Battery Energy Storage

Similar documents
California Independent System Operator (CAISO) Challenges and Solutions

FORECAST ACCURACY REPORT 2017 FOR THE 2016 NATIONAL ELECTRICITY FORECASTING REPORT

2018 FORECAST ACCURACY BENCHMARKING SURVEY AND ENERGY TRENDS. Mark Quan

2018 Annual Review of Availability Assessment Hours

SMART GRID FORECASTING

Customer-Meter Unit Cost of Electricity Customer-Meter Unit Cost of Electricity ($/kwh) = [Total Cost ($/yr) - Option Capacity Value ($/yr)]

Report on System-Level Estimation of Demand Response Program Impact

2013 WEATHER NORMALIZATION SURVEY. Industry Practices

APPENDIX 7.4 Capacity Value of Wind Resources

Multivariate Regression Model Results

Net Export Rule 1 : Deriving the generation value of storage device G(t)

Capacity Scarcity Condition Monday, September 3, 2018 Two primary factors led to the implementation of OP 4 event Significant generation outages and r

From Sales to Peak, Getting It Right Long-Term Demand Forecasting

CAISO Participating Intermittent Resource Program for Wind Generation

LOADS, CUSTOMERS AND REVENUE

NATIONAL ELECTRICITY FORECASTING REPORT UPDATE FOR THE NATIONAL ELECTRICITY MARKET

Wind Generation Curtailment Reduction based on Uncertain Forecasts

2013 FORECAST ACCURACY BENCHMARKING SURVEY AND ENERGY

ENERGY STORAGE MANAGEMENT AND LOAD SCHEDULING WITH RENEWABLE INTEGRATION. Tianyi Li. Doctor of Philosophy

NSP Electric - Minnesota Annual Report Peak Demand and Annual Electric Consumption Forecast

Renewables and the Smart Grid. Trip Doggett President & CEO Electric Reliability Council of Texas

Draft Wholesale Power Price Forecasts

Integration of Behind-the-Meter PV Fleet Forecasts into Utility Grid System Operations

A Multi-objective Approach to Optimal Battery Storage in The Presence of Demand Charges

SHORT TERM LOAD FORECASTING

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WIND STUDY REPORT SOUTH AUSTRALIAN ADVISORY FUNCTIONS

Tackling the Photovoltaic Integration Challenge in the Distribution Network with Deferrable Load

REVISED UPDATED PREPARED DIRECT SAFETY ENHANCEMENT COST ALLOCATION TESTIMONY OF GARY LENART SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND

Bringing Renewables to the Grid. John Dumas Director Wholesale Market Operations ERCOT

Optimal Demand Response

PROJECT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Energy Forecasting Customers: Analysing end users requirements Dec 3rd, 2013 Carlos Alberto Castaño, PhD Head of R&D

PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF GREGORY TEPLOW SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY AND SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

A Unified Framework for Defining and Measuring Flexibility in Power System

Business Case: UV Facility Backup Generator

International Workshop on Wind Energy Development Cairo, Egypt. ERCOT Wind Experience

Better Weather Data Equals Better Results: The Proof is in EE and DR!

On-line supplement to: SMART: A Stochastic Multiscale Model for the Analysis of Energy Resources, Technology

Use of Normals in Load Forecasting at National Grid

Colorado PUC E-Filings System

not for commercial-scale installations. Thus, there is a need to study the effects of snow on

RD1 - Page 469 of 578

EIA411 May 1, A Report to the Office of Energy Emergency Operations Department of Energy Under EIA-411

Homework 6 Solar PV Energy MAE 119 W2017 Professor G.R. Tynan

Predicting Solar Irradiance and Inverter power for PV sites

Battery aging and their implications for efficient operation and valuation

ISO Smart Grid Use Case

UPDATE ELECTRICITY STATEMENT OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE NATIONAL ELECTRICITY MARKET

Javier Contreras Sanz- Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha Jesús María López Lezama- Universidad de Antioquia Antonio Padilha-Feltrin- Universidade

Defining Normal Weather for Energy and Peak Normalization

peak half-hourly New South Wales

Residential Demand Side Management Under High Penetration of Rooftop Photovoltaic Units

The Dayton Power and Light Company Load Profiling Methodology Revised 7/1/2017

2014 FORECASTING BENCHMARK AND OUTLOOK SURVEY. Mark Quan and Stuart McMenamin September 16, 2014 Forecasting Brown Bag Seminar

Multi-objective Dynamic Programming for Constrained Optimization of Non-separable Objective Functions with Application in Energy Storage

Design of an Energy Management System Using a Distribution Class Locational. Marginal Price as a Discrete Control Signal.

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OREGON UE 294. Load Forecast PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY. Direct Testimony and Exhibits of

Debbie Lee, Communications and Public Affairs Officer. Update on Southern California Edison s Capital Improvement Projects

A SOLAR AND WIND INTEGRATED FORECAST TOOL (SWIFT) DESIGNED FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY VARIABILITY ON HAWAIIAN GRID SYSTEMS

Recent US Wind Integration Experience

Gorge Area Demand Forecast. Prepared for: Green Mountain Power Corporation 163 Acorn Lane Colchester, Vermont Prepared by:

Information Document Calculation of Pool Price and Transmission Constraint Rebalancing Costs During a Constraint Event ID # R

CHAPTER 5 - QUEENSLAND FORECASTS

T E S L A T O A C Q U I R E S O L A R C I T Y

Forecast Postalised Tariff 2015/ /20. Utility Regulator Explanatory Note. August Introduction

Value of Forecasts in Unit Commitment Problems

2006 IRP Technical Workshop Load Forecasting Tuesday, January 24, :00 am 3:30 pm (Pacific) Meeting Summary

June 2, 2006 ADVICE 2009-E (U 338-E) PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY DIVISION

peak half-hourly Tasmania

WIND INTEGRATION IN ELECTRICITY GRIDS WORK PACKAGE 3: SIMULATION USING HISTORICAL WIND DATA

Into Avista s Electricity Forecasts. Presented by Randy Barcus Avista Chief Economist Itron s Energy Forecaster s Group Meeting

MISO September 15 Maximum Generation Event Overview. October 11, 2018

Page No. (and line no. if applicable):

Improving Short- Term Load Forecasts by Incorporating Solar PV Generation

Planning a 100 percent renewable electricity system

SUPPLEMENTAL PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER SWARTZ ON BEHALF OF SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY IN SUPPORT OF SECOND AMENDED APPLICATION

Fundamentals of Transmission Operations

Power System Seminar Presentation Wind Forecasting and Dispatch 7 th July, Wind Power Forecasting tools and methodologies

Weather Normalization: Model Selection and Validation EFG Workshop, Baltimore Prasenjit Shil

UNBILLED ESTIMATION. UNBILLED REVENUE is revenue which had been recognized but which has not been billed to the purchaser.

Integrating Wind Resources Into the Transmission Grid

Implementation Status & Results Djibouti Djibouti Power Access and Diversification Project (P086379)

Cost of Inflow Forecast Uncertainty for Day Ahead Hydropower Production Scheduling

Shining Light on an Issue with Solar Energy 2. Shining Light on an Issue with Solar Energy

The Weather Information Value Chain

Stochastic Unit Commitment with Topology Control Recourse for Renewables Integration

Battery Storage Control for Steadying Renewable Power Generation

Superstorm Sandy What Risk Managers and Underwriters Learned

IMA Preprint Series # 2373

2018 & 22 Final LCR Study Results Summary of Findings

Prediction of Power System Balancing Requirements and Tail Events

Time Series Model of Photovoltaic Generation for Distribution Planning Analysis. Jorge Valenzuela

A Contract for Demand Response based on Probability of Call

Total Market Demand Wed Jan 02 Thu Jan 03 Fri Jan 04 Sat Jan 05 Sun Jan 06 Mon Jan 07 Tue Jan 08

A Model for a Zonal Operating Reserve Demand Curve

Reducing Contingency-based Windfarm Curtailments through use of Transmission Capacity Forecasting

Colorado PUC E-Filings System

Optimal Demand Response

Integrated Electricity Demand and Price Forecasting

RTO Winter Resource Adequacy Assessment Status Report

Transcription:

Battery Energy Storage Implications for Load Shapes and Forecasting April 28, 2017

TOPICS» What is Energy Storage» Storage Market, Costs, Regulatory Background» Behind the Meter (BTM) Battery Storage Where is it used? How is it used? Real world examples (California research)» How to analyze storage? Simulations vs. Data» Where is the market going? 2

WHAT IS ENERGY STORAGE?» The capture of energy produced at one time for use at a later time. Pumped Hydro Compressed Air Batteries 3

BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE Dominating technologies» Dominated by Lithium Ion Batteries followed by flow batteries 4

BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE Size categories» Transmission connected» Distribution Connected» Behind the Meter Source: Rocky Mountain Institute 5

WHY STORAGE NOW? Falling Costs Tesla Gigafactory Rising Demand Charges Now make up 50% or more of commercial bills More Intermittent Renewables Balance variability Offer the ability to line up peaks Reliability Power Outages Hurricane Sandy 6

BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE Grid Scale Source: Greentech Media» Catastrophic leak Oct. 2015 at Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility threatened to cause power outages across Southern CA» 70 MW of energy storage deployed in 6 months 7

BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE Behind the Meter C&I 8

BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE Behind the Meter Residential 9

U.S. ANNUAL DEPLOYMENT FORECAST Advanced Energy Storage, 2012-2021 (MW) Source: Greentech Media 10

CAPITAL COSTS Lithium Ion BTM Source: Itron DG Cost Effectiveness Model» Tesla data point remains unproven -claims to be ~½ price of prior versions 11

BTM STORAGE REGULATORY DECISIONS Regulatory Background» California Self-Generation Incentive Program modified to included standalone storage in 2011 Most recently program funding doubled to $166 million per year (85% storage allocation)» California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) mandated 1,325 Megawatts of storage by 2024» Hawaii and Australia reformed tariffs to encourage selfconsumption» New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey provide incentives for energy storage 12

CALIFORNIA BTM RESEARCH Self-Generation Incentive Program

HOW IS BTM STORAGE BEING USED IN CA? What we know so far» Backup Power» PV Self-Consumption» Demand Charge Reduction» TOU Bill Management» Aggregated Demand Response 14

WHERE IS BTM STORAGE BEING DEPLOYED? What we know so far Note: SGIP is ~18% of estimated U.S. annual deployment at 2016 15

WHERE IS BTM STORAGE BEING DEPLOYED? What we know so far Non-Res 16

SGIP DATA ANALYSIS During 2015» Collected interval performance data from storage systems, merged with AMI data Aggregated results: 2015 Individual case studies: 2016» Focused on customer energy and peak demand Coincident and non-coincident demand» Residential and Non-Residential PBI = Large C&I 17

NON-RESIDENTIAL (C&I) STORAGE PROJECTS

ENERGY IMPACT Distribution of 15-Minute kwh Charge/Discharge 15-Min Charge / Discharge kwh Most (+80%) of the time systems are idle Charge/Discharge patterns are fairly symmetrical, so annual energy impact is negligible 19

METRICS: ROUND-TRIP EFFICIENCY Non-residential AES projects, 2014-2015 RTE = total kwh of discharge from the storage project total kwh of charge Program Requirement: 63.5% annual RTE 20

CASE STUDY 1 CITY GOV. BUILDING 2016 Data, Narrow Peak Calculated Load AMI Load Storage Discharge (+) / Charge (-) 21

CASE STUDY 2 CITY GOV. BUILDING 2016 Data, Wide Peak Calculated Load AMI Load Storage Discharge (+) / Charge (-) 22

CASE STUDY 3 CITY GOV. BUILDING 2016 Data, DR Example Calculated Load AMI Load Storage Discharge (+) / Charge (-) 23

CASE STUDY 4 CITY GOV. BUILDING 2016 Data, Another DR Example Calculated Load AMI Load Storage Discharge (+) / Charge (-) 24

CASE STUDY 5 GROCERY STORE / EV CHG. 2016 Data, Idle Calculated Load AMI Load Storage Discharge (+) / Charge (-) 25

SMALL C&I PROJECTS (NON-PBI) Charging not coordinated Total kwh of Discharge (Charge) per kw Rebated Capacity, Non-PBI Projects 2015 H o u r Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0-0.12-0.10-0.11-0.07-0.12-0.14-0.12-0.18-0.10-0.09-0.08-0.08 1-0.18-0.09-0.14-0.10-0.08-0.08-0.06-0.12-0.07-0.07-0.12-0.15 2-0.06-0.12-0.10-0.09-0.11-0.05-0.04-0.13-0.06-0.10-0.13-0.18 3-0.13-0.13-0.10-0.12-0.16-0.03-0.06-0.10-0.05-0.07-0.09-0.14 4-0.19-0.23-0.05-0.15-0.16 0.00-0.04-0.05-0.05-0.06-0.09-0.13 5-0.27-0.15-0.07-0.13-0.10-0.13-0.16-0.20-0.08-0.09-0.12-0.16 6-0.30-0.04-0.09-0.05-0.12-0.08-0.09-0.14-0.07-0.04-0.10-0.09 7-0.19-0.06-0.12-0.13-0.15-0.11-0.10-0.15-0.09-0.05-0.12-0.13 8-0.32-0.18-0.21-0.23-0.25-0.28-0.25-0.23-0.14-0.11-0.11-0.17 9-0.23-0.28-0.18-0.22-0.19-0.31-0.27-0.24-0.12-0.11-0.14-0.12 10-0.19-0.23-0.29-0.32-0.23-0.31-0.23-0.31-0.17-0.15-0.06-0.04 11-0.26-0.17-0.35-0.32-0.37-0.32-0.31-0.36-0.21-0.22-0.04 0.00 12-0.21-0.01-0.14-0.07-0.12-0.24-0.20-0.16-0.07-0.02-0.03-0.05 13-0.33-0.32-0.29-0.29-0.21-0.35-0.26-0.15-0.11-0.06-0.15-0.13 14-0.20-0.08-0.15-0.06-0.11-0.13-0.12-0.34-0.29-0.30-0.13-0.14 15-0.22-0.31-0.29-0.27-0.25-0.29-0.28-0.33-0.25-0.28-0.25-0.25 16-0.16-0.20-0.22-0.24-0.25-0.24-0.19-0.28-0.23-0.26-0.22-0.28 17-0.10-0.02-0.11-0.11-0.16-0.14-0.11-0.20-0.14-0.18-0.17-0.20 18-0.17-0.12-0.16-0.17-0.18-0.18-0.19-0.20-0.15-0.18-0.16-0.15 19-0.18-0.23-0.19-0.24-0.18-0.20-0.17-0.16-0.13-0.16-0.15-0.13 20-0.15-0.11-0.12-0.16-0.14-0.14-0.15-0.12-0.12-0.13-0.11-0.11 21-0.15-0.10-0.12-0.14-0.14-0.14-0.12-0.20-0.12-0.12-0.11-0.11 22-0.15-0.09-0.12-0.12-0.12-0.12-0.12-0.23-0.11-0.11-0.10-0.09 23-0.15-0.11-0.10-0.11-0.14-0.13-0.13-0.16-0.10-0.08-0.05-0.03 26

LARGE C&I PROJECTS (PBI) Large C&I (PBI) Projects Charge Overnight, Discharge in Evening Total kwh of Discharge (Charge) per kw Rebated Capacity, PBI Projects 2015 H o u r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0-0.05-0.29-0.39-0.54-0.94-1.35-1.43-1.65-1.63-1.49-1.18-1.07 1-0.04-0.27-0.31-0.40-0.56-0.91-0.73-1.15-1.14-1.23-1.55-1.18 2-0.04-0.26-0.28-0.33-0.19-0.39-0.18-0.66-0.56-0.77-1.27-1.07 3-0.04-0.22-0.22-0.30-0.07-0.15-0.11-0.43-0.31-0.57-0.79-0.76 4-0.04-0.14-0.19-0.23-0.05-0.09-0.06-0.26-0.16-0.37-0.59-0.56 5-0.03-0.08-0.18-0.16-0.03-0.05-0.04-0.18-0.11-0.37-0.45-0.47 6-0.02-0.03-0.13-0.11-0.02-0.03-0.02-0.12-0.07-0.27-0.39-0.39 7-0.01 0.00-0.04 0.01-0.02 0.00-0.01-0.01-0.03-0.17-0.28-0.31 8-0.01 0.05-0.01 0.12-0.01 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.03-0.02-0.12-0.16 9 0.01 0.07-0.01 0.03 0.00 0.03-0.05-0.01-0.02 0.08 0.02-0.01 10 0.00 0.07-0.01 0.03 0.02 0.06-0.01 0.07 0.04-0.02 0.06 0.00 11-0.01 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.13 0.22 0.03 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.24 0.15 12-0.01 0.07 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.37 0.08 0.29 0.20 0.23 0.28 0.27 13 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.14 0.44 0.11 0.26 0.24 0.20 0.28 0.16 14-0.01 0.09 0.12 0.20 0.36 0.52 0.25 0.39 0.31-0.17-0.08-0.22 15-0.02 0.10 0.14 0.27 0.62 0.65 0.68 0.82 0.48-0.17-0.06 0.07 16 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.60 0.46 0.63 1.12 0.39-0.10 0.01-0.09 17 0.02 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.20 0.12 0.14 0.54 0.17 0.11 0.02-0.03 18 0.00 0.18 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.17 0.26 0.53 0.88 1.23 0.44 0.28 19 0.01 0.14 0.17 0.12 0.19 0.26 0.48 0.68 1.06 1.51 1.58 1.34 20-0.01 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.13 0.23 0.38 0.56 0.75 1.42 1.68 1.50 21-0.01-0.12-0.11-0.16-0.57-0.65-0.72-1.13-0.97-0.64 0.99 1.26 22-0.05-0.31-0.20-0.17-0.45-0.31-0.08-0.40-0.49-0.10-0.71-0.59 23-0.05-0.29-0.30-0.38-0.94-1.01-0.98-1.62-1.31-1.06-0.11-0.20 Charging overnight, when energy is cheap, discharging in evening, when demand is highest and energy most expensive 27

LARGE C&I (PBI) PEAK DEMAND REDUCTION Average Non-Coincident Peak Load Reduction by Month, per Customer (PG&E) Significant increase in non-coincident peak load reduction during summer months, compared to the rest of the year PBI projects saved an average of ~$0.8 per kw rebated storage capacity in demand charges 28

2015 COINCIDENT PEAK IMPACTS Only Large C&I (PBI) Project Contributed to Coincident Peak Demand Reduction 29

Net Discharge (MWh) Tons CO2 per MWh Net Discharge (MWh) Tons CO2 per MWh NON-RESIDENTIAL AES CO 2 IMPACTS Alignment of grid emissions with charge/discharge Large C&I» Generally discharging during higher marginal emission hours Marginal Emissions Compared to Aggregate Discharge (Charge), PBI Projects, 2015 60 40 20 0-20 -40-60 Summer 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Hour of Day 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 60 40 20 0-20 -40-60 Winter 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Hour of Day 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Small C&I» With low efficiency, net charging in all hours Net Discharge Marginal Emissions Net Discharge Marginal Emissions Marginal Emissions Compared to Aggregate Discharge (Charge), No-residential, Non-PBI Projects, 2015 Summer Winter 0 0.7 0 0.7-0.5 0.5-0.5 0.5-1 0.3-1 0.3-1.5 0.1-1.5 0.1-2 -0.1-2 -0.1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Hour of Day Hour of Day Net Discharge Marginal Emissions Net Discharge Marginal Emissions 30

NON-RESIDENTIAL CO 2 IMPACTS Population of estimates» Net increase in GHG emissions for both large and small C&I systems» Round trip efficiency losses outweigh GHG savings for large C&I systems despite on-peak discharge» More variable discharge for small C&I larger increase in GHG emissions» Note: these impacts do not include the contribution of storage to integrating renewables Large C&I Small C&I 31

RESIDENTIAL STORAGE PROJECTS

RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS Appear to be charging from solar and responding to rates Total kwh of Discharge (Charge) per kw Rebated Capacity, Residential Projects, 2015 H o u r Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0-0.28-0.25-0.28-0.25-0.26-0.26-0.28-0.29-0.29-0.29-0.24-0.26 1-0.28-0.25-0.28-0.25-0.26-0.26-0.29-0.29-0.29-0.29-0.24-0.26 2-0.28-0.27-0.28-0.25-0.26-0.26-0.29-0.29-0.29-0.29-0.25-0.26 3-0.28-0.25-0.28-0.25-0.26-0.26-0.29-0.30-0.29-0.29-0.25-0.27 4-0.29-0.25-0.28-0.25-0.26-0.26-0.29-0.30-0.29-0.29-0.26-0.27 5-0.28-0.25-0.28-0.25-0.27-0.27-0.29-0.30-0.29-0.29-0.26-0.27 6-0.28-0.25-0.28-0.32-0.50-0.54-0.48-0.37-0.30-0.29-0.26-0.28 7-0.28-0.26-0.44-0.78-1.10-0.94-0.97-0.79-0.61-0.44-0.30-0.28 8-0.31-0.62-1.47-2.25-2.59-2.20-2.19-2.05-2.00-1.84-1.12-0.50 9-1.50-2.17-3.65-3.30-2.73-3.06-3.77-3.91-3.87-4.08-3.42-1.89 10-2.90-2.85-1.71-0.64-0.47-2.05-2.95-2.88-3.16-3.47-5.18-3.07 11-1.60-0.46-0.31-0.45-0.31-2.14-3.58-3.29-3.42-2.92-6.04-2.36 12-1.05-0.33-0.29-0.44-0.35-2.05-4.01-3.53-3.76-2.30-5.95-2.04 13-0.72-0.67-0.36-0.24-0.37-1.65-3.81-3.32-3.24-1.10-3.23-1.31 14-0.82-0.45-0.56-0.74-0.83-0.88-1.63-1.12-1.22-0.17-0.56-0.89 15-0.42-0.44-0.72-0.50-0.40-0.61-1.18-0.56-0.68 0.17 1.08-0.55 16-0.63-0.55-0.33-0.36-0.50 1.39 4.19 3.46 4.28 1.41 1.80-0.07 17-0.47-0.52-0.56-0.55-0.62 2.01 4.44 3.81 3.78 1.53 2.93 0.25 18-0.22-0.30-0.48-0.43-0.50 2.79 4.54 3.56 3.25 1.62 3.30 0.26 19-0.22-0.21-0.27-0.31-0.39-0.47-0.53-0.42-0.19 0.55 2.89 0.24 20-0.24-0.23-0.27-0.25-0.26-0.23-0.25-0.25-0.24-0.29 2.27 0.24 21-0.27-0.25-0.27-0.25-0.26-0.23-0.25-0.27-0.27-0.29-0.23-0.23 22-0.28-0.25-0.27-0.25-0.26-0.24-0.27-0.28-0.27-0.29-0.24-0.24 23-0.28-0.25-0.27-0.25-0.26-0.25-0.28-0.29-0.28-0.29-0.24-0.25 Box shows hours that correspond with utility s higher TOU rate H o u r Total kwh of Solar Output, Residential Projects, 2015 Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 1.37 5.22 1.24 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 0.00 0.00 0.72 33.84 132.22 160.17 117.25 45.73 6.02 0.56 0.01 0.00 7 0.43 3.61 89.60 302.35 492.07 402.76 412.66 305.38 198.64 89.79 13.29 1.20 8 70.69 240.20 738.17 1209.20 1426.98 1221.52 1205.92 1113.81 1065.01 960.35 516.22 120.95 9 751.56 1175.95 2077.80 1920.67 1643.83 1847.94 2238.92 2284.08 2249.48 2366.15 1940.27 1003.33 10 1681.15 1725.66 1089.06 502.17 435.73 1317.05 1854.55 1778.56 1934.10 2156.00 3044.13 1750.61 11 1211.06 585.37 431.15 494.85 436.46 1423.47 2274.63 2061.77 2124.16 1936.95 3624.31 1389.51 12 1054.19 545.29 499.39 554.83 508.31 1406.07 2567.07 2226.06 2360.23 1648.94 3687.04 1304.05 13 977.38 704.08 544.40 563.56 604.52 1257.41 2527.71 2148.21 2112.89 1082.45 2411.80 976.69 14 1031.63 629.47 716.49 832.44 918.46 895.37 1362.99 981.09 1061.76 774.02 1316.87 789.36 15 664.60 582.05 780.99 706.62 680.45 740.71 1084.70 643.98 748.22 786.27 736.53 613.50 16 526.38 519.67 478.07 511.51 633.21 795.12 448.78 433.37 374.86 594.82 412.73 351.38 17 247.94 341.06 416.54 451.67 548.50 458.04 405.89 341.22 354.30 356.38 150.26 97.80 18 13.75 111.18 238.62 266.92 336.40 310.78 331.93 285.48 217.36 60.59 0.91 0.25 19 0.00 0.19 18.75 98.44 180.85 246.09 279.27 177.88 23.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 7.08 35.61 30.37 2.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 All residential projects in our sample are paired with solar 33

WHAT S NEXT? Rates, etc.» Storage prices will continue to drop, seeing a shift towards longer duration storage (4hr vs 2hr)» If utilities continue phasing out NEM tariffs, solar + storage value proposition will increase Hawaii, Australia, Arizona, Nevada, California In CA, SGIP will now prioritize projects paired with PV» Increased demand charges -> increased storage» Increased ability for utilities to control load 34

HOW TO THINK ABOUT STORAGE?» Annual, monthly, and daily energy impacts are negligible (small net increase)» Impacts on the customer load shape are somewhat unpredictable in both magnitude and timing Not all peaks are shaved» We don t expect to see any mitigation of the duck curve until NEM or feed in tariffs are phased out Will lead to solar self consumption 35

HOW TO MODEL STORAGE?» Dispatch models (AMI data + PV data + tariff + storage info) Typically assume perfect optimization based on load, customer generation, and rates Not representative of current storage technologies Not representative of current» Sub-metering Can be costly, not always actionable 36

KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR LOAD FORECASTING» Energy impacts at all levels (customer/feeder/system) are negligible» Storage behavior can largely (albeit imperfectly) be predicted based on tariffs Commercial customers with high demand charges will primarily act to mitigate peak demand Residential customers on TOU rates will primarily act to shift load across periods Customers on NEM 3.0 tariffs will primarily act to maximize PV self consumption 37

THANK YOU www.itron.com

BACKUP

Discharge Capacity Factor METRICS: STORAGE UTILIZATION Non-Residential 2014 and 2015 Storage discharge capacity factor defined as: 70% kwh Discharge Hours of Data Discharge Capacity 60% *60% represents the SGIP Handbook assumption of 5,200 discharge hours per yr (5,200 / 8,760 = 60%) 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Months of Data Available PBI Non-PBI 18 of 21 (86%) PBI projects had capacity factors of at least 10% (required to receive full PBI payment) 40