PNNL

Abstract

The Progressing Analysis of Variable Electric Rates (PAVER) study analyzed the impact of a range of time-varying electric rates on the performance of a regional electric grid and the resulting costs for participating and non-participating customers. This analysis leveraged and extended the work of PNNL’s Distribution System Operator with Transactive (DSO+T) study. Five different rate designs were included: a flat volumetric energy charge, a typical Time of Use (TOU) rate, a dynamic energy (DE) rate (based on wholesale locational marginal prices), a dynamic energy and capacity (DE+C) rate, and, finally, a Block and Swing (B&S) rate that billed customers based on their average load profile at constant pricing, but used the DE+C dynamic price for load deviations from their average profile. These rates were analyzed in a large-scale co-simulation of an entire regional grid with a customer population representative of the current state. A large fraction (80%) of residential and commercial customers were assumed to participate in these time-varying rates with automatically controlled HVAC, water heaters, electric vehicles, and batteries. This study assumed no industrial sector participation. The DE and DE+C rates saw system peak loads reduced by 6-7%, while the large participation in the TOU rate case saw a significant rebound effect and a resulting peak load increase of >5%. The impacts to the annual and peak system demand impacted system wholesale prices and the overall grid operating costs. This cost structure determined the revenue needed to be collected from customers by each rate design. Participating customers on the DE and DE+C rates (located in one of the modeled DSOs) saw reductions in average annual electricity bills of 11-17% with average increases in monthly bill variation of no more than 13%. At such high participation levels, TOU customers saw 10% higher average annual bills (due to system-wide rebound effects) and average increased monthly bill variation of 16%. Residential owners of large flexible loads (such as electric vehicles) saw larger bill savings (17-20%) when on a fully dynamic rate. The presence of on-site generation (such as rooftop solar) did not appear to appreciably change customer outcomes. Customers on the Block and Swing rate did see 6% lower monthly bill variation (as intended) than the flat rate case, but at the expense of appreciable bill savings, which were only 3%, comparable to the savings seen by non-participants. Given this finding we recommend that additional research be conducted into how best various bill protection mechanisms can balance minimizing customer bill variation with providing financial incentives commensurate with the flexibility customers provide. We also recommend that customer outcomes be explored across a range of regions using current actual customer and system cost data.