Real Time Pricing as a Default or Optional Service for C&ICustomers: A Comparative Analysis of Eight Case Studies
Demand response (DR) has been broadly recognized to be an integral component of well-functioning electricity markets, although currently underdeveloped in most regions. Among the various initiatives undertaken to remedy this deficiency, public utility commissions (PUC) and utilities have considered implementing dynamic pricing tariffs, such as real-time pricing (RTP), and other retail pricing mechanisms that communicate an incentive for electricity consumers to reduce their usage during periods of high generation supply costs or system reliability contingencies. Efforts to introduce DR into retail electricity markets confront a range of basic policy issues. First, a fundamental issue in any market context is how to organize the process for developing and implementing DR mechanisms in a manner that facilitates productive participation by affected stakeholder groups. Second, in regions with retail choice, policymakers and stakeholders face the threshold question of whether it is appropriate for utilities to offer a range of dynamic pricing tariffs and DR programs, or just ''plain vanilla'' default service. Although positions on this issue may be based primarily on principle, two empirical questions may have some bearing--namely, what level of price response can be expected through the competitive retail market, and whether establishing RTP as the default service is likely to result in an appreciable level of DR? Third, if utilities are to have a direct role in developing DR, what types of retail pricing mechanisms are most appropriate and likely to have the desired policy impact (e.g., RTP, other dynamic pricing options, DR programs, or some combination)? Given a decision to develop utility RTP tariffs, three basic implementation issues require attention. First, should it be a default or optional tariff, and for which customer classes? Second, what types of tariff design is most appropriate, given prevailing policy objectives, wholesale market structure, ratemaking practices and standards, and customer preferences? Third, if a primary goal for RTP implementation is to induce DR, what types of supplemental activities are warranted to support customer participation and price response (e.g., interval metering deployment, customer education, and technical assistance)?
- Research Organization:
- Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley NationalLaboratory, Berkeley, CA (US)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE. Office of Electricity Delivery and EnergyReliability; California Energy Commission. Public Interest EnergyResearch Program 500-03-026
- DOE Contract Number:
- AC02-05CH11231
- OSTI ID:
- 891019
- Report Number(s):
- LBNL--57661; BnR: 600303000
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
The Role of Demand Response in Default Service Pricing
Customer response to day-ahead wholesale market electricity prices: Case study of RTP program experience in New York