Cost and Value Accounting Approach” which would calculate standard value pricing numbers that would be available for each service that storage technologies provide. Clean Coalition states that under its proposed approach, developers would bid their projects based on standard value pricing, which are deemed to be cost-effective. IEP proposes that the Commission “compare viable storage with viable alternatives on a range of measures, including grid reliability, avoided curtailment, capacity value, and ancillary services value.” Most parties oppose imposing a cost cap. SCE states that it does not support a cost cap for individual offers. It argues that “[g]iven the diverse array of storage technologies, applications and benefits, it would be impossible to develop a single number that would appropriately apply.” PG&E agrees with SCE, noting that any cost ramps could be a leading mechanism to check costs. MEA contends that a cost cap “would create artificial influences that would inhibit communication of true costs within the Energy Storage market.” In a similar vein, CESA argues that it is more important to consider the net benefits provided by resources than to set cost caps. TURN does not think that cost caps are necessary if IOUs have greater flexibility in storage procurement. DRA thinks that if cost caps are imposed, then they should be applied at the program level to ensure market discipline. Megawatt Storage argues that “there is no testimony, evidence or analysis that can be used to set a cap.” AB 2514 requires that energy storage targets and procurements must be “viable and cost-effective.” To that end, we have devoted a great deal of attention and effort into formulating a cost-effectiveness approach that would be sufficient to meet Section 2836.2(d).
Cost and Value Accounting Approach” which would calculate standard value pricing numbers that would be available for each service that storage technologies provide. Clean Coalition states that under its proposed approach, developers would bid their projects based on standard value pricing, which are deemed to be cost-effective. IEP proposes that the Commission “compare viable storage with viable alternatives on a range of measures, including grid reliability, avoided curtailment, capacity value, and ancillary services value.” Most parties oppose imposing a cost cap. SCE states that it does not support a cost cap for individual offers. It argues that “[g]iven the diverse array of storage technologies, applications and benefits, it would be impossible to develop a single number that would appropriately apply.” PG&E agrees with SCE, noting that any cost ramps could be a leading mechanism to check costs. MEA contends that a cost cap “would create artificial influences that would inhibit communication of true costs within the Energy Storage market.” In a similar vein, CESA argues that it is more important to consider the net benefits provided by resources than to set cost caps. TURN does not think that cost caps are necessary if IOUs have greater flexibility in storage procurement. DRA thinks that if cost caps are imposed, then they should be applied at the program level to ensure market discipline. Megawatt Storage argues that “there is no testimony, evidence or analysis that can be used to set a cap.” AB 2514 requires that energy storage targets and procurements must be “viable and cost-effective.” To that end, we have devoted a great deal of attention and effort into formulating a cost-effectiveness approach that would be sufficient to meet Section 2836.2(d).
79533378.docx