[RE-wrenches] GT with batteries in Calif.

Ray Walters ray at solarray.com
Thu Jul 3 22:30:00 PDT 2014


Thanks for this info Phil, we were just consulting on  PG&E project that 
took a turn for the worse.
It seems that the limit would just be the inverter capacity. Couldn't 
you have a larger battery bank and keep the inverter continuous sell 
capacity below 10 kW to meet the rule? (like the Radian....)
Many batteries would not do well at a 2 hr discharge rate, or even a 6 
hr rate.  A 20 hr. max discharge rate would make more sense, and be more 
compliant with battery industry standards.

R.Ray Walters
CTO, Solarray, Inc
Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
Licensed Master Electrician
Solar Design Engineer
303 505-8760

On 7/3/2014 3:48 PM, Phil Undercuffler wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The kW is correct, although it does run counter to most every 
> definition of a battery we're used to -- I guess you could say the 
> vectors of physics and policy are not always aligned.
>
> The entire "kW" issue ties back to the self-generation incentive 
> program (SGIP), which currently pays about $1.80/Watt for energy 
> storage.  I had many long discussions this past year with policymakers 
> and the program administrators at the CCSE, and they really helped me 
> understand the reasons behind how energy storage came to be defined in 
> kW, not kWh. The Governor and other policymakers want to achieve 
> reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and in order to do that we need a 
> more efficient grid -- renewables are now as cheap or cheaper than 
> traditional generation, but due to the variability (of loads and 
> generation) and increased reliance on natural gas GHG emissions are 
> trending up, not down.  We can't generate our way out of this cycle; 
> storage is a key tool in moving to the next stage, and the 
> policymakers wanted to provide tools to increase the adoption of 
> storage on the grid.
>
> In the sometimes convoluted way that policy sometimes takes, the best 
> tool they had available was SGIP, so they added Advanced Energy 
> Storage to SGIP.  Since SGIP is a "generator" program, in order to 
> make this work they had to define AES in terms of a generator. 
>  Therefore, the battery is rated in terms of the capacity that it can 
> provide to (or the capacity that it replaces from) the grid, for a 
> period of time, which is defined as a two hour period.
>
> To turn that into actual (if rough) numbers, let's say you have a 200 
> AH battery. The 200 AH is only at the 100 hour rate, so you need a 
> manufacturer that provides the one or two hour rate, where it's good 
> for 103 AH, or 4.944 kWh per string to total exhaustion.  You don't 
> want to flatline the battery, so let's use  80% DOD, which would be 
> 3.95 kWh per string.  You need to be able to provide this capacity for 
> two hours, so cut that number in half for 1.97 kWh rated capacity. 
>  Per the SGIP handbook, "The purpose of the SGIP is to contribute to 
> Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission reductions, demand reductions and 
> reduced customer electricity purchases, resulting in the electric 
> system reliability through improved transmission and distribution 
> system utilization; as well as market transformation for distributed 
> energy resource (DER) technologies." Put two strings of that battery 
> together with a ~4kW battery based inverter and a program that meets 
> that purpose, and you're off to the races.
>
> If the inverter/battery is 10kW or less per this definition, there are 
> no metering requirements.  For systems larger than 10kW, or if you 
> wish to use the metering requirements of systems larger than 10kW you 
> can meter the load, the generation and the total energy flow at the 
> PCC, and the utility can't charge you more than $600 for all of this 
> metering.  There's a writeup on the OutBack website on how to use two 
> meters plus a NEM meter to do this.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Phil Undercuffler
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Bruce Erickson 
> <bruce at mendocinosolar.com <mailto:bruce at mendocinosolar.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Wrenches,
>
>     Here is the only info I've seen regarding NEM with batteries in
>     California. It's a May 15 news post from CALSEIA, which Brad
>     allowed me to post here.
>
>     One problem clearly is defining the categories, because what is a
>     storage system "larger than 10 kW"? Seems like there's an "h"
>     factor missing.
>
>     Even for category 1, "internal metering devices" could be a Mate3
>     for instance, but how can a Mate report directly to the utility?
>
>     This whole thing is a mess, IMO. I'm still curious, are any other
>     California Wrenches dealing with utility NEM departments for
>     systems with storage in the last few months, and what has been
>     your experience?
>
>>>     	
>>>     Official CALSEIA Membership Announcement 	Email not displaying
>>>     correctly?
>>>     View it in your browser
>>>     <http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=a0487692bb2e2f280211c4298&id=24ddc73bfb&e=01b7850b6c>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       *News Alert*
>>>
>>>
>>>         Dear CALSEIA Members,
>>>
>>>
>>>     Earlier today, the California Public Utilities Commission voted
>>>     to finalize the decision on the interconnection of solar systems
>>>     paired with energy storage systems under net metering.
>>>
>>>     First, and most importantly, the decision restores the ability
>>>     of solar systems paired with storage to qualify under the
>>>     standard net metering tariff. For the past year, utilities had
>>>     refused to connect systems with batteries under NEM.
>>>
>>>     However, the decision includes new requirements. It effectively
>>>     creates three categories of systems.
>>>
>>>     1. Storage systems smaller than 10 kW maximum output power can
>>>     be paired with any size solar system and do not have to install
>>>     a second meter. The associated solar systems will have to report
>>>     system production to the utility using internal metering devices
>>>     to make sure NEM credits are only going to solar output and not
>>>     battery output.
>>>
>>>     2. Storage systems larger than 10 kW with maximum power output
>>>     less than 150% of solar system capacity will have to install a
>>>     second meter at a cost of up to $600 to make sure NEM credits
>>>     are only going to solar output and not battery output.
>>>
>>>     3. Storage systems larger than 10 kW with maximum power output
>>>     more than 150% of solar system capacity will be on the NEM-MT
>>>     tariff rather than the standard NEM tariff. In addition to the
>>>     $600 meter, they will have to pay an application fee of $800 and
>>>     could potentially be subject to standby charges and distribution
>>>     system studies and upgrades. They will still get net metering
>>>     credits for electricity they put on the grid from the solar system.
>>>
>>>     These limits are an improvement over the limits that were in the
>>>     proposed decision. The Commission did not include all of
>>>     CALSEIA's recommendations, but it included some significant
>>>     movement in the right direction.
>>>
>>>       * The threshold between the categories above was changed from
>>>         100% to 150% of the paired generator's output power.
>>>       * A kWh storage limit of the storage system was eliminated
>>>         (how many hours worth of electricity can be stored).
>>>       * A de-rate formula that would have potentially reduced the
>>>         value of NEM credits was abandoned.
>>>       * Utilities must refund application fees that were illegally
>>>         collected over the past year.
>>>
>>>     I would be happy to answer any questions you have with regard to
>>>     how the conditions in the decision would apply to specific
>>>     system configurations.
>>>
>>>     Thank you for your help in achieving this decision.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Brad Heavner
>>>     Policy Director, CALSEIA
>>>
>>>     www.calseia.org
>>>     <http://calseia.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=a0487692bb2e2f280211c4298&id=a0f6b695c3&e=01b7850b6c>
>>>
>>>     /Copyright © 2014 CALSEIA, All rights reserved./
>>>
>
>     *Bruce Erickson*
>     Mendocino Solar Service
>     PO Box 1252
>     Mendocino, CA 95460
>     707-937-1701 <tel:707-937-1701>
>     707-937-1741 <tel:707-937-1741> fax
>     bruce at mendocinosolar.com <mailto:bruce at mendocinosolar.com>
>
>     /Celebrating 20 Years in Solar!/1994-2014
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
>
>     List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>     <mailto:RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
>
>     Change listserver email address & settings:
>     http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
>     List-Archive:
>     http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html
>
>     List rules & etiquette:
>     www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>     <http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm>
>
>     Check out or update participant bios:
>     www.members.re-wrenches.org <http://www.members.re-wrenches.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Change listserver email address & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List-Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html
>
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>
> Check out or update participant bios:
> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20140703/4a449062/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1185 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20140703/4a449062/attachment-0015.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 18909 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20140703/4a449062/attachment-0016.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 5771 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20140703/4a449062/attachment-0017.png>


More information about the RE-wrenches mailing list