Transcript No Slide Title

Automated Demand Response Project
History and Future Directions
Presentation to the
California Maritime Academy
Mary Ann Piette
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Sponsored by CEC, PG&E, DOE, and SDG&E
May 2, 2007
drrc.lbl.gov
Presentation Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DR Research Center
Executive Summary on Automated Demand
Response
Key Results, Participants and Strategies for DR
Evaluation Methods and Technology
Economics
2007 AutoDR Utility Program Plans
Future Directions
DR Research Center
Objective
to develop, prioritize, conduct, and disseminate
multi-institutional research to facilitate DR
Scope
technologies, policies, programs, strategies and
practices, emphasizing a market connection
Method
Partners Planning Committee, Annual R&D Plan
Stakeholders
 State Policy Makers

 Researchers

 Information and
Metering System
Developers
 Aggregators
 Program Implementers



Utilities
Industry Trade
Associations
Building Owners /
Operators
Building Equipment
Manufacturers
End-Use customers
Current /Recent Projects
• Strategic and Policy Research
• Rate Design for Capturing Energy Efficiency and Demand Response
• DR Value Research
• DR Systems Integration
• AutoDR
• Demand Response Automation Server (DRAS)
• Statewide IOU/ISO Automated Demand Response Collaboration
• Behavior and DR for residential and small commercial customers
• Buildings
•
•
•
•
•
Wireless Demand Response Controller for HVAC
Demand Response Strategy Assessment Tools
Demand Shifting with Thermal Mass
Advanced Demand Response Lighting
Residential Thermostats
• Industrial, Agriculture and Water
• Commercial and Industrial Submetering for Demand Response
Monitoring
• DR Economic Tools
AutoDR Project Background
• Goals
• Develop a low-cost, fully automated infrastructure
to improve DR capability in California
• Evaluate “readiness” of (commercial) buildings
and industrial facilities to receive common signals
• Evaluate capability of control shed strategies and
measurement of sheds to improve future buildings
AutoDR Executive Summary
• AutoDR Technology Concept – “OpenADR”
• Open, two-way, interoperable industry standard for automating
DR
• Repeatable, reliable, secure, low-cost economic or reliability DR
• Internet based real-time link to energy management systems
• Demonstrated in 40 buildings over 4-year period,
under commercialization by all three IOUs for 2007
• High reliability for Auto-CPP, continued through 2006 heat wave
• Average peak reductions of 10 to 15% (3 to 6 hour events)
• Greater potential for shorter events
• Challenges with CPP Economics
• Low bill savings (less than 1%, avg 3 cents/ft2)
• Technical Potential
• ~1 GW
• 5 GW
- Economic Demand Response
- Reliability Demand Response
AutoDR Background and Definition
Goals
•
•
•
Develop low-cost, fully automated infrastructure to improve DR capability
Evaluate “readiness” of (commercial) buildings to receive common signals
Evaluate capability of control shed strategies
Definition
•
Automated Demand Response can be defined as fully automated DR initiated by a signal from
a utility or other appropriate entity to provide full automated connectivity to customer end-use
control strategies.
•
Signaling – The AutoDR technology should provide continuous, secure, reliable, two-way
communication with end-use customers to allow sites to be identified as listening and
acknowledging receipt of signals.
•
Industry Standards - Automated DR consists of open, interoperable industry standard control
and communications technologies designed to integrate with both common energy management
systems and other end-use devices that can receive a dry contact relay or similar signals (such
as internet based XML).
•
Timing of Notification - Day ahead and day of signals are provided by AutoDR technologies to
facilitate a diverse set of end-use strategies such as pre-cooling for "day ahead“ notification, or
near real-time communications to automation "day of" control strategies. Timing of DR
automation server (DRAS) communications must consider day ahead events that include
weekends and holidays.
Sample Results from 2006
130,000 ft2 County Office
Martinez, CA Office Building Electricity Use with & without AutoDR
June 21, 2006
Normal
Price
600
Moderate
Price
High
Price
Normal
Price
120
100
400
80
300
60
200
40
Building automatically reduces electricity
use
100
20
0
OAT (Outside Air Temperature)
500
23:00
21:00
22:00
19:00
20:00
18:00
16:00
17:00
14:00
15:00
12:00
13:00
11:00
9:00
Actual Building Electricity Use with DR
10:00
7:00
8:00
6:00
4:00
5:00
2:00
3:00
0:00
0
1:00
Whole Building Power [kW]
Price Change Signal Sent
Estimated Building Electricity Use without DR
OAT
Aggregated Results – June 26, Avg Max Temp 88 F, Zone 2
OAT and CPP Baselines show different results
1.3 MW reduction
during high price
period
Aggregated Demand, 6/26/2006 (OAT: 89 °F) - Zone 2, 8 sites
Moderate Price
9.0
High Price
8.0
7.0
Power [MW]
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
ACWD
MDF
IKEA EPaloAlto
B of A
Echelon
Oracle Rocklin
Chabot
Gilead 300
Target Hayward
2530 Arnold
Gilead 342
Adj OAT Reg BL
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
0.0
50 Douglas
Gilead 357
CPP BL
Average kW
Average %
Average W/ft²
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
ACWD
78
91
28%
32%
1.53
1.78
B of A
478
604
9%
12%
0.67
0.85
2530 Arnold
102
140
20%
29%
0.78
1.07
50 Douglas
57
94
13%
22%
0.63
1.04
MDF
90
155
17%
30%
0.52
0.90
Echelon
-2
80
0%
22%
-0.02
1.07
Oracle Rocklin
85
60
17%
14%
0.85
0.60
Target Hayward
59
56
15%
15%
0.45
0.43
Aggregated
946
1281
11%
16%
0.65
0.88
California Statewide AutoDR
Automated Demand Response System
Open Standards for an Open DR Market
DR Automation
Server (DRAS)
Hosted
at Co-Lo or Utility
(one DRAS per utility)
Open Standard DR Software Interface
Focus of AutoDR
2007 & beyond
Open Standard DR
Software Interface
`
Focus of AutoDR
2003-2006
Internet
Utility
DR Event
Notification System(s)
Utility DR
Decision Team
(PG&E, SCE & SDGE)
XML
Software
Gateway
Multi-Site
Energy Mngr.
(e.g., Target Stores,
Comverge, EnerNOC,
Site Controls)
XML
Software
Gateway
CLIR
Box
GTWY
GTWY
GTWY
GTWY
EMCS
Protocol
EMCS
Protocol
EMCS
Protocol
EMCS
Protocol
C
EMCS
Protocol
C
C
C
Electric
Loads
C
C
C
Electric
Loads
Individual Sites
(e.g., Whole Foods, Solectron)
C
C
C
Electric
Loads
C
C
C
C
Electric
Loads
Retail Chains &
Aggregated Sites
C
C
Electric
Loads
2006 Auto-CPP Participants (n=24)
Wide variety of building types
Short Name
ACWD
B of A
Chabot
2530 Arnold
50 Douglas
MDF
Echelon
Centerville
Irvington
Gilead 300
Gilead 342
Gilead 357
IKEA EPaloAlto
IKEA Emeryville
IKEA WSacto
Oracle Rocklin
Safeway Stockton
Solectron
Svenhard's
Sybase
Target Hayward
Target Antioch
Target Bakersfield
Walmart Fresno
Location
Fremont
Concord
Oakland
Martinez
Martinez
Martinez
San Jose
Fremont
Fremont
Foster City
Foster City
Foster City
East Palo Alto
Emeryville
West Sacramento
Rocklin
Stockton
Milpitas
Oakland
Dublin
Hayward
Antioch
Bakersfield
Fresno
CPP
Zone
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Building Use
Office, lab
Office, data center
Museum
Office
Office
Detention facility
Hi-tech office
Junior Highschool
Highschool
Office
Office, Lab
Office, Lab
Furniture retail
Furniture retail
Furniture retail
Office
Supermarket
Office, Manufacture
Bakery
Hi-tech office
Retail
Retail
Retail
Retail
# of
Peak
Floor Space
Bldg
Total
Conditioned Load kW
1
51,200
51,200
348
4
616,000
708,000
5712
2
86,000
86,000
336
1
131,000
131,000
536
1
90,000
90,000
459
1
172,300
172,300
561
1
75,000
75,000
523
1
N/A
N/A
332
1
186,000
186,000
446
1
83,000
83,000
288
1
32,000
32,000
495
1
33,000
33,000
662
1
300,000
300,000
1466
1
274,000
274,000
1191
1
265,000
265,000
1055
2
100,000
100,000
552
1
65,000
65,000
479
9
499,206
499,206
4655
1
101,000
101,000
696
2
425,000
425,000
1995
1
130,000
130,000
449
1
140,686
140,686
572
1
143,941
143,941
645
1
125,503
125,503
571
35 3,714,706
3,806,706
23,235
Auto-CPP Control Strategies
Dimmable ballast
X
X
Non-critical process shed
Turn off light
X
Bi-level switching
Office area light dim
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
Common area light dim
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Extended shed period
X
X
Slow recovery
X
Boiler lockout
X
X
Cooling valve limit
CHW temp. Increase
X
X
Pre-cooling
Fan VFD limit
X
Fan qty. reduction
SAT Increase
ACWD
B of A
Chabot
2530 Arnold
50 Douglas
MDF
Echelon
Centerville
Irvington
Gilead 300
Gilead 342
Gilead 357
IKEA EPaloAlto
IKEA Emeryville
IKEA WSacto
Oracle Rocklin
Safeway Stockton
Solectron
Svenhard's
Sybase
Target Antioch
Target Bakersfield
Target Hayward
Walmart Fresno
Building use
Office, lab
Office, data center
Museum
Office
Office
Detention facility
Hi-tech office
Junior Highschool
Highschool
Office
Office, Lab
Office, Lab
Furniture retail
Furniture retail
Furniture retail
Office
Supermarket
Office, Manufacture
Bakery
Hi-tech office
Retail
Retail
Retail
Retail
Duct static pres. Increase
Global temperature
reset migrating to
Title 24 code
Lighting
Global temp. adjustment
HVAC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Evaluation Methodology
• Two baselines evaluated
• Outside Air Temperature Regression - Based on morning
load (kW), outside air temperature, and 10 previous weekdays
plus morning adjustment
• CPP - on morning load (kW), outside air temperature, and 10
previous weekdays
• Individual, site specific daily and group aggregated
impact
• Post-event survey of “acceptability and problems”
• Technology and communications performance
• Customer bill impact
Variation of Results and Comparison
with CPP Baseline
Key Finding - CPP about 1/3 of OAT Baseline
•350
•300
•Average of site 6 hr. average savings
•OAT Baseline: 949 kW (11%)
•CPP Baseline: 367 kW (6%)
•200
•150
•100
•50
•Target Hayward
•Oracle Rocklin
•Gilead 357
•Gilead 342
•Gilead 300
•kW savings with OAT Baseline
•IKEA EPaloAlto
•kW savings with CPP baseline
•Echelon
•MDF
•50 Douglas
•2530 Arnold
•Chabot
•-50
•B of A
•0
•ACWD
•Average demand savings for 6 hrs. (kW)
•250
CPP Economics
11 or 13 saved $ under CPP
3hr. Avg
Financial
Reduction
gain/loss as a
(OAT
CPP credits - % of CPP
model)
CPP charges period total Savings
(kW)
($)
(%)
($/sqft)
Office C1
Office C2
Detention Center
Office A
Office B
Museum A
Office D
Office E*
Lab A1
Lab A2
Retail A2*
Office F
Retail B1
Average
96
65
123
97
316
3
98
11
39
13
88
91
65
85
$241
-$576
$1,769
$1,513
$7,370
-$39
$2,213
$1,303
$3,191
$3,565
$364
$613
$1,565
$2,099
Initial
Cost
($)
0.15 0.002
-0.59 -0.006
0.85 0.010 $3,500
1.32 0.047 $13,324
0.37 0.000 $2,900
-0.04 0.000 $6,010
1.47 0.000 $3,620
2.63 0.004
1.82 0.100
1.48 0.108 $4,500
0.12 0.004 $6,360
0.50 0.006 $1,875
0.92 0.014 $3,312
1.00 $0.03 $4,127
Initial
Cost by
kW
($/kW)
12
137
9
37
71
73
21
51
51
AutoDR Technical Potential
• Total Commercial Space
•
•
•
•
4,920,000 kft2 (5 Billion) Commercial Area
1/3rd have Energy Management Systems
Avg reduction over 40 sites – 0.5 W/ft2
Technical Potential: 0.8 GW
• Value $40/kW $33,000,000
• Higher value for reliability, environmental
externalities, energy savings spill over
2007 AutoDR PG&E Program
 Follows plan outlined by PG&E in 8/30/06 letter to CPUC (pp
27-29) and CPUC decision 11/30/06
 Program Developed with Global Energy Partners (GEP)
 Program implementation expenditure of $2 million (derived from existing
PG&E TA/TI funds)
 Peak demand reduction of 15 MW
 Commercialization of AutoDR program delivery
 DR program focus for 2007 includes Critical Peak Pricing
(CPP) and Demand Bidding (DBP), with other reliability
programs assessed for future years
40%
All
Activities
GEP
65% LBNL
60%
Subs
Industry
Incentivized
35% Subs
2006
2007
2008 - 2011
SDG&E and SCE AutoDR
San Diego Gas and Electric Co.
• Under Emerging Technologies LBNL/DRRC
demonstration with retail chains
• Offering AutoDR programs under DR programs
• Goals still under development
• In discussion with Akuacom to host DRAS internally
Southern California Edison
• Prime contract with GEP moving forward
• Sub to LBNL, Akua and C&C Controls
• 10 to 20 sites for 2007-2008
• All previous DR audit sites
• Currently there are 200
• Assessment of CPP economics underway
• No recruiting bonus or direct payment to sites
• Therefore customer economic motivation limited
Linking DR and Energy Efficiency
 Ideal start - good commissioning,
retro-commissioning,
advanced/new controls
 HVAC - Direct digital control (DDC)
global temperature adjustment
• In process for Title 24 2008
• Closed loop
 Lighting Continuum - Zone Switching,
Fixture Switching, Lamp Switching,
Stepped Dimming, Continuous
Dimming
 Maybe you “can” use a strategy
every day?
Desire to try
DR
Y
Y Global temp.
Adjustment
capability?
N
Y Can program
GTA?
Global temp.
adjustment
N
DDC zone
control?
Y Air distribution N
System DDC?
N
Air
distribution
control
Y Central plant
DDC?
Central plant
control
N
Do not try DR
at this time
• Deployment
Future Directions
• Pursue OpenADR as standard for all DR programs
• Collaborate with ISO to implement the ISO-Utility link
• Educate controls vendors
• Research
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pursue full RTP design
Embed in controls – consider for Title 24 2011
Pursue small buildings and larger industrial sites
Improve building technologies, e.g., dimming systems
Improve tools to estimate kW savings
Improve economic feedback