NewEnergyNews: TODAY’S STUDY: How Innovative Utility Rates Can Grow New Energy

NewEnergyNews

Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

While the OFFICE of President remains in highest regard at NewEnergyNews, this administration's position on climate change makes it impossible to regard THIS president with respect. Below is the NewEnergyNews theme song until 2020.

The challenge now: To make every day Earth Day.

YESTERDAY

  • Weekend Video: Bloomberg To Colbert – New Energy Is The Answer
  • Weekend Video: Global New Energy Keeps Coming On
  • Weekend Video: The Long Reach Of New Energy
  • THE DAY BEFORE

  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-Why Geoengineering Has Comes With Big Risks
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-The Immense Potential Of Ocean Wind
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-The Best Place To Build New Energy Is China – Survey
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-Japan’s Mitsubishi Sees EV Price Beating Gas Cars
  • THE DAY BEFORE THE DAY BEFORE

    THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT THURSDAY, October 12:

  • TTTA Thursday-Big Work Now Ahead On Climate Change
  • TTTA Thursday-New Energy Ready To Take Over In The New South
  • TTTA Thursday-How The Ocean Can Store New Energy
  • TTTA Thursday-Indiana Nun Fights For Solar
  • THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • ORIGINAL REPORTING: New Hampshire Makes A New Energy Compromise That was ‘Worth It’
  • ORIGINAL REPORTING: Survey Shows Utilities Expect New Energy Expansion
  • AND THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • TODAY’S STUDY: Why Big Buyers Buy New Energy
  • QUICK NEWS, October 10: Why Tariffs On Solar Will Backfire On The President; Private Sector Seizes Wind Opportunity; The EV Boom Needs 1000s More Plugs
  • THE LAST DAY UP HERE

  • TODAY’S STUDY: An Alternative New Energy Plan For North Carolina
  • QUICK NEWS, October 9: Research Shows Feedback Loop Accelerating Climate Change; Solar Growth Leads The World; The Big Opportunity In Wind
  • --------------------------

    --------------------------

    Founding Editor Herman K. Trabish

    --------------------------

    --------------------------

    click image for more info about the Sunstock Solar Festival

    Research Associate and Contributing Editor Jessica R. Wunder

    --------------------------

    --------------------------

    --------------------------

    Some details about NewEnergyNews and the man behind the curtain: Herman K. Trabish, Agua Dulce, CA., Doctor with my hands, Writer with my head, Student of New Energy and Human Experience with my heart

    email: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

    -------------------

    -------------------

      A tip of the NewEnergyNews cap to Phillip Garcia for crucial assistance in the design implementation of this site. Thanks, Phillip.

    -------------------

    Pay a visit to the HARRY BOYKOFF page at Basketball Reference, sponsored by NewEnergyNews and Oil In Their Blood.

  • ---------------
  • TODAY AT NewEnergyNews, October 16:

  • TODAY’S STUDY: How Get The Stacked Values Of Battery Storage
  • QUICK NEWS, October 16: Worse Than ‘The New Normal’; New Energy To The Rescue; How Rooftop Solar Cuts Everybody’s Power Bills

    Tuesday, August 08, 2017

    TODAY’S STUDY: How Innovative Utility Rates Can Grow New Energy

    Guidance for Utilities Commissions on Time of Use Rates: A Shared Perspective from Consumer and Clean Energy Advocates

    John T. Colgan Andre Delattre Bret Fanshaw Rick Gilliam Marcel Hawiger John Howat Douglas Jester Mark LeBel Ellen Zuckerman July 15, 2017 (Resource Media)

    Introduction & Executive Summary

    As rapidly evolving renewable and energy efficiency technologies and economics drive ongoing transformation of America’s power sector, advocates from consumer, clean energy and environmental organizations are working together to provide guidance for utilities commissions and other stakeholders grappling with issues of electricity rate design. In prior papers, groups from these communities have jointly analyzed the problems with fixed customer charges and residential demand charges,1 and also outlined good process principles2 for evaluation and decision-making on rate design proposals. In this paper, authors representing a diverse range of consumer and clean energy perspectives assess the use of time-varying rates for billing residential electricity customers, with a particular focus on time-of-use rates (“TOU rates”), and offer guidance for regulators and others considering this rate design approach.

    Time-varying rates are proposed to address a range of issues, including economic efficiency, peak load reduction, and equitable cost allocation across the customer base. If properly designed and implemented, TOU rates may allow individual consumers to reduce their energy bills, improve system utilization and reduce peak demand. And if enough individual consumers respond to the price signals that TOU rates provide, they may also generate supply and delivery cost savings for all. However, TOU rates can have adverse impacts on consumers, especially on those who may have less ability to shift their usage to capture the benefits of TOU pricing, and on those who have trouble budgeting for bills that exhibit greater monthly volatility. This potential for adverse bill impacts, as well as for negative health and safety repercussions if electricity prices spike during times of maximum need for electric cooling or heating, has led some consumer groups to oppose the use of default TOU rates. Moreover, there may be alternative solutions to reduce system peaks that do not require installation of new meters or charging higher prices during peak demands.

    In concert with advice in the NARUC Manual that regulators be mindful of changes that are rushed and may bring unintended consequences,3 public utility commissions should weigh TOU rates meticulously – and other alternatives to achieving similar goals – with special attention paid to ensuring that any implementation does not disproportionately harm low-income consumers, elders, and others who are particularly vulnerable to adverse health effects of unsafe indoor temperatures.

    Following are key points and recommendations that emerge from this paper for public utility commissions considering residential TOU rate proposals:

    • Require explicit up-front identification of the utility system and policy objectives to be achieved with a TOU rate, such as economic efficiency, deployment of DER technologies, peak load reduction, emissions reduction, and/or more equitable cost/benefit allocation.

    • Identify and evaluate the costs and benefits associated with the full range of alternatives to achieving identified goals, such as tiered rates, utility direct load control programs, peak time rebates, or greater efficiency spending, rather than confining evaluation to TOU rates alone.

    • In evaluating impacts on customer bills, carefully consider the drivers of new generation as well as new transmission and distribution capacity in the relevant jurisdiction, and study the degree to which a change in overall residential load profile may occur and impact those drivers and cost allocation to the customer class.

    • To help make TOU rates both effective and understandable, keep the rate design to a relatively few time periods (e.g. 2-3) that are well-synced with underlying system costs; ensure the pricing differences are appropriate; and consider closely the length of the on peak price period to facilitate customer adoption and load response.

    • Ensure customers have the advance education and technology they need to respond. Use the following types of programs to achieve this: pilots such as implementing TOU rates with segments of customers with larger loads that are easier to control, like electric water heaters or electric vehicle charging; shadow billing for a year to give customers a chance to understand how they will be affected; and distribution of smart appliances such as timer controls or grid-integration for electric water heaters, or smart thermostats for space conditioning, if such distribution is found to be cost-effective based on incremental demand response benefits.

    • If emissions reductions are a stated goal, carefully study what resources will run more as a result of load shifts – such as gas vs. coal vs. hydro or solar or wind – to inform structuring of periods that will result in maximum potential emissions cuts.

    • TOU rate design is generally consistent with customer-sited solar deployment, but the extent to which they are compatible for the residential consumer is highly dependent on the rate design that applies to the self-generation. While TOU peak pricing periods often coincide with solar photovoltaic (PV) peak production periods, this will vary from utility to utility, state to state and region to region.

    • TOU rates can easily be combined with inclining block rates to provide a more powerful price signal, as has been done in several states including California and Washington

    Conclusions

    There are several basic forms of TVR rates, with TOU rates being the most well-known and commonly practiced today. The broad range of prospective TOU rate design options provide flexibility in achieving stated policy goals and objectives, while carrying the potential to address the overall cost levels and causative factors of the utility. Important questions remain as to the degree to which residential customers at all socio-economic levels are able to respond to the new price signals.

    Some residential loads can be controlled more easily than others. For example, electric water heaters and electric vehicle charging are relatively large loads that can be easily controlled. Offering TOU rates only to customers with these types of loads, together with education and technology to take advantage of TVR rates, may be a reasonable first step in TOU deployment.

    Customers should have 1) the information to determine which utility rates are best for them; and 2) the opportunity to easily choose those optimal rates. This suggests more than just a superficial “customer choice,” and the ability to make a meaningful choice among viable alternatives, with easy-to-use tools to help them determine the best option. Until there is more data concerning bill impacts and distributional effects, commissions are encouraged to evaluate TOU rates as compared to other alternatives, including flat rates and inclining block rates, and consider the relative costs and benefits of alternative mechanisms for peak load reduction.

    Following are key recommendations and points for regulators considering residential TOU rate proposals:

    • Require explicit up-front identification of the utility system and policy objectives to be achieved with a TOU rate, such as economic efficiency, deployment of DER technologies, peak load reduction, emissions reduction, and/or more equitable cost/benefit allocation.

    • Rather than confining evaluation to TOU rates alone, identify and evaluate the costs and benefits associated with the full range of alternatives to achieving identified goals, such as tiered rates, utility direct load control programs, peak time rebates, or greater efficiency spending.

    • In evaluating impacts on customer bills, carefully consider the drivers of new generation as well as new transmission and distribution capacity in the relevant jurisdiction and study the degree to which a change in overall residential load profile may occur and impact those drivers and cost allocation to the customer class.

    • To help make TOU rates both effective and understandable, keep the rate design to a relatively few time periods (e.g. 2-3) that are well-synced with underlying system costs; ensure the pricing differences are appropriate; and consider closely the length of the onpeak price period to facilitate customer adoption and load response.

    • Ensure customers have the advance education and technology they need to respond. Use the following types of programs to achieve this: pilots such as implementing TOU rates with segments of customers with larger loads that are easier to control, like electric water heaters or electric vehicle charging; shadow billing for a year to give customers a chance to understand how they will be affected; and distribution of smart appliances such as timer controls or grid-integration for electric water heaters, or smart thermostats for space conditioning, if such distribution is found to be cost-effective based on incremental demand response benefits.

    • If emissions reductions are a stated goal, carefully study what resources will run more as a result of load shifts – such as gas vs. coal vs. hydro or solar or wind – to inform structuring of periods that will result in maximum potential emissions cuts.

    • TOU rate design is generally consistent with customer-sited solar deployment, but the extent to which they are compatible for the residential consumer is highly dependent on the rate design that applies to the self-generation. While TOU peak pricing periods often coincide with solar photovoltaic (PV) peak production periods, this will vary from utility to utility, state to state and region to region.

    • TOU rates can easily be combined with inclining block rates to provide a more powerful price signal, as has been done in several states including California and Washington.

    IFTTT Recipe: Share new blog posts to Facebook connects blogger to facebook

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    << Home