California Energy Storage Procurement in Action Prepared for Germany Trade and Invest
Chris Edgette Senior Director, CESA, Strategen Consulting July 16, 2014
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
A sampling of our clients:
Strategic thinking and industry expertise creates profitable clean energy businesses
U.S. Department of
Energy
Strategen
1
CESA 2014 MEMBERSHIP
CESA STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
1 Energy Systems, A123 Energy Solutions, AES Energy Storage, American Vanadium, Aquion Energy, Ares, Beacon Power, Bosch Energy Storage Solutions, Bright Energy Storage, Brookfield, CALMAC, ChargePoint, Clean Energy Systems Inc., CODA Energy, ConEdison Development, DN Tanks, Eagle Crest Energy, EaglePicher, EDF Renewable Energy, EnerSys, EnerVault EVGrid, FAFCO Thermal Storage Systems, FIAMM Energy Storage Solutions, Flextronics, Foresight Renewable Systems, Geli, Green Charge Networks, Greensmith Energy Management Systems, Gridscape, Gridtential Energy, Halotechnics, Hecate Energy LLC, Hydrogenics, Imergy, ImMODO Energy Services, K&L Gates LLP, KYOCERA Solar, LG Chem Ltd., LightSail Energy, LS Power, NRG Energy, OCI Company Ltd., OutBack Power Technologies, Panasonic, Parker Hannifin, PDE Total Energy Solutions, Primus Power, RedFlow Technologies, Rosendin Electric, S&C Electric Co., Saft America, Seeo, Sharp, Silent Power, Silent Power, Sovereign Energy Storage LLC, Stem, Stoel Rives LLP, Sunpower, TAS Energy, and Wellhead Electric Co.
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Join us in San Jose on September 30 – October 2, 2014
3
JOIN THE INDUSTRY
LEADERS
Mike Florio Commissioner –
California Public Utilities Commission
Carla Peterman Commissioner –
California Public Utilities Commission
Mateo Jaramillo Director of Powertrain Business Development
Tesla Motors
Peter Rives Co-Founder & CTO
Solar City
Victor Vilaplana VP, Electric and Fuel Procurement, SDG&E
John Norris Commissioner
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Fong Wan SVP, Energy Procurement
Pacific Gas & Electric
JoAnne Butler VP, Electricity Resources Ontario Power Authority
Jeanne Fox Commissioner – NJ
Board of Public Utilities
Supporting Partners Media Partners
4
Global Energy Storage Alliance – New Global Non Profit
“Advance education, collaboration, knowledge and proven frameworks about the benefits of energy storage and how it can be used to achieve a more efficient, cleaner, reliable, affordable and secure
electric power system globally”
GESA Mission
© 2014 Strategen
TECHNOLOGY TYPE LEADING US STATES
PROJECTS BY COUNTRY (Top 14)
0 100 200 300 400
Compressed Air
Other
Flywheel
Thermal Storage
Pumped Hydro
Electrochemical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
355
76 67 61 48
33 25 24 23 22 20 19 19 17
UnitedStates
China Japan Spain Germany Italy France Australia UnitedKingdom
Switzerland South Korea Austria Netherlands India
July 2014: 939 Projects Worldwide, 185 GW
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
California’s Electric Power System Faces Big Challenges
San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station (SONGS) has been permanently shut down since January of 2012, taking
2,254MW offline.
San Onofre Plant Name MW
Scheduled Phase-Out
Date El Segundo, Harbor (LADWP), Morro Bay
550 December 31, 2015
Encina, Contra Costa, Pittsburg, Moss Landing
950 December 31, 2017
Haynes (LADWP) 1,581 December 31, 2019
Huntington Beach, Redondo, Alamitos, Mandalay, Ormond Beach, Scattergood (LADWP)
888 December 31, 2020
Diablo Canyon Power Plant 2,240 December 31, 2024
Many power plants could go offline in the next decade for a variety of reasons
(1) Sierra Club Report: “Meeting California’s Electricity Needs Without San Onofre or Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plants”. CEC Docket 13-IEP-1D, TN 71790, Jul 29, 2013
Once-Through Cooling Phase-Out Schedule(1)
7
Retiring OTC Capacity 6,209 MW
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
California’s Electric Power System Faces Big Challenges
Planned renewable procurement will drastically affect California’s net load
8
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy storage is a better flexible resource for California
9
(1)Excluding start-up and shutdown time
(2)http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011_energypolicy/doc
uments/2011-02-15_workshop/comments/California_Energy_Storage_Alliance_03032011_TN-59863.pdf
100 MW Gas Turbine
10 minute ramp
50 MW flexible range
2768 useable hours/year(1)
6500 gallons per hour
Status quo GHG emissions
Energy storage can provide much greater benefits per MW as a flexible resource!
Energy Storage
Benefits
>600x the ramp rate
>4x the flexible range
>3x the operational
hours
Less water usage on
many sites
Lower GHG
emissions
100 MW Energy Storage
<1 second ramp
200 MW of flexible range
>8300 useable hours/year
Little to no water usage
Reduces GHG emissions by up to
90%(2)
VS.
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
AB 2514 Overview – A Unique Mandate for California
Cost-Effectiveness is a REQUIREMENT Under AB 2514
10
1. Targets the procurement of viable and cost-effective energy storage systems.
2. IOUs must achieve first procurement target by December 31, 2015, and a 2nd target by December 31, 2020.
o POU procurement targets end of 2016 and 2021
3. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) must reevaluate targets every 3 years.
4. CPUC must consider policies to enable cost-effective deployment of energy storage systems.
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Historic Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling: 1.325 GW Goal!
Use case category, by utility 2014 2016 2018 2020 Total
Southern California Edison
Transmission 50 65 85 110 310
Distribution 30 40 50 65 185
Customer 10 15 25 35 85
Subtotal SCE 90 120 160 210 580
Pacific Gas & Electric
Transmission 50 65 85 110 310
Distribution 30 40 50 65 185
Customer 10 15 25 35 85
Subtotal PG&E 90 120 160 210 580
San Diego Gas & Electric
Transmission 10 15 22 33 80
Distribution 7 10 15 23 55
Customer 3 5 8 14 30
Subtotal SDG&E 20 30 45 70 165
Total – all 3 Utilities 200 270 365 490 1,325
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
AB 2514 Supports Energy Storage’s Diversity & Modularity
12
Bulk Storage
Ancillary Services
Distributed Storage
Distributed Storage
Commercial Storage
Residential Storage
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
AB 2514 Implementation Process and Timeline
Final Decision implementing recommendations
Conduct Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Key Applications
Propose procurement recommendations
Revise Recommendations Set Cost-Effectiveness Methodology
2013
2014 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
February 28 , 2014
IOUs to file procurement application
October 1, 2014
POU Compliance Deadline
December 1, 2014
First round of solicitations
Complete Cost Effectiveness Evaluation
June 19, 2014
Final Day to Request Evidentiary Hearings
Late August, 2014
Proposed Decision Mailed (anticipated)
October, 2014
Final Decision (anticipated)
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Storage is Now Part of Ongoing Utility Procurement
CPUC Decision Approves $26M in SDG&E’s 2012 General Rate Case May 9, 2013
$26 million for distributed storage/grid reliability $4.8 million per year ($19 million total) for additional RD&D projects including energy storage Procurement to occur immediately and over next few years
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Storage Is Now Part of Long Term Procurement Planning
LTPP decision requires minimum of 50MW (SCE) for local capacity requirements
LTPP Track 4 Decision, D14-03-004 March 13, 2014. page 83
SCE Procurement Authorization and Requirements (Track 1 and Track 4)
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Storage Is Now Part of Long Term Procurement Planning
LTPP decision requires minimum of 50MW (SCE) for local capacity requirements
LTPP Track 4 Decision, D14-03-004 March 13, 2014. page 83
SCE Procurement Authorization and Requirements (Track 1 and Track 4)
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Storage Is Now Part of Long Term Procurement Planning
LTPP decision requires minimum of 50MW (SCE) for local capacity requirements
LTPP Track 4 Decision, D14-03-004 March 13, 2014. page 83
SCE Procurement Authorization and Requirements (Track 1 and Track 4)
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Storage Is Now Part of Long Term Procurement Planning
LTPP decision requires minimum of 25MW (SDG&E) for local capacity requirements
SDG&E Procurement Authorization and Requirements (Track 4)
LTPP Track 4 Decision, D14-03-004 March 13, 2014. page 86
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Storage Is Now Part of Long Term Procurement Planning
LTPP decision requires minimum of 25MW (SDG&E) for local capacity requirements
SDG&E Procurement Authorization and Requirements (Track 4)
LTPP Track 4 Decision, D14-03-004 March 13, 2014. page 86
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Storage Is Now Part of Long Term Procurement Planning
LTPP decision requires minimum of 25MW (SDG&E) for local capacity requirements
SDG&E Procurement Authorization and Requirements (Track 4)
LTPP Track 4 Decision, D14-03-004 March 13, 2014. page 86
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Reforms at the CAISO enabling storage in wholesale market
21
» Market Design – New rules for storage set for: Effective flexible capacity / Flexible RA Net qualifying capacity / System and Local RA
» Transmission Planning Non-Conventional Resource study methodology
piloted in 2013; implemented system-wide in the 2014 study process
» Resource Interconnection Approximately half of CAISO’s most recent queue cluster (QC7) have storage
components representing more than 1,500 MW of new storage capacity! CAISO allowing generators to add storage to existing projects via material
modification process Stakeholder initiative underway to reform generator interconnection process
• Use cases and study assumptions • How to handle charging in the generator interconnection process
CAISO leading multi-jurisdictional roadmap for Energy Storage
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Hundreds of Storage Projects are Underway Behind the Meter Attractive value propositions are possible with the SGIP and PLS
Size Restriction:
» Maximum size: A standalone system can be no larger than the host customer’s previous 12-month annual peak demand at the proposed site. A generation-paired system can be no larger than the generation system it is paired with
» Must meet onsite load – Max. 25% export to grid
Discharge Capacity Criteria:
» Rated Capacity = average discharge kW over 2 hours » Standalone systems must be able to discharge once per
day » Wind-coupled projects must be able to handle “hundreds”
of partial discharge cycles per day.
Incentive Payment Method:
» Tech Based, 50% up front, 50% PBI (100% up front if <30kW)
» Incentive calculations are separate for companion technologies
Minimum Required Round Trip Efficiency (AC to AC)
67.9%
Capacity Factor 10%
(% total yearly capacity the system is in operation)
Cost Cap » Applicants must pay a minimum of 40% of the eligible
project cost » $5 million maximum incentive amount per project
Warranty Requirement » All SGIP-eligible systems must have a minimum 10 year
warranty on all major components of the system
SGIP General Requirements for Energy Storage After Tax IRR Impacts*
8%
13% 12%
18%
13%
20%
17%
23%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Base Case StorageOnly
Storage w/PV
No Incentives SGIP FITC SGIP + FITC
*Assumes 100kW, 2h storage system, Base Case CAPEX & OPEX, High School Load, Year 1 in 2014, 3.5% escalation rate, SCE TOU-8B Secondary Service, 350kWp PV system
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Behind the Meter SGIP Applications (767 by 1/14)
134
183212
253 253 253 253
109124
136 143 143 143 143
145
155157
684604
132
276273
258
229
76
2013 Q1-Q3
2,382
136
2012
2,271
117
2011
1,715
77
2010
1,544
519
299
79
2002
260
138
2001
70
920 920
81
920 920 920 920 920
2009
1,390
2008
1,360
2007
1,353
2006
1,316
920
2005
1,007
651
2004
898
595
2003
86 83
920
684
276
157
136 86
76 24 14
Total
2,382 9
1. Other is comprised of pressure reduction turbines and waste heat to power Note: Cancelled projects excluded Source: SGIP Quarterly Statewide Reporting Q3 2013 (www.cpuc.ca.gov) Chart courtesy of Bryan Early, Conservation Strategy Group
Cumulative number of SGIP projects 2001-2013
Other1
Gas
turbine
Wind
Fuel Cell Elec.
Bio Gas
Fuel Cell CHP
Fuel Cell Elec.
Microturbine
Internal
Combustion
A.E.S. (Adv. Electrical Storage)
Photovoltaic
Technology
SGIP
inception
SGIP
Timeline
06/07: PV
phased out of
program
07/08: CHP
phased out of
program
08/09:
A.E.S., Fuel
Cells and
Wind
become
eligible for
SGIP
10/11: revamp;
technology
neutral, focus
on emission
reductions
Cumulative Data
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
SGIP Reauthorization Finalized - $415 Million!
Five Year Extension @$83M/year (2015-2019) is complete….
Governor Jerry Brown
AB 1466
Assembly member Nancy Skinner
AB 1499
Assembly member Richard Gordon
AB 1624
SB 861 signed into law by Governor Brown 6/20/14
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
EV Update: SDG&E Pilot
»Overview $103M VGI Pilot Targeting workplace and multi-unit dwelling (MuD) 10 years 5,500 charging stations
»CESA Response - Key Principles • Create a fair, balanced, and competitive market for EV charging that supports
multiple business models and ownership structures and encouraging investment, and healthy growth of all market participants
• Accelerate market penetration of EVs and EV infrastructure in a sustainable way
• Adopt Programs to minimize ratepayer subsidies and use EV adoption to manage overall ratepayer cost
• Create programs that facilitate consumer choice and attract private capital
• Implement pilot programs & use data to enable cost-effective EV infrastructure deployment
25
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Key Takeaways
California is a now ‘bankable’ market for energy storage
26
1. California policy makers and utilities recognize energy storage as key to grid
planning and operations
2. California IOUs will procure at least 1.325 GW by 2020 (and maybe even much more)
3. California now has $415 million in new incentive funding for behind the meter storage projects
Best way to learn more about California and N. American market is to Attend Energy Storage North America and
Join CESA!
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
More Information
» Contact : Chris Edgette • Email: [email protected] • Office: 510 665 7811 extension 101 • Mobile: 415 595 8301
» Strategen – custom consulting advisory http://www.strategen.com
» CESA Membership
http://www.storagealliance.org/
» GESA information http://www.globalesa.org
» Energy Storage North America
Sep 30-Oct 2, 2014 San Jose Convention Center, CA http://www.esnaexpo.com/
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Comparing Energy Storage With The Status Quo
28
• Siting Constraints
• Installation Speed
• Available Flexible Range
• Capacity Factor (hours of operation/year)
• Multiple Value Stream Capture
• Ramp/Response Rate
• Total Emissions
• Water Usage
VS.
Natural Gas Peaker Energy Storage
Key Criteria to Consider
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Syst
em
Lo
ad (
MW
) California’s Electric System Is Not Being Efficiently Utilized
29
The current electric system must have enough transmission, distribution, generation capacity for the largest annual peak load
Most of the year, the system is operating at
about 55% of peak
Weekly average load
California Load
Data Source: CAISO 2011 OASIS Data – Graph is for illustration purposes only.
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Storage lets us utilize the system assets we have more efficiently
30
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Syst
em
Lo
ad (
MW
) During peak times, storage helps to reduce overall load, reducing the need for excess generation capacity
With storage, we can better utilize existing grid resources during off-peak times
Data Source: CAISO OASIS Data – Graph is for demonstration purposes only.
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy Storage Can Be Sited Closer to the Load
Russell City Energy Center Hayward, Ca
ES Siting Source: Powertree Integrated Energy Services
31
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy Storage: Diverse, Modular, Faster to Install! Battery and thermal storage resources can be installed much more quickly
than traditional resources, reducing risk and increasing technology flexibility
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CCGT
Combustion Turbine
Battery/Thermal Storage
Time in Years
Minimum Time
Maximum Time
Siting, Permitting, and Installation Time by Resource
32
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy Storage: Four Times the Flexible Range
33
Important to compare benefits, not megawatts
100MW LMS 100
Gas Peaker Plant1
100MW Energy Storage System
50MW Min. Output
100MW Max. Output
50 MW Range 100MW Discharge
-100MW Charge
200MW Range
1. Source: http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/air/EPSS.NSF/e0c49a10c792e06f8825657e007654a3/8a153d8ab24cb6868825723400679b82/$FILE/WCE%20Evaluation.pdf
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy storage can be utilized more fully throughout the year
Energy Storage: Three Times the Utilization
34
100 MW LMS 100
Gas Peaker Plant1
100MW Energy Storage System
>95% Utilization Utilization
20%-40%
0% 50% 100%
Startup Time
Shutdown Time
Min Utilization
Max Utilization
Unutilized
1. Source: http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/air/EPSS.NSF/e0c49a10c792e06f8825657e007654a3/8a153d8ab24cb6868825723400679b82/$FILE/WCE%20Evaluation.pdf
0% 50% 100%
Startup Time
Shutdown Time
Min Utilization
Max Utilization
Unutilized
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Status Quo: CT Operation at EME Walnut Creek Energy Park
35
State of the art LMS 100 installations require significant start-up and shutdown operating hours, accounting for at least 20% of operations:
Startup Hours; 350h
Shutdown Hours; 350h
Min Operating Hours; 1.052h
Max Operating Hours; 1.716h
Not Utilized; 5.292h
EME Walnut Creek Energy Park SCAQMD Analysis(1)
Capacity Factor - min 20%
Capacity Factor - max 40%
Operating Hours - Normal 2768
Operating Hours - Start-up 350
Operating Hours - Shutdown 350
Service Factor - Normal 32%
Service Factor - Total 40%
Minimum load 50%
Average load 75%
Starts/year 350
Max starts/day 2
Max start-ups/year 350
Start-up time (minutes) 35
1) http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/air/EPSS.NSF/e0c49a10c792e06f8825657e007654a3/8a153d8ab24cb6868825723400679b82/$FILE/WCE%20Evaluation.pdf
Chart of Annual Plant Operation
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy Storage Can Capture Multiple Value Streams
36
Energy storage can be fully utilized throughout the year, providing multiple services from a single asset
99,7%
4,2% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
EnergyStorage
CombustionTurbine
0%
100%
% U
tiliz
atio
n
% Total Annual Hourly Asset Utilization
Graphs based on EPRI cost effectiveness model data, “Bulk Peaker substitution application” CPUC Workshop March 25, 2013
Energy storage is a cost effective way to provide numerous benefits to many stakeholders, few of which can be monetized today.
Down Regulation
Up Regulation
Spinning Reserves
Energy
Services Provided by Energy Storage Over the Year*
*All services include charging and discharging bids
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy storage responds far more quickly and is more effective
Energy Storage Can Respond Faster and is More Effective
37
Energy Storage System
Full Power Ramp
<1 second
Graph Source: Kirby, B. “Ancillary Services: Technical and Commercial Insights.” Wartsilla, July, 2007. pg. 13 1. http://www.cpvsentinel.com/about.html
LMS 100 Gas Peaker Plant
Full Power Ramp
10 Minutes
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Conventional Peakers are Expensive and Use Tons of Water
38
1) Source: CEC http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-800-2009-003/CEC-800-2009-003-CMF.PDF
J-Power Orange Grove Peaking Plant
• 100 MW (2 x LM6000)
• $174/kW-year in capacity revenue (Source: FERC EQR)
• 25 year tolling agreement with SDG&E
“Water delivery will require approximately one [6500 gallon] truck per hour for fresh water and one truck per hour for reclaimed water during times when the plant is operational.”1
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Even Repowered Peakers are Expensive
39
LADWP Haynes Repower 6 x LMS100 $782M / 577.8 net MW Cost: $1353/kW1 Due to repower, cost excludes: • Land aquisition & permitting • New transmission infrastructure • Site access construction
1) Source: http://www.powermag.com/ladwp-harnesses-lms100-to-solve-once-through-cooling-dilemma/
Repower: Building a new power plant on the same site as an old, decommissioned plant
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Emission Impacts Due to Cycling CCGTs & CTs
40
NREL concluded that cycling conventional power plants has significant impacts on emissions
CO2 Emissions Penalties(1)
Power Plant Type Part-Load(2) Ramping(3) Start/Stop
Gas Combined Cycle (CCGT) 15% 1% 30%
Gas Combustion Turbine (CT) 17% 1% 40%
NOX Emissions Penalties(1)
Power Plant Type Part-Load(2) Ramping(3) Start/Stop
Gas Combined Cycle (CC) 29% 8% 610%
Gas Combustion Turbine (CT) 16% 1% 180%
1) Listed as percentage penalty over the equivalent full‐load operation for one hour 2) Assumes operation at 50% of capacity 3) Ramping leads to far less emissions compared to startups, but occurs more often
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL/PR‐6A20‐55828): Impacts of Renewable Generation on Fossil Fuel Unit Cycling: Costs and Emissions (May 20, 2012)
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Cost Effectiveness Results: Bulk Peaking Power Plant Use Case
41
Preliminary results by EPRI using stakeholder input showed a benefit to cost ratio over one for nearly every scenario
» Projects were assumed to be utility scale projects starting in 2015 and 2020
» Cost effectiveness results did not include GHG benefits of storage or GHG costs due to AB32 implementation
» High renewable penetration cases had the highest benefit to cost ratios for storage.
» GHG benefits for storage are greater the more renewables we have on the grid.
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance 42
Storage effect on flexible capacity
Longer duration energy storage can shift larger amounts of
energy, adding flexible capacity while reducing the flexible
capacity need overall1
Reducing the need for flexible capacity (raising the red line) will
lead to a cleaner grid due to a greater reliance on long-duration
energy sources
1. Using CAISO’s proposed structuring of flexible capacity, from the fifth FRAC-MOO straw proposal
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance 43
Fast storage contribution to the three hour ramp Regulation is a key component of flexible capacity, though it only
makes up a percentage of the overall flexibility requirement
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Storage Can Help Optimize Existing Fossil Assets
Build cleaner CCGT’s, let them run at max efficiency
» Generation comes on “in
order”
» Cheaper & cleaner “baseload”
is always on
» More expensive, dirtier
“peakers” turn on in
succession.
» Let storage be load following
» Energy Storage can even cut
costs & reduce emissions!
Daily System Energy Demand
$ and CO2
44
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Storage Can Help Optimize Existing Fossil Assets
Build cleaner CCGT’s, let them run at max efficiency
» Generation comes on “in
order”
» Cheaper & cleaner “baseload”
is always on
» More expensive, dirtier
“peakers” turn on in
succession.
» Let storage be load following
» Energy Storage can even cut
costs & reduce emissions!
Daily System Energy Demand
$ and CO2
45
Charge
Discharge
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy Storage Can Help Address California’s New Net Load
46
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Why Renewable Energy + Energy Storage Is the Future
47
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
Inst
ant
Co
sts
($/k
W)2
Photovoltaic Solar (Single Axis) Conventional Simple Cycle CT
1. Source: California Energy Commission 2. 2009 starting dollars, escalated at 2.5% per year
Upfront Cost of Solar vs. Traditional Generators1
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1.000
$1.200
$1.400
$1.600
$1.800
$2.000
2012 2015 2020
CA
PEX
($
/kW
h)
NEDO/DOE 2010 Li Ion Cost Projections
Key Trends » Industry is tracking DOE & NEDO cost reductions for Li-ion (10X improvement in ten years) » Upfront costs for traditional generators are increasing » Renewable costs are decreasing, reducing the charging costs for energy storage
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy Storage Is A Very Broad Asset Class
48
Chemical Storage
(Batteries)
Mechanical Storage
(Flywheel)
Bulk Mechanical Storage
(Compressed Air)
Thermal Storage
(Ice) (Molten Salt)
Bulk Gravitational Storage
(Pumped Hydro) (Gravel)
Top Related