Date post: | 13-Apr-2017 |
Category: |
Engineering |
Upload: | society-of-women-engineers |
View: | 541 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Gamification of Residential Demand Response
Vicki KuoSection Manager, Customer Technology
Con EdisonOctober 24, 2015
1
Agenda
• Lets talk Games!
• Challenges for Con Edison residential demand response programs
• Gamification project concept
• Findings
• Q&A
2
Gaming Statistics
•Gaming is a $22.4 billion dollar industry.
• 44% of gamers are female. Most frequent female gamer is on average 43 years old.
• 35% of the people surveyed use their smartphone for gaming.
•Gamers play an average of 6.5 hours a week.
http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-2015.pdf
Why do we like games?
• Studies have shown gaming to be an effective way to engage participants in a reward system.
•Research have shown gamers to have higher level of dopamine release in the brain than non-gamers.
•Dopamine is associated with happiness and euphoria.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/brain/video-games#.UcmtcjvVB68
Hours
Load
(MW
)
3,1114,0015,0016,0017,0018,0019,001
10,00111,00112,001
4,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000
10,00011,00012,00012,836
25817
1,7042,0942,48270746833013423
Load Range (MW) Number of Hours
8,784 Hours - Leap Year
What is Demand Response?
5
23 hours (or 0.3% of the year) comprised the top
800 MW
Managing Summer Peak Demand
• Over 6 million room AC on Con Edison’s system
• Unit capacity 500 - 2000 W
• Represents ~2,500 MW of load
• ~20% of summer time load
7
Customer
View and controlremotely
via Internet
CoolNYC Program
CoolNYC Challenges
8
• Device connection rates• Event participation duration (opt-out time)• Cost effectiveness– Incentive payout– Mobility of room AC population
$0.10for sure
$100 with a 1 in 10,000 chance
Question• Do you want….
A B
Raffle Incentive Project
10
Gamification Project Concept
11
• Behavioral bias: Overweighting small probabilities – Large gamble is preferred to small but certain rewards
• Basic Idea: rather than pay each customer his/her contributed marginal benefit; pool total system benefit and raffle a few large rewards
• Benefits:– Can circumvent ‘small payment syndrome’
– Cost effective: can actually pay less on an average customer basis
– Repeated payments for performance will reinforce the bias
• Experimental Group– Lottery incentive– N = 200 households
• Control Group– Fixed rebate incentive of $25 for entire summer– N = 200 households
• Demand Response Events– Each event is 4 hours in duration (7 PM - 11 PM)– 5ºF temperature setpoint increase– 6 Events called over the summer 2014 (unseasonably cool)
12
The Experiment Design
13
The Incentive Mechanism: Lottery Tier Qualification
14
Mean Customer Participation Times
The difference in performance is most pronounced on the hottest day.
µe = mean event participation time for experimental groupµc = mean event participation time for control group
• The average marginal cost to the utility was– experimental group: $0.67 / hour of customer participation
– control group: $1.1 / hour of customer participation15
Mean Customer Participation Times
16
Dependency on Temperature
• Early winners stayed more engaged even with small prizes• Lowered incentive payout• Incentive design for (disruptive) load control
programs should exploit these behavioral biases
17
Findings
Questions?
18