Navigant Research Blog

Can California Wield Energy Storage to Grid’s Advantage?

— July 25, 2017

The California Public Utilities Commission has proposed a ruling that could require thousands of energy storage projects to be more responsive to the dynamic grid as the state continues to grapple with integrating intermittent renewables. The ruling would apply to projects funded by the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP), which underwent a major overhaul this year in a bid to grow energy storage.

In the theme of continual refinement, the ruling proposes to improve projects’ grid support, one of the three key policy goals of SGIP. It would require systems to operate under dynamic tariffs like critical peak pricing or time of use (TOU) or participate as an aggregated demand response or distributed energy resources (DER) product that is bid into the California Independent System Operator’s (CAISO’s) wholesale markets. The goal is to make DER more reactive to real-time changes on the electric grid. The effect on the California’s storage market could be significant, with SGIP likely supporting most of the state’s gigawatt-sized industry through 2020.

Industry Weighs In

The ruling requested comments from all interested parties. Utilities, vendors, and others have weighed in, revealing some key themes:

  • Storage revenue predictability impacts: Many storage deployments primarily monetize by demand charge management, a practice that could become more complex under the new rules. As storage revenue streams continue to be a moving target, this ruling could add complexity to vendors attempting to reliably model the profitability of their projects.
  • Some customers are ineligible: For example, community choice aggregator and direct access customers don’t have access to all the programs and tariffs available to investor-owned utility (IOU) customers. Regarding aggregation in the CAISO market, commentators noted that, while there is a great deal of promise, stakeholder engagement is still in early phases, which could present hurdles to broad adoption.
  • Challenges with existing tariffs: Some expressed concern that existing tariffs and programs may not directly align with SGIP goals. For example, certain TOU customers are guaranteed grandfathered TOU time periods for up to 10 years, which may or may not incentivize battery storage operations to align with SGIP.

New Regulatory Constructs Needed

Many opined that new tariffs or programs are needed to truly get storage systems to align with grid priorities (and carbon emissions mitigation, another of SGIP’s goals). Some predicate their position on whether new TOU rates are rolled out effectively. Others point out that aggregation of storage into virtual power plants may get easier as more DER providers gain approval. And toward the goal of limiting emissions, integrating real-time marginal grid emissions into tariffs would be a major step toward fulfilling SGIPs (and the state’s) carbon emission reduction goals. To that end, companies like the non-profit WattTime are pushing to make such real-time data available, actionable, and ready to implement into tariffs.

The outcome of this ruling remains to be seen, as comments are still being considered. However, one thing is clear: California will continue to push for aggressive integration and aggregation of responsive DER in its quest to develop an advanced and distributed electric grid.

 

Regional Energy Integration Captures National Attention as California Quietly Leads the Way

— November 7, 2016

IT InfrastructureCalls for a North American supergrid enjoyed a brief plug during the final presidential debate when Hillary Clinton, clarifying a past statement publicized by WikiLeaks, stated: “[W]e trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined. And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system, that crosses borders. I think that would be a great benefit to us.”

As Clinton suggested, establishing a regional supergrid could generate numerous benefits, including improved operational efficiency, reduced costs, and the ability to harness renewable power on a bulk scale, thereby accelerating the decarbonization of the electric power system. Yet, as discussed in a recent Navigant Research report, many barriers to supergrid development remain, and a truly integrated hemispheric electricity market seems a distant dream. Even so, progress toward increasing integration within the United States and across North America is proceeding incrementally. California, consistently at the vanguard of energy innovation, offers an example.

California Market Expands, Eyes Mexico

California’s Energy Imbalance Market (EIM) began operating in fall of 2014, when the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) linked up with Oregon-based PacifiCorp to form a wholesale power market. Managed by CAISO, the EIM pools resources across participants’ territories, automatically balancing real-time electricity supply and demand and enabling utilities to access renewable energy generated across a wider geography. NV Energy of Las Vegas joined the EIM in December 2015, and both Arizona Public Service and Puget Sound Energy of Washington joined in October of this year. To date, the EIM has saved over $114 million and avoided over 140,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions.

With a 2-year track record of savings, the EIM is set to expand further. Portland General Electric and Idaho Power are both slated to join within the next 18 months, and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) announced its intent to join in late October. SMUD would be the first municipal utility to join and would likely be followed by several others.

With integration among Western utilities growing, CAISO is now pursuing expansion south of the border, recently announcing plans to explore extending the EIM to Mexican grid operator El Centro Nacional de Control de Energia (CENACE). CENACE’s Baja California Norte Grid already has two connections to the California grid, and its participation in the EIM is expected to enhance the overall economic and environmental benefits of the market while opening additional renewable generation to Mexico, which is targeting 35% of its electricity from renewables by 2024.

Full Integration a Long Way Off

Despite steady growth, the EIM represents only limited energy market integration. The EIM’s authority is restricted to balancing real-time supply and demand among participants and dispatching least-cost resources to meet load requirements every 5 minutes. CAISO is also pursuing a full-service day-ahead regional energy market that would require deeper market integration and, in theory, lead to more comprehensive benefits. The regional energy market would take the form of an expanded CAISO and would be designed to enable more efficient integration of renewable resources, improve regional transmission planning, and optimize use of all available generation and transmission capacity in the day-ahead market, further reducing consumer costs.

Under state legislation, CAISO is required to complete studies on the environmental and economic benefits of a regional energy market and to submit a proposal for CAISO expansion before the end of 2017. Final study results were released in July, but the proposal was delayed to allow more time to address concerns, including the risk that integrating with coal-heavy PacifiCorp could hurt California’s clean energy agenda. The proposal is now expected to reach the state legislature in January.

With potential EIM expansion into Mexico and a broader regional energy market plan in the works, California has cemented its role as a major driver of increasing energy market integration in the West. Yet the incremental nature and uncertain pace of integration suggest that the hemispheric electricity system Hillary Clinton alluded to is still a long way off.

 

Title 24 Is Lighting the Way for Building Energy Efficiency Standards

— October 11, 2016

LEDsIn the United States, California is seen as a leader in energy efficiency policy, due in large part to Title 24, a part of the California Energy Commission’s Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards reduce electricity and natural gas usage in the state, preventing the construction of additional power plants. Title 24 is focused on both residential and non-residential buildings and dates back to 1987. The standards are updated on a roughly 3-year cycle; the current version of the standards went into effect on July 1, 2014 and will be superseded by the 2016 standards, which are set to take effect on January 1, 2017.

2013 Standards

The current 2013 standards improved upon the 2008 version for new construction as well as additions and alterations made to buildings across multiple areas, including lighting, mechanical systems, and electrical power distribution, among others. Previously, lighting for non-residential buildings needed to comply with the most current standard when 50% of luminaires were replaced.

However, the 2013 standards increased this requirement, stating that lighting alterations must comply with the most recent standards when as little as 10% of luminaires are replaced, a requirement that is consistent with changes to the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 standard. The 2013 standards also require that non-residential building lighting controls must include continuous dimming or three intermediate levels between on and off settings, compared with the one intermediate level previously required.

The 2013 standard also specified multiple changes to the use of occupancy sensors linked to lighting. Parking garages must incorporate occupancy sensors so that lights on seldom-visited levels can be dimmed or turned off when not needed. Warehouses, stairwells, and corridors must include lighting controls that partially dim lights when the space is unoccupied. In addition, hotels must include occupancy controls linked to all lighting fixtures, including plug-in lighting (such as table lamps) and HVAC equipment.

2016 Standards and Beyond

The 2016 standards will build upon the 2013 iteration in an aim to increase energy efficiency. Under the new standards, non-residential lighting control requirements will be easier to apply in regard to occupancy controls and multi-level lighting. When multi-level controls are needed, they will only be required to allow the user to activate control steps. If the lighting is dimmable, then the multi-level control must be a dimmer that allows for this in addition to a manual on and off function.

The new standards also include new exceptions to multi-level lighting requirements. Public restrooms and areas that are required to utilize full or partial off occupancy sensors are now exempt from multi-level requirements.

The new standards are projected to be 5% more energy stringent for non-residential buildings and 28% more stringent for the residential requirements. As the Title 24 standards continue to evolve and increase their stringency, they have become progressively more significant by increasing energy efficiency requirements for new construction and renovations and retrofits. Title 24 serves as a beacon for other states looking to revise and create building energy standards.

 

Distributed Energy Resources Hit the Auction Blocks in California and New York

— August 30, 2016

Cyber Security MonitoringAs we head into the fall fantasy football season, this summer has been good practice for those in the distributed energy resource (DER) world to value their portfolios and bid into auctions to provide their services. In both California and New York, utilities recently held auctions to procure DER to address electric grid needs. Although the outcomes are similar, the methodologies to get there were quite different.

First, California’s investor-owned utilities—Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDGE)—ran the second edition of the state’s Demand Response Auction Mechanism (DRAM). Since the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) does not have a capacity market, the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) ordered the utilities to offer DRAM as a way to incentivize DER to provide similar product characteristics to capacity. In total, the utilities procured almost 82 MW, about 4 times the minimum requirement of 22 MW. However, a group of bidders is currently petitioning the CPUC, arguing that the utilities could have procured even more resources within their budgets.

New York took the spotlight in the form of Consolidated Edison’s (ConEd’s) Brooklyn Queens Demand Management (BQDM) auctions in July. Unlike DRAM, which is concentrated on statewide capacity issues, BQDM is a focused effort to relieve distribution constraints in a targeted area of high load growth. While final results are not yet public, initial information from ConEd states that 22 MW of resources were procured for 2018 from 10 bidders, with clearing prices ranging from $215/kW/year to $988/kW/year. These prices are much higher than ConEd’s existing demand response programs, which pay in the area of $90/kW/year, and the New York Independent System Operator’s (NYISO) capacity market, which offers around $130/kW/year in ConEd’s territory.

Different Mechanisms

There are some notable differences between the DRAM and BQDM mechanisms. First, DRAM has one product with a standard set of requirements that all bidders must meet and compete against. BQDM has two separate product types that bidders must choose to offer, one for the 4-8 p.m. time period and another for the 8 p.m.-12 a.m. period. These 4-hour blocks were created to allow energy storage devices with 4-hour charging capacities to participate.

Another major difference is the auction process itself. DRAM is a pay-as-you-bid format, where bidders submit their offers by a deadline and then the utilities review them and select the least-cost combination of bids, with each bidder receiving its submitted price. BQDM, on the other hand, is a live, descending clock auction, in which bidders log into an auction platform at a given time and can submit bids as prices are displayed. The price keeps decreasing until the auction reaches its desired number of megawatts. Then all remaining bidders receive that uniform clearing price, even if they would have bid lower than that price. The pay-as-you-bid versus uniform clearing price debate is a classic economic debate that has raged for years.

As usual, there are multiple paths that can achieve similar goals. Best practices and lessons learned will be observed with experience—but I doubt if California and New York will ever admit that the other did something better.

 

Blog Articles

Most Recent

By Date

Tags

Clean Transportation, Digital Utility Strategies, Electric Vehicles, Energy Technologies, Policy & Regulation, Renewable Energy, Smart Energy Practice, Smart Energy Program, Transportation Efficiencies, Utility Transformations

By Author


{"userID":"","pageName":"California","path":"\/tag\/california","date":"8\/16\/2017"}