Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sto‑Rox SD board hears pitch to earn money by curtailing power in PJM demand‑response program
Summary
NRG Direct Energy representatives told the Sto‑Rox School District board that joining a PJM demand‑response program could bring capacity payments to the district with no upfront cost beyond staff time; the company described a typical five‑year contract and a 70/30 revenue split and answered questions about building suitability and metering.
The Sto‑Rox School District board on Monday heard a presentation from NRG Direct Energy on a demand‑response program that would pay the district for temporary, verifiable reductions in electricity use during peak PJM capacity events.
Tom Linsky, a regional representative for NRG Direct Energy, told the board that capacity charges are a growing part of electricity costs and said participation lets school buildings act as a “virtual power plant” by reducing load at brief, scheduled times. “In effect, you become a virtual power plant,” Linsky said, explaining that capacity is a standby charge that helps keep the lights on during peak demand.
Jake Frey, a colleague, described typical contract terms and enrollment logistics. Frey said the company generally offers a five‑year agreement and emphasized that signing secures a spot in the program but does not obligate the district to curtail more than the volume it nominates. He said there is no out‑of‑pocket cost to join beyond staff time to participate in planning and testing. “We offer a 5‑year contract, which you're not agreeing to anything when signing the contract other than being a part of the program,” Frey said.
Presenters explained how the program is verified: the district would sign a third‑party authorization allowing the utility (Duquesne Light) to provide interval data, which the firm’s engineers analyze to identify realistic curtailment opportunities. The district would run a two‑hour test with company engineers and staff to validate the reduction action plan. The presenters listed several local districts already participating and said typical reductions focus on HVAC set‑points, lighting and plug loads.
Board members asked how engineers determine whether particular buildings are suitable. Linsky said most work can be done virtually by analyzing utility interval data and then discussing operations, hours and equipment with district staff; an on‑site component is limited to testing. He cautioned that the largest financial benefits often come from long‑term efficiency work that lowers future capacity and transmission charges, not just from demand‑response payouts.
Board members requested a copy of the presentation slides for staff review. No formal enrollment decision was made during the meeting; the presentation was informational and the board did not vote on joining the program.
