CPUC Seeks Comments in AB 2514 Electric Storage System (ESS) Docket R.10-12-007
California’s AB 2514 directs the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) to determine appropriate targets, if any, for load-serving entities to procure viable and cost-effective energy storage systems. If the CPUC decides that targets are appropriate, it is supposed to set dates for achieving those targets.
As a follow up to an AB 2514 workshop held on June 28, 2011, Administrative Law Judge Amy C. Yip-Kikugawa issued a ruling asking for comments on the presentations made at the workshop by the California Energy Commission, the California Independent System Operator, Southern California Edison, the California Energy Storage Alliance, AES Energy Storage, Beacon Power Corporation and KS Engineers, all of which were attached to the ruling. The ruling asks the parties to comment on whether they agree or disagree with the presentations.
In addition, the ruling seeks comments from parties on the following questions:
- Which barrier(s), either identified by the presenters or the CPUC, do you believe present the greatest impediment to more widespread usage of energy storage and development of ESS in California?
- Are there other barriers that were not identified during theworkshop? Please explain how these other barriers impede theusage or development of energy storage and whether they needto be resolved at the Commission or other forums.
- To whatextent can the Commission assist in removing these barriers?In your opinion, are there certain barriers that need to beresolved first, and therefore have higher priority?
The deadline for comments is August 29, 2011, and reply comments will be due September 16, 2011. Your can find a copy of the ruling and attachments here.
CEC Holds Workshop on Energy Storage for 2011 IEPR
The 2011 IEPR Committee Workshop on Energy Storage for Renewable Integration was held Thursday, April 28th at the California Energy Commission (CEC) offices in Sacramento. The Workshop was presented in a three panel format, with each panel addressing specific topics, including (1) the need for energy storage in light of California’s renewable portfolio standard, greenhouse gas goals, smart grid and demand response, (2) the costs, benefits and revenues from energy storage applications, and (3) utility perspectives on energy storage. The full agenda, which describes the topics and the questions addressed at the Workshop, can be found here.
The CEC is not planning any further workshops on energy storage, but it will be making recommendations about the topic in its 2011 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). We understand that the CEC is seeking input on energy storage from all arenas, including developers and owners of gas-fired peaker plants. Among other things, the CEC wants to understand the economic and environmental benefits and impacts of peakers (i.e., facilities that have the ability to ramp up in ten minutes, generate for a full hour, then be taken off line) compared to the cost and benefits of various energy storage technologies. The CEC will use the information it gathers to determine if it makes sense economically to recommend a lower or a higher target for energy storage in its 2011 IEPR.
The CEC’s report will be taken into account by the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), which is conducting a separate proceeding under AB 2514 to determine appropriate energy storage targets for California’s investor-owned utilities. You can find our previous descriptions of the AB 2514 process here , here and here. A report on last year's CPUC staff whitepaper describing energy storage technologies and their potential use in the California market can be found here.
Parties who want to weigh in on energy storage in California must submit their comments to the CEC by 5 p.m. on May 16, 2011. The comments must include the docket number “11-IEP-1N” and indicate “Energy Storage for Renewable Integration” in the subject line or first paragraph of the comments. All filings in the IEPR proceeding are now accomplished electronically and can be submitted in either Microsoft Word format or as a PDF by e-mail to docket@energy.state.ca.us.
Thanks to Kimberly Hellwig in our Sacramento office for her help in preparing this Blog!
Upcoming Electric Energy Storage (EES) Workshops
California’s AB 2514 requires the CPUC and municipal utilities in California to open proceedings by March 1, 2012 to determine appropriate targets, if any, for the procurement of viable and cost-effective energy storage systems by load-serving entities. By October 1, 2013, the CPUC must (1) determine whether a procurement target for energy storage is appropriate and, if so, (2) adopt a procurement target for each load-serving entity under its jurisdiction to be achieved by December 31, 2015 and a second target to be achieved by December 31, 2020. Municipal utilities have an additional year to meet these requirements.
In December of last year, the CPUC opened Rulemaking 10-12-007 both to implement AB 2514 and “on [the CPUC’s] own motion to initiate policy for California utilities to consider the procurement of viable and cost-effective energy storage systems.” Order Instituting Rulemaking (“OIR”) at 1, R.10-12-007.
On March 9, 2011, a workshop was held to address the scope of the rulemaking proceeding. The workshop included discussions of current and emerging energy storage technologies, the goals and applications of energy storage, existing barriers to storage implementation, and whether a unified storage policy would work or whether the policy should be written to address specific barriers to entry. The workshop also considered how the CPUC could and should work with other agencies addressing energy storage or related issues, including the California Energy Commission, the California Independent System Operator, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. You can find Seth Hilton’s report about the March 9 workshop here.
The CPUC has scheduled a pre-hearing conference in the rulemaking proceeding for April 21, 2011. The conference will be held before ALJ Amy C. Yip-Kikugawa, beginning at 10 am, in the Commission Courtroom, State Office Building, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California. Stoel Rives partner Seth Hilton will attend the conference.
In addition, as part of its 2011 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) Schedule, the California Energy Commission has scheduled a committee workshop on energy storage for renewable integration, which will begin at 9:30 on April 28 in Hearing Room A, CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION, 1516 Ninth Street, First Floor, Sacramento, California. Stoel Rives attorneys are planning to attend the workshop.
California Public Utility Commission to Reopen Rule 21 Working Group
A report from Stoel Rives attorney Jake Storms (Sacramento):
The California Public Utility Commission (“CPUC”) recently announced that it will reopen the Rule 21 Working Group. Rule 21 governs the interconnection of distributed generation to a utility’s distribution system.
Each of the three largest investor-owned utilities—Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric—have a version of Rule 21 in their electric tariffs, which are subject to approval by the CPUC. The last Rule 21 workshop was held in 2008. The CPUC stated that, given the substantial changes in the technical and regulatory landscape in the past several years, Rule 21 is in need of reconsideration and has set forth a list of issues it believes should be addressed by the new Working Group. These include:
• The need for transparency in processing, queue information, and customer application information
• The need for review and potential reconsideration of technical screens within Rule 21 to ensure that the appropriate issues are being studied
• The need for articulation of cost-allocation methodology when network upgrades are required
• The need for review of utility tariffs for consistency with each other and with state law
• The need for additional standard interconnection agreements to accommodate the different types of distributed generation projects anticipated to come online
The first meeting of the Rule 21 Working Group will be Friday, April 29, 2011 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Auditorium of the CPUC located at 500 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA.
All Party Meeting Concerning California's 2011 RPS Procurement
My partner Seth Hilton attended last Friday's all-party meeting on California's 2011 RPS procurement and prepared the following update:
On February 11, 2011, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Administrative Law Judge Burton Mattson issued a Proposed Decision (PD) conditionally accepting the 2011 Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Procurement Plans for Southern California Edison (SCE), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E). If adopted, the Decision would set a schedule for the utilities’ 2011 RPS solicitation. The PD was on the agenda for the CPUC’s March 24, 2011 business meeting, but was held at Commissioner Florio’s request until the April 14 meeting.
On March 25, Commissioner Florio held a well-attended all-party meeting on the PD. Among the issues raised by Commissioner Florio was where California’s investor-owned utilities stood relative to the current RPS procurement targets and the targets contained in pending legislation (SBX1-2), and whether a 2011 RPS solicitation was necessary.
All three investor-owned utilities—PG&E, SCE and SDG&E—stated that holding a 2011 RPS solicitation would be prudent. PG&E stated that it was on track to meet the current 20% RPS this year and through 2013. However, future compliance, especially with the higher procurement targets under SBX1-2, is dependent on several large projects that are scheduled to come online in the next few years. Any delay or failure of those projects would require PG&E to procure additional resources to get to the 2016 target under SBX1-2, and therefore holding a solicitation this year made sense.
According to SCE, a 2011 solicitation would be prudent for a number of reasons, not only to assist SCE to reach the goals in SBX1-2. SCE noted that a solicitation would be beneficial for current contract administration by setting the price for any replacement power and that annual RPS solicitations were important for maintaining a vigorous RPS market.
SDG&E stated that it too was not done with procurement and would need further procurement to comply with the 2016 goal under SBX1-2.
Other parties also advocated in favor of a 2011 solicitation, with TURN noting that there may be some bargains available to the utilities due to the fact that no RPS solicitation was held last year and that competition would be fairly robust for RPS contracts.
The Division of Ratepayer Advocates was one of the few dissenters (along with CARE), arguing that because a new cost containment mechanism would apply under SBX1-2, the CPUC should consider waiting until it had addressed cost containment before commencing a new RPS solicitation.
The parties also discussed various issues to be resolved by the PD, including how economic curtailment should be handled in the pro forma RPS contract, congestion adders and integration cost adders. As currently drafted, the PD would require all three utilities to amend their pro forma agreements to use the economic curtailment provisions proposed by PG&E, which would allow utilities to economically curtail projects up to five percent of the project’s expected annual generation, for which PG&E would pay the project the full contract price but would not reimburse the project for any lost production tax credits. The California Wind Energy Association noted that although it supported PG&E’s proposal, the proposal should be amended to make it clear that the cap applies to any economic curtailment caused by the utility, even if the curtailment was in fact ordered by the California Independent System Operator, and to provide for the payment of any lost production tax credits as well.
As for congestion adders, the PD would require the utilities to consider congestion costs when evaluating projects and order the utilities to release congestion cost information in their 2012 and future plans, so that project developers will be fully informed when making siting decisions.
Finally, the PD declined to allow the use of integration cost adders when evaluating bids, despite both SCE’s and SDG&E’s requests that they be permitted to do so.
If you have any further questions on this all-party meeting or any other California energy regulatory issue, please contact:
Seth Hilton at (916) 319-4749 or sdhilton@stoel.com
Bill Holmes at (503) 294-9207 or whholmes@stoel.com
Jennifer Martin at (503) 294-9852 or jhmartin@stoel.com
CPUC Staff Issues White Paper on Electric Energy Storage (EES)
Energy Electricty Storage (EES) is likely to become more and more important as intermittent solar and wind energy resources penetrate the grid. EES may be a very useful and perhaps essential way to manage the variability of intermittent renewable energy resources to allow developers to continue building wind and solar projects at an accelerating pace.
On July 9, 2010, the Policy and Planning Division of the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) issued an interesting Staff White Paper entitled "Electric Energy Storage: An Assessment of Potential Barriers and Opportunities." The report is worth reading for those who are interested in the future of renewable energy and the roll that EES can play in enhancing the deployment of intermittent renewables.
The report describes "a promising new set of Electric Energy Storage ("EES") technologies [that] appear to provide an effective means for addressing the growing problems of reliance on an increasing percentage of intermittent renewable generation resources." The report observes that EES can provide several basice services, such as (1) supplying peak electricity demand by using electricity generated during periods of lower demand (e.g., storage of wind energy generated at night for use during daily peak periods), (2) balancing electricity supply and demand fluctuations over a period of minutes, and (3) deferring expansion of electric grid capacity (including generation, transmission and distribution).
Potential storage technologies include pumped hydro, compressed air energy storage ("CAES"), batteries, thermal storage (e.g., solar thermal plants), flywheels, unltracapacitors and superconducting magnetic storage--the report provides short but helpful description of each technology. Storage presents interesting legal and policy issues, because "[r]egulators are uncertain how EES technologies should fit into the electric system, in part because EES services provide multiple services such as generation, transmission and distribution." In addition, "regulators do not yet know how EES costs and benefits should be allocated among these three main elements of the electric system."
The report makes a number of recommendations, including that the CPUC should conduct a rulemaking to develop policies to remove barriers to the deployment of EES technology in California. The report also proposes that the CPUC consider placing EES within California's energy resources loading order, require utilities to incoporate EES into their integrated resource planning processes, encourage CAISO to change ancillary service market rules to allow EES systems to more easily bid into regulation markets, and integrate EES into utility transmission planning.
The report concludes that "the major barrier for deployment of new storage facilities is not necessarily the technology, but the absence of appropriate regulations and market mechanisms that properly recognize the value of the storage resource and financially comepnsate the owners/operators for the services and benefits they provide."
You can find the report here.
CPUC Staff Issues White Paper on Electric Energy Storage (EES)
Energy Electricty Storage (EES) is likely to become more and more important as intermittent solar and wind energy resources penetrate the grid. EES may be a very useful and perhaps essential way to manage the variability of intermittent renewable energy resources to allow developers to continue building wind and solar projects at an accelerating pace.
On July 9, 2010, the Policy and Planning Division of the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) issued an interesting Staff White Paper entitled "Electric Energy Storage: An Assessment of Potential Barriers and Opportunities." The report is worth reading for those who are interested in the future of renewable energy and the roll that EES can play in enhancing the deployment of intermittent renewables.
The report describes "a promising new set of Electric Energy Storage ("EES") technologies [that] appear to provide an effective means for addressing the growing problems of reliance on an increasing percentage of intermittent renewable generation resources." The report observes that EES can provide several basice services, such as (1) supplying peak electricity demand by using electricity generated during periods of lower demand (e.g., storage of wind energy generated at night for use during daily peak periods), (2) balancing electricity supply and demand fluctuations over a period of minutes, and (3) deferring expansion of electric grid capacity (including generation, transmission and distribution).
Potential storage technologies include pumped hydro, compressed air energy storage ("CAES"), batteries, thermal storage (e.g., solar thermal plants), flywheels, unltracapacitors and superconducting magnetic storage--the report provides short but helpful description of each technology. Storage presents interesting legal and policy issues, because "[r]egulators are uncertain how EES technologies should fit into the electric system, in part because EES services provide multiple services such as generation, transmission and distribution." In addition, "regulators do not yet know how EES costs and benefits should be allocated among these three main elements of the electric system."
The report makes a number of recommendations, including that the CPUC should conduct a rulemaking to develop policies to remove barriers to the deployment of EES technology in California. The report also proposes that the CPUC consider placing EES within California's energy resources loading order, require utilities to incoporate EES into their integrated resource planning processes, encourage CAISO to change ancillary service market rules to allow EES systems to more easily bid into regulation markets, and integrate EES into utility transmission planning.
The report concludes that "the major barrier for deployment of new storage facilities is not necessarily the technology, but the absence of appropriate regulations and market mechanisms that properly recognize the value of the storage resource and financially comepnsate the owners/operators for the services and benefits they provide."
You can find the report here.
