Comments on: CNT’s Energy Cooperative in The New York Times http://www.cnt.org/news/2007/01/08/cnts-energy-cooperative-in-the-new-york-times/ Sustainable Communities. Attainable Results. Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:33:13 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: John @ Air Conditioning http://www.cnt.org/news/2007/01/08/cnts-energy-cooperative-in-the-new-york-times/comment-page-1/#comment-27544 John @ Air Conditioning Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:26:25 +0000 http://weblog.cnt.org/2007/01/08/cnts-energy-cooperative-in-the-new-york-times/#comment-27544 Anne, 10% saving and peak demand down by 15-20% I would love to see the results after 4 years hopefully they can be even better. John Anne,

10% saving and peak demand down by 15-20% I would love to see the results after 4 years hopefully they can be even better.

John

]]> By: Anne Evens http://www.cnt.org/news/2007/01/08/cnts-energy-cooperative-in-the-new-york-times/comment-page-1/#comment-651 Anne Evens Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:48:03 +0000 http://weblog.cnt.org/2007/01/08/cnts-energy-cooperative-in-the-new-york-times/#comment-651 Good questions. Here’s some more detail about our local situation. The situation here in Illinois is very different from California, especially as it relates to meters. A key thing is that real-time pricing as available here is not revenue neutral, as the California CPP pilots were. One of our main contentions is that real-time pricing does not include the risk-premium that suppliers build into a fixed price product, therefore, just by going on to real-time pricing there should be savings. Then those savings increase as people become more efficient. In Illinois we aren't replacing all meters like in California, instead it’s only the meters of those who choose to go on real time pricing. It’s an optional rate, not a opt-out rate like has been proposed in California. In the case of ComEd they aren't smart meters, rather they are recording meters read once a month by traditional meter readers, so they are much cheaper. For the downstate utility Ameren, they had already decided to roll out an automatic meter reading system, for customers who choose real-time pricing, it’s just a case of doing the equivalent of a software unlock code on the those meters so that they record the hourly energy use. In terms of cost-effective, that's still an evolving but extremely important question. We found that on average in the pilot program people on the rate saved 10% on their bills, cut peak demand by 15-20% and became 3-4% more energy efficient (without enabling technology, all voluntary behavior change that participants said was easy to do and didn't negatively impact their comfort). The testimony in the rate case that authorizes the new program included a model that predicted that by such levels of cutting peak demand it will lower power prices for non-participants as well as for participants and that the level of those savings exceed the cost of the program. The next 4 years will be a test to see if reality meets the expectations of the modeling. We still view this as an "experiment." While we focused people on thinking about their peak energy use, we have always emphasized the importance of overall energy efficiency as well. This is just an additional tool in the arsenal, as we continue to support energy efficiency improvements. We'd be happy to discuss the program more with you and get your insights on how we can improve our program. We really do think that our approach benefits participants, non-participants and the entire community. Good questions. Here’s some more detail about our local situation. The situation here in Illinois is very different from California, especially as it relates to meters. A key thing is that real-time pricing as available here is not revenue neutral, as the California CPP pilots were. One of our main contentions is that real-time pricing does not include the risk-premium that suppliers build into a fixed price product, therefore, just by going on to real-time pricing there should be savings. Then those savings increase as people become more efficient.

In Illinois we aren’t replacing all meters like in California, instead it’s only the meters of those who choose to go on real time pricing. It’s an optional rate, not a opt-out rate like has been proposed in California. In the case of ComEd they aren’t smart meters, rather they are recording meters read once a month by traditional meter readers, so they are much cheaper. For the downstate utility Ameren, they had already decided to roll out an automatic meter reading system, for customers who choose real-time pricing, it’s just a case of doing the equivalent of a software unlock code on the those meters so that they record the hourly energy use.

In terms of cost-effective, that’s still an evolving but extremely important question. We found that on average in the pilot program people on the rate saved 10% on their bills, cut peak demand by 15-20% and became 3-4% more energy efficient (without enabling technology, all voluntary behavior change that participants said was easy to do and didn’t negatively impact their comfort). The testimony in the rate case that authorizes the new program included a model that predicted that by such levels of cutting peak demand it will lower power prices for non-participants as well as for participants and that the level of those savings exceed the cost of the program. The next 4 years will be a test to see if reality meets the expectations of the modeling. We still view this as an “experiment.” While we focused people on thinking about their peak energy use, we have always emphasized the importance of overall energy efficiency as well. This is just an additional tool in the arsenal, as we continue to support energy efficiency improvements.

We’d be happy to discuss the program more with you and get your insights on how we can improve our program. We really do think that our approach benefits participants, non-participants and the entire community.

]]> By: Marcel Hawiger http://www.cnt.org/news/2007/01/08/cnts-energy-cooperative-in-the-new-york-times/comment-page-1/#comment-622 Marcel Hawiger Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:46:14 +0000 http://weblog.cnt.org/2007/01/08/cnts-energy-cooperative-in-the-new-york-times/#comment-622 1) All the infrastructure of your pilot was state-funded. What happens when consumers have to start paying? Are the meters and communications equipment necessary to get real time pricing more cost-effective than air conditioner cycling programs or energy efficiency investments? 2) Do consumers have the same ability to shift use to other times as cell phone users? 3) Why not promote efficiency improvements that reduce total use? 1) All the infrastructure of your pilot was state-funded. What happens when consumers have to start paying? Are the meters and communications equipment necessary to get real time pricing more cost-effective than air conditioner cycling programs or energy efficiency investments?

2) Do consumers have the same ability to shift use to other times as cell phone users?

3) Why not promote efficiency improvements that reduce total use?

]]>