The Organization of Midwest ISO States (OMS) launched the Midwest Demand Resource Initiative (MWDRI) in 2007 to identify barriers to deploying demand response (DR) resources in the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) region and develop policies to overcome them. The MWDRI stakeholders decided that a useful initial activity would be to develop more detailed information on existing retail DR programs and dynamic pricing tariffs, program rules, and utility operating practices. This additional detail could then be used to assess any "seams issues" affecting coordination and integration of retail DR resources with MISO's wholesale markets. Working with state regulatory agencies, we conducted a detailed survey of existing DR programs, dynamic pricing tariffs, and their features in MISO states. Utilities were asked to provide information on advance notice requirements to customers, operational triggers used to call events (e.g. system emergencies, market conditions, local emergencies), use of these DR resources to meet planning reserves requirements, DR resource availability (e.g., seasonal, annual), participant incentive structures, and monitoring and verification (M&V) protocols. This report describes the results of this comprehensive survey and discusses policy implications for integrating legacy retail DR programs and dynamic pricing tariffs into organized wholesale markets. Survey responses from 37 MISO members and 4 non-members provided information on 141 DR programs and dynamic pricing tariffs with a peak load reduction potential of 4,727 MW of retail DR resource. Major findings of this study area: - About 72percent of available DR is from interruptible rate tariffs offered to large commercial and industrial customers, while direct load control (DLC) programs account for ~;;18percent. Almost 90percent of the DR resources included in this survey are provided by investor-owned utilities. - Approximately, 90percent of the DR resources are available with less than two hours advance notice and over 1,900 MW can be dispatched on less than thirty minutes notice. These legacy DR programs are increasingly used by utilities for economic in addition to reliability purposes, with over two-thirds (68percent) of these programs callable based on market conditions. - Approximately 60percent of DLC programs and 30percent of interruptible rate programs called ten or more DR events in 2006. Despite the high frequency of DR events, customer complaints remained low. The use of economic criteria to trigger DR events and the flexibility to trigger a large number of events suggests that DR resources can help improve the efficiency of MISO wholesale markets. - Most legacy DR programs offered a reservation payment ($/kW) for participation; incentive payment levels averaged about $5/kW-month for interruptible rate tariffs and $6/kW-month for DLC programs. Few programs offered incentive payments that were explicitly linked to actual load reductions during events and at least 27 DR programs do not have penalties for non-performance. - Measurement and verification (M&V) protocols to estimate load impacts vary significantly across MISO states. Almost half of the DR programs have not been evaluated in recent times and thus performance data for DR events is not available. For many DLC programs, M&V protocols may need to be enhanced in order to allow participation in MISO's proposed EDR schedule. System operators and planners will need to develop more accurate estimates of the load reduced capability and actual performance.

In 2007, the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) formed the Customer Response Task Force (CRTF) to identify barriers to deploying demand response (DR) resources in wholesale markets and develop policies to overcome these barriers. One of the initiatives of this Task Force was to develop more detailed information on existing retail DR programs and dynamic pricing tariffs, program rules, and utility operating practices. This report describes the results of a comprehensive survey conducted by LBNL in support of the Customer Response Task Force and discusses policy implications for integrating legacy retail DR programs and dynamic pricing tariffs into wholesale markets in the SPP region. LBNL conducted a detailed survey of existing DR programs and dynamic pricing tariffs administered by SPP's member utilities. Survey respondents were asked to provide information on advance notice requirements to customers, operational triggers used to call events (e.g. system emergencies, market conditions, local emergencies), use of these DR resources to meet planning reserves requirements, DR resource availability (e.g. seasonal, annual), participant incentive structures, and monitoring and verification (M&V) protocols. Nearly all of the 30 load-serving entities in SPP responded to the survey. Of this group, fourteen SPP member utilities administer 36 DR programs, five dynamic pricing tariffs, and six voluntary customer response initiatives. These existing DR programs and dynamic pricing tariffs have a peak demand reduction potential of 1,552 MW. Other major findings of this study are: o About 81percent of available DR is from interruptible rate tariffs offered to large commercial and industrial customers, while direct load control (DLC) programs account for ~;;14percent. o Arkansas accounts for ~;;50percent of the DR resources in the SPP footprint; these DR resources are primarily managed by cooperatives. o Publicly-owned cooperatives accounted for 54percent of the existing DR resources among SPP members. For these entities, investment in DR is often driven by the need to reduce summer peak demand that is used to set demand charges for each distribution cooperative. o About 65-70percent of the interruptible/curtailable tariffs and DLC programs are routinely triggered based on market conditions, not just for system emergencies. Approximately, 53percent of the DR resources are available with less than two hours advance notice and 447 MW can be dispatched with less than thirty minutes notice. o Most legacy DR programs offered a reservation payment ($/kW) for participation; incentive payment levels ranged from $0.40 to $8.30/kW-month for interruptible rate tariffs and $0.30 to $4.60/kW-month for DLC programs. A few interruptible programs offered incentive payments which were explicitly linked to actual load reductions during events; payments ranged from 2 to 40 cents/kWh for load curtailed.

Demand response is increasingly recognized as an essential ingredient to well functioning electricity markets. This growing consensus was formalized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), which established demand response as an official policy of the U.S. government, and directed states (and their electric utilities) to consider implementing demand response, with a particular focus on "price-based" mechanisms. The resulting deliberations, along with a variety of state and regional demand response initiatives, are raising important policy questions: for example, How much demand response is enough? How much is available? From what sources? At what cost? The purpose of this scoping study is to examine analytical techniques and data sources to support demand response market assessments that can, in turn, answer the second and third of these questions. We focus on demand response for large (>350 kW), commercial and industrial (C&I) customers, although many of the concepts could equally be applied to similar programs and tariffs for small commercial and residential customers.

Energy economists have long argued the benefits of real time pricing (RTP) of electricity. Their basis for modeling customers response to short-term fluctuations in electricity prices are based on theories of rational firm behavior, where management strives to minimize operating costs and optimize profit, and labor, capital and energy are potential substitutes in the firm's production function. How well do private firms and public sector institutions operating conditions, knowledge structures, decision-making practices, and external relationships comport with these assumptions and how might this impact price response? We discuss these issues on the basis of interviews with 29 large (over 2 MW) industrial, commercial, and institutional customers in the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation service territory that have faced day-ahead electricity market prices since 1998. We look at stories interviewees told about why and how they respond to RTP, why some customers report that they can't, and why even if they can, they don't. Some firms respond as theorized, and we describe their load curtailment strategies. About half of our interviewees reported that they were unable to either shift or forego electricity consumption even when prices are high ($0.50/kWh). Reasons customers gave for why they weren't price-responsive include implicit value placed on reliability, pricing structures, lack of flexibility in adjusting production inputs, just-in-time practices, perceived barriers to onsite generation, and insufficient time. We draw these observations into a framework that could help refine economic theory of dynamic pricing by providing real-world descriptions of how firms behave and why.

ABSTRACT=Demand response (DR) is increasingly recognized as an essential ingredient to well-functioning electricity markets. DR market potential studies can answer questions about the amount of DR available in a given area, from which market segments. Several recent DR market potential studies have been conducted, most adapting techniques used to estimate energy-efficiency (EE) potential. In this scoping study, we: reviewed and categorized seven recent DR market potential studies; recommended a methodology for estimating DR market potential for large, non-residential utility customers that uses price elasticities to account for behavior and prices; compiled participation rates and elasticity values from six DR options offered to large customers in recent years, and demonstrated our recommended methodology with large customer market potential scenarios at an illustrative Northeastern utility. We recommend an elasticity approach for large-customer DR options that rely on custo!