California looks for ways to make it easier to deploy demand flexibility

Share Button

As debate rages about the causes of grid fragility, especially in places like Texas and California, and renewables get caught in the crossfire, a crucial solution is often ignored: demand flexibility.

demand flexibility

By N Azlin Sha/Shutterstock.com

Instead, politically driven sides call for fewer renewables and more fossil fuels — or more renewables and less fossil fuels. Others point to the need to upgrade the wires, poles and substations, a solution some estimate will cost $2 trillion.

All of these options require building more stuff. Demand flexibility, on the other hand, can make use of what already exists, often on the customer side of the meter. This includes microgrids, distributed energy resources, energy storage, building load, on-site generation, refrigeration, electric vehicles and other customer-side resources that can be ramped up or down based on grid needs.

But it’s not always easy to employ demand flexibility. The grid’s rules and payment structures were conceived before the idea of flexible resources. That’s why it is good to see the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) trying to match rules and programs with today’s needs.

Last week the commission opened a proceeding to establish policy and craft rates to enable widespread use of demand flexibility.

“The demand flexibility proceeding is an important step towards designing the advanced future grid in California,” said Darcie Houck, CPUC commissioner. “Demand flexibility has the potential to enhance and accelerate the state’s energy and climate goals, renewable integration and high distributed energy resources adoption. It also plays a critical role in improving grid reliability and resiliency, reducing grid emissions, and making electricity rates more affordable and equitable.”

In particular, the commission wants to use demand flexibility to:

  • Enhance the reliability of California’s electric system.
  • Make electric bills more affordable and equitable.
  • Reduce the curtailment of renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions associated with meeting the state’s future system load.
  • Enable widespread electrification of buildings and transportation to meet the state’s climate goals.
  • Reduce long-term system costs through more efficient pricing of electricity.
  • Enable participation in demand flexibility by both bundled and unbundled customers.
Demand flexibility treated in piecemeal fashion

The commission acknowledged that its existing approach is “piecemeal” (and it’s not the only jurisdiction that could make this confession.) So it intends to take a close look at updates to its “rate design principles, guidance principles for demand flexibility, and how to streamline the patchwork of niche rates and programs to expand the use of demand flexibility beyond early adopters.”

The commission also wants to find ways to use demand flexibility to better support equitable and affordable rates and advance social justice.

The proceeding emerged, in part, out of a series of hearings the commission held in the spring on limiting energy rate increases (R.18-07-006). 

“Several participants flagged the lack of alignment between peak periods for time-of-use rates and the needs of the electric system, and the potential for dynamic rates to optimize customer demand based on actual costs and grid conditions. Other participants questioned the use of ratepayer subsidies to incentivize customers to invest in electrification and distributed energy resources,” the commission said in opening the proceeding July 14. “Participants also noted that high electric rates will deter customers from transitioning from gas to electricity. Multiple participants proposed income-differentiated fixed charges as an opportunity to recover fixed costs and prevent cost shifts in an equitable way.”

Of likely interest to microgrid owners and operators, the commission will look at how to ensure universal access to dynamic electricity prices by customers, devices, distributed energy resources and third-party service providers — and how to fund, build, operate and maintain systems for universal access.

Free Resource from Microgrid Knowledge Library

Microgrid Business Models and Value Chains
The new energy industry is working to categorize the various types of microgrids and business models. The primary goal is to minimize microgrid system cost and funding. To learn more about microgrid business modes and value chains download this white paper.
We always respect your privacy and we never sell or rent our list to third parties. By downloading this White Paper you are agreeing to our terms of service. You can opt out at any time.

Get this PDF emailed to you.

Commission seeks input

The commission is seeking comment within 30 days of the July 14 announcement and plans to release a scoping memo for the proceeding by the third quarter of 2022, followed by a proposed decision and then a final decision.

Details are available on the commission’s website

Share Button

About Elisa Wood

Elisa Wood is the chief editor of MicrogridKnowledge.com. She has been writing about energy for more than three decades for top industry publications. Her work also has been picked up by CNN, the New York Times, Reuters, the Wall Street Journal Online and the Washington Post.

Comments

  1. “As debate rages about the causes of grid fragility, especially in places like Texas and California, and renewables get caught in the crossfire, a crucial solution is often ignored: demand flexibility.”

    Pretty easy to discern. The rote IOU electric utilities are allowed to be “regulated monopolies” and have “assured” returns on investments. The IOU utility is allowed an electricity rate increase for NOT selling as much electricity as they used to: “lost revenues” rate case. IF the utility has to decommission a generation plant, another rate case to recover “stranded assets”. There’s the egregious practice gaslighted by PG&E themselves over decades of the choice of dividends over O&M creating a concatenated grid that needs hardening along the entire infrastructure.


    “The demand flexibility proceeding is an important step towards designing the advanced future grid in California,” said Darcie Houck, CPUC commissioner.”

    One can announce ‘goals’ and pontificate solutions, it is obvious there hasn’t been nearly enough infrastructure and hardening put in place over the years by the “trusted utilities”. Right now utilities are (just) starting to talk about using existing transmission feeders and “recabling” them to handle more power with less loss over the transmission lines. Interconnections between some old and some new infrastructure to allow secondary, tertiary or even quadranary feeder possibilities into a specific service area.

    ” “Participants also noted that high electric rates will deter customers from transitioning from gas to electricity.””

    The metaphor here is the cartoon “Finding Dory”. This whole process reminds me of the simple scene where the Seagulls landed and started to say: Mine…mine,,,, mine……and then swarmed for their piece of the food available. The CPUC is holding the “chum bucket”, the rote electric utilities are suppling the chum.