Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at https://climatecolab.org/page/readonly.
Skip navigation
25comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Sardar Mohazzam

May 14, 2014
05:58

Catalyst


1 |
Share via:
Sound like a great idea and can be effective. However, I am looking forward that how you will take it to the next level. During the process, I will be reviewing your proposal and will suggest you structuring of the proposal. Best, Mohazzam

Matthew Levene

May 14, 2014
06:09

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks Mohazzam! I'm just getting started. I look forward to your feedback.

Doron Bracha

May 19, 2014
12:01

Member


3 |
Share via:
Interesting proposal. Something similar is already being done on many countries: instead of paying people to consume less at peak time, the utility companies simply charge different rates during different parts of the day and weekend. When the difference in energy cost is significant, people move some activities (like laundry washing and drying) to evenings and weekends. That way the utility companies don't have to expand and build additional generators to satisfy peak demand. Electric companies also offer rebates and other incentives for reducing consumption, generating renewable energy on site etc. People may not know much or care a lot about the environment, but they do care about the bills they have to pay, so adjusting the rates or providing incentives may work well. http://economics.mit.edu/files/7428 http://www.navigantresearch.com/newsroom/less-than-1-percent-of-residential-electricity-customers-will-adopt-dynamic-pricing-rates-by-2020-unless-utilities-act-aggressively Cheers !..

Matthew Levene

May 22, 2014
04:24

Member


4 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks for your comment Doron. What we are doing is actually very different. Instead of changing usage around peak times, our users will change usage when energy is coming from the most carbon-intensive power plants. This does not necessarily co-occur with peak times. We are empowering our users to optimize their energy use around signals in the wholesale energy market, information which has never been brought to the common ratepayer... until now.

Sardar Mohazzam

May 22, 2014
09:14

Catalyst


5 |
Share via:
I can sense what you are saying in your idea. Correct me if I am wrong! I would like suggest to look into the market models. There are two ways the energy markets works for energy utilities i.e. a) compete in the market and b) compete for the market. You can find the details, but I will think these two market models can help you define your idea in right direction. Best, Mohazzam.

Mark Johnson

Jun 10, 2014
12:42

Member


6 |
Share via:
Agree with your project framework and Doron's comments. Addressing power peaks & providing "home owner savings" are a function of: 1. Home owners' timely responses to "peak power" notifications. For owners without WiFi peaker-plant notification acknowledgement/automated responses, there has to be an ongoing keen awareness and understanding of where every energy dollar goes. 2. Shared historical data and current empirical evidence pinpointing power company peaks based on day of the week, time of the day, month of the year, ambient temperature, etc. When the cost of energy is significant and "cause-effect-mitigation" solutions are known, then hearts and minds will follow - e.g., Doron's remarks above. So variables include: Incentives/Disincentives Customer Awareness Real Time Customer Connectivity/Customer Response Implementing WiFi Automation Power Consumption Data, Trends, Peak Root Causes and Best Mitigation Practices

Derrek Clarke

Jun 11, 2014
06:54

Catalyst


7 |
Share via:
Hi Matt I think you've received some very good comments so far. I just have a few additional things i'd like to mention: - Please finish filling out the remainder of the questionnaire. I think you have a good idea and framework, but would like to see a bit more development of the idea -I think it would be good to not only look at elec customer incentives, but utility incentives as well. On average, I believe aggregate electricity prices have declined over the past few years. Utilities are seeing a lot of stress to their business model as well as looming major grid maintenance projects. If utilities could offer this as a service to their customers, it could help the industry evolve to meet changing usage demands, as well as mitigate the need for costly infrastructure expansion. Good Luck!

Matthew Levene

Jun 12, 2014
02:46

Member


8 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Mark—Thanks for your comment! You're absolutely right about tracking and ongoing awareness. Our current solution for notifications include email and text message alerts. For tracking, we send follow up emails regarding an individual's performance in addition to a much more granular view in our app. We put a lot of effort into presenting data in creative ways. We can provide data on historical costs in the energy market. I agree with your point that it would arm people with the right information to take charge of their energy use. We are also on the same page with the variables you listed, each of which is a critical element to our project. Derrek—We are just getting started with the application. Thanks for checking in. We are certainly exploring the potential value propositions from a utility perspective. You're right, there is a lot of potential there, especially in the long run. It is not an simple task to partner with utilities in the short run. Luckily, the success of our business model does not depend on the participation of utilities.

Matt Duesterberg

Jun 12, 2014
02:05

Member


9 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Following up on the utility incentives question, we are pursuing those measures, but our first step is to initiate a direct to market approach for residential users for any of the incentives. In the long run, we will look to use our load control to help provide capacity response (resource adequacy), economic demand response, overgeneration, and ancillary services (regulation up and down). However, for now, we need to establish a foothold into the markets, which we see as economic demand response due to recent rulings by the CPUC (Rule 24).

Mark Johnson

Jun 12, 2014
08:23

Member


10 |
Share via:
Thanks Matt. Like your "granular" comments made earlier: "What we are doing is actually very different. Instead of changing usage around peak times, our users will change usage when energy is coming from the most carbon-intensive power plants. This does not necessarily co-occur with peak times." Your granular approach is excellent because you have added an additional "Net CO2" construct - i.e., CO2 control "choice" mechanism. Following your approach, power companies could provide "dynamic freedom of choice" billing alternatives where customers elect to accept premiums (below an exclusive "wind farm/solar PV" premium) which provide the "least environmental impact" billing choice. Great idea. Thanks. Mark.

Unicorn Power Ltd. Martin Mizera, Md

Jun 13, 2014
06:45

Member


11 |
Share via:
Let's face it, your phone knows where it is. It just needs to show a green/red indicator to show you whether your electricity is FREE (green) or more expensive than usual (peaks) (red). It will be much easier for the utility to apply the green/red tariff to the area than to require customers to each have a smart meter. When it's GREEN, use it clean - when it's RED, go to bed ! There may be inaccuracies on the fringes, but if you save 27% vs. 30% it's not a big deal. You may market it to the customers as a random discount, under the utility's control and indisputable.

Felipe De Leon

Jun 18, 2014
02:22

Member


12 |
Share via:
Hi Matt, Congratulations on a very interesting Proposal! Demand management, particularly reducing peak load and the need to use inefficient "peaker" plants is a very interesting field with great potential. In your response to Doron you mention that "Instead of changing usage around peak times, our users will change usage when energy is coming from the most carbon-intensive power plants. This does not necessarily co-occur with peak times." However, your Description says "Ohmconnect targets economic price spikes that happen two or three times a week, every week. When these price spikes occur, to send signals to turn on expensive and inefficient "peaker plants." These switch on 1% of the time when the grid experiences higher demand than forecasted by the energy market." If your model does not focus on economically inefficient "peaker" plants (which often have very high emissions due to the very same inefficiencies), where does the money come from to be able to pay your users?

Mark Johnson

Jun 18, 2014
10:11

Member


13 |
Share via:
Like the red/green notifications - real time decisions. A Percent Scale should accompany each red and green notification so the consumer knows to what degree GHGs are affected. Customers "get paid" when they minimize their household carbon footprint - the "payoff" is knowing each customer's contribution to reduced GHGs.

Matthew Levene

Jun 18, 2014
02:01

Member


14 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks Felipe! We are making a distinction between [peak time] and [price spikes]. Peak time is the time of day when end uses of electricity are consistently at their highest. In other words, peak times describe behavior that occurs on the retail side of energy. However, for the purposes of Ohmconnect, price spikes are instances when the cost of newly generated power is at its highest. In other words, price spikes describe behavior that occurs on the wholesale energy market. Price spikes are caused by higher than expected demand. The energy market forecasts expected demand 24 hours in advance, and it deploys power plants accordingly. If everything goes as planned, the cost of energy on the market is about $40/MWh. However, 1% of the time (several times per week), energy use exceeds forecasts from the prior day. When this happens, the grid turns on "peaker plants" to cover the additional demand. The benefit of "peaker plants" is that they can ramp up very quickly; however, the downside is that they are highly inefficient and expensive to operate. In fact, they cause energy market prices to spike to $250-1000/MWh. To synthesize, higher than expected demand causes peaker plants to switch on, which causes "price spikes." It is at that exact moment when Ohmconnect issues an "Energy Alert," to notify its users to reduce their energy use. Now the energy market can buy energy reductions from Ohmconnect users to meet unexpected demand instead of buying energy from expensive power plants. Homes that use Ohmconnect are actually considered virtual power plants that can sell saved energy, which the market treats the same as newly generated energy. Martin and Mark—you are thinking along our same lines. Right now, we color code energy use with orange and red. You can see when you are using carbon-intensive energy by creating an account at www.ohmconnect.com.

Matt Duesterberg

Jun 19, 2014
03:38

Member


15 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Adding to Matt's comments, I think a key difference to what Ohmconnect proposes vs existing demand response providers is that we are going directly to the energy markets. Traditional demand response providers have structured arrangement with utilities who are focused on "peak load management", or "capacity" demand response. This type of demand response requires 3-4 hours of reductions for the 3-5 hottest days of the year. It often leaves a user hot and a bit uncomfortable. We are moving towards a more real time demand response which intends to reduce electricity for one hour a day for up to 100 days a year. This can be referred to as "Scheduled Demand Response" or "economic" demand response. Eventually, are tools could be used for Real Time demand response, ancillary services, and regulation. A great graph of what the progression of demand response looks like has been published by the LBNL here: http://bijlee.lbl.gov/program/smart-electricity-grids-and-demand-response.

Jessica Thompson

Jun 20, 2014
07:22

Member


16 |
Share via:
Hello Matt, great idea. I think that it is unique in very actively inviting consumers to reduce their demand with messaging. (As opposed to making the assumption that consumers pay attention and respond to variable rate pricing, or to mandated demand response programs). A cost-benefit comparison to other programs would be instructive. The proposal would be stronger with a clearer presentation of the business plan as well. Is this a software that the utility pays for? Grid modeling to demonstrate the savings and that they are adequate to pay back the development and ongoing costs? Demonstration that negawatts are more cost-efficient through this technology compared to others? Thanks, Jessica

Michael Brown

Jun 20, 2014
10:59

Catalyst


17 |
Share via:
Thank you for submitting this proposal. It cleverly provides a solution to a problem (demand-side management of peaking plants) with modern telecommunications technology. I think there is very definitely a market for something like this. Even just providing real-time or near-real-time feedback to consumers, rather than a monthly electricity bill, has value. (I have some papers on the subject, PM me and I can dig them out for you.) My comments are as follows: 1. To be successful, it needs to be simple for the end-user. This is critical! 2. You say it will only work in deregulated markets; perhaps this is true as you currently envision in your business plan but I would not stop there. For example, Ontario uses time-of-use rates to incent consumers to use less during peak times. However the times are 'sticky' and do not account for real-time changes to the electricity mix. Could the app be adapted for use under these conditions? 3. What is the difference between peak cost and peak carbon? To use the Ontario example, I suspect they are highly correlated as natural gas is used for peaking, and hydro/nuclear for baseload. So you may have a near one-to-one correlation. What would the relationship look like for other energy mixes, e.g. coal baseload with gas peaking? Best of luck - I think this is a great idea. Mike 3.

Matt Duesterberg

Jun 30, 2014
09:43

Member


18 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks for the comments, Jessica and Mike. We love to hear feedback to help refine our pitch and product. Jessica - we do not need to deal with utilities at all. By selling our users reductions directly into the energy markets, we bypass them completely. After being in a utility sales company for 3 years, I wanted to ensure that we could interact with the end user without dealing with the long, arduous utility sales cycle. We founded Ohmconnect to enable our users to access energy markets and control where their energy comes from without dealing with the utility. By doing this, we receive market based pricing on our "negawatts". Michael - completely agree that focusing on simplicity and making it frictionless for the end user is critical. We would entertain partnerships with utilities to ensure that we can get a larger foothold into more users; however, we see other areas of expansion before that. We will be able to expand outside of California into NY, PJM, and other markets, as well as expand our product line from economic DR to include ancillary services next. The app would work for utilities as it would work for energy markets. As for peak cost vs peak carbon, we have high correlation in California as well. Most of the price setting happens from gas power plants, so when we displace gas peaker plants, we help to displace 10% efficient plants for 40% efficient plants.

Climate Colab

Aug 13, 2014
04:19

Member


19 |
Share via:
A strong proposal for the development of a mobile phone-based demand response scheme that specifically targets peaker plant emissions (& costs). There are many demand response program providers and it is not clear why this particular approach is likely to be superior. However, this team is attempting to put an environmental spin on demand response (instead of purely cost savings) which is unusual. The issue of settlements and customer baselining (what would their consumption have been in the absence of this program) is not addressed in this proposal. This is likely to be a particularly important challenge for the team. Additionally, what role would collaboration/cooperation with utility companies play into this proposal? Private vs. Public?

Matt Duesterberg

Aug 14, 2014
11:16

Member


20 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks for the feedback, judging team. Excellent points on existing demand response providers. Demand response is not a novel concept. EnerNoc, Comverge, Johnson Controls, ECS, Viridity Energy, and a handful of other companies are all actively participating in demand response programs at a commercial level. Almost all of these companies work directly with the utilities. At a residential level, only utilities have traditionally provided these programs. However, due to policy changes in 2011 at FERC and the implementation of those policies in the ISO level, any third party (like Ohmconnect) now has the ability to receive payments for demand response services without involving the utilities. Four of the ISOs or Independent System Operators (PJM, ISO-NE, CAISO, and ERCOT), have implemented a demand response market to allow third parties to provide demand response services and get paid for them. For example, in 2012, the CAISO (or California ISO) built a system called "Proxy Demand Resource" (PDR) that allows for "supply side" economic DR (or demand response that acts similar to a generator). In the PDR market, the CAISO settles on a 10 in 10 baseline; the expected consumption for a given user is based on the last 10 "like" days (weekends vs weekdays). PJM and ISO-NE also have markets for capacity based demand response, in addition to the economic DR markets. In all of these ISO markets, a demand response provider can collect payments without directly interacting with the utilities. Conversely, because the utilities can also be a demand response provider, the markets have strict rules against collaboration between utilities and third parties. Ohmconnect is building a scalable demand response program in the residential sector because we view homes to be more similar to each other than buildings are. Often, homes each have their own A/C and appliances that can be shifted. During peak events, we can call to turn off thousands of A/Cs with a similar protocol. However, commercial buildings each have their own unique energy signature and footprint. To provide demand response services for each commercial building, one has to provide prescriptive reduction techniques that may be unique to that building. For example, in a retail store, one could potentially dim the lights by 50%, but in a hospital, that same reduction technique could be fatal.

Climate Colab

Sep 3, 2014
12:27

Member


21 |
Share via:
The contributor proposes the development of a mobile phone-based demand response scheme that specifically targets electricity consumption reduction during peak time, to reduce/nullify the use of peakers and therefore reducing system emissions and costs. The mechanism is limited to the areas where a smart meter is available and to users that WiFi-linked main appliances (as electric car, A/C, etc.) or a fast direct reply to a solicitation of reducing their consumption. Notwithstanding these limitations, I believe the scheme has a solid base to develop in the future with the home appliances getting more and more internet-connected and the users becoming more and more familiar to similar schemes. My only doubt would be the fit with the "Climate CoLab" innovation approach as this is an already existing and operating company with 2000 existing users. Proposal to develop a mobile phone-based demand response scheme. Similar platforms have been demonstrated by others throughout the world (Eg: AutoGrid.com). However, this proposal focuses on achieving demand reductions in the context of peaking plant operations (specifically focusing on high emissions), instead of focusing on grid reliability (the focus of most existing demand response schemes).

Hemant Wagh

Sep 6, 2014
03:14

Member


22 |
Share via:
Would it be possible to include into your client communications a request to 'save the seeds of fruits eaten by their units (work/family) throughout the year and spread/help spread those seeds onto unused land in the vicinity.' This would help increase the green cover, density and in long run provide fruits free of cost to everyone. Along with marine a land bases CCS program would be beneficial. A proposal outlining such an approach is available. Following is a link to such a proposal. https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300103/planId/1310401 This would bolster the efforts directed at finding workable solution to climate change..

Osero Shadrack Tengeya

Sep 17, 2014
03:41

Fellow


23 |
Share via:
Hi Ohmconnect and your friends, kindly consider voting for my proposal shown on this link. https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300206/planId/1002 Thanks.

Anne-marie Soulsby

Sep 23, 2014
03:59

Member


24 |
Share via:
Hi Ohmconnect, Please consider voting for my proposal, https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300801/planId/1309001 Good luck with your entry! Asante/Thank-you @conserveaction

Victor Blanco

Oct 4, 2014
11:16

Member


25 |
Share via:
Congratulations!!! Please check the "Discusion Section" in the "Community" label... Proposal of activity during the Conference Session of 2014 Winners... https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/discussion#discussion%3DpageType%3ATHREAD%2CthreadId%3A1337218