1 developing an investment strategy with the smart grid investment model tm jerry jackson, ph.d.,...
Post on 23-Dec-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Developing an Investment Strategy with the Smart Grid Investment Model TM
Jerry Jackson, Ph.D., Leader and Research DirectorSmart Grid Research Consortium, 37 N. Orange Ave, Suite 500
Orlando, FL 32801 Jjackson@smartgridresearchconsortium.org 979-204-7821
Smart Grid Research Consortium Conference & Workshop
Rosen Shingle Creek, Orlando, FloridaOctober 20-21, 2011
2
Smart Grid “Best Practices”
• Smart Grid 1.0: ? 2010o AMI/smart meterso Customer pricing/engagement focus
• Smart Grid 2.0: 2010 o Distributed communication,intelligence and control throughout the
distribution system Substation, feeders Equipment in businesses and homes
o Integration of distributed resourceso Questions concerning customer program impact persistenceo Data & data analytics reflect new challengeso Smart grid options as part of a comprehensive, integrated strategy
3
Expanding the Scope of SG Options Complicates Investment Decisions
4
What Does This Mean for Utility Investment Analysis? • The good news
o AMI/smart meter costs/benefits more well definedo Growing number of DA “use cases”o Recognition that SG investments are complicated
• Challengeso Customer DM program benefits may decline over timeo Comparing metering/customer programs/DA applications
is difficulto Each utility is uniqueo Cost/benefit calculations are no longer simple
5
Consider a Simplified SG Investment Analysis Question
• Utility considering AMI/smart meter, demand management and DA investments
• Which,if any, investments should be undertaken now
6
Options?
AMI/Smart Meters
Communications/Software/Hardware
Customer Demand Mgmnt
Communications/Software/Hardware
Distribution Automation
Communications/Software/Hardware
Distribution Automation
Communications/Software/Hardware
AMI/Smart Meters
Communications/Software/Hardware
Customer Demand Mgmnt
Communications/Software/Hardware
Distribution Automation
Communications/Software/Hardware
?
?
?
7
• Consortium’s SGIM considerso Costs and benefits of technologies/applicationso Unique utility/utility customer characteristicso Utility monthly hourly loads and SG load impacts
Avoided power purchase costs
• Conduct “what-if” scenario analysiso Quantitative model framework
Quantitative Financial Investment Analysis Provides Strategy Insights
8
Example Coop Analysis Illustration
• “Representative Coop”o ~100,000 customers, 0.65 system load factor; $0.05/kWh, $12/kW
summer; $0.02-0.03/kWh, $6-8/kW spring/fall/wintero Residential: 70% customers, 60% kWh coincident peak kW
9
SGIM Cost/Benefits Summary
AMI/Smart Meters Distribution Automation Customer ProgramsBenefits Meter reading Reliability Customer participation
Field services Improved power quality Customer satisfactionOutage restoration Field services Reduced power costsBilling services Outage restoration EnvironmentalTheft/tampering Environmental Distributed energy resourcesMeter accuracy Reduced capital costs Other/new servicesUncollectables Reduced O&M costsImproved cash flow Reduced power costsResource planing Distributed energy resourcesImproved transformer load management
Improved equipment management/planning
Costs Communications Communications CommunicationsSoftware Software SoftwareHardware Hardware HardwareManagement/Operational Management/Operational Management/Operational
Smart Grid Benefit Cost SummaryApplication Area
10
• No Customer Programs
Replacing EM Meters With AMI Typically Provides Attractive Returns
11
However, More Typical Coops With AMR Systems May Have Difficulty Justifying AMI
• PLC with remote connect/disconnect
12
Customer Programs Can Improve AMRAMI Returns
• 20 % PCT/pricing + 30% cust engagement (5% AC/SH savings)
13
Consider DA Impact of Conservation Voltage Regulation (Reduction), CVR
• CVR Advantageso No customer participation requiredo Options: manual adjustments full automationo Utility & customer savings
Source: RWBeck
kW kWh
Elec, No AC 0.40 0.25Elec, AC 0.35 0.40Non, AC 0.74 0.60Non, No AC 0.81 0.40
% Change in Voltage 1.00
Conservation Voltage Regulation factor (% change in kWh/kW from 1% change in Voltage)
VVC Objective: Maintain acceptable voltage under all loading conditions
Source: EPRI
Source: Distribution Efficiency Initiative Study
14
• $50k/substation; 1% voltage reduction
How Does CVR Stack Up as a 1st Step ?
15
• $250k/substation; 4% voltage reduction
More Extensive Conservation Voltage Regulation Saves Even More
16
• Additional 1% voltage reduction using meters for EOL voltage• Without customer programs in this scenario
CVR Savings Can Justify a DA/AMI Initiative at the AMR Utility Even W/O Cust Programs
17
Conclusions
• CVR turns out to be a better primary option in this situation than o AMI based on reasonably well-defined cost/benefitso Customer demand management programs based on impacts
and concerns over impact persistence• Advanced meters can be included in a CVR strategy
providing EOL measuring/monitoring in addition to traditional benefits
• Results depend heavily on customer end-use hourly loads and avoided costs
• Results can be expected to vary considerably from utility to utility depending on infrastructure and customer characteristics
18
Consortium’s Smart Grid Investment Model Provides More “Real-World Detail”
19
Along With More Insightful Graphical Results Presentations
20
Smart Grid Investment Model Supports SG Investment Strategy Development
• Detailed characterization of utility infrastructure and customer characteristics
• Forecasting customer class-end use hourly loads and program impacts
• Incorporation of all SG technology/program impacts
• Ability to conduct alternative “what-if” scenarios
top related