ISO New England ISO New England 2002 Demand 2002 Demand
Response Program Response Program EvaluationEvaluation
Presentation of “Major Findings”Presentation of “Major Findings”ToTo
The ISO Demand Response The ISO Demand Response Working GroupWorking Group
Townsley Consulting GroupTownsley Consulting GroupFebruary 7, 2003February 7, 2003
2TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Evaluation FocusEvaluation Focus
Benefit Cost AnalysisBenefit Cost Analysis Total Resource TestTotal Resource Test Sensitivity AnalysisSensitivity Analysis Congestion Cost AssessmentCongestion Cost Assessment Impact of Class 2 DR on ECPImpact of Class 2 DR on ECP
Retail Participant SurveyRetail Participant Survey Stakeholder Surveys i.e. PUCs, LSEsStakeholder Surveys i.e. PUCs, LSEs Review of Key ProcessesReview of Key Processes
3TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Cost Benefit Analysis-Cost Benefit Analysis-Class 1Class 1
Total Resource Benefit Cost Ratios:Total Resource Benefit Cost Ratios:All New England (NE) 0.85All New England (NE) 0.85SWCT 0.94SWCT 0.94NE minus SWCT 0.32NE minus SWCT 0.32• The B/C ratio could be improved by The B/C ratio could be improved by
assuming more than a 1 year amortization assuming more than a 1 year amortization year of infrastructure costs.year of infrastructure costs.
• Significantly increasing the reliability benefit Significantly increasing the reliability benefit as represented by TMOR would be required as represented by TMOR would be required to achieve program cost effectiveness in to achieve program cost effectiveness in areas beyond SWCT.areas beyond SWCT.
4TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Benefit Cost Analysis-Benefit Cost Analysis-Class 2Class 2
Total Resource Benefit Cost Ratio = Total Resource Benefit Cost Ratio = 0.530.53
The B/C cost ratio could be improved The B/C cost ratio could be improved substantially by increasing the substantially by increasing the average percentage of enrolled load average percentage of enrolled load reduced per called event hour from reduced per called event hour from 9% to in excess of 20%.9% to in excess of 20%.
5TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Benefit Cost Sensitivity Benefit Cost Sensitivity Analysis Class 1 (SWCT)Analysis Class 1 (SWCT)
Reliability Benefit Value Benefit/Cost Reliability Benefit Value Benefit/Cost RatioRatio
$20 KW-month* 0.43$20 KW-month* 0.43
$63 KW-month ** 1.25$63 KW-month ** 1.25** Incremental value approved by the CT DPUC.Incremental value approved by the CT DPUC.
** Marginal value of ISO’s CT Supplemental RFP** Marginal value of ISO’s CT Supplemental RFP
The base case Value of Load Loss for retail The base case Value of Load Loss for retail customers is $ 11,151/ hr. Which is well customers is $ 11,151/ hr. Which is well within the generally accepted range of within the generally accepted range of $5K to $15K/hr.$5K to $15K/hr.
6TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Benefit Cost Sensitivity Benefit Cost Sensitivity Analysis-Class 2Analysis-Class 2
• Extending the number of called event Extending the number of called event hours to include all hours where the ECP hours to include all hours where the ECP exceeds exceeds
$ 50/MWh would increase the total $ 50/MWh would increase the total resource cost benefit ratio to 1.13.resource cost benefit ratio to 1.13.
• Additionally, increasing the percentage of Additionally, increasing the percentage of the enrolled load responding on average the enrolled load responding on average each hour from 9% to 27% would further each hour from 9% to 27% would further increase the total resource cost benefit increase the total resource cost benefit ratio to 2.82.ratio to 2.82.
7TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Congestion Price Duration Congestion Price Duration Impact on Class 2Impact on Class 2
# of hours Congestion** # of hours Congestion** AverageAverage
at Hours Costat Hours Cost >$200 >$100 >$50 $/MWh>$200 >$100 >$50 $/MWhBoston* 28 493 7,671 7,975 68.3Boston* 28 493 7,671 7,975 68.3SWCT * 136 642 2,010 3,028 47.5SWCT * 136 642 2,010 3,028 47.5NE ECP 8 53 1,045 35.6***NE ECP 8 53 1,045 35.6***
* NE ECP + Congestion Costs* NE ECP + Congestion Costs** Based on Jan-Nov 2002 data** Based on Jan-Nov 2002 data*** Based on Jan-Dec 2002 data*** Based on Jan-Dec 2002 data
8TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Congestion Price Duration Congestion Price Duration Impact on Class 2Impact on Class 2
Hours Required to Achieve Program Cost Hours Required to Achieve Program Cost Effectiveness Effectiveness
as a Percent of Enrolled Loadas a Percent of Enrolled Load ___________Hours__________ ___________Hours__________ % MW % MW NE-ECP Boston CT SWCT NE-ECP Boston CT SWCT 5 4 5 4 1999 993 1020 593 1999 993 1020 593 10 7 816 406 257 21710 7 816 406 257 217 15 11 468 235 124 11115 11 468 235 124 111 20 15 306 156 66 6420 15 306 156 66 64 30 22 158 79 29 2830 22 158 79 29 28 40 29 92 45 21 2040 29 92 45 21 20 50 37 58 29 16 1550 37 58 29 16 15
9TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Impact of Class 2 DR on Impact of Class 2 DR on ECPECP
Analysis of Supply Curve Data for a 200MW Load Analysis of Supply Curve Data for a 200MW Load Reduction.Reduction.
LowerLowerEvent Bid Price PriceEvent Bid Price PriceDay Hr. ECP Price Impact SavingsDay Hr. ECP Price Impact Savings6/3 14 $195 $179 $16 $101,4006/3 14 $195 $179 $16 $101,4006/3 15 $194 $179 $15 $ 94,4006/3 15 $194 $179 $15 $ 94,4006/3 16 $115 $102 $13 $ 83,3006/3 16 $115 $102 $13 $ 83,3008/14 14 $1,000 $1,000 --- ---8/14 14 $1,000 $1,000 --- ---8/14 15 $1,000 $1,000 --- ---8/14 15 $1,000 $1,000 --- ---8/14 16 $1,000 $1,000 --- ---8/14 16 $1,000 $1,000 --- ---Issue:Issue:• Price caps would seem to diminish the DR price Price caps would seem to diminish the DR price
impact savingsimpact savings
10TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Retail Participant Survey Retail Participant Survey ResultsResults
All retail DR Program participants were All retail DR Program participants were e-mailed an comprehensive, automated e-mailed an comprehensive, automated Microsoft Word survey to ascertain their Microsoft Word survey to ascertain their opinions and thoughts regarding opinions and thoughts regarding program participation and to develop program participation and to develop information useful to future program information useful to future program planning.planning.
Approximately 17% of the participants Approximately 17% of the participants returned a completed survey document.returned a completed survey document.
11TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Key Marketing Key Marketing InfluencerInfluencer
From whom do you prefer to receive information about the program(s)?
(check all that apply)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Newspaper
Other please specify:
Other service provider
Trade Association
Through an information meeting withmultiple sponsors
Your state public utility commission
Competitive energy supplier(s)
Your local electric company
ISO New England
%
From whom
12TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Information MeetingsInformation MeetingsDid you attend an informational meeting?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Yes I attended a meeting I chose not to attend I did not hear about an informational meeting
Percentage
Response
13TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Key Communication Key Communication MethodsMethods
Percent Rating Communication Methods as Extremely or Very Desirable
(multiple answers)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
In p
ers
on
co
nta
ct/
ac
co
un
tre
p E-m
ail
s
Te
ch
nic
al
Info
Me
eti
ng
s
Ge
ne
ral
Info
Me
eti
ng
s
Le
tte
r
Bro
ch
ure
s
Ne
ws
lett
ers
We
b s
ite
s
TV
Ra
dio
%
Communciation Method
14TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Satisfaction with EnrollerSatisfaction with EnrollerWho led you through the sign-up/enrollment process? How satisfied were you
with the support they provided?
Tota
l Sele
ctin
g E
ntit
y
Tota
l Sele
ctin
g E
ntit
y
Tota
l Sele
ctin
g E
ntit
y
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Local electric company Competitive Energy Supplier Other Service Provider
Extremely Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Marginally Satisfied
Not Satisfied
no response
Total Selecting Entity
Entity who led through sign-up process
Level of satisfaction and total
15TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Program Rules/Procedures – how Program Rules/Procedures – how receivedreceived
How did you receive the program rules and procedures?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Both verbally and in writing Electronically (Email orWebsite)
In writing only Only verbally Not at all
Percentage
How program rules and procedures were received
16TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Rating of Payment/Settlement Rating of Payment/Settlement ProcessProcess
How would you rate the program payment/settlement process?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Comment
Don't know
Poor
Fair
Average
Good
Excellent
%
Rating
17TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Event Notification Event Notification MethodMethod
Comparison of Notification Method Used vs. Preferred
automated phone call
automated phone call
pager
pager
fax
fax
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Used during 2002 Preference
automated phone call
pager
fax
2002 vs. Prefered
Notification Method
18TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Event Non-ParticipationEvent Non-ParticipationReason for not participating in an event after enrolling in the program (check all
that apply)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Expected paymentamount insufficient
Had not received paymentfor previous event(s)
Insufficient personnel
Plant already closed
Could not reduce load asplanned
Did not receive notice intime
%
Reason
19TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Major Load Curtailment Major Load Curtailment ActionsActions
Major Action Taken to Reduce Load During an Event(multiple responses)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Other please specify
Adjusted temperature or shut offwater heating
Shed load via the EMS system
Shut down office/plant by
Adjusted temperature or shut offrefrigeration
Operated on-site generator
Adjusted temperature or shut offair conditioning
Reduced or shut off officeequipment
Halted or reduced productionprocess(es)
Turned off lights
%
Major Actions
20TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Financial ImpactFinancial ImpactFinancial Impacts of Program
Yes Y
es
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Don’t k
now
Don’t k
now
Don’t k
now
Don’t k
now
No c
om
ment
No c
om
ment
Not
applic
able
Not
applic
able
No
Don’t k
now
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Incrementaldecrease -
operating revenue
Incrementalincrease - operatingexpense
Add't adverseimpact ofprogram
participation
Loss of amenities(e.g. comfort,convenience)
Add't benefits ofprogram
participation
Yes
No
Don’t know
No comment
Not applicable
Financial Impacts
Answer
21TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Simple Payback Period Simple Payback Period RequiredRequired
What simple pay back period would your company require for an investment to improve your facility’s capability to manage load?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Less than 1year
Less than 2years
Less than 3years
Less than 5years
Less than 7years
Less than 10years
No specificinvestment
criteria
Otherinvestment
criteria
Would notmake such an
investment
Percentage
Simple pay back period
22TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Estimated Economic LossEstimated Economic Loss- Unplanned Power Outage- Unplanned Power Outage
Estimted Economic Loss From Unplanned Power Outage - 2 hrs during weekday afternoon
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
$0 to $499 $500 to $999 $1,000 to$4,999
$5,000 to$9,999
$10,000 to$19,999
$20,000 to$39,999
$40,000 to$59,999
$60,000 to$79,999
$80,000 to$999,999
$100,000 ormore
Percentage
Range of Economic Loss
23TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Installed EquipmentInstalled EquipmentEquipment Installed to Participate in DRP
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Load control devices forequipment
Load control devices forlighting
Interval sub-meters at majorloads
New on-site generators
Energy management system
None
Comm. Equip./Notificationtechnologies
Interval meter and/or pulseinitiator at service entrance
Internet-based meter-reading
Percentage
Equipment Installed
24TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Future Program FeaturesFuture Program FeaturesDesirability of Possible Future Program Features
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Financing orincentives for
loadmanagementinfrastructure
tech.investments
Free facility loadmanagment
potentialassessments
Air emissionspermitting
assistance -standby
generators
Multi-yr paym’tguarantees
independent ofcurtailmentfrequency
Ability to tradeor sell monthlyDR capacity
credits
Reducedstandby
generator retailtariff back-up
reqs.
Ability toreselect new
programtype/format
monthly
Essential
Highly desirable
Desirable
Indifferent
Don't know
Undesirable
Program Feature
Desirabilty:
25TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Overall SatisfactionOverall SatisfactionOverall Satisfaction With the Program
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
very satisfied somewhat satisfied satisfied somewhatdissatisfied
very dissatisfied
Percentage
Satisfaction
26TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Satisfaction with ISO – NE Satisfaction with ISO – NE SupportSupport
Overall Satisfaction With ISO-NE Program Support
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
very satisfied somewhat satisfied satisfied somewhatdissatisfied
very dissatisfied
Percentage
Satisfaction
27TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Stakeholder Survey-PUC Stakeholder Survey-PUC staffsstaffs
In person interviews were held with In person interviews were held with most PUC staffs in NE.most PUC staffs in NE.
The following feedback was received:The following feedback was received:• All felt that power supply issues All felt that power supply issues
were a high priority for their state, were a high priority for their state, but not all thought that DR was a but not all thought that DR was a high priority.high priority.
28TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Stakeholder Survey-PUC Stakeholder Survey-PUC staffsstaffs
• Most PUC staffs did not see the 2002 Most PUC staffs did not see the 2002 DRP as successful based on: DRP as successful based on: The amount of enrolled load.The amount of enrolled load. Start-up problems (i.e., late rollout, Start-up problems (i.e., late rollout,
customer notification, and settlement customer notification, and settlement problems, etc.) problems, etc.)
Class 1 resource not tested.Class 1 resource not tested.• All felt the ISO was primarily All felt the ISO was primarily
responsible for reliability within the responsible for reliability within the Standard Market Zones.Standard Market Zones.
29TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Stakeholder Survey-PUC Stakeholder Survey-PUC staffsstaffs
• Satisfaction with the LSE’s efforts in Satisfaction with the LSE’s efforts in marketing and communicating the marketing and communicating the benefits of DR range from excellent to benefits of DR range from excellent to unreliable.unreliable.
• Regional Barriers to DR deployment Regional Barriers to DR deployment identified:identified: Not easily understood by customers.Not easily understood by customers. Lack of technical support for customers.Lack of technical support for customers. Incentive payments too low.Incentive payments too low. Absence of residential and small C/I Absence of residential and small C/I
customer aggregation.customer aggregation.
30TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Stakeholder Survey-PUC Stakeholder Survey-PUC staffsstaffs
• Comments were not favorable regarding the Comments were not favorable regarding the potential for pricing reforms to more potential for pricing reforms to more directly align wholesale and retail prices. directly align wholesale and retail prices. Some support exists for voluntary TOU Some support exists for voluntary TOU rates and load shedding program rates and load shedding program participation. Political and legislative participation. Political and legislative barriers to reforms were perceived as barriers to reforms were perceived as substantial.substantial.
• Most PUCs did not anticipate a significant Most PUCs did not anticipate a significant DR communication role, citing financial and DR communication role, citing financial and people resource constraints.people resource constraints.
31TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Stakeholder Survey-PUC Stakeholder Survey-PUC staffsstaffs
• Recommendations included:Recommendations included: More specific goal setting for DR programs More specific goal setting for DR programs
i.e. the amount of load to be enrolled i.e. the amount of load to be enrolled reflecting sharp supply cost increases at reflecting sharp supply cost increases at various load levels.various load levels.
Achieve greater parity in market pricing Achieve greater parity in market pricing between supply and demand resources.between supply and demand resources.
Create an ISO/NEPOOL standing Create an ISO/NEPOOL standing committee on DR and related customer committee on DR and related customer issues which is equivalent in stature and issues which is equivalent in stature and resources to the Reliability and Markets resources to the Reliability and Markets committees. committees.
32TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Stakeholder Survey-LSEsStakeholder Survey-LSEs
LSE’s (or distribution companies) were LSE’s (or distribution companies) were given the opportunity to participate in a given the opportunity to participate in a group discussion or respond to an e-mail group discussion or respond to an e-mail survey instrument.survey instrument.
The following feedback was received:The following feedback was received:• All respondents indicated power supply All respondents indicated power supply
issues were a high priority for them. issues were a high priority for them. One mentioned the targeting of Demand One mentioned the targeting of Demand Side Management Resources to reduce Side Management Resources to reduce load near substations with reliability load near substations with reliability concerns.concerns.
33TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Stakeholder Survey-LSEsStakeholder Survey-LSEs
• Comments were quite divided regarding Comments were quite divided regarding the perceived success of the 2002 the perceived success of the 2002 Program. Concerns expressed included:Program. Concerns expressed included: Low level of load signed up.Low level of load signed up. Low payments to customers and settlement Low payments to customers and settlement
problems.problems. The low value of ICAP created via the The low value of ICAP created via the
program.program. Problems with establishing the baseline Problems with establishing the baseline
measurement levels and confusion measurement levels and confusion regarding customer activation date. regarding customer activation date.
34TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Stakeholder Survey-LSEsStakeholder Survey-LSEs
• All respondents felt the ISO has the All respondents felt the ISO has the overall responsibility for zonal reliability.overall responsibility for zonal reliability.
• Marketing and Communication initiatives Marketing and Communication initiatives reported by respondents:reported by respondents: Letters sent to customers 200 KW and larger.Letters sent to customers 200 KW and larger. Account representatives called on customers.Account representatives called on customers. Hosted public forums and posted information Hosted public forums and posted information
on a website. on a website.
No respondent indicated they planned to do No respondent indicated they planned to do anything different in 2003. anything different in 2003.
35TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Stakeholder Survey-LSEsStakeholder Survey-LSEs
• Problems encountered in marketing Problems encountered in marketing the program:the program: Customers were confused about whether Customers were confused about whether
to sign-up for Class 1 or Class 2 program.to sign-up for Class 1 or Class 2 program. Explaining ICAP and TMOR to customers Explaining ICAP and TMOR to customers
was difficult.was difficult. Customers seemed to be making modest Customers seemed to be making modest
enrollment commitments as a learning enrollment commitments as a learning step and to gain access to incentives for step and to gain access to incentives for infrastructure upgrades.infrastructure upgrades.
36TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Stakeholder Survey-LSEsStakeholder Survey-LSEs
• Respondents were divided on whether Respondents were divided on whether or not program goals and objectives or not program goals and objectives were communicated clearly.were communicated clearly.
• Recommendations for the future:Recommendations for the future: Use the ISO’s website to communicate on Use the ISO’s website to communicate on
FAQs and other relevant program FAQs and other relevant program information.information.
Enhance ISO support to provide faster Enhance ISO support to provide faster turnaround on inquiries and settlement turnaround on inquiries and settlement questions.questions.
Improve event calling process.Improve event calling process.
37TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Stakeholder Survey-LSEsStakeholder Survey-LSEs
• On the issue of the ISO’s involvement in On the issue of the ISO’s involvement in program design, administration, and marketing, program design, administration, and marketing, respondents offered the following comments:respondents offered the following comments: Reactivate the DR working group to resolve and Reactivate the DR working group to resolve and
address issues and provide input into planning.address issues and provide input into planning. ISO should be involved in planning and ISO should be involved in planning and
administration; marketing should be shared with administration; marketing should be shared with participants. participants.
Alternatively some felt that the ISO provided Alternatively some felt that the ISO provided insufficient administrative resources in 2002, and insufficient administrative resources in 2002, and therefore should outsource future program therefore should outsource future program administration.administration.
38TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Review of Key ProcessesReview of Key Processes
During the course of the evaluation study, information During the course of the evaluation study, information emerged from survey data and interviews that emerged from survey data and interviews that indicated some administrative difficulties may have indicated some administrative difficulties may have arisen during the start-up and implementation of the arisen during the start-up and implementation of the 2002 DR Program.2002 DR Program.
Issues that surfaced as possible concerns included:Issues that surfaced as possible concerns included:• The quality of the information residing in the primary The quality of the information residing in the primary
customer information data base.customer information data base.• The validity of data utilized in the settlement process.The validity of data utilized in the settlement process.• The ability of the ISO to respond to and resolve in a The ability of the ISO to respond to and resolve in a
timely manner issues emanating from the enrollment, timely manner issues emanating from the enrollment, event notification and settlement processes.event notification and settlement processes.
39TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Review of Key ProcessesReview of Key Processes
To ascertain if problems in some To ascertain if problems in some administrative processes were administrative processes were contributing to stakeholder and retail contributing to stakeholder and retail customer dissatisfaction, the customer dissatisfaction, the information flow for the enrollment and information flow for the enrollment and settlement processes was reviewed settlement processes was reviewed with ISO staff and appropriate with ISO staff and appropriate stakeholders to understand the stakeholders to understand the information flow and the relevant information flow and the relevant history.history.
40TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Review of Key ProcessesReview of Key Processes
The review of the information flow for the The review of the information flow for the enrollment and settlement processes yielded enrollment and settlement processes yielded the following findings:the following findings:
• The staff assigned to handle initial processing The staff assigned to handle initial processing of the NX11c data was probably insufficient of the NX11c data was probably insufficient to handle the volume and initially lacked the to handle the volume and initially lacked the training necessary to evaluate and properly training necessary to evaluate and properly interpret the information. This resulted in interpret the information. This resulted in improper information being passed along in improper information being passed along in the enrollment process and to the primary the enrollment process and to the primary customer data base.customer data base.
41TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Review of Key ProcessesReview of Key Processes• In late spring of 2002 the ISO implemented a In late spring of 2002 the ISO implemented a
web based solution to automate and web based solution to automate and streamline the NX11c enrollment process. As streamline the NX11c enrollment process. As the program enrollment process was well the program enrollment process was well underway the new customer information underway the new customer information database was being populated as time database was being populated as time permitted from the original database. This permitted from the original database. This required staff to rely on two separate required staff to rely on two separate databases for primary customer information databases for primary customer information including activation status. Also the web including activation status. Also the web based solution initially had data formatting based solution initially had data formatting incompatibilities with the settlement data incompatibilities with the settlement data base which went undetected for a short time. base which went undetected for a short time.
42TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Review of Key ProcessesReview of Key Processes
• The information management problems The information management problems and some incongruence in baseline and some incongruence in baseline calculations between the RETX system calculations between the RETX system and the ISO’s settlement system and the ISO’s settlement system resulted in several questions from resulted in several questions from customers and LSE’s on settlement customers and LSE’s on settlement matters. The absence of well understood matters. The absence of well understood protocols for handling inquiries of this protocols for handling inquiries of this nature and a shortage of available staff nature and a shortage of available staff resources led to long delays (months) in resources led to long delays (months) in resolving settlement questions.resolving settlement questions.
43TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Review of Key ProcessesReview of Key Processes
The ISO is currently undertaking the following The ISO is currently undertaking the following measures to address the process issues measures to address the process issues identified:identified:
• Increasing DR professional staff resources from Increasing DR professional staff resources from one part-time individual last spring to a full one part-time individual last spring to a full time manager and two professional support time manager and two professional support staff.staff.
• Implementing an “open solutions” software Implementing an “open solutions” software system, which will among other objectives, system, which will among other objectives, standardize baseline calculations for settlement standardize baseline calculations for settlement and customer information purposes.and customer information purposes.
• Substantially upgrade and formalize its Substantially upgrade and formalize its business procedures and protocols for DR business procedures and protocols for DR administration. administration.
45TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Program Rules – easiness to Program Rules – easiness to understandunderstand
How Easy were the program rules and procedures to understand?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Extremely easy Very easy Easy Marginally easy Not easy
Percent
How Easy
46TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Program Rules and Procedures Program Rules and Procedures –supplier–supplier
If you received written program rules and procedures, who supplied them?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Your local electriccompany
ISO - New England Competitive energysupplier(s)
Other Your state publicutility commission
I did not receivethem
Other serviceprovider
Percentage
From whom written program rules and procedures were received
47TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Economic DRP GoalsEconomic DRP GoalsDoes your company have a specific economic goal or requirement for
participation in a demand response program event?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Yes No Don’t know No comment
Percentage
Response
48TOWNSLEY CONSULTING GROUP
Preference for Economic vs. Preference for Economic vs. Emergency ProgramsEmergency Programs
Based on the generic demand response programs described , would you be more likely to:
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Participate in either type ofprograms, depending onpotential for an economic
gain
Participate only in anEmergency type program
Participate only in anEconomic type program
skip to Question 7
Don’t know Not participate at all ineither program type, please
explain skip to nextsection
Sum of Percent
More like to:
Top Related