Idaho Power CompanyDemand Response & Dynamic Pricing Programs

PNDRP December 5, 2008

Darlene Nemnich

Pete Pengilly

Overview of Idaho PowerDR and Pricing Programs

• Demand Response Programs– Residential A/C Cycling: 20,000 customers, -20 MW max– Irrigation Peak Rewards, 897 service points, -35 MW max

• Redesign in 2009

– In Design - DR Aggregator for commercial

• Pricing Programs– Mandatory TOU for all industrial customers– Proposed mandatory TOU for all large commercial customers– Residential CPP and TOU pilot 2005-2006, ongoing to-date

• AMI– 2009 will be year one of three-year deployment

Overview of Idaho PowerDR and Pricing Programs

• Demand Response Programs– Residential A/C Cycling: 20,000 customers, -20 MW max load

– Irrigation Peak Rewards, 897 service points, -35 MW max load

– In Design - DR Aggregator for commercial

• Pricing Programs– Mandatory TOU for all industrial customers

– Proposed mandatory TOU for all commercial customers

– Residential CPP and TOU pilot 2005-2006, ongoing to-date

• AMI– 2009 will be year one of three-year deployment

Energy WatchResidential CPP Pilot-Ongoing

• Limited to Emmett, Idaho customers

• Maximum 10 event days, June 15 – August 15

• Generally, no more than two consecutive days will be called

• Critical peak hours – 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekdays

• Rates: – 20¢ /kWh during critical peak hours

– 5.7783¢ /kWh flat rate all other hours of the year

• Customer notification:– Email sent by noon day-ahead of event

– Email notification initiates automatic calling to all customers on program• Customers must be contacted before 4:00 the day before event

– This process also updates website

Time-of-DayResidential TOU Pilot-Ongoing

• Limited to Emmett, Idaho customers• TOU rate in effect June 1 – August 31• Time blocks and current rates:

– On-Peak 1:00 pm to 9:00 pm WD 8.8683 ¢/kWh

– Mid-Peak 7:00 am to 1:00 pm WD 6.5148 ¢/kWh

– Off-Peak 9:00 pm to 7:00 am WE/Holidays 4.8074 ¢/kWh

• Flat rate September-May 5.7783 ¢/kWh

Time-of-Day ProgramRates Differentials

2005 2006-2008

on peak/off peak 30% 84%

on peak/mid peak 11% 36%

mid peak/off peak 16% 35%

Customer SolicitationCurrent process

• Send postcard/bill insert to eligible customers

• Send thank-you letter to existing customers

• Advertise in local paper

• Hold public event in person to answer questions

Research PlanTime-of-Day and Energy Watch

• Data Analysis– RLW Analytics 2006 & 2007

• Bill Analysis

• Energy Consumption / Peak Usage Analysis

• Temperature Usage Correlation

• Customer Surveys– 2005 – Northwest Research Group, Boise Idaho

– 2006 - Clearwater Research, Boise Idaho

• 2007-2008 Ongoing reporting

Program Participation

Energy Watch Time-of-Day

2005 76 90

2006 68 76

2007 58 86

2008 58 82

Data Analyses

TOD Energy Usage Results

Average Weekday Comparison Average Weekday Comparison -- 20052005

H: Control Group, Mean, TODB: TOD Test Group, Mean, TOD

0

1

2

3

06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00

kW

Hour Ending

June

0

1

2

3

06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00

kW

Hour Ending

July

0

1

2

3

06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00

kW

Hour Ending

August

TOD Energy Usage Results

Average Weekday ComparisonsAverage Weekday Comparisons

B: Test Sample, TODD: Control Group, TOD

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00

kW

Hour Ending

June

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00

kW

Hour Ending

July

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00

kW

Hour Ending

August

- 2006

EW Energy Usage 2005

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

01:00 04:00 07:00 10:00 13:00 16:00 19:00 22:00

kW

Local Time

Friday July 01, 2005

Average of All Event DaysAverage of All Event Days

Average of All Event Days

EventPeriod

J: Control Group, Mean, EWPC: EWP Test Group, Mean, EWP

EW Energy Usage - 2006

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00

kW

Tuesday, August 01, 2006 5:00:00 PM to 9:00:00 PM

Curtailment Performance GraphAVG CPP Events, Test EWP

BaselineActualEnergy Savings

Average of All Event DaysAverage of All Event Days

Savings

ControlPeriod

Test Group

ControlGroup

Load Analysis Results

Average difference between participant group and control groupfor June-August

Energy Watch4 hour average load reduction

Time-of-DaykWh difference*

2005 2006 2005 2006

1.33 kW 1.26 kWOn-Peak 54 kWh lessMid-Peak 8 kWh less

Off-Peak 49 kWh more

On-Peak 36 kWh moreMid-Peak 22 kWh moreOff-Peak 146 kWh more

EW Event Days 2005Temperature Usage Correlation

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Thu 07 Fri 08 Sat 09 Sun 10 Mon 11 Tue 12 Wed 13 Thu 14 Fri 15 Sat 16

kW

Local Time

July 2005

Event DaysEvent Days

94oF 96oF 104oF 106oF 96oF 101oF 97oF 90oF99oF

July 7 July 13 July 15 July 21 July 27 July 29 August 4 August 9 August 11

EW Event Days 2006Temperature Usage Correlation

Event DaysEvent Days

June 29 July 11 July 14 July 18 July 19 July 25 July 27 August 3 August 9 August 15

85oF 100oF 98oF 94oF 98oF 104oF 92oF 92oF99oF 85oF

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

Tue 01 Wed 02 Thu 03 Fri 04 Sat 05 Sun 06 Mon 07 Tue 08 Wed 09 Thu 10 Fri 11

kW

Local Time

August 2006

Weather Regression for the Energy Watch Program

EW Savings vs. Temperature

-0.200.40

0.600.801.001.20

1.401.601.80

70 90 110

Temperature (F)

Sa

vin

gs

(k

W)

EW Reduction vs. TemperatureEW Reduction vs. Temperature

EW Demand Reduction vs. Temperature

0.900

1.000

1.100

1.200

1.300

1.400

1.500

1.600

1.700

80 85 90 95 100 105 110

Temperature

Dem

an

d (

kW

)

20052006

EW Reduction vs. Temperature

T-value of 1.82 and a p-value of 0.078.Reduction = 0.62738+0.000762*Temperature

T-value of 5.55 and a p-value of 0.0001Reduction = -1.09089+0.02611*Temperature

EW Energy Usage –2007Average event showing each event

Energy Watch Events: 2007 Season

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

kW

h

22-Jun-07 Total 11-Jul-07 Total 12-Jul-07 Total 18-Jul-07 Total 20-Jul-07 Total

26-Jul-07 Total 31-Jul-07 Total 08-Aug-07 Total 14-Aug-07 Total 15-Aug-07 Total

EW Energy Usage –2007Day before, day of, day after

Energy Watch Event #7: July 31, 2007

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

kW

h

30-Jul-07 Total 31-Jul-07 Total 01-Aug-07 Total

EW Energy Usage –2007Two consecutive days

Energy Watch Event #2 & #3: July 11, 2007 & July 12, 2007

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

kW

h

10-Jul-07 Total 11-Jul-07 Total 12-Jul-07 Total 13-Jul-07 Total

Customer Survey Results

Customer Survey Results

Likelihood to Participate Again

Energy Watch Time-of-Day

2005 2006 2005 2006

Very Likely 62% 67% 68% 58%

Somewhat Likely

22% 24% 23% 20%

Customer Survey Results

Participants felt there was a reduction in their electricity bill

Energy Watch Time-of-Day

2005 2006 2005 2006

41% 68% 47% 72%

Bill Analysis Results

Average difference between control group bill and participant bill for June-Aug

Energy Watch Time-of-Day

2005 2006 2005 2006

-$22.26 -$24.74 -$10.57 -$1.57

Customer Survey Highlights - 2005

• The most effective means to provide information is direct mail or bill stuffer

• Those who did not participate indicated they felt the programs were not convenient or would not save enough electricity, also they did not want to change when they used electricity and that there was not enough incentive to participate

• In order to acquire more customers for these programs, the utility will have to show the benefits of participating and provide messaging that customers will not lose control

Customer Survey Highlights - 2006

• Satisfaction is tied to the sense that their electricity bill decreased and that they were conserving energy

• Most participants indicated they changed the way they used electricity

• Less than half of all participants and less than one third of Energy Watch participants have central air conditioning

• About half of the participants are over the age 65

• Most participants have been Idaho Power customers more than 25 years

Lessons Learned

• Labor Intensive– Call Center

– Meter Support

– Corporate Communications

– Customer Satisfaction

• Automated System(s) for Customer Notification

• Need infrastructure in place

• Need constant marketing/reinforcement

• More and easier “near real time” feedback to customers

• No clear customer elasticity

• Review program design– Hours

– Rates

Questions/Comments