Search

• Backup capability of solar and storage differs by region in the U.S. • Small batteries can meet a limited set of critical loads in most counties. • Electric cooling and heating loads are typically hardest loads to backup. • Household building attributes like efficiency can impact results up to 20% • Resiliency value needs to be high to motivate adoption of solar-plus-storage. Customer concerns over electric system resilience could drive early adoption of behind-the-meter solar-plus-storage (BTM PVESS), especially as wildfire, hurricane, and other climate-driven risks to electric grids become more pronounced. However, the resilience benefits of BTM PVESS are poorly understood, especially for residential customers, owing to lack of data and methodological challenges, making it difficult to forecast adoption trends. In this paper, we develop a methodology to model the performance of BTM PVESS in providing backup power across a wide range of customer types, geography / climate conditions, and long duration power interruption scenarios, considering both whole-building backup and backup of specific critical loads. We combine novel, disaggregated end-use load profiles across the continental United States with temporally and geospatially aligned solar generation estimates. We then implement a PVESS dispatch algorithm to calculate the amount of load served during interruptions. We find that PVESS with 10 kWh of storage can meet a limited set of critical loads in most United States counties during any month of the year, though this capability drops to meeting only 86% of critical load, averaged across all counties and months, when heating and cooling are considered critical. Backup performance is lowest in winter months where electric heat is common (southeast and northwest U.S.) and in summer months in places with large cooling loads (southwest and southeast U.S.). Winter backup performance varies by roughly 20% depending on infiltration rates, while summer performance varies by close to 15% depending on the efficiency of the central air-conditioning system. Differences in temperature set-points in Harris County correspond to a 40% range in winter backup performance and a 20% range in summer performance. Economic calculations show that a customer's resilience value of PVESS must be high to motivate adoption of these systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, buildings account for 35% of total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, making them important contributors to decarbonization. Carbon intensities in the power grid are time-varying and can fluctuate significantly within hours, so shifting building loads in response to the carbon intensities can reduce a building's operational carbon emissions. This paper presents a rule-based carbon responsive control framework that controls the setpoints of thermostatically controlled loads responding to the grid's carbon emission signals in real time. Based on this framework, four controllers are proposed with different combinations of carbon accounting methods and control rules. To evaluate their performance, we performed simulation studies using models of a 27-home, all-electric, net zero energy residential community located in Basalt, Colorado, United States. The carbon intensity data of four future years from the Cambium data set are adopted to account for the evolving resource mix in the power grid. Various performance metrics, including energy consumption, carbon emission, energy cost, and thermal discomfort, were used to evaluate the performance of the controllers. Sensitivity analysis was also conducted to determine how the control thresholds and intervals affect the controllers' performance. Simulation results indicate that the carbon responsive controllers can reduce the homes' annual carbon emissions by 6.0% to 20.5%. However, the energy consumption increased by 0.9% to 6.7%, except in one scenario where it decreased by 2.2%. Compared to the baseline, the change in energy cost was between −2.9% and 3.4%, and thermal discomfort was also maintained within an acceptable range. The little impact on energy cost and thermal discomfort indicates there are no potential roadblocks for customer acceptance when rolling out the controllers in utility programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]