Advancing Energy Storage in the States: What s Your 2020 Vision? Nitzan Goldberger State Policy Director April 10, 2019

Transcription

1 Advancing Energy Storage in the States: What s Your 2020 Vision? Nitzan Goldberger State Policy Director April 10,

2 About the ESA 2

3 3

4 Outline of Presentation Storage Policy Menu of Options Value, Competition, Access What Are States Doing? Value Cost benefit studies Storage targets Storage incentives Competition Integrated Resource Planning Distribution Resource Planning Renewable policies Access Multiple Use Application frameworks Distribution interconnection 4

5 ESA Policy Menu Of Options Report outlines menu of options for policymakers to break down energy storage barriers Combination of policies differs from state to state Depends on regulatory context (restructured vs. vertically integrated), funds available, wholesale market considerations 5

6 Policy Options Needed to Address Barriers No price signal or product to capture VALUE of storage Rate design Utility programs Wholesale market products Unable to COMPETE in all grid planning and procurements Integrated and distribution resource planning Wholesale market rules Cannot ACCESS grid or multiple programs Interconnection Multiple-use frameworks 6

7 What Are States Doing? 7

8 Storage Cost-Benefit Studies States are commissioning cost-benefit study to determine the state-specific value of various storage deployment scenarios Robust modeling is key to a successful study These studies have supported state action to set storage targets State Driven By Funding Modeling MA Governor $350,000 Distribution & bulk 2016 NY Governor N/A Distribution & bulk 2018 NV Legislature $250,000 Distribution & bulk 2018 MD Legislature $125,000 No modeling 2018 NC Legislature $220,000 (matching) Distribution & bulk 2018 VA Legislature/ Governor $100,000 TBD 9/2019 NJ Legislature $300,000 TBD 5/2019 Year Completed 8 CO Office of Energy ~$150,000 TBD 6/2019

9 What Value Does Storage Provide? Storage Value Proposition of 1,766 MW of Storage Modeled for Massachusetts Millions Source: MA DOER State of Charge Report, Note: Graph recreated from original State of Charge report. 9

10 Procurement Targets/Goals Oregon: Min of 10 MWh and max 1% of peak load per utility Nevada: Study determined 1,000 MW by 2030 is in the public interest New York: 1,500 MW x 2025 target and 3,000 x 2030 Massachusetts: Target of 1,000 MWh x 2025 California: 1,325 MW x extra 500 MW New Jersey: Study plus 600 MW x 2021 and 2,000 MW x 2030 goal Arizona: 3,000 MW x 2030 (proposed by ACC) Target/goal in place Under development 10

11 States with Storage Incentives California: SGIP program modified in 2016 to focus on BTM storage (~$400M), 2019 legislation (SB 700) added ~$800M New York: ~$400M earmarked for incentives, including $40M for storage adder for NY-Sun program, $130M for 5MW or less, and $150M for bulk incentive Massachusetts: SMART incentive program includes adder for PV systems with storage launched in November 2018 Maryland: Legislature passed first-of-its-kind tax incentive bill (SB 758) in 2017 session with $750K/year through 2022 Nevada: Legislature passed additional incentives for storage in in the solar incentive program in 2017 (SB 145) with $10M in funding 11

12 States + Utilities Incorporate Storage in IRPs Washington: Policy Statement and draft regulations call for sub-hourly modeling and mechanism to value flexibility Colorado: HB /PUC updated all rules to consider storage procurement Michigan: PSC issued guidelines on consideration of storage in 2019 IRPs IRPs in ~32 states 12 PGE: First to use subhourly modeling; net cost approach APS: Novel approach to modeling demand resources Arizona: Regulators rejected utility IRPs, called for evaluation of storage, gas moratorium New Mexico: Revised IRP rules to require consideration of energy storage PNM: Utility employed novel LOLE approach to capture flexibility needs NARUC: A November 2018 resolution calls for modeling the full spectrum of services that energy storage and flexible resources are capable of providing. The NARUC/NASEO Task Force for Comprehensive Electricity Planning is a two-year project, working with 16 states. rce/

13 States are Engaging in Updating Distribution System Planning to Include DER Early days CT CO MN MO Mid-way WA MI NV HI Mature NY CA 13

14 Incorporating Storage into RPS Several states considering Clean Peak Standard Clean Peak Standard bill signed by MA Governor Baker in August 2018 (under development at DOER) Arizona Commission investigating a CPS Illinois legislation would authorize IPA to procure up to 15% clean peak capacity What is the CPS? Clean resources delivered during peak increase over time from the baseline as a % of sales Outstanding issues Consideration of energy storage eligibility is key for storage demand and program efficacy Source: Evolving the RPS white paper, Strategen Consulting, December

15 Multiple Use Frameworks Key for economics and benefit to ratepayers is for the same storage asset to be able to provide multiple applications Same asset providing multiple benefits best bang for the ratepayer buck More revenue streams better economics, more systems States have begun exploring ways to break down the barriers through multiple use application working groups and pilots New York working group California working group Maryland HB 650 storage pilot (awaiting Governor Hogan s signature) 15

16 Asset s Ability to Stack Revenues Is Key 16

17 Distribution Interconnection Why does distribution interconnection matter? Even the best storage targets or incentive program won t result in deployment if storage cannot interconnect Key issues for interconnection of storage Capturing realistic behavior profile of the system Otherwise long study timelines and expensive upgrade costs Commissions in Hawaii, New York, Nevada and Arizona have updated their rules to reflect energy storage Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Colorado and Michigan are considering storage specific modifications 17

18 Thank you