Summary:
- According to a recent report by the Brattle Group for New York’s Department of Public Service, electric vehicles (EVs), heating and cooling systems, and other connected energy resources may provide New York with 8.5 gigawatts (GW) of cost-effective grid flexibility by 2040.
- The report predicts that New York could achieve significant grid flexibility if it meets its goal of 100% zero-emissions power generation and electrifies a large portion of its heating systems and vehicles on the road.
- By 2040, it is estimated that grid flexibility may cover around 25% of New York’s expected peak demand that isn’t satisfied by renewable energy sources.
Insights:
The Brattle Group’s prediction of 8.5 GW indicates a significant increase from the current capability of 1.4 GW. This new estimate surpasses others mentioning flexibility potentials between 2.3 GW to 7.8 GW as outlined in recent analyses by various organizations.
This difference in estimates arises mainly because Brattle’s study considers a wider array of technologies and flexibility options, whereas other studies focus solely on certain sources, like EVs and electric heating.
The report underlines that these figures represent potential outcomes rather than definitive forecasts, depending heavily on overcoming existing challenges that limit grid flexibility’s growth.
Ryan Hledik, a partner at Brattle Group, noted that the estimated flexibility relies on how quickly technologies like heat pumps and EVs are adopted. A slower adoption would lead to lower flexibility estimates.
Initial studies hint that heat pumps could significantly enhance grid flexibility, but further trials and deployment will be essential for large-scale success.
While flexibility will be crucial for achieving New York’s clean energy ambitions, the precise mix of energy sources in 2040 could influence the overall cost benefits.
It is expected that by 2040, the annual cost of avoided energy generation will surpass $200 per kilowatt in a fully decarbonized New York grid. Even with fluctuations in capacity costs, the need for grid flexibility remains relevant.
Hledik concluded that regardless of the pace of development, the overall findings of the study are likely to remain valid, albeit with potentially lower savings estimates.
Since flexible resources are at the edges of the grid, they can be beneficial in various ways. If the grid’s resource needs are different than expected, the flexibility could still offer significant distribution-level advantages.