facilitating dr development: barriers, interconnection, rates, and ratemaking
DESCRIPTION
Facilitating DR Development: Barriers, Interconnection, Rates, and Ratemaking. June 16, 2003 Harrisburg, PA. Institutional and Regulatory Barriers. Permitting and Siting Processes Multiple agency approvals may be needed Potentially complex and time-consuming Rates and Ratemaking issues - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Website:
http://www.raponline.org
The Regulatory Assistance Project177 Water St.
Gardiner, Maine USA 04345Tel: 207.582.1135
Fax: 207.582.1176
50 State Street, Suite 3Montpelier, Vermont USA 05602Tel: 802.223.8199Fax: 802.223.8172
Facilitating DR Development:Barriers, Interconnection,Rates, and Ratemaking
June 16, 2003Harrisburg, PA
Institutional and Regulatory Barriers
Permitting and Siting Processes– Multiple agency approvals may be needed– Potentially complex and time-consuming
Rates and Ratemaking issues– Stand-by rates, exit fees, deferral rates– What is reasonable? How to structure?– Potential financial impacts on utilities
Grid Interconnection Process– Safety, power quality, distribution system capacity constraints vs
utility discouragement of DG
Institutional and Regulatory Barriers
Market– Day ahead, multi-settlement demand bidding
For all of these issues:– Lack of technology information and generally
accepted standards– Large variation in requirements from state-to-
state, utility-to-utility, and project to project– Often a lengthy, complex, and expensive
process
Ratemaking
Revenue erosion– Methods for addressing potential negative
financial impacts on utilities• Lost-revenue adjustments
• Performance-based rate-making– Revenue caps PBR
– Removing the throughput disincentive: why not?
Lost Profits Problem
Consider whether regulation may unintentionally cause utilities to be hostile to demand-side (baseload energy efficiency) and distributed resources and, if so, what regulatory fixes are available.
Cost-of-Service Regulation Regulation and utility profits do not work as
one might expect Once a rate case ends prices are all that matter Profits = revenue - costs Rev = price * volume In the short-run, costs are mostly unrelated to
volume; instead they vary more directly with number of customers
If demand-side investment causes volume to decrease, utility profits drop
Lost Profits Math:Vertically Integrated Utility
Utility with $284 million rate base ROE at 11% = $15.6 million Power costs $.04/kWh, retail rates average $.08;
sales at 1.776 TWh– At the margin, each saved kWh cuts $.04 from profits
– If sales drop 5%, profits drop $3.5 M
Demand reductions equal to 5% of sales will cut profits by 23%
Lost Profits Math:Wires-Only Company
Utility now has only a $114 million rate base ROE at 11% = $6.2 million Distribution rate of $0.04/kWh; throughput of
1.776 TWh– If DR is located in low-cost areas, each saved kWh cuts
$.04 from profits
– If sales drop 5%: profits drop $3.5 M
5% reduction in sales will cut profits by 57%
Performance-Based Regulation
All regulation is incentive regulation– Trick is to understand the incentives
PBR structural options– Revenue caps, price caps, hybrids, rate freezes
• Scope, duration
PBRFormula for revenue caps PBR
– % change in Revenue = It – Xt + Zt
Formula for price caps PBR– % change in Price = It – Xt + Zt
Common elements– It = Inflation in year t– X = Productivity improvement in year t– Z = Exogenous changes in year t
PBRPer Customer Revenue Cap
A cap is placed on distribution company revenues Cap is computed at beginning of first year as
average revenue requirement per customer (RPC) Allowed revenues at end of year computed as RPC
times number of customers. RPC adjusted in following years for inflation,
productivity, and other factors Rates set as usual: per kW and per kWh Utility and customers both have incentive to be
efficient
PBR Revenue caps v. price caps
– Cost-cutting incentives are the same– Revenue caps make more sense if costs don’t vary with volume
• Per-customer revenue cap more accurately matches utility short-run revenue need with short-run costs
– Retail prices still set on unit basis (per kWh, kW)!– Price caps make more sense if costs vary with volume– Primary difference is the incentive for DSM and demand response
• Firms under revenue caps want very efficient customers• Revenue caps deals with lost sales disincentives without radical price
reforms– Logic also applies to transmission companies
• On a total revenue basis, with performance measures for congestion management. Can’t be done on a per-customer basis.
Rate Issues
Rate design – how does it encourage or discourage distributed resources?– Standard offer and delivery rates
• Time-differentiated rates: TOU, seasonal, etc.
– Stand-by or back-up service and exit fees– De-averaged distribution credits
Rates Retail prices: do they send proper economic
signals? Do they reveal the value of DR? Stand-by rates:
– How are they calculated? As they set so as to discourage on-site generation?
– What is the probability that the self-generating customer will demand grid power at high-cost times?
Generation displacement rates: energy at low rates to deter threat of self-generation
Exit fees: to recover distribution costs “stranded” by departing or self-generating customers
Distribution Costs
Distribution costs vary greatly from place to place and time to time– Marginal costs range from 0 to 20 cents per
kWh
High cost areas can be urban or ruralTypically, around 5% of a distribution
system is "high cost" at any time
Distribution Pricing
Geographically de-averaging prices is probably not the answer
Prices would range from 0 to 20 cents per kWh
Neighbors could see widely different pricesEquity and customer acceptance issues
would be large
Distribution Credits Offering distribution credits can send economic
price signals with much less risk– Calculated with reference to the avoided cost of new
distribution investment in high-cost areas
Credits can focus on customer and vendor actions Credits can be limited to “qualifying DR”
– Defined by type, performance, emissions, output, duration, etc.
Can use standard payments and/or bidding
Interconnection
Most DG projects need access to the grid– For back-up/standby operation– To supply some portion of power consumption– To sell excess power
Interconnection raises real and complex issues of grid security and worker safety but can also be a means of utility discouragement of DG.
Developer Concerns
Interconnection is left to the utility, which may see DG as a direct competitor.
Utility is free to set complex and expensive study and equipment requirements.– Usually handled on a case-by-case basis (except
for net metering)
There is little accountability or recourse for delays or unfavorable outcomes.
Utility Concerns
DG could disrupt or destabilize the grid either in normal operation or malfunction.
DG could create a safety risk to workers.Utilities have historically controlled these
issues and have their own procedures, which they consider to be best practice.
Widespread DG is new for many utilities.
Interconnection Issues
Technical and equipment standards.Degree of standardization.Organization of utility review.Level of review and treatment for large vs
small systems.
Net Metering
A demonstrated and workable solution for small systems.
“Standardized” rules for small systems behind the meter.– “Small” ranges from 3 to 100 kW– Technology requirements are limited
Still wide variation from state-to-state.
For Larger SystemsOften considered with requirements for large
merchant plants but issues may be very different:– Cost– Technology– Where is the size cut-off?
Different technical and procedural approaches required for different applications
Standardized Interconnection Procedures
Define the procedures, responsibilities, and limitations for various parties
Being developed at different levels– National: FERC, NARUC/NRRI– State: California, Texas, New York,
Massachusetts
Too many standards?
Topics of Standardized Interconnection Procedures
Standard ApplicationExpeditious Review
– Screening criteria (size, drawings, devices)Standard Agreement
– Technical requirementsUtility ActionsTestingDispute Resolution
Technical Standards
Provide specific technical/equipment requirements for interconnection.
Primary focus is IEEE stakeholder process to define standards.
IEEE 1547 nearly complete.