Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Electric utilities face a variety of uncertainties that complicate their long-term resource planning and acquisition. Many utilities deal with these uncertainties by pursuing flexible strategies that allow changes to be made incrementally with little difficulty and at low cost. Thus, utilities today avoid construction of large, baseload power plants because of their long construction times and high capital costs. On the other hand, utilities view combustion turbines as flexible because they have small unit sizes, take only a few years to build, are inexpensive, and can later be converted to combined-cycle units (to increase capacity and improve performance). Energy-efficiency and load-management programs, because of their inherently small unit size and opportunities to adjust participation over time, are attractive for the same reasons. My paper compares the benefits of flexibility provided by resources with short lead times and small sizes with the costs of these alternatives. The focus is on utility demand-side management programs, primarily because the flexibility benefits of such programs have not yet been quantified. Utilities can adjust participation in their demand-side programs over time. This flexibility yields substantial economic benefits because these electricity savings can closely match future load growth.

Keywords

Electric utilities DSM programs Flexibility benefits Uncertainty

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Boyd

Thompson

(1980). “The Effect of Demand Uncertainty on the Relative Economics of Electrical Generation Technologies with Differing Lead Times,” Energy Systems and Policy 4(1-2).

California Energy Commission (1988). Staff Workshop on Planning for Uncertainty, Sacramento, CA (March).

Cazalet

E.G.

Clark

C.F.

Keelin

T.W.

(1978). Costs and Benefits of Over/Under Capacity in Electric Power System Planning. EA-927, Decision Focus Inc., prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA (October).

Ford

Yabroff

I.W.

(1980). “Defending Against Uncertainty in the Electric Utility Industry.” Energy Systems and Policy 4(1-2).

Ford

Geinzer

(1988). The Impact of Performance Standards on the Uncertainty of the Pacific Northwest Electric System. University of Southern California and Applied Energy Services, prepared for the Office of Conservation, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR (February).

Hirst

(1988). Effects of Energy-Efficiency Programs on Load-Growth Uncertainty for Electric Utilities. ORNIJCON-260, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN (August).

Hirst

(1989). Benefits and Custs of Small, Short-Lead-Time Power Plants and Demandside Programs in an Era of Load-Growth Uncertainty. ORNIJCON-278, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN (March).

Keating

K.M.

(1989). Personal communication, Office of Energy Resources, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR (September).

Morris

P.A.

, (1985). Impact of Modularity on Utility Investment Decisions: Implications for Turbocharged Boiler Technologies. EA/CS-4158, Applied Decision Analysis Inc. and Decision Focus Inc., prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA (September).

10.

Northwest Power Planning Council (1989). 1989 Supplement to the 1986 Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan, 89-1, Portland, OR.

11.

Pindyck

R.S.

(1988). Options, Flexibility and Investment Decisions. MIT-EL 88-018WP, Energy Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (March).

12.

Potomac Electric Power Company (1987). The 1987 Energy Plan. Washington, DC.

13.

Teisberg

E.A.

(1989). “An Option Valuation Analysis of Investment Choices by a Regulated Firm,” Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (September).

Flexibility Benefits of Demand-Side Programs in Electric Utility Planning*

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References