The Electricity Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Electricity Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tej

Energy Policy Institute's Seventh Annual Energy Policy Research Conference

The value of demand response in Florida

⁎
Brady Stolla, , Elizabeth Buechlerb, Elaine Halea
a
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, United States
b
Stanford University, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Many electrical loads may be operated flexibly to provide grid services, including peaking capacity, reserves, and
Demand response load shifting. The authors model 14 demand end uses in Florida and analyze their operational impacts and
Power systems overall value for a wide range of solar penetrations and grid flexibility options. They find demand response is
Solar photovoltaics able to reduce production costs, reduce the number of low-load hours for traditional generators, reduce starting
Renewable integration
of gas generators, and reduce curtailment.

1. Introduction
Demand response (DR) is a broad descriptor for any electric utility
or aggregator program that incentivizes or requires loads to reduce or
otherwise modify their energy consumption in support of grid opera-
tions. These types of programs have been in use for many years in the
United States in the industrial sector, where customers are contracted to
reduce their demand during emergency periods. More recently, demand
response programs have been used to shift residential and commercial
loads away from peak periods. As renewable generation sources in-
crease, the ability of demand response to help mitigate challenges with
increased net load variability and uncertainty has become of higher
interest to utilities due to its ability to provide flexibility to the electric
grid. Additionally, rapidly developing communication and control
technologies have made demand response more flexible and easier to
implement.
In this article we study the potential impact of demand response in
Florida assuming both low and high levels of solar photovoltaic (PV)
deployment. Florida currently has a high level of demand response and
little PV generation, but the state is poised to see high growth in solar
energy in coming years due to its high solar resource potential and the
falling costs of solar installations (Gagnon et al., 2016; Lopez et al.,
2012; NREL, 2016; Lazard, 2016). Challenges with the “duck curve”
that are starting to be seen in California, including low net loads during
the day and a steep ramp in net load during the evening, are likely to be
seen in Florida as well in the 5- to 15-year timeframe (Hale et al., 2017).
Demand response can help mitigate these issues by shifting loads from
high net load periods to low net load periods, providing reserves to
meet increased variability from solar, and by providing capacity for
long-term system planning. This is in addition to the valuable capacity
and peak load management services that demand response already
provides (Lee et al., 2015).
In this article we analyze the impact on grid operations of 14 dif-
ferent load types that could provide demand response in Florida. We
include two demand response penetrations, one approximately
equivalent to 2015 participation in demand response programs, and
one assuming a high participation rate. We analyze the changing im-
pacts of demand response as PV penetration increases from 5% to 45%,
with a focus on the value of demand response to the system at higher
penetrations in terms of system operation impacts.
2. Methods
We analyzed the grid operations of the Florida Reliability
Coordinating Council (FRCC) using the commercial software package
PLEXOS (Energy Exemplar, 2014), and the FRCC model created for
(Denholm et al., 2016). In this model, we include all operational con-
straints on generators and enforce line limits on all lines above 200 kV.
It includes a connection to the only reliability region in the eastern
interconnection that is electrically connected to FRCC, the SERC Re-
liability Corporation in Georgia, which is modeled as a single load and
supply curve of generation. We include additional utility scale photo-
voltaic generators to enable penetrations up to 45%. For more in-
formation on the PLEXOS model, see (Hale et al., 2017; Denholm et al.,
2016).
We incorporate demand response resources for 14 different load end
uses into the model of FRCC, dispersing the demand response into the
two nodes with the highest load per region. We use hourly estimates of
the total potential demand response resource from (Olsen et al., 2013),
which uses several filters to calculate the fraction of a load that is

⁎
Corresponding author at: 15013 Denver West Pkwy, MS RSF300, Golden, CO 80401.
E-mail address: brady.stoll@nrel.gov (B. Stoll).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2017.10.004

1040-6190/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted manuscript.
The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
Please cite this article as: Stoll, B., The Electricity Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2017.10.004
B. Stoll et al. The Electricity Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Demand response end-use constraints by sector, including grid services that can be pro-
vided.

Sector End-Use Grid Load Balancing Daily

Services Recovery Freq. Duration
Restrictions (days) Restriction
(h)

Residential Cooling R, C, E 5 am–6 pm 1 1

Heating R, C, E 3 am–7 pm 1 1
Water heating R, C, E – 1 –
Commercial Cooling R, C, E 5 am–6 pm 1 2
Heating R, C, E 3 am–7 pm 1 2
Ventilation R, C – – –
Lighting R, C – – –
Municipal Wastewater E – 1 3
pumping
Water E – 1 2
pumping Fig. 1. Scenario framework for the analysis. Each scenario consists of one PV level, one
Outdoor R, C – – – DR option and one flexibility option.
Lighting
Industrial Datacenters C, E 4 am–8 pm 1 4
Manufacturing C, E – 1 – systems, any resource that can potentially shift generation from one
Refrigerated E – 1 4 time period to another in rhythm with the diurnal cycles of the sun and
warehouses
Agricultural C, E – 7 8
electricity demand becomes more valuable and can be used to perform
pumping this service on days of significant curtailment. Additionally, resources
that can quickly increase generation or decrease loads during periods of
rapidly changing net-load, such as during the afternoon when solar
controllable, sheddable, and acceptable to consumers. In this and our output decreases and total demand is increasing, can reduce stress on
companion work we adjust these filters to better represent the current the grid and limit the use of high-cost generators during these times.
status of demand response (Low DR scenario) and a more realistic fu- These roles, and a description of how the presence of battery storage
ture scenario with high DR participation (High DR scenario) (Hale influences DR operations and vice versa, are covered in the second set
et al., 2017). These data provide an estimate of the total load a parti- of results.
cular end use can change in response to a grid signal, including po-
tential contributions to energy shifting and reserves provision. Each end
use is subject to different constraints based on assumptions about how 3.1. Overall impacts of DR on FRCC
much that end use could reasonably be used. These constraints, listed in
Table 1, are expanded from similar work done in (Hummon et al., 3.1.1. Production costs
2013). The total production cost of serving a region’s electricity demand
These constraints consist of requirements on allowable time ranges consists of all direct costs incurred through generation, including the
for shifting energy, including when load shifting can be recovered based fuel costs, variable operation and maintenance costs (VO&M), and start
on building occupancy and comfort levels, restrictions on the amount of and shutdown costs. This represents the direct costs of operating the
time a single load may be shifted, and a requirement that a demand electric system modeled. The total production cost of the combined
response provider may not simultaneously provide reserves and energy FRCC-SERC system ranged from $11.6 million to $14.2 million for
shifting for more than its total capacity. different PV penetrations before the addition of any flexibility options,
For this work, we analyze a set of scenarios to study the impact of as in Table 2. Increasing PV penetration reduces the production cost
demand response in comparison with or in addition to other measures due to lower usage of fuel, reducing the overall fuel costs in the system.
of flexibility. This includes battery capacities of 1 GW and 4 GW with Demand response reduces the total production costs in all cases;
6 hours of energy storage, and a set of conditions, called the Flex however, the Low DR scenario does not significantly impact costs at low
System, to increase operational flexibility: reducing minimum genera- PV penetrations. Table 2 shows the total reduction in cost for a range of
tion levels of gas combined-cycle (CC) generators, enabling reserves PV penetrations in the base flexibility scenario. The Low DR scenario
sharing between regions, and allowing PV to provide reserves. The reduces costs by 0.1% at 5% PV, and by 0.8% at 45% PV. The benefits
scenario framework can be seen in Fig. 1. Each scenario consists of a of the Low DR scenario are more operational in nature, and will be
particular PV penetration, demand response option, and flexibility op- discussed in subsequent sections. The High DR scenario has a higher
tion. impact, reducing costs by 0.5% at 5% PV, 1.0% at 25% PV and 2.2% at
45% PV. This is a much more significant impact on the overall costs, in
addition to operational changes seen due to DR.
3. Results

Table 2
The traditional role of demand response is to reduce load at peak Production cost reduction from demand response in the baseline flexibility scenario.
times, or in times of system emergency, so as to improve system re-
liability and economic efficiency. The outcomes of the fulfillment of Flexibility DR Scenario Total Production Cost (million $)
such roles include avoided new capacity builds, and reduced production Scenario
5% PV 15% PV 25% PV 35% PV 45% PV
costs. Production cost savings can accrue from reduced prices in peak
times, reduced reserve costs (especially to cover contingencies), and Base No DR 14,232 13,148 12,372 11,841 11,607
reduced startups and shutdowns of other generators. These types of Reduction in Total Production Cost (million $) from
benefits are summarized both monetarily and from an operational point Base, no DR scenario
5% PV 15% PV 25% PV 35% PV 45% PV
of view in the first part of this section.
Base Low DR 20.98 31.92 40.60 67.63 95.21
In emerging power systems that include more wind and solar, DR High DR 76.35 93.43 127.75 181.72 259.15
may assume additional roles. In particular for high penetration PV

2
Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted
manuscript. The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
B. Stoll et al. The Electricity Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 2. Contingency reserve provision by generator type for each PV penetration and flexibility scenario.

Generally, demand response has a greater impact on costs at higher
PV penetrations due to its ability to reduce curtailment, enabling higher
utilization of a zero-fuel-cost resource. At low PV penetrations, demand
response is typically used to switch between coal and natural gas fuel
types.
3.1.2. Reserves
Many types of demand response are well suited for providing re-
serves, particularly contingency reserves. Contingency reserves are held
to cover potential generator or transmission line outages, and are ty-
pically called infrequently. Regulation reserves are used to maintain
system frequency at short time scales, and are called on throughout the
day to change their output levels every 4–6 seconds to balance out
variation and uncertainty in net load. Many fewer types of demand
response are able to provide regulation reserves because of this con-
tinuous signal-following requirement.
In our modeling, demand response was able to provide nearly all
required contingency reserves in all cases, even for the Low DR sce-
nario, as in Fig. 2. Demand response predominantly displaced gas CC
units from providing reserves, as well as a small amount of coal and gas
CT units. Contingency reserves do not increase with rising PV pene-
tration, so their quantity does not change with PV penetration. Reg-
ulation reserves increase in line with rising PV penetrations such that
demand response in the High DR scenario can provide nearly all reg-
ulation reserves at 5% PV, but as the requirements rise it cannot
maintain the same proportion of the acquired reserves, as in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. Regulation reserve provision by generator type for each PV penetration and flexibility scenario.

3
Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted
manuscript. The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
B. Stoll et al. The Electricity Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 4. Mean number of hours two generator types

spent operating at their minimum stable levels for
each PV penetration and several flexibility sce-
narios.

While it is fairly unrealistic that DR could provide all or nearly all spent at minimum stable level, until 35% PV penetration, at which
reserves of either type since many balancing areas limit the amount of point it rises. A large part of the difference in this behavior between
non-conventional capacity that can provide reserves, this does de- coal and gas CC units is that gas units have a lower startup cost, so are
monstrate the degree to which DR is capable of filling the reserves more likely to turn off during the daytime as solar penetrations increase
market. Other types of flexibility, such as batteries or allowing PV to (Denholm et al., 2016). DR is able to reduce the number of hours spent
provide reserves, also quickly fill the market. This is discussed further in at the minimum stable level for CCs in all scenarios, with the High DR
Section 3.2.2. scenario having a higher impact than the 1 GW battery scenario. DR has
a median reduction of 22 hours in the Low DR scenario and 50 hours in
the High DR scenario, with a range of −1 to 123 hours and −4 to
3.1.3. Operational impacts on traditional generators
250 hours, respectively. When other flexibility options are added DR
An important aspect of demand response is how it impacts other
has less of an impact than when DR is the only flexibility option. In-
generators and their operations. Traditional generators have a
creased flexible generation, including the large battery and the High DR
minimum stable level they must operate above; however, they operate
scenario, are able to eliminate the increase in CC hours at minimum
much less efficiently at this level compared to full capacity. As solar
generation seen at high PV penetrations.
penetrations increase, coal generators tend to reduce their output sig-
Another important operational metric is the number of starts and
nificantly during the day so they are available during the evening peak-
shutdowns an average plant undergoes per year. This is another in-
load hours (Denholm et al., 2016). However, this can be costly for
dicator of the cycling of these units, which can increase wear on the
generators in terms of efficiency losses and there are concerns about
plants. Fig. 5 shows the number of starts in the No DR scenario for each
equipment wear. Demand response can help mitigate this issue by
generator type and flexibility scenario. In all scenarios, the number of
shifting energy to times of high solar output, allowing these generators
starts increases for all generator types at higher PV penetrations,
to operate above their minimum stable level.
though coal starts remain relatively constant. Gas CC units see a high
Fig. 4 shows the number of hours coal and gas CC generators spend
increase in the number of starts, rising from 50 starts/year at 5% PV
operating at their minimum stable level in the base and battery only
penetration to 150 starts/year at 45% PV penetration. Gas CT plants see
scenarios, with and without DR. Coal generators spend an increasing
a similar three-fold rise in the number of starts in the base scenario.
number of hours at their minimum stable level as the PV penetration
Demand response has a negligible impact on coal at low penetra-
increases in all scenarios. The presence of batteries and demand re-
tions, and may increase the number of starts per year slightly at higher
sponse, individually or together, reduces the number of hours coal
penetrations. The ability of DR to reduce the number of starts of gas and
generators spend at their minimum levels. The Low DR scenario reduces
CC plants varies based on the other flexibility scenarios included, Fig. 6.
the mean number of hours at minimum level by −11 to 112 hours per
DR is most effective at reducing starts of gas generators, which are
year and the High DR scenario reduces the mean number of hours by
typically used for their quick-start capabilities during evening ramping
51–214 hours per year. The median values across all scenarios are 37
and high net-load periods. DR can reduce nearly half of the starts of
and 102 hours of reduction, for the Low and High DR scenarios re-
these generators in the High DR scenario. The impact on CC generators
spectively. The High DR scenario and the 1 GW battery scenario reduce
varies by PV penetration; the impact of DR levels off or even decreases
the number of hours at minimum stable level for coal generators by
drastically at higher PV penetrations. The addition of flexibility options
approximately the same amount.
tends to increase the ability of DR to reduce starts in CC generators at
Gas CC generators show a more complicated pattern of time spent at
high PV penetrations.
their minimum stable levels as a function of rising PV penetration
(Fig. 4). In the baseline scenario, a decreasing number of hours are

Fig. 5. Average number of times each generator

type was started per year in the no-DR scenario, for
each flexibility option and PV penetration. In gen-
eral, higher PV penetrations lead to increased gen-
erator starts, whereas flexibility options reduce
starts.

4
Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted
manuscript. The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
B. Stoll et al.
Fig. 6. Reduction in the mean generator starts per year for each generator category by demand response, for all flexibility options.
3.2. Interactions between DR, PV, and batteries
3.2.1. Impact of DR on PV curtailment
One way in which DR interacts with PV capacity is by reducing
curtailment on high PV penetration systems. Curtailment decreases the
value of PV and increases system costs, since the low-cost energy from
PV must be replaced by higher-cost generation from other fuel sources.
Curtailment increases significantly at higher penetrations (Fig. 7). Very
little curtailment occurs before 20% PV penetration, but curtailment
rises rapidly from 8% at 30% PV to 28% at 45% PV in the base scenario.
Nearly all flexibility scenarios are able to reduce curtailment, with the
Flex System scenario being the only one to increase curtailment at PV
penetrations less than 30%. The large battery is most effective at re-
ducing curtailment, reducing the overall curtailment by nearly half in
the highest-penetration systems studied.
Demand response is able to reduce curtailment in all scenarios. The
High DR scenario is able to reduce curtailment by an amount ap-
proximately equivalent to a 1 GW battery, enabling up to 6 TWh of
additional PV generation in the Base scenario at 45% PV.
The different DR end-uses have varying potentials to reduce cur-
tailment based on whether or not they have operational constraints that
limit their ability to shift load to hours in which curtailment occurs.
Fig. 8 shows the ability of each end use to reduce curtailment based on
the total amount of load they increased during hours when curtailment
occurred in the base scenario. The end uses with the highest ability to
increase load, and thus impact curtailment, are those end uses with the
5
Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted
manuscript. The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
The Electricity Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
most operational flexibility – manufacturing and wastewater pumping.
We assumed that both manufacturing and pumping had enough excess
capacity to increase their output during any hour of the day, making
them valuable for curtailment reduction. On the other hand, many re-
sidential DR end uses have more limited flexibility during daytime
hours due to occupancy and comfort restrictions, limiting their ability
to impact curtailment.
The capability to increase load grows at higher PV penetration for
all DR types due to the higher number of hours during which curtail-
ment occurs. As PV penetrations rise, curtailment tends to occur during
more hours of the day, making it more likely that DR providers will be
able to increase their load during those times.
3.2.2. Reserves impacts
Demand response can provide a large fraction of all required re-
serves, as discussed in Section 3.1.2. How this changes with rising PV
penetration and the addition of other flexibility options (Fig. 9) pro-
vides interesting insights into the reserves market and the value of
demand response. In the base scenario, contingency reserve provision is
relatively constant or decreases at increasing PV due to higher use of
these resources for energy shifting as curtailment increases. Regulation
reserve provision increases steadily due to an increase in the reserve
requirement as the PV penetration increases and excess availability to
provide regulation reserves for many end uses in the High DR scenarios.
The High DR scenario is able to provide more reserves, but a much
smaller fraction of the DR resource is used to provide reserves than in
Fig. 7. Total curtailed energy per year, TWh, for each flexibility op-
tion and penetration. Total curtailment increases sharply at rising PV
penetrations.
B. Stoll et al.
the Low DR scenario. The Low DR scenario itself can provide nearly all
contingency reserves in the model, so there is little additional need for
reserves provision in the High DR scenario. The presence of other
flexibility options also reduces the amount of reserves provided by DR.
The Flex scenario suite allows PV to provide reserves, which it does at
higher PV penetrations in all scenarios including that flexibility option
(Figs. 2–3). Batteries, which also have very low operational costs,
compete with DR to provide low-cost reserves, and typically take away
some market share from DR, reducing the overall amount of reserves
DR provides at all penetrations.
These factors indicate that market saturation of the reserves market
is reached fairly quickly. The market itself is fairly shallow, with reserve
prices ranging from 0 to 226 $/MWh in the 5% PV base scenario and 0
to 250 $/MWh in the 30% PV base scenario. The median reserve price is
41 $/MWh for both scenarios. As the number of resources that can
cheaply provide reserves, including batteries and PV in addition to DR,
increases, the reserves price will decrease, as will the value each can get
from providing reserves. As renewable penetrations increase, reserve
markets may change. For example, more jurisdictions may add reserve
products similar to the flexible ramping product recently implemented
in the California ISO1 (California I.S.O., 2015).
3.2.3. Impacts of batteries on DR generation
Batteries and demand response provide very similar services: the
ability to shift energy usage in time and provide reserves. Here we in-
vestigate the degree to which these resources compete with each other
1
As of November 1, 2016, see https://www.caiso.com/informed/Pages/
StakeholderProcesses/FlexibleRampingProduct.aspx.
6
Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted
manuscript. The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
The Electricity Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 8. Increased load by demand response end-uses
during hours of curtailment in the no-DR scenario.
This indicates the ability of DR end-use to reduce
curtailment at each PV penetration. Some DR types
have higher availability and flexibility during times
of curtailment, making them more valuable for load
shifting at higher PV penetrations.
Fig. 9. Total annual reserves provision by demand
response for all flexibility scenarios.
when both are present. Fig. 10 shows the mean daily charge and dis-
charge patterns of batteries (a) and demand response (b). The overall
differences between battery and DR usage stem from the different
constraints on how the technologies operate. Batteries have fewer re-
strictions on their usage compared to DR, which enables batteries to
more fully shift load away from evening peak hours.
We find, however, little to no interaction between battery and DR
dispatch patterns at any PV penetration (Fig. 10). While the use pat-
terns of both DR and batteries changes substantially at increasing PV
penetrations, the addition of either DR or batteries to a system already
containing capacity of the other technology does not substantially alter
the charging or discharging patterns of either resource.
Interestingly, we found that the presence of both resources in-
creased the usage of both for generation. Fig. 11 shows the annual
generation from batteries and DR, which tends to increase at higher PV
penetration. Usage of batteries (Fig. 11a) increases as more demand
response is included in the system. This also occurs for DR at low PV
penetrations; however, at high PV penetrations the addition of batteries
has no effect or a slightly negative impact (Fig. 11b). This increase with
additional flexible resources is largely tied to the reserves market. When
only batteries or only DR are included, much of the capacity ends up
providing reserves. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the addition of flex-
ible resources eventually saturates the reserves market, leading to an
increased use of both resources to provide energy shifting. The total
provision of generation and reserves reduces for both resources when
the other resource is included.
4. Discussion
Demand response resources have the ability to shift generation
B. Stoll et al. The Electricity Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 10. Battery (a) and Demand Response (b) operations on average for each hour of the day for 10%, 20% and 30% PV penetrations.

Fig. 11. Annual generation from batteries (a) and

demand response (b). Total generation tends to in-
crease with the addition of flexible resources, lar-
gely due to additional availability from providing
fewer reserves.

away from high-load periods, enabling more efficient use of resources
and lowering the total cost of operating the electric grid. While the
overall impact of demand response on total costs is small, typically less
than a 1% cost reduction, the addition of this resource is able to im-
prove other aspects of grid operations. Demand response was able to
reduce the number of hours coal generators spent at their minimum
stable level by 37 and 102 hours for the Low DR and High DR scenarios,
respectively. The shifting of energy from peak load hours to hours of
low net load, particularly at higher PV penetrations, enables lower-cost
resources to meet demand. This is also demonstrated by reducing
number of times gas turbines are started, a decline of 20–29% in the
Low DR scenario and 47–61% in the High DR scenario. Gas turbines are
more expensive units that can rapidly start and ramp quickly, so are
typically deployed during peak periods. Demand response reduces the
reliance on these units by shifting small amounts of load for a few
hours, which lessens the need for quick-start units and allows baseload

7
Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted
manuscript. The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
B. Stoll et al.
generators, such as coal units, to provide that demand.
Another important potential role of DR is providing operating re-
serves. These resources are particularly well suited for providing con-
tingency reserves; we found that in both the Low and High DR sce-
narios, nearly all contingency reserves can be provided by demand
response. While this may be unrealistic due to requirements for firm
capacity to provide some fraction of reserves, it demonstrates the
capability of DR to provide this service, even given low penetrations of
the resource. However, we found that the current reserves market is
fairly shallow, and easily satisfied by a variety of low-cost resources
such as batteries and PV. Demand response providers looking to re-
serves for a majority of their revenue should take this into considera-
tion, particularly as batteries and other flexible resources decrease in
cost and regulations change to allow variable generators to participate
in reserves markets.
We see a similar saturation of other values provided by DR as larger
amounts of flexible generators are included in the model, though to a
much smaller degree than the saturation of the reserves market. While
the presence of energy storage capacity increases the amount of gen-
eration provided by DR, particularly at low penetrations, this increase is
smaller than the reduction in reserves provision, leading to an overall
lower use of the resource. The impacts of demand response on starting
of gas and CC generators, as well as the number of hours at minimum
stable level for coal units, are not greatly affected by increasing flexible
generation, indicating that demand response can continue to provide
operational value to the grid even as overall flexibility increases.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Josh Novacheck and Paul Denholm for providing
the underlying model and providing their insight for analyzing flex-
ibility in Florida. Thanks to Laurel Dunn (Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory) for providing the demand response resource dataset used in
this work, and to Galen Maclaurin for shepherding the dataset across
cyberspace. The authors also thank Steve Capanna and Ookie Ma (U.S.
Department of Energy) for supporting this work. This research was
funded by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-
AC36-08GO28308. Any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of
the authors.
References
Gagnon, P., Margolis, R., Melius, J., Phillips, C., Elmore, R., 2016. Rooftop Solar
Photovoltaic Technical Potential in the United States: A Detailed Assessment.
8
Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted
manuscript. The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
The Electricity Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado Technical Report NREL/
TP-6A20–65298, Jan.
Lopez, A., Roberts, B., Heimiller, D., Blair, N., Porro, G., 2012. U.S. Renewable Energy
Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based Analysis. National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, Colorado Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20–51946, Jul.
NREL, 2016. Annual Technology Baseline. National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL), Golden, CO Sep.
Lazard, 2016. Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis—Version 10.0. Dec.
Hale, E.T., Stoll, B.L., Novacheck, J.E., 2017. Enabling More Solar in Florida: Potential
Roles for Power System Flexibility. Appl. Energy [Forthcoming].
Lee, M.P., et al., 2015. Assessment of Demand Response & Advanced Metering. Federal
Energy and Regulatory Commission (FERC), Washington, D.C Staff Report, Dec.
Energy Exemplar, PLEXOS, 2014. https://energyexemplar.com/software/plexos-desktop-
edition/.
Denholm, P., Novacheck, J., Jorgenson, J., O’Connell, M., 2016. Impact of Flexibility
Options on Grid Economic Carrying Capacity of Solar and Wind: Three Case Studies.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado Technical Report NREL/
TP-6A20-66854, Dec.
Olsen, D.J., et al., 2013. Grid Integration of Aggregated Demand Response, Part 1: Load
Availability Profiles and Constraints for the Western Interconnection. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA Technical Report LBNL-6417E, Sep.
Hummon, M., Palchak, D., Denholm, P., Jorgenson, J., 2013. Grid Integration of
Aggregated Demand Response, Part 2: Modeling Demand Response in a Production
Cost Model. NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO
Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-58492, Dec.
California I.S.O, 2015. Flexible Ramping Product, Revised Draft Final Proposal.
December.
Brady Stoll is an engineer in the Grid Systems Analysis Group at the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory. Her research interests include the potential for demand response in
the United States and abroad, in particular using production cost models to analyze the
impacts of demand response and other flexible technologies on operations of the electric
grid. She also is interested in capacity expansion modeling with the Resource Planning
Model, a tool that analyzes future challenges for the electric grid including policy impacts
and falling renewable energy costs. Dr. Stoll received her Ph.D. in Mechanical
Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. She also holds a master’s degree in
Mechanical Engineering and a bachelor’s degree in Physics from University of Texas at
Austin.
Elizabeth Buechler is a graduate student at Stanford University studying Mechanical
Engineering. She studied demand response at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
during the summer of 2017 with a focus on the operational impacts and value of demand
response end-uses. Ms. Buechler has also performed probabilistic, hygrothermal modeling
of the indoor climates of residential buildings using Monte Carlo methods and the si-
mulation engine EnergyPlus at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. She received her B.S. in
Mechanical Engineering from Tufts University.
Elaine Hale is a senior engineer in the Forecasting & Modeling Group at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. She has over 15 years of experience in computational
systems engineering, numerical optimization, and software development; including six
years developing software for building energy modeling. Her current work focuses on
modeling and analyzing power system flexibility options, including demand response, in
production cost and capacity expansion models under high renewables futures. Dr. Hale
received her Ph.D. and M.S. degrees in Chemical Engineering from the University of Texas
at Austin. She also holds a bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering from the Georgia
Institute of Technology.