Request for Information: Energy Storage Grand Challenge, 43223-43232 [2020-15301]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 137 (Thursday, July 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43223-43232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15301]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Request for Information: Energy Storage Grand Challenge

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Request for information (RFI).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE or the Department), is 
issuing this Request for Information (RFI) solely for information and 
planning purposes and does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP). 
Information received may be used to assist the DOE in planning the 
scope of future technology studies, deployment, or technology 
commercialization efforts and may be shared with other federal 
agencies. The DOE may also use this RFI to gain public input on its 
efforts, expand and facilitate public access to the DOE's resources, 
and to mobilize investment in U.S. energy storage technologies as well 
as ancillary technologies and efforts that will enable 
commercialization and widespread adoption. The information collected 
may be used for internal DOE planning and decision-making to ensure 
that future activities maximize public benefit while advancing the 
Administration's goals for leading the world in building a competitive, 
clean energy economy; securing America's energy future; reducing carbon 
pollution; and creating domestic jobs.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested on or before 
August 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted electronically to 
[email protected]. Responses must be provided as a Microsoft Word 
(.doc) or (.docx) attachment to the email with no more than 10 pages in 
length for each section listed in the RFI. Only electronic responses 
will be accepted.
    Response Guidance: Please identify your answers by responding to a 
specific question or topic if possible. Respondents may answer as many 
or as few questions as they wish.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information 
may be submitted electronically to Rima Oueid at [email protected] 
at (202) 586-5000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In September 2018, Congress passed the Department of Energy 
Research and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 115-242) No. 114-246, codifying 
the efforts of the DOE's Research and Technology and Investment 
Committee (RTIC). The Energy Storage Subcommittee of the RTIC is co-
chaired by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and 
Office of Electricity and includes the Office of Science, Office of 
Fossil Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Office of Technology 
Transitions (OTT), ARPA-E, Office of Strategic Planning and Policy, the 
Loan Programs Office, and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
    In January of 2020, the DOE announced the Energy Storage Grand 
Challenge (ESGC), a comprehensive program to accelerate the 
development, commercialization, and utilization of next-generation 
energy storage technologies and sustain American global leadership in 
energy storage. The ESGC builds on the $158 million Advanced Energy 
Storage Initiative announced in President Trump's Fiscal Year 2020 
budget request.
    The vision for the ESGC is to create and sustain global leadership 
in energy storage utilization and exports with a secure domestic 
manufacturing supply chain that is independent of foreign sources of 
critical materials by 2030. While research and development (R&D) is the 
foundation of advancing energy storage technologies, the DOE recognizes 
that global leadership also requires addressing associated challenges 
that lead to commercialization and widespread adoption of energy 
storage technologies.
    The ESGC is a cross-cutting effort managed by RTIC. The DOE 
established the RTIC in 2019 to convene the key elements of the DOE 
that support R&D activities, coordinate their strategic research 
priorities, identify potential cross-cutting opportunities in both 
basic and applied science and technology, and accelerate 
commercialization.
    Using a coordinated suite of R&D funding opportunities, prizes, 
partnerships, and other programs, the ESGC established the following 
five cross-cutting tracks: (i) Technology R&D, (ii) Manufacturing and 
Supply Chain, (iii) Technology Transitions, (iv) Policy and Valuation, 
and (v) Workforce. These five cross-cutting tracks have developed a 
draft Roadmap that will be updated based on feedback from this RFI as 
well as other ongoing DOE efforts, such as workshops, webinars, and 
other engagements with stakeholders. The roadmap identifies six use 
cases as neutral guideposts to provide a framework for the ESGC. These 
use cases include (i) facilitating an evolving grid, (ii) serving 
remote communities, (iii) electrified mobility, (iv) interdependent 
network infrastructure, (v) critical services, and (vi) facility 
flexibility, efficiency and value enhancement. More information on the 
use cases and the draft Roadmap can be found here https://www.energy.gov/energy-storage-grand-challenge/downloads/energy-storage-grand-challenge-roadmap.
    Each track has developed a set of RFI questions related to their 
respective areas and target audience. This RFI is divided into five 
sections that represent each track as follows:
    The purpose of the Technology Development Track covered in Section 
1 is to develop and implement an R&D ecosystem that strengthens and 
maintains U.S. leadership in energy storage innovation. To help realize 
the vision of U.S. energy storage leadership, the Technology 
Development Track will establish user-centric use cases and technology 
pathways to guide near-term acceleration and long-term leadership in 
energy storage technologies. A set of future energy storage use cases, 
enabled by aggressive cost reductions and performance improvements, 
will help guide R&D objectives across a diversity of storage and 
enabling technologies. A full description of the use case framework is 
discussed in the draft Roadmap. After identifying a portfolio of 
technologies that have the potential to achieve major functional 
improvements, ensuring long-term leadership includes augmenting the R&D 
ecosystem to enable constant innovation. The ecosystem includes 
partnerships, consortia, infrastructure, and other long-term resources 
that accelerate the journey from concept to commercialization.
    The purpose of the Manufacturing and Supply Chain Track covered in 
Section 2 is to strengthen U.S. leadership in energy storage through 
strengthening the manufacturing supply chains that produce state-of-
the-art and emerging energy storage technologies, including supporting 
technologies that

[[Page 43224]]

enable seamless integration into larger systems and the grid. 
Strengthening U.S. manufacturing of energy storage technologies occurs 
through commercializing and scaling innovations that make domestic 
manufacturers more competitive. Increasing U.S. manufacturing 
competitiveness can come through multiple ways, including directly 
lowering the cost of manufacturing, lowering the lifecycle cost of 
technologies through improved performance and/or longer service 
lifetimes, diversifying sources for critical materials--particularly 
increasing domestic sources--and through accelerating the process in 
which new materials or components are integrated into systems and 
reliably produced at commercial scales to meet rapid deployment/demand.
    The purpose of the Technology Transitions Track discussed in 
Section 3 is to support the ESGC and strengthen U.S. leadership in 
energy storage by accelerating commercialization and deployment of 
energy storage innovations through validation, financing, and 
collaboration. This Track focuses on potentially bankable business 
models that build off of the Technology R&D use cases, and may also 
consider other use cases that are ready for commercialization and could 
support widespread adoption of storage. These include behind the meter 
and utility-scale storage, as well as stationary and mobile storage. 
The approach will concentrate on addressing barriers to bankability and 
attracting private investment. Where appropriate, lessons learned will 
be leveraged from previous work on standardization of solar contracts 
and capital market access for renewables. For example, minimizing 
perceived risk, such as uncertain technology performance through 
formalized data sharing, can lower risk premiums, improve warranties, 
and spur new insurance products that may attract more cost effective 
investment. Policies, incentives, and analysis tools that support 
bankability will also be considered.
    This track has identified a potential need for proactive market 
validation, demonstration, standards, and dissemination of information 
to give market participants confidence in energy storage assets, thus 
reducing project risk, lowering project costs, increasing investment, 
and accelerating market demand.
    The purpose of the Policy and Valuation (P&V) Track discussed in 
Section 4 is to provide information and analysis to appropriately value 
energy storage in the power, transportation, buildings, and industrial 
sectors. The P&V track will develop a coordinated, DOE-wide program 
that leverages the expertise and capabilities of the national 
laboratories to provide stakeholders with cutting-edge data, tools, and 
analysis to enhance their policy, regulatory, and technical decisions. 
Stakeholder engagement will be systematic and recurring to guarantee 
the DOE provides tailored solutions for high priority needs. Providing 
stakeholders with the necessary information and capabilities to make 
informed decisions will help ensure that storage is properly valued, 
effectively sited, optimally operated, and cost-effectively used to 
improve grid and end-user reliability and resilience.
    The purpose of the Workforce Development Track covered in Section 5 
is to focus the DOE's technical education and workforce development 
programs to train and educate the workforce, who can then research, 
develop, design, manufacture, and operate energy storage systems widely 
within U.S. industry. The lack of trained workers has been identified 
as a concern for growth of the U.S. industrial base, including many 
areas of energy storage. To have world-leading programs in energy 
storage, a pipeline of trained research and development staff, as well 
as workers, is needed. For workforce development in energy storage, the 
DOE will support opportunities to develop the broad workforce required 
for research, development, design, manufacture and operation. The DOE 
can play a critical role in facilitating the development of a workforce 
that is necessary to carry out the DOE's specialized mission. Energy 
storage is a highly specialized area of work and yet not a focus of 2 
or 4 year college curricula. Therefore, it is appropriate that the DOE 
take the lead in strengthening a pipeline of qualified individuals who 
can fulfill employment needs at all stages of energy storage 
development, production and deployment.
    Purpose: The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from 
interested individuals and entities, such as, industry, academia, 
research laboratories, government agencies, and other stakeholders to 
assist the ESGC with identifying market opportunities and challenges--
both technical and financial--for the development, commercialization, 
production, and deployment of energy storage technologies. This is 
solely a request for information. In issuing this RFI, the DOE is not 
seeking to obtain or utilize consensus advice and/or recommendations. 
The DOE is not accepting applications at this time as part of the ESGC.
    Disclaimer and Important Notes: This RFI is not a Funding 
Opportunity Announcement (FOA) or RFP for a procurement contract; 
therefore, the ESGC is not accepting applications or proposals at this 
time. The ESGC may develop programs in the future and solicit contracts 
based on or related to the content and responses to this RFI. However, 
the DOE may also elect not to incorporate responses into its programs 
and tool designs. There is no guarantee that an RFP or FOA will be 
issued as a result of this RFI. Responding to this RFI does not provide 
any advantage or disadvantage to potential applicants if the DOE 
chooses to issue a FOA or solicit a contract related to the subject 
matter.
    Any information obtained through this RFI is intended to be used by 
the government on a non-attribution basis for planning and strategy 
development, and/or for information purposes. The DOE will review and 
consider all responses as it formulates program strategies related to 
the subjects within this request. In accordance with Federal 
Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR 15.201(e), responses to this notice are 
not offers and cannot be accepted by the government to form a binding 
contract. The DOE will not provide reimbursement for costs incurred in 
responding to this RFI. Respondents are advised that the DOE is under 
no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information received or 
provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information 
submitted. Responses to this RFI do not bind the DOE to any further 
actions related to this topic.
    The DOE will not respond to individual submissions or publish a 
public compendium of responses. A response to this RFI will not be 
viewed as a binding commitment to develop or pursue the project or 
ideas discussed. However, responses will be used to assist the DOE with 
identifying market opportunities and challenges for the 
commercialization and deployment of energy storage technologies.
    Respondents are requested to provide the following information at 
the start of their response to this RFI:
     Company/institution name;
     Company/institution contact;
     Contact's address, phone number, and email address.
    Proprietary Information: Because information received in response 
to this RFI may be used to structure future programs and/or otherwise 
be made available to the public, respondents should clearly mark any 
information in

[[Page 43225]]

the response to this RFI that might be considered proprietary or 
confidential. Information labeled proprietary or confidential will not 
be released by the DOE, but may be used to inform the DOE's planning. 
Responses must be submitted with the understanding that their contents 
may be publicly disclosed unless properly labeled as proprietary or 
confidential. In the event of a public disclosure, the DOE will NOT 
notify respondents or provide any opportunity to revise or redact 
submitted information. Public disclosures by the DOE will not attribute 
content to a specific respondent.
    Marketing Information: Any submissions that could be considered 
advertising or marketing for a specific product will be excluded.
    Review by Federal and Non-Federal Personnel: Federal employees are 
subject to the non-disclosure requirements of a criminal statute, the 
Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905. The government may seek the advice 
of qualified non-federal personnel. The government may also use non-
federal personnel to conduct routine, non-discretionary administrative 
activities. The respondents, by submitting their response(s), consent 
to the DOE providing their response(s) to non-federal parties. Non-
federal parties given access to responses must be subject to an 
appropriate obligation of confidentiality prior to being given the 
access. Submissions may be reviewed by support contractors and private 
consultants.

Section 1 Technology Development

Background/Context

    To develop and maintain a guiding R&D framework for all storage 
technologies, the Technology Development Track is arranged around three 
main activities:
    1. Develop stakeholder-informed use cases that identify and update 
technology-neutral performance and cost targets through 2030 and 
beyond.
    2. Identify a portfolio of energy storage technologies that have a 
R&D pathway to achieve significant progress towards these cost targets 
by 2030.
    3. Bolster all stages (from fundamental research to pre-commercial 
demonstrations) of the U.S. innovation ecosystem (including national 
labs, universities, startups) for these pathways through funding and 
support mechanisms appropriate to each stage.
    Details of each activity are provided in the draft Roadmap. 
Stakeholders are invited to provide feedback on the draft Roadmap by 
addressing the questions below.

Information Requested

    The following questions may guide, but should not restrict, 
responses:

D.1 Use Cases
    D1.1 Scope
    D.1.1.1 What are long term individual/business/local/state/
regional energy and infrastructure goals with a major energy 
component?
    D.1.1.2 What are the major technology barriers to achieving 
these goals?
    D.1.1.3 Do any of these objectives or barriers align with the 
proposed DOE Use Cases?
    D.1.1.3.1 How might the DOE modify or add to the use cases to 
better support achievement of these goals?
    D.1.1.4 What kinds of ``boundary conditions'' for today's 
electric power system could increase in prominence by 2030?
    D.1.1.5 What are other important storage uses or applications 
are not included in the use cases?
    D1.2 Process and Evolution
    D.1.2.1 What is an appropriate update frequency for the use 
cases, their functional requirements, and associated cost and 
performance targets?
    D1.3 Cost, Value, and Market Sizing
    D.1.3.1 If storage is not available, what other solutions or 
workarounds would be used to meet a use case? What are the costs of 
these alternatives?
    D.1.3.2 Given today's market value and technology costs, what is 
the likely addressable market size for each use case?
    D.1.3.3 How does the size of the addressable market change over 
time, with decreasing technology costs, changing conditions, or 
other factors?
    D.1.3.4
    D1.4 Specific Use Cases
    D.1.4.1 Facilitating an Evolving Grid
    D.1.4.1.1 What kinds of emerging individual/business/local/
state/regional goals could be supported by this use case?
    D.1.4.1.2 What performance requirements for storage would be 
required to achieve these goals?
    D.1.4.1.3 How might the DOE modify or add to this case to better 
support achievement of these goals?
    D.1.4.2 Serving Remote Communities
    D.1.4.2.1 What kinds of emerging individual/business/local/
state/regional goals could be supported by this use case?
    D.1.4.2.2 What performance requirements for storage would be 
required to achieve these goals?
    D.1.4.2.3 How might the DOE modify or add to this case to better 
support achievement of these goals?
    D.1.4.3 Electrified Mobility
    D.1.4.3.1 What kinds of emerging individual/business/local/
state/regional goals could be supported by this use case?
    D.1.4.3.2 What performance requirements for storage would be 
required to achieve these goals?
    D.1.4.3.3 How might the DOE modify or add to this case to better 
support achievement of these goals?
    D.1.4.4 Interdependent Network Infrastructure
    D.1.4.4.1 What kinds of emerging individual/business/local/
state/regional goals could be supported by this use case?
    D.1.4.4.2 What performance requirements for storage would be 
required to achieve these goals?
    D.1.4.4.3 How might DOE modify or add to this case to better 
support achievement of these goals?
    D.1.4.5 Critical Service Resilience
    D.1.4.5.1 What kinds of emerging individual/business/local/
state/regional goals could be supported by this use case?
    D.1.4.5.2 What performance requirements for storage would be 
required to achieve these goals?
    D.1.4.5.3 How might DOE modify or add to this case to better 
support achievement of these goals?
    D.1.4.6 Facility Flexibility
    D.1.4.6.1 What kinds of emerging individual/business/local/
state/regional goals could be supported by this use case?
    D.1.4.6.2 What performance requirements for storage would be 
required to achieve these goals?
    D.1.4.6.3 How might DOE modify or add to this case to better 
support achievement of these goals?
    D.1.4.6.4 Are energy storage systems relevant for improving 
industrial facility operations?
    D.1.4.6.5 If so, what measurable improvements are expected?
    D.1.4.6.6 What are optimal storage time durations for adopting 
facility-based storage?
    D.1.4.6.7 If a facility were to use its operational flexibility 
as a form of virtual energy storage, how much potential ``virtual 
storage'' capabilities are currently available across facility 
processes and immediate operational?
    D.1.4.6.7.1 What are the opportunities for facility flexibility 
to provide or enable energy storage? For example: Operational 
changes process delay/sequencing, Material flows (from input to 
output)
    D.1.4.6.8 What are the risks and limitation to the facility that 
limits a facility's adoption of energy storage?
    D.1.4.6.9 What would it take to retool process equipment and/or 
core-processes to enable greater flexibility (with an energy 
impact)?
    D.1.4.6.10 What technologies/strategies would be needed to make 
a particular manufacturing process more flexible in terms of 
production rate or saving energy or being able to produce a variety 
of products in rapid response to market forces?
    D.1.4.6.10.1 Could the storage of energy or materials contribute 
to increased flexibility, and in what way?
D.2 Technology Portfolios
    D2.1 Functionality

[[Page 43226]]

    D.2.1.1 What are the unique performance, maintenance, 
environmental, safety, or other requirements of a specific use case?
    D2.2 Metrics
    D.2.2.1 How can the Levelized Cost of Storage metric be further 
refined to compare costs across technologies?
    D.2.2.2 What other metrics would assist measuring technology 
advancement, cost, and value to the end user?
D.3 Technology Pathways
    D3.1 The ESGC road map appendix identifies current R&D DOE 
activities on a variety of storage technologies. What additional 
technologies and R&D pathways have the potential to meet the use 
case requirements?
    D3.2 For a given technology (e.g., flow batteries, thermal 
storage, compressed air, balance of system/power conversion 
technologies etc.):
    D.3.2.1 What are the major challenges to commercial viability?
    D.3.2.2 What additional testing capacity or capabilities would 
help accelerate technology development?
    D.3.2.3 What types of validation are required? See Appendix 2 in 
the Roadmap for criteria.
    D.3.2.4 At what point does a new technology sufficiently diverge 
from existing technologies as to require validation through in-field 
demonstration? For a given technology pathway, what is the likely 
scale of a field demonstration? What are the limits of validation 
through simulation or extrapolation?
    D.3.2.5 What is the scale (financial, energy/power capacity) 
required for the validation efforts above?
    D.3.2.6 What is the half-life of a technology's competitive 
advantage? How often would to the new technology require more lab 
work and have to be jump-started?
    D3.3 How does a technology and a vendor become ready to bid on 
commercial opportunities?

Section 2 Domestic Manufacturing

Background/Context

    The DOE can play a critical role in accelerating the progress of 
emerging technologies through the development and deployment, bridging 
the many gaps in support that may arise from discovery to 
manufacturing, so innovations important to sustained competitiveness 
make it into the market. These activities advance development of 
materials and components that are applicable across multiple energy 
storage technologies and applications, advance platform technologies 
that enable the manufacturing of energy storage systems, establish 
partnerships to promote technology innovation, and transfer knowledge 
through dissemination of tools and training. The manufacturing and 
supply chain pillar of the ESGC aims to develop technologies, 
processes, and strategies for U.S. manufacturing that support and 
strengthen U.S. leadership in energy storage innovation and continued 
at-scale manufacturing of energy storage materials, components, and 
systems.
    Different energy storage technologies face different sets of 
challenges to improving their manufacturability and strengthening their 
supply chains. Different uses will require different technologies, and 
the manufacturing & supply chain track will examine the manufacturing 
issues related to all of them. For each question in this section, 
please specify which of the energy storage technology class or 
classes--described in the ESGC Roadmap--the answers are addressing.

Information Requested

    The following questions may guide, but should not restrict, 
responses:

M.1 Manufacturing Innovations for Materials & Components Questions
    M.1.1 What materials or components represent the largest 
barriers to directly lowering the cost of production for total 
energy storage system?
    M.1.1.1 What are their current manufacturing costs and/or 
throughput rates (units/day)?
    M.1.1.2 What aspects of material or component sourcing or 
manufacturing are the cause of this (these) barrier(s)?
    M.1.2 What existing manufacturing innovations for specific 
components or materials could have the largest impact on directly 
lowering the system production cost, if implemented?
    M.1.2.1 What is the impact that their implementation would have?
    M.1.3 Are there any new or emerging materials and/or components 
that could have major impacts on directly lowering the production 
cost of energy storage systems?
    M.1.3.1 What are the likely impacts if these materials and/or 
components were to be integrated into existing state-of-the-art 
systems?
    M.1.3.2 What are the most significant barriers to manufacturing 
at scale and integrating these materials and/or components into 
energy storage systems?
    M.1.3.3 Using existing knowledge about current barriers and the 
resources and time likely required to overcome them, which new or 
emerging materials and/or component should be rated as being readily 
commercialized.
    M.1.3.3.1 in the near-term (<2 years)
    M.1.3.3.2 in the mid-term (2 years-6 years)
    M.1.3.3.3 in the long-term (>6 years)
    M.1.4 Which materials or components represent the largest 
barriers to lowering the total lifecycle cost for the energy storage 
system? Please specify if these are barriers to performance 
improvement, lifetime extension, or both.
    M.1.4.1 If possible, please provide current baseline performance 
data and/or expected service lifetimes.
    M.1.4.2 What about their design or manufacturing is the cause of 
this (these) barrier(s)?
    M.1.5 Which existing manufacturing innovations for specific 
components or materials could have the largest impact on lowering 
the total system lifecycle cost, if implemented?
    M.1.5.1 What impact would their implementation have? Please 
specify if this would be through performance improvement, through 
lifetime extension, or both.
    M.1.6 Are there any new or emerging materials and/or components 
that could have major impacts on lowering the total system lifecycle 
cost?
    M.1.6.1 What are the likely impacts if these materials and/or 
components were to be integrated into existing state-of-the-art 
systems? Please specify if impacts would be on performance 
improvement, lifetime extension, or both.
    M.1.6.2 What are the most significant barriers to manufacturing 
at scale and integrating these materials and/or components into 
energy storage systems?
    M.1.6.3 Using existing knowledge about current barriers and the 
resources and time likely required to overcome them, which materials 
and/or components should be rated as being readily commercialized.
    M.1.6.3.1 in the near-term (<2 years)
    M.1.6.3.2 in the mid-term (2 years-6 years)
    M.1.6.3.3 In the long-term (>6 years)
M.2 System-Level Innovations
    M.2.1 Outside of the material and component specific innovations 
covered in the previous category, are there any aspects of the 
system-level design, manufacturing, validation, and integration 
process that are major barriers to directly lowering the energy 
storage system cost?
    M.2.1.1 If these barriers were eliminated, was is the estimated 
impact that would have?
    M.2.2 Are there any new or emerging innovations in designing, 
manufacturing, or integrating energy storage systems--outside of 
individual materials and/or components--that could have major direct 
impacts on lowering the energy storage system cost?
    M.2.2.1 What are the likely impacts of implementing/adopting 
these innovations?
    M.2.2.2 What are the most significant barriers to implementing/
adopting these innovations?
    M.2.3 Outside of the material and component specific innovations 
covered in the previous category, are there any aspects of the 
system-level design, manufacturing, validation, and integration 
process that are major barriers to lowering the total lifecycle cost 
of the system?
    M.2.3.1 If these barriers were eliminated, what is the estimated 
impact that would have? Please specify if the impact would be on 
performance, lifetime extension, another as-yet unspecified impact 
on lifecycle cost, or multiple impacts.

[[Page 43227]]

    M.2.4 Are there any new or emerging innovations in designing, 
manufacturing, or integrating energy storage systems--outside of 
individual materials and/or components--that could have major 
impacts on lowering the total lifecycle cost of the system?
    M.2.4.1 What are the likely impacts of implementing/adopting 
these innovations? Please specify if the impact would be on 
performance, lifetime extension, another as-yet unspecified impact 
on lifecycle cost, or multiple impacts.
    M.2.4.2 What are the most significant barriers to implementing/
adopting these innovations?
    M.2.5 Are there any other innovations that would improve and/or 
accelerate the overall process of iterating and validating improved 
energy storage systems that have not yet been covered in this 
section?
M.3 Supply Chain Resilience
    M.3.1 Does the manufacturing supply chain for the energy storage 
system have a strong, reliable, sustainable, U.S. presence?
    M.3.1.1 If not, which sections of the supply chain have the 
weakest, or no U.S. presence?
    M.3.2 What are the most pressing challenges to creating and/or 
growing a reliable U.S. presence in these supply chains?
    M.3.3 Are U.S. storage manufacturing supply chains vulnerable to 
supply disruption of specific materials or components?
    M.3.3.1 If so, which supply chains and which materials and 
components?
    M.3.4 What R&D would help make material and component supply 
chains more resilient and robust?
M.4 Crosscutting Innovations
    M.4.1 Which manufacturing methods would provide the greatest 
impact for energy storage technology?

Section 3 Technology Transitions

T.1 Stationary Grid Storage Business Model Questions

Background/Context

    Stationary grid storage business model questions are meant to 
elicit ideas that consider a holistic approach to market access. For 
this section, stationary grid storage includes systems that can satisfy 
the functional requirements in the use cases: Facilitating an Evolving 
Grid, Resilience and Recovery, Interdependent Network Infrastructure, 
and Facility Flexibility. These systems can be connected at either the 
transmission level or the distribution level. For each question, please 
specify whether the answer applies to transmission level, distribution 
level, or both. Also, consider how responses may differ if the storage 
asset owner or provider is a utility, commercial and industrial entity 
(C&I), or residential entity. Please differentiate between commercial 
and industrial where appropriate. Although we encourage respondents to 
answer all questions, partial responses are welcome.

Information Requested

    The following questions may guide, but should not restrict, 
responses:

    T.1.1 Should and/or could stationary grid storage provide 
ancillary services or demand response to the power grid using any of 
these ownership/delivery models? Please include an explanation of 
why a choice was made or excluded. What other services could 
stationary storage provide in the short-, medium-, and long-term? 
How does ownership type affect these market opportunities?
    T.1.1.1 Individually
    T.1.1.2 Individually by a third-party
    T.1.1.3 Aggregated by the utility including energy generation, 
transmission, or distribution.
    T.1.1.4 Aggregated by a third-party.
    T.1.2 What barriers impede market participation based on the 
models listed in the previous question?
    T.1.3 Should and/or could stationary C&I sector storage provide 
ancillary services or demand response to the power grid using any of 
these ownership/delivery models? Please include an explanation of 
why a choice was made or excluded.
    T.1.3.1 Individually
    T.1.3.2 Individually by a third-party
    T.1.3.3 Aggregated by the utility including energy generation, 
transmission, or distribution.
    T.1.3.4 Aggregated by a third-party.
    T.1.4 Should and/or could stationary residential sector storage 
provide ancillary services or demand response to the power grid 
using any of these ownership/delivery models? Please include an 
explanation of why a choice was made or excluded.
    T.1.4.1 Individually
    T.1.4.2 Individually by a third-party
    T.1.4.3 Aggregated by the utility including energy generation, 
transmission, or distribution.
    T.1.4.4 Aggregated by a third-party.
    T.1.5 What barriers impede market participation based on the 
models listed in the previous question?
    T.1.6 At what times and under what circumstances do utilities 
need grid support services (e.g., ancillary services, load shifting, 
and demand response)? What is the magnitude of the need, by service? 
How do seasonality and geographic location affect grid support 
needs?
    T.1.7 Under what conditions would owners be willing to offer 
their electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure to provide such 
stationary storage services? How might this differ depending on 
whether the owner is a utility, C&I entity, residential entity, or 
third-party? To the extent possible, consider how regionality and 
market structures may affect an answer.
    T.1.7.1 How much additional storage would be needed?
    T.1.7.2 What is the additional marginal cost for the variety of 
storage options available relative to the additional potential 
revenue stream opportunities?
    T.1.7.3 How might this vary by region, market structure (e.g., 
regulated vs unregulated markets), or location (e.g., based on 
resource mix)?
    T.1.8 What is the best way to assess the additional marginal 
cost for bi-directional electric vehicle charging infrastructure or 
other stationary storage to become a microgrid and what is the added 
benefit from the additional potential revenue stream opportunities?
    T.1.9 Where on the grid is there greatest potential value from 
storage for reliability (e.g., to offset intermittent renewables), 
resilience, and savings given current trends? For example, where 
would utilities and ISO/RTOs see value to help offset infrastructure 
upgrades? The following is a list of considerations:
    T.1.9.1 Based on grid congestion
    T.1.9.2 Based on other grid vulnerabilities
    T.1.9.3 Based on access renewables (e.g., heat maps)
    T.1.9.4 Based on savings to utilities to offset
    T.1.9.5 Other factors?
    T.1.10 How is or could stationary grid storage be used for 
locational energy arbitrage?
    T.1.10.1 Can charging infrastructure investments anticipate 
locational pricing? If not, what would be required for this to be 
possible in the future?
    T.1.10.1.1 At the transmission level?
    T.1.10.1.2 At the distribution level?
    T.1.10.2 How would locational pricing for resilience affect the 
prospects for bi-directional electric vehicle charging 
infrastructure?
    T.1.11 Stationary grid storage used for responding to 
emergencies and for restarting the grid. Can or should black-start 
be provided by C&I, residential, or third-parties?
    T.1.11.1 Would such infrequent events justify the needed capital 
investment?
    T.1.11.2 Are EV charging infrastructure owners likely to comply 
with grid operator requests in an emergency?
    T.1.11.3 Could aggregators be deployed under such circumstances?
    T.1.11.4 What level of risk should be considered in developing 
responses to emergencies (frequency and impact)?
    T.1.12 How significant is the market for bi-directional storage 
relative to other energy storage markets, in the short-, medium-, 
and long-term? What factors will affect the size of this market?
    T.1.13 Are there other use cases that could or should be 
considered for stationary storage from utility, C&I, residential, or 
third-party providers?
    T.1.14 What other services could be part of the value stacking 
of combining various use cases and revenue?
    T.1.14.1 Should a prioritized value list be developed, e.g., 
emergency services, evacuation, medical services, water, wastewater, 
HVAC, etc.?

[[Page 43228]]

    T.1.15 What other ancillary technologies are needed to support 
these use cases? For example, artificial intelligence for dynamic 
pricing, blockchain to support transactive services, software to 
enable aggregation or grid dispatch calls to stationary storage 
providers?
    T.1.16 What options are there for stationary grid storage 
ownership? What are the pros and cons of each?
    T.1.17 What are the different ownership models that exist or 
could ideally exist?
    T.1.17.1 Could municipalities or other public entities either 
own or secure priority access to stationary storage for public 
services, residents, businesses, etc.?
    T.1.18 Who should pay and for which component of the project 
(e.g. interconnection, operations, maintenance, etc.)? How does or 
should this differ depending on the sector providing the storage 
service (e.g., utility, C&I, residential, or third-party)?
    T.1.19 Who ultimately pays and who should pay for the upfront 
cost of stationary grid storage that is beneficial to the grid; end 
users, ratepayers, or market participants? Why? Who actually reaps 
the operational benefits?
    T.1.20 What limits deployment of stationary storage currently? 
Which policy, technology, or regulatory barriers are likely to be 
the most significant in the short-, medium-, and long-term? How do 
they differ at the transmission or distribution level? What about 
based on ownership types or market segments?
    T.1.21 In light of recent lithium-ion battery incidents, how 
significant are concerns regarding safety of any storage technology? 
What performance, safety, or other data would be necessary to 
restart resources or invest in new resources? What other safety 
measures would be helpful and could be standardized to reduce risk 
and increase investor confidence?
    T.1.21.1 Will advancements in battery technology impact 
explosion risk?
    T.1.22 How much and what data would be necessary to reduce 
investment risk premiums in stationary storage?
    T.1.23 What are some other novel strategies, tools, or resources 
that the federal government or others could implement or provide to 
facilitate the market for innovative uses of stationary storage?
T.2 Mobile Grid Storage Business Model Questions

Background/Context

    Mobile grid storage business model questions are meant to elicit 
ideas that consider a holistic approach to market access. For this 
section, mobile grid storage includes the Electrified Mobility use 
case. This includes bidirectional battery electric vehicles (BEV), 
plug-in hybrids (PHEV) or hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV), 
as well as any other mobility option that would require mobile storage 
technology. Vehicles could include passenger vehicles, utility 
vehicles, transit, medium-duty (MD) or heavy-duty (HD) trucks, or other 
advanced transportation systems. These mobile storage units could act 
independently or as aggregated fleets owned by one or more entities or 
individuals that can be called upon and dispatched by a system 
operator. These mobile systems can be connected at the transmission 
level, distribution level, or building level. For each question, if 
possible, please specify if the answer applies to transmission level, 
distribution level, building level, or some combination. Also, consider 
how responses may differ if the mobile storage provider is a utility, 
fleet owner, individual entity, public entity, or third-party 
aggregator. Third-party aggregators could be utilities, automobile or 
battery manufacturers (OEMs), or other public or private entities. 
Please consider and note if a distinction affects a response. Although 
we encourage respondents to answer all questions, partial responses are 
welcome.

Information Requested

    The following questions may guide, but should not restrict, 
responses:

    T.2.1 Should and/or could mobile grid storage provide ancillary 
services or demand response to the power grid or other facilities 
using any of these ownership/delivery models? Please include an 
explanation of why a choice was made or excluded. What other 
services could mobile storage provide in the short-, medium-, and 
long-term? How does ownership type affect these market 
opportunities?
    T.2.1.1 Individual
    T.2.1.2 Fleet owner
    T.2.1.3 Utility
    T.2.1.4 Aggregated by the utility including energy generation, 
transmission, or distribution.
    T.2.1.5 Aggregated by a third-party.
    T.2.2 How does the response to the previous question differ 
depending whether the mobile storage service is provided at the 
transmission level, distribution level, or building level?
    T.2.2.1 Should and/or could we consider services between mobile 
storage units?
    T.2.3 At what times and under what circumstances do utilities 
need grid support services (e.g., ancillary services, load shifting, 
and demand response)? How do these differ by geographic location and 
seasons?
    T.2.4 Under what conditions would owners or product warranty 
providers be willing to offer their mobile grid storage to provide 
such services? How does the response differ based on ownership 
(utility, fleet owner, individual entity, or third-party aggregator) 
or aggregator (utility vs third-party)?
    T.2.5 Alternatively, given when mobile grid storage (e.g., 
electric vehicles) are likely to be connected, what is the value of 
grid services at that time? How predictable is this trend? How 
likely are mobile grid storage owners willing to participate? 
Consider how the response may differ depending on the ownership or 
aggregator type.
    T.2.6 How do mobile grid battery storage use cases affect 
battery life? Is there enough publicly available data to inform 
market decisions? If not, what would be useful?
    T.2.7 How would participation in the provision of grid services 
affect battery warranties provided by vehicle manufacturers and 
suppliers? For example, (a) the auto maker and (b) the battery 
suppliers to the auto makers, or (c) other participants in the 
vehicle supply chain
    T.2.7.1 Could impact to battery warranty be mitigated by 
adjusting discharge rates?
    T.2.8 Will advancements in battery technologies reduce risk to 
battery life?
    T.2.9 Assume batteries or vehicles are owned by a company, which 
are leased to the consumer. (Context: For electric vehicles, fuel 
cost is ~7% of overall vehicle cost per mile) (Lab, 2019). That 
leaves only a marginal incentive for owners to provide grid 
services. Company ownership may provide greater incentives for grid 
participation. Alternatively, companies could provide active 
management to extend battery life.)
    T.2.9.1 At what price level would companies be willing to 
sacrifice battery life for grid services?
    T.2.9.2 How might companies track the state of health of 
batteries leased to consumers?
    T.2.9.3 Do OEMs see the provision of grid services as an 
appealing new revenue opportunity for electric vehicles? How do they 
think about this use case?
    T.2.9.4 Are there other incentives companies could provide 
consumers, such as a fixed or variable monthly usage payment for 
grid services? Are these incentives likely to shift consumer 
behavior?
    T.2.10 Under what conditions should or could mobile energy 
storage be used for locational energy arbitrage?
    T.2.10.1 How do investors in charging infrastructure anticipate 
locational needs and pricing? How does the response differ at the 
generation, transmission, and distribution levels?
    T.2.10.2 How might plans for locational pricing for resilience 
affect the prospects for bidirectional vehicles?
    T.2.11 Should and/or could mobile energy storage be used for 
locational energy arbitrage at the building level? For example, to 
offset demand charges? Are there existing or planned examples?
    T.2.12 Should and/or could mobile energy resources be used for 
responding to emergencies and for restarting the grid? Are there 
existing or planned examples?
    T.2.12.1 Would such infrequent events justify the needed capital 
investment? Consider both frequency and potential impact in the 
response.

[[Page 43229]]

    T.2.12.2 Are vehicle owners likely to comply to grid operator 
requests in an emergency? Could they be compelled to comply?
    T.2.12.3 Could fleet operators be deployed under such 
circumstances? What technologies and infrastructure are needed to 
enable this? For example, artificial intelligence, digitization of 
substations?
    T.2.13 Should and/or could mobile energy resources be used for 
responding to emergencies by providing back-up storage to critical 
facilities or buildings? Are there existing or planned examples?
    T.2.13.1 Would such infrequent events justify the needed capital 
investment?
    T.2.13.2 Are vehicle owners likely to comply in an emergency?
    T.2.13.3 Could fleet operators be deployed under such 
circumstances? What technologies and infrastructure are needed to 
enable this? For example, artificial intelligence, mobile software?
    T.2.14 Could fleet users of mobile grid storage such as 
bidirectional electric vehicles to maximize revenue by shifting from 
delivery of people and goods to grid services?
    T.2.14.1 What types of fleet would have such scheduling 
flexibility?
    T.2.14.2 What price is needed to persuade fleets to shift to 
grid services?
    T.2.14.3 Are there times of the day when fleet operators would 
most likely shift? What grid services are needed at those times? Who 
are the most likely consumers, the grid, C&I, buildings, etc.?
    T.2.15 What is the possibility that battery leasing or buy-back 
programs for mobile electric storage such as electric vehicles, 
degraded, but useable, batteries could be re-used for grid services?
    T.2.15.1 What monitoring and modeling are needed for leasing 
companies to optimize the time of battery replacement? How do 
pricing structures affect those decisions? Are there any initial 
signs of an emerging secondary market for depleted batteries?
    T.2.15.2 What could a ``certified pre-owned'' battery program 
look like to certify the state of health for batteries?
    T.2.15.3 Would the ease and value of battery recycling be 
impacted?
    T.2.15.4 What else is needed to enable this kind of business 
model?
    T.2.16 What is the likelihood that business owners (including 
manufacturers) could pay employees to draw power from their electric 
vehicles to reduce demand charges?
    T.2.16.1 How can employees be assured of having take-home power?
    T.2.17 What evidence is there that bidirectional electric 
vehicle consumers are willing to consider different ownership 
models? If not currently available, what data and analysis could 
help understand this dynamic? What would it take for consumers to 
accept the levels of risk associated with different ownership 
models?
    T.2.18 How willing are auto and battery makers to pursue new 
technologies and use cases? How might technology, policy, 
standardization or regulation mitigate those risks?
    T.2.19 What public policies or regulation could encourage 
innovative uses for batteries? (For example, can consumers of 
electricity also be producers? Can utilities own generation? Is 
mobile energy storage classified as ``generation''?) Would mobile 
storage compensation be dynamic?
    T.2.20 How do concerns regarding safety affect innovative use of 
mobile storage technologies? Would performance and safety data for 
mobile storage alleviate these concerns? How much and what data 
would be necessary for mobile storage and related fast charging 
infrastructure? Will advancements in electric vehicle battery 
technology impact safety?
    T.2.21 What are some novel strategies, tools, or resources that 
the federal government or others could implement or provide to 
facilitate the market for innovative uses of mobile storage?
T.3 Finance Questions

Background/Context

    Finance questions are meant to illicit ideas that will enable 
bankability and attract investment in stationary and mobile storage as 
described in the previous sections. If appropriate, consider whether 
there is a benefit to capital market access and how this would affect 
the overall cost of capital to support the various use cases and 
business models proposed for stationary and mobile storage 
technologies. Also, consider how the responses may differ for various 
ownership models (including third-party aggregators), market segments 
(e.g., utility, C&I, residential or individual), and regions. As 
mentioned, we encourage respondents to answer all questions, however, 
partial responses are also welcomed.

Information Requested

    The following questions may guide, but should not restrict, 
responses:

    T.3.1 Are there useful publicly available business and finance 
models for storage, similar to what is available for solar? For 
example, to provide first-order approximation of the amount of 
revenue required by a non-residential stationary storage system 
under a variety of financing or ownership structures, sufficient for 
a comparative analysis.
    T.3.2 What are the most commonly used finance models for taxable 
site hosts available thus far? Please note if any options are 
missing.
    T.3.2.1 Balance Sheet: The site host finances the project on its 
balance sheet
    T.3.2.2 Operating Lease: The site host finances the project 
through an operating lease
    T.3.2.3 Power Purchase Agreement (PPA): The site host enters 
into a PPA, which in turn is financed by a partnership
    T.3.3 What are the most common used finance models for tax-
exempt site hosts? Please note if any options are missing or if 
other options should be explored.
    T.3.3.1 Balance Sheet: The site host finances the project on its 
balance sheet
    T.3.3.2 Municipal Bonds: The site host finances the project 
using municipal debt, or with reserve funds that have an opportunity 
cost of capital approximated by municipal debt interest rates
    T.3.3.3 CREBs: The site host finances the project using CREBs
    T.3.3.4 Tax-Exempt Lease: The site host finances the project 
using a tax-exempt lease
    T.3.3.5 Service Contract (Partnership): The site host enters 
into a service contract/PPA, which in turn is financed by a 
partnership.
    T.3.3.6 Pre-Paid Service Contract: The site host enters into a 
pre-paid service contract.
    T.3.4 What are common drivers for storage adoption?
    T.3.4.1 Emergency backup or resilience?
    T.3.4.2 Energy arbitrage?
    T.3.4.3 To reduce costs (e.g., demand charges)?
    T.3.4.4 Meeting state Renewable Portfolio Standard (e.g., 
Resource Adequacy like in California)?
    T.3.4.5 Other?
    T.3.5 What premium are customers willing to pay for storage and 
do they vary by customer type?
    T.3.5.1 If so, how?
    T.3.5.2 Does the risk premium change whether it is stationary or 
mobile storage (e.g., an electric vehicle, assuming it is UL 
certified and enabled for bidirectional use)?
    T.3.6 Would standardization of utility scale stationary storage 
be useful? How should they be standardized? Similar to solar PPA's?
    T.3.7 Would standardization of contracts for aggregated mobile 
storage be useful? How should they be standardized? Are there 
comparable models to use as a starting point?
    T.3.8 What kinds of technology standards would be most helpful 
for stationary storage? Would any of these standards differ based on 
interconnection at the transmission level vs at the distribution 
level?
    T.3.9 What kinds of technology standards would be most helpful 
to make mobile storage bankable?
    T.3.10 What kinds of technology standards would be most helpful 
to make aggregated mobile storage bankable?
    T.3.11 Are there good examples of interconnection standards that 
could be used for stationary storage?
    T.3.12 What are reasonable interconnection standards that could 
be used for aggregated mobile storage?
    T.3.12.1 Should this be done at the EV charging station level to 
provide grid services?
    T.3.12.2 Would that standards differ if the connection is at the 
building or facility level to off-set demand charges?
    T.3.13 What are the various risk premiums that apply to 
stationary

[[Page 43230]]

storage that could be reduced through contract standardization and 
data sharing?
    T.3.14 Is there enough data and/or performance information to 
help inform investors and better ascertain investment risk for 
stationary storage? If not, what data is needed and who could 
provide it?
    T.3.15 What data and/or performance information would be helpful 
to investors to determine investment risk for aggregated mobile 
storage? If not, what data is needed and who could provide it?
    T.3.15.1 Would grid operators be willing to pay to third parties 
to aggregate the data?
    T.3.15.2 Would the data be proprietary?
    T.3.16 Are there scenarios or models that would lower the cost 
of capital for different types of storage projects, such as 
securitization? For example, what would work for large utility scale 
stationary storage vs aggregated mobile storage? What benefits would 
these approaches provide?
    T.3.16.1 Will storage change capital investment trends in the 
energy sector?
    T.3.17 What ownership structures for aggregated mobile storage 
would be conducive to securitization? For example, would a third-
party aggregator need to own the batteries in electric vehicles to 
reduce risk premiums?
T.4 Open

Background/Context

    OTT recognizes that there may be other ideas, concepts, or tools 
other than those discussed in this RFI that may be useful to helping 
improve bankability and commercialize stationary and mobile storage 
technologies. This category serves as an open call for suggestions on 
how to capture market input to inform the OTT and the DOE on the market 
needs and help advance the overarching Administration's goals.

Information Requested

    The following questions may guide, but should not restrict, 
responses:

    T.4.1 What are the greatest concerns with investing in the 
storage technology space? What sort of information/assistance would 
provide greater comfort with this investment area?
    T.4.2 In general, how can the federal government most 
effectively help to catalyze further storage investment and market 
development beyond R&D? In particular, how can DOE most effectively 
advance the following goals:
    T.4.2.1 Unlock new sources of capital and foster more effective 
investment models to scale storage technology and related technology 
companies;
    T.4.2.2 Facilitate demand creation and/or match-making between 
early-stage companies and potential investors and customers;
    T.4.2.3 Support the development of innovative new business 
models;
    T.4.2.4 Facilitate coordination between OEMs, utilities, and 
other key stakeholders such as state DOTs or other potential 
government customers/partners;
    T.4.2.5 Encourage more storage and related technology investment 
focused on U.S.-based companies with high potential for domestic 
economic benefit; and
    T.4.2.6 Leverage existing programs (e.g., SBIR, Opportunity 
Zones, New Market Tax Credits, Loan Guarantees) to be of best use to 
the storage investment community.
    T.4.3 Is there any other information, other approaches, or other 
data that would be useful to investors, developers, customers, 
utilities, and OEMs to further business models and financing of 
storage?
    T.4.4 Are there any other tools that would be useful to 
investors, customers or key stakeholders that were not discussed 
above?
    T.4.5 What are the greatest challenges when it comes to 
investing in stationary or mobile storage?
    T.4.6 Are there international models that the U.S. should review 
and consider?
    T.4.7 Is there a need for international standardization?
    T.4.8 Are there regulatory or permitting barriers?

Section 4 Policy and Valuation

Background/Context

    Energy Storage can invigorate the U.S. economy as both an end-use 
product and a source of industrial competitiveness. Cost-effective 
energy storage can increase system and end-user resilience against a 
variety of threats, improve the operation and value of existing grid 
assets, reduce the cost of integrating new assets, catalyze new 
innovation and commercialization, create a new domestic manufacturing 
sector, and decrease the overall cost of energy for consumers. However, 
these impacts can only be realized if storage is appropriately valued, 
so that energy storage benefit the grid and end-users across the U.S. 
energy system. The ESGC's Policy and Valuation track will develop a 
coordinated, DOE-wide program to provide stakeholders with the 
information and tools to appropriately analyze and value energy 
storage. DOE will not promote or encourage specific policy objectives.

Information Requested

    The following questions may guide, but should not restrict, 
responses:

P.1 Energy Storage Cost, Performance, and Financing
    P.1.1 What current or future, stationary or transportation-
related, energy storage cost, performance, and/or financing data 
would improve the decision-making processes, and why?
    P.1.2 What is the most effective way for DOE to provide 
stakeholders data? For example, a centralized database updated 
annually, reports that provide additional analysis of the data, etc. 
How should data be validated?
    P.1.3 How should DOE integrate private OEM and developer/owner 
data with modeled cost, performance, and financing data? What types 
of data need to come from the real world? How should data be 
anonymized and protected to encourage OEM and developer/owner 
participation?
P.2 Valuation Methodology
    P.2.1 Do current valuation methodologies used by planners, 
regulators, grid operators, end-users, and policy makers accurately 
account for energy storage? If not, what other cost and value 
factors should be included in the methodologies, and why? How or do 
these valuation methodologies vary by region and market, and why?
    P.2.2 How should the grid value long-duration (multi-day to 
seasonal) storage technologies relative to shorter-duration storage? 
What methodologies are needed to value long-duration storage, and 
what types of DOE/national lab data, tools, analysis would be useful 
for stakeholders?
P.3 Planning Tools and Processes
    P.3.1 What tools/models are used today for near-term/operational 
planning (e.g., power flow, system stability, optimal dispatch/
production cost, system sizing and siting) and long-term planning 
and scenario analysis (e.g., capacity and transmission expansion), 
in both macro- and micro- grid applications? Which are better? Do 
these existing tools offer the proper level of temporal and spatial 
granularity and/or accurately represent the cost and performance of 
all storage technologies? What improvements could be made?
    P.3.2 How can DOE help enhance the tools and capabilities in the 
hands of stakeholders? E.g., should DOE build new open-source tools 
and offer trainings/support, should DOE work with vendors to improve 
existing tools, or should DOE provide some other type of support?
    P.3.3 What methodologies, data, tools, and analysis would be 
needed to integrate power system, distribution, and transportation 
planning? What technology and system interactions are important to 
include when conducting integrated planning? How can DOE provide 
support to help stakeholders better integrate their planning 
processes?
    P.3.4 Can demand-side resources be synergistically paired with 
energy storage technologies? Are they currently being properly 
evaluated together in planning processes? What new information would 
enable higher-levels of integration of demand- and supply-side 
flexibility options in planning processes?
    P.3.5 What are critical future scenarios, assumptions, and 
technology-tradeoffs DOE/the national labs need to analyze?
P.4 Resilience
    P.4.1 How have stakeholders started to value resilience related 
investments?

[[Page 43231]]

How do stakeholders measure an individual investment's contribution 
to system resilience?
    P.4.2 How can stationary or transportation-related energy 
storage systems improve system-level or end-user resilience?
    P.4.3 Is there a certain level of resilience against a certain 
group or probability of threats that stakeholders should plan for?
    P.4.4 Does the United States need specific resilience standards 
that use standardized metrics? Would these vary by sector? What 
entities should lead that effort? Should DOE lead this effort, and 
if so, what entities should it collaborate with?
    P.4.5 What types of data, tools, and analysis can DOE provide to 
support stakeholders' resilience decision making?
P.5 Transportation and Cross-Sectoral Issues
    P.5.1 Transportation assets (electric and fuel cell vehicles) 
may be able to provide storage or other flexibility services to the 
grid. What new information, models, and/or analysis would enable 
this? For example, vehicle performance/degradation given duty cycle, 
charging/refueling cycles, infrastructure performance, optimal rate 
structures, consumer behavior, etc.
    P.5.2 Current EV manufacturer warranty standards prohibit the 
use of EV batteries for grid applications. Is there a role for DOE 
to play in facilitating the development of standards that will allow 
for limited vehicle-to-grid applications?
    P.5.3 Should DOE analyze manufacturing polices for stationary 
storage or transportation technologies that encourage domestic 
production, secure supply chains, and market growth? If so, what 
policies should be analyzed, and what types of information should 
DOE provide to stakeholders?
    P.5.4 Are there specific gaps in existing transportation-related 
storage data, tools, and analysis that DOE can help fill?
    P.5.5 Have stakeholders started to incorporate cross-sectoral 
storage feedbacks into their planning processes? E.g., electric 
vehicle deployment with increased electricity demand/variable load 
profiles, or hydrogen being supplied for both long-duration grid 
services and as a fuel for transportation/industry? What types of 
data, tools, and analysis can help stakeholders incorporate cross-
sectoral storage interactions into their planning processes?
    P.5.6 End-use consumers may invest in storage that provides grid 
services or provide flexibility through load control. What new 
information, models, and/or analysis would enable this? What types 
of data, tools, and analysis can help stakeholders incorporate these 
interactions into their planning processes?
P.6 Policy, Regulatory, and Market Considerations
    P.6.1 Are there specific federal, state, or local policies that 
could be enacted to help the U.S. become a leader in energy storage, 
and why? Please consider policies that might support storage 
deployment, and also policies to support supply-chain development. 
How should these policies be prioritized? How can DOE best inform 
policy development?
    P.6.2 Are there near-, medium-, and long-term changes that 
competitive wholesale markets or electric utilities need to make to 
better enable storage to participate and/or be accurately 
compensated? How should these changes be prioritized? What types of 
data, tools, and analysis can DOE provide to assist stakeholders?
    P.6.3 Energy storage is increasingly being coupled with 
generation technologies to create hybrid systems. What technical 
and/or market barriers do hybrid technologies face? What types of 
data, tools, and analysis can DOE provide to support the inclusion 
of hybrid systems in competitive markets and vertically integrated 
utilities?
    P.6.4 Grid operations are generally divided into three 
functions: Generation, transmission, and distribution. Storage can 
provide services within any one of these functions, but does not 
neatly fit into the definition of any one of them. Should storage be 
a different asset class? If so, why?
    P.6.5 Energy storage assets have generally been deployed as 
bolt-on additions to the grid to provide energy, capacity, and 
ancillary services. Some have argued that the true value of energy 
storage would be in acting as a buffer to decouple supply and demand 
on the grid, and that storage should therefore be viewed as an 
embedded grid asset similar to a substation or a transformer. Should 
storage be an embedded grid asset with shared costs? If so, why? 
What types of policies or standards would be needed to facilitate 
that treatment?
P.7 P&V Stakeholder Engagement
    P.7.1 Reoccurring engagement with stakeholders is crucial for 
identifying and prioritizing key energy storage data, tools, and 
analysis needs related to policy and valuation issues. What is the 
best method for ensuring systematic engagement and preventing 
redundancy with existing or new DOE technical assistance programs? 
E.g., would annual DOE-sponsored workshops be helpful?

Section 5 Workforce Development

Background/Context

    In order to maintain global leadership in energy storage, the 
United States will need to develop and maintain a well-qualified 
workforce in the right areas in a timely manner at all levels of 
education.
    Innovate Here: In order to maintain global leadership in storage 
R&D, DOE's ongoing efforts will be leveraged to grow the pipeline of 
candidates qualified to lead the field in research. This includes 
supporting innovative research at universities and national 
laboratories, along with building and operating world-class user 
facilities, all of which help train the workforce of the future.
    Build Here: As illustrated by the diversity of the use cases, there 
is a wide range of potential technology requirements spanning from 
small to large systems; factory built to bespoke, site-built 
installations; and chemically to thermally based storage. For the 
United States to lead in these technologies, there will be a need from 
trades (machinists, welders, designers), to engineers (mechanical, 
chemical, electrical), to research scientists (materials science, 
chemistry).
    Deploy Everywhere: In order to build, use and maintain energy 
storage systems as an integrated part of our country's energy systems, 
there will need to be a workforce that can understand how these pieces 
fit together and can be optimized for the particular application. This 
will require not just technicians, operators and engineers but analysts 
who can model and optimize these systems.
    Leadership in storage requires a skilled, nimble, and innovative 
workforce. The ESGC can impact the development of the workforce through 
a spread of activities such as skills development and enhanced 
employment opportunities. Similarly, the development of a workforce 
with the appropriate skill set can allow industries such as battery 
manufacturers, chemical producers and utilities to increase national 
leadership in these areas.
    The industry and workforce must develop hand in hand. As the 
industry grows, there will be more opportunities for a skilled 
workforce across a wide range of skill sets. These will include trade 
professionals, chemical engineers, mechanical engineers and scientists 
from a host of disciplines. The ESGC will enable the development of an 
appropriate workforce of the future through programs across DOE 
targeted at the spread of workforce development needs.
    Based on the concepts mentioned above, DOE seeks additional 
information from stakeholders across the spectrum to better understand 
areas in which there exists a current sufficient workforce, where there 
are gaps in skills or education, and thoughts on what activities DOE 
could help with that stakeholders would find useful for their needs as 
they seek to expand.

Information Requested

    The following questions may guide, but should not restrict, 
responses:

W.1 Current Needs
    W.1.1 Where are there gaps in the skills and education of the 
workforce for

[[Page 43232]]

existing and short-term technologies (development, manufacture and 
deployment)?
    W.1.2 Are there workforce issues in the industry as a lack of 
broad-based skill sets or narrower gaps in specific areas?
W.2 Future Developments
    W.2.1 As the industry grows to meet the needs spelled out in the 
ESGC, what are anticipated growth needs where the workforce pool is 
lacking?
W.3 Education and Workforce Programs
    W.3.1 What current education and workforce development 
activities are worth noting? How effective are each of them?
    W.3.2 What programs might be effective to support education and 
workforce development for energy storage and for which 
constituencies?
    W.3.3 How much investment has been made in education and 
workforce development by the company? By the individual? Has it been 
enough?
    W.3.4 Are there specific workforce development programs in 
energy storage that do not exist and should be developed?

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 9, 
2020, by Conner Prochaska Chief, Commercialization Officer, Office of 
Technology Transitions; Alex Fitzsimmons Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; 
and Michael Pesin, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity, 
pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That 
document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For 
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of 
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the 
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document 
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way 
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on July 10, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-15301 Filed 7-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P