### From: Don DiCristofaro <DDiCristofaro@enernoc.com> To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Cc: Rick Counihan <RCounihan@enernoc.com>
Date: 12/21/2012 08:05 AM Subject: Revised PJM Load Activity Report for Demand Response

Melanie,

Comment letters to EPA for the June NOPR noted that “PJM’s May 2012 load activity report for emergency demand response (DR) activities in delivery year 2011-2012 indentified 15% of DR resources as backup generation. However, 64.4% of the DR resources were unidentified, since curtailment service providers (CSP) simply opted outof providing more detailed information by choosing the “other” category.” (see pages 16 and 17 or EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0708-1137, Comments filed by PennFuture et al., dated August 9, 2012).

In effort to collect additional data regarding DR resources, PJM recently required all CSPs to submit data by business segment, load reduction methods, and on-site generator fuel type. To date, PJM has had a 71% response date. Attached please find a comparison of the May 2012 reported data with the current data. In particular, please see the pie charts on page 7 and 8 regarding the Load Reduction Before the Update versus the Load Reduction After the Update. Before the update, PJM reported 14% from Backup Generators and 59% from others representing 73% of the total reported. With the update, PJM is now reporting 23% from backup generators and 19% from others representing 42% of the total.

Although the analysis is not yet complete, if you were to treat the missing data with a similar split of the current data, we believe PJM will find that the percentage of generators that are participating in demand response will be in the high 20s (nowhere near the much higher percentages some opponents were indicating). The rest is from curtailment. I will forward you additional data as PJM updates its findings.

Don

Don DiCristofaro, CCM – Air Quality Meteorologist Consultant EnerNOC, Inc. | 101 Federal Street, Suite 1100 | Boston, MA 02110 m: 617.834.8408 | f: 857.221.9464 DDiCristofaro@EnerNOC.com| www.EnerNOC.com EnerNOC - get more from energy

This email and any information disclosed in connection herewith, whether written or oral, is the property of EnerNOC, Inc. and is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. This email may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Distributing or copying any information contained in this email to anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. (See attached file: 20121218-item-05-enhanced-dr-information.pdf)

# Summary

1. Draft Data Collection Results for Business Segments, Load



# Reduction Methods and On -Site Generators ’ Fuel Type

.

2. We are verifying the data received. The data may change slightly.

3. PJM sent out 13,647 records to be confirmed. We have received 

# back 9,734 records so far. About 71% response rate.

4. The data has an as of date of October 19, 2012.

1

# Business Segments

The following were the sources of the various business segments: (Before Update and After Updates).

1. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing: 0% vs. 2%

2. Correctional Facilities: 0% vs . .03%



# 3. Food Service: 2% vs . .29%

4. Hospital: 3% vs. 4%

5. Industrial Manufacturing: 35% vs. 45 %

6. Mining: 0% vs. 1%

7. Office Building: 4% vs. 6%

8. Other: 36% vs. 11%



# 9. Residential: 12% vs. 12%

10. Retail: 2% vs. 2%

11. School: 6% vs. 6%

12. Services: 0% vs. 6%

13. Transportation, Communications

, Electric

, Gas, and Sanitary Services : 0%.



# vs.5%

14. Warehouse: 0% vs .07 %

Graphs may have a slight rounding to the nearest percentage.



### 2

# Load Reduction Method

The following were the sources of business segments: (New percentage vs. Old).



# 1. BackupGen: 14% vs. 23%

2. HVAC: 16% vs. 18%

3. Refrigeration :. 1% vs. 2%

4. Light ing: 1%. Vs. 6%



# 5. Manufacturing: 10%. Vs. 31%

6. Waterheating: .5% vs. 0.15%

7. Other: 59 % vs. 19%

8. Plug Load: 0 % vs. 0.78%

3

# Summary: Fuel Types for On-Site Generators

The following were the fuel types for on-site generators (New percentage vs. Old).



# 1. Coal: 0% vs. 3%

2. Diesel: 82% vs. 63%

3. Gasoline: 10% vs. 5%

4. Ker osene: 0% vs. 1%

5. Landfill Gases: 0% vs. 0.5%

6. Mixed Fuels: Diesel and Natural Gasoline : 0% vs. 0.2%.

7. Natural Gas: 0 %. Vs. 11%

8. Oil: 0 % vs. 1%.

9. None Left Blank: 1 %. Vs. 15%

10. Other: 7% vs. 1%

11. Propane: 0% vs. 0%.



# 12. Waste: 0% vs. 0 %.

4

# Business Segment Before The Update

Agro

0% Correction

0% Food Service

2%

Hospital

3%

Indust/Manufact

35%

Mining

0% Office Building

4% Other

36% Residential

12% Retail

2%

School

6% Services

0% Transport

0% Warehouse

0% Business Segment Before Update



### 5

# Business Segments After The Update

Agro

2% Correction

0% Food Service

0%

Hospital

4%

Indust/Manufact

45%

Mining

1% Office Building

6% Other

11% Residential

12% Retail

2% School

6% Services

6% Transport

5% Warehouse

0% 

### Bus Segment After Update



### 6

# Load Reduction Before The Update

BackupGen

14%

HVAC

16%

Refrigeration

0%

Lighting

1% Manufacturing

10%

Waterheating

0% Other

59% Plug Load

0% 

### Load Reduction Before the Update



### 7

# Load Reduction After The Update

BackupGen

23%

HVAC

18%

Refrigeration

2% Lighting

6% Manufacturing

31% Waterheating

0% Other

19% Plug Load

1% 

### Load Reduction After The Update



### 8

# Fuel Type Before The Updates

Coal

0%

Diesel

82% Landfill Gas

0% Gasoline

10% Kerosene

0% Mixed Fuel

0% Natural Gas

0%

None

1% Oil

0%

Other

7% Propane

0% Waste

0% 

# Fuel Type Before Update

9

# Fuel Type After The Update

Coal

3%

Diesel

63%

Landfill Gas

0% Gasoline

5%

Kerosene

1% Mixed Fuel

0% Natural Gas

11% None

15% Oil

1% Other

1% Propane

0%

Waste

0% 

# Fuel Type After Update

10