1 Case Study of Demand Response: Con Edison Business Program by Eileen Egan-Annechino Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

1

Case Study of Demand Response:

Con Edison Business Program

by

Eileen Egan-Annechino

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

2

Background

Residential Pilot Summer 2001

PSC Approval April 2002

Installations Begin June 2002

Business Pilot Summer 2004

PSC Approval September 2005

Installations Begin November 2005

3

Program Design

Design Objective

• Cost-effective load reduction

• Adequately verifiable

• Acceptable to customers

Quantitative Objective

• Summer peak kW load reduction

• Level of overrides

Qualitative Objectives

• Marketing strategy

• Customer understanding, satisfaction & reaction

• Barriers to participation

• Type of business most suitable for participation

4

Program Technology

• Programmable Thermostat

• Two-way pager communications, which ensures verification, remote access via Internet (customer and utility)

• Runtime & temperature data available (7 days)

• Capable of duty cycle control or temperature control

• Overrides can be tracked

5

Thermostat

L a r g e , b a c k l it L C D w ith c h a r a c te r m e s s a g in g

7 - d a y p r o g r a m m in g 4 p e r io d s p e r d a y

C le a n f i lt e r in d ic a to r

2 - w a y c o m m u n ic a t io n s

C u r ta ilm e n t o v e r r id e

Built into unit

6

Program Features

The Offer

• Programmable Thermostat• Control central air-conditioning system manually or remotely using the Internet

• Free Installation

• Bonus gift of $50

• Override without penalty

The Benefits

• Manage Energy Costs• Customized temperature settings

• Cool space only when occupied

• Internet access

• Monitor room temperature

• Adjust remotely

Energy Savings

• Business controls energy consumption

7

Recruitment and Participation

Recruitment

• Door-to-door marketing is the primary marketing strategy for the business customer

• Program specific web site which allows on-line applications

Participation

• 5,100 thermostats in 3,800 facilities (8MW)

• Some “technical” turn-downs

• Lack of access, existing equipment not working properly or in poor condition

8

Program Evaluation

Run Time Data Collection/Analysis

• Recovery of site data

• Run time duty cycle combined w/maximum load draw

• Comparison analysis of control day and baseline day

Customer Surveys

• Post Installation

• “Technical turndown”

• Annual Post-Season (2006 in progress)

9

Summer 2006

10

Load Impact

August 1st- August 3rd

Major heat wave - +100 deg. Temperatures

• Average peak impact 1.7kW – 2.0kW per cac

• Overrides average 19% to 25% (day 3)

• 65% of cac units running “flat out” on baseline day (8/1)

• Average temperature increase less than 3 degrees

11

Customer Impacts

• First curtailment experience for majority of customers

• Typical curtailments are 2-6 hours

• August 2006 – 10-14 hour duration

• Extraordinary heat wave exceeded design temperature of many cac units

• Most customers did not remember how to override

• Less than 2% of participants withdrew from program

• 2006 Annual survey in progress

12

Program Design Considerations

Vary control based on weather conditions and length of curtailment

• Duty Cycle more effective for short-term curtailments (typical 1- 6pm)

• Temperature control may more effective for long-term curtailments

13