Date post: | 15-Jan-2015 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | cedric-christensen |
View: | 320 times |
Download: | 4 times |
Energy Storage Procurement in California
Cedric Christensen California Energy Storage Alliance Strategen Consulting
Electric Power Conference and Expo April 2, 2014
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
A sampling of our clients:
Strategic thinking and industry expertise creates profitable clean energy businesses
U.S. Department of
Energy
Strategen Consutling
1
1 Energy Systems, A123 Energy Solutions, AES Energy Storage, Alton Energy, American Vanadium, Aquion Energy, AU Optronics, Beacon Power, Bosch Energy Storage Solutions, Bright Energy Storage, BrightSource Energy, CALMAC, ChargePoint, Christenson Electric Inc., Clean Energy Systems Inc., CODA Energy, Customized Energy Solutions, Deeya Energy, DN Tanks, Duke Energy, Eagle Crest Energy, EaglePicher, East Penn Manufacturing Co., Ecoult, EDF Renewable Energy, Energy Cache, EnerSys, EnerVault, EVGrid, FAFCO Thermal Storage Systems, FIAMM Group, FIAMM Energy Storage Solutions, Flextronics, Foresight Renewable Systems, GE Energy Storage, Green Charge Networks, Greensmith Energy Management Systems, Gridtential Energy, Halotechnics, Hecate Energy LLC, Hitachi Chemical, Hydrogenics, Ice Energy, ImMODO Energy Services, Innovation Core SEI, Invenergy, K&L Gates LLP, KYOCERA Solar, LightSail Energy, LG Chem Ltd., NextEra Energy Resources, NRG Energy, OCI Company Ltd., OutBack Power Technologies, Panasonic, Parker Hannifin, PDE Total Energy Solutions, Powertree Services, Primus Power, RedFlow Technologies, RES Americas, Rosendin Electric, S&C Electric Co., Saft America, Samsung SDI, SeaWave Battery Inc.,Sharp Labs of America, Silent Power, SolarCity, Sovereign Energy Storage LLC, Stem, Stoel Rives LLP, Sumitomo Corporation of America, TAS Energy, Tri-Technic, UniEnergy Technologies, Xtreme Power, and Wellhead Electric Co.
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
US DOE Global Energy Storage Database
Special thanks to Dr. Imre Gyuk, US Department of Energy, Office
of Electricity Deliverability and Energy Reliability Georgianne Huff, PE, PMP, Sandia National
Laboratories
DOE Global Energy Storage Database (GESDB) Market Development Through Access To Quality Information
www.sandia.gov/ess/database
Overview & Mission Statement
• Provides free, up-to-date information on grid-connected energy storage projects and relevant state and federal policies
• Database went live in May 2012 • 60+ data fields for each project, 50+ energy
storage technologies, 3rd party verification process, data is exportable to MS Excel or PDF
Milestones & Progress to Date
145 GW of energy storage , 850+ projects, 57 countries, 18 federal and state policies
Over 450K page views from 161 countries
2014 Plans
International partnerships Grow policy coverage internationally Include codes & standards Increase publicity and visibility Improve usability
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Estimated Global Installed Capacity of Energy Storage (MW) Represents approximately 2.7% of Global Installed Electric Capacity1
Pumped Hydro, 142,078
Thermal 1,431
Flywheel 1,027
Compressed Air, 434
Batteries*, 331
Global Total (Excl. UPS): 145,301 MW
Non-Pumped Hydro: 3,223 MW
Projects: 145 GW installed - 50 Technologies Represented
Source: Based on DOE Global Energy Storage Database (http://www.energystorageexchange.org) Est are current as of January 2014
4
1Based on EIA 2010 Total Electricity Installed Capacity Data (http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=7) * Batteries include Flow, Lithium Ion, Sodium Sulfur, Nickel Cadmium, Lead Acid, and Ultra Batteries
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
What will we learn?
5
» How the cost effectiveness framework developed in California applies globally
» Where storage provides a better benefit to cost ratio than traditional generation
» How you can help
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Agenda
6
Most of the year, the system is operating at
about 55% of peak
» Why California?
» The Vision, The Plan for Procurement in California: AB2514
» Energy Storage Cost Effectiveness
» Decision to Procure 1,325 MW of Energy Storage
» PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E Procurement Plans
» Other Policies Accelerating Storage Deployment
» How Might Lessons Learned in California Apply to Other Markets?
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
California India Russia Canada Australia Spain
Why California?
7
Source: 2011 United Nations Data, 2010 US Government Revenue
California compared to 9th-13th highest ranked countries by GDP (GDP in $ Trillions)
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Foundational Legislation
8
CESA is driving results-oriented change in all of these areas
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)
33% RPS Legislation (SB 2X)
Solar Energy System Incentives: CSI (SB 1)
Energy Storage Procurement Targets (AB 2514)
Self-Generation Incentive Program: SGIP (SB 412)
Smart Grid Systems (SB 17)
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Syst
em
Lo
ad (
MW
) California’s Electric System Is Not Being Efficiently Utilized
9
The current electric system must have enough transmission, distribution, generation capacity for the largest annual peak load
Most of the year, the system is operating at
about 55% of peak
Weekly average load
California Load
Data Source: CAISO 2011 OASIS Data – Graph is for illustration purposes only.
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Storage lets us utilize the system assets we have more efficiently
10
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Syst
em
Lo
ad (
MW
)
During peak times, storage helps to reduce overall load, reducing the need for excess generation capacity
With storage, we can better utilize existing grid resources during off-peak times
Data Source: CAISO OASIS Data – Graph is for demonstration purposes only.
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
California’s Electric Power System Faces Big Challenges
San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station (SONGS) has been permanently shut down since January of 2012, taking
2,254MW offline.
San Onofre Plant Name MW
Scheduled Phase-Out
Date El Segundo, Harbor (LADWP), Morro Bay
550 December 31, 2015
Encina, Contra Costa, Pittsburg, Moss Landing
950 December 31, 2017
Haynes (LADWP) 1,581 December 31, 2019
Huntington Beach, Redondo, Alamitos, Mandalay, Ormond Beach, Scattergood (LADWP)
888 December 31, 2020
Diablo Canyon Power Plant 2,240 December 31, 2024
Many power plants could go offline in the next decade for a variety of reasons
(1) Sierra Club Report: “Meeting California’s Electricity Needs Without San Onofre or Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plants”. CEC Docket 13-IEP-1D, TN 71790, Jul 29, 2013
Once-Through Cooling Phase-Out Schedule(1)
11
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
California’s Electric Power System Faces Big Challenges
12
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Agenda
13
Most of the year, the system is operating at
about 55% of peak
» Why California?
» The Vision, The Plan for Procurement in California: AB2514
» Energy Storage Cost Effectiveness
» Decision to Procure 1,325 MW of Energy Storage
» PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E Procurement Plans
» Other Policies Accelerating Storage Deployment
» How Might Lessons Learned in California Apply to Other Markets?
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
California AB 2514 – Landmark Energy Storage Bill
14
Directs the CPUC to adopt procurement targets, if appropriate, for each Load Serving Entities to procure viable & cost-effective energy storage by 2015 & 2020
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Agenda
15
Most of the year, the system is operating at
about 55% of peak
» Why California?
» The Vision, The Plan for Procurement in California: AB2514
» Energy Storage Cost Effectiveness
» Decision to Procure 1,325 MW of Energy Storage
» PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E Procurement Plans
» Other Policies Accelerating Storage Deployment
» How Might Lessons Learned in California Apply to Other Markets?
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy Storage Is A Very Broad Asset Class
16
Chemical Storage
(Batteries)
Mechanical Storage
(Flywheel)
Bulk Mechanical Storage
(Compressed Air)
Thermal Storage
(Ice) (Molten Salt)
Bulk Gravitational Storage
(Pumped Hydro) (Gravel)
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Diversity & Modularity = Broad Electric Power System Applicability
17
Bulk Storage
Ancillary Services
Distributed Storage
Distributed Storage
Commercial Storage
Residential Storage
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Comparing Energy Storage With The Status Quo
18
• Siting Constraints
• Installation Speed
• Available Flexible Range
• Capacity Factor (hours of operation/year)
• Multiple Value Stream Capture
• Ramp/Response Rate
• Total Emissions
• Water Usage
VS.
Natural Gas Peaker Energy Storage
Key Criteria to Consider
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy Storage Can Be Sited Closer to the Load
Russell City Energy Center Hayward, Ca
ES Siting Source: Powertree Integrated Energy Services
19
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy Storage: Diverse, Modular, Faster to Install! Battery and thermal storage resources can be installed much more quickly
than traditional resources, reducing risk and increasing technology flexibility
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CCGT
Combustion Turbine
Battery/Thermal Storage
Time in Years
Minimum Time
Maximum Time
Siting, Permitting, and Installation Time by Resource
20
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy Storage: Four Times the Flexible Range
21
Important to compare benefits, not megawatts
100MW LMS 100
Gas Peaker Plant1
100MW Energy Storage System
50MW Min. Output
100MW Max. Output
50 MW Range 100MW Discharge
-100MW Charge
200MW Range
1. Source: http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/air/EPSS.NSF/e0c49a10c792e06f8825657e007654a3/8a153d8ab24cb6868825723400679b82/$FILE/WCE%20Evaluation.pdf
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy storage can be utilized more fully throughout the year
Energy Storage: Three Times the Utilization
22
100 MW LMS 100
Gas Peaker Plant1
100MW Energy Storage System
>95% Utilization Utilization
20%-40%
0% 50% 100%
Startup Time
Shutdown Time
Min Utilization
Max Utilization
Unutilized
1. Source: http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/air/EPSS.NSF/e0c49a10c792e06f8825657e007654a3/8a153d8ab24cb6868825723400679b82/$FILE/WCE%20Evaluation.pdf
0% 50% 100%
Startup Time
Shutdown Time
Min Utilization
Max Utilization
Unutilized
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy Storage Can Capture Multiple Value Streams
23
Energy storage can be fully utilized throughout the year, providing multiple services from a single asset
99.7%
4.2% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
EnergyStorage
CombustionTurbine
0%
100%
% U
tiliz
atio
n
% Total Annual Hourly Asset Utilization
Graphs based on EPRI cost effectiveness model data, “Bulk Peaker substitution application” CPUC Workshop March 25, 2013
Energy storage is a cost effective way to provide numerous benefits to many stakeholders, few of which can be monetized today.
Down Regulation
Up Regulation
Spinning Reserves
Energy
Services Provided by Energy Storage Over the Year*
*All services include charging and discharging bids
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Energy storage responds far more quickly and is more effective
Energy Storage Can Respond Faster and is More Effective
24
Energy Storage System
Full Power Ramp
<1 second
Graph Source: Kirby, B. “Ancillary Services: Technical and Commercial Insights.” Wartsilla, July, 2007. pg. 13 1. http://www.cpvsentinel.com/about.html
LMS 100 Gas Peaker Plant
Full Power Ramp
10 Minutes
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Prorated RA Value can actually provide greater capacity at critical times
Smaller capacity increments are good for the system
25
(4) 100 MW 1h Energy Storage
Systems
(same RA Value as LMS 100, with prorating)
LMS 100 Gas Peaker Plant
0
50
100
150
200
250
18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00
Flex. Capacity
Min. Capacity
Load
0
50
100
150
200
250
18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00
Flex. Capacity
Min. Capacity
Load
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Status Quo: CT Operation at EME Walnut Creek Energy Park
26
State of the art LMS 100 installations require significant start-up and shutdown operating hours, accounting for at least 20% of operations:
Startup Hours, 350h
Shutdown Hours, 350h
Min Operating Hours, 1,052h
Max Operating Hours, 1,716h
Not Utilized, 5,292h
EME Walnut Creek Energy Park SCAQMD Analysis(1)
Capacity Factor - min 20%
Capacity Factor - max 40%
Operating Hours - Normal 2768
Operating Hours - Start-up 350
Operating Hours - Shutdown 350
Service Factor - Normal 32%
Service Factor - Total 40%
Minimum load 50%
Average load 75%
Starts/year 350
Max starts/day 2
Max start-ups/year 350
Start-up time (minutes) 35
1) http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/air/EPSS.NSF/e0c49a10c792e06f8825657e007654a3/8a153d8ab24cb6868825723400679b82/$FILE/WCE%20Evaluation.pdf
Chart of Annual Plant Operation
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Conventional Peakers are Expensive and Use Tons of Water
27
1) Source: CEC http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-800-2009-003/CEC-800-2009-003-CMF.PDF
J-Power Orange Grove Peaking Plant
• 100 MW (2 x LM6000)
• $174/kW-year in capacity revenue (Source: FERC EQR)
• 25 year tolling agreement with SDG&E
“Water delivery will require approximately one [6500 gallon] truck per hour for fresh water and one truck per hour for reclaimed water during times when the plant is operational.”1
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Even Repowered Peakers are Expensive
28
LADWP Haynes Repower 6 x LMS100 $782M / 577.8 net MW Cost: $1353/kW1 Due to repower, cost excludes: • Land aquisition & permitting • New transmission infrastructure • Site access construction
1) Source: http://www.powermag.com/ladwp-harnesses-lms100-to-solve-once-through-cooling-dilemma/
Repower: Building a new power plant on the same site as an old, decommissioned plant
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Peak vs. Off-peak CO2 Emission Rate(1) (Tons/MWh)
Peak- Heavy A/C Use: Peaker Plants
Off-Peak - Very Little A/C Use: Better Use of Utility Assets
Baseload Fossil Fuel Plant
Peaker Fossil Fuel Plant
Optimizing the System Also Reduces GHG Emissions
29
» Percent CO2 / MWh
Reduction Shifting from Peak
to Off-Peak:
SCE: 33% reduction
PG&E: 26% reduction
SDG&E: 32% reduction
» Also ~56% lower NOx
emissions
E3 Calculator Tons CO2 / MWh
Summer On-Peak
Summer Mid-Peak
Summer Off-Peak
Utility
PG&E 0.67 0.61 0.49
SCE 0.72 0.63 0.49
SDG&E 0.69 0.58 0.47
1) Source: Southern California Edison
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Summary
30
(1)Excluding start-up and shutdown time
(2)http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011_energypolicy/doc
uments/2011-02-15_workshop/comments/California_Energy_Storage_Alliance_03032011_TN-59863.pdf
100 MW Gas Turbine
10 minute ramp
50 MW flexible range
2768 useable hours/year(1)
6500 gallons per hour
Status quo GHG emissions
Energy storage can provide much greater benefits per MW as a flexible resource!
Energy Storage
Benefits
>600x the ramp rate
>4x the flexible range
>3x the operational
hours
Less water usage on
many sites
Lower GHG
emissions
100 MW Energy Storage
<1 second ramp
200 MW of flexible range
>8300 useable hours/year
Little to no water usage
Reduces GHG emissions by up to
90%(2)
VS.
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Results: Bulk Peaking Power Plant
31
Preliminary results by EPRI using stakeholder input showed a benefit to cost ratio over one for nearly every scenario
» Projects were assumed to be utility scale projects starting in 2015 and 2020
» Cost effectiveness results did not include GHG benefits of storage or GHG costs due to AB32 implementation
» High renewable penetration cases had the highest benefit to cost ratios for storage.
» GHG benefits for storage are greater the more renewables we have on the grid.
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Agenda
32
Most of the year, the system is operating at
about 55% of peak
» Why California?
» The Vision, The Plan for Procurement in California: AB2514
» Energy Storage Cost Effectiveness
» Decision to Procure 1,325 MW of Energy Storage
» PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E Procurement Plans
» Other Policies Accelerating Storage Deployment
» How Might Lessons Learned in California Apply to Other Markets?
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Historic October 17, 2013 Decision: 1.325 GW Goal!
Use case category, by
utility
2014 2016 2018 2020 Total
Southern California Edison
Transmission
Distribution
Customer
50
30
10
65
40
15
85
50
25
110
65
35
310
185
85
Subtotal SCE 90 120 160 210 580
Pacific Gas and
Electric
Transmission
Distribution
Customer
50
30
10
65
40
15
85
50
25
110
65
35
310
185
85
Subtotal PG&E 90 120 160 210 580
San Diego Gas &
Electric
Transmission
Distribution Customer
10
7 3
15
10 5
22
15 8
33
23 14
80
55 30
Subtotal SDG&E 20 30 45 70 165
Total - all 3 utilities 200 270 365 490 1,325
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
AB 2514 Implementation Process and Timeline
Final Decision implementing recommendations
Conduct Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Key Applications
Propose procurement recommendations
Revise Recommendations Set Cost-Effectiveness Methodology
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 2013
2014 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
March 1, 2014
Deadline for IOUs to file procurement application
October 1, 2014
POU Compliance Deadline
December 1, 2014
First round of solicitations
Complete Cost Effectiveness Evaluation
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Agenda
35
Most of the year, the system is operating at
about 55% of peak
» Why California?
» The Vision, The Plan for Procurement in California: AB2514
» Energy Storage Cost Effectiveness
» Decision to Procure 1,325 MW of Energy Storage
» PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E Procurement Plans
» Other Policies Accelerating Storage Deployment
» How Might Lessons Learned in California Apply to Other Markets?
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
SCE Procurement Plan
36
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
SDG&E Procurement Plan
37
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
SDG&E Procurement Plan
38
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Consistent Evaluation Protocol (CEP)
» Descriptive information comes directly from the offers.
» Quantitative information includes a calculation of net market value based on public inputs.
» Qualitative information includes a “yes/no” indication of which storage end uses might exist for each offer.
39
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance 40
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance 41
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
42
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance 43
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Agenda
44
» Why California?
» The Vision, The Plan for Procurement in California: AB2514
» Energy Storage Cost effectiveness
» Decision to Procure 1,325 MW of Energy Storage
» PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E Procurement Plans
» Other Policies Accelerating Storage Deployment
» How Might Lessons Learned in California Apply to Other Markets?
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Storage Is Now Part of Long Term Procurement Planning
CPUC Proposed Decision requires SDG&E to procure an additional 25MW+ of energy storage for local capacity requirements to replace SONGS
February 11, 2014
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
As of December 2013 684 storage applications (767 by 1/14) … Only 6 installed thus far
134
183212
253 253 253 253
109124
136 143 143 143 143
145
155157
684604
132
276273
258
229
76
2013 Q1-Q3
2,382
136
2012
2,271
117
2011
1,715
77
2010
1,544
519
299
79
2002
260
138
2001
70
920 920
81
920 920 920 920 920
2009
1,390
2008
1,360
2007
1,353
2006
1,316
920
2005
1,007
651
2004
898
595
2003
86 83
920
684
276
157
136 86
76 24 14
Total
2,382 9
1. Other is comprised of pressure reduction turbines and waste heat to power Note: Cancelled projects excluded Source: SGIP Quarterly Statewide Reporting Q3 2013 (www.cpuc.ca.gov) Chart courtesy of Bryan Early, Conservation Strategy Group
Cumulative number of SGIP projects 2001-2013
Other1
Gas
turbine
Wind
Fuel Cell Elec.
Bio Gas
Fuel Cell CHP
Fuel Cell Elec.
Microturbine
Internal
Combustion
A.E.S. (Adv. Electrical Storage)
Photovoltaic
Technology
SGIP
inception
SGIP
Timeline
06/07: PV
phased out of
program
07/08: CHP
phased out of
program
08/09:
A.E.S., Fuel
Cells and
Wind
become
eligible for
SGIP
10/11: revamp;
technology
neutral, focus
on emission
reductions
Cumulative Data
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Governor’s Executive Order: 1,500,000 EVs by 2025
Infrastructure is Needed for: • 1,000,000 EVs by 2020 • 1,500,000 EVs by 2025
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Agenda
48
» Why California?
» The Vision, The Plan for Procurement in California: AB2514
» Energy Storage Cost effectiveness
» Decision to Procure 1,325 MW of Energy Storage
» PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E Procurement Plans
» Other Policies Accelerating Storage Deployment
» How Might Lessons Learned in California Apply to Other Markets?
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Strategies for Energy Storage Success
49
» Use all storage benefits – do not just rely on time shifting
» Create a common set of benefits and use cases
» Invest in a common and accessible model
» Clear policy hurdles to accessing and “stacking” benefits
» Compare storage to other grid assets, not just energy prices
» Collaborate with all stakeholders, especially incumbents
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
How you can help
50
• Join the California Energy Storage Alliance
• Discover your North American strategy
• Come to Energy Storage North America
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Successful Launch in September 2013
“I’ve been to a lot of conferences, yet I’ve learned more
at Energy Storage North America in the first four hours
than I’ve learned at any other conference I’ve attended”
Phil Undercuffler, Director, Product Management and Strategy
at OutBack Power Technologies
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Join us in San Jose on September 30 – October 2, 2014
52
JOIN THE INDUSTRY
LEADERS
Mike Florio Commissioner –
California Public Utilities Commission
Carla Peterman Commissioner –
California Public Utilities Commission
Mateo Jaramillo Director of Powertrain Business Development
Tesla Motors
Peter Rives Co-Founder & CTO
Solar City
Eric Schmitt Vice President, Operations
California ISO
John Norris Commissioner
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Fong Wan Senior Vice President, Energy
Procurement Pacific Gas & Electric
HIGHLIGHTS 3 Days
80 Speakers
6 Tracks
Workshops
Site Visits
Awards
3 FOCUS AREAS
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
Thank you!
53
Cedric Christensen Strategen Consulting California Energy Storage Alliance 2150 Allston Way, Suite 210 Berkeley, CA 94704 [email protected] www.strategen.com www.storagealliance.org
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
RFO Requirements
55
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
RFO Requirements
56
© 2014 California Energy Storage Alliance
RFO Requirements
57