Zeke HausfatherDec 20, 2022

This stat from @[email protected] in the WaPo today is nuts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/20/clean-energy-bottleneck-transmission-lines/

"At the end of 2021, there were 8,100 projects sitting in line, waiting for permission to get connected. Together, they represent more than the combined power capacity of all U.S. electricity plants"

This little-known bottleneck is blocking clean energy for millions

Energy developers want to build a ton of wind and solar — they just can’t get it connected to the grid.

The Washington Post
Show threadZeke HausfatherDec 20, 2022
Granted that not all projects in the queue will be built, but is becoming increasingly clear that the biggest barrier to electricity decarbonization today is not the cost of clean energy, but rather our ability to build the transmission to accommodate it.
Show threadDavid Dunnett

@hausfath to be clear, that waiting solar and wind would not be able to completely replace existing generation capacity, but it would likely reduce fossil fuel usage for electricity by about half (I would guess).

Any idea why more developers don't co-locate batteries to avoid grid upgrades? Should pay for itself in opportunity costs alone I would imagine!

Dec 20, 2022 at 8:02pmWeb
Show threadRao KonidenaDec 21, 2022
@ddunnett developers do co-locate batteries at the same site as a solar project. But the problem is, the grid interconnection engineer is studying solar and storage as 2 separate interconnection projects instead of one. And, the engineer is not studying storage as a possible alternative to grid upgrade - they are only trained to study/model a Tx line as an alternative. That's the issue here.
Show threadDavid DunnettDec 21, 2022
@rkonidena76 is that everywhere in the US? I've heard complaints of this before and it's really a shame, as this is one of the big values of short term storage
Show threadRao KonidenaDec 21, 2022
@ddunnett not everywhere. I think California ISO does a good job of including storage as an alternative. MISO and SPP are the worst.
Show threadDavid DunnettDec 21, 2022
@rkonidena76 thanks Rao, that's very interesting. Looks like you were advising MISO on storage policy. Do you predict any changes or improvements in the near future? It also seems like the IESO here in Ontario does not understand battery applications very well
Show threadChaz TeplinDec 21, 2022

@ddunnett @rkonidena76

In most grids, operators want to ensure that power from interconnecting generators can always be delivered to load, in all 365/24/7 without any transmission contraints. So adding batteries doesn't help. The battery might reduce curtailment – but the grid operators doesn't care about curtailment.

But some grids and processes aren't this strict about delivery – the big difference is whether/how the grid is planning for the new generator to contribute to resource adequacy.

Show threadDavid DunnettDec 21, 2022
@chazteplin @rkonidena76 not sure I follow your point. If you are proposing a wind or solar site and the grid operator wants to build fatter cables to accommodate it, or to approve the interconnect, then the battery certainly helps since you (as a developer) can keep the peak power through the interconnection down. But the grid operator needs to understand that role to approve the connection. Note that the battery also provides many valuable services to the grid operator (frequency control, short circuit power, flatter ouput from the VRE). I disagree that grid operators are only looking for generators to serve baseload.
Show threadRao KonidenaDec 21, 2022
@ddunnett changes on the horizon at MISO related to how storage is modeled in planning models used for generator interconnection studies is here - https://cdn.misoenergy.org/20221019%20PAC%20Item%2005c%20Dispatch%20of%20Storage%20in%20MTEP%20and%20DPP%20Studies626687.pdf