North American Energy Standards Board s8

North American Energy Standards Board 1301 Fannin, Suite 2350, Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 356-0060, Fax: (713) 356-0067, E-mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.naesb.org

NAESB DSM-EE ACTIVITY SUMMARY MARCH 29, 2008

DSM-EE PROJECT – ASSIGNED TO RETAIL GAS, RETAIL ELECTRIC AND WHOLESALE ELECTRIC:  April 11, 2007: Several representatives of the NAESB WEQ, REQ, and RGQ as well as representatives of the US Department of Energy, US Environmental Protection Agency, FERC, and other industry experts met at the Department of Energy offices in Washington, D.C. to discuss the NAESB effort to draft business practices for Demand Side Management and Energy Efficiency. Ongoing Energy Efficiency and DSM projects and programs by other groups (such as NAPEE) were reviewed by the meeting attendees. The following resolution outlines the scope of the initial effort by NAESB to draft business practice standards for these topics: It was decided that NAESB should begin its standards development focus on measurement and verification of energy savings and peak demand reduction from both a wholesale and retail electric market perspective. A future schedule of meetings for DSM and Energy Efficiency should be posted on the NAESB website shortly.  May 24, 2007: 75 NAESB members, FERC, DOE, EEI, ISO and State regulatory personnel, experts in DSM and energy markets participants (22% more than the first meeting) met in person and by conference telephone at NAESB headquarters in Houston to refine the scope of Phase 1 activities, agreeing on a specific list of tasks and assigning subgroups of volunteers to work on each task. At this meeting, no less than 28 individuals spoke to the group.  June 18, 2007:. 51 NAESB members, FERC, DOE, EEI, ISO and State regulatory personnel, experts in DSM and energy markets participants met in person and by conference telephone at BGE offices in Baltimore to further refine the scope of Phase 1 activities by reviewing the initial task list and revising it with more detailed deliverable requirements and dates, and with identification of base documents to support completing each task.  July 26, 2007: 46 NAESB members, FERC, DOE, EEI, ISO and State regulatory personnel, experts in DSM and energy markets participants met in person and by conference telephone at AGA offices in Washington DC to present deliverables of existing demand response measurement and verification protocols and a list of 41 possible topics and subtopics for NAESB model business practices. The task force reviewed all 41 possibilities, deciding whether to draft MBPs and which ones can be grouped together.  September 14, 2007: The results of the meeting including possible standards text were sent out for comment including notes, considerations and possible standards text. Comments were requested on each of the nine standards development areas including whether the remarks were directed to wholesale or retail markets, pre program evaluation or post implementation evaluation, or to DSM or EE projects.  September 25, 2007: A DSM-EE meeting was held in Austin, Texas hosted by ERCOT. The purpose of the meeting was to review the comments, determine the level of progress made towards the task list and determine is adjustments to the task, focus or schedule were needed. When reviewing the comments it was determined to focus in five areas specific to demand response programs, and develop business practice standards that would prove helpful – (1) DR programs administered by ISOs and RTOS in the wholesale markets, (2) DR programs administered by utilities in wholesale markets, (3) DR programs administered by utilities in the retail markets, (4) a glossary to support the DR programs, and (5) a preamble to put the business practice standards in context. To focus on the DR programs, each of the three areas outlined will develop a matrix that describes the aspects of the DR programs in effect today, planned, or has been in effect in the past.  November 6, 2007: Several of the NAESB leadership met with Commissioners Kerr and Ervin of NC to gain further understanding of expectations for DSM-EE NAESB activity for electricity for the retail markets.  November 11, 2007: NAESB participated in a panel on DSM-EE at the NARUC Annual Meeting in Anaheim.  November 30, 2007: Meeting hosted by Dominion in Richmond. During the meeting, each of the five groups described the progress made and plans to date. Drafts of the three matrices were reviewed, as was a draft glossary NAESB Update –March 29, 2008 Page 1 of 50 North American Energy Standards Board 1301 Fannin, Suite 2350, Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 356-0060, Fax: (713) 356-0067, E-mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.naesb.org

NAESB DSM-EE ACTIVITY SUMMARY MARCH 29, 2008

and outline for the preamble. It is possible that the two wholesale matrices will be combined, as The calendar for 2008 was also set. The next meeting is scheduled for January 23 in Baltimore hosted by BGE.  December 3, 2007: A meeting was held with Commissioner Mason of Ohio to gain further understanding of expectations for DSM-EE NAESB activity for natural gas for the retail markets.  January 23, 2008: The group met in Baltimore to review progress on the two matrices, the preamble and the glossary. The wholesale matrix for DR programs administered by ISOs and RTOs was reviewed. Data is being placed in five separate categories -Initial Testing and Auditing, Ongoing Testing and Auditing, Triggering; Construction, Statistical Analysis, Performance and Baselines. The matrix for retail DR programs is lagging but several companies have provided or agreed to provide data – including BGE, Dominion, ConEd, Alabama Power and ComVerge. Procedures for how to collect the data was discussed with both interviews online and distributed surveys discussed. Both the preamble and glossary while first drafts are available are dependent on the work of the matrices and cannot be further developed until after more progress has been made on the matrices.  March 28, 2008: The group met in Houston to review progress on the two matrices. The wholesale matrix for DR programs administered by ISOs and RTOs was reviewed. The matrix had expanded significantly to provide for more comparability for responses. 45 DR programs have been identified and the data is now being verified. A template for the type of standards to be expected from this effort was reviewed. The retail matrix now has additional data and several interviews were conducted online, with the conclusion that it is the preferred way to gather data. The retail group is to set up a face-to-face meeting in May to review the matrix and make changes before sending it out to utilities for interviews.  Planned, May 30, 2008 – Planned meeting hosted by ISO-NE in Holyoke  Planned, July 30, 2008 – Planned meeting hosted by NAESB office in Houston  Planned, September 30, 2008 – Planned meeting hosted by ERCOT in Austin  Planned, December 2, 2008 – Planned meeting hosted by NAESB office in Houston

THE FOLLOWING INCLUDES:

 DSM-EE DISTRIBUTION LIST PAGE 3

 RETAIL MATRIX AND WORK PLAN 11

 WHOLESALE WORK PLAN AND MATRIX 26

LINKS ON THE NAESB WEB SITE:

 DSM-EE NAESB PAGE FOR MEETINGS AND MATERIALS: http://www.naesb.org/dsm-ee.asp

 RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND WORK PAPERS: http://www.naesb.org/dsm-ee_doc.asp

NAESB Update –March 29, 2008 Page 2 of 50 North American Energy Standards Board 1301 Fannin, Suite 2350, Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 356-0060, Fax: (713) 356-0067, E-mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.naesb.org

NAESB DSM-EE DISTRIBUTION LIST SORTED BY ORGANIZATION

Roy True, ACES Power Marketing Jim Templeton, Comprehensive Energy Services Carl L. Wilkins, Advanced Energy Cynthia Arcate, ComVerge H. Neal Allen, Alabama Power Company Wendell Miyaji, ComVerge Judy W. Ray, Alabama Power Company Blake Morrison, ComVerge David P. Johnson, Allegheny Energy, Inc. Elena Futoryan, Con Edison Cynthia A. Menhorn, Allegheny Energy Nelson Yip, Con Edison Terri Grabiak, Allegheny Power Marc Hoffman, Consortium for Energy Efficiency Thomas Rone, Allegheny Power Monica Nevius, Consortium on Energy Efficiency Jason J. Wojciechowicz, Allegheny Power Chris Perry, Constellation NewEnergy Bill Prindle, American Council for an Energy Efficiency Ed Overtree, Constellation NewEnergy Economy (ACEEE) Gregory M. Urbin, Constellation NewEnergy Lonni Dieck, American Electric Power Wei Zhao, Constellation NewEnergy Sherri Monteith, American Electric Power Nicholas Justice Planson, ConsumerPowerline Mariam Arnaout, American Gas Association (AGA) Teri Van Sumeren, Consumers Energy Paula Gant, American Gas Association (AGA) Michael R. Flores, Direct Energy Allen Mosher, American Public Power Association Chuck Moore, Direct Energy S Balakrishnan, ANB Enterprises, Inc. Jamie Wimberly, Distributed Energy Financial Group LOC Bob Gray, Arizona Corporation Commission Ben Boyd, Distribution Control Systems, Inc. Meg Matt, Association of Energy Services Professionals Daniel Cleverdon, District of Columbia Public Service (AESP) Commission Bob Rowe, Balhoff & Rowe, LLC Robert Burnette, Dominion Howard H. Shafferman, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ed Hall, Dominion Ingersoll, LLP Mike Jesensky, Dominion David Kelly, Baltimore Gas and Electric David Koogler, Dominion Ruth Kiselewich, Baltimore Gas and Electric Ripley Newcomb, Dominion Jeanie Nathaniel, Baltimore Gas and Electric Shannon Venable, Dominion Phil Precht, Baltimore Gas and Electric Kathy W. Johnson, Dominion Resources William Wolf, Baltimore Gas and Electric Anne B. Rhoades, Dominion Resources Yolanda Mason, Bayboro EC, Inc. Richard Zelenko, Dominion Retail Inc. Cheryl Hindes, BGE Constellation Energy Mary Edwards, Dominion Virginia Power Vicky A. Bailey, BHMM Energy Services, LOC Clayton Crouch, Dominion Virginia Power/North Carolina Ken Keating, Bonneville Power Authority Power Rodereck Kelley, Bonneville Power Authority Bruce Sailors, Duke Energy Shaun Moher, Brickfield, Burchette, Ritts and Stone Walt Yeager, Duke Energy Americas, LLC Damon Xenopoulos, Brickfield, Burchette, Ritts & Stone, Ollie Frazier, Duke Energy Corporation PC Dan Jones, Duke Energy Corporation The Honorable Dian Grueneich, Commissioner, California Dan Flaherty, Duquesne Light Company Public Utilities Commission Mary Anne Brelinsky, Eagle Energy Partners Glenn Garland, CLEAResult Incorporated Cade Burks, EC Power John Oyhenart, CLEAResult Incorporated Eric Ackerman, Edison Electric Institute Dan Ellis, Climate Master James P. Fama, Edison Electric Institute Robert Sallee, Climate Master Melissa Lauderdale, Edison Electric Institute Jeff Hein, Colorado Public Utilities Commission Diane Munns, Edison Electric Institute NAESB Update –March 29, 2008 Page 3 of 50 North American Energy Standards Board 1301 Fannin, Suite 2350, Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 356-0060, Fax: (713) 356-0067, E-mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.naesb.org

Steven Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute Marija Zivanovic Smith, Gridpoint Abraham Raher, Efficiency Valuation Organization Thomas McMahon, Honeywell Utility Solutions Jack Cashin, Electric Power Supply Association Val Jensen, ICF International John Shelk, Electric Power Supply Association David Meisegeier, ICF International Steve Krein, Electric Reliability Council of Texas David Pickles, ICF International Joel Mickey, Electric Reliability Council of Texas Lou Ann Westerfield, Idaho Public Utility Commission Susan Munson, Electric Reliability Council of Texas Marvin Rosenberg, Independent Paul Wattles, Electric Reliability Council of Texas Bill Bourbonnais, Integrys Energy Services, Inc. Phil Bisesi, ElectriCities of North Carolina Dennis M. Derricks, Integrys Group Greg Locke, ElectriCities of North Carolina Ilze Rukis, Integrys Energy Group John Hughes, Electricity Consumers Resource Council Steve Schiller, International Program Measurement and (ELCON) Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Ren Orans, Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. Robert Burke, ISO New England Inc. Bob Boyle, Energy Curtailment Specialists, Inc. Scott Coe, ISO New England Inc. Jason Fordney, Energy Daily David LaPlante, ISO New England Inc. Marjorie Perlman, Energy East Management Robert Laurita, ISO New England Inc. Tom Gianneschi, Energy Regulatory Affairs, Alcoa, Inc. Eric Winkler, ISO New England Inc. George Behr, Energy Services Group Henry Yoshimura, ISO New England Inc. Fred Gordon, Energy Trust of Oregon Dave Hanna, Itron – Consulting & Analysis Phil Giudice, EnerNOC Daniel Waintroob, KEMA Services Tim Healy, EnerNOC Mimi Goldberg, Kema/Xnergy Rick Paradis, EnerNOC Liz Hicks, Kema/Xnergy Terry Sick, EnerNOC Bruce Johnson, KeySpan Corporation Mark Bruckner, Entergy Chuck Goldman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Ed Davis, Entergy Pat Moast, LCRA Karen Radosevich, Entergy Mark R. Bowen, Lockheed Martin Information Technology Marc Tannenbaum, Evergreen Software Inc. Patrick McCarthy, Lockheed Martin Information Scott Brown, Exelon Corporation Technology Stephen Bennett, Exelon Power Team Rebecca A. Klein, Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosenthal, LLP Ryan Irwin, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Barbara Alexander, Maine Office of Public Advocate David Kathan, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Denis Bergeron, Maine Public Utilities Commission Bill Lohrman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Katherine Johnson, Market Development Group Mary Beth Tighe, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission W. Robert Keating, Mass. Department of The Honorable Jon Wellinghoff, Commissioner, Federal Telecommunication & Energy Energy Regulatory Commission The Honorable Alan M. Freifeld, Commissioner, Maryland Dennis Brandt, Florida Power and Light Company Public Service Commission Paul N. Smolen, Fox, Smolen & Associates Grey Staples, Mendota Group, LLC Phil Audet, Frontier Associates Mark Meyer, MeterSmart Jay Zarnikau, Frontier Associates Jeff King, Metropolitan Washington Council of Richard Spellman, GDS Associates, Inc. Governments Steve Isser, Good Company Associates Rick Leuthauser, MidAmerican Energy Company Robert King, Good Company Associates Richard Walker, MidAmerican Energy Company Robert Mason, GoodCents James Wilson, MidAmerican Energy Company NAESB Update –March 29, 2008 Page 4 of 50 North American Energy Standards Board 1301 Fannin, Suite 2350, Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 356-0060, Fax: (713) 356-0067, E-mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.naesb.org

Alicia Ward, Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Tim Pettit, Nexus Market Research, Inc. Robert Borlick, Midwest ISO Mark Lauby, North American Electric Reliability Sherman Elliott, Midwest ISO Corporation Rob Lamoureux, Midwest ISO David R. Nevius, North American Electric Reliability Corporation Mike Robinson, Midwest ISO Julia Souder, North American Electric Reliability Ed Skiba, Midwest ISO Corporation Shel Berg, Midwest Reliability Organization Andy Fusco, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Lesa Jenkins, Missouri Public Service Commission Clay Norris, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency #1 Gary Kajander, Monsanto The Honorable Samuel Ervin IV, Commissioner, North Jonathan Booe, NAESB Carolina Utilities Commission David Huffman, NAESB The Honorable James Y Kerr III, Commissioner, North Laura Kennedy, NAESB Carolina Utilities Commission Rae McQuade, NAESB Julie Michals, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Inc. Denise Rager, NAESB Elizabeth Titus, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Angela Thomason, NAESB Inc. Veronica Thomason, NAESB Sue Coakley, Northeast Energy Efficiency Project Chuck Gray, National Association of Regulatory Utility Michael F. Ahern, Northeast Utilities Commissioners Calvin Bowie, Northeast Utilities Grace Soderberg, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Dave Scott, Northeast Utilities Charles A. Acquard, National Association of State Utility Tom Eckman, Northwest Power and Conservation Council Consumer Advocates Scott Wardle, Occidental Chemical John McCarthy, National Energy Board Faith S. Lambert, Office of Weatherization and Craig G. Goodman, National Energy Marketers Association Intergovernmental Program, EE-2K Stacey Rantala, National Energy Marketers Association The Honorable Donald L. Mason, Commissioner, Ohio Public Utilities Commission Mike Novak, National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation Thom Pearce, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Tim Stout, National Grid Deborah McKeever, Oncor Carol White, National Grid Terry Bates, Oncor Electric Delivery Mary Ann Ralls, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Neil Hutchings, Ontario Power Authority Timothy Douek, Navigant Consulting Kim Pederson, Otter Tail Power Company Nicole MK Dyess, NC Utilities Commission – Public Staff Rebecca Wentler, Otter Tail Power Company Jack Floyd, NC Utilities Commission – Public Staff Robert Kasman, Pacific Gas & Electric Bob Hinton, NC Utilities Commission – Public Staff Don Peterson, Pacific Gas and Electric John W. Charlton, New York ISO Bill Marek, PacifiCorp Robb Pike, New York ISO Eilliott Boardman, Peak Load Management Association (PLMA) Phillip Shafeei, New York ISO Craig Boice, Peak Load Management Association (PLMA) Diane Barney, New York Public Service Commission John J. McCawley, PECO Alice Miller, NewYork Department of Public Service Susan Covino, PJM Interconnection, LLC Sigmund Peplowski, New York State Dept. of Public Service Leanne Harrison, PJM Interconnection, LLC Bruce Ellsworth, New York State Reliability Council Pete Langben, PJM Interconnection, LLC Greg Clendenning, Nexus Market Research, Inc. Stephanie Monzon, PJM Interconnection, LLC

Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions Lawrence Mansueti, U S Department of Energy Michael Jacob, Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Lew W. Pratsch, U S Department of Energy Nina McLaurin, Progress Energy Stacy Angel, U S Environmental Protection Agency John Masiello, Progress Energy Florida Nikolaas Dietsch, U S Environmental Protection Agency Charles Thomas, Progress Energy Florida Dan Delurey, U.S. Demand Response Coordinating Mark Klein, Public Service Co. of New Mexico Committee Susanna Chiu, Public Service Electric and Gas Daniel Adamo, UGI Utilities, Inc. Fred Lynk, Public Service Electric and Gas William McAllister, UGI Utilities Terry Moran, Public Service Electric and Gas Michelle Michot Foss, University of Texas at Austin Center for Energy Economics Adrianne Brandt, Public Utility Commission of Texas Ron Russell, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Shawnee Claiborn-Pinto, Public Utility Commission of Center Texas David R. Eichenlaub, VA State Corporation Commission Theresa Gross, Public Utility Commission of Texas Brett A. Perlman, Vector Advisors Bob Schwermann, Sacramento Municipal Utility District Amanda Eades, Vectren Vikki Wood, Sacramento Municipal Utility District Kim Talley, Vectren Joseph Lynch, SCANA Sandra Waldstein, Vermont Public Service Board Bill Lawton, Seminole Electric Diane Jenkins, Virginia State Corporation Commission Lane Mahaffey, Seminole Electric Paul M. Pietsch, Wedgemere Group Kelly Ross Gillespie, Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance c/o Alliance to Save Energy Mike Wells, Western Electricity Coordinating Council Lee Stewart, Southern California Gas Company Christopher Burden, Williams Gas Pipeline Leonard Haynes, Southern Company Ronda Ferguson, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Kyle Leach, Southern Company Reshma Siddik, World Alliance for Decentralized Energy (WADE) Howard Geller, Southwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Michael Desselle, Southwest Power Pool Carl Monroe, Southwest Power Pool Heather Gewander, SRA International Daniel Violette, Summit Blue Consulting Kevin Coney, Summit Blue Consulting Paul Peterson, Synapse Energy Economics Gail McKaig, Tampa Electric Company Nick Hall, TecMarket Works Howard Bryant, TECO Energy David Chamberlain, Tennessee Valley Authority Edward Colston, Tennessee Valley Authority Valerie Crockett, Tennessee Valley Authority Kathy York, Tennessee Valley Authority Darrick Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority Robert W. Gee, The Gee Strategies Group Richard Sedano, The Regulatory Assistance Project Karen Wei, The Structure Group Mack Wallace, TXU Energy Christopher Freitas, U S Department of Energy NAESB Update –March 29, 2008 Page 6 of 50 North American Energy Standards Board 1301 Fannin, Suite 2350, Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 356-0060, Fax: (713) 356-0067, E-mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.naesb.org

NAESB DSM-EE DISTRIBUTION LIST SORTED BY NAME

Eric Ackerman, Edison Electric Institute David Chamberlain, Tennessee Valley Authority Charles A. Acquard, National Association of State Utility John W. Charlton, New York ISO Consumer Advocates Susanna Chiu, Public Service Electric and Gas Daniel Adamo, UGI Utilities Shawnee Claiborn-Pinto, Public Utility Commission of Michael F. Ahern, Northeast Utilities Texas Barbara Alexander, Maine Office of Public Advocate Greg Clendenning, Nexus Market Research, Inc. H. Neal Allen, Alabama Power Company Daniel Cleverdon, District of Columbia Public Service Commission Stacy Angel, U S Environmental Protection Agency Sue Coakley, Northeast Energy Efficiency Project Cynthia Arcate, ComVerge Scott Coe, ISO New England Inc. Mariam Arnaout, American Gas Association (AGA) Edward Colston, Tennessee Valley Authority Phil Audet, Frontier Associates Kevin Coney, Summit Blue Consulting Vicky A. Bailey, BHMM Energy Services, LOC Susan Covino, PJM Interconnection, LLC S Balakrishnan, ANB Enterprises, Inc. Valerie Crockett, Tennessee Valley Authority Diane Barney, New York Public Service Commission Clayton Crouch, Dominion Virginia Power/North Carolina Terry Bates, Oncor Electric Delivery Power George Behr, Energy Services Group Ed Davis, Entergy Stephen Bennett, Exelon Power Team Dan Delurey, U.S. Demand Response Coordinating Shel Berg, Midwest Reliability Organization Committee Denis Bergeron, Maine Public Utilities Commission Dennis M. Derricks, Integrys Group Phil Bisesi, ElectriCities of North Carolina Michael Desselle, Southwest Power Pool Eilliott Boardman, Peak Load Management Association Lonni Dieck, American Electric Power (PLMA) Nikolaas Dietsch, U S Environmental Protection Agency Craig Boice, Peak Load Management Association Timothy Douek, Navigant Consulting Jonathan Booe, NAESB Nicole MK Dyess, NC Utilities Commission – Public Staff Robert Borlick, Midwest ISO Amanda Eades, Vectren Bill Bourbonnais, Integrys Energy Services, Inc. Tom Eckman, Northwest Power and Conservation Council Mark R. Bowen, Lockheed Martin Information Technology Mary Edwards, Dominion Virginia Power Calvin Bowie, Northeast Utilities David R. Eichenlaub, VA State Corporation Commission Ben Boyd, Distribution Control Systems, Inc. Sherman Elliott, Midwest ISO Bob Boyle, Energy Curtailment Specialists, Inc. Dan Ellis, Climate Master Adrianne Brandt, Public Utility Commission of Texas Bruce Ellsworth, New York State Reliability Council Dennis Brandt, Florida Power and Light Company The Honorable Samuel Ervin IV, Commissioner, North Mary Anne Brelinsky, Eagle Energy Partners Carolina Utilities Commission Scott Brown, Exelon Corporation James P. Fama, Edison Electric Institute Mark Bruckner, Entergy Ronda Ferguson, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Howard Bryant, TECO Energy Dan Flaherty, Duquesne Light Company Christopher Burden, Williams Gas Pipeline Michael R. Flores, Direct Energy Robert Burke, ISO New England Inc. Jack Floyd, NC Utilities Commission – Public Staff Cade Burks, EC Power Jason Fordney, Energy Daily Robert Burnette, Dominion Michelle Michot Foss, University of Texas at Austin Jack Cashin, Electric Power Supply Association Center for Energy Economics

Ollie Frazier, Duke Energy Corporation Steve Isser, Good Company Associates The Honorable Alan M. Freifeld, Commissioner, Maryland Michael Jacob, Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Public Service Commission Diane Jenkins, Virginia State Corporation Commission Christopher Freitas, U S Department of Energy Lesa Jenkins, Missouri Public Service Commission Andy Fusco, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Val Jensen, ICF International Elena Futoryan, Con Edison Mike Jesensky, Dominion Paula Gant, American Gas Association (AGA) Bruce Johnson, KeySpan Corporation Glenn Garland, CLEAResult Incorporated David P. Johnson, Allegheny Energy, Inc. Robert W. Gee, The Gee Strategies Group Katherine Johnson, Market Development Group Howard Geller, Southwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Kathy W. Johnson, Dominion Resources Heather Gewander, SRA International Dan Jones, Duke Energy Corporation Tom Gianneschi, Energy Regulatory Affairs, Alcoa, Inc. Gary Kajander, Monsanto Kelly Ross Gillespie, Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance Robert Kasman, Pacific Gas & Electric c/o Alliance to Save Energy David Kathan, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Theresa Gross, Public Utility Commission of Texas Ken Keating, Bonneville Power Administration Phil Giudice, EnerNOC W. Robert Keating, Mass. Department of Mimi Goldberg, Kema/Xnergy Telecommunication & Energy Chuck Goldman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Rodereck Kelley, Bonneville Power Authority Craig G. Goodman, National Energy Marketers Association David Kelly, Baltimore Gas and Electric Fred Gordon, Energy Trust of Oregon Laura Kennedy, NAESB Terri Grabiak, Allegheny Power The Honorable James Y Kerr III, Commissioner, North Bob Gray, Arizona Corporation Commission Carolina Utilities Commission Chuck Gray, National Association of Regulatory Utility Jeff King, Metropolitan Washington Council of Commissioners Governments The Honorable Dian Grueneich, Commissioner, California Robert King, Good Company Associates Public Utilities Commission Ruth Kiselewich, Baltimore Gas and Electric Ed Hall, Dominion Rebecca A. Klein, Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosenthal, Nick Hall, TecMarket Works LLP Dave Hanna, Itron – Consulting & Analysis Mark Klein, Public Service Co. of New Mexico Leanne Harrison, PJM Interconnection, LLC David Koogler, Dominion Leonard Haynes, Southern Company Steve Krein, Electric Reliability Council of Texas Tim Healy, EnerNOC Faith S. Lambert, Office of Weatherization and Jeff Hein, Colorado Public Utilities Commission Intergovernmental Program, EE-2K Liz Hicks, Kema/Xnergy Rob Lamoureux, Midwest ISO Cheryl Hindes, BGE Constellation Energy Pete Langben, PJM Interconnection, LLC Bob Hinton, NC Utilities Commission – Public Staff David LaPlante, ISO New England Inc. Marc Hoffman, Consortium for Energy Efficiency Mark Lauby, North American Electric Reliability Corporation David Huffman, NAESB Melissa Lauderdale, Edison Electric Institute John Hughes, Electricity Consumers Resource Council (ELCON) Robert Laurita, ISO New England Inc. Neil Hutchings, Ontario Power Authority Bill Lawton, Seminole Electric Ryan Irwin, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Kyle Leach, Southern Company

Rick Leuthauser, MidAmerican Energy Company Diane Munns, Edison Electric Institute Greg Locke, ElectriCities of North Carolina Susan Munson, Electric Reliability Council of Texas Bill Lohrman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Jeanie Nathaniel, Baltimore Gas and Electric Joseph Lynch, SCANA Monica Nevius, Consortium on Energy Efficiency Fred Lynk, Public Service Electric and Gas David R. Nevius, North American Electric Reliability Lane Mahaffey, Seminole Electric Corporation Lawrence Mansueti, U S Department of Energy Ripley Newcomb, Dominion Bill Marek, PacifiCorp Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions John Masiello, Progress Energy Florida Clay Norris, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency #1 The Honorable Donald L. Mason, Commissioner, Ohio Mike Novak, National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation Public Utilities Commission Ren Orans, Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. Yolanda Mason, Bayboro EC, Inc. Ed Overtree, Constellation NewEnergy Robert Mason, GoodCents John Oyhenart, CLEAResult Incorporated Meg Matt, Association of Energy Services Professionals Rick Paradis, EnerNOC (AESP) Thom Pearce, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio William McAllister, UGI Utilities Kim Pederson, Otter Tail Power Company Patrick McCarthy, Lockheed Martin Information Sigmund Peplowski, New York State Dept. of Public Technology Service John McCarthy, National Energy Board Marjorie Perlman, Energy East Management John J. McCawley, PECO Brett A. Perlman, Vector Advisors Gail McKaig, Tampa Electric Company Chris Perry, Constellation NewEnergy Deborah McKeever, Oncor Don Peterson, Pacific Gas and Electric Nina McLaurin, Progress Energy Paul Peterson, Synapse Energy Economics Thomas McMahon, Honeywell Utility Solutions Tim Pettit, Nexus Market Research, Inc. Rae McQuade, NAESB David Pickles, ICF International David Meisegeier, ICF International Paul M. Pietsch, Wedgemere Group Cynthia A. Menhorn, Allegheny Energy Robb Pike, New York ISO Mark Meyer, MeterSmart Nicholas Justice Planson, ConsumerPowerline Julie Michals, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Lew W. Pratsch, U S Department of Energy Inc. Phil Precht, Baltimore Gas and Electric Joel Mickey, Electric Reliability Council of Texas Bill Prindle, American Council for an Energy Efficiency Wendell Miyaji, ComVerge Economy (ACEEE) Alice Miller, New York Department of Public Service Karen Radosevich, Entergy Pat Moast, LCRA Denise Rager, NAESB Shaun Moher, Brickfield, Burchette, Ritts and Stone Abraham Raher, Efficiency Valuation Organization Carl Monroe, Southwest Power Pool Mary Ann Ralls, National Rural Electric Cooperative Sherri Monteith, American Electric Power Association Stephanie Monzon, PJM Interconnection, LLC Stacey Rantala, National Energy Marketers Association Chuck Moore, Direct Energy Judy W. Ray, Alabama Power Company Terry Moran, Public Service Electric and Gas Anne B. Rhoades, Dominion Resources Blake Morrison, ComVerge Mike Robinson, Midwest ISO Allen Mosher, American Public Power Association Thomas Rone, Allegheny Power

Marvin Rosenberg, Independent Daniel Violette, Summit Blue Consulting Steven Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute Daniel Waintroob, KEMA Services Ron Russell, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Sandra Waldstein, Vermont Public Service Board Center Mack Wallace, TXU Energy Bob Rowe, Balhoff & Rowe, LLC Richard Walker, MidAmerican Energy Company Ilze Rukis, Integrys Energy Group Alicia Ward, Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Bruce Sailors, Duke Energy Scott Wardle, Occidental Chemical Robert Sallee, Climate Master Paul Wattles, Electric Reliability Council of Texas Steve Schiller, International Program Measurement and The Honorable Jon Wellinghoff, Commissioner, Federal Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Energy Regulatory Commission Bob Schwermann, Sacramento Municipal Utility District Karen Wei, The Structure Group Dave Scott, Northeast Utilities Mike Wells, Western Electricity Coordinating Council Richard Sedano, The Regulatory Assistance Project Rebecca Wentler, Otter Tail Power Company Phillip Shafeei, New York ISO Lou Ann Westerfield, Idaho Public Utility Commission Howard H. Shafferman, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Carol White, National Grid Ingersoll, LLP Carl L. Wilkins, Advanced Energy John Shelk, Electric Power Supply Association James Wilson, MidAmerican Energy Company Ed Skiba, Midwest ISO Jamie Wimberly, Distributed Energy Financial Group LOC Terry Sick, EnerNOC Eric Winkler, ISO New England Inc. Reshma Siddik, World Alliance for Decentralized Energy (WADE) Jason J. Wojciechowicz, Allegheny Power Paul N. Smolen, Fox, Smolen & Associates William Wolf, Baltimore Gas and Electric Grace Soderberg, National Association of Regulatory Vikki Wood, Sacramento Municipal Utility District Utility Commissioners Darrick Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority Julia Souder, North American Electric Reliability Damon Xenopoulos, Brickfield, Burchette, Ritts & Stone, Corporation PC Richard Spellman, GDS Associates, Inc. Walt Yeager, Duke Energy Americas, LLC Grey Staples, Mendota Group, LLC Nelson Yip, Con Edison Lee Stewart, Southern California Gas Company Kathy York, Tennessee Valley Authority Tim Stout, National Grid Henry Yoshimura, ISO New England Inc. Kim Talley, Vectren Jay Zarnikau, Frontier Associates Marc Tannenbaum, Evergreen Software Inc. Richard Zelenko, Dominion Retail Inc. Jim Templeton, Comprehensive Energy Services Wei Zhao, Constellation NewEnergy Charles Thomas, Progress Energy Florida Marija Zivanovic Smith, Gridpoint Angela Thomason, NAESB Veronica Thomason, NAESB Mary Beth Tighe, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Elizabeth Titus, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Inc. Roy True, ACES Power Marketing Gregory M. Urbin, Constellation NewEnergy Teri Van Sumeren, Consumers Energy Shannon Venable, Dominion NAESB Update –March 29, 2008 Page 10 of 50 North American Energy Standards Board 1301 Fannin, Suite 2350, Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 356-0060, Fax: (713) 356-0067, E-mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.naesb.org

RETAIL PLAN

Retail Matrix Work Plan for NAESB EE/DSM Standards Task/Description/Steps Status

1 FINALIZE THE RETAIL MATRIX SPREADSHEET The retail matrix spreadsheet will provide the basis for a utility survey to determine what types of M&V are currently underway for current or past DR programs and what is planned for new programs.  Decide if spreadsheet needs to be reformatted. Completed – 1-17-08 Assigned to Rae McQuade, presented at the January DSM-EE meeting.  Add additional columns – past programs, current programs, proposed programs Completed – 1-17-08 Assigned to Rae McQuade, presented at the January DSM-EE meeting.  Add examples from BGE and Alabama Power Completed – 1-17-08 Examples provided by BGE (Ruth Kiselewich) and Alabama Power (Neal Allen).  Add examples from ConEd and Puget Sound Energy Completed – 3-18-08, ConEd review of matrix Examples were provided by Puget Sound Energy (Bob Harshbarger) but a follow up entries is not complete. call is needed to ensure correct entry to the matrix. ConEd has been contacted. Rip Newcomb and Rae McQuade to contact ConEd and PSE, complete via conference call, and web cast.  Determine if other examples should be added. March 31, 2008 Add additional examples from Dominion and reach out to ComVerge. Alabama Power review of its entries in light of the others added. ComVerge has been contacted and may provide data.  Review the examples to determine if matrix should be revised to provide the analysis After March 28, 2008 needed in later steps. Review for lessons learned with the ISO-RTO Council in its matrix development and reflect such modifications in the retail matrix. Modify instructions based on interviews.

2 PREPARE SURVEY The survey will be used to solicit other utility responses for DR programs that they have administered, currently administer or plan to administer. The data will be entered into the retail matrix spreadsheet.  Provide cover letter draft for review. Outline prepared for review pre-March 28.

 Describe the purpose of survey, what is expected and how to respond. Prepare a Outline prepared for review white paper as part of the cover letter that would outline expectations. pre-March 28.

 The cover letter introducing the survey should allow for two methods of data collection: (1) Phone survey with matrix filled in during conference call/web cast wit the submitter including work papers forwarded prior to the call, or (2) submitter NAESB Update –March 29, 2008 Page 11 of 50 North American Energy Standards Board 1301 Fannin, Suite 2350, Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 356-0060, Fax: (713) 356-0067, E-mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.naesb.org

RETAIL PLAN

providing responses directly into the matrix, which may then require a follow up call should additional information be required for the responses.

 Consider preparation of tutorial (access instructions work sheet from the retail matrix Set up a task force call for and elaborate to prepare a tutorial) – this may not be required if the instructions are this after calls with PSE and sufficient and we address data collection primarily via the web cast interview process.ConEd. and cover letter has been drafted

3 CONDUCT SURVEY The survey instrument will request each participant to submit his or her responses. Responses will be reviewed and segregated into types of programs. A summary report will be produced which describe the quality of the responses and the general types of programs that were submitted. This will be a qualitative assessment to determine the next steps of evaluation and the level of effort required.  Identify target audience of utilities.

 Forward survey and contact utility to determine method of completion of survey for matrix entry.

 Assemble responses in matrix and review for consistency.

 Identify follow up contacts as a result of review.

4 COLLECT AND SUMMARIZE SURVEY RESULTS

 Identify similarities within programs, related to M&V that may support development of business practices.

 Identify regional aspects that should be preserved.

 Determine if business practices have target area for applicability.

5 REPORT TO NAESB Report out on preliminary assessment of the responses with a proposed work plan to complete the analysis and recommend next steps.  Draft report

RETAIL PLAN

 Review draft report with contributors and edit as needed

 Prepare presentation of results for DSM-EE subcommittee

RETAIL MATRIX

How to use this Matrix:

To the best of your ability fill in the matrix with tje descriptions for the columns as noted below. If there are multiple programs or product names or triggers within a Class of DR Resource, please include their names and the trigger actions as appropriate . If there are different M&V requirements within a Class of DR Resource include them separated by a notation as to which product name it applies. There is no limit to the amount of information you add for each box, (this should occur rarely). Please note that the description text provided for specific programs is used as examples to put the issue identified in the heading within context. Companies may have different or similar descriptions for programs. There may or may not have differences in program qualification versus program implementation.

This Section in below in Blue is meant to clarify and focus the M&V content to be filled in the matrix following

Column Header Objective Frequency Description

Up front process to verify adequate infrastructure (measurement & data recording and communication To ensure that the DR equipment and data validation procedures) in place. resources are capable of Prior to participation May include on-site inspections, data transfers, Qualification/ performing, thereby in market, and actual load reduction test to verify that the resource testing/ auditing delivering the ongoing. is able to deliver the committed reductions. Process product(s) being & procedures for disqualification. THe data purchased. entered should answer the question: "How do you verify that the equipment is operating as expected?"

Requirements around transmittal of meter and/or telemetry data to market. Includes validation, editing & estimation (VEE). If reporting for a To ensure adequate particular product is differentiated by what it is information to measure used for, e.g. operations, planning or settlement Data reporting- DR performance, Ongoing and/or only. For VEE - addressing missing values, high- frequency and accurate settlement and event-driven. low checks, etc..Utility best practices should be monitoring real-time operating data followed in addressing missing data or questionable as appropriate. data with techniques used to estimate or edit data. Retail business practices may be developed to define parameters supporting addressing estimates or editing to replace missing or questionable data.

RETAIL MATRIX

Requirements for meter accuracy, calibration, To ensure appropriate precision & testing and frequency of above. This granularity (frequency could include support of ANSI standards for the Meter and of data collection), Ongoing or event- performance of the meter equipment or control equipment frequency of data driven. devices for the equipment. There is a difference standards communication, between the sample population and the normal accuracy and validity of target population and is dependent on the data. investment made by the utility.

Method(s) and techniques used to calculate the DR resource's expected load absent the DR instruction To ensure the or request. Load response is the difference between methodologies and its actual metered load and the calculated baseline. techniques used to Baselines may vary depending on age of equipment calculate load response Performance/ Ongoing or event- and other criteria. The following questions may be and/or recovery produce baseline driven. answerd in the responses for performance/baseline: results that are within How is the baseline calculated? How is an the required error acceptable default reached for a utility operating in tolerances (i.e., +/- X a non-ISO footprint? In comparison to the %). wholeasle market, ISOs establish baselines and compare to usage immediately prior to an event.

To ensure that the methodologies and techniques used to calculate load response and/or recovery create a Methodology for creating a statistically valid Statistical sampling statistically valid use Ongoing or event- alternative to universal interval metering, to include of non-interval alternative to interval driven. precision & accuracy requirements, sample size and metered loads metering for measuring selection requirements and bias control. DR performance or aggregations of loads, produce results that are statistically valid. Define any maximum number of events or hours of program Restrictions of program operation and /or deployment. Deployment participation. Limitations of the number of times Limitations of the N/A Limitations the event is called, the length of an event, the % of number of times the participants event is called, the length of an event, the % of participants

RETAIL MATRIX

This would be helpful to identify the different Regulatory and Context under which the service or program is regulatory contexts N/A market context being offered. under which programs operate.

Class of DR Notes: Resources

Submitter These columns were added to indicate the submitters and the status of the programs described

Status These columns were added to indicate the submitters and the status of the programs described

Product Type

Category Ancillary Services, Capacity, Energy Voluntary, Energy Price

Need to compile a list of programs. Each ISO/RTO calls their products and programs different things. Program or Product In order to track and define similarities and then translate that back to each ISO/RTO this field should Name include the program or product name

Questionable on whether this is needed for development of M&V model business practices for the retail market - this column is needed for the ISO/RTO matrix. This trigger event will probably vary When is Product from company to company. Triggers require date and time stamps. Each ISO/RTO program or expected to perform product has unique trigger events their products and programs different things. In order to track and -Trigger events define similarities and then translate that back to each ISO/RTO this field should include the trigger action for the program or product.

RETAIL MATRIX

NAESB Retail Matrix as of March 28, 2008

Specifics of the DR Program Being M&V Aspects of the DR Programs Described

- d - t g n d /

/ d e g x t n o n n r e s n i t e n g l n a n t d e c o s t i a n

n i t a e i n t e

n n f d n i t o e y r e c d n r s y i r a a r i o a o m i o t u

t a c d l o m c m c o r y a p s a t m i t g d a n e t p

i i e l t r o

Class of DR Resources f e i i a s t / t e n n o l i r n a e l o i l l a a e u

g a u l p f t m o v k u t a a b q r i n q e r r p s t g S i M u e e e m e a t L a e D t r m s P Q f n m a D R e i t s y t

i Submitter Dominion, Ripley Verification: Operate a pilot Data from IDR The customer's meter will The algorithm An initial sample of 250 homes will c

a Newcomb, 804- program to determine that at will be collected on continue to be used for billing that provides a provide a reasonably accurate estimate of p a 771-4637, least 95% of devices both monthly meter determinants. The WH control reasonable estimate load reduction that should be within =/- 5% C ripley.newcomb@ receive and respond to signal reading route for switches should be included in of normal customer of the true mean at a 90% confidence dom.com to turn off WH at the pilot and sample the periodic meter tests to usage absent any interval. The estimate for each demand beginning of the program. accounts. When verify that 95% of the devices water heater reduction should be calculated with a 90% Depending on the program is remain operational. The interruption will be confidence level and the accuracy Status Program not in manufacturers and device, the implemented, the communication signal must be utility (and program determined for each load reduction. An effect today verification may come from a profiled reduction tested annually. Accounts in specific). The CBL average error bound within +/- 10% will be signal back from device, a data from the sample will the load profile sample should formula that is considered to be accurate. If the net to logger, or an IDR on the meter. be deemed to be the have an end-use recorder on approved by the gross operability study has remained at or Product type Ongoing, a sample of at least reduction for the the water heater as well as a utility's ISO should above 90%, a sample of 100 homes will be 250 devices should be tested at program population. whole house recorder. Thirty be an acceptable adequate and should produce an error least every 5 years to Monthly data will be minute interval data is default alternative. bound within =/- 5%. If net to gross Category determine the overall failure required for PJM adequate, although fifteen operability drops below 90%, then a full rate and to develop a net to settlement minute data on the water heater sample of 250 homes will be required. If a gross ratio. This ratio will be is considered preferable. tighter error bound is necessary, a larger Program or Residential Water applied to the deemed kW per sample will be required. (NOTE: This Product Heater Control customer reduction from the recommendation based on "PJM Deemed Name Program load study. Savings for Legacy AC/WH Programs" report.) Trigger when system load Events is critical (defined as ____) or when zone load is priced at or above $____ or transmission constraints in zone (defined as ______)

RETAIL MATRIX

- d - t g n d /

n i t a e i n t e

i i e l t r o

g a u l p f t m o v k u t a a b q r i n q e r r p s t g S i M u e e e m e a t L a e D t r m s P Q f n m a D R e i t s e

c Submitter Dominion, Ripley Each customer site will provide The company will Standard billing meter and See Dominion VA Not sampled. i r

P Newcomb, 804- a dedicated IBM compatible maintain access IDR, meeting company Power rate sch..

g 771-4637, PC with a modem in order to through the provided standards for accuracy. RTP, paragraph V. r e

n ripley.newcomb@ receive the price transmissions phone line and will Modem and phone line DETERMINATIO

E dom.com and the telecommunication collected half-hourly provided by customer. N OF BASELINE equipment needed for the load data every 24 KW LEVELS, company to communicate with hours. BASELINE Status Program not in the meter (dedicated phone ENERGY effect today line, cellular phone modem, LEVELS, AND Product type etc.) The company will INCREMENTAL Category provide the software to allow ENERGY USAGE. receipt of the RTP prices as Program or Real Time Pricing well as to perform analytical Product rate (RTP) and graphical functions. The Name company will install an IDR . A rate contract will be Trigger when system load executed to insure that the Events is critical (defined customer fully understands the as ____) or when rate and agrees to a one year zone load is minimum commitment. priced at or above (NOTE: the existing RTP rate $____ or is currently closed to new transmission customers.) constraints in zone (defined as ______) y t

i Submitter Puget Sound The pilot program is The pilot seeks to Demand pulse interval meters Performance is Not applicable The participants The program is c

a Energy, Shannon administered by EnerNOC for provide PSE to are installed at the participants calculated based on represent a mix of operational in p a McCormick, 425- PSE. Participants are practical knowledge sites as well as a pulse splitter a baseline facility/operation/l King County, C 256-2399, provided a no-cost site and performance data to permit EnerNOC to receive determined from oad types, of Washington, and

RETAIL MATRIX

- d - t g n d /

n i t a e i n t e

i i e l t r o

g a u l p f t m o v k u t a a b q r i n q e r r p s t g S i M u e e e m e a t L a e D t r m s P Q f n m a D R e i t s shannon.mccormi assessment of potential for customer the meter data. the highest thee which a maximum falls under the [email protected] curtailable loads. Site facilities during days out of the of 24 participants jurisdiction of enablement requires of demand winter and summer previous ten can be Washington pulse interval meter data and control events. business days for a accommodated in Utilities and Status Pilot program in appropriate LAN connections. Continuous, near given participant. the program. The Transportation effect today and Five-minute interval meter real-time interval program is Commission. began November data is continuously passed via meter data supports operational from The rate 2007. The an Internet LAN connection to measurement of November 2007 schedule is program will end the EnerNOC's network capacity to December Electric in December operations center in Boston, performance, 2009. The Schedule 249A. 2009. MA. The data is collected baseline readings and financial during the event, which can development of the incentives offered Product type Direct Load span from one to four hours. load adjustment. for participants in Control The participants are estimated When the event is measured capacity to on average curtail 100 - 200 called, the curtailment is Category Capacity kW in the winter season participants are capped at $5000 (November - February) and notified one hour per participant per 100 - 200 kW in the summer ahead - for winter season, (provided Program or Commercial- (May - September). season notification through $20/kW Product Industrial Load windows (6 am to 9 seasonal average Name control Pilot am and 5 pm to 9 curtailment). Program pm) and the summer notification window (2 pm to 6 pm).

RETAIL MATRIX

- d - t g n d /

n i t a e i n t e

i i e l t r o

g a u l p f t m o v k u t a a b q r i n q e r r p s t g S i M u e e e m e a t L a e D t r m s P Q f n m a D R e i t s Trigger The program is Events triggered by weather conditions determined by PSE resource planners. Following each event, EnerNOC reports to PSE the five minute interval kW data files (for each site) covering the (10 business day) baseline calculation m Submitter ConEd, Elena This is not a pilot. A revenue The customers are Revenue grade interval meters Performance is not applicable Under review - NY PSC a r

g Futoryan, 212- grade interval meter with billed on the data and must be used with appropriate calculated based on tariff pending o r

P 460-2228, phone lines is required. For it is collected daily. telephone lines. Precision NYISO approval

t futoryane@coned. customers -- 50 KW reduction, The meters are 15 levels should be available. methodology for i c

a com and for load aggregators -- 100 minute interval capacity and energy p

a Status In effect today KW reduction, for 4 meters. The data is payments. C

d consecutive hours. Audit is 15-minute interval n a

Product type required for the mandatory data, and the e

c program. The maximum baseload level should i r Category P commitments are pending be met every hour - approval. In 2007, the so the data is rolled maximum was 6 hours per up to hourly. The Program or Reservation capability period. May 1 to data is collected after Product Payment Program October 31 is the summer an event is called, at Name capability period for the least within a week. mandatory program. There is The data is stored in

RETAIL MATRIX

- d - t g n d /

n i t a e i n t e

i i e l t r o

g a u l p f t m o v k u t a a b q r i n q e r r p s t g S i M u e e e m e a t L a e D t r m s P Q f n m a D R e i t s Trigger The program is Events triggered in heavy demand conditions as provided by the tariff. The trigger no winter capability option for a time stamp meter. levels are under the mandatory program at this consideration now time. and may be changed. y t

i Submitter Alabama Power, Two way communication Interval metered data Utilizes revenue quality The IS customer is N/A Customer has PSC regulated c

a Neal Allen, 205- devices. We send test and captured and meters. required to cut load options to choose tariff p a 257-6579, customers respond. Test maintained. Actual to the contracted various call C hnallen@southern periodically.. In addition, "in load evaluated when firm load level. constraints. co.com field" tests are performed IS call occurs. Actual load Chosen option Status In effect Today periodically as well. Normal load levels dropped is determines the evaluated when no determined by credit amount to Product type Interruptible Load call occurs. This evaluating pre and the customer for allows for a post event load non-firm load. Category Capacity determination of levels of each expected results customer. Program or Industrial when called. Product Interruptible Program Name Program, IS requirements are that Program customer drop to Trigger During a System firm level during a Events Reliability Alert call. No "reduction" "System Alarm" constraints utilized. notice. Can be utilized for locational reliability issues if necessary.

RETAIL MATRIX

- d - t g n d /

n i t a e i n t e

i i e l t r o

g a u l p f t m o v k u t a a b q r i n q e r r p s t g S i M u e e e m e a t L a e D t r m s P Q f n m a D R e i t s y t

i Submitter Alabama Power, Two way communication Two way Utilizes revenue quality meters. No baseline N/A Program rules set PSC regulated c

a Neal Allen, 205- devices. We send test and communication requirements. minimum 250 kW tariff p a 257-6579, customers respond. Test confirms operating Equipment rating size to participate C hnallen@southern periodically.. In addition, "in equipment. and reliability in the program. co.com field" tests are performed testing determines Program call Status In effect Today periodically as well. expected reduction constrained to 8 Generators are remotely started for a call. hours per day, 5 Product type Utilization of monthly for reliability days per week, customer owned purposes. 240 hours per generation year. Category Capacity Program or Stand By Product Generator Name Program Trigger During a System Events Reliability Alert "System Alarm" notice. Can be utilized for locational reliability issues if necessary. y

g Submitter Alabama Power, Originally offered years ago TOU metered data Utilizes revenue quality No performance N/A Various TOU PSC regulated r e

n Neal Allen, 205- prior to any qualification or captured and meters. levels expected rates are available tariff

E 257-6579, auditing requirements. None maintained. No therefore no to customers hnallen@southern exist today. change or reduction baseline required. meeting specific co.com constraints exist. SIC codes. Some require separate Status In effect Today metering for specific end uses Product type TOU Rates such as irrigation Category Energy price pumps, electric

RETAIL MATRIX

- d - t g n d /

n i t a e i n t e

i i e l t r o

g a u l p f t m o v k u t a a b q r i n q e r r p s t g S i M u e e e m e a t L a e D t r m s P Q f n m a D R e i t s Program or TOU Rates Product Name Trigger Various types of Events TOU rates exist for various types of residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Rates vary by fixed customer charge, season, and time vehicle charging, of day. Majority etc. of rates are based on summer and non-summer seasons with peak, intermediate, and off-peak rate periods. y t

i Submitter BGE, Ruth BGE tests a sample of switches In addition to the For its Load Research Studies, For the Load data are obtained from meters that c

a Kiselewich, 410- periodically. Switch periodic sampling of BGE uses ANSI certified development of were installed on 65 customers' water p a 470-1361, operability studies must be switch operability, meters that have been average impacts for heaters. This stratified sample design C ruth.c.kiselewich conducted every 5 years, BGE conducts Load approved by the PSC for load water heating, BGE provides a confidence of 90% ± 10% @bge.com according to PJM, Manual 19: Research Studies to recording. compares non-event accuracy. Load Data Systems. estimate the average days to event days Status In effect Today impact for each using a comparison participant in the of means. The program. difference between Product type these two (2) load

RETAIL MATRIX

- d - t g n d /

n i t a e i n t e

i i e l t r o

g a u l p f t m o v k u t a a b q r i n q e r r p s t g S i M u e e e m e a t L a e D t r m s P Q f n m a D R e i t s Category

Program or BGE's Residential Product Water Heater Name Control Program (Rider 6) shapes forms the Trigger BGE can activate average impacts. Events switches up to 15 PJM requires times per year for average impacts for reliability or each hour between economic reasons. noon and 8 p.m. The non-event

y profile is comprised t

i Submitter BGE, Ruth BGE tests a sample of switches In addition to the For its Load Research Studies, For the Load data are obtained from meters that c

a Kiselewich, 410- periodically. Switch periodic sampling of BGE uses ANSI certified development of were installed on 100 customers' air p a 470-1361, operability studies must be switch operability, meters that have been average impacts for conditioner units. This stratified sample C ruth.c.kiselewich conducted every 5 years, BGE conducts Load approved by the PSC for load air conditioning, design provides a confidence of 90% ± 10% @bge.com according to PJM, Manual 19: Research Studies to recording. BGE compares accuracy. Load Data Systems. estimate the average non-event days to impact for each event days using Status In effect Today participant in the regression analysis. program. The model estimates the Product type average impact Category provided a particular weather Program or BGE's Residential conditions. PJM Product Air Conditioner requires average Name Control Program impacts for each (Rider 5) hour between noon and 8 p.m.

RETAIL MATRIX

- d - t g n d /

n i t a e i n t e

i i e l t r o

g a u l p f t m o v k u t a a b q r i n q e r r p s t g S i M u e e e m e a t L a e D t r m s P Q f n m a D R e i t s Trigger There is no limit Events to the number of times BGE can activate switches for reliability or ecomic reasons. To the extent that NAESB can provide some protocols that would assist groups such as ISOs in evaluating the effectiveness of programs would be helpful. Time of Use Examples: Schedule of prices published such the consumer can determine his energy consumption based in part on price signals published. Real Time Pricing Demand Charges Peak Time Rebates Planning Peak Alerts Interruptible/Curtailable Management Rates Thermal Storage/Energy Storage Standby Generation Rates (emergency generators and distributed generators) Smart Appliances Ancillary Programs

WHOLESALE PLAN

ISO/RTO Wholesale Matrix Plan Completion # Task Description Deliverable Who Date Each ISO should provide comments on the Objectives, Frequency and The draft framework will serve as Description. Each ISO/RTO should a basis for documenting the add any additional comments that it technical M&V requirements for Finalize feels it needs to describe the products, 10/30/07 1 the different ISO/RTO products. All Framework (this will help to synthesize any COMPLETE It should guide each ISO-RTO in commonalities between products and answering the questions of Why, ISO/RTOs). If the list of product When, and What M&V is done. classes are not representative, please comment. Week of This call is designed to discuss November ISO/RTO 2 comments submitted in regard to Come to consensus on the Framework 19 , 2007 All Conference Call the Framework COMPLETE

At the September 25th meeting Report to the ISO/RTOs tacitly agreed to NAESB Report to NAESB DSM-EE Task report back to the Committee on 11/30/07 P. Wattles, 3 DSM/EE Force the status of the ISO/RTO how we plan on completing the COMPLETE E. Winkler Standards Wholesale standards development. task by the end of the 1st quarter Committee of 2008. Each ISO/RTO will fill in the A Draft Matrix with the general matrix with appropriate technical description of the M&V areas, Add M&V requirements and how the M&V 12/15/07 4 products and technical information in All technical data activity is implemented (where COMPLETE M&V requirements for each appropriate) for each of its ISO/RTOs range of products. products and each M&V area. This call is designed to review January 14, ISO/RTO Develop status update on development 5 progress on data synthesis from 2008. All Conference Call of wholesale standards the Framework COMPLETE Report to Report to NAESB the status of the NAESB Status report of Wholesale 1/23/2008 P. Wattles, 6 ISO/RTO Wholesale standards DSM/EE Task standards COMPLETE E. Winkler development. Force ISO/RTOs will update matrices Update M&V 1/30/2008 7 with appropriate expanded Expanded draft Matrix All Technical Data COMPLETE technical requirements. This call is designed to review ISO/RTO Develop status update on development 2/11/08 8 progress on data synthesis from All Conference Call of wholesale standards COMPLETE the Framework Draft Standards will be developed by E. Winkler 2/29/08 Synthesize Technical processing the technical requirements lead, Scott Draft Wholesale COMPLETE 9 Requirements into draft provided by all the ISO/RTOs to find COE, Standards internal Standards commonalities and or create ranges of review by document requirements All

WHOLESALE PLAN

ISO/RTO Wholesale Matrix Plan Completion # Task Description Deliverable Who Date ISO/RTO This meeting is designed to 3/11/08 Provide agreement on draft standards 10 Working review and discuss the draft -3/12/08 All to be submitted to NAESB Meeting wholesale standards. COMPLETE Revised Draft Wholesale DR Revise Draft Standards outline based on Revised Draft Wholesale Standards 3/18/08 11 Outline of E. Winkler working group session distributed Outline COMPLETE Standards to ISO/RTO working group Each ISO/RTO will revise entries A Draft Matrix with the general in the matrix for appropriate description of the M&V areas, Update M&V technical requirements per the products and technical information in 12 3/21/08 All Technical Data current draft matrix. (IRC M&V requirements for each Demand Programs 2008-03- ISO/RTOs range of products and 14.xls) services Call to review Presentation & Review of materials and scope of discuss presentation at NAESB DSM/EE P. Wattles, 13 Presentation materials for meeting 3/26/08 presentation at standards development meeting, E. Winkler DSM/EE Houston, TX March 28, 2008 Meeting Report to NAESB on documented NAESB ISO-RTO documents presented ISO/RTO Wholesale DR M&V P. Wattles, DSM/EE as a draft for wider NAESB 3/28/08 14 standards for use in developing E. Winkler, Standards stakeholder consideration and Houston TX proposed NAESB standards and/or S. Coe Committee comment model business practices.

ISO/RTO This meeting is designed to 15 Provide agreement on draft standards Mid May, Working review and discuss the draft All to be submitted to NAESB 2008, TBD Meeting wholesale standards.

Report to NAESB on documented NAESB ISO-RTO documents presented ISO/RTO Wholesale DR M&V 5/30/08 P. Wattles, DSM/EE as a draft for wider NAESB 16 standards for use in developing Holyoke, E. Winkler, Standards stakeholder consideration and proposed NAESB standards and/or MA S. Coe Committee comment model business practices. Report to NAESB on documented NAESB ISO-RTO documents presented ISO/RTO Wholesale DR M&V P. Wattles, DSM/EE as a draft for wider NAESB 7/30/08 17 standards for use in developing E. Winkler, Standards stakeholder consideration and TBD proposed NAESB standards and/or S. Coe Committee comment model business practices.

ISO/RTO This meeting is designed to 18 Provide agreement on draft standards Mid Sept, Working review and discuss the draft All to be submitted to NAESB 2008, TBD Meeting wholesale standards.

WHOLESALE PLAN

ISO/RTO Wholesale Matrix Plan Completion # Task Description Deliverable Who Date

Final Draft Wholesale Standards Completed draft ISO/RTO Draft Wholesale E. Winkler, 19 Completed for submittal to contribution of wholesale DR M&V 9/30/08 DR Standards S. Coe NAESB standards

Report to NAESB on documented NAESB ISO-RTO documents presented ISO/RTO Wholesale DR M&V P. Wattles, DSM/EE as a draft for wider NAESB 9/30/08 20 standards for use in developing E. Winkler, Standards stakeholder consideration and Austin, TX proposed NAESB standards and/or S. Coe Committee comment model business practices.

WHOLESALE MATRIX

Instructions for Characteristics of DR Programs

Region Abbreviation for the ISO/RTO.

ISO/RTO Specific Name Proper name for the program or service within the region. Note: If several products are included in a ISO/RTO Program or Service Name given Program or Service, then several rows will be shown for each.

Acronym Acronym for the Program or Service

The commodity that is being offered: AS: Regulation, Product AS: Spin, AS: Non-Spin, Energy, or Capacity. Major Features CALCULATED FIELD: DO NOT TYPE IN THIS Mapping: NAESB Sections CELL

Time at which the requested level of response is Load Deployment Time Initial Qualification / completely "off the system" (in minutes) Testing / Auditing Indication of if composite / aggregated assets are Aggregation Allowed allowed.

Real-Time On-Site Generation If on-site generation is present; is metering required? Measurement Yes / No

Precision of the Demand Measurement (or also of the Accuracy On-Site Generator Output) PREFERENCE IS PERCENTAGE OF FULL SCALE Reporting Interval The time between signals [in seconds] If other variables are measured, a list should be Telemetry Other Measurements provided here. Example include quality flags, breaker status, response amount, etc .

The IT protocol used to collect the data, such ICCP or any other named system. If a non-standard system is Communication Protocol used, description should include a brief overview of the transport, i.e. Internet, Dedicated Network, Wireless, FM, etc.

After-The-Fact On-Site Generation Meter Required Yes or No Measurements Meter Accuracy Accuracy of the Meter Reading (or also of the On-Site Generator Output) PREFERENCE IS PERCENTAGE OF FULL SCALE and is the net accuracy, i.e. includes PT & CT NAESB Update –March 29, 2008 Page 29 of 50 North American Energy Standards Board 1301 Fannin, Suite 2350, Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 356-0060, Fax: (713) 356-0067, E-mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.naesb.org

WHOLESALE MATRIX

Instructions for Characteristics of DR Programs

Accuracy of the time measurement (if any) associated Clock / Time Accuracy with the Meter Read time. Details of Meter/Equipment Listing of any meter or equipment standards Standards How often is the meter reading data sent to the ISO/RTO related to demand response reporting. May Meter Data Reporting Deadline be absolute or relative to Event period. Also, those entries marked "Daily" or "Monthly" happens regardless of the existence of an Event. The level of detail in the reported data. For example, if Granularity the Periodicity = 1 hour, the Granularity might be 5 minute.

Validating, Editing & Estimating An indication of how missing data are managed, for (VEE) Method example, Skipped, Estimated & Flagged, etc.

If statistical sampling is allowed, document the sample Rules For Statistical Sampling size, precision and accuracy parameters, homogeneity, etc.

Either "Meter-Before vs. Meter-After", "Comparable Performance / Baseline Baseline Type Day", "Statistical Algorithm" , "Behind the Meter Generation Data", "Firm Service Level Drop"

WHOLESALE MATRIX

Wholesale Matrix DR Programs Identified

ISO/RTO Specific Major Features Name

ISO/RTO Program or Region Acronym Product Mapping: NAESB Sections Service Name

Demand Opportunity AESO DOS UNDEFINED Service

Frequency Load Shed AESO FLSS AS: Regulation Regulation Service

Supplemental Operating AESO SUP AS: Non-Spin Reserve Reserves

Voluntary Load AESO VLCP UNDEFINED Curtailment Program

CAISO Participating Load Program PLP Energy Energy

CAISO Participating Load Program PLP AS: Non-Spin Reserve

Emergency Interruptible ERCOT EILS Capacity Capacity Load Service

WHOLESALE MATRIX

Loads Acting as a Resource providing LaaR / RRS / ERCOT Responsive Reserve AS: Spin Reserve UFR Service -- Under Frequency Relay Type Loads Acting as a Resource providing LaaR / RRS / ERCOT Responsive Reserve AS: Spin Reserve CLR Service -- Controllable Load Resource Type

Loads Acting as a ERCOT Resource providing Non- LaaR / NSRS / AS: Non-Spin Reserve Spinning Reserve Service

Controllable Load ERCOT Resources providing CLR AS: Regulation Regulation Regulation Service

Emergency Load IESO ELRP Energy Energy Reduction Program

Emergency Demand IESO EDRP Energy Energy Response Program

IESO Dispatchable Load DL Energy Energy

WHOLESALE MATRIX

Dispatchable Load IESO DL AS: Spin Reserve (Spinning Component)

Dispatchable Load (Non- IESO DL AS: Non-Spin Reserve Spinning Component)

Hour Ahead Dispatchable IESO HADL Energy Energy Load

Real Time Demand ISO-NE Response Program RTDRP Capacity Capacity [Capacity Component]

Real Time Demand ISO-NE Response Program [Energy RTDRP Energy Energy Component]

Day Ahead Load Response ISO-NE DALRP Energy Energy Program

Demand Response ISO-NE DRR AS: Non-Spin Reserve Reserves Pilot

WHOLESALE MATRIX

Real Time Price Response ISO-NE RTPR Energy Energy Program

Real Time Demand ISO-NE RTDR Capacity Capacity Response Resource

FCM: On-Peak, Seasonal ISO-NE Peak, Critical Peak Capacity Capacity Resources

Real Time Emergency ISO-NE RTEG Capacity Capacity Generation Resource

30 Minute Non-Spinning NBSO 30NSR AS: Non-Spin Reserve Reserves

10 Minute Non-Spinning NBSO 10NSR AS: Non-Spin Reserve Reserves

10 Minute Spinning NBSO 10SR AS: Spin Reserve Reserve

WHOLESALE MATRIX

NBSO Load Following LF AS: Regulation Regulation

NBSO Regulation REG AS: Regulation Regulation

NBSO Interruptible Load IL Capacity Capacity

Bid-Based Demand NBSO BBDR Energy Energy Response

Day-Ahead Demand NYISO DADRP Energy Energy Response Program

Demand Side Ancillary NYISO DSASP AS: Spin Reserve Services Program

Demand Side Ancillary NYISO DSASP AS: Non-Spin Reserve Services Program

WHOLESALE MATRIX

Demand Side Ancillary NYISO DSASP AS: Regulation Regulation Services Program

Emergency Demand NYISO EDRP Energy Energy Response Program

Installed Capacity Special NYISO Case Resources (Energy SCR Energy Energy Component)

Installed Capacity Special NYISO Case Resources (Capacity SCR Capacity Capacity Compoent)

PJM Economic Load Response Energy Energy

PJM Economic Load Response AS: Spin Reserve

PJM Economic Load Response AS: Regulation Regulation

WHOLESALE MATRIX

PJM Emergency Load Response Energy Energy

Emergency Load Response PJM Energy Energy (Energy Component)

Emergency Load Response PJM Capacity Capacity (Capacity Component)

WHOLESALE MATRIX DRAFT PROPOSED STANDARDS OUTLINE

DISCLAIMER

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS DRAFT INFORMATION ON STANDARDS FOR WHOLESALE ELECTRICITY DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THIS DRAFT IS NOT INTENDED TO REPLACE APPLICABLE TARIFFS FOR WHOLESALE DEMAND RESPONSE. IN NO CASE DOES THIS INFORMATION SUPPLANT EXISTING STANDARDS USED IN ISO/RTO ADMINISTERED MARKETS. PROPOSED STANDARDS AREAS ARE DRAFT AND SUBJECT TO REVISION OR EXCLUSION.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

ERIC WINKLER, PH.D.

ISO NEW ENGLAND

413-540-4513

[email protected]

BUSINESS PRACTICES FOR WHOLESALE ELECTRICITY DEMAND RESPONSE

Introduction

Definition of Terms

Business Practice Requirements: Regulation Services

PROVISIONS OF MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION STANDARDS

Applicability

Purpose

WHOLESALE MARKET DEMAND RESPONSE PRODUCTS

Wholesale Products: The commodity that is being offered: Regulation, Reserve, Energy, or Capacity.

INITIAL QUALIFICATION / TESTING / AUDITING

Reduction Deadline Standard: Time at which the requested level of response is completely "off the system" (in minutes)

Aggregation Allowed Standard: Indication of if composite / aggregate assets are allowed.

TELEMETRY

Real-Time Demand Measurement Required: Measurement of the real-time demand for each Resource required: Yes / No.

Real-Time On-Site Generation Measurement: If on-site generation is present; is metering required? Yes / No.

Accuracy:

Precision of the Demand Measurement (or also of the On-Site Generator Output)

Reporting Interval:

The time between signals [in seconds]

Other Measurements:

If other variables are measured, a list should be provided here. Example include: quality flags, breaker status, response amount, etc.

Communication Protocol:

The IT protocol used to collect the data, such ICCP or any other named system. If a non-standard system is used, description should include a brief overview of the transport, i.e. Internet, Dedicated Network, Wireless, FM, etc.

AFTER-THE-FACT MEASUREMENTS

On-Site Generation Meter Required:

Yes or No

Meter Accuracy:

Accuracy of the Meter Reading (or also of the On-Site Generator Output) and is the net accuracy, i.e. includes PT & CT

Clock / Time Accuracy:

Accuracy of the time measurement (if any) associated with the Meter Read time.

Details of Meter/Equipment Standards

Listing of any meter or equipment standards

Meter Data Reporting Deadline:

How often is the meter reading data sent to the ISO/RTO related to demand NAESB Update –March 29, 2008 Page 40 of 50 North American Energy Standards Board 1301 Fannin, Suite 2350, Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 356-0060, Fax: (713) 356-0067, E-mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.naesb.org

response reporting. May be absolute or relative to Event period. Also, those entries marked "Daily" or "Monthly" happens regardless of the existence of an Event.

Granularity:

The level of detail in the reported data. For example, if the Meter Data Reporting Deadline = “within 24 hours”, the Granularity might be “1 hour”.

Validating, Editing & Estimating (VEE) Method:

An indication of how missing data are managed, for example, Skipped, Estimated & Flagged, etc.

Rules for Statistical Sampling:

If statistical sampling is allowed, a brief summary of the rules associated with the estimates, for example, minimum percentage of physical measurements.

PERFORMANCE / BASELINE

Baseline Types:

Either "Meter-Before vs. Meter-After", "Comparable Day", "Statistical Algorithm" , "Behind the Meter Generation Data", "Firm Service Level Drop"

Business Practice Requirements: Reserves Services

Applicability

Purpose

TELEMETRY

Accuracy:

Reporting Interval:

Other Measurements:

Yes or No

Meter Accuracy:

How often is the meter reading data sent to the ISO/RTO related to demand response reporting. May be absolute or relative to Event period. Also, those entries marked "Daily" or "Monthly" happens regardless of the existence of an Event. NAESB Update –March 29, 2008 Page 43 of 50 North American Energy Standards Board 1301 Fannin, Suite 2350, Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 356-0060, Fax: (713) 356-0067, E-mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.naesb.org

Granularity:

Baseline Types:

Business Practice Requirements: Energy Products

Applicability

Purpose

TELEMETRY

Accuracy:

Reporting Interval:

Other Measurements:

Yes or No

Meter Accuracy:

Granularity:

Baseline Types:

Business Practice Requirements: Capacity Products

Applicability

Purpose

TELEMETRY

Accuracy:

Reporting Interval:

Other Measurements:

Yes or No

Meter Accuracy:

Granularity:

Baseline Types:

NAESB Update –March 29, 2008 Page 50 of 50