IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/21-pb31.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Willingness to Participate in Demand Response in the US Midwest: A Market with Great Potential?

Author

Abstract

Demand response uses smart technologies to lower peak electricity load by either shifting demand to non-peak hours or directly shaving peak demand. DR is a fast-growing market in which commercial and industrial customers are the primary providers of resources; however, DR helps heavy electrical consumers save energy and avoid demand charges, and it helps utilities save money and deter investment on expensive transmission and distribution lines. DR also has great potential to balance renewables by providing ramping and flexibility services to the electricity market. This capacity is increasingly important to electrical grids, as is the integration of more renewable energy. This study assesses the potential demand response resources that utilities can harness from residential customers. We use a contingent valuation method survey to discover residential customers' willingness to accept demand response programs offered by utilities. We test for three types of demand response programs: air conditioner cycling, smart thermostats, and an automated real-time pricing program. Air conditioner cycling uses switch controls to turn off customers' air conditioning units for a short period. Smart thermostats allow utilities to adjust the setting point of customers' thermostats to reduce peak load. Automated real-time pricing is a hypothetical program that allows changing load in response to real-time electricity prices. In the survey, we describe how the program works and solicit willingness to participate if offered an annual incentive or no incentive. In addition to the willingness to accept questions, we also collect information on occupancy, home characteristics, knowledge about demand response, prior experience with smart technologies, demographics, and relevant attitudes, such as trust in utilities, attitudes toward demand response, willingness to give a utility control of appliances, and attitudes on energy conservation and climate change. These questions provide important measurements of key factors that affect customers' willingness to participate in demand response programs. From July 10 to October 30, 2020, we distributed the survey to a random sample of 3,165 Midwest residents both online and by mail. We received a total of 417 responses (60% online and 40% mail responses), a 13.1% response rate. Data from valid survey responses suggests that 50% of the respondents are willing to enroll in a demand response program. This rate suggests great potential for utilities to harness demand response resources to curb residential peak load in summer, as half of surveyed Midwest residents are willing to participate in one of the programs for a less-than-$50 annual incentive or no incentive. Overall, respondents show a varied degree of intention to participate for the three types of programs: 54% for air conditioner cycling, 50% for smart thermostats, and 46% for automated real-time pricing. This result indicates that customer participation rate drops when the demand response technology is less mature. Respondents' participation intention differs significantly when offered no incentive versus a certain level of incentive. When offered a random annual incentive from $10 to $50, 47% are willing to enroll in the program. Specifically, respondent participation intention is 38%, 47%, 48%, 43%, and 56% for programs offering a $10, $20, $30, $40, and $50 annual incentive, respectively. However, when asked about willingness to enroll without mentioning any incentive, 63% of respondents are still willing, which suggests that a low level of incentive decreases willingness to participate. Thus, offering the demand response program without incentives is more efficient at recruiting customers than offering an annual incentive of less than $50. Alternatively, the incentive has to be high enough, probably higher than $50/year, to effectively recruit customers. Respondents' willingness to give a utility control varies by time of the day, day of the week, and type of equipment/appliances. Survey data suggests about 20% of residents are willing to let utilities control their home equipment and appliances anytime of the day and an additional 3%-15% of respondents are fine with utilities controlling their appliances at different times of the day.

Suggested Citation

  • Abigail Morton & Yü Wang & Wendong Zhang, 2021. "Willingness to Participate in Demand Response in the US Midwest: A Market with Great Potential?," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 21-pb31, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
  • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:21-pb31
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/21pb31.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=1320
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Walawalkar, Rahul & Fernands, Stephen & Thakur, Netra & Chevva, Konda Reddy, 2010. "Evolution and current status of demand response (DR) in electricity markets: Insights from PJM and NYISO," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 1553-1560.
    2. Eid, Cherrelle & Koliou, Elta & Valles, Mercedes & Reneses, Javier & Hakvoort, Rudi, 2016. "Time-based pricing and electricity demand response: Existing barriers and next steps," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 15-25.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ussama Assad & Muhammad Arshad Shehzad Hassan & Umar Farooq & Asif Kabir & Muhammad Zeeshan Khan & S. Sabahat H. Bukhari & Zain ul Abidin Jaffri & Judit Oláh & József Popp, 2022. "Smart Grid, Demand Response and Optimization: A Critical Review of Computational Methods," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-36, March.
    2. Leinauer, Christina & Schott, Paul & Fridgen, Gilbert & Keller, Robert & Ollig, Philipp & Weibelzahl, Martin, 2022. "Obstacles to demand response: Why industrial companies do not adapt their power consumption to volatile power generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    3. Pedro Faria & João Spínola & Zita Vale, 2018. "Reschedule of Distributed Energy Resources by an Aggregator for Market Participation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Partovi, Farzad & Nikzad, Mehdi & Mozafari, Babak & Ranjbar, Ali Mohamad, 2011. "A stochastic security approach to energy and spinning reserve scheduling considering demand response program," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 3130-3137.
    5. Feuerriegel, Stefan & Neumann, Dirk, 2014. "Measuring the financial impact of demand response for electricity retailers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 359-368.
    6. Wakiyama, Takako & Zusman, Eric, 2021. "The impact of electricity market reform and subnational climate policy on carbon dioxide emissions across the United States: A path analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    7. Ovidiu Ivanov & Samiran Chattopadhyay & Soumya Banerjee & Bogdan-Constantin Neagu & Gheorghe Grigoras & Mihai Gavrilas, 2020. "A Novel Algorithm with Multiple Consumer Demand Response Priorities in Residential Unbalanced LV Electricity Distribution Networks," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-24, July.
    8. Liu, Yingqi, 2017. "Demand response and energy efficiency in the capacity resource procurement: Case studies of forward capacity markets in ISO New England, PJM and Great Britain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 271-282.
    9. Valdes, Javier & Poque González, Axel Bastián & Masip Macia, Yunesky & Dorner, Wolfgang & Ramirez Camargo, Luis, 2020. "Unveiling the potential for combined heat and power in Chilean industry - A policy perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    10. Keon Baek & Woong Ko & Jinho Kim, 2019. "Optimal Scheduling of Distributed Energy Resources in Residential Building under the Demand Response Commitment Contract," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-19, July.
    11. Olga Bogdanova & Karīna Viskuba & Laila Zemīte, 2023. "A Review of Barriers and Enables in Demand Response Performance Chain," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-33, September.
    12. Lavin, Luke & Apt, Jay, 2021. "The importance of peak pricing in realizing system benefits from distributed storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    13. Anjo, João & Neves, Diana & Silva, Carlos & Shivakumar, Abhishek & Howells, Mark, 2018. "Modeling the long-term impact of demand response in energy planning: The Portuguese electric system case study," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PA), pages 456-468.
    14. Peter Warren, 2018. "Demand-side policy: Global evidence base and implementation patterns," Energy & Environment, , vol. 29(5), pages 706-731, August.
    15. Li, Na & Okur, Özge, 2023. "Economic analysis of energy communities: Investment options and cost allocation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 336(C).
    16. Najafi, M. & Ehsan, M. & Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M. & Akhavein, A. & Afshar, K., 2010. "Optimal reserve capacity allocation with consideration of customer reliability requirements," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 3883-3890.
    17. Zheng, Menglian & Meinrenken, Christoph J. & Lackner, Klaus S., 2014. "Agent-based model for electricity consumption and storage to evaluate economic viability of tariff arbitrage for residential sector demand response," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 297-306.
    18. Østergaard, Poul Alberg & Andersen, Anders N., 2021. "Variable taxes promoting district heating heat pump flexibility," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    19. Osaru Agbonaye & Patrick Keatley & Ye Huang & Motasem Bani Mustafa & Neil Hewitt, 2020. "Design, Valuation and Comparison of Demand Response Strategies for Congestion Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-29, November.
    20. Siler-Evans, Kyle & Morgan, M. Granger & Azevedo, Inês Lima, 2012. "Distributed cogeneration for commercial buildings: Can we make the economics work?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 580-590.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:21-pb31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caiasus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.