1 / 18

NSTAR Smart Energy Pilot Update

NSTAR Smart Energy Pilot Update. Presented to the MA DPU Grid Modernization Working Group May 22, 2013. Smart Grid Communications and Enabled Capabilities. This pilot is testing customer reaction to rates and near real-time information, comparing results from 4 treatment groups. 3.

shamus
Download Presentation

NSTAR Smart Energy Pilot Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NSTAR Smart Energy Pilot Update Presented to the MA DPU Grid Modernization Working Group May 22, 2013

  2. Smart Grid Communications and Enabled Capabilities

  3. This pilot is testing customer reaction to rates and near real-time information, comparing results from 4 treatment groups 3

  4. All participants received real-time information on usage and cost All Participant Groups Load Control In Home Display Access to Web Portal Internet Gateway / HAN Programmable Thermostat • Zigbee device • Real-time power demand • Billing period electricity consumption & cost • Price of electricity • Home Area Network (HAN) to enable two-way communication between the customer and NSTAR • Up to 4 programmable set points per day • Controllable over the Internet via the Web Portal • Critical Event management and control • View and manage household energy consumption online • Receive messages from NSTAR • Analyze historical usage patterns 4

  5. Challenging to convert “interest” to “install” and to sustain interest long- term 53,000 Customer contacts 6.7% Response 3600 Customers Enrolled 25% Dropout prior to Install 2,700Customers Installed 1,594 Currently Enrolled 40% Dropout after install

  6. Peak Period Savings Up to 16% for TOU Rate * Findings based on 9 months of data, may not be indicative of results at pilot end TOU rate saved ~0.15 kW (summer afternoons and winter late afternoons/evenings) TOU savings: 10 -16% depending on customer loads Non-TOU summer savings of ~4% 6 6

  7. Load reductions during summer events vary with the rate and technology • Load control reductions ~0.5kW during summer events (~20-25%) • Predicted baseline usage closely matches actual loads

  8. Customers generally report that they are satisfied but are not using technology in significant numbers According to our mid-point survey, the majority of participants have characterized their pilot experience as positive 75% rated their experience as “somewhat positive” or “very positive” TOU participants are more satisfied that non-TOU participants Customers in the TOU participant group have indicated that the in-home display has helpful Participants rarely if ever take advantage of the web-portal

  9. Key findings to date Load and Energy Impacts Load reductions of ~0.5 kW during summer events with load control 10-16% peak reduction from TOU rates (control group difficult to match without pre-pilot interval data) Energy impacts (kWh) are modest (0-6%) but not statistically significant as of the last analysis Technology Usage Customers are not using technology in significant numbers Newer pilots use mobile devices and push-messaging Participation Significant drop out rate – even among a sample of relatively “engaged” customers May not work for all customers

  10. U.S. Experience with Time Based Rates

  11. Navigant interviewed 9 utilities to learn why pilots have or have not progressed to implementation • Questions focused on… • Rate design and technologies offered • Reasons why the pilot was or wasn’t offered permanently • Customer enrollment and satisfaction • Regulator response to the rate • Type of metering used (AMI vs. AMR) • Interviews were 20-60 minutes by phone • Utilities were selected that have recently ran time-based rate pilots (TOU, CPP, VPP, PTR, RTP) Page 11

  12. Status of the 9 pilots vary Page 12

  13. Only pilots that demonstrate a strong business case and achieve stated goals move on to full rate deployment Page 13

  14. Pilots that moved forward Page 14

  15. Pilots that have not gone forward Page 15

  16. Only a few programs have achieved significant participation rates over the past decade These are the 9 highest subscribed residential TOU programs in the US based on 2006 FERC data Page 16 Data Source: FERC. Assessment of Demand Response & Advanced metering, 2006 report.

  17. Conclusions • Cost-benefit analysis must demonstrate benefits to customers • Understand whether additional benefit is gained by installing AMI if AMR is already in place • Complexity of rate design affects customer response and satisfaction • Utility staff training is needed to support customers • Customer education is needed to enhance their response • Customer engagement is a crucial element of successful time-based rate pilots • Low enrollment during deployments suggests that high customer interest during pilot phases may be misleading Page 17

  18. Contact Doug Horton NSTAR (781) 441-8046 Douglas.Horton@nstar.com Stuart Schare Navigant (303) 728-2504 stuart.schare@navigant.com David Walls Navigant (781) 270-8436 DWalls@navigant.com

More Related