I suppose, then, that it's back to the beginning again. I strongly urge anyone still reading to review the thread.
After reading the wrong document (post 8) you clearly stated that the CPUC was making the "same mistake" that the uninformed "technical" journalist had made (post 15). You tried to backtrack with a qualifier, but you are clearly stating that the CPUC document is wrong and, by implication, that the people who wrote it are less informed than you.
Perhaps you should worry less about tossing snark at other DUers and more about simply reading with comprehension and accuracy, for the CPUC docs are actually very clear when they define that in this document, "MW represents the peak power capacity of the storage resource in terms of the maximum discharge rate". (pg 1, APPENDIX A)
Appendix A, btw, is the document actually being adopted.
The CPUC is issuing a policy that "prescribes" the purchase of a certain amount of storage. For their purposes it isn't necessary to define that storage in terms of amount delivered over time. I explained why in post 10, but you chose to call that "techno-garfel" rather than consider that you were off-target.
I then gave examples to demonstrate why the time element of the storage to be purchased isn't predictable enough for a prescriptive approach to be used at this stage. One important goal of the policy is "cost effectiveness". There would be severe negative impacts to that if they tried to determine in advance the hours of storage involved in all of the different applications.
I see from your continued nervous snark that you understand specifying the time dimension would be a ridiculous approach to pursue but that is what your criticism is about - they chose to use the faceplate peak power capacity of the resources being purchased rather than get into the depth of delivery that might suit each of those resources best.
= new reply since forum marked as read
