should go to generation technologies. Parties also raised points related to whether certain technology types or project sizes should receive carveouts. In particular, Foundation Wind argued for a 10% carveout for renewable generation while SunVerge Energy argued that residential energy storage projects should receive a budget carveout of 30%. Numerous parties argued about what the right breakdown in the incentive budget should be. In the end, the Staff Proposal’s 75%/25% split strikes the right balance of the programs goals of reducing GHGs, providing grid support and enabling market transformation. Energy storage is the fastest growing source of projects for SGIP and represents the most scalable set of technologies to achieve the program goals. Although we do not accept the Proposal’s recommendation to keep electriconly fuel cells out of the program, we find that a significant weighting of incentives towards energy storage is justified in light of the program’s goals, and as a result we adopt the Staff Proposal’s 75%/25% incentive budget split. This Decision also finds that setting minimum incentive carveouts for renewables in the Generation technology category and energy storage systems installed at residential sites are reasonable. Further, in PG&E’s comments to the Proposed Decision, PG&E sought clarification regarding whether the carveout for smaller energy storage systems should be explicitly limited to residential applications. Given that the initial argument in favor of this carveout was made in the context of residential energy storage, it is reasonable to clarify that this carveout shall be limited to the residential customer class. That said, given historically low rates of participation among the residential class of customers in
should go to generation technologies. Parties also raised points related to whether certain technology types or project sizes should receive carveouts. In particular, Foundation Wind argued for a 10% carveout for renewable generation while SunVerge Energy argued that residential energy storage projects should receive a budget carveout of 30%. Numerous parties argued about what the right breakdown in the incentive budget should be. In the end, the Staff Proposal’s 75%/25% split strikes the right balance of the programs goals of reducing GHGs, providing grid support and enabling market transformation. Energy storage is the fastest growing source of projects for SGIP and represents the most scalable set of technologies to achieve the program goals. Although we do not accept the Proposal’s recommendation to keep electriconly fuel cells out of the program, we find that a significant weighting of incentives towards energy storage is justified in light of the program’s goals, and as a result we adopt the Staff Proposal’s 75%/25% incentive budget split. This Decision also finds that setting minimum incentive carveouts for renewables in the Generation technology category and energy storage systems installed at residential sites are reasonable. Further, in PG&E’s comments to the Proposed Decision, PG&E sought clarification regarding whether the carveout for smaller energy storage systems should be explicitly limited to residential applications. Given that the initial argument in favor of this carveout was made in the context of residential energy storage, it is reasonable to clarify that this carveout shall be limited to the residential customer class. That said, given historically low rates of participation among the residential class of customers in
163928075.docx