Smart Grid Stimulus: A Dead End Without Smart Pricing

The promise of the smart grid is to move from demand destruction to value creation. But how do we get there?

It's the night before Christmas in the smart grid sector with the Department of Energy soon expected to announce $4.5 billion in federal stimulus awards reserved for Smart Grid projects. Will those investments matter without new state-level regulations that incentivize both utilities and customers to better manage and reduce electricity consumption?

The first challenge is how utilities are compensated. An electric utility's revenue is primarily tied to the amount of power it sells. That was fine 50 years ago, in a world with seemingly unlimited resources and no hint of climate change, but no that longer makes sense today. Under this model utilities have little motivation, if any, to: (1) encourage customers to find ways to reduce demand, or (2) practice energy efficiency themselves – two core tenets of a smart grid vision.

The crucial regulatory reform needed to encourage utilities to foster energy efficiency will be found in establishing new rate structures and business models. These will create incentives for utilities to earn revenue in ways that are not entirely linked to additional sales. Otherwise, asking a utility to sell less power is analogous to asking Starbucks to sell less coffee. Furthermore, since utilities are granted monopolies at regulated rates, a reduction in sales is equivalent to demand (and profit) destruction.

Smart grids aim to replace demand destruction with a practice called Demand Response. Utilities intentionally reduce overall demand by sending signals to customers to turn down their energy use in exchange for financial rewards. Demand Response, also referred to as the "Fifth Fuel," can serve as an addition to the four traditional fuels used to generate electricity: coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewables (once the baseload minimum power is generated). The nickname the "Fifth Fuel" suggests that Demand Response deserves to be acknowledged by regulators in a similar manner to new supply.

The second challenge is the end user's passive relationship to energy. In the U.S., customers were numb about energy costs because prices were dirt-cheap. This came as a result of flat rates that didn't really express the true variable costs of energy generation and delivery. However, significant increases in the cost of electricity are coming, and fast. According to the DOE, electricity prices are forecast to increase 50 percent over the next seven years, while the EIA expects nationwide demand for electricity to grow by 30 percent by 2030.

The critical regulatory reform needed to encourage consumer energy management will be eliminating the single, fixed retail rate for electricity. Until dynamic rates that reflect current market conditions are implemented, smart grid technologies (such as smart meters, home energy management systems and smart appliances) will have little effect in altering consumer use. Customers will have no impetus to shift their consumption to off-peak hours. A smart meter without a smart rate schedule is not smart at all.

Just because the cost per kilowatt-hour will increase doesn't mean a customer's bill has to rise. If a single customer shifts her load from peak to off-peak (when greater, cheaper supply is available) it has the effect of reducing costs for all parties, including the utility and every other customer. But today those savings are not passed on, providing no incentive to curb energy use. The win-win-win (for the utility, the consumer and society at large) will not be created until dynamic prices are introduced.

The elephant in the room is that the Federal government cannot currently address the regulatory issues that revolve around what will need to be done to initiate a paradigm shift in the electric power market. Each state's public utility commission (PUC) regulates the retail price of electricity and rate of return that a utility will earn. Therefore these changes cannot be made with the stroke of one pen, but will need approval by 50 different PUCs. The good news is that PUCs are responding to the DOE's statements about the need to explore dynamic pricing models and new business models that reward Demand Response initiatives. As an example, the Ohio PUC recently announced that it would incentivize Duke Energy to put energy efficiency programs in place.

This is the promise of smart grid: moving from demand destruction to value creation. While utilities may be loath to re-invent a business model that has served them for decades, the revolution in information technology that has transformed other industries – such as desktop computing, enterprise networking and wireless communications – will have a similar effect on the electric power business. In large part, the smart grid sits at the intersection of energy, IT and telecommunication, and because of this it is a market that, according to John Chambers, CEO of Cisco, "may be bigger than the whole internet."

At Greentech Media we interact every day with startups and utilities that envision energy marketed less as a commodity and more as a suite of services. Just as cell phone plans now bundle voice, SMS and data plans, the smart grid will lead to energy pricing plans that include basic service plus add-ons, like smart charging of electric vehicles during off-peak hours, distributed renewable energy services, and countless other new services and applications. The DOE stimulus represents a massive investment in smart grid, but the technology can only take us so far. There's plenty of money to be made, but we can't go from iPhone to iHome, from Facebook to Gridbook, without the right state policies.

An edited version of this article originally appeared in BusinessWeek on Oct. 6, 2009 as The Smart Grid Needs Smart Regulations.

David J Leeds is a Smart Grid Analyst with GTM Research. For more information on smart grid technologies and applications, read The Smart Grid in 2010 a free report published by Greentech Media.


Interact with smart grid industry visionaries from North American utilities, innovative hardware and software vendors and leading industry consortiums at The Networked Grid on November 4 in San Francisco.

10 Comments

  • Georgina M. Hunter 10/13/09 2:20 PM

    Thanks for explaining this in an easy to understand way.  The weak link in the chain is definitely the (lack of) tiered pricing system to encourage usage when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing (assuming alternative source tie-ins).  It will help people to get a better understanding of their usage habits.  Aloha.

    Reply
  • Bob Wallace 10/13/09 7:31 PM

    ” A smart meter without a smart rate schedule is not smart at all.”

    Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that “a smart meter without a smart rate schedule is only half smart”.

    Look at the smart meter test that was recently completed in North Carolina.  Simply giving customers adequate feedback on their daily use created an 20% average decrease in power used.

    Time of use pricing would most likely created even more savings, but some smart proved to be better than no smart.


    http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/smart-grid-project-cuts-electricity-usage/

    Reply
  • JoeJoe 10/15/09 6:29 PM

    It doesn’t make much sense to install more expensive “smart meters” if you don’t use the extra capabilities. The move to dynamic pricing has always been part of the smart meter roll out. That hasn’t been kept secret.

    We know lower prices induce more usage (Jevon’s Paradox) but the reverse is also true. Short term vs. long term elasticities can be debated by the economists but price response is an established fact. Smart metering has long been the enabling technology standing in the way of real time pricing. But now it’s here and there and getting to everywhere before too long. A few years from now tuning demand response with price signals will be as common as programming turbine ramps.

    Reply
  • Warwick @ Whirlpool 10/16/09 3:46 PM

    I agree that new rate structures will be instrumental in the development of the Smart Grid.  Current fixed time-of-use pricing has only had a partial impact on consumer behavior and only some HVAC systems can respond.  No appliances (fridges, dishwashers or dryers) can react to this fixed pricing today which means that consumers bills will go up if this type of pricing becomes widespread. There can be a lot of synergy by linking demand responsive appliances (fifth fuel) to a system that provides dynamic pricing signals. Everyone can get their cake and eat it too.

    Warwick Stirling - Global Director of Energy and Sustainability, Whirlpool Corp.

    Reply
  • JoeJoe 10/16/09 6:37 PM

    Hello Warwick…. I once estimated the average refrigerator/freezer load in Texas at about 1.75 GW. That’s only a back of the envelope guess but it got me thinking about the potential for refrigerators to help provide ancillary services associated with grid control. Refrigerators seem like the ideal candidate because they are a large inductive load (in aggregate), they inherently have a storage capacity and they run nearly half the time. You’re working on appliances that respond to price signals but wouldn’t the very same appliance be able to respond to grid instabilities - low frequency in particular. Do you guys look at things this way?

    How do you build a refrigerator that is optimized for dynamic pricing signals? Is it a matter of adding insulation? Resizing the compressor to give you more duty-cycle flexibility? Some sort of ice battery capability?

    Reply
  • Warwick @ Whirlpool 10/20/09 8:56 AM

    JoeJoe - you are right that appliances can be designed to react to grid instabilities as well as utility pricing signals. In 2006-07, Whirlpool conducted a smart appliance pilot in the Pacific Northwest, where 150 clothes dryers monitored frequency changes in the power grid and reacted by shedding or delaying power consumption during periods of instability. For more details, refer to http://www.gridwise.pnl.gov/docs/gfa_project_final_report_pnnl17079.pdf

    It turns out that clothes dryers, dishwashers, HVAC systems and hot water heaters are the best candidates for shifting large amounts of power quickly.  While refrigerators run all the time the latest generation are actually very efficient - using less than 100W on average (about the same as a couple of light bulbs).  Delaying defrost or cycling the compressor can provide some additional savings during critical peak periods.  No additional insulation is needed but the controls/electronics do need modification.  The biggest factor is how many times the door(s) are opened as all the cold air drains out.  Your ice-battery concept is an interesting idea and could extend the time that the compressor remains off.  The key is to make sure that we maintain food preservation performance.

    Reply
  • JoeJoe 10/20/09 11:57 PM

    Thank you for the information Warwick. I was thinking you’d want appliances with a high load factors. By this metric clothes dryers and dishwashers offer less bang for the buck. Then again these appliances are ideal candidates for load shifting. I guess it depends on your priorities.

    I don’t consider HVAC systems or water heaters appliances but that’s a rather arbitrary distinction on my part. I completely agree that space and water heating/cooling “appliances” are high priorities from an energy use/smart grid standpoint.

    Refrigerator energy use has come a long way but even assuming we had a fleet of Energy Star rated refrigerators you’re still looking at something like 6.5 to 8.5 GW of average aggregate power use across the residential sector in the US. That’s far below where we are now but still respectable. cheers

    Reply
  • DMacB 10/23/09 1:29 PM

    An excellent overview, but the various PUCs do not have the authority to make these rate changes on their own. Dynamic pricing will require legislation - like Pennsylvania’s Act 129.

    Reply
  • JoeJoe 10/24/09 2:26 PM

    What advantage is gained by involving legislators? What’s the problem with having utilities propose new rates and letting the PUCs approve these rates on a case by case basis?

    Reply
.