NewEnergyNews: 09/01/2020 - 10/01/2020/


Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

The challenge now: To make every day Earth Day.



  • TTTA Wednesday-ORIGINAL REPORTING: The IRA And The New Energy Boom
  • TTTA Wednesday-ORIGINAL REPORTING: The IRA And the EV Revolution

  • Weekend Video: Coming Ocean Current Collapse Could Up Climate Crisis
  • Weekend Video: Impacts Of The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current Collapse
  • Weekend Video: More Facts On The AMOC

    WEEKEND VIDEOS, July 15-16:

  • Weekend Video: The Truth About China And The Climate Crisis
  • Weekend Video: Florida Insurance At The Climate Crisis Storm’s Eye
  • Weekend Video: The 9-1-1 On Rooftop Solar

    WEEKEND VIDEOS, July 8-9:

  • Weekend Video: Bill Nye Science Guy On The Climate Crisis
  • Weekend Video: The Changes Causing The Crisis
  • Weekend Video: A “Massive Global Solar Boom” Now

    WEEKEND VIDEOS, July 1-2:

  • The Global New Energy Boom Accelerates
  • Ukraine Faces The Climate Crisis While Fighting To Survive
  • Texas Heat And Politics Of Denial
  • --------------------------


    Founding Editor Herman K. Trabish



    WEEKEND VIDEOS, June 17-18

  • Fixing The Power System
  • The Energy Storage Solution
  • New Energy Equity With Community Solar
  • Weekend Video: The Way Wind Can Help Win Wars
  • Weekend Video: New Support For Hydropower
  • Some details about NewEnergyNews and the man behind the curtain: Herman K. Trabish, Agua Dulce, CA., Doctor with my hands, Writer with my head, Student of New Energy and Human Experience with my heart




      A tip of the NewEnergyNews cap to Phillip Garcia for crucial assistance in the design implementation of this site. Thanks, Phillip.


    Pay a visit to the HARRY BOYKOFF page at Basketball Reference, sponsored by NewEnergyNews and Oil In Their Blood.

  • ---------------
  • WEEKEND VIDEOS, August 24-26:
  • Happy One-Year Birthday, Inflation Reduction Act
  • The Virtual Power Plant Boom, Part 1
  • The Virtual Power Plant Boom, Part 2

    Wednesday, September 30, 2020

    ORIGINAL REPORTING: The 3 key challenges to expanding the West's real-time energy market to day-ahead trading

    The 3 key challenges to expanding the West's real-time energy market to day-ahead trading; Customer savings and streamlined emissions cuts can come from the Buffett-backed west-wide market plan

    Herman K. Trabish, June 3, 2020 (Utility Dive)

    Editor’s note: The effort to expand the Western real-time energy market is quietly gathering support as more states recognize the inevitability of the power system’s transition.

    Utilities and stakeholders in Western states, seeing important benefits in their real-time energy market, are working toward expanding to a regional day-ahead collaboration that could hold much bigger benefits.

    The voluntary Energy Imbalance Market (EIM) was launched by PacifiCorp, a subsidiary of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Energy (BHE), and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) in November 2014 to optimize real time dispatch, according to CAISO. It has generated $919 million in reduced energy costs and other benefits. Now, driven by new Western state renewables and zero emissions mandates, the 11 active participants and 9 new applicants are pushing to expand it to day-ahead trading.

    "Generally, EIM entities are helping with the over-supply problem in California by absorbing the excess energy in the solar hours and helping meet California's morning and evening peaks," BHE Vice President for Government Relations Jonathan Weisgall told Utility Dive. With a day-ahead energy market, "those reductions in emissions and cost savings could be significantly increased" by optimizing dispatch from limited real-time trading to almost the entire Western energy market.

    Western utilities and power providers from Canada to the Mexican border and from the Rockies to the Pacific are working on this voluntary Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM). It would expand optimized dispatch and delivery from 5% of the power flows in Western electricity markets to almost 100%. While there are few apparent declared opponents to the plan, stakeholders must address the three key challenges of the proposed market — its governance, transmission charges across jurisdictions, and guarantees among participants that they will meet their obligations.

    Policymakers across the West have rejected efforts by CAISO to organize a formal regional market that would have eliminated cost barriers among the West's 38 balancing areas where individual jurisdictional entities optimize their own dispatch. California leaders primarily sought to protect the state from federal regulation while other Western leaders have been concerned with protecting their state's interests from California."But every state west of the Rockies except Wyoming now has a 100% renewables or zero emissions mandate or a utility with an agreement moving it in that direction," BHE's Weisgall said.

    BHE subsidiary PacifiCorp "has achieved customer benefits in the EIM, but rising renewables penetrations represent new levels of variability," Weisgall added. "The greater resource diversity available through the EDAM will allow utilities optimal dispatch flexibility to meet that increased variability with cost savings for customers." The EIM would continue to serve the entities' real time needs. The EDAM, which would reduce barriers for its voluntary participants in the much larger day-ahead market, is being explored through EIM committees and CAISO working groups by most of the EIM entities… click here for more

    Two New Energy Bets Worth Making

    These 3 Renewable-Energy Stocks Are Better Than Tesla; If you think Tesla's stock is too pricey, we have three great options for you.

    Travis Hoium, Jason Hall, Howard Smith, September 27, 2020 (Motley Fool)

    “…[I]nvestors love the long-term potential of Tesla because of its ability to disrupt the energy sector…But Tesla isn't the only disruptive renewable energy stock on the market, and there are opportunities to find growth in much smaller stocks. Bloom Energy (NYSE:BE), Enphase Energy (NASDAQ:ENPH), and Atlantica Sustainable Infrastructure (NASDAQ:AY) all have a lot of long-term potential, and three of our energy contributors think they're better buys than shares of Tesla today… Bloom Energy could be just as disruptive…[It offers] new ways to store and consume renewable energy…[including] an industrial electrolyzer that will turn electricity (wind or solar for renewable energy) and water into [green] hydrogen…

    ...[Enphase Energy] is a leading supplier of solar microinverters, which are used to convert direct current energy at the solar panel into the alternating current used in the home…Growth and expansion are coming off an already strong base. Along with strong sales growth has come improved profitability over the past several years…The Encharge storage systems are the latest in the Enphase ecosystem…The energy storage market is estimated to grow to over $500 billion by 2035…” click here for more

    Monday, September 28, 2020

    MONDAY STUDY: Tomorrow’s Big New Energies

    Future Energy; The technologies shaping the energy transition

    September 2020 (Wood Mackenzie)

    Future energy: green hydrogen

    Could it be a pillar of decarbonisation?

    The ambition is net-carbon neutral. The EU, and others, want to get there by 2050, some even sooner. Achieving that goal needs policy, investment and technology. Hydrogen is one of the technology pillars on which hopes to abate climate change rest. To find out more, I chatted to Ben Gallagher, our lead analyst on emerging technologies. What is the attraction of hydrogen? It’s a super-versatile energy carrier with exceptional energy density (MJ/kg). Today, around 70 million metric tonnes of hydrogen are produced globally, used across an array of sectors – fertiliser, refining, petrochemicals, solar panels and glass manufacturing. In the future, hydrogen will have a huge role to play in decarbonising the global economy, especially in hard-to-decarbonise sectors. But, first, there are a lot of challenges…


    Realistically, it’ll be another decade before hydrogen starts to make a meaningful contribution to decarbonisation. Today green hydrogen is tiny, with only around US$365 million invested in 94 MW of capacity, though the pipeline of new projects has quadrupled in less than a year to over 15 GW. That shows the interest the technology is attracting in China, Japan, the US, Europe and Australia, but so far, it’s only scratching the surface. If the pieces fall into place it could be huge. We think hydrogen could displace 1400 Mtoe of primary energy demand by 2050 under a 2-degree scenario LINK, 10% of global supply, with green hydrogen the majority of that. Scalable, commercial green hydrogen would answer a lot of questions around global decarbonisation.

    And who will invest?

    Only a handful of companies have entered the electrolyser market. But rising membership of the Hydrogen Council, formed in 2017, reveals the widespread interest among big players across multiple sectors including automakers (among them BMW, GM and Honda), power and gas utilities (Engie and EDF), engineering (Bosch, Alstom), finance, and oil and gas (Aramco, Shell, BP, Total and Equinor).

    Future energy: carbon capture & storage

    Central to decarbonisation strategies Shell, Repsol, BP are among those setting bold targets to become net-carbon neutral. Governments, too, will head in that direction. But how to get there? Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is invariably central to the strategy. I asked Ben Gallagher, lead analyst on emerging technologies, about the opportunity and the challenges.

    What is CCS?

    A method of removing the carbon dioxide (CO2) released in the processing or combustion of hydrocarbons. CCS can be applied in power generation, natural-gas processing, refining, cement, hydrogen reforming and chemicals and other industries. There’s now a search underway to use the carbon or embed it in materials – what’s called carbon capture utilisation and storage.

    Why’s there so much interest in CCS?

    Few think the global economy can thrive for the next few decades without coal, oil and gas. The world will be emitting carbon for decades yet; the trick will be to capture and store it. Commercial, scaled-up CCS means we can use fossil fuels while greatly reducing CO2 emissions until energy consumption is fully decarbonised. It’s going to be hugely important for hard-to-decarbonise sectors like cement and steel…

    How much investment is needed?

    Today, it’s a tiny part of the decarbonisation story – the 42 million metric tonnes of installed capacity are capable of capturing just 1% of annual global emissions. Most are attached to power plants. We think capacity will double by 2030. As the power sector transitions to renewables, blue hydrogen production makes up an increasing proportion of the CCS development pipeline. If the world is to get onto a 2-degree pathway, we could need up to 4 billion tonnes of capacity by 2050, 100 times what we have today. Exponential growth will require exponential investment. That will only happen if the incentives are there – high carbon prices, policy support or, most likely, both.

    How will Big Oil invest in CCS?

    First, storing carbon extracted from high CO2 gas fields – Chevron (Gorgon, Australia) and Equinor (Sleipner and Snovhit, Norway) have projects already in operation. Second, injecting post-combustion CO2 to enhance oil recovery – Occidental is one of the leading exponents in the Permian. Thirdly, and a big growth opportunity, is to partner in high-emitting but hard-todecarbonise sectors. Total has teamed up with Lafarge and Svante in Canada to pilot CO2 capture and reuse from Lafarge’s Richmond cement plant in British Columbia.

    Future energy: zero-carbon heating

    Could heat pumps displace gas in our homes?

    Fifty years ago, natural gas transformed homes with instant heat and hot water. But the days of gas and other fossil fuels dominating domestic fuels may be numbered. Rapidly evolving policy in the EU is searching for technologies to speed up electrification and decarbonisation. Heat pumps could be part of the answer, binding households once and for all into reducing carbon emissions. Our experts in new energy technologies, Fei Wang and Ben Gallagher, and Murray Douglas, European gas, explained the options.

    What is the technology?

    Heat pumps are a proven technology, a heating and cooling system that’s ready for mass deployment. Two types are suitable for residential or commercial use – air source and ground source. Unlike a combustion boiler, they don’t produce heat but work like a fridge, transferring heat from a coil outside the building to a second coil inside using a refrigerant. The process can be reversed for air-conditioning in summer. They run on electricity, ideally zero-carbon renewables. The big advantage is the heat pump’s exceptional energy conversion rate. A modern gas boiler has an efficiency rate of around 80%, with 20% lost in the process. Heat pumps can have 300% efficiency, generating 3kw of thermal energy for every 1 kilowatt consumed.

    How big is the opportunity?


    Over one-third of global energy demand is space heating in the residential and commercial sectors, served by a mix of fuels. Gas is the incumbent fuel in Europe (43%) and an important part of the mix in the US (40%), where electricity already has the biggest share (44%); while coal dominates in Poland and China. Oil and LPG are still widely used globally where communities are remote from gas infrastructure. The penetration of heat pumps into the market today is minuscule. But the opportunity is massive – many multiples of the 20 million systems installed world-wide…

    What are the implications for future gas and electricity consumption?

    The EU’s 2030 targets are ambitious and may rely mostly on squeezing coal out of the power market. Heat pumps’ economics are just one barrier – the skilled workforce to roll out the systems at scale isn’t there yet. It could be that, like electric vehicles, heat pumps go mass market in the 2030s rather than this decade. The potential loss of gas demand by 2040 could be substantial – we reckon as much as 25% lower in the residential sector to get on the pathway to reach the Green Deal’s ultimate goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. That’s around 50 bcm, or 10% of total demand, in the EU27 plus UK today. Meanwhile, switching from fossil fuels to heat pumps will drive up electricity demand, adding to pressure on power infrastructure.

    Future energy: offshore wind

    The zero-carbon technology that’s attracting big capital So much of the technology to deliver a netcarbon neutral world seems distant. Green hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and heat pumps all need R&D and heavy subsidies before they can contribute materially. Offshore wind is more ‘ovenready’ and set to take off. Soeren Lassen, head of offshore wind research, and his team identify five reasons why it’s becoming central to energy companies’ plans.

    First, the exponential improvement and innovation in the technology, led by a competitive global OEM sector. New installations are bigger, delivering huge output gains and lower costs for each MW installed and MWh produced. The average turbine size has doubled to 8 MW in five years with more to come – the latest models on order are 14 MW…

    Second, supportive policy. European governments started incentivising offshore wind more than a decade ago as part of the drive to cut greenhouse gases. The UK, Germany and Denmark led the way, while China has also been an early adopter…

    Third, there’s almost unlimited growth potential – offshore wind can work wherever the resource is close enough to market. Today, there’s just 28 GW of installed capacity (equivalent to one-third of the UK’s total generation capacity) and spread across a handful of countries with a North Sea coastline, and China. The US, Poland, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are among those already committed to developing offshore wind…

    Fourth, the economics. Mid-single digit returns in Europe can be boosted by innovative financing…

    Fifth, an influx of capital. The space was niche, dominated by pioneers like Orsted and a handful of utilities. But that’s changing as new players move in, including risk-averse financial investors. Big Oil will also invest in a big way…

    Saturday, September 26, 2020

    The Climate Clock Ticking Fast

    While deniers make the climate crisis a political issue, . From PIX11 News via YouTube

    The Offshore Wind Solution

    Offshore wind is more than New Energy. It is new economic opportunity.From American Wind Energy Association via YouTube

    Biden On The Climate Crisis

    Joe gets it. The other guy makes it worse. It’s as simple as that. From Joe Biden via YouTube

    Friday, September 25, 2020

    The Climate Clock Is Ticking

    Colossal Climate Clock in New York City counts down to global deadline

    Jeff Berardelli, September 22, 2020 (CBS News)

    “…[The digital display in New York’s Union Square shows] a deadline of sorts: the years, days, hours, minutes and seconds left to curb greenhouse gas emissions enough to give the Earth a two-thirds chance of staying below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, as compared to pre-industrial times…[If that is exceeded,] scientists say the impacts will become increasingly more disastrous…[The Climate Clock shows] a little over seven years to meet this very ambitious, and some would say unattainable, goal…

    Another slightly less aggressive benchmark from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 — nine years away — to give the Earth a 50% chance of not exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming…[The clock’s makers] hope that this clock serves as a constant reminder to passersby of the short timeline and ambitious action required to stave off the worst effects of climate change…” click here for more

    New Energy Geopolitics

    Geopolitics and the Energy Transition: Competition or Cooperation?

    Will Marshall, September 20, 2020 (Global Risk Insights)

    “…[Like the shifts from wood to coal and from coal to oil, the climate change-propelled] shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, is likely to have transformative effects on the geopolitical landscape…Green technologies such as wind, solar and hydropower are projected to constitute 49% of global energy consumption by 2050, up from 26.2% in 2019, likely resulting in immense shifts in the global energy trade…[to] an increasingly regionalised pattern of energy distribution replacing the global marketplace… [High line losses associated with long-distance electrical transmission and the natural variation in weather conditions] will foster increased energy interdependence between neighbours…This may increase the potential for peace in regions plagued by petroleum-related violence, such as the Middle East, Africa and Latin America…

    ...[But the energy transition may give rise to new strategic rivalries and geopolitical vulnerabilities with the rise of competition over critical rare] earth metals such as copper, graphite, lithium and cobalt… which are critical for renewable technologies…Such crises are exacerbated when they intersect with existing strategic tensions between neighbouring states and often threaten to spill over into open confrontation…Although renewable industries are projected to generate over 11 million new jobs worldwide by 2050, declining demand for coal and fossil fuel extraction may exacerbate economic dislocation…The energy transition thus presents a crossroads…Those who fail to adjust or diversify may see significant economic collapse…” click here for more

    Wednesday, September 23, 2020

    ORIGINAL REPORTING: Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Interested In San Diego

    Warren Buffett Bids to Replace SDG&E

    Herman K. Trabish, July 21, 2020 (cacurrent)

    Editor’s note: The terms required of the bidders were announced…

    San Diego will take formal bids for alternatives to San Diego Gas & Electric as its power supplier because of the upcoming expiration of the utility’s franchise agreement with the city. Billionaire Warren Buffet will bid into the city’s solicitation.

    SDG&E’s 50-year franchise agreement, which allows use of San Diego’s rights-of-way for delivery of electricity and natural gas, expires Jan. 1, 2021. The city’s charter requires the franchise to come from a competitive solicitation open to all bidders, including SDG&E.

    SDG&E, the Buffett-owned Berkshire Hathaway Energy, and Indian Energy, a small Orange County-based alternative energy solutions provider, responded to the city’s initial request for expressions of interest. With the highest electricity rates in California, many customers are dissatisfied with the utility.

    “We definitely have challenges with SDG&E, and we want to leverage the franchise discussions to find a partner that will help San Diego reach its renewables and climate goals and build a modern grid,” City of San Diego Chief Operating Officer Erik Caldwell told Current.

    San Diego’s Climate Action Plan calls for 100% renewables by 2035. It is supported by the alternative generation supplier San Diego Community Power that will launch in 2021. It will emphasize local distributed renewables. “We also want more accountability, through third party audits and a clear dispute resolution process. SDG&E hasn’t provided that,” Caldwell added. He stressed that the city wants “fair compensation for the largest franchise opportunity in the state.”

    The City Council’s Environment Committee agreed on a 3-to-1 vote July 16 to endorse JVJ Pacific Consulting’s proposal that bidding start at $54 million for the right of ways to deliver electricity and $8 million to deliver natural gas. The next step is approval of the formal solicitation for bids, which requires a 2/3rds vote of the full City Council. The next franchise holder could earn an estimated $6.4 billion over 20 years. However, a key question is the length of new franchise agreement, JVJ’s Howard Golub told the committee… click here for more

    New Energy Made Twitter Buzz In August

    Power trends: Renewable energy leads Twitter mentions in August 2020; Power Technology’s list of the top five terms tweeted about power in August 2020, based on data from GlobalData’s Influencer Platform.

    10 September 2020 (Power Technology)

    The top tweeted terms are the trending industry discussions happening on Twitter by key individuals (influencers)…[are led by] Renewable energy – 1045 mentions…Renewable energy being blamed for blackouts in California, new renewable energy plans proposed in the US, and the increase in investments in renewables in Europe were some popularly discussed topics in August…2. Solar – 700 mentions…The launch of the first solar powered ferry in India, community solar becoming prevalent in the US and completion of 1GW solar project by an energy firm in the US were some popularly discussed topics…

    3. Coal – 413 mentions…The decline in coal demand and coal generation capacity across the world and the losses faced by some of the biggest coal companies were popularly discussed…4. Gas – 357 mentions…Dangerous gas leaks, BP’s plan to reduce gas production and experts’ objection to Australian chief scientist’s support for the use of gas were popular…[and] 5. Wind – 262 mentions…The UK government slashing its wind and solar cost estimates, first power generated at an offshore wind farm in Holland and the impact of tax credit extensions on wind projects in the US were popular…” click here for more

    Monday, September 21, 2020

    MONDAY STUDY: Making Buildings Into New Energy Assets

    Trust but Verify: Report Supports Advanced Practices for Assessing Demand Flexibility Performance; Performance Assessments of Demand Flexibility from Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings: Issues and Considerations

    Steven R Schiller, Lisa C Schwartz, Sean Murphy, July 2020 (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)


    This SEE Action Network report explains basic concepts and fundamental considerations for assessing the actual demand flexibility performance of buildings participating in demand flexibility programs and responding to time-varying retail rates. Demand flexibility is the capability of distributed energy resources (DERs) to adjust a building’s load profile across different timescales. Assessments determine the timing, location, quantity, and quality of grid services provided.

    The results can be used for financial settlements and to improve performance of demand flexibility, support its consideration in resource potential studies and electricity system planning, and contribute to cost-effectiveness evaluations.

    While practitioners and regulators regularly find opportunities to improve performance assessments of demand-related services, to a large degree current best practices are sufficient for basic service offerings as demand flexibility is implemented today. However, advances in assessment practices will be required in a future with grid-interactive efficient buildings (GEBs) that provide continuous demand flexibility by integrating multiple DERs and flexibility modes (load shed, load shift, modulate, and generate). Example practices include using new baseline constructs—including whether baselines are even required for certain building flexibility modes or configurations, deploying more advanced metering and analytics, further developing cybersecurity standards, improving communication standards for increased interoperability, and establishing performance metrics and assessment procedures for load modulation as it is more fully defined and implemented.

    This report provides information on prioritizing and designing performance assessment elements for demand flexibility programs and time-varying retail rates, assessment protocols, and research and development needs. Additional research sponsored by DOE’s Building Technologies Office1(link is external) offers more detailed technical information on assessing performance of demand flexibility, including definition of performance metrics.

    • The Summary section provides major findings and recommendations.

    • Section 1 describes GEBs and their characteristics, defines the concepts and purposes of demand flexibility assessments, summarizes current demand flexibility practices, and describes expected advancements both in capabilities of buildings to provide demand flexibility and in assessment practices.

    • Section 2 presents five fundamental considerations associated with performance assessments of demand flexibility: (1) assessment objectives, (2) assessment boundaries, (3) performance metrics (both number and quality of metrics), (4) analysis methods (including baselines), and (5) assessment implementation requirements (for example, for data collection and privacy).

    • Section 3 builds on these five fundamental considerations to describe development needs for assessments in a future with buildings providing more complex grid services.

    The three areas of focus are: (1) developing new baseline constructs; (2) implementing assessments, with attention to additional metering needs, interoperability and communication standards, privacy, cybersecurity, and independent evaluators; and (3) assessing modulation as a demand flexibility service.

    • Section 4 summarizes ways state and local governments and others can support implementing, standardizing, and enhancing assessments to support cost-effective services from demand flexibility.

    • Appendix A summarizes our interviews with experts. Other appendices provide references and additional information on select topics—GEB characteristics, industry-standard measurement and verification approaches, and demand-side management strategies and grid services


    Demand flexibility in buildings supports electricity system reliability and resilience, energy affordability, integration of new generating resources and loads, and other state and local energy goals. By contributing grid services needed for these purposes, demand flexibility can help advance a jurisdiction’s energy-related policies such as integrating energy efficiency with other distributed energy resources (DERs), hardening critical energy infrastructure, reducing peak demand, mitigating climate change, achieving renewable energy targets, and electrifying transportation and targeted building loads.

    Performance assessments of demand flexibility determine the timing, location, quantity, and quality of grid services provided. Such assessments are common for financial settlements and have other important applications (Figure S-1). For utilities, regional grid operators, and utility regulators, assessments provide confirmation that buildings can reliably and consistently provide demand flexibility, critical to its broad acceptance as a grid resource. For building owners, operators, and occupants, assessments help optimize building performance, provide confidence in the benefits they will receive from demand flexibility (e.g., lower energy costs, payments for performance), and demonstrate acceptable non-energy impacts (e.g., building maintains comfort standards). Assessments also can reveal positive non-energy impacts, such as improved equipment performance through better building monitoring and controls and higher building resale value through lower net energy costs. In addition, comprehensive assessments provide state and local governments data they need to advance demand flexibility in support of their broader energy goals. In these ways, all stakeholders benefit from information that assessments provide for planning, designing, and implementing demand flexibility cost-efficiently.


    Demand flexibility is the capability of DERs to adjust a building’s load profile across different timescales. Demand flexibility (or load flexibility), integrated with energy efficiency, is the core characteristic of grid-interactive efficient buildings. The potential impacts are significant. Buildings account for 75% of U.S. electricity consumption and a comparable share of peak power demand. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration 2019

    This report synthesizes basic concepts and fundamental considerations and identifies development needs associated with assessing performance of individual buildings (residential, commercial, institutional) participating in dispatchable demand flexibility programs. Individual buildings are the building blocks for assessing multiple buildings aggregated for programs. Dispatchable demand flexibility programs provide financial incentives to consumers that change electricity demand in response to events called by a utility, regional grid operator, or DER aggregator for reliability or economic reasons.

    The report includes some discussion of assessment methods for multiple buildings, known as impact evaluations, in the context of assessing time-varying retail rates that also encourage demand flexibility. In addition, performance assessments may be conducted for voluntary demand flexibility efforts encouraged by government entities or utilities during times of electricity system stress. While not the subject of this report, market evaluation—another type of assessment—can be a valuable tool for increasing adoption of demand flexibility, to assess progress toward market transformation and other market-related objectives.

    In addition, the report identifies ways that state and local governments and other stakeholders can support meeting assessment needs in order to advance demand flexibility for reliable grid services. Government agencies, utilities, regional grid operators, DER aggregators, energy service providers, building system designers, and building owners, operators, and occupants can use the information in this report to improve their understanding of the role of assessments and as a starting point for defining assessment procedures and requirements, such as those associated with data collection and analysis.

    Grid-interactive efficient buildings (GEBs) use smart technologies, including advanced controls3 and sensors, to actively manage DERs—energy efficiency, demand response, distributed generation and storage, and managed electric vehicle (EV) charging—to optimize energy use for grid services, occupant needs and preferences, cost reductions, and other purposes in a continuous and integrated way. In addition to providing ongoing reductions in energy use through energy efficiency, a building’s load profile can be adjusted across different timescales using four demand flexibility modes, individually or in combination (see Section 1.1 for definitions):

    • Load shed

    • Load shift

    • Modulate

    • Generate.

    In the future, buildings will use multiple DERs and demand flexibility modes to respond to grid needs quickly, even within seconds or sub-seconds, potentially providing continuous demand flexibility. These changes will enable buildings to provide additional grid services, but will require advances in demand flexibility performance assessments. Effective performance assessments use data to quantify the amount and quality of demand flexibility provided by a building with respect to predefined performance metrics. For example, assessments can indicate the average amount of load shed or shifted, in kilowatts (kW), over a given time period and how quickly a building’s shedding or shifting of load ramped up to provide a sustained change in demand. Beyond short-term uses of such information, such as for financial settlements, assessments support resource potential studies and electricity system planning, including evaluating cost-effectiveness of demand flexibility compared to other options for meeting generation and transmission and distribution (T&D) needs.4 Demand flexibility assessments also can adopt integrated or holistic approaches that take into account a jurisdiction’s related energy programs and policy goals.

    Five fundamental considerations define a demand flexibility (and energy efficiency) assessment:

    1. Assessment objectives–What information is the assessment intended to provide and how will the information be used?

    2. Assessment boundary–At what level will performance be assessed—whole (individual) building or building system or equipment level, by DER, and/or by demand flexibility mode (e.g., load shed, load shift, modulate, or generate)? Or will the assessment boundary encompass multiple buildings, perhaps defined by their location (e.g., all buildings served by a single substation on the electric grid)?

    3. Performance metrics–What metrics will be assessed and how will be they defined? What data will be required and at what temporal granularity (e.g., sub-seconds to hours for data measurement frequency) to calculate metric values?

    4. Analysis methods–How will metrics be calculated and with what expectations for certainty? Will baselines be used and, if so, how will they be defined?

    5. Assessment implementation requirements–What are the requirements with respect to data collection, privacy, cybersecurity, and reporting—particularly timing of reporting (e.g., in real time, within hours or days)? What entities will conduct the assessments? What is the duration of assessments (performance period covered)?

    The most critical step in designing an assessment is determining appropriate performance metrics. Metrics are numbers, or other forms of information (e.g., categorical values), describing a process in a manner that indicates how well it is performing. Metrics provide a basis for making process improvements. For assessing demand flexibility performance in individual buildings, metrics may encompass four dimensions:

    • Quantity and timing of demand flexibility provided (e.g., amount of demand reduction during defined period in kW or kilowatt-hours (kWh), the most common metric for demand flexibility today)

    • Quality of demand flexibility provided (e.g., speed of achieving desired demand change or persistence of desired demand flexibility over long periods of time)

    • Attribution of impacts to equipment, DER, flexibility mode, and/or building location (performance assessment boundary)5

    o Individual equipment (e.g., chillers) and systems (e.g., lighting)

    o Individual DERs

    o Individual flexibility modes o Location of impacts on the electricity grid

    • Impacts on owners and occupants, including energy cost savings and non-energy impacts such as comfort, health, and productivity.

    For some demand flexibility modes and grid services provided, performance metrics may simply be based on direct measurements, such as the amount of electricity provided to the grid from a building with on-site generation. Alternatively, performance metrics may be based on whether the building’s demand for electricity is within desired parameters, such as a desired load shape (e.g., lower demand during certain hours and higher demand during other hours).

    But for most types of demand flexibility and grid services provided, direct measurements must be compared to other quantities—typically a counterfactual scenario (commonly referred to as the baseline)—to understand the quantity of grid services provided. For example, the amount of load shed during a specific time period is equal to the difference between the actual load of the building and a counterfactual scenario, defined as the load that would have occurred in the absence of the subject utility demand flexibility program or time-varying retail rate. Defining and determining counterfactual scenarios for most metrics is a major component of assessment analytics, particularly for dispatchable demand flexibility programs which typically rely on historical data for building electricity demand to define baselines. In contrast, the counterfactual scenario for time-varying retail rates, such as time-of-use (TOU) pricing, can be defined by a control group6 without attribution for individual building performance, because no settlement process is involved for individual participants. Figure S-2 presents a hierarchy of analysis methods for demand flexibility assessments.

    Impacts such as demand (kW) change and energy (kWh) savings, and thus metrics, are quantified in the same manner regardless of the state’s electricity market structure—vertically integrated utilities or centrally organized wholesale electricity markets (or a combination). Conceptually, all performance metrics may be assessed at the whole building or individual system or equipment level, or for all buildings participating in a demand flexibility program or time-varying retail rate. Performance metrics may differentiate between impacts associated with energy efficiency or the four modes of demand flexibility (load shed, load shift, modulate, and generate) and which DERs are providing such flexibility. Still, metrics of greatest interest are associated with demand flexibility performance of a whole building or an aggregation of buildings.

    Demand flexibility assessments can build on existing approaches for performance verification, such as demand response measurement and verification (M&V) protocols for utility programs and wholesale electricity markets. The fundamentals of assessing demand reductions from energy efficiency, load shed, and generation have been in place for decades, are well-established, and can serve as the basis for load shifting and modulation assessments. Particularly applicable are advanced M&V practices that have adopted the use of smart meter data and automated analytics. For example, demand flexibility assessments can adapt existing practices related to metering and data quality standards, measurement protocols, counterfactual scenario definitions, and use of independent third parties. Further, at least as a starting point, assessments can take advantage of approaches to data privacy and cybersecurity, as well as installation of building automation systems (BAS) and advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). Where deployed, BAS and AMI support data collection and sharing and may significantly ease implementation and assessment of demand flexibility.

    Advanced M&V (also called M&V 2.0) can help realize the promise of buildings as grid assets in two important ways. First, it leverages standardized data formats and the finer timescale of smart meter data. Second, automated analytics enable processing of larger volumes of data at high speeds to support fast-response modulation implementation and assessments. Combined with conventional impact evaluations, used regularly to assess load shedding associated with time-varying rates, a strong base of existing practices can be drawn upon to assess demand flexibility as currently implemented.

    In order to meet the full potential of GEBs to integrate multiple DERs and flexibility modes, however, existing assessment approaches will need to be modified or new approaches will need to be developed to assess demand flexibility performance—for example, in the context of:

    • Buildings providing continuous or near-continuous demand flexibility

    • Engagement of multiple demand flexibility modes in an integrated manner

    • Load modulation in sub-seconds to seconds, autonomously providing grid stability and balancing services

    • Increased use of combinations of DERs, such as on-site generation to charge batteries in concert with load shed and shift

    • Integrated whole-building system approaches to providing grid services, as well as demand flexibility at the individual end-use level or individual device level

    • Managed EV charging

    • Reducing complexity associated with multiple DERs, demand flexibility modes, and program and rate designs by providing simplified approaches for consumers and other market participants.

    These examples imply more sophisticated assessments of demand flexibility.


    Table S-1 summarizes five drivers of development needs for future demand flexibility assessments and three priority development needs with respect to baseline constructs, implementation practices and infrastructure, and modulation.

    New assessment approaches may best take the form of standardized protocols that can reduce costs and increase consistency and credibility of assessment findings. Such approaches likely will be based on frameworks that emphasize reasonable costs for assessing performance by considering meter-based analyses as an integral element of program implementation and resource planning. Inevitably, methods will emphasize consistent, simplified tracking and reporting that enables continuous and rapid feedback and opportunities for improvement in demand flexibility performance.

    Research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) is required to address these needs. State and local governments can support such RD&D in several ways:

    • Lead by example by conducting assessments of demand flexibility in their own public buildings.

    • Encourage or require performance assessments for buildings participating in demand flexibility programs they operate or regulate, and for buildings on time-varying retail rates.

    • Catalog and consider adopting best assessment practices, consistent with the jurisdiction’s policies and regulations.

    • Share and support advances in assessment practices related to performance metrics, analysis methods, baselines, and implementation approaches for determining demand flexibility impacts.

    • Disseminate assessment results and the metrics, data, analysis methods, and implementation strategies used. Leveraging and sharing data results in increased understanding and continuous improvement of demand flexibility performance, informs DER potential studies and electricity system planning based on verified performance, and secures confidence in performance assessment practices and thus demand flexibility as a grid resource, all in the most cost-effective manner.

    Public utility commissions (PUCs) and state energy offices also can play an important role by providing guidance on performance metrics and standardized protocols for verifying buildings’ demand flexibility in response to grid signals in real time, as well as over longer time periods. Standardization can reduce costs and increase consistency and credibility of assessment findings. States can take these actions in collaboration with utilities and regional grid operators, which write the assessment rules for verifying demand flexibility performance of program participants.

    Other opportunities, including those for PUCs and state energy offices, include updating assessment strategies, such as baselines and qualifications criteria for entities that conduct and report assessment results, and encouraging development and adoption of standard, cost-efficient protocols for communication, data privacy, and cybersecurity. Additional actions include improving access to data necessary to conduct assessments. That may include facilitating investments in metering infrastructure, such as AMI and BAS with real-time measurement capability and built-in, two-way communication capability consistent with established standards and protocols for interoperability, cybersecurity, and data privacy.

    Saturday, September 19, 2020

    Trevor Noah Talks Climate Crisis Politics

    The warm-up is life on Venus but the second half is about the political debate over the climate crisis. Give hurricanes Arabic names? From Comedy Central via YouTube

    A Detailed Picture Of The Climate Crisis Solution

    Decarbonization of everything, explained. From VOX via YouTube

    China’s Energy SuperHighway

    It is simply unacceptable that the U.S. has not built a transmission system like this. From Just Have A Think via YouTube

    Friday, September 18, 2020

    Climate Crisis Impacts Will Hit Everyone

    Climate crisis could displace 1.2 billion people by 2050, report warns

    Jessie Yeung, September 10. 2020 (CNN)

    “The global climate crisis could see [1.2 billion] people displaced from their homes [by 2050], as ecological disasters drive mass migrations and greater armed conflict, according to [The Ecological Threat Register from the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP)]…No country will be able to escape the impact of the climate crisis -- but the world's poorest and most vulnerable populations will be hardest hit…[141] countries are exposed to at least one ecological threat… 6.4 billion people live in countries which are exposed to medium to high ecological threats…

    Flooding is the most common ecological threat affecting 60 per cent of the countries covered in the report, followed by water stress, which will impact 43 per cent of the countries by 2050...Ten of the 19 countries with the highest exposure to ecological threats are among the 40 least peaceful nations on the Global Peace Index…The projections indicate the situation to worsen over the next two decades…The majority of the countries in Europe and South America will face lower levels of ecological threats, because of low population growth.” click here for more

    Oil Major Moves Toward New Energy

    BP report: Oil is dying, long live green energy

    Michelle Lewis, September 14, 2020 (Electrek)

    “…[BP’s 2020 Energy Outlook shows] oil may have reached its peak due to the pandemic and that renewables will take the place of fossil fuels…BP’s three scenarios are Rapid Transition (carbon emissions from energy use to fall by around 70% by 2050), Net Zero (carbon emissions from energy use fall by ‎over 95% by 2050), and Business-as-usual (emissions in 2050 less than 10% below 2018 levels)…[In all three scenarios, policies and shifts in societal preferences lead to] a decline in the share of ‎hydrocarbons (coal, oil, and natural gas) in the global energy system…[and] a corresponding increase in the role of renewable energy as the world increasingly ‎electrifies…

    In BP’s first two scenarios, COVID-19 accelerates the slowdown in oil consumption, leading to it peaking last year. In its Business-as-usual scenario, oil demand peaks by 2030…[BP, a global oil giant,] is stating that fossil fuels will be replaced by green energy such as wind, solar, and hydropower because oil has reached its peak as a result of the pandemic…[It recently] invested $1.1 billion in offshore wind in the US…BP isn’t being benevolent; it knows that’s where the market is going…” click here for more

    Wednesday, September 16, 2020

    ORIGINAL REPORTING: Don’t Stop Thinking About Recovery

    A 21st Century Distribution System Will Provide Economic Recovery

    Herman K. Trabish, July 15, 2020 (California Current)

    Editor’s note: What comes after this pandemic depends on what policymakers set in motion during it.

    In response to the Covid-19 economic downturn, energy sector stakeholders are calling for a national transmission system and grid modernization but California should take a state-centric approach, local clean energy advocates said.

    “Local level economic recovery can come from distribution system modernization,” V. John White, Center for energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies executive director, told Current. The benefit of investments in renewables after the 2008 recession exceeded the costs, which are now far less. “Stimulus funding will go farther to meet California’s climate goals faster.”

    Grid modernization can extend to distributed energy resources like rooftop solar and storage, demand response, and transportation and building electrification, Erica Bowman, Southern California Edison Director of Resource Planning and Resource Strategy, added. “All of them could put stimulus money into economic activity and feed a recovery.”

    There are four key principles of stimulus and recovery, according to a new Rocky Mountain Institute analysis. Spending should create job and economic growth, improve public health or resilience, and advance renewables and decarbonization. Distribution system modernization aligns with those principles, Rushad Nanavatty, RMI Senior Principal, said.

    “Covid-19 wiped out five years of solar job growth, so it’s really important to emphasize this labor-intensive segment of the industry in the context of an economic recovery,” Nanavatty added. Distributed energy resources and energy efficiency are particularly important because they are “hard to off-shore and predominantly blue-collar.”

    Distributed renewables and energy efficiency also provide wildfire resilience. In addition, they allow further phasing out of the fossil fuel generation that causes the respiratory health-compromising pollution, which the pandemic exacerbates… click here for more

    Only A Price On Carbon Will Save The U.S. Economy

    Federal Report Warns of Financial Havoc From Climate Change; A report commissioned by President Trump’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued dire warnings about climate change’s impact on financial markets.

    Coral Davenport and Jeanna Smialek, September 8, 2020 (NY Times)

    “…Climate change threatens U.S. financial markets, as the costs of wildfires, storms, droughts and floods spread through insurance and mortgage markets, pension funds and other financial institutions.

    ‘A world wracked by frequent and devastating shocks from climate change cannot sustain the fundamental conditions supporting our financial system,’ concluded the report, “Managing Climate Risk in the Financial System,” which was requested last year by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission…

    …[Those observations] carry new weight coming with the imprimatur of the regulator of complex financial instruments like futures, swaps and other derivatives that help fix the price of commodities like corn, oil and wheat. It is the first wide-ranging federal government study focused on the specific impacts of climate change on Wall Street…

    Perhaps most notable is that it is being published at all. The Trump administration has suppressed, altered or watered down government science around climate change as it pushes an aggressive agenda of environmental deregulation that it hopes will spur economic growth…The new report asserts that doing nothing to avert climate change will do the opposite…

    The commodities regulator, which is made up of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by President Trump, voted unanimously last summer to create an advisory panel drawn from the world of finance and charged with producing a report on the effects of the warming world on financial markets…

    …[The report] includes recommendations for new corporate regulations…[including the reversal of the Trump administration-proposed policy that would forbid retirement investment managers from considering environmental consequences in their financial recommendations. It also] emphasizes the need to put a price on carbon emissions, which is often done either by taxing or through an emissions trading system that caps carbon emissions and allots credits that polluters can buy and sell under that cap… click here for more

    Monday, September 14, 2020

    MONDAY STUDY: Electricity Needs For Electric Vehicles

    Electric Vehicles at Scale – Phase 1 Analysis: High EV Adoption Impacts on the Western U.S. Power Grid

    Kintner-Meyer, Sarah Davis, Dhruv Bhatnagar, Sid Sridhar, Malini Ghosal, and Shant Mahserejian, July 2020 (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)

    Executive Summary

    The use of electric vehicles (EVs) in the United States has grown significantly during the last decade. So much so that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) asked Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to perform an authoritative study of the impacts of EVs at scale on the electric grid. “At scale” was defined by high-penetration scenarios performed earlier by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the International Energy Agency (IEA). During the discussion of scope with DOE, it became clear that EVs at scale affect the electric infrastructure fundamentally in two different ways: (1) EVs affect the electric infrastructure at the point of common coupling, which for most EV charging stations (also referred to as EV Supply Equipment) is a connection to the distribution system, either at home, at a workplace, or at a public charging station; and (2) EVs at scale affect the bulk power system as an aggregated new load.

    This Phase I study focuses on the bulk power electricity impacts; distribution system analysis is left for the follow-on Phase II study. Because of a sense of urgency related to performing the analysis and publishing the results, PNNL recommended that the study focus on the Western grid (i.e., the Western Electricity Coordinating Council [WECC]). The WECC already has a commonly agreed-upon data set for a future grid scenario—the WECC 2028. By using the WECC 2028 scenario, PNNL used the best available future grid scenario definition that included load growth assumptions, generation retirements and additions, as well as transmission expansions. The analysis was based on a production cost modeling approach using the ASEA Brown Boveri Gridview tool.

    This EV-at-scale Phase I analysis addressed the following two key questions of interest to DOE related to the impacts of EV at the bulk power level at the time when EVs are deployed at scale:

    1. Are there sufficient resources in the U.S. bulk power grid to provide the electricity for charging a growing EV fleet? This question addresses the system adequacy.

    2. What are the likely operational changes necessary to accommodate a growing EV fleet?

    This question addresses changes in

    • generation mix

    • production cost

    • challenges and benefits of accommodating the new EV loads.

    The study is unique because it represented for the first time not only the projection for light-duty but also for medium-duty and heavy-duty electric vehicles (LDVs, MDVs, and HDVs). It should be noted that this study did not include a capacity expansion analysis that searches for costoptimal investments of new grid infrastructure given the new EV loads. Instead this study focused on the resource adequacy question of high EV adoption as the WECC grid planners defined the evolution of the bulk power system to the year 2028.

    Key Outcomes of the Study

    Assumptions About the Penetration of EVs

    This analysis applied for the following penetration assumptions for 2028 expressed as a national figure: LDVs: 24 million, MDVs: 200,000, HDVs: 150,000. The national figures were applied to the WECC footprint by a 0.4 scaling factor.

    Modeling of Load Profiles of LDVs, MDVs, HDVs for the 2028 Scenario

    The following load profiles were established. LDV load profiles were generated by National Renewable Energy Laboratory using the EVI-Pro tool. MDV and HDV load profiles were modeled by PNNL. Load profiles are shown in the figures below.

    Major Findings

    2028 resource adequacy is likely to be sufficient for high EV penetration assumption.

    • Under a high-penetration scenario with national electric fleets of ~24 million LDVs, 200,000 MDVs, 150,000 HDVs for a 2028 time frame, we are not expecting resource adequacy issues in the WECC under normal operating conditions (normal system, weather, and water conditions). The corresponding electric fleet sizes for the WECC footprint are 9 million LDVs, 70,000 MDVs and 94 HDV charging stations. EV resource adequacy can be doubled with managed charging strategies.

    The EV resource adequacy for the entire WECC interconnection was estimated for a likely unmanaged charging scenario under which most LDVs were charging at home starting in the evening (Home High power No Delay: HHND). Unmanaged charging is predicated on arrival time at home in the evening, when we assumed that the charging process begins. The maximum number of LDVs when projected to the national fleet was about 30 million (national value) or 9 million for the WECC footprint. Alternatively, if managed charging was applied by hypothesizing a price-minimization scheme, the EV resource adequacy could be expanded to 65 million (national fleet number) or 19.6 million for the WECC. This suggests a significant opportunity to substitute additional generation and transmission requirements with smart charging strategies and much better utilization of the existing grid. Figure S.5 shows the limited resource adequacy for unmanaged and managed charging. Note, the resource adequacy limit is set when the unserved energy becomes greater than zero.

    • At the maximum number of LDVs, the authors found transmission congestion to be the limiting factor, which means that there are some available power plants in the WECC but the electric power could not be delivered to the load centers because of transmission limitations. The largest transmission congestions were in California (Paths 15, 26).

    Operational changes can be made to accommodate EVs.

    • The additional generation for charging EVs is likely to be provided by natural gas combined cycle plants and combustion turbine s predominantly throughout the WECC (85%–89% of all new generation). See hourly marginal generation for WECC by technology for two different charging scenarios in Figures S.6 and S.7.

    • Storage is used in California to meet the peaks set by EVs. Hydropower generation in Washington State is redispatched to resemble a commonly observed charging/discharge cycle of an energy storage technology. No new hydropower generation is expected because hydropower generation is energy limited—no more water is expected in the Columbia River system.

    • All EV charging load is likely to reduce renewable curtailments between 25% and 75% based on when EVs are charged. Managed charging could reduce the curtailment the most by an additional 16%.

    • The production cost implications due to the additional load varied from 3% in Arizona, where there is some available coal generation, to 23% in California, where combustion turbines are required to meet the peak load set by EVs. It should be noted that all cost estimates were done keeping the generation capacity constant. It is likely that capacity expansion in anticipation of additional load may mitigate the cost increase, particularly, if the additional generation is renewable generation resources.

    • Managed charging has significant operational benefits in solar-rich areas such as California. It reduced the duck curve in two ways: (1) it reduced the coincident peak (duck height) and (2) it reduced the ramp requirements in the evening when the sun sets (steepness of the duck’s neck).

    In addition, the authors analyzed EV-at-scale impacts for Washington State using the WECC results. The results of this higher resolution analysis are as follows:

    • Unmanaged EV resource adequacy for Washington State is approximately 1 million LDVs and 4,600 MDVs under normal system, weather, and water conditions. With managed (smart) charging, the resource adequacy can be increased to 2.7 million LDVs.

    • Washington State hydropower resources may need to be redispatched to accommodate unmanaged EV load.

    • The average production cost implications of high LDV penetration are minor and vary between 4% and 9% based on the generation mix of the utility organization.

    • The authors recognize congestion in the transmission system that already exists during high loading in the winter. Congestion is likely to be exacerbated with new EV loading with unmanaged charging, because of transfers from Canada to Washington, Washington to Oregon, and eastern Washington to western Washington under normal system, weather, and water conditions.

    The bulk power analysis had inherent limitations.

    The employed production cost modeling approach using a grid data set that represents a 2028 future grid realization comes with some inherent limitations.

    The production cost model solves the generator unit commitment and economic dispatch problem given the available generators, the transmission system, and hourly loads in the WECC. It can identify system inadequacy by revealing sufficient generation and/or transmission capability to serve loads. It also provides insights into production costs and locational marginal prices on an hourly bases. However, this approach does not consider the evolution of the grid infrastructure as new investments are made. As a consequence, the production cost tend to increase with load additions as more expensive generators are being dispatched. In this analysis, the authors added new EV load beyond what the WECC members estimated in the 2028 data set to test the system adequacy question. Thus, the production cost implications are expected to be higher than if grid evolutions had been considered.

    The illustrative distribution system analysis offered insightful results for Phase II analysis.

    An illustrative distribution system analysis was presented that demonstrated the mechanism of how to perform a distribution system analysis and what the expected results and outcomes are. This illustrative example indicated the following:

    • Factors most likely to limit the additional growth of EVs are thermal overloading or reaching the rated capacity of grid assets in the distribution system under fast charging conditions.

    • Voltage violations may occur under fast charging conditions that feature high ramping loads during fast charging events…