Navigant Research Blog

Cybersecurity Pros Are Hiding the Breaches: This Must Stop

— May 31, 2017

Even the security good guys are failing us. That’s the upshot from the new survey of cybersecurity experts conducted by Bromium, a cybersecurity firm based in Cupertino, California.

The company surveyed attendees at the RSA Conference 2017 and others as part of a combined extended study and found startling results:

  • On average, 10% of security professionals said they had paid a ransom or hid a breach without telling their team members (5% at RSA, 15% in the extended study). Note: some 638 million ransomware attacks took place in 2016, which implies that tens of millions of such attacks are likely going unreported.
  • On average, 35% of security professionals said they went around, turned off, or bypassed their own corporate security settings (38% at RSA, 32% in extended study of United States and United Kingdom security professionals).

The folks at Bromium said the results “kind of blew their minds.” No kidding. This level of failure to act is shocking. But on further analysis, perhaps understandable. The bad guys have both the incentives and easy access to the tools needed to break into servers and cause havoc.

For grid operators, this is not good news. An updated U.S. News & World Report article last year noted it took hackers just 22 minutes to get employees at an electric facility north of Seattle to bite on phishing emails. It was only an exercise, but proved the point that the grid is vulnerable and that humans are often the weakest link.

Security Fatigue

One of the root causes among cybersecurity professionals for this lack of diligence is security fatigue, as pointed out in a TechRepublic story. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) defines this fatigue as “weariness or reluctance to deal with computer security.” The author recommends that companies reduce such fatigue by boosting the relevance and importance of security alerts to an IT team and emphasizing the need for constant security vigilance.

It is hard to argue with that recommendation. However, I would take things a step further: institute regular focused training on how to combat threats combined with controlled drills or testing, like the one at the plant near Seattle. It is unacceptable that people we need to trust have such careless attitudes and avoid actions in the face of threats. It is hard to admit, but we are in far deeper trouble on this front than imagined. We must do better.


Beyond Ultra-Fast Charging: Part 1

— May 31, 2017

Now that the continued decline in battery prices can make battery EVs (BEVs) cheaper to drive than the competition, ultra-fast charging is viewed as the final link to making them mainstream. Given that, the automotive industry is focusing on approximating the time it takes to gas up by rolling out ultra-fast charge networks in North America and Europe.

Tesla’s success with the supercharger network supports the above assumption, but there may be flaws in the ultra-fast charging concept relating to the basics of batteries. The primary component being that charging at a power capacity (measured in kilowatts) higher than the BEV’s battery energy capacity (measured in kilowatt-hours) stresses the battery, reducing its useful capacity over time. Most of the upcoming vehicles capable of accepting an ultra-fast charge will likely have battery capacities between 30 kWh and 80 kWh, whereas upcoming ultra-fast chargers can provide 120 kW-320 kW or more, 4-10 times the battery’s energy capacity.

Reducing Side Effects of Ultra-Fast Charging

Automakers and charging networks can develop systems to diminish the cumulative effects that ultra-fast charging has on batteries (as recently evidenced by Tesla). These solutions are effectively reducing the charging rate under certain technical and ambient environment conditions, limiting the value-add of the fast charging. Such limitations haven’t yet been seriously evidenced because the fastest charging today is only operating at around 2 times the battery capacity. Most charging generally occurs at sub-1X rates.

Only when BEV owners primarily rely on fast charging over slow charging will these limitations become more common and more concerning to potential customers. This is more and more likely given the increasing range of BEVs alongside the development of the ultra-fast charging networks. The advances in BEV and charging technologies mean that BEVs will no longer be limited to single-family homeowners with a reliable charging station in the garage. Indeed, many without residential parking spaces (and therefore charging equipment) may now view the long range BEV an option so long as they can fast charge.

Such ambitions should be tempered through consumer education efforts and/or the development of more modest slow charging options in long-term parking structures. This unfortunately further complicates an already complicated pitch to the mass market. It also threatens consumer consideration of electrification or limits use of the ultra-fast chargers themselves. However, such concern is warranted to avoid negative shifts in consumer perceptions.

Overall, as long as BEVs are primarily purchased by single-family homeowners, this potential problem is probably marginal. However, for the future transportation modes dominated by automated vehicles, it is likely a non-starter.


Energy Storage Industry Jobs Linked to Energy Storage Capacity

— May 25, 2017

Jobs in the energy storage industry in the United States are expected to grow substantially over the next decade. In a white paper prepared for the Energy Storage Association (ESA) on an Energy Storage Vision in the United States, Navigant Research modeled the value of 35 GW of energy storage by 2025 against the cost of storage in the same period. Value was measured in terms of job creation, emissions reductions, grid operational cost savings, and reliability.

Jobs in the US Energy Industry

In January 2017, the US Department of Energy (DOE) published its U.S. Energy and Employment Report, calculating the total employment across sectors of the energy industry, including storage. The findings in this report provided a reference point for estimating total employment in the industry between 2017 and 2025.

According to the U.S. Energy and Employment Report, there were a total of 90,831 individuals directly employed in the US energy storage industry during 2016. These direct jobs include battery and component manufacturing and R&D, engineering and construction (project development), operations and maintenance, sales, marketing, management, administrative, and other positions. Most of these portions of the value chain will see job growth as the industry scales.

Energy Storage Capacity and Jobs

Navigant Research estimates that approximately 225 MW of new energy storage capacity was deployed in the United States during 2016. Using the DOE estimate as a starting point, this represents 403.7 jobs per MW of installed energy storage system capacity. Given that the storage industry is still nascent, and considering the complexities of storage technology project development, we expect the number of jobs per unit of capacity to start high and then decrease rapidly over time. By comparing solar PV industry jobs per unit of new capacity over the past decade, Navigant Research estimated future job creation under the ESA Energy Storage Vision market forecast.

In 2008, about 250 MW of new solar PV capacity was installed in the United States, and the industry supported approximately 35,000 jobs. As the market and annual deployments grew, the number of jobs per MW of capacity decreased substantially. In 2016, an estimated 10,800 MW of new solar PV was built in the United States, and the industry employed 260,777 people per the Solar Foundation’s National Jobs Census 2016. This equates to 24.1 jobs per MW of new capacity.

 Decline in Number of Energy Storage Industry Jobs per MW

Navigant Research expects a similar decline in the number of industry jobs per MW of new energy storage capacity as the market matures. The number of solar jobs per MW of new capacity decreased gradually until 2011, the year after the solar industry experienced a bump in deployments. Market growth triggered industry learning, efficiency, and economies of scale in the solar PV space. Given the current state of the storage industry and growth projections, Navigant Research estimates that the energy storage industry is on the verge of experiencing a similarly dramatic decrease in the number of industry jobs per MW of new capacity. The number of jobs per incremental MW in the storage industry is expected to decrease from 403.7 in 2016 to 50.9 in 2021 and 32.5 in 2025 for a total of 368,836 jobs in 2025.

Cumulative Energy Storage Industry Jobs, Vision Scenario, United States: 2016-2025

(Source: Navigant Research)

Navigant Research will discuss the Energy Storage Vision results and other key findings during a webinar with Matt Roberts, executive director of the ESA, on May 30 at 2 p.m. EDT.


PJM’s Latest Capacity Auction Shows Drop in Demand Response, but Not Catastrophic

— May 25, 2017

The holding of breath for PJM’s annual capacity auction results ended on May 23, with the results indicating mixed feelings. The price for most of the market was down from $100/MW/day for the 2019-2020 auction last year to $76.53/MW/day for 2020-2021. However, certain subzones cleared at nearly twice that price or more, so bidders in Chicago, Philadelphia, New Jersey, and Cincinnati came out smiling.

For demand response (DR), there was a lot of speculation going into the auction about the effect that the first 100% Capacity Performance procurement would have. Some analysts predicted 50% or greater reductions in DR participation, assuming most DR providers and customers would not want to take on annual performance risk. In my Market Data: Demand Response report for Navigant Research last year, I estimated a 25%-30% reduction, feeling that large commercial and industrial (C&I) customers would continue to participate; DR providers would continue to aggregate midsize C&I customers with more conservative megawatt values; and residential DR would take the biggest hit since it is almost all summer based.

Pricing, Aggregation Rules Influence Auction

The actual reduction was 24% from the last auction, dropping from 10,348 MW to 7,820 MW. Nothing to sneeze at, but far from a total market abandonment. Last year, only 614 MW of DR cleared as an annual product, so there was a large portion that was willing to convert. Pricing may have influenced DR quantities as well. While all zones decreased year-over-year, the zones with the lowest prices showed the biggest drops and those with higher than expected prices shed fewer megawatts.

This was also the first auction in which PJM instituted new aggregation rules, where summer and winter resources could match up with each other to meet the annual obligation. While 2,000 MW of summer resources (mostly DR, energy efficiency, and solar PV) submitted aggregation bids, only 485 MW of winter resources bid (mostly wind), limiting the effects of the new mechanism.

Silver Linings

Historically, EnerNOC has happily proclaimed its percent procurement of PJM DR in the auctions, but has been quiet the last couple of years. However, this year EnerNOC tweeted: “@EnerNOC captures 34% of the DR market in #PJM BRA.”

On the residential DR side, it appears that the Exelon utilities—which have been the biggest bidders in that sector—largely pulled out of the auction from the supply side. The utilities had put out an RFP in March looking for 700 MW of winter resources with which to aggregate, but apparently did not find enough partners. However, this does not mean that they exited the capacity market entirely. PJM reported that, for the first time, price-responsive demand resources cleared in the auction to the tune of 558 MW, mostly in the Baltimore Gas and Electric and Pepco regions—likely from those host utilities. If those megawatts get added to the DR megawatts that cleared in the auction, the drop is only 19% from last year.

All in all, I’d consider this a positive outcome for DR compared to some of the draconian forecasts. Now we’ll have to see how well the market performs once the annual requirement kicks in.


Blog Articles

Most Recent

By Date


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":"2017 May","path":"\/2017\/05","date":"7\/20\/2017"}