@drvolts you should write about the new @VibrantCE energy study. It's the first effort I've seen that layers in a model of the distribution grid to its macro-grid analysis and thus is able to actually determine the value of distributed energy resources.

https://www.vibrantcleanenergy.com/media/reports/ 

The study has two huge findings:

1) If we want to decarbonize, layering in an optimized portfolio of DERs can save the system a ton of $$$.

2) Adding DERs enables MORE utility-scale wind and solar to be integrated.

In the energy/decarbonization world, folks often default to thinking of DERs as cute, small contributors to the overall solution, but ultimately unimportant. This is based on data and modeling that shows utility-scale is the cheapest path.

But those assertions aren't actually based on sound models. When everything downstream of the load zone or substation is ignored, of course DERs aren't valuable. You aren't examining the part of the grid that DERs live in.

But when done properly, $500B of savings materializes!

The other annoying theme this study hopefully kills is that you need to champion either utility-scale or DERs. These resources are almost never framed as complementary. They're compared one-dimensionally -- cost. But for the 7 billionth time, we've learned LCOE doesn't mean much.

Psyched about utility-scale renewables displacing coal and gas plants? Awesome, supporting DERs will help you in that mission.

A final thing to consider is that in addition to saving the power system $500B, DERs also help with energy resilience. But what's the value of that?

The US spends many billions every year on backup/standby power. And it's growing. Over a 30 year period it really adds up.

DERs will help there too. Incorporating the capex and opex costs of backup power into broader power system models will be the final frontier of properly valuing DERs.

and the services provided by backup power*