Still Seeking: Women in Cleantech!

Posted on by Voltus

A little over a year ago I posted about how cleantech has a pipeline problem with recruiting female candidates – a problem that perpetuates itself because the status quo continues to be a male-dominated industry.  At Voltus, we are committed to making targeted efforts to attract women to the industry.  Whereas in early 2018, 33% of our job candidates were female, and only 26% of our employees were female, today, we are at 50% of our job candidates (a goal we committed to as a leadership team), and 40% of our team. By focusing on recruiting an equal number of men as women, the employee count starts to come naturally.  

Today is International Women’s Day, and for all of the forward progress we have made, women are still a ways away from full and true equality.  We need to continue to fight the gender gap.  In cleantech this means encouraging more women to enter, stay in, and become leaders in this amazing field. Building a cleaner and more sustainable future is one of the best opportunities to have a positive influence in the world. It impacts everyone, and getting it right makes our planet better. It is exciting, fun, and has a positive social impact . . . something that research shows women care about significantly when considering their careers. 

At Voltus, we know our work is not done.  We need to continue to proactively recruit female candidates . . . the male candidates still come to us easily based on our broader networks, but that is slowly changing. We have done more direct outreach to female candidates, recruited more through university networks, and posted and networked within female-based industry groups. We’ve created a culture that makes it easier for working-moms to have exciting careers in a flexible working environment. I have both a three year old and an eight month old and I know it’s hard . . . ok impossible! . . . to do it all.  However, things like flexible work hours, working from home, a supportive team, and three months of paid parental leave go a long way.  

Join us!

Jon Wellinghoff’s New Year’s Resolution – Double Your DR $s

Posted on by Voltus

Our experts want to help you with a single new year’s resolution: double your dollars in demand response in 2019 with these five tips: 

  1. Jon Wellinghoff, former Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and “Father of Demand Response”: “You’ll want to “stack” multiple demand response programs. If you’re only in one program, you’re missing out on many new programs. I’m aware of up to six programs being stacked at a single facility.”

  2. Ed Sayers, Vice President of Energy at Simon Property Group: “Optimize your enrolled kW. DR works off of a simple formula: kW x $’s = earnings. Squeeze every kW you can by reevaluating your operational flexibility and enrollment levels. As you invest in energy controls or new equipment you’ll often find that you can enable more kW, with quicker response times. That’s more cash.” 

  3. Alex Laskey, founder and former President of Opower: “Take advantage of “out-of-market” demand response. You can double the value you get from curtailing loads. In nearly every North American power market, businesses incur peak demand charges. Moreover, transmission capacity charges are often greater than generation capacity expenses. You’ll want to avoid these.” 

  4. Dana Guernsey, Vice President of Product and Energy Markets at Voltus: “Get back your backup generator. The opportunity to use your generator in demand response programs has returned. These resources are the highest quality power for your facility and a high quality type of demand response.”

  5. Phil Giudice, former Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources and CEO of Ambri: “Negotiate contract terms carefully. Look beyond simple top line revenue sharing percentages. Details matter and vary by program, market and geography. Some customers are surprised when it comes to unfamiliar terms such as “gross up.” You can increase your earnings 10% to 30% per year by making sure you get a piece of all of the profitable opportunities available.”  

Are you resolved to double your dollars in demand response in 2019? Email us for a detailed review of your portfolio (info@voltus.co – not .com) and we’ll show you all the options to guarantee you hit that New Year’s resolution.

David vs. Goliath

Posted on by Voltus

In the wake of Entergy astroturfing the citizens of New Orleans, it not only continues to attempt an end-around to influence the New Orleans City Council by pressuring non-profits that receive Entergy support, but it has come out swinging against a better alternative to its $210 million power plant. The alternative, a virtual power plant, has laid bare Entergy’s desperation to get their 128 MW power plant shoehorned through the regulatory process. Here’s the upshot: if a massive, multi-billion dollar utility is publicly challenging an innovative startup then you need to ask why . . . the answer is because New Orleans has the opportunity to buy the value of a $210 million power plant for less than $10 million.

Here we’ll address Entergy’s public comments in their attempt to cast doubt on the value and application of Voltus’s peaking power plant for New Orleans:

  • Entergy disputes the Voltus model. The hypocrisy of this statement is laughable, as Entergy already has a virtual power plant of its own in New Orleans. It pays large industrial loads more than $63,000/MW-year for agreeing to be interrupted. So, which is it, Entergy, do you believe these resources are valuable or not (if not, why aren’t you arguing against your own interruptible rate?). The dirty secret here is that Entergy only offers it to the very largest industrial loads which prevents small and medium sized organizations from benefiting.

  • Neal Kirby, Entergy spokesperson, argues that the Voltus peaking power plant isn’t a power plant “because a power plant does not exist.” Neal, you’re clearly not familiar with what we do nor the technical details of a virtual power plant, thousands of which have been developed and proven around the world (see Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s virtual power plant which they tout as a “clean and innovative alternative” to a decades old fossil-fuel plant in Oakland). Entergy’s response is instead like that of a taxi driver not being familiar with why Lyft is a far superior product, while arguing against Lyft in hopes of protecting an antiquated way of operating. Further, a virtual power plant is not just load curtailment; it’s an aggregation of hundreds, even thousands, of behind-the-meter distributed energy resources, including onsite generation. There are hundreds of these small, on-site generators in New Orleans that could be part of the virtual power plant, along with energy storage, energy efficiency, and load curtailment (the three of which are commonly known as DERs or distributed energy resources). This may be a helpful analogy: Entergy wants to build a mainframe whose power is used very rarely (the 128 MW peaking power plant at a cost of $210 million) while Voltus is building a much more efficient series of laptops that distribute the computing power, efficiency, and value to all users (the 125 MW virtual power plant that costs ratepayers nothing to build and delivers cash directly into the pockets of the distributed users who participate). 

  • Neal also says “even if the company’s plan is achievable, it would not replace the need for a local power source to maintain stability and prevent widespread outages.” Odd, considering that’s exactly what it would do. Voltus has reached out to Entergy on multiple occasions to engage, educate, and work together to bring a diverse mix of resources to market. Entergy has never replied to us, and as demonstrated by Neal’s comments, remains willfully ignorant on the topic. Let us educate you: the Voltus virtual power plant will deliver 125 MWs within the city limits of New Orleans. It’s not only local, it’s more local than Entergy’s power plant, and is woven into the fabric of New Orleans’ demand for electricity exactly where the demand exists. 

  • “Kirby, in his statement on behalf of Entergy, said the utility questions whether large facilities, such as hospitals and big retailers, would be suitable customers for Voltus given their power needs.” In fact, these very customers are participating in virtual power plants around the country and have been for decades. This is why Voltus can so quickly build our 125 MW power plant while it will take years for Entergy to build theirs. These facilities can be enabled to participate using their existing building management systems coupled with Voltus technology in less than 60 minutes. 

  • Neal mentions Entergy’s “black start” capabilities. Smoke and mirrors. Few people fully understand this term. The Voltus virtual power plant also has black start capabilities. We’ll let Neal explain what black start is, while hoping nobody’s eyes glaze over. Furthermore, we’ll hope he touches on the fact that black start is a) standard operating procedure for any modern power plant (it’s as if he said, “Our car is amazing. It has tires!”) and b) largely irrelevant when distribution infrastructure is compromised in an emergency.

  • Finally, Neal touts the benefits of the Entergy power plant being able to restore power after a hurricane. Entergy can only deliver power from a central power plant if its distribution infrastructure (wires, transformers, etc.) are available after a hurricane. Entergy has had a hard enough time keeping cats out of distribution facilities. Furthermore, Entergy seems entirely indifferent to following through on its 100 MW solar commitment to the city while its maintenance records are atrocious. In 2016 alone Entergy had 2,599 outages, 99% of which were associated with distribution system issues downstream of power production.

New Orleans has an amazing opportunity to benefit from a new power plant in the next 12 months. And it has the opportunity to save each ratepayer $500 by choosing the benefits of a virtual power plant.  We hope the New Orleans City Council (local representative contact information here) will support this win-win solution and make ratepayers aware of its benefits. 

Dana Guernsey – VP of Product and Energy Markets

What Can the World’s Largest Database of Demand Response Programs Do For You?

Posted on by Voltus

Did you know that an Interstate Power and Light demand response program in Iowa pays commercial and industrial customers $64,640 per MW per year for their demand response capability? That’s among the highest paying demand response programs in the US, yet only about 160 sites are signed up to the program out of the more than 86,000 commercial and industrial accounts in the service territory, nearly 1,500 of which are large industrial loads.

Today, we announced the launch of CashDash, the world’s largest database of demand response programs. The purpose of CashDash is to identify every opportunity for large energy consumers to monetize operational flexibility by simply entering zip codes and load reduction capabilities for each site. CashDash is especially valuable to multi-site enterprise accounts that aren’t fully aware of the multitude of programs available around the world.

CashDash captures both revenue and savings-generating demand response program opportunities, including wholesale market, regulated utility, and third-party programs. These programs are categorized into capacity, energy, and ancillary services with 36 separate program attributes that allow a customer to target programs best suited for their operational profile. Currently, CashDash contains 137 distinct demand response programs that average $41,390/MW-year in value, many of which are stackable cashflow streams that more than double the value a customer would typically see in demand response. In fact, the current world record for stackable demand response programs is six, found in certain regions of Pennsylvania, carrying a $222,138/MW-year value.

“CashDash is revolutionary in its application. We often find that a multi-national industrial, for example, is missing more than 50 percent of the potential cash from demand response because, with limited staff, it’s impossible to track the hundreds of programs available from thousands of electric utilities and markets,” said Gregg Dixon, CEO of Voltus. “CashDash ensures that they leave no money on the table.”

We don’t have the time nor resources to track all of these programs. But we also can’t afford to miss valuable savings opportunities. Voltus’s CashDash made it easy for us to identify every program and its suitability to our properties, each one of which has a unique operating profile.

ED SAYERS

VICE PRESIDENT OF ENERGY, SIMON PROPERTY GROUP

“CashDash delivers value to large energy consumers, electric utilities, and even our competition,” said Dana Guernsey, Vice President of Product at Voltus. “CashDash helps utilities that have traditionally had a difficult time marketing their programs to enterprise customers who may not have a contact in the utility region. And CashDash highlights our competitors’ programs where Voltus may not have an offering. Ultimately, we want our large energy consumers to know where every bit of cash is hidden in these markets.”

For a CashDash portfolio review email info@voltus.co.

Can DR Power Time Travel?

Posted on by Voltus

Voltus just exceeded 1.21 gigawatts of demand response under management. We think Marty McFly and Dr. Emmett Brown of “Back to the Future” movie fame would find this very appealing (although, Doc, you need to learn how to pronounce gigawatt)!

“We’re true energy geeks here at Voltus. When our portfolio crossed 1,000 MWs of demand response under management, we were eager to celebrate and make a public announcement. But our teammates said, ‘Wait, when we get to 1.21 gigawatts, we’ll be able to power a DeLorean into the future!’ so we just had to hold off,” said Dana Guernsey, VP of product and energy markets at Voltus.

“Now that we’re grown up and have kids of our own, we’re finding that they’re discovering the cultural icons of our past, so we’ll be in ‘Back to the Future’ Halloween costumes tonight,” said Matt Plante, president of Voltus. “Our portfolio of demand response is now in 25 states, two countries and delivered across thousands of sites. Although we can’t provide a single source of power to get that DeLorean into the vortex of time, that’s not the point of demand response. Our resource can deliver value to grid operators, utilities and end-users here and now in a multitude of applications.”

Here is what 1.21 gigawatts can do for us:

  • Deliver nearly $40 million per year in cash payments to demand response participants

  • Deliver more than $1 billion per year in ratepayer savings

  • Eliminate the need to build a new coal or nuclear central power plant

  • Increase grid resilience and prevent grid blackouts and brownouts

  • Provide the equivalent power of nearly five million solar panels

  • Eliminate greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 44,142,283 miles driven by an average passenger vehicle

And if, like us, you’re shuttling your kids around tonight to all of the candy hot spots, please be safe and enjoy!

Could Demand Response Be a Better Deal than Solar for Iowa Customers?

Posted on by Voltus

The Energy News article, “Could solar be a better deal than demand response for Iowa customers?” is an unfortunate hit piece that one might consider “friendly fire.” Kerri Johannsen, an environmentalist with the Iowa Environmental Council, questions the value of demand response in Iowa, relative to solar as an option to address peak demand. Unfortunately, she doesn’t attempt to quantify the economic benefits of solar to Iowans but she’s more than eager to cut down demand response.

She got it half right. We agree wholeheartedly that Iowans are paying too much for demand response, especially in light of the fact that demand response has been dispatched so rarely in Iowa over the years. Where she got it wrong for those of us serving up clean energy is that she didn’t put forth a clear economic argument for solar. She could have said, “Could cold fusion be a better deal than solar for Iowa customers?” and leave Iowans scratching their heads just the same, left hanging on whether there are numbers behind her argument. Iowans deserve better.

We’re not solar experts so we won’t attempt to knock the benefits of solar. What we can say is that demand response has proven to be the least cost, most reliable, and cleanest source of energy to meet the top 10 percent of peak demand. And we’re willing to do the math and compare it to any alternative resource:

  • 10% of peak demand lasts less than 1% of the hours of the year (or about 80 hours a year). This is a well known fact for most electricity grids for which everyone in the power industry can agree, well supported by DOE Energy Information Administration Data. This simple fact is why the demand response industry exists. Power generation is the only industry where we have traditionally used only supply-side resources to address demand. Many peaking power plants in the US run for less than 1% of the hours of the year. Yet, we don’t build 20 lane highways for rush hour, we don’t build churches for Christmas and Easter, we don’t roll out another plane to carry the five overbooked passengers on a flight.

  • However, because states have largely incentivized utilities to build assets that capture a guaranteed rate of return on the rate base, a perverse incentive exists that prevents the benefits from demand response to be realized by rate payers. Every state, including Iowa, has the opportunity to use the price elasticity of supply and demand to arrive at a market-driven, economically efficient answer, while preserving traditional rate base models that carry important benefits.

  • The “price to beat,” so to speak, in solving the peak demand challenge is the cost of new entry, the standard for which in the US is a simple cycle combustion turbine. On average in the US, the cost of new entry ranges from $87,300 to $121,300 per MW-year. 

  • Additionally, demand response carries tremendous reliability advantages due to its dispatchability. Power resources that are dispatchable can help avoid blackouts, or lost load. The value of lost load (VOLL) ranges in MISO from $29,299 per MWh for small C&I customers to $42,256 per MWh for industrial loads. DR provides grid operators, utilities, and states with a vital resource that is proven to increase grid reliability while putting dollars back in the pockets of rate payers. Over the past twenty years, as DR has gained prevalence, it has prevented dozens of blackouts throughout the country (from Texas to PJM) and often when traditional generation was expected to be available.

  • Finally, the cleanest MWh is the one never used. No doubt solar is clean. Just not as clean as an avoided MWh or MW. Kerri’s position leaves us scratching our heads about why an environmental organization, undoubtedly knowing the environmental benefits of DR, wouldn’t advocate with specificity the changes that need to be made to MidAmerican’s approach to DR to not only make it more economical but to expand DR’s market penetration and use during the hours she says solar would make sense. DR can be dispatched 24/7/365 with the right market price signals. Kerri must know that PJM, for instance, has implemented this very approach.

This brings us to the economics of DR in Iowa. We agree with Kerri that Iowa is paying too much for DR. We encourage Iowa to make use of the MISO LMR auction price to determine the value of the DR resource and to determine whether DR is even necessary. Iowa is, in effect, subsidizing an out-of-market resource with MidAmerican’s DR tariff. It may seem self-defeating for a DR company to say that the DR resource in Iowa may not be necessary at all. But we believe in the power of markets and a market’s ability to determine the most efficient balance of supply and demand. In the case of DR in Iowa (and many other MISO states), if there is too much supply then the price should fall accordingly. If there’s not enough supply then the price should rise. Currently, the price for DR in the MISO market is $3,650 per MW-year and $3,500 per MWh only when dispatched. Taking a market-based approach would save Iowans approximately $16.6 million per year. Can solar beat those figures? Can coal? Can natural gas? Can nukes? We’re willing to bet a prime rib dinner from the Pink Poodle with anyone who can beat it.

The real beauty of demand response is the simple fact that it meets everyone’s needs, albeit for a small portion of power delivery (that 10% of peak demand). It is attractive to those of us who love the power of markets. It is attractive to those of us who love the best price. It is attractive to those of us who value resilience. It is attractive to those of us who value a world of sustainable energy. 

But if DR isn’t the best deal in town. You better bring your calculator and make your case.

PJM DR – Just and Reasonable?

Posted on by Voltus

As if reminding us of our favorite quote from George Orwell’s Animal Farm, PJM and its Market Monitor argue that seasonal demand response (DR) and renewable resources would suppress capacity prices because they would only have to deliver for part of the year. Yet PJM bills its peak demand charge (which can amount to as much as 30% of an electricity bill) on the highest five hours of demand during the year (that’s 0.06% of the hours in a year)! If PJM managed the interstate highway system we would all be paying for 30-lane highways needed to accommodate the busiest rush-hour traffic on a single day of the year.

It’s curious why PJM is still designing their annual capacity needs using summer peak demand to set the market price for capacity while arguing that demand response shouldn’t be allowed to satisfy market requirements if it isn’t available in the winter. How ironic that peak demand, and that which sets the physical value of demand response, is used to argue against demand response because of its typically seasonal nature.  It’s even more ironic that this bit of regulatory tomfoolery is the direct product of 40,200 MWs (22% of PJM’s resources) of generators that failed to deliver in the dead of winter during the 2014 polar vortex. 

And since when did price competition become a bad thing? Perhaps it’s explained by generator coalition interests (e.g., the PJM Power Providers), who state that it would be a “scary” and “daunting” task to reform the capacity markets to accommodate multiple product types. This sounds to us like John Shelk and EPSA are up to the kind of tricks that would have eliminated DR from wholesale markets if not for a Supreme Court of the United States decision that we fought hard for that cemented its value in wholesale markets. We suspect that what is truly scary to the generator coalition is an efficient market structure: when DR resources are accepted, they displace higher cost and less efficient resources, and serve to reduce overall market price, significantly benefiting buyers (us Americans . . . the ones creating the demand for electricity) in the market. In fact, PJM themselves touts that DR and energy efficiency are estimated to reduce capacity expenditures by billions of dollars per year ($11.8 billion in 2013/2014 alone) . . . dollars that generators miss out on. 

While others may be content to diplomatically discuss the issue, Voltus is not. When unfair competition wins, ratepayers lose, while wealth transfers back to generators at significant cost to us Americans. What should be a happy coexistence of supply and demand continues to unfairly enrich the interests of traditional generation hoping to renege on the grand bargain of capacity markets: namely, generators got their cake (open energy markets) and ate it, too (capacity markets) . . . but the deal was that demand would be treated fairly and given access to wholesale markets on a comparable basis. 

PJM, stop catering to generators and get back to your stated mission of creating and operating “robust, competitive, and non-discriminatory electric power markets.” Bring back seasonal demand response and compensate it fairly . . . the same way you bill for seasonal demand.

Dana Guernsey – Vice President of Market and Business Operations, Voltus, Inc.

Speaking Truth to Power

Posted on by Voltus

“Can you give me an example of when you’ve ‘spoken truth to power’ either in your professional or personal life and what that experience was like?” That’s the final question Matt and I ask any candidate wanting to be part of the Voltus team. If you’re asked that question, you’re an incredibly strong candidate. Answer it well and you receive an offer. Answer it poorly and – despite whatever other credentials you have – we are forced to pass.

Why is it so important to us? There are four reasons:

  1. We want to hire people who are more bright, more gritty, and more good than us. That’s really hard to know unless they’re the kind of person willing to tell the CEO and President what they’re really thinking: about our good ideas, our half-baked ideas, or our bad ideas. And, boy, can we come up with some bad ideas! Those willing to speak truth to power are bright – they bring a solution and not just a problem – they are gritty – they have an inner drive to champion a better way – and they are good – they speak truth to power (understanding that we must all bring out each other’s best) especially to those with a responsibility to lead.
     
  2. The only way we get better as a team is by coaching each other constantly and bringing a better solution to the table every day. We built a company around a strong vision, a strong set of values, and a strong offer for customers. Yet, we know all of it is flawed, much like an artist might cringe at their painting despite countless hours toiling over the final brush strokes of its completion. At the risk of parodying ourselves a la this week’s episode of “Silicon Valley,” we embrace the concept of radical candor (challenging directly, caring personally) because it is consistent with our values of love and compassion. When you meet a person who is willing to put their own neck on the line to help you be better, that’s a special someone.
     
  3. Our product, demand response, is a product that speaks truth to power. It is the demand side of a supply/demand market equation that has traditionally and heavily favored supply resources – large central power plants (e.g., nuclear, coal) that also have an outsized voice in energy markets and regulatory arenas. These forces run deep at regional transmission operator (RTO) forums, within state PUCs/PSCs, and at the federal level where incumbent resources are often propped up despite being obsolete. We are the folks who spearheaded and won the FERC 745 battle at the Supreme Court of the United States. The grit and determination, the willingness to speak truth to power, that it took to wage a battle with odds of winning being less than 1% (knowing it was the right battle to fight) is what we look for in a Voltan.
     
  4. Our prospective customers are generally of two types: never heard of demand response or they’ve been doing it for years. Those who have never heard of it require us to be vocal proponents of doing something differently that delivers cash to their bottom line. Those who have been doing it for years often think they’re getting the most dollars from their participation. In both instances, we need our team to stick their toe in the door to evangelize why that customer should work with Voltus before that door is shut in their face. People who shy away from rejection or conflict don’t last long in that environment. They’re willing to challenge conventional thinking or experiences.

If you want to be a Voltan, you need to be really good at speaking truth to power. You need to be a vocal champion for ideas worth spreading. You need to stand up for those who can’t stand up for themselves. You need to be the kind of person willing to punch a bully in the nose. You see your role in the world as an agent of positive change and you’re ready to get into the arena and go to battle for it.

Please share your experiences speaking truth to power in the comments below or send us an email with your thoughts on the topic.

Gregg and Matt

New Year’s Resolution – Double Your Dollars in Demand Response!

Posted on by Voltus

Happy New Year! Now let’s get to work on our resolution: help you double your dollars in demand response in 2018 through these five steps: 

  1. “Stack” multiple demand response programs. If you’re only in one program, you’re missing out.
     
  2. Take advantage of “out-of-market” demand response. This alone can double the value you get from curtailing load.
     
  3. Get back your backup generator. The opportunity to use your generator in demand response programs has returned. 
     
  4. Negotiate the “gross up.” If your current demand response provider hasn’t told you about the gross-up, find a new demand response provider. This will increase your earnings 10% to 30% per year.
     
  5. Optimize your enrolled kW. DR works off of a simple formula: kW x $’s = earnings. Squeeze every kW you can by reevaluating your operational flexibility and enrollment levels. 

Are you resolved to double your dollars in demand response in 2018? Email us for a detailed review of your portfolio (info@voltus.co – not .com) and we’ll show you all the options to guarantee you hit that New Year’s resolution.

“Clark, that’s the gift that keeps on giving the whole year . . . “

Posted on by Voltus

It’s that time of the year! As my family cozied up in front of our favorite holiday movie, I was feeling like the FERC handwringing on grid resiliency was going to be a bit like Clark Griswold getting the Jello of the Month Club Membership for his annual Christmas bonus. I could relate to Clark’s Christmas gift backlash but with Rick Perry in mind . . . 

When, what to my wondering eyes should appear . . . but a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruling on December 1 allowing Energy Efficiency Resources (EERs – think LED upgrades) to get wholesale capacity market credit without encumbrance from a RERRA! Ahhhh, yes, there’s nothing like a FERC ruling and a set of solid TLAs to get me in the holiday spirit!

Here’s the skinny on this gift that truly keeps giving the whole year through:

  • By Voltus estimates, there are about 2,000 MWs of EE projects that would qualify for up to four years of capacity market cash earnings that haven’t yet been monetized. This amounts to about $400 million in cash available to these commercial and industrial customers that goes right to their bottom line. 
     
  • FERC has jurisdiction to invoke behind-the-meter assets into wholesale energy markets – this includes demand response, onsite generation, energy storage, and energy efficiency. This is granted to FERC in the Federal Power Act, sometimes to the chagrin of states’ jurisdiction over retail energy. A lot of political and regulatory wrestling has resulted over the years on this.
     
  • For example, the 2016 US Supreme Court ruling on FERC Order 745 was partially supported on the notion that, for demand response resources being invoked into wholesale energy markets, states had an opt-out provision that allowed RERRAs (relevant electric retail regulatory authority -typically the state PUC/PSC but also including munis and coops) to bar DR from taking advantage of wholesale energy market programs. FERC “granted” states this provision . . . more to come on the notion of “granted” below.
     
  • The Advanced Energy Economy sought clarity on this landmark ruling to ensure that EERs (energy efficiency resources) could not be banned by a RERRA from capturing wholesale capacity market credits, under the notion that EERs are operationally different than DR resources. Good on you, AEE! FERC’s December 1 ruling provides clarity on this and makes explicit that EERs can’t be barred by a RERRA. This is big news because large commercial and industrial customers have spent billions of dollars on energy efficiency projects that have amounted to thousands of MWs of permanent load reduction, all of which can now be monetized if the energy efficiency measure a) is in a wholesale energy market where FERC has jurisdiction and b) the measure hasn’t already been claimed by a utility and/or hasn’t already been monetized where a RERRA does not bar it from being monetized.
     
  • What’s more, the FERC just opened a big door for DR. If FERC really wanted to make wholesale markets “just and reasonable” it would revoke its “grant” to RERRAs that allow them the right to opt-out of allowing demand response to come to market unencumbered. That would truly level the wholesale energy market playing field once and for all while unlocking the full value that DR can offer to market participants, unleashing billions more per year in bottom line benefits to all energy consumers . . . residential, commercial, and industrial alike.

I have a dream of Rick Perry doing his best impression of Frank Shirley . . . come on, Rick, nobody wants coal in their stocking, not even the biggest buyer of coal!

This development is what Voltus is all about . . . less energy, more cash. If you want to take full advantage of this immediate opportunity, reach out and let us know!

Hap, hap, happy holidays!!!