The Long View of Demand-Side Management Programs

  • Ahmad Faruqui
  • Greg Wikler
  • Ingrid Bran
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy Series book series (TREP, volume 40)


One of the primary reasons that the electricity market failed in California during the 2000–2001 period was the lack of dynamic demand response to rising wholesale electricity prices. Had retail customers seen rising prices also, they would have cut back on usage, thereby diminishing the ability of sellers to charge high prices. Having experienced power blackouts in the winter of 2000–2001, Californians cut back on usage during the summer of 2001. Another driver for usage reduction was a variety of demand response programs that were funded to the tune of $1 billion through emergency legislation. Consequently, no blackouts took place, and there was only one Stage III event1, on July 3. Demand dropped by 7,000 MW. Without that reduction in demand, analysts at California’s Independent System Operator (ISO) and at the North American Electricity Reliability Council (NERC) had been expecting the state to experience several hundred hours of blackouts, costing the state economy hundreds of millions of dollars in lost output.


Investment Rate Peak Demand Energy Information Administration Independent System Operator Energy Information Administration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. EPRI, Western States Power Solutions, June 2001, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
  2. Faruqui, Ahmad, Hung-po Chao, Vic Niemeyer, Jeremy Piatt and Karl Stahlkopf. 2001. “Getting Out of the Dark.” Regulation (Fall): 58–62.Google Scholar
  3. Faruqui, Ahmad, Hung-po Chao, Vic Niemeyer, Jeremy Piatt and Karl Stahlkopf. 2001. “Analyzing California’s Power Crisis.” The Energy Journal 22(4): 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Faruqui, Ahmad and Steve Braithwait. 2001. “The Choice Not to Buy: Energy Savings and Policy Alternatives for Demand Response.” Public Utilities Fortnightly (March).Google Scholar
  5. Faruqui, Ahmad, G.A. Wikler and J.H. Chamberlin. 1994. “Clouds in the Future of DSM.” Electricity Journal (July).Google Scholar
  6. Faruqui, Ahmad, C. W. Gellings and K. P. Seiden. 1991. “Potential Energy Savings from Efficient Electric Technologies.” Energy Policy (April): 217–230.Google Scholar
  7. Hadley, Stanton W., Walter Short, David South, Lowell Reid and Michael Sale, “The Electricity Sector,” in Interlaboratory Working Group. 2000. Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future (Oak Ridge, TN; Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Berkeley, CA; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), ORNL/CON-476 and LBNL-44029, November 2000.Google Scholar
  8. North American Electric Reliability Council, Electricity Supply & Demand 2000–2009 -United States, Princeton, NJ, July 2001.Google Scholar
  9. RER and Barakat & Chamberlin, Drivers of Electricity Growth and the Role of Utility Demand-Side Management, TR-102639, EPRI, August 1993.Google Scholar
  10. US Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2001, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmad Faruqui
    • 1
  • Greg Wikler
    • 2
  • Ingrid Bran
    • 2
  1. 1.Charles River AssociatesUSA
  2. 2.Global Energy PartnersUSA

Personalised recommendations