IEEE Electrification - December 2021 - 46

external study to inform assumptions
(such as the CPUC's storage
potential study and PGE's BTM
study) are assumed to be less complex
but more costly. Practices that
involve the internal development or
refinement of modeling software
are assumed to be relatively more
complex, but, because they use
staff resources and are the intellectual
property of the utility, they are
assumed to be relatively less expensive
than licensing a commercial
software tool. And while PGE's inhouse
development of the ROM tool
to support its energy storage modeling
was a time-consuming and
likely costly endeavor, the cost and
complexity for a generic utility to
perform a net cost analysis is
assumed to be much lower due
to the existence of free modeling
tools. And while PGE's scenario
prohibiting new sources of GHGs is
the least complex and costly practice, absent other
modeling enhancements to overcome the temporal
and spatial barriers of capacity expansion models, it
would only be capable of identifying long-duration
storage needs.
The innovative practices identified in this work represent
a significant investment from the entities that
implement them, but those innovations have generally
not dispersed to the broader utility industry. Most of the
IRPs presented in this work are from utilities and other
entities located in the Western United States, where the
steady evolution of planning practices has resulted in
modeling approaches that can be transparently described
in IRP documentation, creating a clear link between the
analytical process and plan outcomes. While several
other utilities in the Southeast and Midwest have included
energy storage in recent IRP preferred portfolios, their
IRPs generally do not describe the analytical steps taken
to reach those conclusions.
Where planning outcomes are not clearly supported
The innovative
practices identified
in this work
represent a
significant
investment from the
entities that
implement them, but
those innovations
have generally not
dispersed to the
broader utility
industry.
explaining how or why those outcomes
were reached. That lack of
supporting evidence complicates the
regulatory review process and exposes
utilities to the risk of regulatory
rejection of investment decisions.
Taking steps to incorporate the
best emerging practices identified in
this article can help utilities, regulators,
and stakeholders improve the
transparency of an IRP and facilitate
informed review and consideration of
planning outcomes.
Acknowledgment
We acknowledge and thank the Energy
Storage Program within the U.S.
Department of Energy-Office of Electricity,
under the direction of Dr. Imre
Gyuk, for funding this work.
For Further Reading
K. Carden and N. Wintermantel, " Energy
storage capacity value on the CAISO system, "
Astrape Consulting Rep., 2019. [Online]. Available: https://
www.astrape.com/?ddownload=9137
H. Chen, S. Baker, S. Benner, A. Berner, and J. Liu, " PJM integrates
energy storage: Their technologies and wholesale
products, " IEEE Power Energy Mag., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 59-67,
Sept.-Oct. 2017. doi: 10.1109/MPE.2017.2708861.
A. L. Cooke, J. B. Twitchell, and R. S. O'Neil, Energy Storage in
Integrated Resource Plans. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://energy
storage.pnnl.gov/pdf/PNNL-28627.pdf.
T. M. Gür, " Review of electrical energy storage technologies,
materials, and systems: Challenges and prospects for
large-scale grid storage, " Energy Environ. Sci., vol. 11, no. 10,
pp. 2696-2767, 2018. doi: 10.1039/C8EE01419A.
S. Koohi-Fayegh and M. A. Rosen, " A review of energy storage
types, applications and recent developments, " J. Energy
Storage, vol. 27, Feb. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.est.2019.101047.
" Distributed resource and flexible load study: Integrated
resource planning system-level report, " Portland General
Electric, Navigant, PGE IRP, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://downloads.ctfassets.net/416ywc1laqmd/6KTPcOKF
lLvXpf18xKNseh/271b9b966c913703a5126b2e7bbbc37a/
2019-Integrated-Resource-Plan.pdf
by the modeling process, the IRP process breaks down.
IRPs are a primary source of evidence use by utilities to
justify investments to regulators and recover those
investments in rates. While the utilities cited in this article
are providing extensive narratives about how they
conducted the IRP and how they reached their conclusions,
other IRPs reviewed by the authors selected energy
storage and other resources without any clear narrative
Biographies
Jeremy B. Twitchell (jeremy.twitchell@pnnl.gov) is with the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington,
99352, USA.
Alan S. Cooke (alan.cooke@pnnl.gov) is with the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington,
99352, USA.
46
IEEE Electrification Magazine / DECEMBER 2021

https://www.astrape.com/?ddownload=9137 https://www.astrape.com/?ddownload=9137 http://energystorage.pnnl.gov/pdf/PNNL-28627.pdf http://energystorage.pnnl.gov/pdf/PNNL-28627.pdf https://downloads.ctfassets.net/416ywc1laqmd/6KTPcOKFlLvXpf18xKNseh/271b9b966c913703a5126b2e7bbbc37a/2019-Integrated-Resource-Plan.pdf https://downloads.ctfassets.net/416ywc1laqmd/6KTPcOKFlLvXpf18xKNseh/271b9b966c913703a5126b2e7bbbc37a/2019-Integrated-Resource-Plan.pdf https://downloads.ctfassets.net/416ywc1laqmd/6KTPcOKFlLvXpf18xKNseh/271b9b966c913703a5126b2e7bbbc37a/2019-Integrated-Resource-Plan.pdf

IEEE Electrification - December 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Electrification - December 2021