emission Bus Impact on Infrastructure

CPUC Transportation Electrification Activities

Planning Distributed Generation for Transmission Savings 1 By Kenneth Sahm White and Stephanie Wang 2 March 19, 2014

LANCASTER CHOICE ENERGY S BIENNIAL ENERGY STORAGE PROCUREMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT

Impact of Distributed Generation and Storage on Zero Net Energy (ZNE)

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, following a public hearing, adopt the attached resolution which:

Decision on Merced Irrigation District Transition Agreement

PDR Energy Baseline Alternative. Proposal for Discussion October 27, 2015

What, Why, and Where? Brian Lips Senior Project Manager for Policy NC Clean Energy Technology Center

Market Drivers for Battery Storage

LADWP Energy Storage Update. Board of Water and Power Commissioners August 15, 2017

Discussing the Ratepayer Benefits of EVs On the Electrical Grid

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E) NOTICE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION

The Gambia National Forum on

Solar Power, NEM and Challenges to the Traditional Utility Model. Carrie Cullen Hitt SVP, State Affairs

Net Metering and Solar Incentive Proposed Framework

Considerations for Municipal Solar Projects. Ben Frevert Larsen Engineers November 16, 2016

Electric Vehicles as a Grid Resource Lessons Learned for Driving Value from EV Charging Programs

Net Metering Policy Framework. July 2015

SCE s 2017 Integrated Distributed Energy Resources Request for Offers ( IDER RFO ) Market Awareness Webinar. August 30, 2017

Transmission Access Charges (TAC) Katie Ramsey Staff Attorney Clean Coalition mobile

Feed-In Tariffs Presentation to the Nevada Production and Use of Energy Committee

Guideline on Energy Storage

ENERGY STRATEGY FOR YUKON. Independent Power Production Policy

Devin Rauss and Carlos Haiad, Southern California Edison

Statewide Permanent Load Shifting Program Proposal

San Diego Gas & Electric United States

Merger of the generator interconnection processes of Valley Electric and the ISO;

Community Solar Policy

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CUSTOMER OWNED SOLAR IN WISCONSIN

To Shift or not to Shift?

24. SOLAR INCENTIVE PROGRAM II

Tomorrow s Energy Grid

Renewable Energy System Tariffs and Pricing

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Energy Storage in the Smart Grid

Unitil Energy Demand Response Demonstration Project Proposal October 12, 2016

Genbright LLC. AEE Technical Round Table 11/15/2017

2019 NYC Solar Installer Workshop: Solar and Storage. March 18, 2019

Solar Electric Systems for Multi-Tenant Units. Presenters

Participation of Beacon Power s Flywheel Energy Storage Technology in NYISO s Regulation Service Market

NATIONAL CONFERENCE of STATE LEGISLATURES. October 9 th, 2009 Ervan Hancock

Review of U.S. market reforms for renewable integration, flexibility, and storage

Grid Energy Storage: Policies

2016 UC Solar Research Symposium

Impact of Energy Efficiency and Demand Response on Electricity Demand

Beyond Net Metering Issues for Washington State

Transportation Electrification: Reducing Emissions, Driving Innovation. August 2017

SCE s Clean Power and Electrification Pathway 2018 CCPM-3

Issue 23 draft for Nuvve

CPUC Net Metering Decision Is Good News For Clean Energy

Georgia Power Renewable Update. October 31, 2016 Marc Vinson

Technical Conference: Alternative Utility Cost Recovery Mechanisms

Creating A Cleaner Energy Future For the Commonwealth. Growing Solar in MA. MMA Annual Meeting. Boston, 1/24/14

Energy Management Through Peak Shaving and Demand Response: New Opportunities for Energy Savings at Manufacturing and Distribution Facilities

SANDAG Roadmap Program: Overview

July 16, Dear Mr. Randolph:

Proposal Concerning Modifications to LIPA s Tariff for Electric Service

Dynamic Pricing: Opportunities & Challenges Harvard Electricity Policy Group September 23, 2011

Smart Grid, Intelligent Efficiency, Micro-Grids and Distributed Generation

Felix Oduyemi, Senior Program Manager, Southern California Edison

Economics of Integrating Renewables DAN HARMS MANAGER OF RATE, TECHNOLOGY & ENERGY POLICY SEPTEMBER 2017

Evolving our Customer Relationship: Edison SmartConnect Programs & Services Mark Podorsky, Sr. Manager Business Design

SEPA Grid Evolution Summit: Rethinking Rate Design

a) The 2011 Net Metering and Buyback Tariff for Emission Free, Renewable Distributed Generation Serving Customer Load

Assessment of Smart Grid Applications for the City of Palo Alto. City of Alameda Public Utilities Board September 19, 2011

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Utility Solar Business Models

Solar Plus: A Holistic Approach to Distributed Solar PV Eric O'Shaughnessy, Kristen Ardani, Dylan Cutler, Robert Margolis

Southern California Edison Rule 21 Storage Charging Interconnection Load Process Guide. Version 1.1

SolarPACE + Storage Expanding Opportunities and Improving Project Economics. Presented By:

Your Fuel Can Pay You: Maximize the Carbon Value of Your Fuel Purchases. Sean H. Turner October 18, 2017

Basic tariff guiding principles

Solar-Wind Specific Request for Proposals

Illinois Solar Energy Association. Residential Rate Design Webinar August 25, 2016

Advanced Rate Design. Smart Electric Power Alliance Grid Evolution Summit. David Littell Principal The Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP)

Operational Opportunities to Minimize Renewables Curtailments

Energy Storage at PG&E

New Jersey Solar Roundtable

Electrical Energy Storage U.S. Policy Issues

SCE Smart Grid. Creating a Cleaner, Smarter Energy Future. Metering, Billing / MDM America Conference. San Diego. March 9, 2010

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Caution and Disclaimer The contents of these materials are for information purposes and are provided as is without representation or warranty of any

ALBERTA SOLAR MARKET OUTLOOK. CanSIA Solar West 10 May 2017

Clean Energy Policy & Procurement- Regional v. Go-It-Alone Approach

American Electric Power s Energy Storage Deployments

KANSAS CITY POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY P.S.C. MO. No. 7 Fourth Revised Sheet No. 39 Canceling P.S.C. MO. No. 7 Third Revised Sheet No.

Implementing Net Metering to Meet Policy Objectives

Microgrids A Regulatory Perspective

Solar PV and Storage Overview

Overview of S.L Competitive Energy Solutions for North Carolina

Community Solar Discussion

Transcription:

Statewide Joint IOU Study of Permanent Load Shifting Workshop #2: Expanding the Availability of Permanent Load Shifting in California Wednesday, November 10, 2010 Snuller Price, Eric Cutter, Priya Sreedharan, David Miller: E3 Janice Lin, Giovanni Damato, Polly Hand: StrateGen

About E3 E3 is an electricity consulting firm founded in 1989 in San Francisco Clients span local, state and federal government, small and large public and investor-owned electric utilities, and energy technology companies Experienced in marrying engineering-economic analysis with public stakeholder process Approximately 25 staff in energy economics, policy, and resource planning 5

Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) Overview E3 Recent Projects Energy Efficiency Policy and Cost-effectiveness E3 Calculator used to evaluate all energy efficiency Programs by all utilities Developed and maintain database of avoided costs Demand Response: Development of the cost-effectiveness protocols for Demand Response in California for the CPUC Distributed Generation, California Solar Initiative, Self-Generation Incentive Program PEV Analysis, Large Utility and EPRI Energy Storage Market Analysis for US EPRI Developed GHG Calculator for CPUC, CEC, ARB 6

PLS Regulatory Background: CPUC order D.09-08-027 PLS Study mandated in CPUC Order D.09-08-027 Each of the utilities shall provide its report to the Director of Energy Division no later than December 1, 2010 and provide copies to service list in this proceeding D.09-08-027 ordering paragraph for PLS study IOUs will examine ways of expanding PLS IOUs will work with parties to explore standard offer for PLS, including, but not limited to thermal energy storage Study should consider ways to encourage PLS, such as TOU rates or another RFP process Study should summarize PLS offerings in US and evaluation of appropriate incentive payment for future standard offer Report will inform proposals to expand PLS in 2012-2014 applications 9

CPUC Filing 08-27-10 CPUC Filing 08-27-10 Provides guidance for the 2012-2014 demand response applications Section 3.6.2: Permanent Load Shifting Permanent load shifting (PLS) involves shifting energy use from one time period to another on a recurring basis PLS often involves storing electricity produced during off-peak hours and using stored energy to support load during peak periods Examples: battery storage, thermal energy storage, altering processes to shift the time of use or order of production activities Utilities 2012-2014 applications will be informed by PLS report Should discuss ways to increase cost-effective PLS through dynamic rates, future RFP s or standard offer 10

Overall CPUC goals Provide a solid foundation for utility filings for a PLS program in the 2012-2014 DR proceeding Specifically, the proposed cost-effectiveness protocols in this study could be used by the Utilities in their filings Effective stakeholder process to consider multiple perspectives, including Scope and definition of PLS Cost-effectiveness Technologies to consider Program types Document process and results in the PLS report due on December 1 st, 2010 11

Related PLS Policy & Regulatory Areas Energy storage (and load shifting) are emerging components of other energy policy efforts underway in CA AB2514 requires CPUC to launch a new storage focused rulemaking to determine cost effective and technologically feasible 2015 and 2020 energy storage procurement targets by October 2013 SGIP Staff Proposal implementation of SB 412 may create expanded incentives for energy storage coupled with renewable energy and eligible SGIP technologies on the customer s side of the meter (new funding available through 2012 only) LTPP (CAISO Phase II Modeling) PLS can be used to facilitate renewable integration, particularly cases of over generation. Workshops are underway at the CPUC to determine modeling requirements. SB 17 Smart Grid Deployment Plans requires utilities to develop smart grid deployment plans by July 2011. Energy storage is an enabling technology of the smart grid. Federal (Storage ITC) new federal legislation has been proposed to establish federal tax credits for grid storage such incentives will have a beneficial impact to CA PLS project economics, potentially reducing the need for state incentives.

PLS definition goals & principles Overarching Goal of PLS Routine shifting of load from one period of time to another during the course of a day to help meet peak loads during periods when energy use is typically high and improve grid operation in doing so (economics, efficiency, and/or reliability). Guiding Principles of PLS Technology neutral Business/ownership model neutral Provides measurable shifting at the program level for evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V).

PLS definition elements Permanent. Provides a sustained capacity of load shifting in normal operation a large number of days per year and for many years. Load Shifting. Decreases electricity usage during peak hours and shifts load to other hours to provide operational and resource planning benefits for the utility or ISO systems (such as increasing load to reduce ramp requirements). Location. Technology is located behind an electricity customer s meter. All customer classes are eligible to participate. Additional Value Streams. PLS services must be provided by the technology, but the technology can capture additional value streams if they are also provided.

Outside of scope of PLS Not Solely Event-based DR. PLS provides for shifting in normal operations, not in response to electrical grid emergencies or constraints. Not Behavior-based EE. PLS is provided and quantified by discrete equipment or controls, not solely by general customer behavior modification (e.g., home energy monitors). PLS does not reduce the level of customer service. Not Commissioning or EMCS tuning. The shifting that can be achieved by best practices commissioning, retrocommissioning or adjustment of controls (e.g., broadening set point temperature ranges or precooling a building) will not be considered PLS. Not Fuel Switching. Does not provide PLS through switching load to a different fuel.

Back of the Envelope Calculation High Level Estimate of Value Assumptions 15 year life Utility WACC (8%) Capacity value $100/kW-year Energy differential $40/MWh Energy profile 30% of time charging 30% of time discharging 40% idle 2628 kwh / kw Input Assumptions 15 Life 8% WACC 100 $/kw-year 40 Change (Buy - Sell) $/MWh 30% Energy Charging Time 2628 Annual Energy (kwh) Net Present Value Benefits $856 Capacity ($/kw) $900 Energy ($/kw) $1,756 Total Value ($/kw) 33

Components of the Avoided Cost Three-Day Avoided Cost Snapshots Energy Losses Ancillary Services Capacity Transmission & Distribution Environment Avoided Renewable Purchases 34

Avoided Cost Model and Relationships Proposed in the DR C/E Proceeding Benefits Included Energy purchases or generation cost Generation Capacity T&D Capacity GHG Emissions Losses Ancillary Services Procurement Reduction Reduced RPS procurement CPUC proceedings with similar approach Energy Efficiency DG Cost-effectiveness Demand Response CEC proceedings with similar model Title 24 Time-Dependent Valuation for evaluation of building standards Renewable Integration Reducing overgen, Ramp PLS Only Under Development 35

Characteristics of the Avoided Costs Used in the DG Cost-Effectiveness Framework Hourly: the hourly time scale used in the avoided costs allows them to capture the relative value of retail load reductions at different periods throughout the day and across different seasons Location-specific: the avoided costs are calculated for each of the Title 24 climate zones, incorporating differences between northern and southern electricity markets and between the timing of local load constraints Historically correlated: the avoided costs are based on historical hourly market data so that they are correlated directly with actual historical performance of DER technologies Public and transparent: the avoided costs are calculated using publicly available data 36

Resource Balance Year The avoided costs include short- and long-run components Short-run components based on current market activity Long-run components based on cost and performance of new generation The transition point between the short- and long-run costs in the DER Avoided Costs is 2015, the first year in which peak loads will exceed currently resource plans Load/Capacity (MW) 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 9/17/2010 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 New Planned Fossil New Renewables Current Capacity Net of Retirements IEPR Peak Load Peak Load w/ Reserves 37

Broad Scenario Modeling SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 55

Broad Scenario Modeling Evaluate avoided costs and bill savings of PLS over a range of hypothetical conditions Allows us to explore idealized value of shifting over a range of conditions independent of the specific PLS technology performance

Assumptions, Variables, Metrics Key Assumptions 100% round trip efficiency Shift is sized to 15% of maximum end use kw Shift is constant, year round, every day Variables Discharge start time and duration Metrics Present value of benefits/avoided costs in $/kw Present value of bill savings in $/kw Assumptions: 15 year measure life, 8.5% discount rate Normalized to maximum shifted kw 57

Broad Scenario Modeling Results Avoided costs across all scenarios Ex: 8 hour shift starting at 9 am has present value Avoided Cost Benefits $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $500 benefits of ~ $2,000/kW 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour Climate Zone 12 (e.g., Sacramento) 58

Best Discharge Windows based on Avoided Costs Optimal Start Hour Avoided Cost Benefits $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $500 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour Duration (h) Start- end time $/kw 1 2-3 pm ~ 390 2 ~1/2 3/4 pm ~ 790 4 12 4 pm ~ 1430 6 12 6 pm ~1860 8 11 7 pm ~2125 10 10 am 8 pm ~2260 59

Comparing Two Scenarios with Equivalent Energy Shift Comparing a 4 kwh shift: 2 hr (2 kw) discharge vs. 4 hr (1 kw) discharge Avoided Cost Benefits $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction 4 hr discharge starting at 12 pm: ~$1400/kW $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $500 2 hr discharge starting at 2 pm: ~$800/kW 4 hr discharge: avoided costs = $1400 x 1 = $1400 2 hr discharge: avoided costs = $800 x 2 = $1600 Shorter duration discharge has more value on an equivalent energy basis 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour 60

Observations on Avoided Cost Results PLS technologies must cost on the order of $1500/kW to $2500/kW to pass TRC test Estimate is an upper bound based on idealized operation Highest value: mid-afternoon, then early evening, then mid-morning Optimal 6 hour discharge period is 12-6 pm PLS technologies support entire map Batteries support 1-8 hour discharges TES systems often designed to reduce load for at least 6 hours but can reduce load longer if capacity exists Process shifting that begins at 11 am and concludes at 9 pm 61

Sensitivity Analysis SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 65

Seasonal Sensitivity: Avoided Costs Avoided Cost Benefits $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $500 May - Oct Avoided costs in summer dominate (winter avoided costs ~ 80% less than summer) Winter avoided costs insensitive to discharge time $2,500 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour Avoided Cost Benefits $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $2,000 $1,500 $500 Nov - Apr 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour 66

Seasonal Sensitivity: Bill Savings Bill Savings Benefits $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $800 $600 $400 $200 May - Oct Bill savings ~ 60% less in winter but still significant 7 8 9 10 11 12 13$2,00014 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour$1,800 Bill Savings Benefits $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $800 $600 $400 $200 Nov - Apr 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour 67

Seasonal Sensitivity: Avoided Costs and Bill Savings Avoided Costs Avoided Cost Benefits $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $500 May - Oct Avoided Cost Benefits $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $500 Nov - Apr 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour Bill Savings Benefits $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $800 $600 $400 $200 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour Bill Savings Benefits $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $800 $600 $400 $200 Bill Savings 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour 68

Sensitivity to Energy Efficiency (round-trip): Avoided Costs Avoided Cost Benefits PV $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 80% efficient Wind Overgen RPS Adder T&D Capacity Residual Emissions A/S Losses Energy $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 100% efficient Wind Overgen RPS Adder T&D Capacity Residual Emissions A/S Losses Energy $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 120% efficient (20% savings) Wind Overgen RPS Adder T&D Capacity Residual Emissions A/S Losses Energy 10 hour discharge: 10 am 8 pm 120% efficient system increases benefits by 16% 80% efficient system reduces benefits by 29 % Greater impact in winter season, though benefits in winter are nominal 69

Bill Savings Benefits PV $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $50 Sensitivity to Energy Efficiency (round-trip): Bill Savings 80% efficient 100% $200 efficient $250 $150 $100 $50 $50 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 120% efficient 120% efficient system increases benefits by 27% (vs. 16% avoided costs) 80% efficient system reduces benefits by 39 % (vs. 29% avoided cost) Efficiency matters more for bills!! $50 70

Sensitivity to Resource Balance Year Assumed resource balance year: 2010 Roughly 7% increase in total avoided cost savings Avoided Cost Benefits $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $500 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour 71

Sensitivity to Technology Lifetime With a technology lifetime of 20 years rather than 15 year, both present value avoided cost benefits and present value bill savings increase by approximately 13% Avoided Cost Benefits $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $500 15 Year Tech. Lifetime 20 Year Tech. Lifetime Avoided Cost Benefits $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $500 $2,500 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour $2,500 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour Bill Savings Benefits $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $2,000 $1,500 $500 Bill Savings $/kw Peak Capacity Reduction $2,000 $1,500 $500 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Shift Start Hour 72