Search

EV-specific electric utility rates have a profound effect on the underlying economics motivating EV adoption. State utility regulators and electric utilities play a critical role in approving and designing rates, respectively. However, the nascence of the EV industry has resulted in regulators’ and utilities’ having very limited experience with EV-specific rate designs. This suggests there could be substantial benefit from efforts intended to provide a better understanding of how EV-specific rates are designed presently in the United States. To meet that need, Berkeley Lab researchers, with support from E9 Insight, developed a database of piloted, proposed, and offered rates among U.S. investor-owned utilities (IOUs) between 2012 and 2022. The database is comprised of 217 electric utility retail rates from IOUs in 38 states and the District of Columbia that either required proof of EV ownership or were otherwise designed for the purposes of reselling energy for use in EV charging (i.e., EV-specific rates). The analysis of the database identifies the EV-specific rate designs currently observed, infers a number of policy-driven objectives, and suggests a number of next steps for future research.

The report highlights key considerations for retail regulators in the footprints of the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) or Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) in states that previously opted out of allowing third-party aggregation participation under FERC Order 719 and that may want to explore reversing the decision due to a changing policy environment under new FERC orders (i.e., 2222) and/or tightening resource adequacy constraints. Through a document review and a series of 27 interviews with regulators, aggregators, and other industry professionals, this document provides a high-level policy overview of the retail regulator’s role in a selection of processes, rules, and regulations to better understand how states have treated and/or integrated aggregators into wholesale markets. The report summarizes findings in two sections: General Findings and Specific Policy Findings. The General Findings offer high level takeaways such as the fact that 17 of the 20 states in MISO and SPP footprints opted out of third party aggregations following Order 719. Additionally, there is only one state that is fully restructured in the MISO and SPP footprints whereas the rest are vertically integrated, and the majority of third-party aggregations in the U.S. take place in restructured states outside of these footprints. Even so, third-party aggregations do take place in MISO and SPP albeit in small numbers and in an ad hoc regulatory environment. The specific policy findings delve deeper into specific examples of state actions on the topics of jurisdiction, registration and licensing, data governance, dual participation, and dispute resolution. Tables in each category organize state actions into Tiers I-III, which roughly correspond to the possible level of involvement or possible change necessary by state regulators and/or legislators to implement these actions. The tier level does not indicate any value judgement, as each state has respective regulatory limitations and each

The report highlights key considerations for retail regulators in the footprints of the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) or Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) in states that previously opted out of allowing third-party aggregation participation under FERC Order 719 and that may want to explore reversing the decision due to a changing policy environment under new FERC orders (i.e., 2222) and/or tightening resource adequacy constraints. Through a document review and a series of 27 interviews with regulators, aggregators, and other industry professionals, this document provides a high-level policy overview of the retail regulator’s role in a selection of processes, rules, and regulations to better understand how states have treated and/or integrated aggregators into wholesale markets. The report summarizes findings in two sections: General Findings and Specific Policy Findings. The General Findings offer high level takeaways such as the fact that 17 of the 20 states in MISO and SPP footprints opted out of third party aggregations following Order 719. Additionally, there is only one state that is fully restructured in the MISO and SPP footprints whereas the rest are vertically integrated, and the majority of third-party aggregations in the U.S. take place in restructured states outside of these footprints. Even so, third-party aggregations do take place in MISO and SPP albeit in small numbers and in an ad hoc regulatory environment. The specific policy findings delve deeper into specific examples of state actions on the topics of jurisdiction, registration and licensing, data governance, dual participation, and dispute resolution. Tables in each category organize state actions into Tiers I-III, which roughly correspond to the possible level of involvement or possible change necessary by state regulators and/or legislators to implement these actions. The tier level does not indicate any value judgement, as each state has respective regulatory limitations and each

Technological advances and a more engaged customer population are pushing utilities and their regulators towards new strategies that promote growth and transformation. Common to many of these efforts is an interest in expanding the set of profit-generating product and service offerings, hereafter referred to as alternative commercial opportunities, beyond just buying and selling electricity. Prior work has focused on specific categories and types of alternative commercial opportunities and in specific market segments. The report fills an important gap in the literature in two ways. First, we develop a comprehensive taxonomy to categorize the alternative commercial opportunities and provide numerous examples within each category. Second, we identify six issues that regulators may want or need to address when determining if and how investor-owned electric utilities pursue these commercial opportunities. The work is intended to inform regulators and decision-makers about how to navigate these broader reform opportunities, as well as rationalize their response within the context of their state policy strategy and in comparison to their peers in other states.

Technological advances and a more engaged customer population are pushing utilities and their regulators towards new strategies that promote growth and transformation. Common to many of these efforts is an interest in expanding the set of profit-generating product and service offerings, hereafter referred to as alternative commercial opportunities, beyond just buying and selling electricity. Prior work has focused on specific categories and types of alternative commercial opportunities and in specific market segments. The report fills an important gap in the literature in two ways. First, we develop a comprehensive taxonomy to categorize the alternative commercial opportunities and provide numerous examples within each category. Second, we identify six issues that regulators may want or need to address when determining if and how investor-owned electric utilities pursue these commercial opportunities. The work is intended to inform regulators and decision-makers about how to navigate these broader reform opportunities, as well as rationalize their response within the context of their state policy strategy and in comparison to their peers in other states.

Informed energy decision making requires effective software, high-quality input data, and a suitably trained user community. Developing these resources can be expensive and time consuming. Even when data and tools are intended for public re-use they often come with technical, legal, economic and social barriers that make them difficult to adopt, adapt and combine for use in new contexts. We focus on the promise of open, publically accessible software and data as well as crowdsourcing techniques to develop robust energy analysis tools that can deliver crucial, policy-relevant insight, particularly in developing countries, where planning resources are highly constrained-and the need to adapt these resources and methods to the local context is high. We survey existing research, which argues that these techniques can produce high-quality results, and also explore the potential role that linked, open data can play in both supporting the modelling process and in enhancing public engagement with energy issues., QC 20130426

Hydrogen is emerging beyond its conventional role as an additive component for gasoline production, chemical and fertilizer manufacture, and food production to become a promising fuel for transportation and stationary power. Hydrogen offers a potentially unmatched ability to deliver a de-carbonized energy system, thereby addressing global climate change concerns, while simultaneously improving local air quality and reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels. This "trifecta" of potential benefits is sometimes missed by narrow "cost-effectiveness" analyses that examine any one of these benefits but ignore the others.The emergence of a broader "hydrogen economy" can best be thought of as a transition that will take many years to unfold. Natural gas is a reasonable source of hydrogen in the near term, as it offers modest benefits and lower costs than most other sources. However, as the costs of hydrogen technologies such as fuel cells and electrolyzers decrease through mass production and technological learning, and costs of primary solar and wind power sources continue to slowly decrease, renewably-produced hydrogen will become more competitive.Moreover, hydrogen costs will be relatively stable due to a diversity of feedstock base, with far more stable prices than the volatile oil and natural gas markets can offer. These reasons, coupled with the environmental benefits that hydrogen can offer if produced renewably and cleanly, have led most environmental advocates and states that are working to commercialize clean energy technologies to envision one articulated long-term scenario—a clean energy future that relies on fuel cells powered by renewably produced hydrogen.Many states, particularly New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, Ohio and California, are providing research and project deployment funds, tax breaks for new industry, and other measures to encourage hydrogen and fuel cell developments in their states. These program incentives are based o

The "hydrogen energy station" is one method of hydrogen production at small and medium scales. Unlike more conventional hydrogen station designs where hydrogen is simply delivered or produced on-site with a fuel "reformer" or water electrolyzer and then compressed and dispensed, energy stations would provide multiple functions in the same facility. They would integrate systems for production of electricity for 1) local uses and/or the utility grid, 2) re-use of thermal energy "waste heat" for building heating/cooling needs, and 3) purified hydrogen for refueling vehicles.Hydrogen energy stations can be of various types and configurations. Most designs to date are based around some type of fuel cell power plant for electricity production, with coproduction of hydrogen either by splitting the stream of hydrogen from a fuel reformer or electrolyzer (to power the fuel cell and provide electricity with one stream and to refuel vehicles with the other) or by using excess hydrogen from the fuel side of the fuel cell system to provide vehicle fuel.A few hydrogen energy station demonstration projects have been conducted in the past few years, and additional projects are anticipated as part of the California Hydrogen Highway Network initiative and other regional distributed power and hydrogen fuel efforts. We suggest that the interest in hydrogen as a transportation fuel offers opportunities for the development of additional hydrogen energy station projects, as we are beginning to see in California. Promoting new projects such as these will allow for the more complete exploration of the varying potential of different designs, configurations, and locations/settings for the energy station concept.Clean Energy Group (CEG) commissioned this report in order to support the Public Fuel Cell Alliance project (PFCA) and to more fully explore the potential for hydrogen energy stations to play an important role in advancing the development of clean and efficient technologies for both st

The "hydrogen energy station" is one method of hydrogen production at small and medium scales. Unlike more conventional hydrogen station designs where hydrogen is simply delivered or produced on-site with a fuel "reformer" or water electrolyzer and then compressed and dispensed, energy stations would provide multiple functions in the same facility. They would integrate systems for production of electricity for 1) local uses and/or the utility grid, 2) re-use of thermal energy "waste heat" for building heating/cooling needs, and 3) purified hydrogen for refueling vehicles.Hydrogen energy stations can be of various types and configurations. Most designs to date are based around some type of fuel cell power plant for electricity production, with coproduction of hydrogen either by splitting the stream of hydrogen from a fuel reformer or electrolyzer (to power the fuel cell and provide electricity with one stream and to refuel vehicles with the other) or by using excess hydrogen from the fuel side of the fuel cell system to provide vehicle fuel.A few hydrogen energy station demonstration projects have been conducted in the past few years, and additional projects are anticipated as part of the California Hydrogen Highway Network initiative and other regional distributed power and hydrogen fuel efforts. We suggest that the interest in hydrogen as a transportation fuel offers opportunities for the development of additional hydrogen energy station projects, as we are beginning to see in California. Promoting new projects such as these will allow for the more complete exploration of the varying potential of different designs, configurations, and locations/settings for the energy station concept.Clean Energy Group (CEG) commissioned this report in order to support the Public Fuel Cell Alliance project (PFCA) and to more fully explore the potential for hydrogen energy stations to play an important role in advancing the development of clean and efficient technologies for both st

Hydrogen is emerging beyond its conventional role as an additive component for gasoline production, chemical and fertilizer manufacture, and food production to become a promising fuel for transportation and stationary power. Hydrogen offers a potentially unmatched ability to deliver a de-carbonized energy system, thereby addressing global climate change concerns, while simultaneously improving local air quality and reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels. This "trifecta" of potential benefits is sometimes missed by narrow "cost-effectiveness" analyses that examine any one of these benefits but ignore the others.The emergence of a broader "hydrogen economy" can best be thought of as a transition that will take many years to unfold. Natural gas is a reasonable source of hydrogen in the near term, as it offers modest benefits and lower costs than most other sources. However, as the costs of hydrogen technologies such as fuel cells and electrolyzers decrease through mass production and technological learning, and costs of primary solar and wind power sources continue to slowly decrease, renewably-produced hydrogen will become more competitive.Moreover, hydrogen costs will be relatively stable due to a diversity of feedstock base, with far more stable prices than the volatile oil and natural gas markets can offer. These reasons, coupled with the environmental benefits that hydrogen can offer if produced renewably and cleanly, have led most environmental advocates and states that are working to commercialize clean energy technologies to envision one articulated long-term scenario—a clean energy future that relies on fuel cells powered by renewably produced hydrogen.Many states, particularly New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, Ohio and California, are providing research and project deployment funds, tax breaks for new industry, and other measures to encourage hydrogen and fuel cell developments in their states. These program incentives are based o