Southern California Edison Doesn't Need To Be Forced to Dabble in Energy Storage
Here’s an article from SmartGridNews called “California’s new energy storage mandate: Does it signal the tipping point?”
The answer, in a word, is No. You’re “forcing” Southern California Edison, one of the most progressive utilities on the planet, to deploy 50 MW (less than 1% of the capacity it owns outright) of its power from storage — eight years from now? Zzzzzz.
I’m looking for a tipping point too, but I realize I’m going to have to look elsewhere.
California is going to become an exporter of energy and they will need storage to manage the grid, both within their borders and out. The Sandia report on storage cited that California will need over 450 Mw’s of storage by 2020 and if more emissions control is mandated that storage will be needed to replace the gas fired peakers that are now used to balance the system. Gas is approx.50% cleaner than coal but 50% of something bad is still bad.
It will be difficult for California to export energy if they cannot do it when the energy is actually needed. When it is actually needed it may not be available and when it is available, it may not be needed.
Craig,
Here we agree wholeheartedly. This means that California Edison will take a loss by purchasing a few pumped hydrostorage facilities that are already in existence, and their customers will take the hit through higher cost electricity. It will accomplish nothing but a few headaches and more irritation/pushback from people who are resisting green energy.