4.6 Article

Innovative approaches to verifying demand response of water heater load control

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 388-397

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TPWRD.2005.852374

关键词

demand management; electricity markets; load control; load management; load shedding; statistics; substation measurements; water heating

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study describes a pilot effort to measure load reductions from a residential electric water heater (EWH) load control program using low-cost statistically based measurement and verification (M&V) approaches. This field experiment is described within the larger framework of overcoming barriers to participation of noninterval metered customers in Demand Response (DR) Programs. We worked with PJM Interconnection and a. Curtailment Service Provider (CSP) to collect hourly load data for two substations and several hundred households over six weeks of load control testing. The experimental design reflected constraints imposed by limited funding, manpower, equipment, and the routine operation of the load control system by the CSP. We analyzed substation- and premise-level data from these tests in an attempt to verify several point estimates taken from the hourly diversified demand curves used by the CSP to establish aggregate load reductions from their control program. Analysis of premise-level data allowed for provisional verification that the actual electric water heater load control impacts were within a -60 to +10% band of the estimated values. For sub-station level data, measured values of per-unit load impacts were generally lower than the CSP estimated values for Electric Cooperative #2, after accounting for confounding influences and operational test problems. Based on this experience we offer recommendations to ISO and utility DR program managers to consider before undertaking further development of alternatives to the conventional but costly program-wide load research approach.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据