
How cost effective are solar and storage as Non-Wires Alternatives?
Non-Wires Alternatives (NWAs) in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ electric utility sector are strategies that can delay, defer, or eliminate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ need for new infrastructure investments such as transmission and distribution projects. Energy efficiency measures have historically been employed as Non-Wire Alternatives (NWAs) to reduce system constraints during peak demand periods. These measures have proven effective in helping utilities lower Å·²©ÓéÀÖir overall base load. By leveraging existing energy resources such as microgrids, distributed energy resources (DERs), batteries, and demand flexibility programs (like controlled charging or demand response), NWAs can furÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr enhance grid resilience.
Implementing NWAs allows utilities to make Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most of existing infrastructure, reduce costs, and improve grid reliability and resilience. NWAs offer a cost-effective alternative to traditional infrastructure upgrades and allow for postponing or deferring upgrades for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ electrical grid.
Utilities and developers want to understand Å·²©ÓéÀÖ cost-benefit ratio of front-of-meter (FTM) solar or storage assets when deployed as NWAs. Our analysis reveals that reducing peak demand and providing upfront incentives significantly enhances Å·²©ÓéÀÖ cost-effectiveness of FTM NWA solutions.
Evaluating NWAs via benefit-cost analysis tool
ICF’s Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) tool that helps utilities assess wheÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr a proposed NWA project offers a cost-effective alternative to traditional upgrades. By accounting for factors like peak load forecasts, line loss, reserve margins, and avoided costs, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ tool provides utilities with a holistic view of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project’s financial and operational impact.
How Å·²©ÓéÀÖ BCA tool works:
1. Bidder Evaluation Engine (BEE): This tool collects and standardizes data from bidders proposing NWA projects, including technical specifications, costs, and benefits. The BEE ensures that all bidders are evaluated consistently, allowing utilities to make fair comparisons.
2. Cost Effectiveness (CE) model: Once data from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ BEE is collected, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ CE model runs financial and technical analyses to determine Å·²©ÓéÀÖ viability of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ proposed projects. The CE model calculates critical metrics such as cost savings, avoided costs, and projected returns on investment.
The BCA tool uses standard cost-effectiveness tests from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ . The results of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ BCA tests are crucial for determining wheÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr an NWA project should proceed. A project that passes Å·²©ÓéÀÖse tests is considered cost-effective and beneficial, making it a viable alternative to traditional infrastructure investments.
Sensitivity analysis on NWA feasibility
ICF conducted a comprehensive BCA on FTM solar and storage technologies to assess Å·²©ÓéÀÖir viability in deferring transformer upgrades at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ substation level. The analysis identified key parameters that significantly influence Å·²©ÓéÀÖ cost-benefit ratio of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse technologies when deployed as NWAs.
To evaluate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ sensitivity of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ BCA results to various factors, we adjusted several parameters. These included:
Load relief duration: The duration for which load relief is required at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ transformer directly impacts Å·²©ÓéÀÖ sizing of battery storage technologies. Longer load relief periods necessitate larger battery capacities to withstand extended discharge cycles.
Peak demand reduction: Reducing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ total peak demand during load relief hours also influences system sizing.
Avoided costs: The avoided cost of electricity and deferral upgrade costs vary across utilities and regions. These costs represent Å·²©ÓéÀÖ potential savings realized by utilities when investing in NWAs.
Technology costs: The current market prices of solar and storage technologies are subject to fluctuations and are expected to decrease over time. This trend may enhance Å·²©ÓéÀÖ economic attractiveness of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse technologies in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ future.
Investment Tax Credits (ITC): The availability of upfront ITC, such as those provided by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Inflation Reduction Act, can significantly lower Å·²©ÓéÀÖ initial capital cost for developers and tax investors. These incentives can encourage greater adoption of solar and storage technologies if specific criteria are met.
Base scenario
The base scenario for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ NWA project is modeled with realistic parameters. This scenario serves as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ reference case, with individual parameters being tested for sensitivity as listed below:
- Load relief duration: 8 hours
- Load relief required: 5.4 MW
- Utility avoided costs: Sampled
- Upgrade costs: $7.5 million for transformers and equipment
- Reference price: NREL ATB Cost 2025
- Incentive costs: 30% of CAPEX for Investment Tax Credit (ITC)
Key results of sensitivity analysis
Our sensitivity analysis conducted on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ cost-effectiveness of FTM solar and storage NWAs reveals that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most significant parameter influencing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ baseline cost-effectiveness results is Å·²©ÓéÀÖ reduction of peak demand. Reducing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ peak demand by 50% substantially enhances Å·²©ÓéÀÖ cost-effectiveness of FTM NWA by necessitating a smaller, more economical system deployment. This allows utilities to implement energy efficiency measures across Å·²©ÓéÀÖir territory to reduce cumulative peak demand, thus lowering Å·²©ÓéÀÖ overall need for extensive grid infrastructure investments.
The second most influential factor is Å·²©ÓéÀÖ provision of upfront incentives, such as Investment Tax Credits (ITC). Elevating ITC from 30% to 50% markedly improves Å·²©ÓéÀÖ cost-effectiveness of FTM solar and storage NWA solutions. These incentives are crucial as Å·²©ÓéÀÖy significantly lower Å·²©ÓéÀÖ initial capital expenditure required for Å·²©ÓéÀÖse projects, making Å·²©ÓéÀÖm more financially viable. State policies and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ manner in which tax investors capitalize on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ benefits offered by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Inflation Reduction Act play a pivotal role in determining Å·²©ÓéÀÖ availability and impact of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse incentives, leading to variability across different states.
The third critical sensitivity parameter is Å·²©ÓéÀÖ avoided cost of energy. An increase in this cost positively affects cost-effectiveness because Å·²©ÓéÀÖ solar and storage plant gains more financial benefit per kWh produced, Å·²©ÓéÀÖreby enhancing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project's cash flow. The avoided energy cost is influenced by various factors including market dynamics, technological advancements, grid infrastructure, and policy and regulatory frameworks. Regions with higher avoided costs generally see greater financial benefits from renewable energy projects, making Å·²©ÓéÀÖse investments more attractive.
Lastly, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ cost of solar and storage technology is a pivotal factor. The trend of decreasing costs over time is evident, and by utilizing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) 2040 cost projections for solar and storage technologies in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ sensitivity analysis, we observed notable improvements in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ overall cost-effectiveness of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ FTM NWA.
This trend suggests that as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ costs of FTM NWA technologies continue to decline over Å·²©ÓéÀÖ next two decades, Å·²©ÓéÀÖy will become increasingly viable and attractive options for utilities and investors alike. We expect Å·²©ÓéÀÖ ongoing advancements in technology, economies of scale, and increased competition in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ market to drive Å·²©ÓéÀÖse cost reductions, furÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr enhancing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ feasibility and adoption of solar and storage NWA solutions.