Eversource Demand Demonstration Projects and Budget Update

Transcription

1 Eversource Demand Demonstration Projects and Budget Update

2 All Rate Classes Contribute to Peak Loads Loads by Rate Class- Representative Peak Day for BECO Territory Eversource conducted peak load research by rate class and substation and concluded that the overall system peak is caused by a layering effect due to the overlap of increased usage during peak hours among all rate classes Solution sets will be required across all customer types in order to have a consistent and measurable impact on system peak. 1

3 Demand Reduction Technologies will Complement Energy Efficiency Strategies Demand Reduction Technologies Eversource plans to issue a Request for Proposals for demand reduction solutions to test viability and cost effectiveness of technologies at a larger scale. Focus of this presentation and funding request to DPU. All projects and scheduled described are contingent on DPU funding. In addition, Eversource is testing integrated demand reduction and EE approaches that are tailored to specific customer types. Approaches include technical assistance, training, monitoring software and controls, and sub-metering. Will be covered under existing funding and coordinated with existing EE programs. Further details available on request. 2

4 Eversource Is Designing Broad Based Solutions to Address Key Sources of Peak Load Example BECO July Load MWh 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000, , , , ,000 0 Large C&I : 51% Small and Medium C&I: 20% Residential: 28% Proposed demo projects: - Large C&I - Software and controls - Active demand response - Storage (thermal and battery) - Small and Medium C&I - Software and controls - Active demand response - Residential - Will learn from other MA PAs and other service territories 3

5 Proposed Budget for Technology-Based Approach Solution Technology Demand Response - Small C&I Anticipated # of Customers Budget $ 2,152,000 Demand Response Large C&I $ 3,463,000 Software & Controls $ 4,411,000 Thermal Storage $ 4,156,000 Battery 5-30 $ 5,328,000 EM&V $ 1,951,000 Budgets and demonstration project sizes were developed using vendor responses to PA issued RFI Budgets cover 2017 and 2018 Total 975 1,695 $ 21,461,000 PP&A Marketing Participant Incentive + STAT Evaluation and Market Research Total Costs Program $800,000 $400,000 $18,310,000 $1,951,000 $21,461,000 4

6 Proposed Timeline and Impact of Technology- Based Approach Solution Technology Demand Response - Small C&I Demand Response Large C&I Software & Controls Year(s) of Testing Range of On Peak Savings Per Project Per Year in Test Phase (GWh) , ,500-2, ,000-3,000 Thermal Storage ,840 Battery ,200 EM&V Total 3,890 20,514 Timing is dependent on DPU and EEAC approval Goal is to test during summer 2017 and 2018 in order to inform plan Demonstration projects themselves will have considerable impact The demo projects will help us understand timing issues related to: Sales cycle Permitting/siting Procurement/ Installation 5

7 Are demonstration projects necessary, given existing experience in other jurisdictions? Massachusetts has different load profiles, rate structures, avoided costs, market costs, and climate than other jurisdictions. For example, we cannot assume that demand reductions that primarily rely on reducing central AC use will be successful here Customer acceptance rates cannot be inferred from elsewhere Demonstration projects will be used to test and adapt program designs so that they maximize peak demand savings and cost effectiveness in Massachusetts. Not all projects will work as anticipated, need to learn from smaller scale demo projects in order to judiciously expend customer dollars on larger scale programs RFP approach will allow us to get market rate savings during demand demo projects Hands-on experience will ensure that we design an optimal portfolio of demand reduction programs that reflect the mix of customers in our service territory 6

8 How Will Demonstration Projects Pave the Way for a Successful Plan? There are several universal questions that we need to answer in order to decide if and how to adopt the technologies at scale. Is each solution: Cost effective? Efficient (i.e., does it increase or reduce total energy use)? Scalable to a wide range of customers, such that it could have a meaningful impact on peak load reduction? How should each solution be evaluated? On a portfolio level, what is the optimized mix of reduction technologies? Which solutions are most appropriate for different customer types? How does technology perform in summer and winter? How should each technology be used (i.e., what is the optimal operating profile)? 7

9 Active Demand Response Small C&I Description: Wi-Fi thermostat-based active demand response at small and medium business (SMB) customers Why are we testing it: Need a solution to reduce SMB load during peak hours; this solution is widely applicable and has not been tested in Massachusetts previously What are we testing: How many events are customers willing to participate in each year before they become fatigued, and what length of event is considered acceptable? What are the savings from a SMB program? What is the customer adoption rate for a program like this? Is it scalable? How many customers will have Wi-Fi connection vs. needing cellular switches? Can this integrate into an ISO program? What will the budget pay for: To launch a new, full-cycle vendor initiative (from marketing through installation through calling demand response events) 8

10 Active Demand Response Large C&I Description: DR targeted toward ISO events and peak shaving in order to lower ICR and ICAP tags Customers: Large C&I Why are we testing it: Active demand response is well-established for large C&I for ISO-called scarcity events, but we propose to test adding utility-called events focused on peak shaving, which would be more frequent than ISO-called events What are we testing: How many events are customers willing to participate in each year before they become fatigued, and what length of event is considered acceptable? How many incremental events can a utility call in addition to ISO events? How will a utility-run program overlap with the ISO program? What is an appropriate dispatch trigger based on load/system conditions? What are savings? What will the budget pay for: Incentives to enrollees willing to assume risk of non-iso called demand response events and vendor costs 9

11 Software & Controls Description: Customer site control of building automation system, HVAC, refrigeration equipment, and/or other DERs Customers: Big box retail, commercial refrigeration/cold storage, municipal, university, school and hospital markets, midsized businesses and industrial clients Why are we testing it: Software and controls can now coordinate a wide range of customer assets and functions, and may be relatively cost effective because on-site hardware installation may not be required What are we testing: Is software a viable approach for peak demand reduction? What scale of demand reductions are possible? What is cost effectiveness of approach? How automated are the solutions? What is the customer tolerance for allowing software & controls to control systems? What functions can software & controls manage? Only HVAC? What will the budget pay for: Customer outreach, software programming and, if needed, installation of controls 10

12 Thermal Storage Ice Storage Description: Ice storage Customers: Small and medium businesses with air conditioner units between 3 to 20 tons Why are we testing it: This technology is focused on reducing business AC load, a very high summer load What are we testing: Is this a solution that can target peak later in the day? How does ice storage interact with sites that have solar? Are benefits increased when the two technologies are co-located? What are the characteristics of customers that can successfully deploy thermal storage? Under what circumstances is thermal storage more cost effective than batteries? What are the efficiency implications of thermal storage? Is thermal storage appropriate for a wide range of customers? What will the budget pay for: Outreach and installation costs for this potentially under-utilized technology 11

13 Thermal Storage Phase Change Material (PCM) Description: Phase change material eutectic salt solution Customers: Large commercial and industrial with cold storage and/or freezers Why are we testing it: This technology is relatively easy to install, and recent developments may make it more viable for more customers What are we testing: What are the characteristics of customers that can successfully deploy thermal storage? What range of applications and temperatures is it effective? How does PCM interact with sites that have solar? Are benefits increased when co-located? Under what circumstances is thermal storage more cost effective than batteries? What are the efficiency implications associated with PCM? How does PCM interact with EMS and controls? What are the non-energy benefits associated with PCM? What will the budget pay for: Customer outreach and installation for this relatively promising technology 12

14 Battery Description: Customer sited, behind the meter batteries Customers: Large commercial & big box retail, manufacturing Why are we testing it: Batteries are a rapidly developing technology, and while costs have historically been high, they are starting to come down What are we testing: Is it more cost effective to deploy batteries for a small amount of discrete events or continually discharging it on a near daily basis? What are cost and benefits for each approach? Can it be cost effective without targeting distribution peaks? How would it integrate with distribution planning? Is oversizing the battery in order to allow customers to dispatch a battery for both grid needs and customer peaks viable? What are the characteristics of customers who successfully deploy battery technology? What will the budget pay for: Equipment and installation for this high profile technology 13

15 Example Metrics for Evaluating Projects Metric Category Type Definition Percent of load solution Scalability Quant Load solution is is applicable to applicable to/total load Achieved Savings Reliability Quant MW achieved/mw called Total Program Cost Cost Quant Total $ spent on implementation Solution Materiality - System Materiality Quant Solution savings/system peak (or company) Solution Savings Savings Quant Total peak kwh reduced Customer Satisfaction Customer Satisfaction Qual Do customers like the program Metrics subject to change based on availability of information 14

16 Next Steps for Technology-Based Solutions RFI and RFP Schedule for Technology Based Solutions Aug RFI Released 02-Sep RFI Responses Received Week of 03-Oct Release RFP 24-Oct RFP Questions Due 31-Oct Responses to Questions Due 21-Nov RFP Responses Due 2017 (All Subsequent Steps & Schedule Contingent on DPU Funding) 4-Jan Suppliers Selected Jan - May Customer recruitment, equipment installation 1-Jun Demo projects begin Fall Initial Evaluation 2018 Spring Summer Continued Implementation, Expansion Fall Final Evaluation 15

17 APPENDIX 16

18 Potential Metrics for Evaluating Projects Metric Category Type Definition Baseline calculation Scalability Qual Hard to calc baseline? How automated is the solution Scalability Qual Scale of customization for each customer % of load solution is applicable to Scalability Quant Load solution is applicable to/ total load YoY Participation Increase Scalability Quant ( )/2017 Evaluability Scalability Qual How hard to evaluate, calc savings? Policy Hurdles Scalability Qual Any regs that would complicate execution? Enrollment Rate Scalability Quant # of enrolled/# eligible Opt-out Rate Reliability Quant # opt-outs/program participants Achieved Savings Reliability Quant MW achieved/mw called Peak kwh cost Cost Quant Program cost/peak kwh saved Cost of customer acquisition Cost Quant $ on outreach(marketing)/# of participants Total Program Cost Cost Quant Total $ spent on implementation Rate Impacts Cost Quant Program cost per customer/avg monthly bill Solution Materiality - System Materiality Quant Solution savings/system peak (or company) Solution Materiality Customer Class Materiality Quant Solution savings/customer class usage Solution Savings Savings Quant Total peak kwh reduced Coincident peak savings Savings Quant Peak kwh savings/total kwh savings Customer peak savings Savings Quant % of facility peak load reduced Customer financial savings Savings Quant $ savings on bill Customer Satisfaction Customer Sat Qual Do customers like the program Operational Interference Customer Sat Qual Level of operational interference Metrics subject to change based on availability of information and not all metrics are applicable to all solution types Some metrics may be weighted more heavily than others 17 Some solutions may need additional metrics not listed