The Economics of Load Defection

ROC

IN

IN TA

MOUN KY

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION HOW GRID-CONNECTED SOLAR-PLUSBATTERY SYSTEMS WILL COMPETE WITH TRADITIONAL ELECTRIC SERVICE, WHY IT MATTERS, AND POSSIBLE PATHS FORWARD

Pi-Lens/Shutterstock.com

1820 FOLSOM STREET | BOULDER, CO 80302 | RMI.ORG COPYRIGHT ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE.

PUBLISHED APRIL 2015 DOWNLOAD AT: WWW.RMI.ORG

AUTHORS AUTHORS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Peter Bronski, Jon Creyts, Mark Crowdis (global X), Stephen Doig, John Glassmire (HOMER Energy), Leia Guccione, Peter Lilienthal (HOMER Energy), James Mandel, Bodhi Rader, Dan Seif (The Butler Firm), Helen Tocco (global X), Hervé Touati

The authors thank the following individuals and organizations for offering their insights and perspectives on this work:

* Authors listed alphabetically. All authors from Rocky Mountain Institute unless otherwise noted.

CONTACTS James Mandel (jmandel@rmi.org) Leia Guccione (lguccione@rmi.org)

Designer: Chris Rowe

Sunil Cherian, Spirae Ali Crawford, Sacramento Municipal Utility District Jon Fortune, Sunverge Energy Lena Hansen, Rocky Mountain Institute Tom Key, Electric Power Research Institute Lee Kosla, Saft Batteries Chris Kuhl, ZBB Battery Virginia Lacy, Rocky Mountain Institute Clay Nesler, Johnson Controls James Newcomb, Rocky Mountain Institute Curtis Probst, Rocky Mountain Institute Owen Smith, Rocky Mountain Institute

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Images courtesy of Thinkstock unless otherwise noted.

STIT UTE

ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE

HOMER ENERGY

Since 1982, Rocky Mountain Institute has advanced market-based solutions that transform global energy use to create a clean, prosperous, and secure future. An independent, nonprofit think-and-do tank, RMI engages with businesses, communities, and institutions to accelerate and scale replicable solutions that drive the cost-effective shift from fossil fuels to efficiency and renewables.

HOMER Energy, LLC provides software, consulting, and market access services for analyzing and optimizing microgrids and other distributed power systems that incorporate high penetrations of renewable energy sources. The HOMER® software is the global standard for economic analysis of sustainable microgrid systems, with over 122,000 users in 198 countries. HOMER was originally developed at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Its developers are now the principals of HOMER Energy, which has the exclusive license.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Please visit http://www.rmi.org for more information.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 04 01: Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 15 02: Assumptions and Methodology .................................................. 22 03: Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 04: Implications and Conclusion ............................................................... 39 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. 46

A: Additional Solar-Plus-Battery System Cost Information

B: Additional Technical Performance Assumptions C: Grid Service Technical Assumptions D: HOMER Modeling E: Financial Assumptions Section F: Analytical Results by Geography

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Endnotes ........................................................................................................................................................... 66

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXEC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY When Greentech Media published its annually updated list of cleantech buzzwords in December, its list for 2014 included “grid defection.”1 Our February 2014 analysis The Economics of Grid Defection was a central piece of that conversation. We found that in the coming years and decades—and certainly within the economic life of new investments in conventional generation—large numbers of residential and commercial customers alike will find it economical to defect from their utilities and the electricity grid and supply themselves with power from solar-plus-battery systems. This finding foretold a future in which customers will have a choice to either cost-effectively self-generate without the grid or be a traditional customer with the grid.

In particular, we sought to answer two core questions: 1. Lowest-Cost Economics: When grid-connected customers have the option to source their entire load either from a) the grid, b) a solarplus-battery system, or c) some combination of the grid, solar PV, and batteries, how does that configuration change over time based on lowest-cost economics for the customer? And how do the relative contributions of grid- and self-sourced electricity change over time to meet customer load?

2. Implications: What are the potential implications for utilities, third-party solar and battery providers, financiers/investors, customers, and other electricity system stakeholders? And what opportunities might be found in grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems?

We evaluated the economics through 2050 for a median commercial and residential customer in five cities that represent a diversity of electricity pricing and solar resource intensity. We modeled forecasts for grid only, grid-plus-solar, and grid-plus-solar-plusbattery configurations to find the lowest-cost option over time (based on systems’ per-kWh levelized cost of energy equivalent). We also examined the relative contributions of grid- and self-supplied electricity for the lowest-cost option over time. For solar and solar-plus-battery configurations, we modeled largely self-consuming systems with no export compensation (i.e., optimized for behind-the-meter operation).

Although export compensation via bill credits or direct payments (e.g., net energy metering, feed-in tariff, avoided fuel cost compensation) is today present in most geographies and would improve the economics presented here, we assumed no bill credit or direct compensation for exports as a conservatism to understand the economic implications in the most extreme case.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

While the presence of such customer choice has important implications, the number of customers who would actually choose to defect is probably small.

The far more likely scenario is customer investment in grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems. Since such systems would benefit from grid resources, they could be more optimally sized, thus making them smaller, less expensive, economic for more customers sooner, and adopted faster. More specifically how system configurations and economics would evolve over time, and what magnitude of customers, load, and revenue that could represent, are the focus of this analysis.

ANALYSIS

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FINDINGS

off-grid solar-plus-battery systems we modeled in The Economics of Grid Defection, the grid-connected systems of this analysis become economic for customers much sooner, with substantial utility load loss well within the economic life and cost recovery period for major assets. Smaller solar-only systems are economic today in three of our five geographies, and will be so for all geographies within a decade.

New customers will find solar-plus-battery systems configurations most economic in three of our geographies within the next 10–15 years.

Our analysis yields several significant findings: Solar-plus-Battery Systems Rapidly Become Cost Effective The economically optimal system configuration from the customer’s perspective evolves over time, from grid only in the near term, to grid-plus-solar, to grid-plus-solar-plus-batteries in the longer term.

Compared to the date of economic parity for the

FIGURE ES1: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION RESIDENTIAL

FIGURE ES1: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION RESIDENTIAL Grid Only

Grid + PV

Grid + PV + Battery

Westchester, NY Louisville, KY San Antonio, TX Los Angeles, CA

2050

2048

2046

2044

2042

2040

2038

2036

2034

2032

2030

2028

2026

2024

2022

2020

2018

2016

2014

Honolulu, HI

FIGURE ES2: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION COMMERCIAL FIGURE ES2: COMMERCIAL

ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION Grid Only

Grid + PV

Grid + PV + Battery

Westchester, NY Louisville, KY San Antonio, TX Los Angeles, CA

2050

2048

2046

2044

2042

2040

2038

2036

2034

2032

2030

2028

2026

2024

2022

2020

2018

2016

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

2014

Honolulu, HI

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Solar PV Supplants the Grid Supplying the Majority of Customers’ Electricity The relative contributions of the grid and customers’ solar and solar-plus-battery systems evolves over time. Initially the grid supplies a majority of a customer’s electricity needs. Over time, as retail electricity prices from the grid increase and solar and battery costs decrease, customers logically reduce their grid purchases until the

grid takes a backup-only role. Meanwhile, solarplus-battery systems eventually provide the majority of customers’ electricity. For example, in Westchester County, NY, our analysis shows the grid’s contribution shrinking from 100% today for commercial customers to ~25% by around 2030 to less than 5% by 2050. Inversely, solar PV’s contribution rises significantly to make up the difference.

FIGURE ES3: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL GENERATION MIX

FIGURE ES4: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL GENERATION MIX FIGURE ES4: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL GENERATION MIX COMMERCIAL

FIGURE ES3: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL GENERATION MIX RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL

Grid Purchases

PV Contribution to Load

WESTCHESTER, NY

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

LOUISVILLE, KY

40% 20% 0%

SAN ANTONIO, TX

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100%

LOS ANGELES, CA

60% 40% 20% 0%

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

100%

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Artur Bogacki/Shutterstock.com

2048

2050

2044

2046

2042

2038

2040

2034

2036

2032

2030

2028

2024

2026

0%

2022

2048

2050

2044

2046

2042

2038

2040

2034

2036

2032

2030

2028

2024

2026

2022

2018

2020

2014

2016

40% 20% 2018

40% 20%

80% 60%

2020

HONOLULU, HI

80% 60%

2014

LOUISVILLE, KY SAN ANTONIO, TX LOS ANGELES, CA

80% 60%

100%

HONOLULU, HI

80%

100%

100%

0%

PV Contribution to Load

100%

2016

WESTCHESTER, NY

Grid Purchases

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Potentially Large kWh Defection Could Undermine Revenue for Grid Investment Under Current Rate Structure and Business Models Between 2010 and 2030, the grid will require up to an estimated $2 trillion in investment, or about $100 billion per year.2 Currently those costs are to be recovered through revenue from energy sales.

If even a small fraction of the kWh sales supporting that investment and revenue is lost, it will likely have a large impact on system economics.3 Notably, our analysis shows that grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems become economic for large numbers of customers, and those systems have the potential to supply greater and greater portions of customers’ electricity. Assuming customer adoption follows optimal economics, the magnitude of potential kWh defection from the grid is large.

For example, in the Northeast U.S., by 2030—15 years away—maximum possible kWh sales erosion could be: Residential • ~58 million MWh annually (50% of utility residential kWh sales) • 9.6 million customers • ~$15 billion in revenue Commercial • ~83 million MWh (60% of utility commercial kWh sales) • 1.9 million customers • ~$19 billion in revenue

FIGURE ES5: FIGURE ES5: NORTHEAST POTENTIAL LOAD DEFECTION NORTHEAST POTENTIAL LOAD DEFECTION RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

Traditional Grid Customers

Potential Load Defection

80% 60% 40%

2050

2048

2046

2044

2042

2040

2038

2036

2034

2032

2030

2028

2026

2024

2022

2020

2018

0

2016

20% 2014

Percent of Customers

100%

FIGURE ES6: FIGUREPOTENTIAL ES6: NORTHEAST POTENTIAL LOAD DEFECTION NORTHEAST LOAD DEFECTION COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL

Traditional Grid Customers

Potential Load Defection

80% 60% 40%

2050

2048

2046

2044

2042

2040

2038

2036

2034

2032

2030

2028

2026

2024

2022

2020

2018

2016

0

2014

20%

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Percent of Customers

100%

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FIGURE ES7: NORTHEAST POTENTIAL LOAD DEFECTION

NORTHEAST POTENTIAL LOAD DEFECTION Value of Potential Load Defection ($)

70

180 160

60

140 50

120 100

40

80

30

60

20

40 10 2050

2048

2046

2044

2042

2040

2038

2036

2034

2032

2030

2028

2026

2024

2022

2020

2018

0

2016

20 2014

Potential Load Defection (millions of MWh)

Potential Load Defection (MWh)

0

Value of Defected Load (billions of 2012$)

RESIDENTIAL FIGURE ES7: RESIDENTIAL

FIGURE ES8: NORTHEAST POTENTIAL LOAD DEFECTION COMMERCIAL FIGURE ES8: COMMERCIAL

NORTHEAST POTENTIAL LOAD DEFECTION Potential Load Defection (MWh)

Value of Potential Load Defection ($)

70

160 60

140 120

50

100

40

80

30

60 20

40

2050

2048

2046

2044

2042

2040

2038

2036

2034

2032

2030

2028

2026

2024

2022

2020

0

2018

0

2016

10 2014

20

Value of Defected Load (billions of 2012$)

80

180

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Potential Load Defection (millions of MWh)

200

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FIGURE ES9: NET GRID PURCHASES WITH AND WITHOUT NET METERING FIGURE ES9: NET GRID PURCHASES WITH AND WITHOUT NET METERING RESIDENTIAL - WESTCHESTER, NY RESIDENTIAL - WESTCHESTER, NY

Without Net Metering

With Net Metering

11,000 10,000 9,000

Grid Purchases (kWh/yr)

8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000

Delay of Significant Load Defection

3,000 2,000 1,000 0 -1,000 2048

2050

2044

2046

2042

2038

2040

2034

2036

2032

2030

2028

2024

2026

2022

2018

2020

2014

2016

-2,000

FIGURE ES10: NET GRID PURCHASES WITH AND WITHOUT NET METERING FIGURE ES10: NET GRID PURCHASES WITH AND WITHOUT NET METERING COMMERCIAL - WESTCHESTER, NY COMMERCIAL - WESTCHESTER, NY

Without Net Metering

With Net Metering

600,000 550,000 500,000 450,000 Grid Purchases (kWh/yr)

Eliminating Net Metering Only Delays kWh Loss; Fixed Charges Don’t “Fix” the Problem Net energy metering (NEM) is a contentious yet prevalent policy that has successfully supported distributed solar PV’s growth in the U.S. Some argue that it hastens load loss from the grid (net-metered solar PV customers quickly reach effectively zero net grid purchases) and that abolishing net metering will preserve grid load. Our findings suggest that eliminating net metering merely delays inevitable significant load loss. Grid-connected solar-plusbattery systems will gradually but ultimately cause a near-total load loss even in net metering’s absence.

However, fixed charges—which some utilities have recently proposed—don’t ‘fix’ the problem. Similar to our “with” and “without” NEM scenarios, residential fixed charges would likely alter (i.e., delay) the economics for grid-connected solar and solar-plusbattery systems, but likely wouldn’t alter the ultimate load defection outcome. Customers might instead wait until economics and other factors reach a tipping point threshold and more dramatically “jump” from grid dependence to off-grid solar-plus-battery systems that offer better economics for electric service.

400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000

Delay of Significant Load Defection

50,000 0 2048

2050

2044

2046

2042

2038

2040

2034

2036

2032

2030

2028

2026

2024

2022

2018

2020

2014 MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

2016

-50,000

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Peak Price for Individual Customers Investing in their lowest-cost option for electric service through grid-connected solar and solarplus-battery systems can effectively cap customers’ electricity costs. No matter how expensive retail electricity prices get in the future, the levelized cost for grid-connected solar and solar-plus-battery systems keeps customers’ bills at or below a ‘peak price,’ in some cases yielding a significant savings on their monthly utility bill. Peak per-kWh price stabilizes at $0.10–$0.30 for commercial customers and $0.20–$0.35 for residential customers across our geographies, regardless of how expensive grid-supplied retail electricity gets in the future.

For example, for a median residential customer in Westchester County, NY, the average monthly electricity bill would reach $357 for grid electricity by 2030 based on forecasts, while peak price through adding a solar-plus-battery system would be just $268 per month. (Grid-facing costs such as T&D maintenance and central generation, as well as costs for grid-dependent customers who can’t or don’t invest in solar-plus-battery systems, are important related issues beyond the scope of this analysis.)

FIGURE ES11: FIGURE ES11: PEAK PRICE PEAK PRICE Grid Only (Retail Rate @ 3% Escalation)

Grid + PV

Grid + PV + Battery

2050 Residential Prices

2050 Commercial Prices

$0.60 $0.55 $0.50 Rising Grid Prices

$0.45

2012$/kWh

$0.40 $0.35

NY: $0.32

$0.30

HI: $0.25 CA: $0.23 KY: $0.22 TX: $0.20

$0.25 $0.20

NY: $0.27 KY: $0.21 CA: $0.18

$0.15

TX: $0.12 HI: $0.10

Solar-Plus-Battery Systems Insulate Customers

$0.10 $0.05

2050

2048

2046

2044

2042

2040

2038

2036

2034

2032

2030

2028

2026

2024

2022

2020

2018

2016

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

2014

$0

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IMPLICATIONS Although our findings show that utilities’ kWh sales loss to grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems could be very large, customer adoption of these systems also presents a number of opportunities. Unlike the off-grid systems we modeled in The Economics of Grid Defection, where customers left the grid entirely, the grid-connected customers of this analysis crucially do maintain their grid connection assuming that potential fixed charges and other changes to retail electricity price rate structures don’t become so onerous as to encourage customer grid defection. This means that although they could represent significant load loss, customers’ grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems can potentially provide benefits, services, and values back to the grid, especially if those value flows are monetized with new rate structures, business models, and regulatory frameworks.

The impact on various electricity-system market participants and other stakeholders will be profound and comes with a number of considerations:

• For owners and operators of central generation and transmission (such as independent power producers and merchant power plants), our findings are likely bad news. Our analysis predicts that solar-plus-battery systems will accelerate the decline of sales from central generation, reduce peak price spikes in deregulated markets, and also encroach on markets for ancillary services. There is a real risk of stranded assets. Existing assets still within their economic life and cost recovery period will serve a smaller and smaller remaining load, requiring price increases to cover costs and returns. Meanwhile, assets in the planning pipeline won’t see the future demand to justify their capacity and generation output.

• For vertically-integrated utilities, these systems will strain current business models, and adjustments will be necessary to fully capitalize on the rising adoption of solar PV and batteries.

Distribution utilities whose revenue depends on volumetric sales of electricity (e.g., that are not decoupled) will likely face similar challenges.

• For customers that invest in solar PV and solarplus-battery systems, the emergence of choice is good news. Our analysis suggests that, with smart solar-plus-battery investments, customers could see peak pricing emerge, insulating themselves from rising prices for grid-supplied electricity.

Meanwhile, traditional grid-supplied customers and completely defected (i.e., off-grid) customers both had much higher pricing from rising retail prices and larger, more expensive stand-alone solar-plus-battery systems, respectively.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

• For distribution grid operators (such as wiresonly utilities), the emergence of distributed solar PV and batteries is good news: customers with solar and battery systems should be able to provide value to the distribution grid including upgrade deferrals, congestion relief, and ancillary services. However, new pricing, regulatory, and business models need to emerge and mature to capitalize fully on these opportunities.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 12

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FIGURE ES12: POSSIBLE TRAJECTORIES FOR ELECTRICITY GRID EVOLUTION FIGURE ES12: POSSIBLE TRAJECTORIES FOR ELECTRICITY GRID EVOLUTION

PATH 1 INTEGRATED GRID One path leads to grid-optimized smart solar, transactive solar-plus-battery systems, and ultimately, an integrated, optimized grid in which customer-sited DERs such as solar PV and batteries contribute value and services alongside traditional grid assets.

Pricing & Rate Reform

ING PRIC

SED TE-BA RIBU E • ATT S T END T SPO GIEW AL HO ENER M RT • ATION D C A O Q M L B S • N Ed ICING • Con E THA MOR OU PR • RWE • CA T)•T • E.ON REV T, VoS i Y G F , R N M • N E • N MP. (N LATIO RT CO REGU • EXPO ASED CE-B N A FORM Solar PV and batteries play an important role in • PER

the future electricity grid, but decisions made today will encourage vastly different outcomes.

New Business Models New Regulatory Models

PATH 2 GRID DEFECTION

• NO EXPO • CEN RT PR TRAL GENE ICING RATIO • COS • FIXE N •V T-OF-S D CH ERTIC ERVIC ARGE A LLY IN E R EG S T EGRA ULAT TE D U ION TILITI • STR ES AND ED A SSET S

Another path favors non-exporting solar PV, behind-the-meter solar-plus-battery systems, and ultimately, actual grid defection resulting in an overbuilt system with excess sunk capital and stranded assets on both sides of the meter.

The electricity system is at a metaphorical fork in the road.

Down one path are pricing structures, business models, and regulatory environments that favor nonexporting solar and solar-plus-battery systems. When economic and other conditions reach the right tipping point, this trajectory favors true grid defection. In the meantime, an upward price spiral based on stranded assets serving a diminishing load will make solar-plusbattery adoption increasingly attractive for customers who can, and lead to untenably high pricing for customers who remain on the grid, including lowand fixed-income customers who would bear a disproportionate burden of escalated retail electricity pricing. In this future, both grid and customer-side resources are overbuilt and underutilized, leaving excess capital on both sides of the meter.

DEF GRID ECT ION

Down another path are pricing structures, business models, and regulatory environments in which distributed energy resources such as solar PV and batteries—and their inherent benefits and costs—are appropriately valued as part of an integrated grid.

Solar PV and batteries can potentially lower systemwide costs while contributing to the foundation of a reliable, resilient, affordable, low-carbon grid of the future in which customers are empowered with choice.

In this future, grid and customer-side resources work together as part of an integrated grid with far more efficient deployment of capital and physical assets.

These two pathways are not set in stone, and there is some room to navigate within their boundaries.

But decisions made today will set us on a trajectory from which it will be more difficult to course correct in the future. The time frame for making such decisions with long-lasting implications for the future grid is relatively short, and is shorter and more urgent for some geographies than others.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

D ATE EGR INT GRID

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Three distinct market phases define the window’s time frame: • Phase 1: An Opportunity to Experiment In phase 1, the grid alone offers customers the cheapest option for electric service. Solar-plusbattery systems come at a cost premium, so early adopters and technology providers will experiment with systems to leverage secondary values such as reliability. This phase gives utilities and regulators the longest runway to consider how to best capture the opportunities of grid-connected solar-plusbattery systems.

• Phase 2: An Opportunity to Integrate In phase 2, solar-plus-battery systems become economic relative to grid-supplied electricity. With more favorable economics for greater customer adoption, this is an ideal time for systems to create and share value between individual customers and the grid.

• Phase 3: An Opportunity to Coordinate In phase 3, retail electric pricing has escalated enough and solar-plus-battery system costs have declined enough that the latter becomes economic to serve a customer’s entire load and grid defection becomes a viable choice. Such compelling customer-facing economics make it especially urgent for utilities and regulators to adapt to this new market environment.

The electricity industry needs to act quickly on three fronts: • Evolved pricing and rate structures: Today’s rate structures are overly simplistic for the 21st century needs of the grid. Broadly, pricing needs to evolve in three critical ways:

3. Attribute-based, breaking apart energy, capacity, ancillary services, and other service components • New business models: Current business models need to evolve from the old paradigm of centralized generation and the unidirectional use of the grid (i.e., one-way electron flow from generators to consumers) to the emerging reality of cost-competitive DERs such as solar PV and batteries (i.e., grid-connected customers with behind-the-meter DERs and a two-way flow of electrons, services, and value across the meter).

Creating a sustainable long-term DER market— considering the near and present opportunity of solar PV and batteries but inclusive of a much broader suite of DER technologies—will require aligning the interests of utilities, DER companies, technology providers, and customers. Aligning those interests requires that the value of DERs be recognized and shared on both sides of the meter.

• New regulatory models: Regulatory reform will be necessary for the electricity system to effectively incorporate new customersited technologies like solar and batteries as resources into the grid. Three critical outputs of these reforms are required to sensibly guide the adoption of solar-plus-battery systems in particular and DERs in general: 1) maintain and enhance fair and equal customer access to DERs, 2) recognize, quantify, and appropriately monetize both the benefits and costs that DERs such as solar PV and batteries can create, and 3) preserve equitable treatment of all customers, including those that do not invest in DERs and remain solely grid dependent.

1. Locational, allowing some electric-grid equivalent of congestion pricing or incentives

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

2. Temporal, allowing for continued evolution of time-of-use pricing and real-time pricing

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 14

holbox/Shutterstock.com

INTRODUCTION

01

INTRODUCTION THE ELECTRICITY GRID IS EVOLVING The electric industry in the United States is facing the greatest disruption in the grid’s century-long history. The incumbent model of central thermal generation and one-way electricity distribution to end-use customers out on the grid’s distribution edge is proving increasingly outdated. Rapidly growing adoption of customer-sited distributed energy resources (DERs) such as rooftop solar, battery energy storage, micro combined heat and power (CHP), electric vehicles, and smart thermostats that can communicate with and respond to grid signals are fundamentally changing the electric grid’s landscape.

Utilities and other transmission and distribution grid electricity system stakeholders (e.g., ISOs, RTOs, etc.) have, to date, done an admirable job maintaining reliable, cost-effective electric service. But regulatory mandates, declining costs of distributed technologies, climate change, shifting customer preferences, and other motivating factors are driving the electric grid’s evolution toward even more affordable, more reliable, more resilient, and lower carbon electric service, all while accounting for a new era of choice and empowerment with how individual customers produce and use electricity. DERs figure centrally in that evolution.

• Rapid cost reductions with game-changing functionality: Their continuing cost declines and unique operational characteristics make them particularly poised to gain favor among residential and commercial customers alike— and when grid connected, to provide value to the grid and society as well, and not just to the individual customer.

• Accelerating commercial application and innovation: Growing numbers of third-party providers are already offering such technology pairings to commercial customers to smooth load curves and lessen demand charges, while solar-plus-battery systems are also becoming increasingly appealing among early-adopter residential customers, especially in places such as the Northeast where the memory of blackouts after storms like Hurricane Sandy are still fresh.4 Until recently, the general media and industry experts both commonly claimed “electricity cannot be stored economically.” Our analysis suggests that the fastdropping costs of batteries, driven by their vast deployment in non-energy sectors (e.g., electronics, telecommunications, and automotive transportation) are showing otherwise.

urbans/Shutterstock.com

Though not yet mainstream, solar-plus-battery systems are coming soon. Our February 2014 The Economics of Grid Defection report found that off-grid solar-plus-battery systems will reach grid parity in the coming years and decades in many geographies, within the 30-year time frame under which utilities typically recover costs on major grid investments.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

DISTRIBUTED SOLAR-PLUS-BATTERY SYSTEMS ARE HAVING A PARTICULARLY ACUTE IMPACT

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 16

01: INTRODUCTION

THE FINANCE INDUSTRY IS TAKING NOTICE In 2014, a chorus of analyses from major financial institutions—including Bank of America, Barclays, Citigroup, Fitch Ratings, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and UBS (with several directly citing The Economics of Grid Defection)—found that solar-plusbattery systems pose a real and present threat to traditional utility business models. Their perspectives varied, but all echoed the common theme of increasing challenges for the current utility business model:

Morgan Stanley, Clean Tech, Utilities & Autos March 4, 20145 • “Our analysis suggests utility customers may be positioned to eliminate their use of the power grid.”

• “We expect … batteries to be cost competitive with the grid in many states, and think investors generally do not appreciate the potential size of the market.”

• “…we see the potential for customers to decide to move off-grid.”

Goldman Sachs, Analyst note on Tesla stock March 20146 • “...decreased reliability from an aging distribution infrastructure, a broadening desire to reduce the carbon footprint, and perhaps most importantly, the reduction of solar panel and battery costs could also work together to make grid independence a reality for many customers one day...the conclusion is very clear – the potential for this application could be very large.”

• “In the 100+ year history of the electric utility industry, there has never before been a truly cost-competitive substitute available for grid power. We believe that solar + storage could reconfigure the organization and regulation of the electric power business over the coming decade. We see near-term risks to credit from regulators and utilities falling behind the solar + storage adoption curve and long-term risks from a comprehensive re-imagining of the role utilities play in providing electric power.”

Morgan Stanley, Solar Power & Energy Storage: Policy Factors vs. Improving Economics July 28, 20148 • “…we think that customers in parts of the U.S. and Europe may seek to avoid utility grid fees by going ‘off-grid’ through a combination of solar power and energy storage. We believe there is not sufficient appreciation of the magnitude of energy storage cost reduction … already achieved, nor of the further cost reduction magnitude…”

• “Over time, many U.S. customers could partially or completely eliminate their usage of the power grid. We see the greatest potential for such disruption in the West, Southwest, and midAtlantic.”

UBS, analyst note on EV and solar August 20149 • “The expected rapid decline in battery cost by (more than) 50 per cent by 2020 should not just spur EV sales, but also lead to exponential growth in demand for stationary batteries to store excess power.”

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

• “This puts [off-grid solar and storage] levelized cost of energy (LCOE) at $0.20 [per kWh] by 2033 which would be at parity with the U.S. grid price.”

Barclays, Utilities Credit Strategy Analyst Report May 20147

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 17

01: INTRODUCTION

• “Our view is that the ‘we have done it like this for a century’ value chain in developed electricity markets will be turned upside down within the next 10–20 years, driven by solar and batteries.”

RISK WITH REWARD: GRID-CONNECTED SOLAR-PLUS-BATTERY SYSTEMS OFFER OPPORTUNITY

• “By 2025, everybody will be able to produce and store power. And it will be green and cost competitive, i.e., not more expensive or even cheaper than buying power from utilities.”

Yet within this solar-plus-battery risk is also a great opportunity. Compared to the off-grid systems analyzed in The Economics of Grid Defection, optimally sized, grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems can reach economic parity sooner, and across more geographies, with faster customer adoption, and greater system benefits. This will herald a marked shift in the relationship between customers and utilities, and between customers and the grid. But since such systems will remain grid connected, they can offer value to that grid, rather than be seen solely as load defection from it.

• “We think large-scale power plants are the structural losers from this trend...”

Citigroup, Energy Darwinism II September 201410 • “...on our estimates, renewables with battery storage is due to reach grid parity in large parts of the world within 15 years, which is inside the typical 30–35-year economic lifecycle of utility assets...We expect centralised power generation (coal, gas, nuclear and lignite plants) to be the first to feel the effects.”

Customer adoption of distributed solar and storage technologies has been growing, while costs for those technologies have been declining steeply. For example, residential rooftop solar’s installed cost per watt fell from $8.2 in 2009 to ~$4.5 through the first half of 2014, a 45% decline.11 Meanwhile, U.S. installed solar PV capacity (MW/year) grew 1,066% over that same period, including 1,350% among residential solar.12,13 Battery energy storage, including the lithium-ion chemistries focused on in this report, is on a similar trajectory,14,15,16 though less mature than those of the solar industry. Batteries are on the cusp of accelerating cost declines driven by: 1) electric vehicle and consumer electronics adoption,17,18 and 2) a growing storage market addressing demand charge reductions and California’s energy storage mandate.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

• “We see winners (i.e., regulated utilities who will earn a fair return on what they spend including transmission and distribution wires related expenditures, which will increase as more renewables are built) and losers (i.e., certain unregulated/hybrid utilities whose outlook is predicated primarily on the economic dispatch of power generating assets).”

RECENT TRENDS: DECLINING COSTS ARE EXPANDING CUSTOMER OPTIONS

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 18

01: INTRODUCTION

FIGURE 13: SOLAR PV U.S. ANNUAL INSTALLED CAPACITY

FIGURE 15: HISTORICAL SOLAR PV INSTALLED COSTS

HISTORICAL AND NEAR-TERM FORECAST

HISTORICAL SOLAR PV INSTALLED COSTS Residential (≤10 kW)

SOLAR PV U.S. ANNUAL INSTALLED CAPACITY 12

$12

10

$10

8 $8

2012$/W

Thousands of MW/yr

Commercial (10-100 kW)

$14

Historical and near-term forecast

6

$6

4 $4

2 0

$2

2006

2007

2008 2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016 $0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

2011

2012 2013

FIGURE 16: LITHIUM-ION BATTERY PACK PRICES: HISTORICAL

FIGURE 14: U.S. CUMULATIVE SALES OF PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES

LITHIUM-ION BATTERY PACK PRICES: HISTORICAL BNEF Stationary Li-ion EIA - EV-200 Li-ion Navigant Large Format Li-ion (Cell costs converted to pack costs)

U.S. CUMULATIVE SALES OF PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES Plug-in Electric Vehicle

Battery Electric Vehicle

GTM Research BNEF Observed EV Battery Pack Price Index

$2,500

300,000 275,000 250,000

$2,000

225,000

2012$/kWh

Cumulative sales

200,000 175,000 150,000 125,000

$1,500

$1,000

100,000 75,000 $500

50,000

2011

2012

2013

OCT

JULY

APR

JAN

OCT

APR

JULY

OCT

JAN

JULY

APR

JAN

OCT

JULY

JAN

0

APR

25,000

While these cost declines are important, actual customer adoption will depend on many additional factors beyond pure economics,19 such as a) relative hassle factor, b) available financing, c) valuing grid services provided so that customers on one side of the meter and utilities and grid operators on the other both see an expanded value proposition for such systems, d) customer demand for enhanced resilience, reliability, and other quasi-externalities, and e) future regulatory and rate structures that open, close, or expand market participation for solar-plusbattery systems and which either embrace customers that install these technologies or drive them away.

However, even low levels of adoption can have disruptive impacts on the financial health of utilities.20

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

In countries such as Germany—where customer-sited renewables adoption is ahead of the U.S.—utilities have seen their finances erode. Between 2008 and late 2013, European utilities lost a half-trillion euros off their market cap.21 And major utilities E.ON and RWE have shed their financially-strained central thermal power plant business units to focus on grid operation and integration of distributed renewables.22,23 On the other hand, distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar and batteries can also have positive financial impact on utilities. For example, New York utility ConEd is looking at customer-sited DERs as a cost-effective alternative to a $1 billion power substation upgrade in its Brooklyn/Queens Demand Management effort.24

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

$0

2014

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 19

01: INTRODUCTION

But customers, utilities, and third-party developers may find reasons beyond simple economic parity to invest in solar-plus-battery systems, including decreased carbon intensity, improved resilience, mitigated or avoided impact of future potential rate increases, ancillary services provision (e.g., frequency and voltage regulation), deferral of distribution system upgrades, reduction in peak power usage, and power quality management (see Figure 17).

FIGURE 17: SECONDARY CUSTOMER VALUES BEYOND SECONDARY CUSTOMER VALUES BEYOND BASIC BASIC ECONOMICS ECONOMICS REDUCE DEMAND CHARGES (COST)

ANCILLARY PROVISION PURE ECONOMIC COST

There are a few places where customers are investing in these solar-plus-battery systems for their per kWh energy charge savings alone, displacing pricier gridpurchased electricity with cheaper power produced with on-site solar-plus-battery systems. Most notably, Hawaii—where retail electricity prices are the highest of any U.S. state—has seen a flurry of customers investing in these systems.

(e.g., compensation for services provided to the grid), or both. With a recent influx of market participants, ranging from startups to established industry titans, and other companies declaring their intent to enter the solar-plus-battery market, mounting momentum of players moving into this solution space suggests that the market opportunity for solar-plus-battery solutions has expanded, and will likely only continue to do so as component costs decline.

GRID

SECONDARY DRIVERS OFFER ADDITIONAL VALUE BEYOND CHEAPER KILOWATTHOURS

(REVENUE)

JUSTIFICATION

EXTERNALITIES (RESILENCE/ BACKUP POWER)

In places where these additional value streams are sufficiently large and the market environment allows them to be monetized, solar-plus-battery systems can have net positive value today—even if their basic levelized cost of energy is still more expensive than retail electricity from the grid—and hence are making market inroads among early adopters.25 For example, storage systems are providing demand-charge reduction in California, resilience in the Northeast, and remote-infrastructure support in off-grid applications (e.g., cell towers).a

a See, for example, the Konterra solar-battery microgrid in Laurel, MD, built by Solar Grid Storage with a 402 kW solar PV array sized to meet 20% of annual need and grid-interactive battery energy storage earning revenue from ancillary services in the PJM market. In San Francisco, Stem and CODA deployed distributed battery storage systems with energy optimization software for Intercontinental Hotels, helping reduce demand charges at facilities.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

In fact, several companies—including Sunverge, Sunpower, and SolarCity/Tesla—are actively commercializing solar-plus-battery technology combinations with a variety of business models.26 Most such business models focus on using solarplus-battery systems to either decrease customer costs (e.g., cheaper per-kWh price for generation, lower demand charges) or increase customer revenue

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 20

01: INTRODUCTION

FIGURE 18: GRID RELATIONSHIP SPECTRUM On-grid/ Conventional Customer

Grid-tied/ Solar Customer

Grid-tied/ Off-grid/ Solar + Battery Solar + Battery Customer Customer

CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GRID GRID DEPENDENT

CUSTOMERS’ RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GRID IS EVOLVING

ABOUT THIS ANALYSIS: UNDERSTANDING THE EVOLUTION

It remains unlikely that large numbers of customers would leap directly from grid connected to grid defected. Instead, a far more likely—and thus potentially even more disruptive—scenario is incremental customer investment in first solar-only and then solar-plus-battery grid-connected systems.

This would lead to increasing levels of load defection, including among current grid-connected rooftop solar customers who “enhance” their solar PV with the addition of battery energy storage.

This report explores how grid-connected solar-plusbattery system configurations and economics would evolve over time, and what magnitude of customers and load that could represent. In particular, we sought to answer two core questions:

With greater awareness of how this transition might occur, customers will be in a better position to make decisions and investments that can lower their electricity bills and improve the quality of their service.

In addition, our analyses can provide insights for entrepreneurs to grow businesses in new markets.

At the same time, we hope to provide guidance to utilities and regulators who are 1) poised to send better price signals to guide and motivate a more-efficient evolution of the electric grid, 2) lead the creation of new business models both for utilities and customers, and 3) begin forging a new regulatory construct.

1. Lowest-Cost Economics: When grid-connected customers have the option to source their entire load either from a) the grid, b) a solarplus-battery system, or c) some combination of the grid, solar PV, and batteries, how does that configuration change over time based on lowest-cost economics for the customer? And how do the relative contributions of grid- and self-sourced electricity change over time in meeting customer load?

2. Implications: What are the potential implications for utilities, third-party solar and battery providers, financiers/investors, customers, and other electricity system stakeholders? And what opportunities might be found in grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems?

This analysis is evaluated from a customer-facing economics perspective but also considers the implications for utilities and regulators.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

GRID INDEPENDENT

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 21

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

02

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY For parallelism and ease of comparison, we began this analysis with the same inputs and assumptions as The Economics of Grid Defection, held constant in most cases and updated where appropriate. A complete list of modeling assumptions, inputs, and results can be found in appendices A–F.

We chose these locations because they cover a representative range of factors that influence solarplus-battery system economics and operation, including annual solar resource potential, retail electricity prices, and quantity of currently installed solar PV27 (see Table 1).

TIMELINE

CUSTOMER CONSIDERATIONS: LOAD PROFILES AND SYSTEM SIZE LIMITATIONS

We modeled present day (2014/15) through 2050 in 2012$, just beyond the 30-year cost recovery period of rate-based utility investments that would be made today.

GEOGRAPHY Our analysis focused on five locations through the United States, considering both residential and commercial customers in each locale: • Honolulu, Hawaii • Los Angeles County, California • San Antonio, Texas • Louisville, Kentucky • Westchester County, New York (within the New York City metropolitan area)

Modeled Load Profiles We modeled both commercial and residential median load profiles specific to the regional climate for each of the five locations. For the commercial load profiles, we considered a generic ~43,000-square-foot, 4-story hotel. For the residential load profiles, we considered a ~2,500-square-foot detached singlefamily home.

Solar-Plus-Battery System Size Limitations and Configuration We allowed system size and configuration to vary as economics dictated, making some modest constraints to account for the likely physical space limitations of residential customers. We modeled three primary system configurations: 1) grid only, 2) grid-plus-solar, and 3) grid-plus-solar-plus-battery. In all cases, system configuration (including size) and portion of load served by that system (grid vs. solar) optimized to find the lowest customer-facing cost.

TABLE 1: PROFILES OF GEOGRAPHIES

INSOLATION (kWh/m2/day) 2014 AVG RETAIL PRICE ($/kWh) INSTALLED PV

BY STATE (MW)

LOUISVILLE, KY

SAN ANTONIO, TX

LOS ANGELES, CA

HONOLULU, HI

4.5 kWh

4.5 kWh

6 kWh

6 kWh

5.5 kWh

$0.17–$0.23

$0.08–$0.09

$0.06–$0.10

$0.11–$0.18

$0.36–$0.42

140 MW

3 MW

200 MW

1,900 MW

27 MW

Restructured

Regulated

Restructured

Restructured

Regulated

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

MARKET STRUCTURE

WESTCHESTER, NY

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 23

02: ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL SOLAR PV INSTALLED COSTS: FORECASTED BNEF EPA - Renewables Energy Costs Database Average Projection (Data used in report analysis)

NREL Strategic Energy Analysis Center Black & Veatch GTM/SEIA Report Prices

SolarCity Prices Morgan Stanley Report Projections Tracking the Sun VII Prices [dashed lines represent extrapolations]

$8.00

$7.00

$6.00

$5.00

$4.00

$3.00

$2.00

$1.00

$0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

Our modeled forecasts for solar-plus-battery system costs used averaged projections from a variety of datasets developed through a thorough literature review for solar PV28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35 and batteries.36,37,38,39,40 Since capital costs are the predominant component of customer-facing costs, we used National Renewable Energy Laboratory-derived41 capital costs for both residential and commercial systems. In general, forecasts in this report largely reflect those previously used in The Economics of Grid Defection. However, in the time since that report’s release in February 2014, new price points for both solar and storage have emerged that are proving less expensive, and in the case of storage, substantially so, than our averaged forecast.42 As an added conservatism, we did not adjust our analysis based on these data points.

FIGURE 19: SOLAR PV INSTALLED COSTS: FORECASTED

2012$/Wdc-Installed

SOLAR-PLUS-BATTERY SYSTEM COSTS

FIGURE 20: INSTALLED PV COSTS: FORECASTED COMMERCIAL

COMMERCIAL INSTALLED PV COSTS WITH RMI PROJECTIONS BNEF EPA - Renewables Energy Costs Database

Average Projection (Data used in report analysis) NREL Strategic Energy Analysis Center

Black & Veatch [dashed lines represent extrapolations]

$7.00

2012$/Wdc-Installed

$6.00

$5.00

$4.00

$3.00

$2.00

$1.00

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

$0

FIGURE 21: LITHIUM-ION BATTERY PACK PRICES: HISTORICAL AND FORECASTED LITHIUM-ION BATTERY PACK PRICES: HISTORICAL AND FORECASTED BNEF Stationary Li-ion EIA - EV-200 Li-ion BNEF Observed EV Battery Pack Price Index

Morgan Stanley Report Tesla Battery Pack Price Boston Consulting Group (High end) Boston Consulting Group (Low end)

Navigant Large Format Li-ion (Cell costs converted to pack costs) Average Projection (Data used in report analysis) GTM Research

$2,500

2012$/kWh

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

2048

2050

2044

2046

2042

2038

2040

2034

2036

2032

2030

2028

2024

2026

2022

2018

2020

2014

2016

2012

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

2010

$0

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 24

02: ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

RETAIL GRID ELECTRICITY PRICES We projected utility retail electricity prices assuming no change to current pricing models and rate structures.b We used an annual price increase of 3%-real (i.e., inflation adjusted) based on recent price trends from U.S. Energy Information Administration data. During the period 2004–2012, commercial and residential retail real prices annually rose an average 2.7% and 2.8%, respectively, for the geographies we studied (see Figures 22 and 23).c With an aging grid requiring up to $2 trillion in investment through 203043 to maintain, replace, and/or upgrade infrastructure, some regions in the U.S. have more recently been seeing real retail electricity price increases in excess of 3%.44,45 Until such trends change, a national average 3%-real per year price increase should represent a reasonable estimate for our analysis.

FIGURE 22: AVERAGE RETAIL ELECTRIC PRICES

FIGURE 23: AVERAGE RETAIL ELECTRIC PRICES

RESIDENTIAL - HISTORICAL AND 3% FORECAST FOR STUDY GEOGRAPHIES (NY, KY, TX, CA, HI)

AVERAGE RETAIL ELECTRIC PRICES: COMMERCIAL GEOGRAPHIES (NY, KY, TX, CA, HI)

COMMERCIAL - HISTORICAL AND 3% FORECAST FOR STUDY HISTORICAL AND 3% FORECAST FOR STUDY GEOGRAPHIES (NY, KY, TX, CA, HI)

Forecast

Historical

Forecast

3%

$0.22

$0.22

$0.20

$0.20

2.8%

3%

$0.18

2012$/kWh

2012$/kWh

Historical

$0.24

$0.24

-0.4%

$0.16

$0.18

2.7%

$0.16

-0.67% $0.14

$0.14

$0.12

$0.12

$0.10 1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

$0.10 1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

b Commonly, current rate structures are designed to support cost of service utility regulation. While several utilities and regulatory bodies across the U.S. have begun to experiment with alternate rate structures and cost recovery models, these remain the exception and not the norm. In our projections of future retail costs, we assumed there would be no changes to current rate structures or cost recovery models for utilities. c We are using the same data as in The Economics of Grid Defection to maintain continuity. As of late February 2015, updated EIA average price by state provider data was released, which included 2013 data. Those updated numbers yield 2005–2013 growth rates of 2.2% and 2.6% for the commercial and residential retail rates, respectively.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 25

02: ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

RETAIL RATE STRUCTURES When modeling the economics of grid-connected solarplus-battery systems relative to retail electricity from a utility, the retail rate structure is nearly as important as the magnitude of the rate. Whether a customer pays a pure volumetric price, has net energy metering, time-of-use pricing, demand charges, fixed charges, or other rate structures has an enormous influence on the economics. For our core analysis, we modeled the rate structures that cover the overwhelming majority of customers nationwide in each class:

FIGURE 24: RETAIL RATE STRUCTURES RETAIL RATE STRUCTURES ENERGY CHARGE

RESIDENTIAL

CUSTOMER CHARGE

DEMAND CHARGE

• Residential customers: volumetric pricing ($/kWh)d • Commercial customers: three-part pricing, which includes a volumetric component ($/kWh), a monthly demand charge based on highest power load ($/kW), and a monthly fixed charge ($).

COMMERCIAL

ENERGY CHARGE

ENERGY CHARGE

To develop geographic-specific prices for our analysis, we referenced tariff sheets compiled by the Genability rates database,46 which we than escalated at 3%-real annually (see Table 2).

kWh-based generation costs (e.g., fuel, wholesale electricity)

CUSTOMER CHARGE Flat, monthly charge covering fixed costs of servicing customer regardless of use (e.g., billing, customer service)

DEMAND CHARGE d

Residential fixed charges, which are a much smaller portion of the customer’s total bill than in commercial rates, were not considered, for simplicity.

Costs of the generation, transmission, and distribution capacity to serve peak demand

TABLE 2: UTILITY RATES USED IN MODELING 2012 COMMERCIAL RATES

Actual Rate

Escalation Winter

Consumption ($/kWh)

Summer

Demand ($/kW/month)

Summer

Fixed (monthly) Timeline

Winter

Winter Summer

3% real

3% real

3% real

WESTCHESTER, NY

$0.11

LOUISVILLE,KY

$0.04

$19.10

$12.49

$24.14

$12.50

$110.29 $139.96

$201.83

SAN ANTONIO, TX

LOS ANGELES, CA

$0.06

$0.06

$0.07

$0.08 $6.68

N/A

$23.39

$8.25

$123.31

Winter

Oct.–May

Oct.–Apr.

Oct.–May

Oct.–May

Summer

Jun.–Sep.

May–Sep.

Jun.–Sep.

Jun.–Sep.

$0.09

$0.17

HONOLULU, HI

$0.37

$10.22

$38.00

N/A

2012 RESIDENTIAL RATES 3% real

$0.21

$0.09

$0.34

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Volumetric

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 26

02: ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

EXCESS ELECTRICITY Behind-the-meter systems The rate structures we used in our analysis did not value the grid services that batteries could provide, such as contingency reserves and voltage and frequency regulation, which would further improve their economics. Nor did we value any export—not even avoided fuel costs. All solar-only and solarplus-battery systems were modeled as largely self-consuming with no export compensation (i.e., optimized for behind-the-meter operation). This analysis focuses on customer cost (i.e., levelized cost equivalent for electric services) and not potential revenue to the customer.

Thus although export compensation via bill credits or direct payments is today present in most geographies and would improve the economics presented here, we assumed no bill credit or direct compensation for exports as a conservatism to understand the economic implications in the most extreme case.

However, we do treat net metering as a special case later in the report.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Net Metering Treatment Under net energy metering (NEM), customers receive credit at the retail rate for energy exported to the grid.

Although NEM is a prevalent policy found in most U.S. states, we considered it inappropriate to include in

our baseline analysis. Traditional regulatory and utility business model paradigms have involved the one-way flow of electrons across the meter from the grid to the customer. In that paradigm, DERs, when deployed, are about behind-the-meter value that accrues to the customer (e.g., self-consuming solar PV, batteries for backup power and demand charge reductions). Net energy metering represents just one of several newer policies (e.g., value-of-solar tariffs, feed-in tariffs, avoided fuel cost compensation) that compensate two-way flow of electrons across the meter.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 27

02: ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

MODELING SOFTWARE We used the HOMER® hybrid optimization modeling software to find the lowest-cost electric system to meet electrical demand, ranking simulated systems by net present cost (NPC), which accounts for all of the discounted operating costs over the system’s lifetime.

We used the HOMER model to determine the levelized cost of energy (LCOE), solar-plus-battery component sizes, and grid needs for each location.

EXTERNALITIES We did not consider several variables that could meaningfully improve the customer-facing economics presented in our analysis: • Incentives: We did not consider state-level incentives or the extension of federal incentives beyond their current expiration date.

We also did not consider several variables that could meaningfully worsen the customer-facing economics presented in our analysis: • Opportunity costs: We do not account for any penalty a customer might place on solar-plusstorage as a result of locking in an energy source for a period of years.

• Changes to rate structures or decreases in overall utility cost structure: We extrapolate current pricing and overall bill increases for customers. Fundamental changes to pricing or breakthroughs that reverse current utility cost trends would weaken the investment thesis for solar-plus-battery systems. For example, the addition of fixed charges for residential customers—as some utilities have proposed— would retard the economics substantially in the near term, but might hasten defection in the longer term.

• Export compensation or alternate use of excess generation: We did not assign any value to excess electricity production, although most locations currently have some form of compensation for electricity exported to the grid. Additionally, use of excess generation for water heating or other thermal applications could improve the system economics, but were also not considered.

• Accelerated technology cost declines, lower interest rates, or integrated investments in efficiency and flexibility: Any of these factors could improve the economics of these systems.e • Secondary values: We assigned no value to attributes of solar-plus-battery systems beyond direct bill savings (e.g., the potential value of reliability, ancillary services, or carbon reduction).

e

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

In our earlier report, we ran alternative scenarios to understand the effect of these factors and saw dramatic acceleration of parity for grid defection. We would expect a similar effect for this analysis.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 28

RESULTS

03

RESULTS FIGURE 25: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION RESIDENTIAL FIGURE ES1: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION RESIDENTIAL Grid Only

Grid + PV

Grid + PV + Battery

Westchester, NY Louisville, KY San Antonio, TX Los Angeles, CA

2048

2050

2044

2046

2042

2038

2040

2034

2036

2032

2030

2028

2024

2026

2022

2018

2020

2014

Honolulu, HI 2016

Our analysis yields several striking findings that will have important implications for regulators, utilities, DER developers, and customers. In general, grid-connected self-consuming solar will become economic for nearly all customers imminently, with grid-connected solarplus-battery systems following soon after, much faster than the off-grid solar-plus-battery systems we modeled in The Economics of Grid Defection. These grid-connected systems will eventually cover the vast majority of customer load. This load defection will essentially relegate the grid to a backup-power-only role for customers that adopt these systems.

FIGURE 26: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION COMMERCIAL FIGURE ES2: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION COMMERCIAL Grid Only

In greater detail, our key findings are:

Grid + PV

Grid + PV + Battery

Westchester, NY

Los Angeles, CA

2048

2050

2046

2044

2042

2038

2040

2036

2034

2032

2030

2028

2026

2024

2022

2018

2020

2014

Honolulu, HI

In places like Honolulu, Hawaii, Los Angeles, California, and Westchester, New York, these systems are economic today. As grid retail prices increase further and distributed storage costs drop, new customers will find solar-plus-battery system configurations most economic in these three major markets within 12 years. Compared to the date of economic parity for the off-grid solar-plus-battery systems we modeled in The Economics of Grid Defection, the grid-connected systems of this analysis become economic for customers much sooner, with substantial utility load loss well within the economic life and cost recovery period for major assets.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

The economically optimal system configuration evolves over time, from grid only in the near term, to grid-plus-solar, to grid-plus-solar-plus-batteries in the longer term. While many customers in many geographies already have economic solar with net energy metering, we found that smaller (e.g., 1–2 kW for residential customers), non-exporting solar PV systems that do not rely on net energy metering will become economic for all customers in all geographies we studied within the next decade.

Louisville, KY San Antonio, TX

2016

Solar-plus-Battery Systems Rapidly Become Cost Effective Distributed solar first and then solar-plus-battery systems covering only a portion of a customer’s load will have compelling economics without the support of incentives or feed-in compensation in many important markets within 15 years.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 30

03: RESULTS

A GEOGRAPHY IN DETAIL: WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NY For commercial and residential customers in Westchester County, NY, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) equivalent for gridsupplied electricity starts today at $0.19 and $0.21, respectively, escalating at our forecasted 3%-real in the years ahead. Within just a handful of years, small, non-exporting solar PV becomes economic to serve a portion of load as retail grid electricity prices continue to rise. By 2030, it makes even more compelling economic sense for customers to invest in grid-connected solar-plusbattery systems, which significantly reduce a customer’s LCOE costs relative to grid-only electricity.

FIGURE 28: ELECTRICITY COST OF SUPPLY

FIGURE 27: ELECTRICITY COST OF SUPPLY RESIDENTIAL - WESTCHESTER, NY

COMMERCIAL - WESTCHESTER, NY

PEAK PRICES: RESIDENTIAL

PEAK PRICES: COMMERCIAL

WESTCHESTER, NY:

WESTCHESTER, NY: Grid Only (Retail Rate @ 3% Escalation)

Grid Only (Retail Rate @ 3% Escalation)

Grid + PV + Battery

Grid + PV

Our analysis shows that the relative contributions of the grid and a customer’s solar and solar-plus-battery systems to meet customer load evolves over time.

Initially the grid supplies a majority of a customer’s electricity needs. Over time as retail electricity prices from the grid increase and solar and battery costs decrease, customers logically reduce their grid purchases until the grid takes a backup-only role.

Meanwhile, solar-plus-battery systems eventually provide the majority of customers’ electricity. For example, in places such as NY, CA, and TX, our analysis shows the grid optimally supplying 80–100% of residential and commercial customers’ load today but just 3–25% by around 2040. Reciprocally, solar PV grows from supplying little to no customer load to supplying a substantial majority to nearly all customer load over that same time period.

2048

2050

2044

2046

2042

2038

2040

2034

2036

2032

2030

2028

2024

2026

2022

2018

2014

2048

2050

2044

2046

2042

2038

2040

2034

2036

2032

2030

2028

2024

2026

2022

2018

2020

$0.15

2014

$0.20

$0

PV+Battery 2026

PV Only 2016

$0.25

$0.10

Solar PV Supplants the Grid Supplying the Majority of Customers’ Electricity The relative costs and benefits of grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems suggest that significant load defection from the grid to these solar-plusbattery systems will be preferable before complete customer defection is economic.

This evolution suggests that there is no “new normal,” either for the grid or for solar-plus-battery systems.

Solar and solar-plus-battery solutions—including their customer-sited deployment and grid integration— will need to be adaptive. The economically optimal solar-plus-battery system configuration, size, and load served will change over time, suggesting shifting patterns of customer and third-party investment.

Meanwhile, customers who previously invested in one system configuration at an earlier date may similarly consider subsequent further incremental investment, such as to expand a solar PV array and/or add supplemental battery energy storage.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

$0.35 $0.30

2020

$0.20

$0.40

2016

LCOE 2012$/kWh

PV+Battery 2024

PV Only 2014

2016

LCOE 2012$/kWh

$0.30

Grid + PV + Battery

$0.45

$0.60 $0.50 $0.40

Grid + PV

$0.50

$0.70

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 31

03: RESULTS

FIGURE 29: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL GENERATION MIX

FIGURE 30: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL GENERATION MIX FIGURE ES4: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL GENERATION MIX COMMERCIAL

FIGURE ES3: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL GENERATION MIX RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL

Grid Purchases

PV Contribution to Load

WESTCHESTER, NY

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

LOUISVILLE, KY

40% 20% 0%

SAN ANTONIO, TX

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100%

LOS ANGELES, CA

60% 40% 20% 0%

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

2048

2050

2044

2046

2042

2038

2040

2034

2036

2032

2030

2028

2024

2026

2022

2048

40% 20% 0%

2050

2044

2046

2042

2038

2040

2034

2036

2032

2030

2028

2024

2026

2022

2018

2020

2014

2016

20%

80% 60%

2018

40%

2020

HONOLULU, HI

100%

80% 60%

2014

LOUISVILLE, KY SAN ANTONIO, TX LOS ANGELES, CA

80% 60%

100%

HONOLULU, HI

80%

100%

100%

0%

PV Contribution to Load

100%

2016

WESTCHESTER, NY

Grid Purchases

100%

A GEOGRAPHY IN DETAIL: WESCHESTER COUNTY, NY For commercial and residential customers in Westchester County, NY, grid purchases dramatically decrease within 10–15 years (by 2025–2030) from a majority to a minority of customer load, and eventually decline to ~ 3% and 20%, respectively, by about 2040.

FIGURE 31: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL GENERATION MIX

FIGURE 32: ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL GENERATION MIX

ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL GENERATION RESIDENTIAL - WESTCHESTER., NYMIX: RESIDENTIAL WESTCHESTER., NY

ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL GENERATIONNY MIX: COMMERCIAL COMMERCIALWESTCHESTER., WESTCHESTER., NY

2050

2048

2044

PV Production (kWh/yr)

2042

2038

2040

2036

2034

2032

2050

2048

2046

2044

2042

2040

2038

2036

2034

2032

2030

2028

2026

2024

2022

0%

2020

10%

0%

2018

10% 2016

20%

2014

30%

20%

2030

40%

30%

2028

40%

2024

50%

2026

70% 60%

50%

2022

80%

70% 60%

2020

90%

80%

2018

90%

2016

100%

2014

Grid Purchases (kWh/yr)

100%

2046

PV Production (kWh/yr)

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Grid Purchases (kWh/yr)

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 32

03: RESULTS

Peak Price for Individual Customers The adoption of grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems will lead to lower and more stable prices for customers.

in Westchester County, NY, the average monthly electricity bill would reach $357 by 2030 and $645 by 2050 for grid electricity based on forecasts, while peak price through adding a solar-plus-battery system would be just $268 per month by 2030, leveling off around $317 per month by 2050. The specific price cap differs slightly by geography, but all geographies exhibited this same trend.

Importantly, though, this “peak price” finding holds only for electric service for individual customers who invest in solar and solar-plus-battery systems.

System-wide, grid-facing costs such as T&D maintenance and central generation, as well as costs for grid-dependent customers who can’t or don’t invest in solar-plus-battery systems, are important related issues beyond the scope of this analysis.

Regardless of how high retail electric prices climb in the future, investing in combinations of solar and batteries will enable individual customers to contain costs for electric service. The lowest-cost option for electric service can effectively cap customers’ electricity costs for all scenarios we analyzed— about $0.10–$0.30 for commercial customers and $0.20–$0.35 for residential customers across the geographies—locking in pricing for a portion or all of their load and shielding them from future changes in rates. For example, for a median residential customer

FIGURE 33: PEAK PRICE FIGURE ES11: PEAK PRICE Grid Only (Retail Rate @ 3% Escalation)

Grid + PV

Grid + PV + Battery

2050 Residential Prices

2050 Commercial Prices

$0.60 $0.55 $0.50 Rising Grid Prices

$0.45

2012$/kWh

$0.40 $0.35

NY: $0.32

$0.30

HI: $0.25 CA: $0.23 KY: $0.22 TX: $0.20

$0.25 $0.20

NY: $0.27 KY: $0.21 CA: $0.18

$0.15

TX: $0.12 HI: $0.10

Solar-Plus-Battery Systems Insulate Customers

$0.10 $0.05

2050

2048

2046

2044

2042

2040

2038

2036

2034

2032

2030

2028

2026

2024

2022

2020

2018

2016

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

2014

$0

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 33

03: RESULTS

Potentially Large kWh Defection Could Undermine Revenue for Grid Investment Under Current Rate Structure and Business Models As grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems become economic for large numbers of customers, and as those systems supply greater and greater portions of customers’ load, the magnitude of potential load defection from the grid is large, with significant potential impacts on revenue from energy sales and cost recovery for major and necessary grid investments.

Between 2010 and 2030, the grid will require up to an estimated $2 trillion in investment, or about $100 billion per year.47 Those costs will need to be recovered through revenue from energy sales. If even a small fraction of the electricity load supporting that investment and revenue goes away, it will likely have a large impact. To examine a more comprehensive cross-section of customer economics and the magnitude of possible load defection, we looked at the Northeast U.S. more broadly (i.e., PA, NJ, NY, CT, MA, and RI) to see the maximum possible load defection the grid could see based on customer

adoption following the optimal economics of our analysis.f (It will be up to the reader to decide what level of customer adoption is realistic. Our estimate represents an upper boundary to quantify the magnitude of the load defection at stake.)

In the Northeast U.S. alone, as early as 2020—just five short years away—customer load defection makes meaningful inroads to utility annual energy sales (~10–20%). By 2030, load defection rises substantially (to ~50–60%). And by 2050, maximum possible load defection reaches most of utility annual energy sales (~80–97%). f We used 2012 utility sales data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) to identify the total number of residential and commercial MWhs sold by utilities in the region, including the decile distribution (i.e., tenths) between the most expensive and least expensive MWhs. We then compared customers’ lowest-cost option for grid-connected solar and solar-plus-battery systems to the range of utility retail per-kWh prices to determine what percentage of customers would be “in the money” with DERs throughout the region. Lastly, we multiplied the MWhs of customers who’d be in the money by the optimal portion of load served by solar and solarplus-battery systems and the per-MWh cost for those deciles. This yielded, in MWh and 2012$, the maximum possible load defection the grid could see based on the economics of our analysis.

TABLE 3: POTENTIAL MAGNITUDE OF UTILITY LOAD DEFECTION COMMERCIAL

MWh

% kWh Sales

# Customers

2012$ (Annual)

MWh

% kWh Sales

# Customers

2012$ (Annual)

2020

3.5 million

10%

1.9 million

$684 million

2020

9 million

20%

500,000+

$1.6 billion

2030

58 million

50%

9.6 million

$15.4 billion

2030

83 million

60%

1.9 million

$19.4 billion

2050

139 million

80%

20.7 million

$65.8 billion

2050

186 million

97%

2.9 million

$78.4 billion

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

RESIDENTIAL

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 34

03: RESULTS

FIGURE 34: NORTHEAST LOWEST-COST OPTION VS. GRID PRICE RANGE

FIGURE 37: NORTHEAST LOWEST-COST OPTION VS. GRID PRICE RANGE

RESIDENTIAL NORTHEAST RESIDENTIAL LOWEST-COST OPTION VS. GRID PRICE RANGE

COMMERCIAL NORTHEAST COMMERCIAL LOWEST-COST OPTION VS. GRID PRICE RANGE

Retail Electric Price Range

FIGURE 35: NORTHEAST POTENTIAL LOAD DEFECTION

2048

2050

2044

2046

2042

2038

2040

2034

2036

2032

2030

2028

2024

2026

$0.10 2014

2048

$0.30 $0.20

$0.00

2050

2044

2046

2042

2038

2040

2034

2036

2032

2030

2028

2024

2026

2022

2020

2014

2018

$0.10

$0.40

2022

$0.20

$0.50

2018

$0.30

2020

$0.40

$0.70 $0.60

2016

Price of Electricity (2012$/kWh)

$0.70 $0.60 $0.50

2016

FIGURE 38: NORTHEAST POTENTIAL LOAD DEFECTION

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

FIGURE ES5: NORTHEAST POTENTIAL LOAD DEFECTION

FIGURE ES6: NORTHEAST POTENTIAL LOAD DEFECTION

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL Traditional Grid Customers

Potential Load Defection

Traditional Grid Customers

100%

Potential Load Defection

FIGURE 36: NORTHEAST POTENTIAL LOAD DEFECTION

FIGURE ES8: NORTHEAST POTENTIAL LOAD DEFECTION COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL

Potential Load Defection (MWh)

Value of Potential Load Defection ($)

Value of Potential Load Defection ($)

2048

2050

2046

2044

2042

2038

2040

2036

2034

0

2032

10

0

2030

2048

2050

2046

2044

2042

2038

2040

2036

2034

2032

2030

2028

2026

2024

2022

2018

2020

2014

0

20

20 2028

10

20

30

40

2026

20

40

40

80 60

2024

30

50

2022

80 60

140 120 100

2018

40

60

2020

50

70

160

2014

140 120 100

80

180

2016

60

Potential Load Defection (millions of MWh)

160

Value of Defected Load (billions of 2012$)

70

180

2016

Potential Load Defection (millions of MWh)

200

Value of Defected Load (billions of 2012$)

RESIDENTIAL

0

2050

2048

2046

2044

2042

2040

2036

2034

2032

2030

2028

2026

2024

2022

2018

FIGURE 39: NORTHEAST POTENTIAL LOAD DEFECTION

RESIDENTIAL FIGURE ES7: NORTHEAST POTENTIAL LOAD DEFECTION Potential Load Defection (MWh)

0

2050

2048

2046

2044

2042

2040

2038

2036

2034

2032

2030

2028

2026

2022

2024

2018

2020

2014

2016

0

40% 20% 2020

40% 20%

80% 60%

2014

80% 60%

2016

Percent of Customers

100%

2038

Price of Electricity (2012$/kWh)

$0.80

$0.00

Percent of Customers

Lowest-Cost Solar + Battery Option

Retail Electric Price Range

Lowest-Cost Solar + Battery Option

$0.80

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Initially, grid-connected solar and solar-plus-battery systems are “in the money” compared to the more-expensive grid MWh throughout the Northeast region. But over time, grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems become more cost effective than even the cheapest grid prices across the region. As more and more customers find grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems their most economic option, potential customer adoption based on optimal economics encompasses all customers. As those customers’ systems supply greater and greater portions of their load, the defection—in MWh and 2012$—grows substantially.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 35

03: RESULTS

Eliminating Net Metering Only Delays kWh Loss; Fixed Charges Don’t ‘Fix’ the Problem Net energy metering is a contentious yet prevalent policy that has successfully supported distributed solar PV’s growth in the U.S. The debate about its future is one of the most politically and emotionally charged topics in the electricity industry today. We found ourselves in the middle of a similar debate— to model the economics of grid-connected solar and solar-plus-battery systems with or without net metering. Finding convincing reasons for each case, we decided to study both.

Importantly, valuation for excess solar generation is not a binary option. “With net metering” and “without net metering” are only two options along a spectrum of valuation techniques we can offer customers with distributed generation. But for the purpose of this research, these two options presented the most practical bookends to define the realm of possibilities.

In modeling grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems with and without net energy metering, we found notable differences in gross and net grid purchases, system configurations, and total system electricity production. The results for commercial and residential systems were very similar for all geographies.

Our examination of Westchester County, NY, is illustrative. We found:

• Systems with and without NEM use the grid very differently. Though net-metered systems almost immediately decline to zero net grid purchases, gross grid purchases remain. Netmetered solar-only systems effectively use the grid daily like a battery, exporting surplus generation during day and buying back electricity at night when solar PV isn’t producing. On the other hand, for self-consuming solar and solar-plus-battery systems, net and gross grid purchases are the same by definition and decline significantly. With the grid serving an infrequent but important backup role for these systems, important questions remain about implications for needed grid capacity and other considerations.

Though we didn’t specifically model other scenarios, our quantitative findings with NEM are useful for qualitatively considering other possibilities, such as recent proposals to introduce more significant residential fixed charges to utility customers’ bills.

Similar to our “with” and “without” NEM scenarios, residential fixed charges would likely alter (i.e., delay) the economics for grid-connected solar and solar-plusbattery systems, but likely wouldn’t alter the ultimate load defection outcome. Customers might instead wait until economics and other factors reach a tipping point threshold and more dramatically “jump” from grid dependence to off-grid solar-plus-battery systems that offer better economics for electric service. g For example, a 6 kW system is enough to meet 100% of a typical 3-bedroom home in Denver, CO, right in the middle of the typical installed range (Tracking the Sun VII).

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

• Load defection happens almost immediately and entirely for customers with net energy metering. Customers today in areas that allow net metering typically purchase or lease a solar PV system that meets 100% of their total load.

While net grid purchases also decline for nonexporting customers, the decline is far more gradual. However, the ultimate outcome is similar with substantial load defection—nonexporting commercial customers’ grid purchases shrink to near zero eventually; residential customers’ grid purchase decline is not as severe, but still tapers to only ~20% of load.g

• Net energy metering removes almost all incentive to add a battery to a solar system.

For both commercial and residential customers, when NEM was available, adding a battery to the system was never the most economical option for the customer. Customers might still choose to invest in a battery if secondary values such as resilience (i.e., backup power) are important, or if they are charged a capacitybased fee for grid usage.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 36

03: RESULTS

Regardless, these considerations highlight the importance of rate structures—both on our analysis

and on the likely economics and timing of customer behavior, including DER adoption.

FIGURE 40: NET GRID PURCHASES WITH AND WITHOUT NET METERING RESIDENTIAL NET

GRID PURCHASES WITH AND WITHOUT NET METERING: RESIDENTIAL Without Net Metering

With Net Metering (Gross Purchases)

With Net Metering (Net Purchases)

11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 Grid Purchases (kWh/yr)

7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000

Delay of Significant Load Defection

3,000 2,000 1,000 0 -1,000 2050

2048

2046

2044

2042

2040

2038

2036

2034

2032

2030

2028

2026

2024

2022

2020

2018

2016

2014

-2,000

FIGURE 41: NET GRID PURCHASES WITH AND WITHOUT NET METERING

NET COMMERCIAL

GRID PURCHASES WITH AND WITHOUT NET METERING: COMMERCIAL Without Net Metering

With Net Metering (Gross Purchases)

With Net Metering (Net Purchases)

600,000 550,000 500,000

Grid Purchases (kWh/yr)

450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000

Delay of Significant Load Defection

50,000 0 2050

2048

2046

2044

2042

2040

2038

2036

2034

2032

2030

2028

2026

2024

2022

2020

2018

2016

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

2014

-50,000

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 37

03: RESULTS

THE INFLUENCE OF RATE STRUCTURES ON SOLAR-PLUS-BATTERY SYSTEM ECONOMICS While future rate structures might look different from those we see today, we can test the potential impact of different types of rates on the economics of solar-plus-battery systems. We considered two variations on today’s three-part commercial rate by shifting it to one of two extremes while keeping total utility revenue equal in all variations.

1. Fixed rate: a customer pays the same monthly fee for grid connection and grid power regardless of use of electricity (i.e., there are no demand or volumetric usage fees).

2. Volumetric rate: a customer pays only for kWhs used, regardless of pattern of use (i.e., there are no demand or fixed fees).

TABLE 4: INFLUENCE OF RATE STRUCTURE ON SOLAR-PLUS-BATTERY ECONOMICS FIXED

CURRENT

VOLUMETRIC

Structure of potential rate

Single fee for use ($/month)

three-part rate ($/kWh, $/kW, $/month)

Priced per consumption ($/kWh)

Timing of parity for grid-connected solar-plus-storage systems

Up to 15 years later (coincident with timeline for grid defection)

The Economics of Load Defection Reference Case

Up to 7 years earlier

Likely customer behavior

Defer DER investment until off-grid parity point, and then defect

Invest to reduce both demand charges and total energy purchases

Investment in successively larger systems to continually lower electric cost

System profile

A completely off-grid system oversized to meet full customer load

Balanced investment between distributed generation and loadshaping (through batteries) to reduce demand charges

Solar-focused system to reduce grid purchases; no investment in improvements to load shape

Thus, rate structures can dramatically impact the timing by which solar-plus-battery systems become economic, the optimal configuration of those systems, and how such systems are used in concert with (or in the absence of) the grid.

• A fixed rate has the benefit of stable revenues, but can push customers to defect from the grid without any intermediate steps when rates become more expensive than solar-plus-battery systems.

• A volumetric rate encourages customers to invest in efficiency and distributed generation, but can lead to unpredictable or peaky use of grid resources.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

While here we only looked at the potential impact of two shifts within the conventional three-part commercial rate structure, a much wider variety of rate structures will in practice influence customer behavior. It will be important to try to link this customer behavior back to its potential impact on system-level costs.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 38

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

04

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION BEYOND CUSTOMER SAVINGS: HOW GRID-CONNECTED SYSTEMS CAN BENEFIT THE GRID There will always be specific applications where foregoing a grid connection will make sense (e.g., remote communities or industrial operations), in most instances, building completely off-grid solarplus-battery systems will leave excess capital on both sides of the meter. Off-grid systems need to be oversized to guarantee stand-alone reliable service, while utilities’ load loss from customer defection leaves central thermal generation capacity with smaller remaining load to serve. Similarly, failing to accurately represent the value of distributed resources can lead to excess and inefficient investment on both sides of the meter.

The electricity system is at a metaphorical fork in the road, where the deployment of solar-plus-battery systems—including their configuration, operation, and value to the grid and customers—will be greatly affected by utility and regulatory action (or inaction).

More and more of the country will see grid parity for solar PV systems, even without export compensation such as net metering. Geographies where PV is already at grid parity will begin to see grid parity for solar-plus-battery systems that will allow large amounts of load to self-provide.

Decisions made in the short-term can set markets down extremely different paths articulated in Figure 42. Solar PV and batteries will have value along both paths and figure centrally in any future electricity grid, but their role and the nature of that future grid will vary depending on choices made today that establish trajectories with vastly different outcomes.

Down one path are pricing structures, business models, and regulatory environments that favor non-exporting solar and solar-plus-battery systems.

When economic and other conditions reach the right tipping point, this trajectory favors true grid defection.

In the meantime, an upward price spiral based on stranded assets serving a diminishing load will make solar-plus-battery adoption increasingly attractive for customers who can and lead to untenably high pricing for customers who remain on the grid, including low- and fixed-income customers who would bear a disproportionate burden of escalated retail electricity pricing. In this future customerside resources are likely overbuilt and existing and planned grid assets are underutilized, leaving excess capital on both sides of the meter.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

And although our findings show that utilities’ load loss to grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems could be very large, customer adoption of these systems also presents a number of opportunities. Unlike the off-grid systems we modeled in The Economics of Grid Defection, where customers left the grid entirely, the grid-connected customers of this analysis crucially do maintain their grid connection assuming that potential fixed charges and other changes to retail electricity price rate structures don’t become so onerous as to encourage customer grid defection.

This means that although they could represent significant load loss, customers’ grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems can potentially provide benefits, services, and values not just to individual customers but also back to the grid and society, especially if those value flows are monetized with new rate structures, business models, and regulatory frameworks.

A FORK IN THE ROAD FOR THE ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 40

04: IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Down another path are pricing structures, business models, and regulatory environments in which distributed energy resources such as solar PV and batteries—and their inherent benefits and costs—are appropriately valued as part of an integrated grid.

Solar PV and batteries can potentially lower systemwide costs while contributing to the foundation of a reliable, resilient, affordable, low-carbon grid of the future in which customers are empowered with choice. In this future, grid and customer-side resources work together as part of an integrated grid with more-efficient deployment of capital and physical

assets, with investments made in a way that supports the grid, providing an alternative to central generation and creating value in the distribution system through peak load management, ancillary services, congestion relief, and other services that support a moreconnected, lower-cost electricity system.

These two pathways are not set in stone, and there is some room to navigate within their boundaries. But decisions made today will set us on a trajectory from which it will be more difficult to course correct in the future.

FIGURE 42: POSSIBLE TRAJECTORIES FOR ELECTRICITY GRID EVOLUTION FIGURE ES12: POSSIBLE TRAJECTORIES FOR ELECTRICITY GRID EVOLUTION

PATH 1 INTEGRATED GRID One path leads to grid-optimized smart solar, transactive solar-plus-battery systems, and ultimately, an integrated, optimized grid in which customer-sited DERs such as solar PV and batteries contribute value and services alongside traditional grid assets.

Pricing & Rate Reform

ING PRIC

SED TE-BA RIBU • ATT DE S T WEN SPO RGIE L HOT • ENE IONA T T M R A D C A • LO d BQ N SM ConE CING E THA U PRI WE • MOR ) • TO N •R • CA T O S .

V o E E V • T, • NY R EM,Fi • NRG ION MP. (N ULAT RT CO D REG • EXPO E S A -B ANCE FORM Solar PV and batteries play an important role in • PER

the future electricity grid, but decisions made today will encourage vastly different outcomes.

New Business Models New Regulatory Models

PATH 2 GRID DEFECTION

• NO EXPO • CEN RT PR TRAL GENE ICING RATIO • COS • FIXE N T-OF• D CH V E RTICA SERV ARGE LLY IN ICE R S EG U L TEGR ATED ATIO N •S UTILIT TRAN IES DED ASSE TS

Another path favors non-exporting solar PV, behind-the-meter solar-plus-battery systems, and ultimately, actual grid defection resulting in an overbuilt system with excess sunk capital and stranded assets on both sides of the meter.

DEF GRID ECT ION

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

D ATE EGR ID T N I GR

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 41

04: IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

THREE CATEGORIES OF ACTION The electricity industry needs to act on three fronts: • Evolved pricing and rate structures: Today’s rate structures are overly simplistic for the 21st century needs of the grid. Broadly, pricing needs to evolve in three critical ways: • Locational, allowing some form of congestion pricing or incentives, as is done in some city centers and elsewhere • Temporal, allowing for continued evolution of time-of-use pricing and real-time pricing • Attribute-based, breaking apart energy, capacity, ancillary services, and other service components

• New regulatory models: Regulatory reform will be necessary for the electricity system to effectively incorporate new customersited technologies like solar and batteries as resources into the grid. Three critical outputs of these reforms are required to sensibly guide the adoption of solar-plus-battery systems in particular and DERs in general: 1) maintain and enhance fair and equal customer access to DERs, 2) recognize, quantify, and appropriately monetize both the benefits and costs that DERs such as solar PV and batteries can create, and 3) preserve equitable treatment of all customers, including those that do not invest in DERs and remain solely grid dependent.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

• New business models: Current business models need to evolve from the old paradigm of centralized generation and the unidirectional use of the grid (i.e., one-way electron flow from generators to consumers) to the emerging reality of cost-competitive DERs such as solar PV and batteries (i.e., grid-connected customers with behind-the-meter DERs and a two-way flow of

electrons, services, and value across the meter).

Creating a sustainable long-term DER market— considering the near and present opportunity of solar PV and batteries but inclusive of a much broader suite of DER technologies—will require aligning the interests of utilities, DER companies, technology providers, and customers. Aligning those interests requires that the value of DERs be acknowledged and shared from both sides of the meter.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 42

04: IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

BUSINESS MODELS FOR THE SOLAR-PLUS-BATTERY FUTURE Grid-connected, net-metered solar dominates current DER business models. The customer makes decisions on placement, size, and use, a third-party provide performs installation (and frequently maintenance) and provides financing, and the host utility performs interconnection and provides export compensation. As DER technologies improve, costs decline, and customers increasingly seek distributed energy resources to meet their local energy needs, current business models will need to evolve. The pace and direction of that evolution will depend on changes in pricing mechanisms and regulatory constructs. Several business models we believe are valuable today or will be valuable in the future include: Grid-Optimized Smart Solar (e.g., smart inverter-enabled, islandable solar) The majority of distributed solar PV installed today utilizes older, less-sophisticated inverters giving the system owners “dumb” solar, and at points, creating distribution system performance challenges for grid operators. Project developers can, and should, more readily offer customers grid-optimized smart solar that includes smart inverters with the capability for islanding, improved voltage ride through, and power quality management (e.g., reactive power support, etc.). Grid operators and utilities who stand to benefit from these more sophisticated systems through improved distribution system operability could help project developers accommodate the premium of the controls components with reduced and expedited interconnection fees and processes. Similarly, grid operators and utilities can send new price signals and more transparently share data with customers and third-party providers, such as to encourage solar PV panel orientation that more fully takes into account not only an individual customer’s load profile but also distribution circuit/feeder and macrogrid peaks both by timing and locational congestion.

Total Energy Service (a.k.a. Behind-the-Meter Optimization)*

At the intersection of new rate structures and new business models lies the opportunity for utilities to play an expanded control and coordination role for customers with solar-plusbattery systems. Different from battery-ready solar, in this model, utilities will more directly control the inverters, charge controllers, and other components in a customer-sited system.

Further, iterations of this model exist where the utility could actually own and rate base the battery and/or the controls components in the customer-sited system as well.

Utilities as Finance Providers Where utilities and grid operators are ready to manage and leverage higher penetrations of solar-plus-battery systems on their distribution systems, these actors can stimulate their broader adoption by acting as DER financiers. In this model, utilities leverage their comparatively larger balance sheets, lower costs of capital, ability to purchase and negotiate at scale, and established relationship with end-use customers to connect customers with financing solutions and system installers. This would most likely manifest itself in on-bill financing options for customers to install solar-plus-battery systems, and a matchmaking service with pre-qualified local installers. This model presents opportunities especially for customers who are not able to secure affordable financing through the private sector.

Distributed Systems Coordinator (e.g., Aggregators or Virtual Utilities)* Where total energy services offer to coordinate many different distributed energy resources at one location for a single customer, a distributed system coordinator (DSC) would offer to coordinate similar systems (e.g., smart solar, distributed batteries, or electric vehicles) across many customers. As coordinator, the DSC could leverage the larger capacity and functionality of many systems to aggregate them, and bid them into local markets to earn revenue from sales of energy, capacity, or other ancillary services. DSCs could incent customer participation in their aggregated system through discounts or coupons for initial investments, monthly participation dividends, or in-kind system warranties. This business model can be especially supportive of regulatory models like distribution system operator (DSO),48 distributed system platform (DSP),49 and transactive grid approaches.50 * = Model where utilities or third parties could act as the lead solution provider depending on the regulatory environment.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

As the portfolio of distributed energy resources available to customers grows in number, volume, diversity, and sophistication—including everything from on-site generation, to storage, to smarter appliances—customers will increasingly value service providers who can offer total energy solutions.

A total energy service package, at its fullest, would include energy assessments, efficiency improvements, actual DERs (e.g., solar PV, smart appliances, batteries, controls, etc.), financing, monitoring, and management of the same. The integrated combination of these assets would allow customers new capabilities, such as responding dynamically to changes in pricing, adjusting consumption of on-site generation to maximize or minimize export, participation in demandresponse markets, and other opportunities.

Utility-Coordinated, Customer-Sited Systems

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 43

04: IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

MARKET PHASES OF OPPORTUNITY The time frame for making such decisions with longlasting implications for the future grid is relatively short, and is shorter and more urgent for some geographies than others. Three distinct market phases define the window’s time frame: • Phase 1: An Opportunity to Experiment In phase 1, the grid alone offers customers the cheapest option for electric service. Solar-plusbattery systems come at a cost premium, so early adopters and technology providers will experiment with systems to leverage secondary values such as reliability/backup power and environmental benefits that are not readily available from traditional retail service. This phase gives utilities and regulators the longest runway to consider how to best capture the opportunities of grid-connected solar-plusbattery systems.

• Phase 3: An Opportunity to Coordinate In phase 3, retail electric pricing has escalated enough and solar-plus-battery system costs have declined enough that the latter becomes economic to serve a customer’s entire load and grid defection becomes a viable choice. Such compelling customer-facing economics make it especially urgent for utilities and regulators to adapt to this new market environment. In this phase, if utilities can identify where and how grid-connected solar-plus-battery systems are of the most value to the distribution and macrogrid systems, there is an opportunity to streamline and efficiently manage the growing number of interconnections. However, there is a risk that if utilities make interconnection and transaction with the grid too onerous, customers will pursue complete grid defection.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

• Phase 2: An Opportunity to Integrate In phase 2, solar-plus-battery systems become economic relative to grid-supplied electricity.

With more favorable economics for greater customer adoption, this is an ideal time for systems to create and share value between individual customers and the grid. As gridconnected solar-plus-battery systems begin to offer economic savings compared to traditional retail electric service alone, it is in this place, at this time, that rate structures and business models can most dramatically affect the configuration of a customer’s system to the sole benefit of the customer or the shared benefit of the grid.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 44

04: IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Sean Pavone/Shutterstock.com

Regardless of how they are implemented, solar-plusbattery systems will play an important role in the electricity system of the future. For customers, they promise lower and more stable pricing; secondary values such as reliability; and a low-carbon alternative to fossil-fueled power plants. However, without a dramatic evolution of our electricity system to accommodate them, they will play the role of disruptor, with ever-increasing levels of load defection and some portion of actual grid defection straining incumbent electricity system generators and the customers who depend solely on the grid for their electric service. If, on the other hand, incumbent electricity system players are able to quickly recognize, and price, the values that solar-plus-battery systems provide, then these systems can play a very different role, by lowering costs for distribution grid operators, providing values laterally to other customers on the distribution grid, and reducing high costs associated with peak load. But to make this latter path a reality we will need pricing, business model, and regulatory changes, all designed with the goal of giving distributed solar-plus-storage systems a chance to compete on a level playing field with other resources on the grid. Given the fast-approaching and rapidly improving economics of these technologies, it is critical that these reforms happen quickly, prior to investments or investment pressure for systems that are designed primarily for load defection alone.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 45

APPENDIX A ADDITIONAL SOLAR-PLUSBATTERY SYSTEM COST INFORMATION

APPENDIX A ADDITIONAL SOLAR-PLUS-BATTERY SYSTEM COST INFORMATION SOLAR PV All solar PV costs were normalized to 2012 U.S. dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator. Some data sources had merged PV cost curves, combining residential and commercial systems for average market costs.

In these combined market data cases, we utilized market cost deltas from other references to create data resolution for residential and commercial costs.

The PV costs use total installed costs, and therefore include a grid-tied inverter. To separate PV costs from the inverter, we used the BNEF PV Market Outlook report as a reference because it included disaggregated PV, including separate values for the PV module, inverter, and balance of systems.

BATTERIES BNEF’s battery projections covered the period 2012–2030. In order to perform our modeling through 2050, we conservatively held the battery price reduction percentage constant year-over-year through 2050. Our final projection applied a 1.9% reduction to each year’s price, resulting in $99/kWh by 2050. To arrive at 1.9%, we considered multiple best-fit curves, and selected a power-fit trend line as the most conservative and realistic forward projection of battery costs. We chose to use only the 2021–2030 data for our 1.9% annual price reduction since this range presented a steady and much more conservative outlook, compared to 2012–2020, which varied by 4–15% each year.

With this data, we calculated the proportion of total installed PV costs that came from the inverter alone.

The average, 8%, was used to separate the installed curve into separate “PV without inverter” and “inverter” values.

The inverter included in grid-connected PV systems is a grid-tied inverter. A grid-tied inverter is not capable of islanding or providing other off-grid capabilities.

In contrast, an off-grid inverter can operate without a grid connection and includes a battery charging system, additional control capabilities, and additional hardwire and wiring (but not batteries). An off-grid inverter is 25–30% more expensive than a grid-tied inverter.h Using this as our basis, we applied a 25% increase to the commercial inverter cost curve and a 30% increase to the residential inverter cost.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

h The 25–30% cost premium is based on confidential interviews with major inverter suppliers.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 47

APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE ASSUMPTIONS

APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE ASSUMPTIONS This appendix includes a description of a number of the detailed technical performance assumptions used in the modeling.

PARAMETER

VALUE

DESCRIPTION

SOURCE

Solar panel lifetime

25 years

The expected lifetime of the solar PV modules.

This is typical of the lifetime warranty that solar panel manufacturers offer

Performance de-rate

78%

Actual installed performance as compared to laboratory performance. 100% would match laboratory performance.

Professional experience

Net installed capacity limit (residential)

20 kWp

Represents a rough limit due to available PV array installation area. Actual limit will vary based on roof orientation/tilt, area, and PV array efficiency.

Assumed based on an available roof area of a typical home.

Net installed capacity limit (commercial)

None

Commercial space limits will vary substantially by business type and location, so were not included.

Assumed

Installed cost

Varies by year

See Appendix E: Financial Assumptions

PV slope

Matched to latitude

The angle at which the PV panels are mounted relative to horizontal

Standard industry practice is to set the slope equal to latitude.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Table A1 – PV array technical assumptions

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 49

APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE ASSUMPTIONS

Battery technical assumptions A battery enables an off-grid system to store energy and moderate power flows to maximize the operational efficiency of the system. A battery is a critical component of most hybrid power systems.

The battery used in the model is intended to represent a generic battery with 1 kWh of capacity.

However, due to its current promise as an efficient, durable, shelf-stable battery with excellent power characteristics, lithium-ion (in particular LiFePO4) was used as a basis for specification development. There

PARAMETER

VALUE

are many promising technologies that may exceed both the technical and economic performance of these batteries, including advanced lead acid, other novel chemistries, or flow batteries. The authors do not take a position on which chemistry is superior, but have consolidated professional experience with subject matter expert (SME) interviews and a literature review to develop the battery model used in the analysis. It is clear that the storage technology of the future will be low(er) cost, have high roundtrip storage efficiency, and have strong power performance relative to energy storage capabilities.

DESCRIPTION

SOURCE

Capacity

1 kWh

The nominal storage capacity of the battery

Author-imposed selection to make analysis generic and transferable

Calendar life (float life)

15 years

The maximum lifetime of the battery, regardless of use

Professional experience validated with anecdotal review of LiFePO4 specification sheets

Lifetime throughput

3,750 cycles at 80% depth of discharge

The total amount of energy that can be cycled through the battery before it needs replacement

Professional experience validated with anecdotal review of LiFePO4 specification sheets

Roundtrip efficiency

90%

The round trip DC-to-storage-to-DC efficiency of the battery bank

Professional experience

Minimum state of charge

20%

The relative state of charge below which the battery bank is never drawn

Professional experience

Maximum charge power

1 kW

The maximum power that can be used to charge each battery

Professional experience validated with anecdotal review of LiFePO4 specification sheets

Maximum discharge power

3 kW

The maximum power that each battery can discharge

Professional experience validated with anecdotal review of LiFePO4 specification sheets

Installed cost

Varies by year

See Appendix E: Financial Assumptions

Review of literature validated with SME interviews (see main report for full source list)

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Table A2 – Battery technical assumptions

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 50

APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE ASSUMPTIONS

Converter (inverter/rectifier) technical assumptions A converter converts electricity from alternating current (AC) to direct current (DC) and vice-versa. A converter is composed of two major components: an inverter that converts AC electricity to DC, and a rectifier (aka charger) that converts DC to AC. Grid-tied inverter costs were derived from the PV costs listed in Appendix TK. We calculated the cost breakdown based on the BNEF PV Market Outlook report. It included disaggregated PV including separate values for the PV module, inverter, and balance of systems. The on-grid inverter costs represented from 7.8% to 9.5%, depending on the year. The average percentage, 8%, was used to derive the inverter costs from the installed PV cost curves.

PARAMETER

VALUE

The inverter installed in typical grid-connected PV systems is a grid-tie (aka grid-following) inverter.

A grid-tied inverter is not capable of islanding or providing other off-grid capabilities. In contrast, an off-grid inverter can operate without a grid connection and includes a battery charging system, grid controls, and additional hardwire and wiring (but not batteries).

An off-grid inverter is 25-30% more expensive than a grid-tied inverter.i Using this as our basis, we applied a 25% increase to the commercial inverter cost curve and a 30% increase to the residential inverter cost.

i The 25–30% cost premium is based on interviews with a major inverter supplier that asked not to be identified.

DESCRIPTION

SOURCE

Inverter type

Grid forming

An off-grid inverter can operate without a grid connection and includes a battery charging system, grid controls, and additional hardwire and wiring (but not batteries)

Rectifier/charger efficiency (AC to DC)

90%

The efficiency of converting electricity from AC to DC

Professional experience validated with SME interviews

Inverter efficiency (DC to AC)

95%

The efficiency of converting electricity from DC to AC

Professional experience validated with SME interviews

Off-grid inverter cost premium (residential/ commercial)

30% / 25%

An off-grid inverter is more expensive than a grid-tie inverter

Major inverter supplier that asked not to be identified

Installed cost

Varies by year

See Appendix E: Financial Assumptions

Review of literature validated with SME interviews (see main report for full source list)

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Table A3 – Inverter technical assumptions

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 51

APPENDIX C GRID SERVICE TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

APPENDIX C GRID SERVICE TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS Our analysis used several rate variables to model a grid connection. The rate variables allowed us to define the cost structure of buying electricity from the grid and selling it back through net energy metering.

Using scheduled rates we were able to set specific summer and winter schedules to match the rates

PARAMETER

VALUE

found in the Genability database. The residential models used a volumetric power price only, which did not change based on time of day or month in the year. Most of the commercial customers had different summer and winter rates, , demand and fixed charges, which are further described in rate Table 2.

DESCRIPTION

SOURCE

Rate type

Scheduled rate

Allows different grid rates to be applied by an hourly and monthly schedule.

Genability

Power price

Varies based on location (see table 2)

The cost of buying power from the grid in $/kWh (i.e., volumetric rate).

Genability (with an annual 3%-real increase)

The monthly fee charged by the utility on the monthly peak demand.

Genability (with an annual 3%-real increase)

Demand rate

Varies based on location (see rate table TK) $0.00/kW/mo for all residential models

System fixed O&M cost (this variable is found in the Economic Inputs section of HOMER)

Varies based on location (see rate table TK)

The fixed recurring annual costs that occur regardless of the size or architecture of the system.

Genability (with an annual 3%-real increase)

$0.00/year for all residential models

We used this variable to capture the rate fixed charges since the grid inputs do not have a place to input this cost.

Sellback rate

$0.00/kWh

The price that the utility pays for power sold back to the grid. Under net metering, the sellback rate only applies to net excess generation.

Conservatively set to $0.

Time period

All Week

Signifies when the rate schedule applies; other choices are weekdays only or weekends only.

Genability

Net metering

Annual billing period

This setting allows energy to be sold back to the grid at the retail rate. At the end of the billing period (set to annually in our model), charges for the net amount purchased are calculated (purchases minus sales). If the net amount is negative, meaning more is sold that bought over the billing period, the utility pays according to the sellback rate.

Emissions factors

Carbon dioxide (g/ kWh) = 632 Sulfur dioxide (g/ kWh) = 2.74 Nitrogen oxides (g/ kWh) = 1.34

Emissions factors from grid power of various pollutants. These can be changed to match the generation mix of a particular area.

Default HOMER values were unchanged since this was not a core analysis area of our study.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Table A4 – Grid connection technical assumptions

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 53

APPENDIX C GRID SERVICE TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS

PARAMETER

Interconnection charge

Standby charge

Maximum grid purchase capacity

VALUE

$0

$0.00/year

Allowed for various levels ranging from 0kW up to but not including the peak demand for each geography.

Additionally a value of 1000kW was included to represent an unlimited grid connection.

DESCRIPTION

One-time fee charged by the utility for connecting to the grid.

Annual fee charged by the utility for providing backup grid power.

Maximum amount of power that can be drawn from the grid. HOMER finds the optimal value of grid purchase capacity per simulation time step.

SOURCE Due to the complexity in interconnection charges from utility to utility, we chose to leave this value unchanged.

Adding this charge presents an opportunity for further research to model all applicable charges for a specific utility and customer.

Due to the complexity in interconnection charges from utility to utility, we chose to leave this value unchanged.

Adding this charge presents an opportunity for further research to model all applicable charges for a specific utility and customer.

Tested a large range of values in the non-net metered models only. *To match current net metering schemes, no limit was set to the grid connection level.

*Net metered models used a value of 1000kW only.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Table A4 – Grid connection technical assumptions (Continued)

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 54

APPENDIX D HOMER MODELING

APPENDIX D HOMER MODELING The HOMER® software model uses a chronological annual simulation to determine how systems with different sets of equipment can be used meet an electrical load. The annual simulation includes an hour-by-hour energy balance that determines how energy generators and storage are dispatched. This simulation underpins all analyses in HOMER. The input data for the simulation includes equipment costs, performance data, solar and fuel resource data, efficiency, and equipment sizes. Based on these inputs, HOMER simulates how these different systems will perform. By varying the HOMER capacity of installed equipment within a user-defined search space determines the optimal set of equipment in a location. HOMER’s optimization ranks the simulated systems by net present cost (NPC), which accounts for all of the discounted operating costs over the system’s lifetime.

In addition to varying the capacity of the installed equipment, the user may also use HOMER’s automated sensitivity analyses by varying the underlying assumptions for a location—for example, the cost of diesel fuel or the installed cost of equipment.

Sensitivity analysis is different from optimization because it varies things that a system designer cannot control. This enables the model to make a distinction between things the user can control in the design (e.g., the size of a diesel generator) from those the user can’t control (e.g., diesel fuel price). Together, simulation, optimization, and sensitivity analysis form the foundation for HOMER analysis:

An hourly simulation includes 8,760 annual energy balances in a simulation (one for each hour of the year). Optimizations encompass a number of chronological annual simulations, and a sensitivity analysis encompasses a number of optimizations.

Together, these can be used to determine what system is optimally suited for a particular location, and how that optimal system might change in the face of data uncertainty or future variation.

Applying the HOMER model to the market Using the HOMER software, we developed energy models for representative residential and commercial off-grid markets in each geographic region. Model inputs including component costs, electrical load profiles, fuel prices, and geographical location were based on the base case data. All residential sites were powered exclusively by PV and battery storage. Commercial sites were modeled both with and without a standby generator sized to 110% of the system peak load. In all systems, the PV array was modeled to include a dedicated inverter to allow it to connect directly to the AC bus. The battery bank was connected to the system on the DC bus. The converter to transfer electricity from the AC to DC bus was modeled to be a grid-forming inverter with battery charger. Each location had a different load profile, based on NREL OpenEI data. The HOMER model schematic for the Louisville residential and commercial models can be seen below.

ENERGY BALANCE SIMULATION OPTIMIZATION

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 56

APPENDIX E FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS SECTION

APPENDIX E FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS SECTION For the purposes of this report, the researchers made several key financial assumptions: 1. First-Party (Host-Owned) Ownership of Residential and Commercial Systems—Many solar PV systems in the U.S. are built using a third-party financing model where the system host pays a per kWh rate to a third-party financier, allowing for system cost recovery over the life of the power purchase agreement.

The third-party finance model is largely based upon the fact that third-party finance entities can utilize more tax credits than most property owners. However, since not all of the current tax credits are scheduled to extend far into the future, the researchers chose to model firstparty system ownership.

2. The Models Only Consider Federal Tax Credits—To control for potential incentives, only federal tax credits were considered for the models; no local or state tax treatments were applied. No assumptions were made about the renewal of key federal tax credits.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

3. Assumed Discount Rates—These rates were used to discount system operation and maintenance costs and forecast soft costs to the projected construction date. This allowed the researchers to determine the net present value of systems built in the future.

Interest'Rates (weighted'average'cost'of'capital) Year Residential Commercial 2014 8.8% 9.5% 2015 8.2% 8.7% 2016 7.8% 8.7% 2017 5.1% 5.4% 2018 4.9% 4.9% 2019 4.6% 4.5% 2020 4.6% 4.4% 2021 4.6% 4.4% 2022 4.6% 4.4% 2023 4.6% 4.4% 2024 4.6% 4.4% 2025 4.6% 4.4% 2026 4.6% 4.4% 2027 4.6% 4.4% 2028 4.6% 4.4% 2029 4.6% 4.4% 2030 4.6% 4.4% 2031 4.6% 4.4% 2032 4.6% 4.4% 2033 4.6% 4.4% 2034 4.6% 4.4% 2035 4.6% 4.4% 2036 4.6% 4.4% 2037 4.6% 4.4% 2038 4.6% 4.4% 2039 4.6% 4.4% 2040 4.6% 4.4% 2041 4.6% 4.4% 2042 4.6% 4.4% 2043 4.6% 4.4% 2044 4.6% 4.4% 2045 4.6% 4.4% 2046 4.6% 4.4% 2047 4.6% 4.4% 2048 4.6% 4.4% 2049 4.6% 4.4% 2050 4.6% 4.4%

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 58

APPENDIX F ANALYTICAL RESULTS

BY GEOGRAPHY

APPENDIX F ANALYTICAL RESULTS BY GEOGRAPHY COMMERCIAL TABLES - WESTCHESTER, NY Westchester,'NY')'Commercial')'Non)Grid'Exporting'System

Year

Year

Year

Winter( Demand( Rate $/kW/mo.

20.267 21.501 22.81 24.199 25.673 27.237 28.895 30.655 32.522 34.503 36.604 38.833 41.198 43.707 Summer( 46.369 Power(Price 49.192 $/kWh 52.188 0.069 55.367 0.073 58.738 0.077 0.082 0.087 0.093 Winter(0.098 Demand( 0.104 Rate 0.11 $/kW/mo.

0.117 20.267 0.124 21.501 0.132 22.81 0.14 24.199 0.148 25.673 0.158 27.237 0.167 28.895 0.177 30.655 0.188 32.522 0.2 34.503 36.604 38.833 41.198 43.707 46.369 Summer( 49.192 Power(Price 52.188 $/kWh 55.367 0.069 58.738 0.073 0.077 0.082 0.087 0.093 0.098 0.104 0.11 0.117 0.124 0.132 0.14 0.148 0.158 0.167 0.177 0.188 0.2

Summer( Power(Price $/kWh 0.114 0.121 0.128 0.136 0.144 0.153 0.162 0.172 0.183 0.194 0.206 0.218 0.232 0.246 Fixed( 0.261 Charges 0.277 $/yr 0.293 105 0.311 111 0.33 118 125 133 141 150 Summer(159 Power(Price 169 $/kWh 179 0.114 190 0.121 201 0.128 214 0.136 227 0.144 240 0.153 255 0.162 270 0.172 287 0.183 304 0.194 0.206 0.218 0.232 0.246 0.261 Fixed( 0.277 Charges 0.293 $/yr 0.311 105 0.33 111 118 125 133 141 150 159 169 179 190 201 214 227 240 255 270 287 304

Summer( Demand( Rate $/kW/mo.

25.614 27.174 28.829 30.584 32.447 34.423 36.519 38.743 41.103 43.606 46.262 49.079 52.068 55.239 58.603 Grid 62.172 kW 65.958 1,000 69.975 1,000 74.236 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Summer( 1,000 Demand( 1,000 Rate 1,000 $/kW/mo.

1,000 25.614 1,000 27.174 1,000 28.829 139 30.584 134 32.447 130 34.423 123 36.519 123 38.743 122 41.103 122 43.606 46.262 49.079 52.068 55.239 58.603 62.172 Grid 65.958 kW 69.975 1,000 74.236 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2014 2048 2016 2050 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2014 2034 2016 2036 2018 2038 2020 2040 2022 2042 2024 2044 2026 2046 2028 2048 2030 2050 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2014 2050 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050

Winter( Power(Price $/kWh 0.114 0.121 0.128 0.136 0.144 0.153 0.162 0.172 0.183 0.194 0.206 0.218 0.232 0.246 Winter( 0.261 Power(Price 0.277 $/kWh 0.293 0.061 0.311 0.065 0.33 0.069 0.073 0.077 0.082 0.087 Winter(0.092 Power(Price 0.098 $/kWh0.104 0.114 0.11 0.121 0.117 0.128 0.124 0.136 0.131 0.144 0.139 0.153 0.148 0.162 0.157 0.172 0.167 0.183 0.177 0.194 0.206 0.218 0.232 0.246 0.261 Winter( 0.277 Power(Price 0.293 $/kWh 0.311 0.061 0.33 0.065 0.069 0.073 0.077 0.082 0.087 0.092 0.098 0.104 0.11 0.117 0.124 0.131 0.139 0.148 0.157 0.167 0.177

2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050

Winter( Winter( Demand( Summer( Power(Price Rate Power(Price $/kWh $/kW/mo. $/kWh 0.045 13.249 0.045 0.048 14.056 0.048 0.051 14.912 0.051 0.054 15.82 0.054 0.058 16.784 0.058 0.061 17.806 0.061 0.065 18.89 0.065 0.069 20.04 0.069 0.073 21.261 0.073 0.077 22.556 0.077 0.082 23.929 0.082 0.087 25.387 0.087 0.092 26.933 0.092 0.098 28.573 0.098 0.104 30.313 0.104 0.11 32.159 0.11 0.117 34.117 0.117 0.124 36.195 0.124 0.132 38.4 0.132

Summer( Demand( Fixed( Grid Rate Charges $/kW/mo. $/yr kW 13.265 2570 14.073 2726 14.93 2892 15.839 3068 16.804 3255 17.827 3453 18.913 3664 20.065 3887 21.287 4123 22.583 4374 23.958 4641 25.417 4923 26.965 5223 28.607 5541 30.35 5879 32.198 6237 34.159 6617 36.239 7020 38.446 7447

2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050

Winter( Winter( Demand( Summer( Power(Price Rate Power(Price $/kWh $/kW/mo. $/kWh 0.045 13.249 0.045 0.048 14.056 0.048 0.051 14.912 0.051 0.054 15.82 0.054 0.058 16.784 0.058 0.061 17.806 0.061 0.065 18.89 0.065 0.069 20.04 0.069 0.073 21.261 0.073 0.077 22.556 0.077 0.082 23.929 0.082 0.087 25.387 0.087 0.092 26.933 0.092 0.098 28.573 0.098 0.104 30.313 0.104 0.11 32.159 0.11 0.117 34.117 0.117 0.124 36.195 0.124 0.132 38.4 0.132

Summer( Fixed( Demand( Grid Charges Rate $/kW/mo. $/yr kW 13.265 2570 14.073 2726 14.93 2892 15.839 3068 16.804 3255 17.827 3453 18.913 3664 20.065 3887 21.287 4123 22.583 4374 23.958 4641 25.417 4923 26.965 5223 28.607 5541 30.35 5879 32.198 6237 34.159 6617 36.239 7020 38.446 7447

Year

Fixed( Charges $/yr 1530 1623 1722 1827 1938 2056 2181 2314 2455 2605 2763 2932 3110 3300 3501 PV 3714 kW 3940 0 4180 0 4434 50 100 125 125 125 Fixed( 150 Charges 150 $/yr 150 1530 175 1623 200 1722 250 1827 300 1938 350 2056 450 2181 450 2314 475 2455 475 2605 2763 2932 3110 3300 3501 3714 PV 3940 kW 4180 0 4434 0 400 425 425 425 425 425 425 425 425 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450

Grid kW

125 123 123 123 123 123 123 117 115 112 112 111 111 89 89 1kWh(Li=ion 89 kWh 89 0 89 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grid 0 kW 0 1,000 100 1,000 150 1,000 450 1,000 700 1,000 1,000 1,475 1,000 1,475 1,000 1,550 1,000 1,550 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1kWh(Li=ion 1,000 kWh 1,000 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PV kW

0 75 100 125 125 150 225 325 425 475 475 500 500 750 750 Converter 750 kW 750 0 750 0 750 0 0 0 0 0 0 PV 0 kW 0 0 25 425 25 450 75 450 100 450 150 450 200 450 200 450 200 450 200 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 Converter 450 kW 450 0 450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1kWh(Li=ion Converter kWh kW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 50 700 125 1,075 175 1,200 200 1,225 200 1,225 200 1,250 200 4,000 325 Total(Capital( 4,000 325 Total(NPC Cost 4,000 325 $ $ 4,000 325 0 406,633 4,000 325 0 459,545 4,000 325 79,000 689,109 143,000 741,343 165,000 765,501 153,750 790,822 147,500 823,369 174,000 860,405 1kWh(Li=ion 169,500 Converter 897,707 kWh169,500 kW 942,055 0 0 212,039 986,866 0 1,030,571 0 244,190 0 1,072,422 0 343,101 0 1,105,336 0 428,632 0 1,129,201 0 524,600 0 1,139,417 0 690,763 0 1,150,571 0 687,783 0 1,157,201 0 716,041 0 1,167,802 0 713,096 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total(Capital( 0 0 Total(NPC Cost 0 0 $ $ 0 0 0 406,633 0 0 0 459,545 632,000 686,375 607,750 630,519 561,000 585,156 522,750 548,377 501,500 528,687 493,000 521,843 480,250 510,850 480,250 512,713 476,000 510,440 499,500 507,774 499,500 508,277 495,000 504,312 495,000 504,879 490,500 500,981 490,500 501,619 486,000 497,796 486,000 498,514

Total(Annual( Total(Capital( Total(Annual( Replacement( Total(O&M( Total(Fuel( Total(Ann.( Operating( Total(NPC Cost Cost Cost Capital(Cost Cost Cost Cost $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr 0 915,707 0 0 97,028 0 97,028 97,028 99,000 1,013,521 9,835 0 90,851 0 100,686 90,851 158,000 1,483,326 11,098 0 93,095 0 104,193 93,095 178,750 1,619,523 11,931 0 96,167 0 108,098 96,167 165,000 1,693,515 11,013 0 102,023 0 113,036 102,023 184,500 1,772,147 12,315 0 105,970 0 118,285 105,970 313,593 1,855,640 20,931 2,173 100,754 0 123,858 102,926 498,222 1,917,764 33,255 5,477 89,273 0 128,004 94,750 649,256 1,954,700 43,336 7,667 79,467 0 130,470 87,134 720,890 2,013,231 48,117 8,354 77,905 0 134,376 86,259 715,728 2,071,185 47,772 8,336 82,136 0 138,245 90,472 735,714 San'Antonio,'TX')'Commercial')'Non)Grid'Exporting'System 2,134,085 49,106 8,199 85,137 0 142,443 93,337 736,225 2,205,054 49,141 8,222 89,817 0 147,180 98,039 Total( Total(Annual( 1,359,040 2,260,142 90,711 24,219 35,926 0 150,857 60,146 Annual( Replacement( Total(O&M( Total(Fuel( Total(Ann.( Operating( PV( 1,350,400 2,271,103 90,135 23,827 37,627 0 151,588 61,454 COE Capital(Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Production 1,334,500 2,276,552 89,073 23,447 39,431 0 151,952 62,879 $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr 1,326,420 2,291,632 88,534 23,079 41,345 0 152,959 64,425 0 0 43,087 0 43,087 43,087 0.064 0 1,311,040 2,300,021 87,507 22,635 43,376 0 153,519 66,011 0 0 45,652 0 45,652 45,652 0.068 0 1,303,440 2,319,524 87,000 22,290 45,531 0 154,820 67,820 5,549 0 42,856 0 48,405 42,856 0.072 77,575 9,545 0 39,937 0 49,482 39,937 0.074 155,150 11,013 0 40,081 0 51,095 40,081 0.076 193,938 Westchester,'NY')'Commercial')'With'Exports'to'Grid'(Net'Energy'Metering) 10,262 0 42,522 0 52,785 42,522 0.079 193,938 9,845 0 45,112 Total(Annual(0 54,957 45,112 0.082 193,938 Total(Capital( 11,614 0 Total(Annual( 45,815 Replacement( 0 Total(O&M( 57,429 Total(Fuel( 45,815 Total(Ann.( 0.086 Operating( 232,726 Cost 11,314 Total(NPC 0 Capital(Cost 48,605 Cost 0 Cost 59,919 Cost 48,605 Cost 0.089 Cost232,726 $ 11,314 $ 0 $/yr 51,565 $/yr 0 $/yr 62,879 $/yr 51,565 $/yr 0.094 $/yr 232,726 0 918,397 0 0 97,313 0 97,313 97,313 14,153 728 50,989 65,870 51,717 0.098 271,513 561,000 925,003 55,731 0 36,161 0 91,892 36,161 16,299 1,019 51,470 68,787 52,488 0.103 310,301 711,000 1,215,777 49,943 0 35,457 0 85,400 35,457 22,901 2,976 45,703 71,581 48,680 0.107 387,876 643,500 1,207,070 42,951 0 37,616 0 80,568 37,616 28,610 4,475 40,693 73,777 45,168 0.11 465,452 594,000 1,191,891 39,647 39,907 0 79,555 39,907 35,015 6,378 33,977 0 75,370 40,355 0.112 543,025 553,500 1,187,803 36,944 42,338 0 79,282 42,338 46,106 9,234 20,712 0 76,052 29,946 0.113 698,176 531,000 1,203,932 35,442 44,916 0 80,358 44,916 45,907 9,095 21,794 0 76,797 30,890 0.115 698,176 522,000 1,235,914 34,842 47,651 0 82,493 47,651 47,793 9,271 20,175 0 77,239 29,446 0.115 736,964 508,500 1,265,891 33,941 50,553 0 84,494 50,553 47,597 9,135 21,215 0 77,947 30,350 0.116 736,964 508,500 1,312,016 33,941 0 53,632 0 87,573 53,632 504,000 1,356,450 33,640 0 56,898 0 90,538 56,898 499,500 1,403,864 33,340 0 60,363 0 93,703 60,363 499,500 1,458,940 33,340 0 64,039 0 97,379 64,039 San'Antonio,'TX')'Commercial')'With'Exports'to'Grid'(Net'Energy'Metering) 495,000 1,512,870 33,040 0 67,939 0 100,979 67,939 Total( Total(Annual( 495,000 1,574,858 33,040 0 72,077 0 105,116 72,077 Annual( Replacement( Total(O&M( Total(Fuel( Total(Ann.( Operating( PV( 490,500 1,636,122 32,739 0 76,466 0 109,206 76,466 COE Capital(Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Production 490,500 1,705,890 32,739 0 81,123 0 113,862 81,123 $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr 486,000 1,775,408 32,439 0 86,064 0 118,502 86,064 0 0 43,087 0 43,087 43,087 0.064 0 486,000 1,853,932 32,439 0 91,305 0 123,744 91,305 0 0 45,652 0 45,652 45,652 0.068 0 44,394 0 3,819 0 48,213 3,819 0.048 620,602 40,565 0 1,520 0 42,085 1,520 0.04 659,389 37,445 0 1,612 0 39,057 1,612 0.037 659,389 34,892 0 1,710 0 36,602 1,710 0.035 659,389 33,473 0 1,815 0 35,288 1,815 0.034 659,389 32,906 0 1,925 0 34,831 1,925 0.033 659,389 32,055 0 2,042 0 34,097 2,042 0.033 659,389 32,055 0 2,167 0 34,222 2,167 0.033 659,389 31,771 0 2,299 0 34,070 2,299 0.033 659,389 33,340 0 552 0 33,892 552 0.031 698,176 33,340 0 586 0 33,926 586 0.031 698,176 33,040 0 622 0 33,661 622 0.031 698,176 33,040 0 659 0 33,699 659 0.031 698,176 32,739 0 700 0 33,439 700 0.031 698,176 32,739 0 742 0 33,481 742 0.031 698,176 32,439 0 787 0 33,226 787 0.031 698,176 32,439 0 835 0 33,274 835 0.031 698,176

COMMERCIAL TABLES - LOUISVILLE, KY

COE $/kWh

0.168 0.174 0.18 0.187 0.196 0.205 0.215 0.222 0.226 0.233 0.239 0.247 0.255 0.261 Grid( 0.263 Purchases 0.263 kWh/yr 0.265 670,503 0.266 670,503 0.268 592,928 520,663 492,670 492,670 492,670 471,741 COE 471,741 $/kWh 471,741 0.169 437,834 0.102 415,771 0.092 342,702 0.087 282,932 0.085 216,440 0.085 112,538 0.086 112,538 0.089 95,991 0.091 95,991 0.094 0.097 0.101 0.105 0.108 0.113 Grid( 0.117 Purchases 0.122 kWh/yr 0.127 670,503 0.133 670,503 388,410 384,460 384,460 384,460 384,460 384,460 384,460 384,460 384,460 380,794 380,794 380,794 380,794 380,794 380,794 380,794 380,794

PV( Grid( Production Purchases kWh/yr kWh/yr 0 577,407 97,347 481,044 129,796 455,783 162,245 436,935 162,245 436,935 194,694 422,326 292,041 349,081 421,837 247,333 551,633 161,956 616,532 131,215 616,532 129,190 648,980 121,785 648,980 120,035 973,471 19,615 Grid(Net( 973,471 19,615 Grid(Sales Purchases 973,471 19,615 kWh/yr kWh/yr 973,471 19,615 0 670,503 973,471 19,615 0 670,503 973,471 19,615 0 592,928 0 520,663 0 492,670 0 492,670 0 492,670 PV( 0 Grid(471,741 Production 0 Purchases 471,741 kWh/yr 0 kWh/yr 471,741 0 577,430 437,834 551,633 350,545 0 415,771 584,083 347,257 0 342,702 584,083 347,257 0 282,932 584,083 347,257 0 216,440 584,083 347,257 0 112,538 584,083 347,257 0 112,538 584,083 347,257 0 95,991 584,083 347,257 0 95,991 584,083 347,257 584,083 347,257 584,083 347,257 584,083 347,257 584,083 347,257 584,083 347,257 Grid(Net( 584,083 347,257 Grid(Sales Purchases 584,083 347,257 kWh/yr kWh/yr 584,083 347,257 0 670,503 584,083 347,257 0 670,503 338,508 49,902 373,345 11,114 373,345 11,114 373,345 11,114 373,345 11,114 373,345 11,114 373,345 11,114 373,345 11,114 373,345 11,114 408,467 =27,673 408,467 =27,673 408,467 =27,673 408,467 =27,673 408,467 =27,673 408,467 =27,673 408,467 =27,673 408,467 =27,673

Grid(Sales kWh/yr

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total( 0 Electrical( 0 Production 0 kWh/yr 0 670,503 0 670,503 0 670,503 675,813 686,608 686,608 686,608 704,467 Grid(Sales 704,467 kWh/yr 704,467 0 709,347 324,748 726,072 353,910 730,578 353,910 748,384 353,910 759,465 353,910 810,714 353,910 810,714 353,910 832,955 353,910 832,955 353,910 353,910 353,910 353,910 353,910 Total( 353,910 Electrical( 353,910 Production 353,910 kWh/yr 353,910 670,503 353,910 670,503 1,009,011 1,043,849 1,043,849 1,043,849 1,043,849 1,043,849 1,043,849 1,043,849 1,043,849 1,078,970 1,078,970 1,078,970 1,078,970 1,078,970 1,078,970 1,078,970 1,078,970

Grid(Net( Purchases kWh/yr 577,407 481,044 455,783 436,935 436,935 422,326 349,081 247,333 161,956 131,215 129,190 121,785 120,035 19,615 AC(Primary( 19,615 Load(Served 19,615 kWh/yr 19,615 670,504 19,615 670,504 19,615 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 Grid(Net( 670,504 Purchases 670,504 kWh/yr 670,504 577,430 670,504 25,797 670,504 =6,652 670,501 =6,652 670,460 =6,652 670,421 =6,652 670,353 =6,652 670,353 =6,652 670,336 =6,652 670,336 =6,652 =6,652 =6,652 =6,652 =6,652 =6,652 AC(Primary( =6,652 Load(Served =6,652 kWh/yr =6,652 670,504 =6,652 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504 670,504

Total( Electrical( Production kWh/yr 577,407 578,391 585,579 599,180 599,180 617,020 641,122 669,170 713,589 747,747 745,722 770,765 769,015 993,087 Renewable( 993,087 Fraction 993,087 % 993,087 0 993,087 0 993,087 0.12 0.22 0.27 0.27 Total( 0.27 Electrical(0.3 Production 0.3 kWh/yr 0.3 577,430 0.35 902,178 0.38 931,340 0.49 931,340 0.58 931,340 0.68 931,340 0.83 931,340 0.83 931,340 0.86 931,340 0.86 931,340 931,340 931,340 931,340 931,340 931,340 Renewable( 931,340 Fraction 931,340 % 931,340 0 931,340 0 0.62 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65

AC(Primary( Load(Served kWh/yr 577,408 577,396 577,396 577,396 577,396 577,396 577,404 577,318 577,308 577,283 577,283 577,283 577,283 577,296 Excess( 577,296 Electricity 577,296 kWh/yr 577,296 0 577,296 0 577,296 0 5,310 16,104 16,104 16,104 AC(Primary( 33,963 Load(Served 33,963 kWh/yr 33,963 577,431 33,568 577,431 47,559 577,431 36,342 577,431 40,931 577,431 35,792 577,431 61,434 577,431 61,434 577,431 79,848 577,431 79,848 577,431 577,431 577,431 577,431 577,431 577,431 Excess( 577,431 Electricity 577,431 kWh/yr 577,431 0 577,431 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Renewable( Fraction % 0 0.17 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.4 0.57 0.72 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.79 0.97 Battery( 0.97 Autonomy 0.97 hr 0.97 0 0.97 0 0.97 0 0 0 0 0 Renewable(0 Fraction 0 % 0 0 1.05 0.61 1.57 0.63 4.7 0.63 7.32 0.63 10.45 0.63 15.42 0.63 15.42 0.63 16.2 0.63 16.2 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Battery( 0.63 Autonomy 0.63 hr 0.63 0 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Excess( Electricity kWh/yr

Battery( Autonomy hr 0 0 996 0 8,184 0 21,785 0 21,785 0 39,625 0 51,089 3.03 56,699 8.5 80,836 13.05 107,829 14.57 105,221 14.87 128,896 14.87 126,645 15.17 329,115 48.56 Battery( 329,115 48.56 Throughput 329,115 48.56 kWh/yr 329,115 48.56 0 329,115 48.56 0 329,115 48.56 0 0 0 0 0 Excess( 0 Battery( Electricity 0 Autonomy kWh/yr 0 hr 0 0 19,891 0 0 30,186 0 0 89,482 0 0 139,459 0 0 200,734 0 0 297,482 0 0 297,482 0 0 311,982 0 0 311,982 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Battery( 0 0 Throughput 0 0 kWh/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Battery( Throughput kWh/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 47,652 132,646 209,116 236,178 238,424 243,499 245,441 333,430 333,430 333,430 333,430 333,430 333,430

Battery( Throughput kWh/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Louisville,'KY')'Commercial')'Non)Grid'Exporting'System Year

133 133 133 133 133 133 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 123

PV kW

0 0 0 0 0 50 75 100 100 100 100 125 125 125 125 125 175 175 325

Total(Annual( Total(Capital( Total(Annual( Replacement( Total(O&M( Total(Fuel( 1kWh(Li=ion Converter Cost Total(NPC Capital(Cost Cost Cost Cost kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr 0 0 0 457,876 0 0 48,516 0 0 0 520,226 0 0 51,680 0 0 0 780,892 0 0 54,852 0 0 0 871,340 0 0 58,159 0 0 0 927,797 0 0 61,927 0 0 61,500 980,704 4,105 0 61,354 0 0 88,500 1,032,270 5,907 0 62,993 0 0 116,000 1,088,309 7,743 0 64,898 0 0 113,000 1,143,750 7,542 0 68,799 0 0 113,000 1,204,819 7,542 0 72,875 0 0 112,000 1,271,498 7,476 0 77,393 0 0 138,750 1,340,982 9,261 0 80,245 0 0 138,750 1,413,097 9,261 0 85,058 0 0 137,500 1,490,921 9,178 0 90,336 0 0 137,500 1,573,462 9,178 0 95,846 0 0 136,250 1,658,430 9,094 0 101,600 125 25 208,435 1,751,076 13,912 803 102,163 125 25 206,439 1,841,379 13,779 785 108,342 725 125 448,367 1,924,894 29,927 4,384 94,169

0 0 0 0 0 425 425 425 425 425 425 425 450 450 450 450 450 450 450

Total(Annual( Total(Capital( Total(Annual( Replacement( Total(O&M( Total(Fuel( 1kWh(Li=ion Converter Cost Total(NPC Capital(Cost Cost Cost Cost kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr 0 0 0 458,463 0 0 48,578 0 0 0 520,890 0 0 51,746 0 0 0 781,888 0 0 54,922 0 0 0 872,452 0 0 58,233 0 0 0 928,977 0 0 62,006 0 0 522,750 976,314 34,892 0 30,274 0 0 501,500 982,788 33,473 0 32,124 0 0 493,000 1,003,613 32,906 0 34,082 0 0 480,250 1,021,887 32,055 0 36,152 0 0 480,250 1,054,714 32,055 0 38,344 0 0 476,000 1,085,560 31,771 0 40,686 0 0 471,750 1,118,434 31,488 0 43,164 0 0 499,500 1,156,847 33,340 0 43,876 0 0 495,000 1,192,418 33,040 0 46,550 0 0 495,000 1,234,893 33,040 0 49,385 0 0 490,500 1,275,420 32,739 0 52,391 0 0 490,500 1,323,252 32,739 0 55,583 0 0 486,000 1,369,454 32,439 0 58,968 0 0 486,000 1,423,300 32,439 0 62,562

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total( Electrical( Total(Ann.( Operating( PV( Grid( Grid(Net( AC(Primary( Renewable( Excess( Battery( Battery( Cost Cost COE Production Purchases Grid(Sales Purchases Production Load(Served Fraction Autonomy Throughput Electricity $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr hr kWh/yr 48,516 48,516 0.08 0 604,796 0 604,796 604,796 604,797 0 0 0 0 51,680 51,680 0.085 0 604,796 0 604,796 604,796 604,797 0 0 0 0 54,852 54,852 0.091 0 604,796 0 604,796 604,796 604,797 0 0 0 0 58,159 58,159 0.096 0 604,796 0 604,796 604,796 604,797 0 0 0 0 61,927 61,927 0.102 0 604,796 0 604,796 604,796 604,797 0 0 0 0 65,459 61,354 0.108 67,949 536,850 0 536,850 604,799 604,800 0.11 0 0 0 68,901 62,993 0.114 101,923 503,874 0 503,874 605,798 604,797 0.17 1,002 0 0 72,641 64,898 0.12 135,898 475,951 0 475,951 611,849 604,798 0.21 7,052 0 0 76,341 68,799 0.126 135,898 475,951 0 475,951 611,849 604,798 0.21 7,052 0 0 80,418 72,875 0.133 135,898 475,951 0 475,951 611,849 604,798 0.21 7,052 0 0 84,868 77,393 0.14 135,898 475,951 0 475,951 611,849 604,798 0.21 7,052 0 0 89,506 80,245 0.148 169,872 454,847 0 454,847 624,719 604,799 0.25 19,921 0 0 604,799 0.25 19,921 0 0 94,319 85,058 0.156 169,872 454,847 0 454,847 624,719 99,514 90,336 0.165 169,872 454,847 0 454,847 624,719 604,799 0.25 19,921 0 0 105,023 95,846 0.174 169,872 454,847 0 454,847 624,719 604,799 0.25 19,921 0 0 110,695 101,600 0.183 169,872 454,847 0 454,847 624,719 604,799 0.25 19,921 0 0 116,878 102,966 0.193 237,821 405,959 0 405,959 643,780 604,801 0.33 33,032 1.45 22,472 122,906 109,127 0.203 237,821 405,959 0 405,959 643,780 604,801 0.33 33,032 1.45 22,472 128,480 98,553 0.212 441,668 254,095 0 254,095 695,763 604,742 0.58 53,721 8.4 140,684

Louisville,'KY')'Commercial')'With'Exports'to'Grid'(Net'Energy'Metering)

1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

PV kW

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total( Total(Ann.( Operating( PV( Grid( Grid(Net( AC(Primary( Renewable( Excess( Electrical( Cost Cost COE Production Purchases Grid(Sales Purchases Production Load(Served Fraction Electricity $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr 48,578 48,578 0.08 0 604,807 0 604,807 604,807 604,809 0 51,746 51,746 0.086 0 604,807 0 604,807 604,807 604,809 0 54,922 54,922 0.091 0 604,807 0 604,807 604,807 604,809 0 58,233 58,233 0.096 0 604,807 0 604,807 604,807 604,809 0 62,006 62,006 0.103 0 604,807 0 604,807 604,807 604,809 0 65,166 30,274 0.069 577,565 364,015 336,773 27,242 941,580 604,809 0.61 65,598 32,124 0.07 577,565 364,015 336,773 27,242 941,580 604,809 0.61 66,988 34,082 0.071 577,565 364,015 336,773 27,242 941,580 604,809 0.61 68,208 36,152 0.072 577,565 364,015 336,773 27,242 941,580 604,809 0.61 70,399 38,344 0.075 577,565 364,015 336,773 27,242 941,580 604,809 0.61 72,457 40,686 0.077 577,565 364,015 336,773 27,242 941,580 604,809 0.61 74,652 43,164 0.079 577,565 364,015 336,773 27,242 941,580 604,809 0.61 604,809 0.63 77,216 43,876 0.079 611,540 360,487 367,220 =6,732 972,027 79,590 46,550 0.082 611,540 360,487 367,220 =6,732 972,027 604,809 0.63 82,425 49,385 0.085 611,540 360,487 367,220 =6,732 972,027 604,809 0.63 85,130 52,391 0.088 611,540 360,487 367,220 =6,732 972,027 604,809 0.63 88,323 55,583 0.091 611,540 360,487 367,220 =6,732 972,027 604,809 0.63 91,406 58,968 0.094 611,540 360,487 367,220 =6,732 972,027 604,809 0.63 95,000 62,562 0.098 611,540 360,487 367,220 =6,732 972,027 604,809 0.63

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Battery( Autonomy hr

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Battery( Throughput kWh/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Year

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 60

APPENDIX F ANALYTICAL RESULTS BY GEOGRAPHY

COMMERCIAL TABLES - SAN ANTONIO, TX San'Antonio,'TX')'Commercial')'Non)Grid'Exporting'System Total( Total(Annual( Total( Annual( Replacement( Total(O&M( Total(Fuel( Winter( Summer( Fixed( Total(Capital( Total(Ann.( Operating( PV( Grid( Grid(Net( Electrical( AC(Primary( Renewable( Excess( Battery( Battery( Grid PV 1kWh(Li=ion Converter Cost Total(NPC Capital(Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost COE Electricity Autonomy Throughput Power(Price Power(Price Charges Cost Production Purchases Grid(Sales Purchases Production Load(Served Fraction $/kWh $/kWh $/yr kW kW kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr hr kWh/yr 2014 0.061 0.069 105 1,000 0 0 0 0 406,633 0 0 43,087 0 43,087 43,087 0.064 0 670,503 0 670,503 670,503 670,504 0 0 0 0 2016 0.065 0.073 111 1,000 0 0 0 0 459,545 0 0 45,652 0 45,652 45,652 0.068 0 670,503 0 670,503 670,503 670,504 0 0 0 0 2018 0.069 0.077 118 1,000 50 0 0 79,000 689,109 5,549 0 42,856 0 48,405 42,856 0.072 77,575 592,928 0 592,928 670,503 670,504 0.12 0 0 0 2020 0.073 0.082 125 1,000 100 0 0 143,000 741,343 9,545 0 39,937 0 49,482 39,937 0.074 155,150 520,663 0 520,663 675,813 670,504 0.22 5,310 0 0 2022 0.077 0.087 133 1,000 125 0 0 165,000 765,501 11,013 0 40,081 0 51,095 40,081 0.076 193,938 492,670 0 492,670 686,608 670,504 0.27 16,104 0 0 2024 0.082 0.093 141 1,000 125 0 0 153,750 790,822 10,262 0 42,522 0 52,785 42,522 0.079 193,938 492,670 0 492,670 686,608 670,504 0.27 16,104 0 0 2026 0.087 0.098 150 1,000 125 0 0 147,500 823,369 9,845 0 45,112 0 54,957 45,112 0.082 193,938 492,670 0 492,670 686,608 670,504 0.27 16,104 0 0 2028 0.092 0.104 159 1,000 150 0 0 174,000 860,405 11,614 0 45,815 0 57,429 45,815 0.086 232,726 471,741 0 471,741 704,467 670,504 0.3 33,963 0 0 2030 0.098 0.11 169 1,000 150 0 0 169,500 897,707 11,314 0 48,605 0 59,919 48,605 0.089 232,726 471,741 0 471,741 704,467 670,504 0.3 33,963 0 0 2032 0.104 0.117 179 1,000 150 0 0 169,500 942,055 11,314 0 51,565 0 62,879 51,565 0.094 232,726 471,741 0 471,741 704,467 670,504 0.3 33,963 0 0 Honolulu,'HI')'Commercial')'Non)Grid'Exporting'System 2034 0.11 0.124 190 1,000 175 100 25 212,039 986,866 14,153 728 50,989 0 65,870 51,717 0.098 271,513 437,834 0 437,834 709,347 670,504 0.35 33,568 1.05 19,891 2036 0.117 0.132 201 1,000 200 150 25 244,190 Total( 1,030,571 Total(Annual( 16,299 1,019 51,470 0 68,787 52,488 0.103 310,301 415,771 0 Total( 415,771 726,072 670,504 0.38 47,559 1.57 30,186 2038 Demand( 0.124 Fixed( 0.14 214 139 250 450 Total(Capital( 75 343,101 Annual( 1,072,422 Replacement( 22,901 Total(O&M( 2,976 Total(Fuel( 45,703 Total(Ann.( 0 Operating( 71,581 48,680 PV( 0.107 Grid(387,876 342,702 Grid(Net( 0 Electrical( 342,702 AC(Primary( 730,578 Renewable( 670,501 Excess( 0.49 Battery( 36,342 Battery( 4.7 89,482 Power(Price 0.58 Autonomy 40,931 Throughput 7.32 139,459 2040 Rate 0.131 Charges 0.148 Grid 227 PV 134 1kWh(Li=ion 300 Converter 700 Cost 100 Total(NPC 428,632 Capital(Cost 1,105,336 Cost 28,610 Cost 4,475 Cost 40,693 Cost 0 Cost 73,777 COE 45,168 Production 0.11 Purchases 465,452 Grid(Sales 282,932 Purchases 0 Production 282,932 Load(Served 748,384 Fraction 670,460 Electricity $/kWh 2042 $/kW/mo.

0.139 $/yr 0.158 kW 240 kW 130 kWh 350 kW 1,000 $ 150 $ 524,600 $/yr 1,129,201 $/yr 35,015 $/yr 6,378 $/yr 33,977 $/yr 0 $/yr 75,370 $/kWh 40,355 kWh/yr0.112 kWh/yr 543,025 kWh/yr 216,440 kWh/yr 0 kWh/yr 216,440 kWh/yr 759,465 % 670,421 kWh/yr 0.68 hr 35,792 kWh/yr10.45 200,734 2014 0.397 10.845 484 124 450 1,475 200 1,129,675 119,700 25,183 70,699 215,582 95,882 0.281 718,912 129,692 44,427 85,265 848,604 722,666 83% 14.31 307,050 2044 0.148 0.167 255 123 450 1,475 200 2,034,571 690,763 1,139,417 46,106 9,234 20,712 0 0 76,052 29,946 0.113 698,176 112,538 0 112,538 810,714 670,353 0.830 61,434 15.42 297,482 2016 0.421 11.505 513 122 500 1,725 225 1,095,409 108,820 22,931 57,479 189,230 80,410 0.238 798,791 88,056 72,639 15,417 886,846 722,659 89% 16.73 345,099 2046 0.157 0.177 270 123 450 1,475 200 1,904,829 687,783 1,150,571 45,907 9,095 21,794 0 0 76,797 30,890 0.115 698,176 112,538 0 112,538 810,714 670,353 0.830 61,434 15.42 297,482 2018 0.446 12.206 544 120 550 1,775 225 1,386,198 97,371 23,492 52,688 173,550 76,179 0.203 878,669 70,134 131,238 =61,105 948,802 722,632 92% 17.22 357,810 2048 0.167 0.188 287 122 475 1,550 200 2,470,711 716,041 1,157,201 47,793 9,271 20,175 0 0 77,239 29,446 0.115 736,964 95,991 0 95,991 832,955 670,336 0.860 79,848 16.2 311,982 2020 0.473 12.949 578 119 600 1,825 225 1,325,722 88,487 21,286 49,425 159,198 70,711 0.173 958,549 57,316 196,148 =138,832 722,628 94% 17.7 365,969 2050 0.177 0.2 304 122 475 1,550 200 2,385,114 713,096 1,167,802 47,597 9,135 21,215 0 0 77,947 30,350 0.116 736,964 95,991 0 1,015,865 95,991 832,955 670,336 0.860 79,848 16.2 311,982 2022 0.502 13.738 613 116 650 1,875 250 1,287,500 2,268,025 85,936 19,525 45,922 0 151,383 65,447 0.154 1,038,429 46,071 262,865 =216,795 1,084,499 722,588 95% 0 18.19 373,389 2024 0.533 14.575 650 112 725 1,900 250 1,279,227 2,157,789 85,384 17,597 41,044 0 144,025 58,641 0.132 1,158,248 35,752 370,681 =334,930 1,193,999 722,541 97% 0 18.43 378,780 2026 0.565 15.462 690 112 725 1,900 250 1,204,103 2,089,221 80,370 15,766 43,312 0 139,448 59,079 0.128 1,158,248 35,752 370,681 =334,930 1,193,999 722,541 97% 0 18.43 378,780 2028 0.6 16.404 732 112 725 1,900 250 1,158,424 2,058,412 77,321 14,353 45,719 0 137,392 60,071 0.126 1,158,248 35,752 370,681 =334,930 1,193,999 722,541 97% 0 18.43 378,780 San'Antonio,'TX')'Commercial')'With'Exports'to'Grid'(Net'Energy'Metering) 2030 0.636 17.403 776 105 750 2,150 275 1,176,512 2,022,913 78,528 14,923 41,571 0 135,023 56,494 0.12 1,198,187 26,858 399,561 =372,703 1,225,046 722,461 98% 0 20.85 386,859 2032 0.675 18.463 824 103 750 2,250 275 1,180,763 2,040,266 78,812 Total( 15,116Total(Annual( 42,252 0 136,181 57,369 0.122 1,198,187 24,781 396,902 =372,121 1,222,969 Total(722,430 98% 0 21.82 389,129 2034 0.716 Winter( 19.587 Summer(874 Fixed( 52 850 3,700 300 1,470,443 Total(Capital( 2,023,843 98,147 Annual(23,511Replacement( 13,427 Total(O&M( 0Total(Fuel( 135,085 Total(Ann.( 36,938 Operating( 0.108 1,357,947 PV( 2,746 Grid(529,540 =526,793 Grid(Net( 1,360,693 Electrical( 722,252 AC(Primary( 100% Renewable(0 Excess( 35.89 Battery( 407,758 Battery( Year Grid PV 1kWh(Li=ion Converter Total(NPC Cost Cost Cost COE Grid(Sales Production Load(Served Fraction Electricity Autonomy Capital(Cost Cost Power(Price Power(Price Charges Cost Cost Production Purchases Purchases 2036 0.76 20.78 927 52 850 3,700 300 1,452,841 2,005,572 96,972 23,099 13,794 0 133,865 36,893 0.107 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 100% 0 35.89 407,758 Throughput $/kWh $/kWh $/yr kW kW kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr hr 2038 0.806 22.046 983 52 850 3,700 300 1,444,886 1,998,028 96,441 22,737 14,183 0 133,362 36,920 0.107 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 100% 0 35.89 407,758 kWh/yr 2014 0.061 0.069 105 1,000 0 0 0 0 406,633 0 0 43,087 0 43,087 43,087 0.064 0 670,503 0 670,503 670,503 670,504 0 0 0 0 100% 0 35.89 407,758 2040 0.855 23.388 1043 52 850 3,700 300 1,428,912 1,983,184 95,375 22,399 14,596 0 132,371 36,996 0.106 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 2016 0.065 0.073 111 1,000 0 0 0 0 459,545 0 0 45,652 0 45,652 45,652 0.068 0 670,503 0 670,503 670,503 670,504 0 0 0 0 2042 0.907 24.813 1107 52 850 3,700 300 1,420,920 1,976,319 94,842 22,036 15,035 0 131,913 37,071 0.105 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 100% 0 35.89 407,758 2018 0.069 0.077 118 1,000 400 0 0 632,000 686,375 44,394 0 3,819 0 48,213 3,819 0.048 620,602 388,410 338,508 49,902 1,009,011 670,504 0.62 0 0 0 2044 0.963 26.324 1174 52 850 3,700 300 1,404,650 1,961,758 93,756 21,685 15,500 0 130,941 37,185 0.105 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 100% 0 35.89 407,758 2020 0.073 0.082 125 1,000 425 0 0 607,750 630,519 40,565 0 1,520 0 42,085 1,520 0.04 659,389 384,460 373,345 11,114 1,043,849 670,504 0.63 0 0 0 2046 1.021 27.927 1246 52 850 3,700 300 1,397,176 1,956,570 93,257 21,345 15,993 0 130,594 37,338 0.104 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 100% 0 35.89 407,758 2022 0.077 0.087 133 1,000 425 0 0 561,000 585,156 37,445 0 1,612 0 39,057 1,612 0.037 659,389 384,460 373,345 11,114 1,043,849 670,504 0.63 0 0 0 2048 1.083 29.627 1322 52 850 3,700 300 1,381,387 1,942,467 92,203 20,934 16,516 0 129,653 37,450 0.104 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 100% 0 35.89 407,758 2024 0.082 0.093 141 1,000 425 0 0 522,750 548,377 34,892 0 1,710 0 36,602 1,710 0.035 659,389 384,460 373,345 11,114 1,043,849 670,504 0.63 0 0 0 2050 1.149 31.432 1402 52 850 3,700 300 1,374,357 1,938,969 91,734 20,615 17,071 0 129,420 37,686 0.103 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 100% 0 35.89 407,758 2026 0.087 0.098 150 1,000 425 0 0 501,500 528,687 33,473 0 1,815 0 35,288 1,815 0.034 659,389 384,460 373,345 11,114 1,043,849 670,504 0.63 0 0 0 2028 0.092 0.104 159 1,000 425 0 0 493,000 521,843 32,906 0 1,925 0 34,831 1,925 0.033 659,389 384,460 373,345 11,114 1,043,849 670,504 0.63 0 0 0 2030 0.098 0.11 169 1,000 425 0 0 480,250 510,850 32,055 0 2,042 0 34,097 2,042 0.033 659,389 384,460 373,345 11,114 1,043,849 670,504 0.63 0 0 0 Honolulu,'HI')'Commercial')'With'Exports'to'Grid'(Net'Energy'Metering) 2032 0.104 0.117 179 1,000 425 0 0 480,250 512,713 32,055 0 2,167 0 34,222 2,167 0.033 659,389 384,460 373,345 11,114 1,043,849 670,504 0.63 0 0 0 2034 0.11 0.124 190 1,000 425 0 0 476,000 Total( 510,440 Total(Annual( 31,771 0 2,299 0 34,070 2,299 0.033 659,389 384,460 373,345 Total(11,114 1,043,849 670,504 0.63 0 0 0 2036 Demand( 0.117 Fixed( 0.132 201 1,000 450 0 Total(Capital( 0 499,500 Annual( 507,774 Replacement( 33,340 Total(O&M(0 Total(Fuel( 552 Total(Ann.( 0 Operating( 33,892 552 PV( 0.031 Grid(698,176 380,794 Grid(Net( 408,467 Electrical( =27,673 AC(Primary( 1,078,970 Renewable( 670,504 Excess( 0.65 Battery( 0 Battery( 0 0 Power(Price 2038 Rate 0.124 Charges0.14 Grid 214 PV 1,000 1kWh(Li=ion 450 Converter 0 Cost 0 Total(NPC 499,500 Capital(Cost 508,277 Cost 33,340 Cost 0 Cost 586 Cost 0 Cost 33,926 COE 586 Production 0.031 Purchases 698,176 Grid(Sales 380,794 Purchases 408,467 Production =27,673 Load(Served 1,078,970 Fraction 670,504 Electricity 0.65 Autonomy 0 Throughput0 0 $/kWh 2040 $/kW/mo.

0 kWh/yr 0 0 0.131 $/yr 0.148 kW 227 kW 1,000 kWh 450 kW 0 $ 0 $ 495,000 $/yr504,312 $/yr 33,040 $/yr 0 $/yr 622 $/yr 0 $/yr 33,661 $/kWh 622 kWh/yr0.031 kWh/yr 698,176 kWh/yr 380,794 kWh/yr 408,467 kWh/yr =27,673 kWh/yr 1,078,970 % 670,504 kWh/yr 0.65 hr 2014 0.397 10.845 484 1,000 450 670,500 843,423 71,046 18,323 89,369 18,323 0.079 718,912 406,455 402,666 3,788 1,125,366 722,700 0.64 2042 0.139 0.158 240 1,000 4500 00 0 495,000 504,879 33,040 0 0 659 0 0 33,699 659 0.031 698,176 380,794 408,467 =27,673 1,078,970 670,504 0.650 00 00 0 2016 0.421 11.505 513 1,000 450 594,000 789,655 59,009 19,437 78,446 19,437 0.07 718,912 406,455 402,666 3,788 1,125,366 722,700 0.64 2044 0.148 0.167 255 1,000 4500 00 0 490,500 500,981 32,739 0 0 700 0 0 33,439 700 0.031 698,176 380,794 408,467 =27,673 1,078,970 670,504 0.650 00 00 0 2018 0.446 12.206 544 1,000 450 711,000 49,943 20,621 70,563 20,621 0.063 718,912 406,455 402,666 3,788 1,125,366 722,700 0.64 2046 0.157 0.177 270 1,000 4500 00 0 1,004,560 490,500 501,619 32,739 0 0 742 0 0 33,481 742 0.031 698,176 380,794 408,467 =27,673 1,078,970 670,504 0.650 00 00 0 2020 0.473 12.949 578 1,000 450 643,500 971,252 42,951 21,876 64,828 21,876 0.058 718,912 406,455 402,666 3,788 1,125,366 722,700 0.64 2048 0.167 0.188 287 1,000 4500 00 0 486,000 497,796 32,439 0 0 787 0 0 33,226 787 0.031 698,176 380,794 408,467 =27,673 1,078,970 670,504 0.650 00 00 0 2022 0.502 13.738 613 1,000 450 594,000 941,712 39,647 23,209 62,856 23,209 0.056 718,912 406,455 402,666 3,788 1,125,366 722,700 0.64 2050 0.177 0.2 304 1,000 4500 00 0 486,000 498,514 32,439 0 0 835 0 0 33,274 835 0.031 698,176 380,794 408,467 =27,673 1,078,970 670,504 0.650 00 00 0 2024 0.533 14.575 650 1,000 450 0 0 553,500 922,388 36,944 0 24,622 0 61,566 24,622 0.055 718,912 406,455 402,666 3,788 1,125,366 722,700 0.64 0 0 0 2026 0.565 15.462 690 1,000 475 0 0 560,500 919,763 37,411 0 23,980 0 61,391 23,980 0.053 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 0 0 0 2028 0.6 16.404 732 1,000 475 0 0 551,000 932,142 36,777 0 25,440 0 62,217 25,440 0.054 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 0 0 0 2030 0.636 17.403 776 1,000 475 0 0 536,750 941,104 35,826 0 26,989 0 62,816 26,989 0.054 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 0 0 0 2032 0.675 18.463 824 1,000 475 0 0 536,750 965,729 35,826 0 28,633 Louisville,'KY')'Commercial')'Non)Grid'Exporting'System 0 64,459 28,633 0.055 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 0 0 0 2034 0.716 19.587 Winter( 874 1,000 Summer(475 0 0 532,000 987,104 35,509 0 30,377 0Total(Annual( 65,886 30,377 0.057 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 Total( 0 0 0 Winter( Summer( Fixed( Total(Capital( Total(Annual( Total(O&M( Total(Fuel( Total(Ann.( Operating( PV( Grid( Grid(Net( AC(Primary( Renewable( Battery( Battery( Demand( Demand( Replacement( Electrical( 2036 0.76 20.78 927 1,000 475 0 0 527,250 1,010,070 35,192 0 32,227 0 67,419 32,227 0.058 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 0 0 0 Excess( Power(Price Power(Price Charges Cost Capital(Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Production Purchases Purchases Load(Served Fraction Autonomy Throughput Year Grid PV 1kWh(Li=ion Converter Total(NPC COE Grid(Sales Rate Rate Cost Production 2038 0.806 22.046 983 1,000 475 0 0 527,250 1,039,473 35,192 0 34,189 0 69,381 34,189 0.06 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 0 0 0 Electricity $/kWh $/kW/mo. $/kWh $/kW/mo. $/yr kW kW kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % hr kWh/yr 0.65 0 0 0 kWh/yr 2040 0.855 23.388 1043 1,000 475 0 0 522,500 1,065,918 34,875 0 36,271 0 71,146 36,271 0.061 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 2014 0.045 13.249 0.045 13.265 2570 133 0 0 0 0 457,876 0 0 48,516 0 48,516 48,516 0.08 0 604,796 0 604,796 604,796 604,797 0 0 0 0 2042 0.907 24.813 1107 1,000 475 0 0 522,500 1,099,012 34,875 0 38,480 0 73,355 38,480 0.063 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 0 0 0 2016 0.048 14.056 0.048 14.073 27260 1330 0 1,129,372 0 0 00 520,226 00 0 51,680 0 51,680 51,680 0.085 0 1,161,523 604,796 0 604,796 604,7960 604,7970 00 0 0 0 2044 0.963 26.324 1174 1,000 475 517,750 34,558 40,824 75,382 40,824 0.065 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 722,700 0.65 2018 0.051 14.912 0.051 14.93 28920 1330 0 1,166,620 0 0 00 780,892 00 0 54,852 0 54,852 54,852 0.091 0 1,161,523 604,796 0 604,796 604,7960 604,7970 00 0 0 0 2046 1.021 27.927 1246 1,000 475 517,750 34,558 43,310 77,868 43,310 0.067 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 722,700 0.65 2020 0.054 15.82 0.054 15.839 30680 1330 0 1,201,386 0 0 00 871,340 00 0 58,159 0 58,159 58,159 0.096 0 1,161,523 604,796 0 604,796 604,7960 604,7970 00 0 0 0 2048 1.083 29.627 1322 1,000 475 513,000 34,241 45,947 80,188 45,947 0.069 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 722,700 0.65 2022 0.058 16.784 0.058 16.804 32550 1330 0 1,243,308 0 0 00 927,797 00 0 61,927 0 61,927 61,927 0.102 0 1,161,523 604,796 0 604,796 604,7960 604,7970 00 0 0 0 2050 1.149 31.432 1402 1,000 475 513,000 34,241 48,746 82,987 48,746 0.071 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 722,700 0.65 2024 0.061 17.806 0.061 17.827 3453 133 50 0 0 61,500 980,704 4,105 0 61,354 0 65,459 61,354 0.108 67,949 536,850 0 536,850 604,799 604,800 0.11 0 0 0 2026 0.065 18.89 0.065 18.913 3664 132 75 0 0 88,500 1,032,270 5,907 0 62,993 0 68,901 62,993 0.114 101,923 503,874 0 503,874 605,798 604,797 0.17 1,002 0 0 2028 0.069 20.04 0.069 20.065 3887 132 100 0 0 116,000 1,088,309 7,743 0 64,898 0 72,641 64,898 0.12 135,898 475,951 0 475,951 611,849 604,798 0.21 7,052 0 0 2030 0.073 21.261 0.073 21.287 4123 132 100 0 0 113,000 1,143,750 7,542 0 68,799 0 76,341 68,799 0.126 135,898 475,951 0 475,951 611,849 604,798 0.21 7,052 0 0 Los'Angeles,'CA')'Commercial')'Non)Grid'Exporting'System 2032 0.077 22.556 0.077 22.583 4374 132 100 0 0 113,000 1,204,819 7,542 0 72,875 0 80,418 72,875 0.133 135,898 475,951 0 475,951 611,849 604,798 0.21 7,052 0 0 2034 Winter(0.082 23.929 Summer( 0.082 23.958 4641 132 100 0 0 112,000 1,271,498 Total(Annual( 7,476 0 77,393 0 84,868 77,393 0.14 135,898 475,951 0 Total( 475,951 611,849 604,798 0.21 7,052 0 0 Winter(2036 Demand( 0.087 Summer( 25.387 Demand( 0.087 Fixed(25.417 4923 132 125 0 Total(Capital( 0 138,750 Total(Annual( 1,340,982 Replacement( 9,261 Total(O&M(0 Total(Fuel( 80,245 Total(Ann.( 0 Operating( 89,506 80,245 PV( 0.148 Grid(169,872 454,847 Grid(Net( 0 Electrical( 454,847 AC(Primary( 624,719 Renewable( 604,799 Excess( 0.25 Battery( 19,921 Battery( 0 0 Power(Price 604,799 Electricity 0.25 Autonomy 19,921 Throughput0 0 2038 Rate 0.092 Power(Price 26.933 Rate 0.092 Charges 26.965 Grid 5223 PV 132 1kWh(Li=ion 125 Converter 0 Cost 0 Total(NPC 138,750 Capital(Cost 1,413,097 Cost 9,261 Cost 0 Cost 85,058 Cost 0 Cost 94,319 COE 85,058 Production 0.156 Purchases 169,872 Grid(Sales 454,847 Purchases 0 Production 454,847 Load(Served 624,719 Fraction $/kWh 2040 $/kW/mo.

0.098 $/kWh 28.573 $/kW/mo.

0.098 $/yr 28.607 kW 5541 kW 132 kWh 125 kW 0 $ 0 $ 137,500 $/yr 1,490,921 $/yr 9,178 $/yr 0 $/yr 90,336 $/yr 0 $/yr 99,514 $/kWh 90,336 kWh/yr0.165 kWh/yr 169,872 kWh/yr 454,847 kWh/yr 0 kWh/yr 454,847 kWh/yr 624,719 % 604,799 kWh/yr 0.25 hr 19,921 kWh/yr 0 0 2014 0.067 7.091 0.084 24.819 1570 1,000 581,323 1,573,4620 61,597 61,597 61,597 0.105 586,556 586,556 586,556 586,557 2042 0.104 30.313 0.104 30.35 5879 1320 1250 00 00 137,500 9,178 0 0 95,8460 0 105,023 95,846 0.1740 169,872 454,8470 0 454,847 624,719 604,7990 0.250 19,9210 00 0 2016 0.072 7.523 0.089 26.33 1665 1,000 660,208 1,658,4300 65,587 65,587 65,587 0.112 586,556 586,556 586,556 586,557 2044 0.11 32.159 0.11 32.198 6237 1320 1250 00 00 136,250 9,094 0 0 101,6000 0 110,695 101,600 0.1830 169,872 454,8470 0 454,847 624,719 604,7990 0.250 19,9210 00 0 2018 0.076 7.981 0.095 27.934 1767 1,000 75 118,500 967,683 1,751,076 8,324 59,649 67,973 59,649 0.116 120,538 466,941 466,941 587,479 586,557 0.2 923 2046 0.117 34.117 0.117 34.159 6617 132 1750 1250 25 208,435 13,912 0 803 102,1630 0 116,878 102,966 0.193 237,821 405,9590 0 405,959 643,780 604,801 0.33 33,0320 1.450 22,472 2020 0.081 8.467 0.101 29.635 1875 1,000 100 143,000 1,050,035 9,545 60,542 70,086 60,542 0.119 160,717 436,122 436,122 596,839 586,557 0.26 10,283 2048 0.124 36.195 0.124 36.239 7020 132 1750 1250 25 206,439 1,841,379 13,779 0 785 108,3420 0 122,906 109,127 0.203 237,821 405,9590 0 405,959 643,780 604,801 0.33 33,0320 1.450 22,472 2022 0.085 8.983 0.107 31.44 1989 100 125 50 25 179,020 1,089,160 11,949 641 60,108 72,698 60,749 0.124 200,897 412,687 412,687 613,584 586,427 0.3 26,460 0.6 2,599 2050 0.132 38.4 0.132 38.446 7447 123 325 725 125 448,367 1,924,894 29,927 4,384 94,1690 0 128,480 98,553 0.212 441,668 254,0950 0 254,095 695,763 604,742 0.58 53,721 8.4 140,684 2024 0.091 9.53 0.113 33.354 2110 96 150 75 25 201,762 1,129,677 13,467 786 61,149 0 75,402 61,935 0.129 241,076 394,416 0 394,416 635,492 586,403 0.33 47,612 0.9 5,560 2026 0.096 10.11 0.12 35.386 2238 1,000 125 0 0 147,500 1,197,276 9,845 0 70,069 0 79,914 70,069 0.136 200,897 415,160 0 415,160 616,057 586,557 0.29 29,500 0 0 2028 0.102 10.726 0.127 37.541 2375 1,000 125 0 0 145,000 1,258,707 9,678 0 74,336 0 84,014 74,336 0.143 200,897 415,160 0 415,160 616,057 586,557 0.29 29,500 0 0 2030 0.108 11.379 0.135 39.827 2519 1,000 150 125 25 189,710 1,321,115 12,663 930 74,588 0 88,180 75,517 0.15 241,076 376,884 0 376,884 617,960 586,557 0.36 24,722 1.49 25,185 Louisville,'KY')'Commercial')'With'Exports'to'Grid'(Net'Energy'Metering) 2032 0.115 12.072 0.143 42.252 2673 1,000 175 250 50 237,113 1,387,243 15,826 1,834 74,933 0 92,594 76,767 0.158 281,255 341,583 0 341,583 622,838 586,557 0.42 22,823 2.99 50,723 2034 0.122 12.807 Winter(0.152 44.826 Summer( 2835 1,000 225 500 75 326,195 1,448,009 21,772 3,407Total(Annual( 71,470 0 96,650 74,877 0.165 361,614 278,409 0 278,409 640,023 Total(586,557 0.53 26,767 5.98 100,636 2036 0.129 Winter( 13.587 Demand( 0.161 Summer( 47.555 Demand( 3008 Fixed( 108 375 1,275 200 603,361 Total(Capital( 1,486,608 40,272 Total(Annual( 9,298Replacement( 49,656 Total(O&M(0 Total(Fuel( 99,226 Total(Ann.( 58,954 Operating( 0.169 602,689 PV( 96,234 Grid( 0 96,234 Grid(Net( 698,923 Electrical( 586,539 AC(Primary( 0.84 Renewable( 41,287 Excess( 15.24 Battery( 267,789 Battery( 586,540 Load(Served 0.84 Fraction 38,073 Electricity 15.83 Autonomy 270,574 Throughput 2038 Year 0.137 Power(Price 14.415 Rate 0.171 Power(Price 50.452 Rate 3191 Charges 108 Grid 375 PV 1,325 1kWh(Li=ion 200 Converter 606,909 Cost1,524,539Total(NPC 40,509 Capital(Cost 8,999Cost 52,250 Cost 0 Cost 101,758 Cost 61,249 Cost 0.173 COE 602,689 Production 93,725 Purchases 0 Grid(Sales 93,725 Purchases 696,414 Production 2040 0.145 $/kWh15.293 $/kW/mo.

0.182 $/kWh53.524 $/kW/mo.

3386 $/yr 108 kW 375 kW 1,350 kWh 200 kW 603,576 $ 1,561,329$ 40,287 $/yr 8,779$/yr 55,147 $/yr 0 $/yr 104,213 $/yr 63,927 $/yr 0.178 $/kWh 602,689 kWh/yr 92,632 kWh/yr 0 kWh/yr 92,632 kWh/yr 695,321 kWh/yr 586,540 kWh/yr 0.84 % 36,675 kWh/yr 16.13 hr 271,787 kWh/yr 2014 0.045 13.249 0.045 13.265 2570 1,000 0 0 1,134,320 0 0 458,463 0 0 48,5780 0 48,578 48,578 0.08 0 604,8070 0 1,131,360 604,807 604,807 604,809 0 0 0 0 2042 0.154 16.224 0.193 56.784 3592 73 700 2,700 300 1,602,246 75,712 16,525 14,707 106,944 31,232 0.182 1,125,020 6,339 6,339 586,242 0.99 455,487 32.27 337,343 2016 0.048 14.056 0.048 14.073 2726 1,000 0 0 1,121,650 0 0 520,890 0 0 51,7460 0 51,746 51,746 0.086 0 604,8070 0 1,131,360 604,807 604,807 604,809 0 0 0 0 2044 0.164 17.212 0.205 60.242 3811 73 700 2,700 300 1,594,232 74,866 16,269 15,274 106,410 31,543 0.182 1,125,020 6,339 6,339 586,242 0.99 455,487 32.27 337,343 2018 0.051 14.912 0.051 14.93 2892 1,000 0 0 1,116,196 0 0 781,888 0 0 54,9220 0 54,922 54,922 0.091 0 604,8070 0 1,131,360 604,807 604,807 604,809 0 0 0 0 2046 0.174 18.26 0.217 63.91 4043 73 700 2,700 300 1,594,062 74,502 16,020 15,876 106,398 31,896 0.181 1,125,020 6,339 6,339 586,242 0.99 455,487 32.27 337,343 2020 0.054 15.82 0.054 15.839 3068 1,000 0 0 1,103,877 0 0 872,452 0 0 58,2330 0 58,233 58,233 0.096 0 604,8070 0 1,131,360 604,807 604,807 604,809 0 0 0 0 2048 0.184 19.372 0.23 67.803 4289 73 700 2,700 300 1,586,478 73,680 15,698 16,514 105,892 32,212 0.181 1,125,020 6,339 6,339 586,242 0.99 455,487 32.27 337,343 2022 0.058 16.784 0.058 16.804 3255 1,000 0 0 1,098,747 0 0 928,977 0 0 62,0060 0 62,006 62,006 0.103 0 604,8070 0 1,131,360 604,807 604,807 604,809 0 0 0 0 2050 0.195 20.552 0.244 71.932 4550 73 700 2,700 300 1,587,996 73,338 15,465 17,190 105,993 32,656 0.181 1,125,020 6,339 6,339 586,242 0.99 455,487 32.27 337,343 2024 0.061 17.806 0.061 17.827 3453 1,000 425 0 0 522,750 976,314 34,892 0 30,274 0 65,166 30,274 0.069 577,565 364,015 336,773 27,242 941,580 604,809 0.61 0 0 0 2026 0.065 18.89 0.065 18.913 3664 1,000 425 0 0 501,500 982,788 33,473 0 32,124 0 65,598 32,124 0.07 577,565 364,015 336,773 27,242 941,580 604,809 0.61 0 0 0 2028 0.069 20.04 0.069 20.065 3887 1,000 425 0 0 493,000 1,003,613 32,906 0 34,082 0 66,988 34,082 0.071 577,565 364,015 336,773 27,242 941,580 604,809 0.61 0 0 0 2030 0.073 21.261 0.073 21.287 4123 1,000 425 0 0 480,250 1,021,887 32,055 0 36,152 0 68,208 36,152 0.072 577,565 364,015 336,773 27,242 941,580 604,809 0.61 0 0 0 Los'Angeles,'CA')'Commercial')'With'Exports'to'Grid'(Net'Energy'Metering) 2032 0.077 22.556 0.077 22.583 4374 1,000 425 0 0 480,250 1,054,714 32,055 0 38,344 0 70,399 38,344 0.075 577,565 364,015 336,773 27,242 941,580 604,809 0.61 0 0 0 Winter( Summer( Total(Annual( Total( 2034 0.082 23.929 0.082 23.958 4641 1,000 425 0 0 476,000 1,085,560 31,771 0 40,686 0 72,457 40,686 0.077 577,565 364,015 336,773 27,242 941,580 604,809 0.61 0 0 0 Winter(2036 Demand( Summer( Demand( Fixed( Total(Capital( Total(Annual( Total(O&M( Total(Fuel( Total(Ann.( Operating( PV( Grid( Grid(Net( AC(Primary( Renewable( Excess( Battery( Battery( Replacement( Electrical( 0.087 25.387 0.087 25.417 4923 1,000 425 0 0 471,750 1,118,434 31,488 0 43,164 0 74,652 43,164 0.079 577,565 364,015 336,773 27,242 941,580 604,809 0.61 0 0 0 Charges Cost Capital(Cost Cost Cost Purchases Purchases Load(Served Fraction Electricity Throughput Power(Price Rate Power(Price Rate Grid PV 1kWh(Li=ion Converter Total(NPC Cost Cost COE Production Grid(Sales Autonomy Cost Production 604,809 0.63 0 0 0 2038 0.092 26.933 0.092 26.965 5223 1,000 450 0 0 499,500 1,156,847 33,340 0 43,876 0 77,216 43,876 0.079 611,540 360,487 367,220 =6,732 972,027 $/kWh 2040 $/kW/mo. $/kWh $/kW/mo. $/yr kW kW kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr hr kWh/yr 0.098 28.573 0.098 28.607 5541 1,000 450 0 0 495,000 1,192,418 33,040 0 46,550 0 79,590 46,550 0.082 611,540 360,487 367,220 =6,732 972,027 604,809 0.63 0 0 0 2014 0.067 7.091 0.084 24.819 1570 1,000 0 0 0 0 581,323 0 0 61,597 0 61,597 61,597 0.105 0 586,556 0 586,556 586,556 586,557 0 0 0 0 2042 0.104 30.313 0.104 30.35 5879 1,000 450 0 0 495,000 1,234,893 33,040 0 49,385 0 82,425 49,385 0.085 611,540 360,487 367,220 =6,732 972,027 604,809 0.63 0 0 0 2016 0.072 7.523 0.089 26.33 1665 1,000 0 0 0 0 660,208 0 0 65,587 0 65,587 65,587 0.112 0 586,556 0 586,556 586,556 586,557 0 0 0 0 2044 0.11 32.159 0.11 32.198 6237 1,000 450 0 0 490,500 1,275,420 32,739 0 52,391 0 85,130 52,391 0.088 611,540 360,487 367,220 =6,732 972,027 604,809 0.63 0 0 0 2018 0.076 7.981 0.095 27.934 1767 1,000 350 553,000 880,366 1,323,252 38,844 22,995 61,840 22,995 0.068 562,510 341,096 317,050 24,046 903,606 586,557 0.62 2046 0.117 34.117 0.117 34.159 6617 1,000 4500 00 0 490,500 32,739 0 0 55,5830 0 88,323 55,583 0.091 611,540 360,487 367,220 =6,732 972,027 604,809 0.630 00 00 0 2020 0.081 8.467 0.101 29.635 1875 1,000 350 500,500 865,995 1,369,454 33,407 24,396 57,802 24,396 0.064 562,510 341,096 317,050 24,046 903,606 586,557 0.62 2048 0.124 36.195 0.124 36.239 7020 1,000 4500 00 0 486,000 32,439 0 0 58,9680 0 91,406 58,968 0.094 611,540 360,487 367,220 =6,732 972,027 604,809 0.630 00 00 0 2022 0.085 8.983 0.107 31.44 1989 1,000 350 462,000 849,754 1,423,300 30,837 25,881 56,718 25,881 0.063 562,510 341,096 317,050 24,046 903,606 586,557 0.62 2050 0.132 38.4 0.132 38.446 7447 1,000 4500 00 0 486,000 32,439 0 0 62,5620 0 95,000 62,562 0.098 611,540 360,487 367,220 =6,732 972,027 604,809 0.630 00 00 0 2024 0.091 9.53 0.113 33.354 2110 1,000 375 0 0 461,250 838,781 30,787 0 25,199 0 55,986 25,199 0.06 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 0 0 0 2026 0.096 10.11 0.12 35.386 2238 1,000 375 0 0 442,500 843,022 29,535 0 26,734 0 56,269 26,734 0.06 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 0 0 0 2028 0.102 10.726 0.127 37.541 2375 1,000 375 0 0 435,000 859,914 29,035 0 28,362 0 57,396 28,362 0.061 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 0 0 0 2030 0.108 11.379 0.135 39.827 2519 1,000 375 0 0 423,750 874,541 28,284 0 30,089 0 58,373 30,089 0.062 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 0 0 0 2032 0.115 12.072 0.143 42.252 2673 1,000 375 0 0 423,750 901,995 28,284 0 31,921 0 60,205 31,921 0.064 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 0 0 0 2034 0.122 12.807 0.152 44.826 2835 1,000 375 0 0 420,000 927,370 28,034 0 33,865 0 61,899 33,865 0.066 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 0 0 0 2036 0.129 13.587 0.161 47.555 3008 1,000 375 0 0 416,250 954,518 27,783 0 35,928 0 63,711 35,928 0.068 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 0 0 0 586,557 0.64 0 0 0 2038 0.137 14.415 0.171 50.452 3191 1,000 375 0 0 416,250 987,299 27,783 0 38,116 0 65,899 38,116 0.07 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 2040 0.145 15.293 0.182 53.524 3386 1,000 375 0 0 412,500 1,018,326 27,533 0 40,437 0 67,970 40,437 0.072 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 0 0 0 2042 0.154 16.224 0.193 56.784 3592 1,000 375 0 0 412,500 1,055,221 27,533 0 42,899 0 70,432 42,899 0.075 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 0 0 0 2044 0.164 17.212 0.205 60.242 3811 1,000 375 0 0 408,750 1,090,612 27,283 0 45,512 0 72,795 45,512 0.077 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 0 0 0 2046 0.174 18.26 0.217 63.91 4043 1,000 375 0 0 408,750 1,132,138 27,283 0 48,284 0 75,566 48,284 0.08 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 0 0 0 2048 0.184 19.372 0.23 67.803 4289 1,000 375 0 0 405,000 1,172,442 27,032 0 51,224 0 78,257 51,224 0.083 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 0 0 0 2050 0.195 20.552 0.244 71.932 4550 1,000 375 0 0 405,000 1,219,179 27,032 0 54,344 0 81,376 54,344 0.087 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 0 0 0 Year

Year

Year

COMMERCIAL TABLES - LOS ANGELES, CA

Year

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Year

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 61

APPENDIX F ANALYTICAL RESULTS BY GEOGRAPHY

COMMERCIAL TABLES - HONOLULU, HI Honolulu,'HI')'Commercial')'Non)Grid'Exporting'System

2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050

Demand( Fixed( Power(Price Rate Charges Grid $/kWh $/kW/mo. $/yr kW 0.397 10.845 484 0.421 11.505 513 0.446 12.206 544 0.473 12.949 578 0.502 13.738 613 0.533 14.575 650 0.565 15.462 690 0.6 16.404 732 0.636 17.403 776 0.675 18.463 824 0.716 19.587 874 0.76 20.78 927 0.806 22.046 983 0.855 23.388 1043 0.907 24.813 1107 0.963 26.324 1174 1.021 27.927 1246 1.083 29.627 1322 1.149 31.432 1402

2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050

Demand( Fixed( Power(Price Rate Charges Grid $/kWh $/kW/mo. $/yr kW 0.397 10.845 484 0.421 11.505 513 0.446 12.206 544 0.473 12.949 578 0.502 13.738 613 0.533 14.575 650 0.565 15.462 690 0.6 16.404 732 0.636 17.403 776 0.675 18.463 824 0.716 19.587 874 0.76 20.78 927 0.806 22.046 983 0.855 23.388 1043 0.907 24.813 1107 0.963 26.324 1174 1.021 27.927 1246 1.083 29.627 1322 1.149 31.432 1402

2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050

Winter( Demand( Winter( Summer( Power(Price Rate Power(Price $/kWh $/kW/mo. $/kWh 0.067 7.091 0.084 0.072 7.523 0.089 0.076 7.981 0.095 0.081 8.467 0.101 0.085 8.983 0.107 0.091 9.53 0.113 0.096 10.11 0.12 0.102 10.726 0.127 0.108 11.379 0.135 0.115 12.072 0.143 0.122 12.807 0.152 0.129 13.587 0.161 0.137 14.415 0.171 0.145 15.293 0.182 0.154 16.224 0.193 0.164 17.212 0.205 0.174 18.26 0.217 0.184 19.372 0.23 0.195 20.552 0.244

2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050

Winter( Demand( Winter( Summer( Power(Price Rate Power(Price $/kWh $/kW/mo. $/kWh 0.067 7.091 0.084 0.072 7.523 0.089 0.076 7.981 0.095 0.081 8.467 0.101 0.085 8.983 0.107 0.091 9.53 0.113 0.096 10.11 0.12 0.102 10.726 0.127 0.108 11.379 0.135 0.115 12.072 0.143 0.122 12.807 0.152 0.129 13.587 0.161 0.137 14.415 0.171 0.145 15.293 0.182 0.154 16.224 0.193 0.164 17.212 0.205 0.174 18.26 0.217 0.184 19.372 0.23 0.195 20.552 0.244

Year

124 122 120 119 116 112 112 112 105 103 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52

PV kW

450 500 550 600 650 725 725 725 750 750 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850

Total( Total(Capital( Annual( 1kWh(Li=ion Converter Cost Total(NPC Capital(Cost kWh kW $ $ $/yr 1,475 200 1,129,675 2,034,571 119,700 1,725 225 1,095,409 1,904,829 108,820 1,775 225 1,386,198 2,470,711 97,371 1,825 225 1,325,722 2,385,114 88,487 1,875 250 1,287,500 2,268,025 85,936 1,900 250 1,279,227 2,157,789 85,384 1,900 250 1,204,103 2,089,221 80,370 1,900 250 1,158,424 2,058,412 77,321 2,150 275 1,176,512 2,022,913 78,528 2,250 275 1,180,763 2,040,266 78,812 3,700 300 1,470,443 2,023,843 98,147 3,700 300 1,452,841 2,005,572 96,972 3,700 300 1,444,886 1,998,028 96,441 3,700 300 1,428,912 1,983,184 95,375 3,700 300 1,420,920 1,976,319 94,842 3,700 300 1,404,650 1,961,758 93,756 3,700 300 1,397,176 1,956,570 93,257 3,700 300 1,381,387 1,942,467 92,203 3,700 300 1,374,357 1,938,969 91,734

450 450 450 450 450 450 475 475 475 475 475 475 475 475 475 475 475 475 475

Total( Total(Capital( Annual( 1kWh(Li=ion Converter Cost Total(NPC Capital(Cost kWh kW $ $ $/yr 0 0 670,500 843,423 71,046 0 0 594,000 789,655 59,009 0 0 711,000 1,004,560 49,943 0 0 643,500 971,252 42,951 0 0 594,000 941,712 39,647 0 0 553,500 922,388 36,944 0 0 560,500 919,763 37,411 0 0 551,000 932,142 36,777 0 0 536,750 941,104 35,826 0 0 536,750 965,729 35,826 0 0 532,000 987,104 35,509 0 0 527,250 1,010,070 35,192 0 0 527,250 1,039,473 35,192 0 0 522,500 1,065,918 34,875 0 0 522,500 1,099,012 34,875 0 0 517,750 1,129,372 34,558 0 0 517,750 1,166,620 34,558 0 0 513,000 1,201,386 34,241 0 0 513,000 1,243,308 34,241

Total(Annual( Replacement( Total(O&M( Total(Fuel( Cost Cost Cost $/yr $/yr $/yr 25,183 70,699 22,931 57,479 23,492 52,688 21,286 49,425 19,525 45,922 17,597 41,044 15,766 43,312 14,353 45,719 14,923 41,571 15,116 42,252 23,511 13,427 23,099 13,794 22,737 14,183 22,399 14,596 22,036 15,035 21,685 15,500 21,345 15,993 20,934 16,516 20,615 17,071

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total( Electrical( Total(Ann.( Operating( PV( Grid( Grid(Net( AC(Primary( Renewable( Excess( COE Production Purchases Grid(Sales Purchases Production Load(Served Fraction Cost Cost Electricity $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr 215,582 95,882 0.281 718,912 129,692 44,427 85,265 848,604 722,666 83% 189,230 80,410 0.238 798,791 88,056 72,639 15,417 886,846 722,659 89% 173,550 76,179 0.203 878,669 70,134 131,238 =61,105 948,802 722,632 92% 159,198 70,711 0.173 958,549 57,316 196,148 =138,832 1,015,865 722,628 94% 151,383 65,447 0.154 1,038,429 46,071 262,865 =216,795 1,084,499 722,588 95% 144,025 58,641 0.132 1,158,248 35,752 370,681 =334,930 1,193,999 722,541 97% 139,448 59,079 0.128 1,158,248 35,752 370,681 =334,930 1,193,999 722,541 97% 137,392 60,071 0.126 1,158,248 35,752 370,681 =334,930 1,193,999 722,541 97% 135,023 56,494 0.12 1,198,187 26,858 399,561 =372,703 1,225,046 722,461 98% 136,181 57,369 0.122 1,198,187 24,781 396,902 =372,121 1,222,969 722,430 98% 135,085 36,938 0.108 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 100% 133,865 36,893 0.107 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 100% 133,362 36,920 0.107 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 100% 100% 132,371 36,996 0.106 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 131,913 37,071 0.105 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 100% 130,941 37,185 0.105 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 100% 130,594 37,338 0.104 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 100% 129,653 37,450 0.104 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 100% 129,420 37,686 0.103 1,357,947 2,746 529,540 =526,793 1,360,693 722,252 100%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Battery( Battery( Autonomy Throughput hr kWh/yr 14.31 307,050 16.73 345,099 17.22 357,810 17.7 365,969 18.19 373,389 18.43 378,780 18.43 378,780 18.43 378,780 20.85 386,859 21.82 389,129 35.89 407,758 35.89 407,758 35.89 407,758 35.89 407,758 35.89 407,758 35.89 407,758 35.89 407,758 35.89 407,758 35.89 407,758

Honolulu,'HI')'Commercial')'With'Exports'to'Grid'(Net'Energy'Metering) Year

1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

PV kW

Total(Annual( Replacement( Total(O&M( Total(Fuel( Cost Cost Cost $/yr $/yr $/yr 0 18,323 0 19,437 0 20,621 0 21,876 0 23,209 0 24,622 0 23,980 0 25,440 0 26,989 0 28,633 0 30,377 0 32,227 0 34,189 0 36,271 0 38,480 0 40,824 0 43,310 0 45,947 0 48,746

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total( Total(Ann.( Operating( PV( Grid( Grid(Net( AC(Primary( Renewable( Excess( Electrical( Cost Cost Electricity COE Production Purchases Grid(Sales Purchases Production Load(Served Fraction $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr 89,369 18,323 0.079 718,912 406,455 402,666 3,788 1,125,366 722,700 0.64 78,446 19,437 0.07 718,912 406,455 402,666 3,788 1,125,366 722,700 0.64 70,563 20,621 0.063 718,912 406,455 402,666 3,788 1,125,366 722,700 0.64 64,828 21,876 0.058 718,912 406,455 402,666 3,788 1,125,366 722,700 0.64 62,856 23,209 0.056 718,912 406,455 402,666 3,788 1,125,366 722,700 0.64 61,566 24,622 0.055 718,912 406,455 402,666 3,788 1,125,366 722,700 0.64 61,391 23,980 0.053 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 62,217 25,440 0.054 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 62,816 26,989 0.054 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 64,459 28,633 0.055 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 65,886 30,377 0.057 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 67,419 32,227 0.058 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 69,381 34,189 0.06 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 0.65 71,146 36,271 0.061 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 73,355 38,480 0.063 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 75,382 40,824 0.065 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 77,868 43,310 0.067 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 80,188 45,947 0.069 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65 82,987 48,746 0.071 758,851 402,672 438,823 =36,151 1,161,523 722,700 0.65

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Battery( Autonomy hr

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Battery( Throughput kWh/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Los'Angeles,'CA')'Commercial')'Non)Grid'Exporting'System Year

Summer( Demand( Fixed( Grid Rate Charges $/kW/mo. $/yr kW 24.819 1570 26.33 1665 27.934 1767 29.635 1875 31.44 1989 33.354 2110 35.386 2238 37.541 2375 39.827 2519 42.252 2673 44.826 2835 47.555 3008 50.452 3191 53.524 3386 56.784 3592 60.242 3811 63.91 4043 67.803 4289 71.932 4550

1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 100 96 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 108 108 108 73 73 73 73 73

PV kW

0 0 75 100 125 150 125 125 150 175 225 375 375 375 700 700 700 700 700

Total(Annual( Total(Capital( Total(Annual( Replacement( Total(O&M( Total(Fuel( 1kWh(Li=ion Converter Cost Total(NPC Capital(Cost Cost Cost Cost kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr 0 0 0 581,323 0 0 61,597 0 0 0 660,208 0 0 65,587 0 0 118,500 967,683 8,324 0 59,649 0 0 143,000 1,050,035 9,545 0 60,542 50 25 179,020 1,089,160 11,949 641 60,108 75 25 201,762 1,129,677 13,467 786 61,149 0 0 147,500 1,197,276 9,845 0 70,069 0 0 145,000 1,258,707 9,678 0 74,336 125 25 189,710 1,321,115 12,663 930 74,588 250 50 237,113 1,387,243 15,826 1,834 74,933 500 75 326,195 1,448,009 21,772 3,407 71,470 1,275 200 603,361 1,486,608 40,272 9,298 49,656 1,325 200 606,909 1,524,539 40,509 8,999 52,250 1,350 200 603,576 1,561,329 40,287 8,779 55,147 2,700 300 1,134,320 1,602,246 75,712 16,525 14,707 2,700 300 1,121,650 1,594,232 74,866 16,269 15,274 2,700 300 1,116,196 1,594,062 74,502 16,020 15,876 2,700 300 1,103,877 1,586,478 73,680 15,698 16,514 2,700 300 1,098,747 1,587,996 73,338 15,465 17,190

0 0 350 350 350 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375

Total(Annual( Total(Capital( Total(Annual( Replacement( Total(O&M( Total(Fuel( 1kWh(Li=ion Converter Cost Total(NPC Capital(Cost Cost Cost Cost kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr 0 0 0 581,323 0 0 61,597 0 0 0 660,208 0 0 65,587 0 0 553,000 880,366 38,844 0 22,995 0 0 500,500 865,995 33,407 0 24,396 0 0 462,000 849,754 30,837 0 25,881 0 0 461,250 838,781 30,787 0 25,199 0 0 442,500 843,022 29,535 0 26,734 0 0 435,000 859,914 29,035 0 28,362 0 0 423,750 874,541 28,284 0 30,089 0 0 423,750 901,995 28,284 0 31,921 0 0 420,000 927,370 28,034 0 33,865 0 0 416,250 954,518 27,783 0 35,928 0 0 416,250 987,299 27,783 0 38,116 0 0 412,500 1,018,326 27,533 0 40,437 0 0 412,500 1,055,221 27,533 0 42,899 0 0 408,750 1,090,612 27,283 0 45,512 0 0 408,750 1,132,138 27,283 0 48,284 0 0 405,000 1,172,442 27,032 0 51,224 0 0 405,000 1,219,179 27,032 0 54,344

COMMERCIAL TABLES - ALL LOCATIONS

Year

2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total( Electrical( Total(Ann.( Operating( PV( Grid( Grid(Net( AC(Primary( Renewable( Excess( COE Cost Cost Production Purchases Grid(Sales Purchases Production Load(Served Fraction Electricity $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr 61,597 61,597 0.105 0 586,556 0 586,556 586,556 586,557 0 65,587 65,587 0.112 0 586,556 0 586,556 586,556 586,557 0 61,840 22,995 0.068 562,510 341,096 317,050 24,046 903,606 586,557 0.62 57,802 24,396 0.064 562,510 341,096 317,050 24,046 903,606 586,557 0.62 56,718 25,881 0.063 562,510 341,096 317,050 24,046 903,606 586,557 0.62 55,986 25,199 0.06 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 56,269 26,734 0.06 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 57,396 28,362 0.061 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 58,373 30,089 0.062 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 60,205 31,921 0.064 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 61,899 33,865 0.066 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 63,711 35,928 0.068 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 586,557 0.64 65,899 38,116 0.07 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 67,970 40,437 0.072 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 70,432 42,899 0.075 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 72,795 45,512 0.077 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 75,566 48,284 0.08 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 78,257 51,224 0.083 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64 81,376 54,344 0.087 602,689 337,597 353,731 =16,134 940,286 586,557 0.64

Financial'Inputs'for'all'Commercial'Locations

PV' Li4ion'1kWh' Li4ion'1kWh' PV'Capital' Replacement' Battery' Converter' Battery' Los'Angeles,'CA')'Commercial')'With'Exports'to'Grid'(Net'Energy'Metering) Cost Cost Capital'Cost Replacement'Cost Capital'Cost $/Wdc $/Wdc $/kWh $/kWh $ 1.49 3.18 289.61 619.88 0.16 1.32 2.85 234.15 506.05 0.14 1.58 2.6 269.83 443.47 0.17 1.43 2.37 236.56 391.23 0.16 1.32 2.19 210.4 347.96 0.14 1.23 2.03 186.83 308.99 0.13 1.18 1.95 166.37 275.15 0.13 1.16 1.91 149.96 248 0.13 1.13 1.88 137.68 227.69 0.12 1.13 1.86 133.45 220.7 0.12 1.12 1.85 130.39 215.64 0.12 1.11 1.84 127.93 211.58 0.12 1.11 1.83 125.78 208.01 0.12 1.1 1.82 123.76 204.68 0.12 1.1 1.82 121.6 201.1 0.12 1.09 1.81 119.5 197.64 0.12 1.09 1.8 117.48 194.28 0.12 1.08 1.79 115.51 191.04 0.12 1.08 1.78 113.61 187.89 0.12

Summer( Demand( Fixed( Grid Rate Charges $/kW/mo. $/yr kW 24.819 1570 26.33 1665 27.934 1767 29.635 1875 31.44 1989 33.354 2110 35.386 2238 37.541 2375 39.827 2519 42.252 2673 44.826 2835 47.555 3008 50.452 3191 53.524 3386 56.784 3592 60.242 3811 63.91 4043 67.803 4289 71.932 4550

1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

PV kW

Converter' Replacement' Interest' Cost Rate $ % 0.35 9.5 0.31 8.7 0.28 4.9 0.26 4.4 0.24 4.4 0.22 4.4 0.21 4.4 0.21 4.4 0.2 4.4 0.2 4.4 0.2 4.4 0.2 4.4 0.2 4.4 0.2 4.4 0.2 4.4 0.2 4.4 0.2 4.4 0.19 4.4 0.19 4.4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Battery( Autonomy hr

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Battery( Throughput kWh/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Year

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total( Electrical( Total(Ann.( Operating( PV( Grid( Grid(Net( AC(Primary( Renewable( Excess( Battery( Battery( COE Cost Cost Production Purchases Grid(Sales Purchases Production Load(Served Fraction Electricity Autonomy Throughput $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr hr kWh/yr 61,597 61,597 0.105 0 586,556 0 586,556 586,556 586,557 0 0 0 0 65,587 65,587 0.112 0 586,556 0 586,556 586,556 586,557 0 0 0 0 67,973 59,649 0.116 120,538 466,941 0 466,941 587,479 586,557 0.2 923 0 0 70,086 60,542 0.119 160,717 436,122 0 436,122 596,839 586,557 0.26 10,283 0 0 72,698 60,749 0.124 200,897 412,687 0 412,687 613,584 586,427 0.3 26,460 0.6 2,599 75,402 61,935 0.129 241,076 394,416 0 394,416 635,492 586,403 0.33 47,612 0.9 5,560 79,914 70,069 0.136 200,897 415,160 0 415,160 616,057 586,557 0.29 29,500 0 0 84,014 74,336 0.143 200,897 415,160 0 415,160 616,057 586,557 0.29 29,500 0 0 88,180 75,517 0.15 241,076 376,884 0 376,884 617,960 586,557 0.36 24,722 1.49 25,185 92,594 76,767 0.158 281,255 341,583 0 341,583 622,838 586,557 0.42 22,823 2.99 50,723 96,650 74,877 0.165 361,614 278,409 0 278,409 640,023 586,557 0.53 26,767 5.98 100,636 99,226 58,954 0.169 602,689 96,234 0 96,234 698,923 586,539 0.84 41,287 15.24 267,789 586,540 0.84 38,073 15.83 270,574 101,758 61,249 0.173 602,689 93,725 0 93,725 696,414 104,213 63,927 0.178 602,689 92,632 0 92,632 695,321 586,540 0.84 36,675 16.13 271,787 106,944 31,232 0.182 1,125,020 6,339 0 6,339 1,131,360 586,242 0.99 455,487 32.27 337,343 106,410 31,543 0.182 1,125,020 6,339 0 6,339 1,131,360 586,242 0.99 455,487 32.27 337,343 106,398 31,896 0.181 1,125,020 6,339 0 6,339 1,131,360 586,242 0.99 455,487 32.27 337,343 105,892 32,212 0.181 1,125,020 6,339 0 6,339 1,131,360 586,242 0.99 455,487 32.27 337,343 105,993 32,656 0.181 1,125,020 6,339 0 6,339 1,131,360 586,242 0.99 455,487 32.27 337,343

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 62

APPENDIX F ANALYTICAL RESULTS BY GEOGRAPHY

RESIDENTIAL TABLES - WESTCHESTER, NY Westchester,$NY$,$Residential$,$Non,Grid$Exporting$System Total-AnnualVolumetric1kWhTotal-CapitalTotal-Annual- Replacement- Total-O&M- Total-Annual- OperatingPVGridGrid-NetTotal-Electrical- AC-Primary- Renewable- ExcessBatteryBatteryCost Cost Autonomy Throughput Year Power-Price Grid PV Li7ion Converter Cost Total-NPC Capital-Cost Cost Cost COE Production Purchases Grid-Sales Purchases Production Load-Served Fraction Electricity $/kWh kW kW kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr hr kWh/yr 2014 0.225 3.05 1 0 0 2,670 26,565 267 0 2,393 2,661 2,393 0.223 1,298 10,637 0 10,637 11,935 11,934 11% 1 0 0 2016 0.239 3.05 2 0 0 4,700 29,387 433 0 2,273 2,706 2,273 0.227 2,596 9,512 0 9,512 12,108 11,934 20% 173 0 0 2018 0.253 3.05 2 0 0 6,060 40,319 426 0 2,406 2,832 2,406 0.237 2,596 9,512 0 9,512 12,108 11,934 20% 173 0 0 2020 0.269 3.05 2 0 0 5,500 43,053 375 0 San$Antonio,$TX$,$Residential$,$Non,Grid$Exporting$System 2,559 2,933 2,559 0.246 2,596 9,512 0 9,512 12,108 11,934 20% 173 0 0 2022 0.285 3 3 0 0 7,530 44,579 513 Total-Annual- 0 2,524 3,037 2,524 0.255 3,894 8,857 0 8,857 12,751 11,934 26% 817 0 0 2024 Volumetric0.302 3 4 1kWh- 5 1 Total-Capital11,165 45,938 Total-Annual761 Replacement50 Total-O&M2,319 Total-Annual3,130 Operating2,369 0.262 PV5,192 Grid- 7,645 0 Grid-Net-7,645 Total-Electrical12,837 AC-Primary11,935 Renewable36% Excess- 667 Battery-2.94 Battery- 890 2026 Power-Price 0.321 Grid2.9 PV 7 Li7ion 18 Converter 3 Cost 21,433 Total-NPC 46,590 Capital-Cost 1,460 Cost 159 Cost 1,555 Cost 3,174 Cost 1,714 COE 0.266 Production 9,086 Purchases 4,732 Grid-Sales0 Purchases 4,732 Production 13,818 Load-Served 11,935 Fraction60% Electricity 1,005 Autonomy 10.57 Throughput 3,314 Year 2028 $/kWh 0.34 kW 2.9 kW 8 kWh 21 kW 3$ 23,488 $ 46,744 $/yr 1,600 $/yr 165 $/yr 1,419 $/yr 3,185 $/yr 1,585 $/kWh0.267 kWh/yr10,384 kWh/yr 4,051 kWh/yr 0 kWh/yr 4,051 kWh/yr 14,435 kWh/yr11,935 % 66% kWh/yr1,468 hr 12.33 kWh/yr 3,894 2030 0.361 2.9 23 23,477 47,010 1,600 174 1,430 3,203 1,603 0.268 10,384 3,833 3,833 14,217 11,935 68% 1,187 13.51 4,135 2014 0.098 5.5 08 0 04 0 14,924 0 0 1,495 1,495 1,495 0.098 0 15,253 00 15,253 15,253 15,253 0% 0 0 0 2032 0.383 2.9 24 23,337 47,782 1,590 174 1,491 3,256 1,666 0.273 10,384 3,768 3,768 14,152 11,935 68% 1,104 14.09 4,207 2016 0.104 5.5 08 0 04 0 17,152 0 0 1,579 1,579 1,579 0.104 0 15,253 00 15,253 15,253 15,253 0% 0 0 0 2034 0.406 2.9 26 25,677 48,739 1,749 183 1,389 3,321 1,571 0.278 11,682 3,292 3,292 14,974 11,935 72% 1,825 15.27 4,585 2018 0.11 5.5 09 0 04 0 23,854 0 0 1,676 1,676 1,676 0.11 0 15,253 00 15,253 15,253 15,253 0% 0 0 0 2036 0.431 2.9 26 25,391 49,619 1,730 180 1,471 3,381 1,651 0.283 11,682 3,292 3,292 14,974 11,935 72% 1,825 15.27 4,585 2020 0.117 5.5 09 0 04 0 26,090 0 0 1,778 1,778 1,778 0.117 0 15,253 00 15,253 15,253 15,253 0% 0 0 0 2038 0.457 5.45 2.9 27 25,416 50,634 1,732 183 1,535 3,450 1,718 0.289 11,682 3,241 3,241 14,923 11,935 73% 1,760 15.86 4,641 2022 0.124 29 0 04 5,020 27,327 342 0 1,520 1,862 1,520 0.122 3,103 12,293 00 12,293 15,396 15,253 19% 143 0 0 2040 0.485 5.45 2.9 10 28 27,511 51,734 1,874 186 1,464 3,525 1,650 0.295 12,980 2,904 2,904 15,883 11,935 76% 2,656 16.44 4,885 2024 0.131 2 0 04 4,660 28,326 318 0 1,612 1,930 1,612 0.127 3,103 12,293 00 12,293 15,396 15,253 19% 143 0 0 2042 0.515 5.45 2.9 10 29 27,472 52,704 1,872 188 1,531 3,591 1,719 0.301 12,980 2,861 2,861 15,841 11,935 76% 2,601 17.03 4,932 2026 0.139 2 0 04 4,460 29,567 304 0 1,711 2,015 1,711 0.132 3,103 12,293 00 12,293 15,396 15,253 19% 143 0 0 2,694 15,674 11,935 77% 2,387 18.79 5,117 2044 0.546 5.45 2.9 10 32 28,124 53,712 1,916 208 1,535 3,660 1,743 0.307 12,980 2,694 2028 0.148 2 0 05 4,360 30,996 297 0 1,815 2,112 1,815 0.138 3,103 12,293 00 12,293 15,396 15,253 19% 143 0 0 2046 0.579 2.85 11 33 5 30,151 54,702 2,054 211 1,462 3,727 1,673 0.312 14,278 2,411 0 2,411 16,689 11,935 80% 3,350 19.38 5,316 2030 0.157 5.4 3 0 0 6,420 32,377 437 0 1,769 2,206 1,769 0.145 4,655 11,292 0 11,292 15,946 15,253 26% 694 0 0 2048 0.614 2.85 11 34 30,015 55,560 2,045 213 1,527 3,786 1,741 0.317 14,278 2,377 2,377 16,655 11,935 80% 3,306 19.97 5,354 2032 0.166 5.4 3 0 05 6,360 33,898 433 0 1,876 2,310 1,876 0.151 4,655 11,292 00 11,292 15,946 15,253 26% 694 0 0 2050 0.652 2.85 11 35 30,096 56,715 2,051 215 1,598 3,864 1,814 0.324 14,278 2,344 2,344 16,622 11,935 80% 3,264 20.55 5,391 2034 0.176 5.4 3 0 05 6,330 35,545 431 0 1,991 2,422 1,991 0.159 4,655 11,292 00 11,292 15,946 15,253 26% 694 0 0 2036 0.187 5.4 3 0 0 6,270 37,264 427 0 2,112 2,539 2,112 0.166 4,655 11,292 0 11,292 15,946 15,253 26% 694 0 0 2038 0.198 5.4 4 5 1 9,630 38,988 656 36 1,964 2,656 2,000 0.174 6,206 9,851 0 9,851 16,057 15,253 35% 574 2.3 869 Westchester,$NY$,$Residential$,$With$Exports$to$Grid$(Net$Energy$Metering) 2040 0.21 5.4 5 7 1 12,053 40,651 821 Total-Annual47 1,902 2,770 1,949 0.182 7,758 8,970 0 8,970 16,727 15,253 41% 1,118 3.22 1,344 2042 Volumetric0.223 5.35 7 1kWh19 3 Total-Capital19,021 41,744 Total-Annual1,296 Replacement126 Total-O&M1,423 Total-Annual2,844 Operating1,548 0.186 PV- 10,861 Grid- 6,200 0 Grid-Net6,200 Total-Electrical17,060 AC-Primary15,252 Renewable59% Excess- 816 Battery-8.73 Battery-3,740 5,232 Production 17,644 Load-Served 15,253 Fraction66% Electricity 1,180 Autonomy 10.57 Throughput 4,569 2044 Power-Price 0.237 Grid 5.35 PV 8 Li7ion23 Converter3 Cost 21,726 Total-NPC 42,730 Capital-Cost 1,480 Cost 146 Cost 1,286 Cost 2,911 Cost 1,431 COE 0.191 Production 12,412 Purchases 5,232 Grid-Sales 0 Purchases Year 2046 $/kWh0.251 kW 5.35 kW 9 kWh 28 kW 4 $ 24,840 $ 43,600 $/yr 1,692 $/yr 177 $/yr 1,101 $/yr 2,971 $/yr 1,278 $/kWh0.195 kWh/yr 13,964 kWh/yr4,158 kWh/yr 0 kWh/yr4,158 kWh/yr 18,122 kWh/yr 15,253 % 73% kWh/yr1,395 hr 12.86 kWh/yr5,559 2048 0.267 5.35 99 280 40 24,569 44,227 1,674 1750 1,165 3,013 1,339 0.198 13,964 4,158 0 4,158 18,122 15,253 73% 1,3950 12.860 5,5590 2014 0.225 1000 24,030 24,600 2,407 57 2,464 57 0.129 11,682 7,425 7,171 254 19,106 11,935 61% 2050 0.283 5.35 99 280 40 24,481 45,094 1,668 1720 1,232 3,072 1,404 0.201 13,964 4,158 0 4,158 18,122 15,253 73% 1,3950 12.860 5,5590 2016 0.239 1000 21,150 21,809 1,948 61 2,008 61 0.105 11,682 7,425 7,171 254 19,106 11,935 61% 2018 0.253 1000 9 0 0 27,270 28,184 1,916 0 64 1,980 64 0.104 11,682 7,425 7,171 254 19,106 11,935 61% 0 0 0 2020 0.269 1000 9 0 0 24,750 25,752 1,686 0 68 1,755 68 0.092 11,682 7,425 7,171 254 19,106 11,935 61% 0 0 0 San$Antonio,$TX$,$Residential$,$With$Exports$to$Grid$(Net$Energy$Metering) 2022 0.285 1000 9 0 0 22,590 23,652 1,539 Total-Annual- 0 72 1,612 72 0.084 11,682 7,425 7,171 254 19,106 11,935 61% 0 0 0 2024 Volumetric0.302 1000 9 1kWh- 0 0 Total-Capital20,970 22,095 Total-Annual1,429 Replacement-0 Total-O&M77 Total-Annual1,505 Operating77 0.079 PV- 11,682 Grid- 7,425 7,171 Grid-Net- 254 Total-Electrical19,106 AC-Primary11,935 Renewable61% Excess0 Battery- 0 Battery0 2026 Power-Price 0.321 Grid 1000 PV 9 Li7ion 0 Converter 0 Cost 20,070 Total-NPC 21,266 Capital-Cost 1,367 Cost 0 Cost 81 Cost 1,449 Cost 81 COE 0.076 Production 11,682 Purchases 7,425 Grid-Sales 7,171 Purchases254 Production 19,106 Load-Served 11,935 Fraction61% Electricity 0 Autonomy 0 Throughput 0 Year 2028 $/kWh 0.34 kW 1000 kW 9 kWh 0 kW 0$ 19,620 $ 20,887 $/yr 1,337 $/yr 0 $/yr 86 $/yr 1,423 $/yr 86 $/kWh0.074 kWh/yr11,682 kWh/yr 7,425 kWh/yr 7,171 kWh/yr 254 kWh/yr 19,106 kWh/yr11,935 % 61% kWh/yr 0 hr 0 kWh/yr 0 2030 0.361 1000 1000 19,260 20,605 1,312 92 1,404 92 0.073 11,682 7,425 7,171 254 19,106 11,935 61% 2014 0.098 09 00 00 0 14,928 0 00 1,495 1,495 1,495 0.098 0 15,257 0 15,257 15,257 15,257 0% 00 00 00 2032 0.383 1000 1000 19,080 20,507 1,300 97 1,397 97 0.073 11,682 7,425 7,171 254 19,106 11,935 61% 2016 0.104 09 00 00 0 17,156 0 00 1,580 1,580 1,580 0.104 0 15,257 0 15,257 15,257 15,257 0% 00 00 00 2034 0.406 1000 18,990 20,503 1,294 103 1,397 103 0.073 11,682 7,425 7,171 254 19,106 11,935 61% 2018 0.11 1000 09 00 00 0 23,860 0 00 1,676 1,676 1,676 0.11 0 15,257 0 15,257 15,257 15,257 0% 00 00 00 2036 0.431 1000 1000 18,810 20,416 1,282 109 1,391 109 0.073 11,682 7,425 7,171 254 19,106 11,935 61% 2020 0.117 09 00 00 0 26,097 0 00 1,778 1,778 1,778 0.117 0 15,257 0 15,257 15,257 15,257 0% 00 00 00 2038 0.457 1000 1000 18,720 20,423 1,275 116 1,391 116 0.073 11,682 7,425 7,171 254 19,106 11,935 61% 2022 0.124 99 00 00 22,590 24,937 1,539 00 160 1,699 160 0.073 13,964 9,172 7,879 1,293 23,136 15,257 60% 00 00 00 2040 0.485 1000 1000 18,630 20,437 1,269 123 1,392 123 0.073 11,682 7,425 7,171 254 19,106 11,935 61% 2024 0.131 109 00 00 23,300 23,300 1,588 00 0 1,588 0 0.065 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 00 00 00 2042 0.515 1000 1000 18,540 20,459 1,263 131 1,394 131 0.073 11,682 7,425 7,171 254 19,106 11,935 61% 2026 0.139 109 00 00 22,300 22,300 1,519 00 0 1,519 0 0.062 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 00 00 00 254 19,106 11,935 61% 2044 0.546 1000 1000 18,450 20,484 1,257 139 1,396 139 0.073 11,682 7,425 7,171 2028 0.148 109 00 00 21,800 21,800 1,485 00 0 1,485 0 0.061 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 00 00 00 2046 0.579 1000 1000 10 20,400 20,400 1,390 1,390 0.069 12,980 7,306 8,351 71,044 20,286 11,935 64% 2030 0.157 10 00 00 21,400 21,400 1,458 00 00 1,458 00 0.059 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 00 00 00 2048 0.614 1000 1000 10 20,200 20,200 1,376 1,376 0.068 12,980 7,306 8,351 71,044 20,286 11,935 64% 2032 0.166 10 00 00 21,200 21,200 1,444 00 00 1,444 00 0.059 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 00 00 00 2050 0.652 1000 1000 10 20,200 20,200 1,376 1,376 0.068 12,980 7,306 8,351 71,044 20,286 11,935 64% 2034 0.176 10 00 00 21,100 21,100 1,438 00 00 1,438 00 0.059 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 00 00 00 2036 0.187 1000 10 0 0 20,900 20,900 1,424 0 0 1,424 0 0.058 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 0 0 0 2038 0.198 1000 10 0 0 20,800 20,800 1,417 0 0 1,417 0 0.058 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 0 0 0 2040 0.21 1000 10 0 0 20,700 20,700 1,410 0 0 1,410 0 0.057 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 0 0 0 2042 0.223 1000 10 0 0 20,600 20,600 1,404 0 0 1,404 0 0.057 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 0 0 0 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 0 0 0 2044 0.237 1000 10 0 0 20,500 20,500 1,397 0 0 1,397 0 0.057 15,515 9,018 9,276 2046 0.251 1000 10 0 0 20,400 20,400 1,390 0 0 1,390 0 0.057 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 0 0 0 2048 0.267 1000 10 0 0 20,200 20,200 1,376 0 0 1,376 0 0.056 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 0 0 0 2050 0.283 1000 10 0 0 20,200 20,200 1,376 0 0 1,376 0 0.056 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 0 0 0

RESIDENTIAL TABLES - LOUISVILLE, KY

Louisville,$KY$,$Residential$,$Non,Grid$Exporting$System Total-AnnualVolumetric1kWhTotal-CapitalTotal-Annual- Replacement- Total-O&M- Total-Annual- OperatingPVGridGrid-NetTotal-Electrical- AC-Primary- Renewable- ExcessBatteryBatteryYear Power-Price Grid PV Total-NPC Cost COE Production Purchases Grid-Sales Purchases Li7ion Converter Cost Capital-Cost Cost Cost Cost Production Load-Served Fraction Electricity Autonomy Throughput $/kWh kW kW kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr hr kWh/yr 2014 0.093 3.65 0 0 0 0 11,928 0 0 1,195 1,195 1,195 0.093 0 12,846 0 12,846 12,846 12,846 0% 0 0 0 2016 0.099 3.65 0 0 0 0 13,811 0 0 1,272 1,272 1,272 0.099 0 12,846 0 12,846 12,846 12,846 0% 0 0 0 2018 0.105 3.65 0 0 0 0 19,203 0 0 1,349 1,349 1,349 0.105 0 12,846 0 12,846 12,846 12,846 0% 0 0 0 2020 0.111 3.65 0 0 0 0 20,928 0 0 1,426 1,426 1,426 0.111 0 12,846 0 12,846 12,846 12,846 0% 0 0 0 2022 0.118 3.65 0 0 0 0 22,248 0 0 1,516 1,516 1,516 0.118 0 12,846 0 12,846 12,846 12,846 0% 0 0 0 2024 0.125 3.55 1 0 0 2,330 23,409 159 0 1,436 1,595 1,436 0.124 1,359 11,490 0 11,490 12,848 12,847 11% 1 0 0 2026 0.133 3.45 2 0 0 4,460 24,521 304 0 1,367 1,671 1,367 0.13 2,718 10,277 0 10,277 12,995 12,847 20% 148 0 0 2028 0.141 3.45 2 0 0 4,360 25,627 297 0 1,449 1,746 1,449 0.136 2,718 10,277 0 10,277 12,995 12,847 20% 148 0 0 2030 0.15 3.45 2 0 0 4,280 26,905 292 0 1,542 1,833 1,542 0.143 2,718 10,277 0 10,277 12,995 12,847 20% 148 0 0 2032 0.159 3.45 2 0 0 4,240 28,222 289 0 1,634 1,923 1,634 0.15 2,718 10,277 0 10,277 12,995 12,847 20% 148 0 0 2034 0.169 3.45 2 0 0 4,220 29,711 288 0 1,737 2,024 1,737 0.158 2,718 10,277 0 10,277 12,995 12,847 20% 148 0 0 2036 0.179 3.45 2 0 0 4,180 31,179 285 0 1,840 2,124 1,840 0.165 2,718 10,277 0 10,277 12,995 12,847 20% 148 0 0 2038 0.19 3.4 3 0 0 6,240 32,743 425 0 1,806 2,231 1,806 0.174 4,077 9,504 0 9,504 13,581 12,847 26% 734 0 0 2040 0.201 3.4 3 0 0 6,210 34,248 423 0 1,910 2,333 1,910 0.182 4,077 9,504 0 9,504 13,581 12,847 26% 734 0 0 2042 0.214 3.35 4 5 1 9,506 35,993 648 35 1,770 2,452 1,805 0.191 5,436 8,225 0 8,225 13,661 12,847 36% 586 2.73 862 8,225 13,661 12,847 36% 586 2.73 862 2044 0.227 3.35 4 5 1 9,448 37,498 644 34 1,877 2,555 1,911 0.199 5,436 8,225 0 2046 0.24 3.2 6 13 2 15,286 38,835 1,041 83 1,521 2,646 1,605 0.206 8,154 6,230 0 6,230 14,384 12,847 52% 907 7.09 2,381 2048 0.255 3.15 7 19 3 18,550 39,753 1,264 121 1,324 2,709 1,445 0.211 9,513 5,044 0 5,044 14,557 12,847 61% 798 10.37 3,445 2050 0.271 3.05 8 22 3 21,074 40,731 1,436 134 1,205 2,775 1,339 0.216 10,872 4,284 0 4,284 15,156 12,847 67% 1,230 12 4,074

Louisville,$KY$,$Residential$,$With$Exports$to$Grid$(Net$Energy$Metering) Year

Grid PV kW kW 1000 0 1000 0 1000 0 1000 0 1000 0 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 10 1000 10 1000 10 1000 10

Total-Annual1kWhTotal-CapitalTotal-Annual- Replacement- Total-O&M- Total-Annual- OperatingPVGridGrid-NetTotal-Electrical- AC-Primary- Renewable- ExcessTotal-NPC Cost COE Production Purchases Grid-Sales Purchases Li7ion Converter Cost Capital-Cost Cost Cost Cost Production Load-Served Fraction Electricity kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr 0 0 0 11,929 0 0 1,195 1,195 1,195 0.093 0 12,848 0 12,848 12,848 12,848 0% 0 0 0 13,813 0 0 1,272 1,272 1,272 0.099 0 12,848 0 12,848 12,848 12,848 0% 0 0 0 19,205 0 0 1,349 1,349 1,349 0.105 0 12,848 0 12,848 12,848 12,848 0% 0 0 0 20,931 0 0 1,426 1,426 1,426 0.111 0 12,848 0 12,848 12,848 12,848 0% 0 0 0 22,251 0 0 1,516 1,516 1,516 0.118 0 12,848 0 12,848 12,848 12,848 0% 0 0 20,970 22,102 1,429 0 77 1,506 77 0.075 12,231 7,799 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 0 0 20,070 21,275 1,367 0 82 1,450 82 0.072 12,231 7,799 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 0 0 19,620 20,897 1,337 0 87 1,424 87 0.071 12,231 7,799 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 0 0 19,260 20,619 1,312 0 93 1,405 93 0.07 12,231 7,799 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 0 0 19,080 20,520 1,300 0 98 1,398 98 0.07 12,231 7,799 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 0 0 18,990 20,521 1,294 0 104 1,398 104 0.07 12,231 7,799 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 0 0 18,810 20,431 1,282 0 110 1,392 110 0.069 12,231 7,799 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 0 0 18,720 20,441 1,275 0 117 1,393 117 0.07 12,231 7,799 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 0 0 18,630 20,451 1,269 0 124 1,393 124 0.07 12,231 7,799 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 0 0 18,540 20,478 1,263 0 132 1,395 132 0.07 12,231 7,799 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 7742 21,257 12,848 64% 0 0 20,500 20,500 1,397 0 0 1,397 0 0.066 13,590 7,667 8,409 0 0 20,400 20,400 1,390 0 0 1,390 0 0.065 13,590 7,667 8,409 7742 21,257 12,848 64% 0 0 20,200 20,200 1,376 0 0 1,376 0 0.065 13,590 7,667 8,409 7742 21,257 12,848 64% 0 0 20,200 20,200 1,376 0 0 1,376 0 0.065 13,590 7,667 8,409 7742 21,257 12,848 64%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BatteryBatteryAutonomy Throughput hr kWh/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050

VolumetricPower-Price $/kWh 0.093 0.099 0.105 0.111 0.118 0.125 0.133 0.141 0.15 0.159 0.169 0.179 0.19 0.201 0.214 0.227 0.24 0.255 0.271

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 63

APPENDIX F ANALYTICAL RESULTS BY GEOGRAPHY

RESIDENTIAL TABLES - SAN ANTONIO, TX San$Antonio,$TX$,$Residential$,$Non,Grid$Exporting$System Total-AnnualVolumetric1kWhTotal-CapitalTotal-Annual- Replacement- Total-O&M- Total-Annual- OperatingPVGridGrid-NetTotal-Electrical- AC-Primary- Renewable- ExcessBatteryBatteryYear Power-Price Grid PV Li7ion Converter Cost Total-NPC Capital-Cost Cost Cost COE Production Purchases Grid-Sales Purchases Production Load-Served Fraction Electricity Cost Cost Autonomy Throughput $/kWh kW kW kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr hr kWh/yr 2014 0.098 5.5 0 0 0 0 14,924 0 0 1,495 1,495 1,495 0.098 0 15,253 0 15,253 15,253 15,253 0% 0 0 0 2016 0.104 5.5 0 0 0 0 17,152 0 0 1,579 1,579 1,579 0.104 0 15,253 0 15,253 15,253 15,253 0% 0 0 0 2018 0.11 5.5 0 0 0 0 23,854 0 0 1,676 1,676 1,676 0.11 0 15,253 0 15,253 15,253 15,253 0% 0 0 0 2020 0.117 5.5 0 0 0 0 26,090 0 0 1,778 1,778 1,778 0.117 0 15,253 0 15,253 15,253 15,253 0% 0 0 0 2022 0.124 5.45 2 0 0 5,020 27,327 342 0 1,520 1,862 1,520 0.122 3,103 12,293 0 12,293 15,396 15,253 19% 143 0 0 2024 0.131 5.45 2 0 0 4,660 28,326 318 0 1,612 1,930 1,612 0.127 3,103 12,293 0 12,293 15,396 15,253 19% 143 0 0 Honolulu,$HI$,$Residential$,$Non,Grid$Exporting$System 2026 0.139 5.45 2 0 0 4,460 29,567 304 0 1,711 2,015 1,711 0.132 3,103 12,293 0 12,293 15,396 15,253 19% 143 0 0 2028 0.148 5.45 2 0 0 4,360 30,996 297Total-Annual- 0 1,815 2,112 1,815 0.138 3,103 12,293 0 12,293 15,396 15,253 19% 143 0 0 2030Volumetric0.157 5.4 31kWh- 0 0Total-Capital6,420 32,377Total-Annual437Replacement- 0Total-O&M1,769Total-Annual2,206Operating1,769 0.145PV4,655Grid- 11,292 0Grid-Net-11,292Total-Electrical15,946AC-Primary15,253Renewable26%Excess- 694Battery0Battery0 Year 2032Power-Price 0.166Grid 5.4PV 3Li7ion 0Converter 0Cost 6,360Total-NPC 33,898Capital-Cost433Cost 0Cost 1,876Cost 2,310Cost 1,876COE 0.151Production 4,655Purchases 11,292Grid-Sales 0Purchases 11,292Production15,946Load-Served 15,253Fraction 26%Electricity 694Autonomy 0Throughput 0 $/kWh kW kW kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr hr kWh/yr 2034 0.176 5.4 3 0 0 6,330 35,545 431 0 1,991 2,422 1,991 0.159 4,655 11,292 0 11,292 15,946 15,253 26% 694 0 0 2014 0.363 33 00 00 8,010 44,924 802 00 3,697 4,500 3,697 0.311 4,793 10,186 00 10,186 14,978 14,490 30% 488 00 00 2036 0.187 3.3 5.4 6,270 37,264 427 2,112 2,539 2,112 0.166 4,655 11,292 11,292 15,946 15,253 26% 694 2016 0.385 64 13 5 21 19,305 48,202 1,778 19136 2,469 4,439 2,661 0.306 9,585 6,348 00 6,348 15,933 14,490 56% 746 6.29 2,630 2038 0.198 3.15 5.4 9,630 38,988 656 1,964 2,656 2,000 0.174 6,206 9,851 9,851 16,057 15,253 35% 574 2.3 869 2018 0.408 85 23 7 31 35,610 63,993 2,501 33047 1,664 4,495 1,994 0.31 12,781 3,962 00 3,962 16,743 14,489 73% 992 11.13 4,755 2040 0.21 3.05 5.4 12,053 40,651 821 1,902 2,770 1,949 0.182 7,758 8,970 8,970 16,727 15,253 41% 1,118 3.22 1,344 2020 0.433 97 2919 43 37,496 61,103 2,555 363 1,245 4,163 1,608 0.287 14,378 2,741 00 2,741 17,119 14,489 81% 1,058 14.03 5,925 2042 0.223 3.05 5.35 19,021 41,744 1,296 126 1,423 2,844 1,548 0.186 10,861 6,200 6,200 17,060 15,252 59% 816 8.73 3,740 2022 0.46 3 10 8 3223 43 37,515 57,585 2,556 352 1,016 3,924 1,367 0.271 15,976 2,071 00 2,071 18,047 14,489 86% 1,828 15.48 6,519 5,232 17,644 15,253 66% 1,180 10.57 4,569 2044 0.237 5.35 21,726 42,730 1,480 146 1,286 2,911 1,431 0.191 12,412 5,232 2024 0.488 3528 54 37,945 54,604 2,585 340 795 3,720 1,135 0.257 17,573 1,486 00 1,486 19,060 14,488 90% 2,703 16.93 7,042 2046 0.251 2.95 5.35 11 9 24,840 43,600 1,692 177 1,101 2,971 1,278 0.195 13,964 4,158 4,158 18,122 15,253 73% 1,395 12.86 5,559 2026 0.517 3528 54 35,610 52,416 2,426 306 839 3,571 1,145 0.247 17,573 1,486 00 1,486 19,060 14,488 90% 2,703 16.93 7,042 2048 0.267 2.95 5.35 11 9 24,569 44,227 1,674 175 1,165 3,013 1,339 0.198 13,964 4,158 4,158 18,122 15,253 73% 1,395 12.86 5,559 2028 0.549 3528 54 34,060 51,147 2,321 279 886 3,485 1,164 0.241 17,573 1,486 00 1,486 19,060 14,488 90% 2,703 16.93 7,042 2050 0.283 2.95 5.35 11 9 24,481 45,094 1,668 172 1,232 3,072 1,404 0.201 13,964 4,158 4,158 18,122 15,253 73% 1,395 12.86 5,559 2030 0.582 2.95 11 36 5 33,137 50,423 2,258 262 916 3,436 1,178 0.237 17,573 1,449 0 1,449 19,022 14,488 90% 2,655 17.41 7,083 2032 0.618 2.9 12 36 5 34,735 50,473 2,367 257 815 3,439 1,072 0.237 19,171 1,203 0 1,203 20,374 14,488 92% 3,965 17.41 7,245 San$Antonio,$TX$,$Residential$,$With$Exports$to$Grid$(Net$Energy$Metering) 2034 0.655 2.9 12 37 5 34,649 50,745 2,361 255 842 3,457 1,097 0.239 19,171 1,172 0 1,172 20,343 14,488 92% 3,924 17.9 7,280 Total-Annual2036 0.695 2.9 12 37 5 34,258 50,981 2,334 251 889 3,474 1,139 0.24 19,171 1,172 0 1,172 20,343 14,488 92% 3,924 17.9 7,280 Volumetric1kWhTotal-CapitalTotal-Annual- Replacement- Total-O&M- Total-Annual- OperatingPVGridGrid-NetTotal-Electrical- AC-Primary- Renewable- ExcessBatteryBattery2038 0.738 2.85 12 40 5 34,630 51,393 2,360 264 878 3,502 1,142 0.242 19,171 1,082 0 1,082 20,253 14,487 93% 3,812 19.35 7,379 Cost Cost Autonomy Throughput Year Power-Price Grid PV Li7ion Converter Cost Total-NPC Capital-Cost Cost Cost COE Production Purchases Grid-Sales Purchases Production Load-Served Fraction Electricity 2040 0.782 2.85 12 41 5 34,582 51,791 2,356 266 906 3,529 1,173 0.244 19,171 1,054 0 1,054 20,224 14,487 93% 3,776 19.83 7,410 $/kWh kW kW kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr hr kWh/yr 2042 0.83 2.85 12 44 5 34,868 52,099 2,376 277 897 3,550 1,174 0.245 19,171 974 0 974 20,145 14,487 93% 3,675 21.28 7,498 2014 0.098 1000 0 0 0 0 14,928 0 0 1,495 1,495 1,495 0.098 0 15,257 0 15,257 15,257 15,257 0% 0 0 0 950 20,121 14,487 93% 3,645 21.77 7,525 2044 0.881 2.85 12 45 5 34,794 52,480 2,371 279 926 3,576 1,205 0.247 19,171 950 0 2016 0.104 1000 0 0 0 0 17,156 0 0 1,580 1,580 1,580 0.104 0 15,257 0 15,257 15,257 15,257 0% 0 0 0 2046 0.934 2.75 13 46 5 36,757 52,824 2,504 280 815 3,599 1,095 0.248 20,769 774 0 774 21,542 14,486 95% 5,042 22.25 7,622 2018 0.11 1000 0 0 0 0 23,860 0 0 1,676 1,676 1,676 0.11 0 15,257 0 15,257 15,257 15,257 0% 0 0 0 2048 0.991 2.75 13 47 5 36,539 52,996 2,490 281 840 3,611 1,121 0.249 20,769 753 0 753 21,522 14,486 95% 5,016 22.74 7,645 2020 0.117 1000 0 0 0 0 26,097 0 0 1,778 1,778 1,778 0.117 0 15,257 0 15,257 15,257 15,257 0% 0 0 0 2050 1.052 2.7 13 50 5 36,955 53,435 2,518 292 831 3,641 1,123 0.251 20,769 695 0 695 21,463 14,485 95% 4,944 24.19 7,709 2022 0.124 1000 9 0 0 22,590 24,937 1,539 0 160 1,699 160 0.073 13,964 9,172 7,879 1,293 23,136 15,257 60% 0 0 0 2024 0.131 1000 10 0 0 23,300 23,300 1,588 0 0 1,588 0 0.065 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 0 0 0 Honolulu,$HI$,$Residential$,$With$Exports$to$Grid$(Net$Energy$Metering) 2026 0.139 1000 10 0 0 22,300 22,300 1,519 0 0 1,519 0 0.062 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 0 0 0 2028 0.148 1000 10 0 0 21,800 21,800 1,485Total-Annual- 0 0 1,485 0 0.061 15,515 9,018 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 0 0 0 2030Volumetric0.157 1000 101kWh- 0 0Total-Capital21,400 21,400Total-Annual1,458Replacement- 0Total-O&M- 0Total-Annual1,458Operating- 0 0.059PV15,515Grid9,018 9,276Grid-Net- 7258Total-Electrical24,533AC-Primary15,257Renewable63%Excess0Battery0Battery0 Year 2032Power-Price 0.166Grid1000PV 10Li7ion 0Converter 0Cost 21,200Total-NPC 21,200Capital-Cost 1,444Cost 0Cost 0Cost 1,444Cost 0COE 0.059Production 15,515Purchases9,018Grid-Sales 9,276Purchases 7258Production24,533Load-Served 15,257Fraction 63%Electricity 0Autonomy 0Throughput 0 2034$/kWh 0.176kW1000kW 10kWh 0kW 0$ 21,100$ 21,100$/yr 1,438$/yr 0$/yr 0$/yr 1,438$/yr 0$/kWh 0.059kWh/yr 15,515kWh/yr 9,018kWh/yr 9,276kWh/yr 7258kWh/yr 24,533kWh/yr 15,257% 63%kWh/yr 0hr 0kWh/yr 0 2014 0.363 910 00 00 24,030 24,437 2,407 00 41 0 2,448 41 0 0.109 14,378 8,083 112 22,461 14,490 64% 00 00 00 2036 0.187 1000 1000 20,900 20,900 1,424 1,424 0.058 15,515 9,018 7,970 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 2016 0.385 910 00 00 21,150 21,619 1,948 00 43 0 1,991 43 0 0.089 14,378 8,083 112 22,461 14,490 64% 00 00 00 2038 0.198 1000 1000 20,800 20,800 1,417 1,417 0.058 15,515 9,018 7,970 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 2018 0.408 910 00 00 27,270 27,923 1,916 00 46 0 1,961 46 0 0.087 14,378 8,083 112 22,461 14,490 64% 00 00 00 2040 0.21 1000 1000 20,700 20,700 1,410 1,410 0.057 15,515 9,018 7,970 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 2020 0.433 910 00 00 24,750 25,464 1,686 00 49 0 1,735 49 0 0.077 14,378 8,083 112 22,461 14,490 64% 00 00 00 2042 0.223 1000 1000 20,600 20,600 1,404 1,404 0.057 15,515 9,018 7,970 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 2022 0.46 910 00 00 22,590 23,347 1,539 00 52 0 1,591 52 0 0.071 14,378 8,083 112 22,461 14,490 64% 00 00 00 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 2044 0.237 1000 1000 20,500 20,500 1,397 1,397 0.057 15,515 9,018 7,970 9,276 2024 0.488 910 00 00 20,970 21,773 1,429 00 55 0 1,484 55 0 0.066 14,378 8,083 112 22,461 14,490 64% 00 00 00 2046 0.251 1000 1000 20,400 20,400 1,390 1,390 0.057 15,515 9,018 7,970 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 2026 0.517 910 00 00 20,070 20,922 1,367 00 58 0 1,426 58 0 0.063 14,378 8,083 112 22,461 14,490 64% 00 00 00 2048 0.267 1000 1000 20,200 20,200 1,376 1,376 0.056 15,515 9,018 7,970 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 2028 0.549 910 00 00 19,620 20,524 1,337 00 62 0 1,398 62 0 0.062 14,378 8,083 112 22,461 14,490 64% 00 00 00 2050 0.283 1000 1000 20,200 20,200 1,376 1,376 0.056 15,515 9,018 7,970 9,276 7258 24,533 15,257 63% 2030 0.582 1000 9 0 0 19,260 20,219 1,312 0 65 1,378 65 0.061 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 0 2032 0.618 1000 9 0 0 19,080 20,098 1,300 0 69 1,369 69 0.061 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 0 2034 0.655 1000 9 0 0 18,990 20,070 1,294 0 74 1,367 74 0.061 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 0 Louisville,$KY$,$Residential$,$Non,Grid$Exporting$System 2036 0.695 1000 9 0 0 18,810 19,955 1,282 0 78 1,360 78 0.061 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 0 Total-Annual2038 0.738 1000 9 0 0 18,720 19,935 1,275 0 83 1,358 83 0.06 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 0 Volumetric1kWhTotal-CapitalTotal-Annual- Replacement- Total-O&M- Total-Annual- OperatingPVGridGrid-NetTotal-Electrical- AC-Primary- Renewable- ExcessBatteryBattery2040 0.782 1000 9 0 0 18,630 19,919 1,269 0 88 1,357 88 0.06 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 0 Year Power-Price Grid PV Total-NPC COE Grid-Sales Purchases Li7ion Converter Cost Capital-Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Production Purchases Production Load-Served Fraction Electricity Autonomy Throughput 2042 0.83 1000 9 0 0 18,540 19,908 1,263 0 93 1,356 93 0.06 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 0 $/kWh kW kW kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr hr kWh/yr 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 0 2044 0.881 1000 9 0 0 18,450 19,901 1,257 0 99 1,356 99 0.06 14,378 8,083 7,970 2014 0.093 3.65 0 0 0 0 11,928 0 0 1,195 1,195 1,195 0.093 0 12,846 0 12,846 12,846 12,846 0% 0 0 0 2046 0.934 1000 9 0 0 18,360 19,899 1,251 0 105 1,356 105 0.06 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 0 2016 0.099 3.65 0 0 0 0 13,811 0 0 1,272 1,272 1,272 0.099 0 12,846 0 12,846 12,846 12,846 0% 0 0 0 2048 0.991 1000 9 0 0 18,180 19,813 1,239 0 111 1,350 111 0.06 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 0 2018 0.105 3.65 0 0 0 0 19,203 0 0 1,349 1,349 1,349 0.105 0 12,846 0 12,846 12,846 12,846 0% 0 0 0 2050 1.052 1000 9 0 0 18,180 19,913 1,239 0 118 1,357 118 0.06 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 0 2020 0.111 3.65 0 0 0 0 20,928 0 0 1,426 1,426 1,426 0.111 0 12,846 0 12,846 12,846 12,846 0% 0 0 0 2022 0.118 3.65 0 0 0 0 22,248 0 0 1,516 1,516 1,516 0.118 0 12,846 0 12,846 12,846 12,846 0% 0 0 0 2024 0.125 3.55 1 0 0 2,330 23,409 159 0 Los$Angeles,$CA$,$Residential$,$Non,Grid$Exporting$System 1,436 1,595 1,436 0.124 1,359 11,490 0 11,490 12,848 12,847 11% 1 0 0 2026 0.133 3.45 2 0 0 4,460 24,521 304Total-Annual- 0 1,367 1,671 1,367 0.13 2,718 10,277 0 10,277 12,995 12,847 20% 148 0 0 2028Volumetric0.141 3.45 21kWh- 0 0Total-Capital4,360 25,627Total-Annual297Replacement- 0Total-O&M1,449Total-Annual1,746Operating1,449 0.136PV2,718Grid- 10,277 0Grid-Net-10,277Total-Electrical12,995AC-Primary12,847Renewable20%Excess- 148Battery0Battery0 Cost Cost Purchases Load-Served Fraction Electricity Autonomy Year Power-Price Grid PV Li7ion Converter Cost Total-NPC Capital-Cost Cost COE Production Purchases Grid-Sales Production Throughput Cost 2030 0.15 3.45 2 0 0 4,280 26,905 292 0 1,542 1,833 1,542 0.143 2,718 10,277 0 10,277 12,995 12,847 20% 148 0 0 2032$/kWh 0.159kW 3.45kW 2kWh 0kW 0$ 4,240$ 28,222$/yr 289$/yr 0$/yr 1,634$/yr 1,923$/yr 1,634$/kWh 0.15kWh/yr 2,718kWh/yr 10,277kWh/yr 0kWh/yr 10,277kWh/yr 12,995kWh/yr 12,847% 20%kWh/yr 148hr 0kWh/yr 0 2014 0.181 12 00 00 2,670 14,123 267 00 1,147 1,415 1,147 0.179 1,606 6,338 00 6,338 7,944 7,920 20% 23 00 00 2034 0.169 1.96 3.45 4,220 29,711 288 1,737 2,024 1,737 0.158 2,718 10,277 10,277 12,995 12,847 20% 148 2016 0.192 12 00 00 2,350 15,597 216 00 1,220 1,436 1,220 0.181 1,606 6,338 00 6,338 7,944 7,920 20% 23 00 00 2036 0.179 1.96 3.45 4,180 31,179 285 1,840 2,124 1,840 0.165 2,718 10,277 10,277 12,995 12,847 20% 148 2018 0.204 1.96 1 0 0 3,030 21,453 213 0 1,294 1,507 1,294 0.19 1,606 6,338 0 6,338 7,944 7,920 20% 23 0 0 2038 0.19 3.4 3 0 0 6,240 32,743 425 0 1,806 2,231 1,806 0.174 4,077 9,504 0 9,504 13,581 12,847 26% 734 0 0 2020 0.217 13 00 00 2,750 22,900 187 00 1,373 1,560 1,373 0.197 1,606 6,338 00 6,338 7,944 7,920 20% 23 00 00 2040 0.201 1.96 3.4 6,210 34,248 423 1,910 2,333 1,910 0.182 4,077 9,504 9,504 13,581 12,847 26% 734 2022 0.23 24 05 01 5,020 23,637 342 035 1,268 1,611 1,268 0.203 3,211 5,520 00 5,520 8,731 7,920 30% 811 0 0 2042 0.214 1.96 3.35 9,506 35,993 648 1,770 2,452 1,805 0.191 5,436 8,225 8,225 13,661 12,847 36% 586 2.73 862 2024 0.244 24 05 01 4,660 24,411 318 034 1,346 1,663 1,346 0.21 3,211 5,520 00 5,520 8,731 7,920 30% 811 0 0 8,225 13,661 12,847 36% 586 2.73 862 2044 0.227 1.96 3.35 9,448 37,498 644 1,877 2,555 1,911 0.199 5,436 8,225 2026 0.259 36 713 12 8,906 24,744 607 6183 1,018 1,686 1,079 0.213 4,817 3,881 00 3,881 8,698 7,920 51% 403 6.19 1,410 2046 0.24 1.95 3.2 15,286 38,835 1,041 1,521 2,646 1,605 0.206 8,154 6,230 6,230 14,384 12,847 52% 907 7.09 2,381 2028 0.274 47 1419 23 12,752 24,659 869 110 701 1,680 811 0.212 6,423 2,453 00 2,453 8,876 7,920 69% 226 12.39 2,752 2048 0.255 1.9 3.15 18,550 39,753 1,264 121 1,324 2,709 1,445 0.211 9,513 5,044 5,044 14,557 12,847 61% 798 10.37 3,445 2030 0.291 58 1722 23 15,131 24,554 1,031 126 516 1,673 642 0.211 8,029 1,656 00 1,656 9,685 7,920 79% 843 15.0412 3,471 2050 0.271 1.85 3.05 21,074 40,731 1,436 134 1,205 2,775 1,339 0.216 10,872 4,284 4,284 15,156 12,847 67% 1,230 4,074 2032 0.309 1.85 5 18 3 15,383 24,644 1,048 134 497 1,679 631 0.212 8,029 1,492 0 1,492 9,521 7,920 81% 631 15.93 3,653 2034 0.328 1.85 5 18 3 15,242 24,877 1,038 132 525 1,695 656 0.214 8,029 1,492 0 1,492 9,521 7,920 81% 631 15.93 3,653 Louisville,$KY$,$Residential$,$With$Exports$to$Grid$(Net$Energy$Metering) 2036 0.348 1.85 5 18 3 15,068 25,110 1,027 130 555 1,711 684 0.216 8,029 1,492 0 1,492 9,521 7,920 81% 631 15.93 3,653 Total-Annual2038 0.369 1.85 5 19 3 15,162 25,423 1,033 130 569 1,732 699 0.219 8,029 1,440 0 1,440 9,468 7,920 82% 564 16.81 3,711 Volumetric1kWhTotal-CapitalTotal-Annual- Replacement- Total-O&M- Total-Annual- OperatingPVGridGrid-NetTotal-Electrical- AC-Primary- Renewable- ExcessBatteryBattery2040 0.391 1.8 6 20 3 17,324 25,680 1,180 139 430 1,750 569 0.221 9,634 997 0 997 10,632 7,920 87% 1,628 17.7 4,083 Year Power-Price Grid PV Total-NPC COE Grid-Sales Purchases Li7ion Converter Cost Capital-Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Production Purchases Production Load-Served Fraction Electricity Autonomy Throughput 2042 0.415 1.8 6 21 3 17,363 25,816 1,183 137 439 1,759 576 0.222 9,634 957 0 957 10,591 7,920 88% 1,577 18.58 4,128 $/kWh kW kW kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr hr kWh/yr 957 10,591 7,920 88% 1,577 18.58 4,128 2044 0.44 1.8 6 21 3 17,230 26,009 1,174 135 463 1,772 598 0.224 9,634 957 0 2014 0.093 1000 0 0 0 0 11,929 0 0 1,195 1,195 1,195 0.093 0 12,848 0 12,848 12,848 12,848 0% 0 0 0 2046 0.467 1.8 6 21 3 17,100 26,227 1,165 133 489 1,787 622 0.226 9,634 957 0 957 10,591 7,920 88% 1,577 18.58 4,128 2016 0.099 1000 0 0 0 0 13,813 0 0 1,272 1,272 1,272 0.099 0 12,848 0 12,848 12,848 12,848 0% 0 0 0 2048 0.496 1.8 6 21 3 16,912 26,412 1,152 131 516 1,800 647 0.227 9,634 957 0 957 10,591 7,920 88% 1,577 18.58 4,128 2018 0.105 1000 0 0 0 0 19,205 0 0 1,349 1,349 1,349 0.105 0 12,848 0 12,848 12,848 12,848 0% 0 0 0 2050 0.526 1.8 6 21 3 16,846 26,743 1,148 129 545 1,822 674 0.23 9,634 957 0 957 10,591 7,920 88% 1,577 18.58 4,128 2020 0.111 1000 0 0 0 0 20,931 0 0 1,426 1,426 1,426 0.111 0 12,848 0 12,848 12,848 12,848 0% 0 0 0 2022 0.118 1000 0 0 0 0 22,251 0 0 1,516 1,516 1,516 0.118 0 12,848 0 12,848 12,848 12,848 0% 0 0 0 Los$Angeles,$CA$,$Residential$,$With$Exports$to$Grid$(Net$Energy$Metering) 2024 0.125 1000 9 0 0 20,970 22,102 1,429 0 77 1,506 77 0.075 12,231 7,799 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 0 0 0 2026 0.133 1000 9 0 0 20,070 21,275 1,367Total-Annual- 0 82 1,450 82 0.072 12,231 7,799 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 0 0 0 2028Volumetric0.141 1000 91kWh- 0 0Total-Capital19,620 20,897Total-Annual1,337Replacement- 0Total-O&M-87Total-Annual1,424Operating-87 0.071PV12,231Grid7,799 7,182Grid-Net- 617Total-Electrical20,030AC-Primary12,848Renewable61%Excess0Battery0Battery0 Year 2030Power-Price 0.15Grid1000PV 9Li7ion 0Converter 0Cost 19,260Total-NPC 20,619Capital-Cost 1,312Cost 0Cost 93Cost 1,405Cost 93COE 0.07Production 12,231Purchases7,799Grid-Sales 7,182Purchases 617Production20,030Load-Served 12,848Fraction 61%Electricity 0Autonomy 0Throughput 0 2032$/kWh 0.159kW1000kW 9kWh 0kW 0$ 19,080$ 20,520$/yr 1,300$/yr 0$/yr 98$/yr 1,398$/yr 98$/kWh 0.07kWh/yr 12,231kWh/yr 7,799kWh/yr 7,182kWh/yr 617kWh/yr 20,030kWh/yr 12,848% 61%kWh/yr 0hr 0kWh/yr 0 2014 0.181 59 00 00 13,350 13,350 1,337 00 0 1,337 0 0.104 8,029 4,784 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 00 00 00 2034 0.169 1000 1000 18,990 20,521 1,294 104 1,398 104 0.07 12,231 7,799 4,892 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 2016 0.192 59 00 00 11,750 11,750 1,082 00 0 1,082 0 0.084 8,029 4,784 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 00 00 00 2036 0.179 1000 1000 18,810 20,431 1,282 110 1,392 110 0.069 12,231 7,799 4,892 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 2018 0.204 59 00 00 15,150 15,150 1,064 00 0 1,064 0 0.083 8,029 4,784 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 00 00 00 2038 0.19 1000 1000 18,720 20,441 1,275 117 1,393 117 0.07 12,231 7,799 4,892 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 2020 0.217 59 00 00 13,750 13,750 937 00 0 937 0 0.073 8,029 4,784 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 00 00 00 2040 0.201 1000 1000 18,630 20,451 1,269 124 1,393 124 0.07 12,231 7,799 4,892 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 2022 0.23 59 00 00 12,550 12,550 855 00 0 855 0 0.067 8,029 4,784 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 00 00 00 2042 0.214 1000 1000 18,540 20,478 1,263 132 1,395 132 0.07 12,231 7,799 4,892 7,182 617 20,030 12,848 61% 2024 0.244 1000 5 0 0 11,650 11,650 794 0 0 794 0 0.062 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 0 0 00 7742 21,257 12,848 64% 0 0 2044 0.227 1000 10 0 0 20,500 20,500 1,397 0 0 1,397 0 0.066 13,590 7,667 8,409 2026 0.259 510 00 00 11,150 11,150 760 00 00 760 00 0.059 8,029 4,784 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 00 00 00 2046 0.24 1000 1000 20,400 20,400 1,390 1,390 0.065 13,590 7,667 4,892 8,409 7742 21,257 12,848 64% 2028 0.274 510 00 00 10,900 10,900 743 00 00 743 00 0.058 8,029 4,784 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 00 00 00 2048 0.255 1000 1000 20,200 20,200 1,376 1,376 0.065 13,590 7,667 4,892 8,409 7742 21,257 12,848 64% 2030 0.291 510 00 00 10,700 10,700 729 00 00 729 00 0.057 8,029 4,784 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 00 00 00 2050 0.271 1000 1000 20,200 20,200 1,376 1,376 0.065 13,590 7,667 4,892 8,409 7742 21,257 12,848 64% 2032 0.309 1000 5 0 0 10,600 10,600 722 0 0 722 0 0.056 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 0 0 0 2034 0.328 1000 5 0 0 10,550 10,550 719 0 0 719 0 0.056 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 0 0 0 2036 0.348 1000 5 0 0 10,450 10,450 712 0 0 712 0 0.056 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 0 0 0 2038 0.369 1000 5 0 0 10,400 10,400 709 0 0 709 0 0.055 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 0 0 0 2040 0.391 1000 5 0 0 10,350 10,350 705 0 0 705 0 0.055 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 0 0 0 2042 0.415 1000 5 0 0 10,300 10,300 702 0 0 702 0 0.055 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 0 0 0 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 0 0 0 2044 0.44 1000 5 0 0 10,250 10,250 698 0 0 698 0 0.055 8,029 4,784 4,892 2046 0.467 1000 5 0 0 10,200 10,200 695 0 0 695 0 0.054 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 0 0 0 2048 0.496 1000 5 0 0 10,100 10,100 688 0 0 688 0 0.054 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 0 0 0 2050 0.526 1000 5 0 0 10,100 10,100 688 0 0 688 0 0.054 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 0 0 0

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

RESIDENTIAL TABLES - LOS ANGELES, CA

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 64

APPENDIX F ANALYTICAL RESULTS BY GEOGRAPHY

RESIDENTIAL TABLES - HONOLULU, HI Honolulu,$HI$,$Residential$,$Non,Grid$Exporting$System Year 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050

Total-AnnualVolumetric1kWhTotal-CapitalTotal-Annual- Replacement- Total-O&M- Total-Annual- OperatingPVGridGrid-NetTotal-Electrical- AC-Primary- Renewable- ExcessBatteryBatteryTotal-NPC Cost COE Production Purchases Grid-Sales Purchases Power-Price Grid PV Li7ion Converter Cost Capital-Cost Cost Cost Cost Production Load-Served Fraction Electricity Autonomy Throughput $/kWh kW kW kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr hr kWh/yr 0.363 3.3 3 0 0 8,010 44,924 802 0 3,697 4,500 3,697 0.311 4,793 10,186 0 10,186 14,978 14,490 30% 488 0 0 0.385 3.15 6 13 2 19,305 48,202 1,778 191 2,469 4,439 2,661 0.306 9,585 6,348 0 6,348 15,933 14,490 56% 746 6.29 2,630 0.408 3.05 8 23 3 35,610 63,993 2,501 330 1,664 4,495 1,994 0.31 12,781 3,962 0 3,962 16,743 14,489 73% 992 11.13 4,755 0.433 3.05 9 29 4 37,496 61,103 2,555 363 1,245 4,163 1,608 0.287 14,378 2,741 0 2,741 17,119 14,489 81% 1,058 14.03 5,925 0.46 3 10 32 4 37,515 57,585 2,556 352 1,016 3,924 1,367 0.271 15,976 2,071 0 2,071 18,047 14,489 86% 1,828 15.48 6,519 0.488 2.95 11 35 5 37,945 54,604 2,585 340 795 3,720 1,135 0.257 17,573 1,486 0 1,486 19,060 14,488 90% 2,703 16.93 7,042 0.517 2.95 11 35 5 35,610 52,416 2,426 306 839 3,571 1,145 0.247 17,573 1,486 0 1,486 19,060 14,488 90% 2,703 16.93 7,042 0.549 2.95 11 35 5 34,060 51,147 2,321 279 886 3,485 1,164 0.241 17,573 1,486 0 1,486 19,060 14,488 90% 2,703 16.93 7,042 0.582 2.95 11 36 5 33,137 50,423 2,258 262 916 3,436 1,178 0.237 17,573 1,449 0 1,449 19,022 14,488 90% 2,655 17.41 7,083 0.618 2.9 12 36 5 34,735 50,473 2,367 257 815 3,439 1,072 0.237 19,171 1,203 0 1,203 20,374 14,488 92% 3,965 17.41 7,245 0.655 2.9 12 37 5 34,649 50,745 2,361 255 842 3,457 1,097 0.239 19,171 1,172 0 1,172 20,343 14,488 92% 3,924 17.9 7,280 0.695 2.9 12 37 5 34,258 50,981 2,334 251 889 3,474 1,139 0.24 19,171 1,172 0 1,172 20,343 14,488 92% 3,924 17.9 7,280 0.738 2.85 12 40 5 34,630 51,393 2,360 264 878 3,502 1,142 0.242 19,171 1,082 0 1,082 20,253 14,487 93% 3,812 19.35 7,379 0.782 2.85 12 41 5 34,582 51,791 2,356 266 906 3,529 1,173 0.244 19,171 1,054 0 1,054 20,224 14,487 93% 3,776 19.83 7,410 0.83 2.85 12 44 5 34,868 52,099 2,376 277 897 3,550 1,174 0.245 19,171 974 0 974 20,145 14,487 93% 3,675 21.28 7,498 950 20,121 14,487 93% 3,645 21.77 7,525 0.881 2.85 12 45 5 34,794 52,480 2,371 279 926 3,576 1,205 0.247 19,171 950 0 0.934 2.75 13 46 5 36,757 52,824 2,504 280 815 3,599 1,095 0.248 20,769 774 0 774 21,542 14,486 95% 5,042 22.25 7,622 0.991 2.75 13 47 5 36,539 52,996 2,490 281 840 3,611 1,121 0.249 20,769 753 0 753 21,522 14,486 95% 5,016 22.74 7,645 1.052 2.7 13 50 5 36,955 53,435 2,518 292 831 3,641 1,123 0.251 20,769 695 0 695 21,463 14,485 95% 4,944 24.19 7,709

Honolulu,$HI$,$Residential$,$With$Exports$to$Grid$(Net$Energy$Metering) Year 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050

VolumetricPower-Price $/kWh 0.363 0.385 0.408 0.433 0.46 0.488 0.517 0.549 0.582 0.618 0.655 0.695 0.738 0.782 0.83 0.881 0.934 0.991 1.052

Grid PV kW kW 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9 1000 9

Total-Annual1kWhTotal-CapitalTotal-Annual- Replacement- Total-O&M- Total-Annual- OperatingPVGridGrid-NetTotal-Electrical- AC-Primary- Renewable- ExcessTotal-NPC Cost COE Production Purchases Grid-Sales Purchases Li7ion Converter Cost Capital-Cost Cost Cost Cost Production Load-Served Fraction Electricity kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr 0 0 24,030 24,437 2,407 0 41 2,448 41 0.109 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 21,150 21,619 1,948 0 43 1,991 43 0.089 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 27,270 27,923 1,916 0 46 1,961 46 0.087 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 24,750 25,464 1,686 0 49 1,735 49 0.077 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 22,590 23,347 1,539 0 52 1,591 52 0.071 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 20,970 21,773 1,429 0 55 1,484 55 0.066 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 20,070 20,922 1,367 0 58 1,426 58 0.063 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 19,620 20,524 1,337 0 62 1,398 62 0.062 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 19,260 20,219 1,312 0 65 1,378 65 0.061 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 19,080 20,098 1,300 0 69 1,369 69 0.061 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 18,990 20,070 1,294 0 74 1,367 74 0.061 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 18,810 19,955 1,282 0 78 1,360 78 0.061 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 18,720 19,935 1,275 0 83 1,358 83 0.06 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 18,630 19,919 1,269 0 88 1,357 88 0.06 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 18,540 19,908 1,263 0 93 1,356 93 0.06 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 18,450 19,901 1,257 0 99 1,356 99 0.06 14,378 8,083 7,970 0 0 18,360 19,899 1,251 0 105 1,356 105 0.06 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 18,180 19,813 1,239 0 111 1,350 111 0.06 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64% 0 0 18,180 19,913 1,239 0 118 1,357 118 0.06 14,378 8,083 7,970 112 22,461 14,490 64%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BatteryBatteryAutonomy Throughput hr kWh/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Los$Angeles,$CA$,$Residential$,$Non,Grid$Exporting$System Year

Total-AnnualVolumetric1kWhTotal-CapitalTotal-Annual- Replacement- Total-O&M- Total-Annual- OperatingPVGridGrid-NetTotal-Electrical- AC-Primary- Renewable- ExcessBatteryBatteryTotal-NPC COE Grid-Sales Purchases Power-Price Grid PV Li7ion Converter Cost Capital-Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Production Purchases Production Load-Served Fraction Electricity Autonomy Throughput $/kWh kW kW kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % kWh/yr hr kWh/yr 0.181 1.96 1 0 0 2,670 14,123 267 0 1,147 1,415 1,147 0.179 1,606 6,338 0 6,338 7,944 7,920 20% 23 0 0 0.192 1.96 1 0 0 2,350 15,597 216 0 1,220 1,436 1,220 0.181 1,606 6,338 0 6,338 7,944 7,920 20% 23 0 0 0.204 1.96 1 0 0 3,030 21,453 213 0 1,294 1,507 1,294 0.19 1,606 6,338 0 6,338 7,944 7,920 20% 23 0 0 0.217 1.96 1 0 0 2,750 22,900 187 0 1,373 1,560 1,373 0.197 1,606 6,338 0 6,338 7,944 7,920 20% 23 0 0 0.23 1.96 2 0 0 5,020 23,637 342 0 1,268 1,611 1,268 0.203 3,211 5,520 0 5,520 8,731 7,920 30% 811 0 0 0.244 1.96 2 0 0 4,660 24,411 318 0 1,346 1,663 1,346 0.21 3,211 5,520 0 5,520 8,731 7,920 30% 811 0 0 0.259 1.95 3 7 1 8,906 24,744 607 61 1,018 1,686 1,079 0.213 4,817 3,881 0 3,881 8,698 7,920 51% 403 6.19 1,410 0.274 1.9 4 14 2 12,752 24,659 869 110 701 1,680 811 0.212 6,423 2,453 0 2,453 8,876 7,920 69% 226 12.39 2,752 0.291 1.85 5 17 2 15,131 24,554 1,031 126 516 1,673 642 0.211 8,029 1,656 0 1,656 9,685 7,920 79% 843 15.04 3,471 0.309 1.85 5 18 3 15,383 24,644 1,048 134 497 1,679 631 0.212 8,029 1,492 0 1,492 9,521 7,920 81% 631 15.93 3,653 0.328 1.85 5 18 3 15,242 24,877 1,038 132 525 1,695 656 0.214 8,029 1,492 0 1,492 9,521 7,920 81% 631 15.93 3,653 0.348 1.85 5 18 3 15,068 25,110 1,027 130 555 1,711 684 0.216 8,029 1,492 0 1,492 9,521 7,920 81% 631 15.93 3,653 0.369 1.85 5 19 3 15,162 25,423 1,033 130 569 1,732 699 0.219 8,029 1,440 0 1,440 9,468 7,920 82% 564 16.81 3,711 0.391 1.8 6 20 3 17,324 25,680 1,180 139 430 1,750 569 0.221 9,634 997 0 997 10,632 7,920 87% 1,628 17.7 4,083 0.415 1.8 6 21 3 17,363 25,816 1,183 137 439 1,759 576 0.222 9,634 957 0 957 10,591 7,920 88% 1,577 18.58 4,128 957 10,591 7,920 88% 1,577 18.58 4,128 0.44 1.8 6 21 3 17,230 26,009 1,174 135 463 1,772 598 0.224 9,634 957 0 0.467 1.8 6 21 3 17,100 26,227 1,165 133 489 1,787 622 0.226 9,634 957 0 957 10,591 7,920 88% 1,577 18.58 4,128 0.496 1.8 6 21 3 16,912 26,412 1,152 131 516 1,800 647 0.227 9,634 957 0 957 10,591 7,920 88% 1,577 18.58 4,128 0.526 1.8 6 21 3 16,846 26,743 1,148 129 545 1,822 674 0.23 9,634 957 0 957 10,591 7,920 88% 1,577 18.58 4,128

RESIDENTIAL TABLES - ALL LOCATIONS 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050

Financial'Inputs'for'all'Residential'Locations

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BatteryBatteryAutonomy Throughput hr kWh/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

PV' Li4ion'1kWh' Li4ion'1kWh' Converter' PV'Capital' Replacement' Battery' Converter' Replacement' Interest' Battery' Year Cost Cost Capital'Cost Replacement'Cost Capital'Cost Cost Rate $/Wdc $/Wdc $/kWh $/kWh $ $ % 2014 2.67 3.82 433.92 619.88 0.34 0.49 8.8 2016 2.35 3.35 354.23 506.05 0.3 0.43 7.8 Los$Angeles,$CA$,$Residential$,$With$Exports$to$Grid$(Net$Energy$Metering) 2018 3.03 3.03 443.47 443.47 0.39 0.39 4.9 Total-AnnualVolumetric1kWhTotal-CapitalTotal-Annual- Replacement- Total-O&M- Total-Annual- OperatingPVGridGrid-NetTotal-Electrical- AC-Primary- Renewable- Excess2020 2.75 2.75 391.23 391.23 0.35 0.35 4.6 Electricity Year Power-Price Grid PV Total-NPC COE Grid-Sales Purchases Li7ion Converter Cost Capital-Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Production Purchases Production Load-Served Fraction $/kWh kW kW kWh kW $ $ $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr 347.96 $/yr $/kWh kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr 0.32 kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr % 4.6 kWh/yr 2022 2.51 2.51 347.96 0.32 2014 0.181 1000 5 0 0 13,350 13,350 1,337 0 0 1,337 0 0.104 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 2016 0.192 1000 5 0 0 11,750 11,750 1,082 0 0 1,082 0 0.084 8,029 4,784 4,892 0.3 7108 12,8130.3 7,921 63% 2024 2.33 1,064 2.33 308.99 308.99 4.663% 2018 0.204 1000 5 0 0 15,150 15,150 0 0 1,064 0 0.083 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 2020 0.217 1000 5 0 0 13,750 13,750 937 0 0 937 0 0.073 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 2026 2.23 2.23 275.15 275.15 0.29 0.29 4.6 2022 0.23 1000 5 0 0 12,550 12,550 855 0 0 855 0 0.067 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 2024 0.244 1000 5 0 0 11,650 11,650 0 0 794 8,029 4,892 12,813 2028 2.18 794 2.18 248 00 0.062 248 4,784 0.28 7108 0.28 7,921 4.663% 2026 0.259 1000 5 0 0 11,150 11,150 760 0 0 760 0.059 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 2028 0.274 1000 5 0 0 10,900 10,900 0 0 743 0 0.058 8,029 4,784 4,892 12,813 2030 2.14 743 2.14 227.69 227.69 0.28 7108 0.28 7,921 4.663% 2030 0.291 1000 5 0 0 10,700 10,700 729 0 0 729 0 0.057 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 2032 0.309 1000 5 0 0 10,600 10,600 0 0 722 0 0.056 8,029 4,784 4,892 12,813 2032 2.12 722 2.12 220.7 220.7 0.27 7108 0.27 7,921 4.663% 2034 0.328 1000 5 0 0 10,550 10,550 719 0 0 719 0 0.056 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 2036 0.348 1000 5 0 0 10,450 10,450 0 0 712 0 0.056 8,029 4,784 4,892 12,813 2034 2.11 712 2.11 215.64 215.64 0.27 7108 0.27 7,921 4.663% 2038 0.369 1000 5 0 0 10,400 10,400 709 0 0 709 0 0.055 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 2040 0.391 1000 5 0 0 10,350 10,350 0 0 705 0 0.055 8,029 4,784 4,892 12,813 2036 2.09 705 2.09 211.58 211.58 0.27 7108 0.27 7,921 4.663% 2042 0.415 1000 5 0 0 10,300 10,300 702 0 0 702 0 0.055 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 12,813 63% 2044 0.44 1000 5 0 0 10,250 10,250 698 0 0 698 0 0.055 8,029 4,784 4,892 2038 2.08 695 2.08 208.01 208.01 0.27 7108 0.27 7,921 4.663% 2046 0.467 1000 5 0 0 10,200 10,200 0 0 695 0 0.054 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 2048 0.496 1000 5 0 0 10,100 10,100 0 0 688 0 0.054 8,029 4,784 4,892 12,813 2040 2.07 688 2.07 204.68 204.68 0.27 7108 0.27 7,921 4.663% 2050 0.526 1000 5 0 0 10,100 10,100 688 0 0 688 0 0.054 8,029 4,784 4,892 7108 12,813 7,921 63% 2042 2.06 2.06 201.1 201.1 0.26 0.26 4.6 2044 2.05 2.05 197.64 197.64 0.26 0.26 4.6 2046 2.04 2.04 194.28 194.28 0.26 0.26 4.6 2048 2.02 2.02 191.04 191.04 0.26 0.26 4.6 2050 2.02 2.02 187.89 187.89 0.26 0.26 4.6

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 65

ENDNOTES

ENDNOTES 1

Stephen Lacey, “The Top Cleantech Buzzwords and Phrases From 2014,” Greentech Media, December 17, 2014, accessed April 2, 2015, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/10buzzwords-from-2014.

2

Mark W. Chupka et al., Transforming America’s Power Industry: The Investment Challenge 2010-2030, (The Edison Foundation, 2008), http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/Documents/ Transforming_Americas_Power_Industry_Exec_ Summary.pdf.

3

Andrew Satchwell, Andrew Mills, and Galen Barbose, Financial Impacts of Net-Metered PV on Utilities and Ratepayers: A Scoping Study of two Prototypical U.S. Utilities, (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2014), http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6913e.pdf.

4

Ken Belson, “Power Grids Iffy, Populous Areas Go for Generators,” New York Times, April 24, 2013, accessed April 2, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/business/ energy-environment/generators-become-must-haveappliances-in-storm-battered-areas.html.

5

Stephan Byrd, et al., Batteries + Distributed Gen. May Be a Negative for Utilities, (Morgan Stanley Research North America, 2014).

8

Stephen Byrd et al., Solar Power & Energy Storage: Policy Factors vs. Improving Economics, (Morgan Stanley Research Global, 2014).

9

Giles Parkinson, “UBS: Time to join the solar, EV, storage revolution,” REneweconomy.com, August 21, 2014, accessed January 22, 2015, http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/ubs-time-to-jointhe-solar-ev-storage-revolution-27742.

10

Sofia Savvantidou et al., Energy Darwinism II: Energy Storage: Game Changer for Utilities, Tech & Commodities, (Citi Research, 2014), https://ir.citi.com/UAXL%2F1gNFctVBgY9Y%2BYI2AVo 44t83FCcT4CS6TgoRho8dlIkm1tZOw==.

11

Galen Barbose, Samantha Weaver, and Naïm Darghouth, Tracking the Sun VII: An Historical Summary of the Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013, (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2014), http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6858e.pdf.

12

Shayle Kann et al., U.S. Solar Market Insight Q3 2014, (GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association, 2014), http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-marketinsight-report-2014-q3.

13 6

Rob Wile, “GOLDMAN: Solar Is On The Way To Dominating The Electricity Market, And The World Has Elon Musk To Thank,” Business Insider, March, 18, 2014, accessed January 22, 2015, http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-on-solarand-elon-musk-2014-3.

Stephen Byrd et al., Solar Power & Energy Storage: Policy Factors vs. Improving Economics, (Morgan Stanley Research Global, 2014), p. 6.

7

15

Michael Aneiro, “Barclays Downgrades Electric Utility Bonds, Sees Viable Solar Competition,” Barron’s, May 23, 2014, accessed January 22, 2015, http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2014/05/23/ barclays-downgrades-electric-utility-bonds-seesviable-solar-competition/.

14

Adam, Stephanie, “H2 2014 Electric Vehicle Battery Price Index,” Bloomberg New Energy Finance, August 4, 2014, accessed January 14, 2015.

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

J., Chase, “Global PV Demand, 2006-2013 and Forecast,” Bloomberg New Energy Finance, November 4, 2014, accessed January 16, 2015.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 67

ENDNOTES

16

Ravi Manghani, The Future of Solar-plus-Storage in the U.S., (GTM Research, 2014), http://www.greentechmedia.com/research/report/ussolar-plus-storage.

17

“Electric Drive Sales Dashboard,” Electric Drive Transportation Association, accessed April 2, 2015, http://electricdrive.org/ht/d/sp/i/20952/pid/20952.

23

Tino Andresen and Angela Cullen, “German Utility RWE Won’t Rule Out EON-Style Split, CFO Says,” Bloomberg Business, January 19, 2015, accessed April 2, 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-19/ german-utility-rwe-hasn-t-ruled-out-eon-style-splitcfo-says.

24

18

Mario R. Durán Ortiz,. “U.S. Cumulative Sales Of Plug-In Electric Vehicles,” Wikimedia Commons, October 4, 2014, accessed January 29, 2015, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_PEV_ Sales_2010_2013.png.

Katherine Tweed, “Con Ed Looks to Batteries, Microgrids and Efficiency to Delay $1B Substation Build,” GreenTech Media, July 17, 2014, accessed April 2, 2015, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/con-edlooks-to-batteries-microgrids-and-efficiency-to-delay1b-substation.

19

James Tong, Acquiring More Residential Customers for Less, (Clean Power Finance, 2014), http://www.solarworld-usa.com/~/media/www/files/ summit-presentations-2014/cpf-customer-acquisition.pdf.

20

Andrew Satchwell, Andrew Mills, and Galen Barbose, Financial Impacts of Net-Metered PV on Utilities and Ratepayers: A Scoping Study of two Prototypical U.S. Utilities, (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2014), http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/pv-business-models09rev.pdf.

25

Mike Munsell, “4 Trends Shaping the US Solar-PlusStorage Market,” GreenTech Media, November 4, 2014, accessed November 6, 2014, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/fourtrends-shaping-the-u.s.-solar-plus-storage-market.

26

Garrett Fitzgerald and Jesse Morris, Battery Balance of System Charrette: Post-charrette Report, (Rocky Mountain Institute, 2015), http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/ Library/2015-01_RMIBatterBoS+Charrette+Report20150204-Final.

21

“How To Lose Half A Trillion Euros,” The Economist, October 12, 2013, accessed April 2, 2015, http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587782europes-electricity-providers-face-existential-threathow-lose-half-trillion-euros.

27

“The Open PV Project,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, accessed April 2, 2015, https://openpv.nrel.gov/rankings.

28

22

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Christoph Steitz, “German Utility E.ON to Split to Focus on Renewables, Grids,” Reuters, December 1, 2014, accessed April 2, 2015, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/01/us-e-ondivestiture-idUSKCN0JE0WJ20141201.

Eric Wesofff, “SolarCity CEO: ‘Now’s the Time to Capture the Market and Grow as Fast as We Can’,” Greentech Media, August 7, 2014, accessed September 23, 2014, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ SolarCity-CEO-Nows-The-Time-to-Capture-theMarket-and-Grow-as-Fast-as-We.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 68

ENDNOTES

29

Shayle Kann et al., U.S. Solar Market Insight Q3 2014, (GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association, 2014), http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-marketinsight-report-2014-q3.

37

Nicholas Chase, Annual Energy Outlook 2014: transportation modeling updates and preliminary results (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2013).

38

Shu Sun, “Lithium-Ion Battery Cost Forecast,” Bloomberg New Energy Finance. July 3, 2013.

30

Stephen Byrd et al., Solar Power & Energy Storage: Policy Factors vs. Improving Economics, (Morgan Stanley Research Global, 2014), p. 38.

31

Galen Barbose, Samantha Weaver, and Naïm Darghouth, Tracking the Sun VII: An Historical Summary of the Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013, (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2014), http://emp.lbl.gov/publications/tracking-sun-viihistorical-summary-installed-price-photovoltaicsunited-states-1998-20.

32

“Transparent Cost Database,” U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, http://en.openei.org/wiki/Transparent_Cost_Database.

39

“The Lithium Ion Inflection Point: Advanced Batteries and the Coming Boom in the Global Li-ion Market,” Navigant Research, November 5, 2013, http://www.navigantresearch.com/webinar/the-lithiumion-inflection-point.

40

Logan Goldie-Scot, “2013 Advanced Energy Storage Cost Outlook,” Bloomberg New Energy Finance, November 15, 2013.

41

Kristen Ardani, et al., Non-Hardware (“Soft”) CostReduction Roadmap for Residential and Small Commercial Solar Photovoltaics, 2013–2020, (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2013), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/59155.pdf.

42

33

Jenny Chase et al., Q2 2013 PV Market Outlook, (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2013).

34

“Renewable Energy Cost Database.” Environmental Protection Agency, last modified October 26, 2012, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/ renewabledatabase.html.

35

Black & Veatch Corporation, Cost and Performance Data for Power Generation Technologies, (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012), http://bv.com/docs/reports-studies/nrel-cost-report. pdf.

Simon Evans, “Electric Vehicle Batteries ‘Already Cheaper Than 2020 Projections’,” The Carbon Brief, March 23, 2015, http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/electricvehicle-batteries-already-cheaper-than-2020projections/.

43

Mark W. Chupka et al., Transforming America’s Power Industry: The Investment Challenge 2010-2030, (The Edison Foundation, 2008), http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/Documents/ Transforming_Americas_Power_Industry_Exec_ Summary.pdf 44

36

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

Andreas Dinger et al., Batteries for Electric Cars: Challenges, Opportunities, and the Outlook to 2020” (Boston Consulting Group, 2010), https://www.bcg.com/documents/file36615.pdf.

Tyler Hodge, “Residential electricity prices are rising,” Today in Energy, September 2, 2014, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=17791.

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 69

ENDNOTES

45

Sam Evans-Brown, “New England Electricity Prices Spike As Gas Pipelines Lag,” NPR.org, November 05, 2014, http://www.npr.org/2014/11/05/361420484/newengland-electricity-prices-spike-as-gas-pipelines-lag.

46

“Genability Rates Database,” Genability, Inc., 2015, http://genability.com

47

Mark W. Chupka et al., Transforming America’s Power Industry: The Investment Challenge 2010-2030, (The Edison Foundation, 2008), http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/Documents/ Transforming_Americas_Power_Industry_Exec_ Summary.pdf 48

Petter Sandoy et al., The Role of Distribution System Operators (DSOs) as Information Hubs, (EURELECTRIC, 2010), http://www.eurelectric.org/media/44143/role_of_ dsos_as_information_hubs_final_draft_10-06-102010-200-0001-01-e.pdf 49

“REV: Reforming the Energy Vision: Case 14-M-0101: Proceeding on Motion of the Commission in Regard to Reforming the Energy Vision,” New York State Public Service Commission, http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/a8333dcc1f 8dfec0852579bf005600b1/26be8a93967e6047852 57cc40066b91a/$FILE/REV%20factsheet%208%20 20%2014%20%282%29.pdf 50

MOUN KY

IN

IN TA

ROC

The GridWise Architecture Council, Transactive Energy Framework Version 1.0, (U.S. Department of Energy GridWise Architecture Council, 2015), http://www.gridwiseac.org/pdfs/te_framework_ report_pnnl-22946.pdf

STIT UTE

THE ECONOMICS OF LOAD DEFECTION | 70

Pi-Lens/Shutterstock.com