Russian power distributors face bankruptcy

China Industrial Power Demand 2020 highlights COVID-19 disruption to electricity consumption as factory output stalls; IHS Markit estimates losses equal to Chile's usage, impacting thermal coal, LNG, and Hubei's industrial load.

Key Points

An analysis of COVID-19's hit to China's electricity use, cutting industry demand and fuel needs for coal and LNG.

✅ 73 billion kWh loss equals Chile's annual power use

✅ Cuts translate to 30m tonnes coal or 9m tonnes LNG

✅ Hubei peak load 21 percent below plan amid shutdowns

China’s industrial power demand in 2020 may decline by as much as 73 billion kilowatt hours (kWh), according to IHS Markit, as the outbreak of the coronavirus has curtailed factory output and prevented some workers from returning to their jobs.

FILE PHOTO: Smoke is seen from a cooling tower of a China Energy ultra-low emission coal-fired power plant during a media tour, in Sanhe, Hebei province, China July 18, 2019. REUTERS/Shivani Singh
The cut represents about 1.5% of industrial power consumption in China. But, as the country is the world’s biggest electricity consumer and analyses of China's electricity appetite routinely underscore its scale, the loss is equal to the power used in the whole of Chile and it illustrates the scope of the disruption caused by the outbreak.

The reduction is the energy equivalent of about 30 million tonnes of thermal coal, at a time when China aims to reduce coal power production, or about 9 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG), IHS said. The coal figure is more than China’s average monthly imports last year while the LNG figure is a little more than one month of imports, based on customs data.

China has tried to curtail the spread of the coronavirus that has killed more than 1,400 and infected over 60,000 by extending the Lunar New Year holiday for an extra week and encouraging people to work from home, measures that contributed to a global dip in electricity demand as well.

Last year, industrial users consumed 4.85 trillion kWh electricity, accounting for 67% of the country’s total, even as India's electricity demand showed sharp declines in the region.

Xizhou Zhou, the global head of power and Renewables at IHS Markit, said that in a severe case where the epidemic goes on past March, China’s economic growth will be only 4.2% during 2020, down from an initial forecast of 5.8%, while power consumption will climb by only 3.1%, down from 4.1% initially, even as power cuts and blackouts raise concerns.

“The main uncertainty is still how fast the virus will be brought under control,” said Zhou, adding that the impact on the power sector will be relatively modest from a full-year picture in 2020, even though China's electric power woes are already clouding solar markets.

In Hubei province, the epicenter of the virus outbreak, the peak power load at the end of January was 21% less than planned, mirroring how Japan's power demand was hit during the outbreak, data from Wood Mackenzie showed.

Industrial operating rates point to a firm reduction in power consumption in China.

Utilization rates at plastic processors are between 30% and 60% and the low levels are expected to last for another two week, according to ICIS China.

Weaving machines at textile plants are operating at below 10% of capacity, the lowest in five years, ICIS data showed. China is the world’s biggest textile and garment exporter.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Japan Power Demand Slowdown highlights reduced electricity consumption as industrial activity stalls amid the coronavirus pandemic, pressuring utilities, the grid, and manufacturing, with economic impacts monitored by Chubu Electric and the federation of electric utilities.

Key Points

A drop in Japan's electricity use as industrial activity slows during the coronavirus pandemic, pressuring utilities.

✅ Industrial slowdown cuts electricity consumption

✅ Utilities monitor grid stability and demand trends

✅ Pandemic-linked economic risks weigh on power sector

Japan's power demand has been hit by a slowdown in industrial activity due to the coronavirus outbreak, reflecting broader shifts in electricity demand worldwide, Japanese utilities federation's head said on Friday, without giving specific figures.

Electricity load profiles during lockdowns revealed changes in daily routines, as shown by lockdown electricity data across multiple regions.

Analysts have identified key shifts in U.S. electricity consumption patterns that mirror industrial slowdowns.

"We are closely watching development of the pandemic, underscoring the need for electricity during such crises, as further reduction in corporate and economic activities would lead to serious impacts," Satoru Katsuno, the chairman of Japan's federation of electric utilities and president of Chubu Electric Power Co Inc, told a news conference.

In parallel, the power industry has intensified coordination with federal partners to sustain grid reliability and protect critical workers.

Some governments, including Brazil, considered emergency loans for the power sector to stabilize utilities amid revenue pressures.

Consumer advocates warned that pandemic-related electricity shut-offs and bill burdens could exacerbate energy insecurity for vulnerable households.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Advanced Nuclear Reactors redefine nuclear energy with SMRs, diverse fuels, passive safety, digital control rooms, and flexible heat and power, pairing veteran operator expertise with cost-efficient, carbon-free electricity for a resilient grid.

Key Points

SMR-based advanced reactors with passive cooling and digital controls deliver flexible power and process heat.

✅ Veteran operators transfer proven safety culture and risk management.

✅ SMRs, passive safety, and digital controls simplify operations.

✅ Flexible output: electricity, process heat, and grid support.

Advanced reactors will break the mold of what we think next-gen nuclear power can accomplish: some will be smaller, some will use different kinds of fuel and others will do more than just make electricity. This new technology may seem like uncharted waters, but when operators, technicians and other workers start up the first reactors of the new generation, they will bring with them years of nuclear experience to run machines that have been optimized with lessons from the current fleet.

While advanced reactors are often portrayed as the future of nuclear energy, and atomic energy is heating up across markets, its our current plants that have paved the way for these exciting innovations and which will be workhorses for years to come.

Reactor Veterans Bring Their Expertise to New Designs

Many of the workers who will operate the next generation of reactors come from a nuclear background. Even though the design of an advanced reactor may be different, the experience and instincts these operators have gained from working at the current fleet will help new plants get off to a more productive start.

They have a questioning attitude; they are always exploring what could go wrong and always understanding the notion of risk management in nuclear operations, whether its the oldest design or the newest design, said Chip Pardee, the president of Terrestrial Energy USA, who is the former chief operating officer at two nuclear utilities, Exelon Corp. and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

They have respect for the technology and a bias towards conservative decision-making.

Jhansi Kandasamy, vice president of engineering at GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, agrees. She said that the presence of industry veterans will benefit the new modelslike the 300 megawatt boiling water reactor her company is developing.

From the beginning, a new reactor will have people who have touched it, worked on it, and experienced it, she said.

Theyre going to be able to tell you if something doesnt look right, because theyve lived through it.

Experience Informs New Reactor Design

Advanced reactors are designed by engineers who are fully familiar with existing plants and can use that experience to optimize the new ones, like a family building a house and wanting the kitchen just so. New reactors will be simpler to operate because of insights gained from years of operations of the current fleet, and some designs even integrate molten salt energy storage to enhance flexibility.

NuScale Power LLC, for example, has a very different design from the current fleet amid an advanced nuclear push that is reshaping development: up to 12 small reactorsinstead of one or two large reactorsmanaged from a single digital control roominstead of one full of analog switches and dials. When the company designed its control room, it brought in industry veterans who had collectively worked at more than two dozen nuclear plants.

The experts that NuScale brought in critiqued everything, even down to the shape of the symbols on the computer screens to make them easier to read for operators who sometimes need to quickly interpret lots of incoming data. The control panels for NuScales small modular reactor (SMR) present information according to its importance and automatically call up appropriate procedures for operators.

Many advanced reactors are also smaller than those currently operating, which makes their components simpler and less expensive. Kandasamy pointed out that the giant mechanical pumps in todays reactors generate a lot of heat and require a lot of supporting systems, including air conditioning in the rooms that house them.

GE Hitachis SMR design relies more on passive cooling so it needs fewer pumps, and those that remain use magnets, so they generate less heat. Fewer, smaller pumps means a smaller building and less cost.

Advanced Nuclear Will Further the Work of Current Reactors

Advanced reactors promise improved flexibility and the ability to do more kinds of work, including nuclear beyond electricity applications, to displace carbon and stabilize the climate. And they will continue nuclear energys legacy of providing reliable, carbon-free electricity, as a recent new U.S. reactor startup illustrates in practice. As new designs come on line over the next decade, we will continue to rely on operating plants which provide nearly 55 percent of the countrys carbon-free electricity.

The world will need all the carbon-free generation it can get for many years to come, as companies, states and countries aim for zero emissions by mid-century and pursue strategies like the green industrial revolution to accelerate deployment. That means it will need wind, solar, advanced reactors and current plants.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Ends Renewable Energy Moratorium, accelerating wind and solar deployment while prioritizing grid stability, reliability, and infrastructure upgrades to attract investment, cut emissions, meet climate targets, and integrate renewables into the provincial power system.

Key Points

It is Alberta's decision to lift a pause on new wind and solar projects while enhancing grid reliability.

✅ Resumes wind and solar development across Alberta.

✅ Focuses on grid stability and infrastructure upgrades.

✅ Aims to attract investment and meet climate targets.

The Alberta government has announced the end of a temporary suspension on the development of new renewable energy projects, as the power grid operator prepares to accept green energy bids across the market. This pause, which had been in place since May 2023, was initially implemented to evaluate the effects of rapid growth in renewable energy installations on the province's power grid and overall energy system. However, the decision to lift the moratorium reflects a shift in the government’s approach to balancing energy needs and environmental goals.

The suspension was introduced amid concerns that the swift expansion of wind and solar energy projects, including documented challenges with solar energy expansion in the province, could place undue stress on Alberta's electrical grid and infrastructure. Officials expressed worries about the ability of the grid to handle the increased load and the potential need for upgrades to accommodate new renewable energy sources. The government aimed to assess the implications of this growth and determine appropriate measures to ensure that the energy system could support both existing and future demands.

The moratorium drew significant criticism from various sectors, including renewable energy companies, environmental advocates, and local communities. Critics argued that the pause was detrimental to Alberta's efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources and meet climate targets, citing cases like TransAlta scrapping a wind farm amid policy uncertainty. They pointed out that halting projects could delay investments and job creation associated with the renewable energy sector, potentially impeding progress towards a more sustainable energy future.

In response to these concerns, the Alberta government conducted further reviews and consultations. The decision to cancel the pause reflects the government’s recognition of the importance of advancing renewable energy initiatives while also addressing the need for grid stability and infrastructure development. By ending the moratorium, the government aims to support the continued growth of renewable energy projects and maintain momentum in the shift towards greener energy solutions.

The lifting of the moratorium is expected to have a positive impact on the renewable energy industry in Alberta. Several planned projects that were put on hold can now proceed, leading to renewed investment and economic benefits, including a renewable energy surge that could power 4,500 jobs across the province. The government’s decision signals a commitment to integrating renewable energy sources into the provincial grid in a way that ensures both reliability and sustainability.

Going forward, the Alberta government plans to implement measures to better manage the integration of renewable energy into the existing power infrastructure. This includes addressing any potential challenges related to grid capacity and ensuring that the growth of renewable energy projects aligns with the province's overall energy strategy, as recent federal procurement such as a $500M green electricity contract with an Edmonton company underscores demand that integration efforts must accommodate. The goal is to create a balanced approach that supports the development of clean energy while maintaining the stability and efficiency of the energy system.

The end of the moratorium aligns with Alberta’s broader objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote environmental sustainability within a province recognized as a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels in Canada. The government’s approach reflects a willingness to adapt policies and strategies in response to evolving industry needs and environmental priorities. By removing the pause, Alberta demonstrates its commitment to fostering a diverse and resilient energy sector that can meet both current and future demands.

The decision to cancel the moratorium is also seen as a move to reinforce Alberta’s position as a leader in renewable energy development. With the lifting of restrictions, the province can continue to attract investment in clean energy projects, as neighboring jurisdictions such as B.C. streamline clean energy approvals to accelerate deployment, enhance its reputation as a progressive energy market, and contribute to global efforts to address climate change.

In summary, the Alberta government’s decision to lift the pause on renewable energy projects represents a significant shift in its approach to energy policy. The move reflects an acknowledgment of the importance of advancing renewable energy while addressing the practical challenges associated with grid management and infrastructure development. By ending the moratorium, Alberta aims to support the growth of clean energy initiatives and maintain its commitment to sustainability and environmental responsibility.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Utility Battery Storage Rankings measure grid-connected capacity, not ownership, highlighting MW, MWh, and watts per customer across PJM, MISO, and California IOUs, featuring Duke Energy, IPL, ancillary services, and frequency regulation benefits.

Key Points

Rankings that track energy storage connected to utility grids, comparing MW, MWh, and W/customer rather than ownership.

✅ Ranks by MW, MWh, and watts per customer, not asset ownership

✅ Highlights PJM, MISO cases and California IOUs' deployments

✅ Examples: Duke Energy, IPL, IID; ancillary services, frequency response

The rankings do not tally how much energy storage a utility built or owns, but how much was connected to their system. So while IPL built and owns the storage facility in its territory, Duke does not own the 16 MW of storage that connected to its system in 2016. Similarly, while California’s utilities are permitted to own some energy storage assets, they do not necessarily own all the storage facilities connected to their systems.

Measured by energy (MWh), IPL ranked fourth with 20 MWh, and Duke Energy Ohio ranked eighth with 6.1 MWh.

Ranked by energy storage watts per customer, IPL and Duke actually beat the California utilities, ranking fifth and sixth with 42 W/customer and 23 W/customer, respectively.

Duke ready for next step

Given Duke’s plans, including projects in Florida that are moving ahead, the utility is likely to stay high in the rankings and be more of a driving force in development. “Battery technology has matured, and we are ready to take the next step,” Duke spokesman Randy Wheeless told Utility Dive. “We can go to regulators and say this makes economic sense.”

Duke began exploring energy storage in 2012, and until now most of its energy storage efforts were focused on commercial projects in competitive markets where it was possible to earn revenues. Those included its 36 MW Notrees battery storage project developed in partnership with the Department of Energy in 2012 that provides frequency regulation for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas market and two 2 MW storage projects at its retired W.C. Beckjord plant in New Richmond, Ohio, that sells ancillary services into the PJM Interconnection market.

On the regulated side, most of Duke’s storage projects have had “an R&D slant to them,” Wheeless said, but “we are moving beyond the R&D concept in our regulated territory and are looking at storage more as a regulated asset.”

“We have done the demos, and they have proved out,” Wheeless said. Storage may not be ready for prime time everywhere, he said, but in certain locations, especially where it can it can be used to do more than one thing, it can make sense.

Wheeless said Duke would be making “a number of energy storage announcements in the next few months in our regulated states.” He could not provide details on those projects.

More flexible resources
Location can be a determining factor when building a storage facility. For IPL, serving the wholesale market was a driving factor in the rationale to build its 20 MW, 20 MWh storage facility in Indianapolis.

IPL built the project to address a need for more flexible resources in light of “recent changes in our resource mix,” including decreasing coal-fired generation and increasing renewables and natural gas-fired generation, as other regions plan to rely on battery storage to meet rising demand, Joan Soller, IPL’s director of resource planning, told Utility Dive in an email. The storage facility is used to provide primary frequency response necessary for grid stability.

The Harding Street storage facility in May. It was the first energy storage project in the Midcontinent ISO. But the regulatory path in MISO is not as clear as it is in PJM, whereas initiatives such as Ontario storage framework are clarifying participation. In November, IPL with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, asking the regulator to find that MISO’s rules for energy storage are deficient and should be revised.

Soller said IPL has “no imminent plans to install energy storage in the future but will continue to monitor battery costs and capabilities as potential resources in future Integrated Resource Plans.”

California legislative and regulatory push

In California, energy storage did not have to wait for regulations to catch up with technology. With legislative and regulatory mandates, including CEC long-duration storage funding announced recently, as a push, California’s IOUs took high places in SEPA’s rankings.

Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric were first and fourth (63.2 MW and 17.2 MW), respectively, in terms of capacity. SoCal Ed and SDG&E were first and second (104 MWh and 28.4 MWh), respectively, and Pacific Gas and Electric was fifth (17 MWh) in terms of energy.

But a public power utility, the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), ended up high in the rankings – second in capacity (30 MW) and third  in energy (20 MWh) – even though as a public power entity it is not subject to the state’s energy storage mandates.

But while IID was not under state mandate, it had a compelling regulatory reason to build the storage project. It was part of a settlement reached with FERC over a September 2011 outage, IID spokeswoman Marion Champion said.

IID agreed to a $12 million fine as part of the settlement, of which $9 million was applied to physical improvements of IID’s system.

IID ended up building a 30 MW, 20 MWh lithium-ion battery storage system at its El Centro generating station. The system went into service in October 2016 and in May, IID used the system’s 44 MW combined-cycle natural gas turbine at the generating station.

Passing savings to customers
The cost of the storage system was about $31 million, and based on its experience with the El Centro project, Champion said IID plans to add to the existing batteries. “We are continuing to see real savings and are passing those savings on to our customers,” she said.

Champion said the battery system gives IID the ability to provide ancillary services without having to run its larger generation units, such as El Centro Unit 4, at its minimum output. With gas prices at $3.59 per million British thermal units, it costs about $26,880 a day to run Unit 4, she said.

IID’s territory is in southeastern California, an area with a lot of renewable resources. IID is also not part of the California ISO and acts as its own balancing authority. The battery system gives the utility greater operational flexibility, in addition to the ability to use more of the surrounding renewable resources, Champion said.

In May, IID’s board gave the utility’s staff approval to enter into contract negotiations for a 7 MW, 4 MWh expansion of its El Centro storage facility. The negotiations are ongoing, but approval could come in the next couple months, Champion said.

The heart of the issue, though, is “the ability of the battery system to lower costs for our ratepayers,” Champion said. “Our planning section will continue to utilize the battery, and we are looking forward to its expansion,” she said.” I expect it will play an even more important role as we continue to increase our percentage of renewables.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News