NSTAR Smart Energy Pilot Update

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
Group Smart Thermostat / Direct Load Control Target Number of Customers
1 Enhanced Information No 878
2 Peak Time Rebate 323
3 Time-of-Use (TOU) Rate plus Critical Peak Pricing (CPP) 309
4 Time-of-Use (TOU) Rate plus Critical Peak Pricing (CPP) No 917
Total 2,427
3
4
All participants received real-time information
on usage and cost
All Participant Groups
Load Control
Access to Web Portal
In Home Display
Programmable Thermostat
Internet Gateway / HAN

• Zigbee device
• Real-time power demand
• Billing period electricity consumption cost
• Price of electricity

• Up to 4 programmable set points per day
• Controllable over the Internet via the Web
  Portal
• Critical Event management and control

• Home Area Network (HAN) to enable two-way
  communication between the customer and NSTAR

• 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 wasnt 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
Pilot Results Rationale for Decision to Move Forward Deployment Experience (post-pilot)
Large pilot participation Understanding of customer response to time-based rates BGE customers preferred PTR rate options that provided higher benefits Strong regulatory support High participation rates in pilot CA utilities used pilot results to make the business case for AMI investments BGE received ARRA grant for AMI deployment Future enrollment is uncertain Commonwealth Edison system-wide customer enrollment for the permanent program is 1 even though there was large pilot participation
Page 14
15
Pilots that have not gone forward
Pilot Results Rationale for Decision to Not Move Forward
Understanding of customer response Communication technology proof-of-concept Customers seldom visited web portal Following initial enrollment for web portal, customers usage dropped off Understanding how customers used smart thermostats that were offered Ratepayer opposition Customer enrollment and engagement costs are high Unattractive business case
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
• [phone]
• Douglas.Horton_at_nstar.com

• Stuart Schare
• Navigant
• [phone]
• stuart.schare_at_navigant.com

David Walls Navigant [phone] DWalls_at_navigan
t.com