Published: March 7, 2025
By Concentric Staff Writer
Key takeaways
- Historic amounts of energy storage, primarily lithium-ion battery systems, are being added to the U.S. grid, driven by a need to balance renewable generation and to meet load growth, including from data centers.
- A series of fires at lithium-ion facilities, particularly in California and New York, have led to more scrutiny and resistance from the public to new facilities.
- Issues with lithium-ion safety and sourcing are leading to more research into other types of energy storage, based on a variety of technologies.
Battery energy storage systems (BESS) are growing rapidly on the U.S. grid, but the technology has faced some headwinds. The primary technology being installed, lithium-ion storage facilities, have experienced fires that have some localities beginning to question the safety of living nearby.
BESS soared on the grid over the past few years, although the election of President Donald Trump could affect that total as he froze Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding that was driving new resource additions. The IRA included a 30 percent investment tax credit for standalone energy systems and solar/storage projects, if construction began in 2024.
The U.S. added 5 GW of new BESS in the first seven months of 2024, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). This compares to just 4 MW that was added back in 2010.
“Battery energy storage systems provide electricity to the power grid and offer a range of services to support electric power grids,” EIA said. “Among these services are balancing supply and demand, moving electricity from periods of low prices to periods of high prices (a strategy known as arbitrage), and allowing electricity from renewable sources, such as wind and solar, to be stored until needed instead of curtailing those sources at times when they produce more electricity than is consumed.”
At the beginning of 2024, EIA estimated battery storage would make up 23 percent of new resource additions over the year (14.3 GW) nation-wide, second only to solar additions which were projected to be 58 percent of new resources (36.4 GW). This compares with just 4 percent for natural gas (2.5 GW) and 13 percent for wind (8.2 GW).
EIA estimated battery energy storage to about double in 2024, with developers reporting plans to develop 14.3 GW storage to the existing 15.5 GW. In 2023, battery storage rose by 70 percent, with 6.4 GW of new additions, EIA said.
About 82 percent of new storage in 2024 was expected in Texas (6.4 GW) and California (5.2 GW).
Texas set a new record for solar/BESS additions in 2024, helping to manage the critical evening peak, according to research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Texas. But researchers noted cold winter conditions can hamper the availability of solar/BESS as peak demand in Texas shifts to morning hours, creating a “growing risk that the solar-battery pairing may be inadequate to meet demand, particularly if thermal (natural gas and coal) power plant outages exceed estimates.”
In the evening hours from 6 p.m.–9 p.m., discharge from BESS averaged 714 MW in 2024 in Texas. But batteries were important on certain days such as August 20, 2024, when a new peak demand record was set and BESS set its own record of 3,927 MW of output at 7:35 p.m.
Wholesale prices can also affect the growth of BESS, as real-time wholesale prices in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas averaged $28 in 2024, compared with $97 the year before. In the 6 p.m.–9 p.m. slot, wholesale prices averaged $80 in 2024 compared with $332 in 2023.
“While these prices are unquestionably better for consumers, this development has potentially negative implications for continued growth of battery storage and other forms of dispatchable generation,” the Federal Reserve said.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul in June announced plans for 6 gigawatts of energy storage in the state by 2030, part of the state’s roadmap of having 70 percent of the state’s electricity provided by renewables by 2030 and 100 percent zero-emission electricity by 2040. The plan implements the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, clean-energy legislation passed in 2019.
However, the projects are already receiving public resistance. On Staten Island, local residents created a petition against NineDot Energy’s 5 MW/20 MWh battery storage project, which is already under construction. Residents say they were taken by surprise by the new facility.
“This petition is personal to all of us who call this community our home because we understand the potential dangers associated with such a facility located so close to our residences. The community was not made aware of this site being built until last minute and we do not approve,” the petition says.
In Duanesberg, New York, town officials in January 2025 passed a resolution banning the construction of new energy storage facilities in the town.
In the Golden State, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on Jan. 27 proposed new standards for BESS. The proposed rules, due for implementation in March, adopt General Order 167-C (GO 167-C) “Enforcement of Maintenance and Operation Standards for Electric Generating Facilities and Energy Storage Systems.”
The proposed rules implement Senate Bill 1383 by Ben Hueso (D-San Diego County), then a state senator, which mandated standards for the maintenance and operation of energy storage systems and applies emergency response and action plan requirements to BESS facilities.
GO 167-C also would require BESS facility owners to coordinate with local authorities in developing their emergency plans and established “logbook standards,” to ensure consistency and auditing of safety protocols for energy storage and renewable energy facilities. It also adds provisions to increase safety for storage and generating assets and updates to certain procedures, references, and definitions.
The original GO 167 was originally adopted more than 20 years ago in 2004 to establish standards for power generation facilities. The order flowed from Senate Bill X2-39, which had been drafted in reaction to the California energy crisis of 2000-2001. As new renewable mandates took effect in California due to legislation like Senate Bill 100, there has been a large increase in renewable generation.
“California Air Resources Board (CARB) recognizes that energy storage systems play a key role in meeting SB 100 goals by balancing intermittent renewable energy and managing grid reliability and stability via ancillary services and capacity,” the CPUC said in the proposed order.
Along with the growth in renewable energy, energy storage has surged in the state from 500 MW in 2019 to 13,300 MW in 2024. About 11,600 MW of this is utility-scale storage capacity, representing a level equal to 22 percent of the state’s peak electric demand. The need for energy storage in California is estimated at 52,000 MW by 2045, the CPUC said. As defined in state standards, an energy storage facility is any technology capable of absorbing energy and storing it over time for later dispatch.
However, since the original GO 167 was written before the widespread adoption of renewable generation and BESS, a comprehensive view of the rule is needed for operation, maintenance and safety oversight of non-thermal generation technology, the state agency said.
There have been 10 safety incidents at BESS facilities in California since 2021 according to CPUC records.
But there are currently no provisions in GO 167 requiring BESS owners to report safety incidents such as injuries, fatalities, thermal runaways, fires, or other system failures. This has created a need for increased regulatory oversight of the technology, the CPUC said.
The CPUC held three workshops with industry stakeholders in 2024, where staff suggested changes to GO 167 and took comment, which was received from 12 organizations such as Calpine Corporation, California Energy Storage Alliance, and utilities and companies that operate BESS facilities.
Four days before Trump took office, DOE on January 16, 2025 announced $23 billion in loans for eight projects, including energy storage, transmission, clean generation, grid modernization, and natural gas pipeline investments. The loans allow lower-cost debt and financing costs compared to traditional financial markets, according to the federal agency. Among the projects was $3 billion to Alliant Energy subsidiaries for 2,000 MW of clean energy and storage in Iowa and Wisconsin, to be developed over the next years.
In San Luis Obispo County, Caballero CA Storage, LLC’s project is receiving some pushback from the local community, which has appeared at the county’s board of supervisors meetings to express concerns. The 100 MW/400 MWh facility in Nipomo was acquired by Alpha Omega Power in December 2024. The stored energy would be sold in the California Independent System Operator market.
Given some of the issues surrounding lithium-ion, it is likely that research in other types of energy storage batteries will increase, hopefully proving fewer challenges for developers and less concern to communities that sit near BESS facilities.
Background information and cited sources
U.S. EIA Today in Energy report
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul news release
New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act
Change.org petition against new BESS project
U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office news release
— All views expressed by the author are solely the author’s current views and do not reflect the views of Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc., its affiliates, subsidiaries, related companies, or clients. The author’s views are based upon information the author considers reliable at the time of publication. However, neither Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc., nor its affiliates, subsidiaries, and related companies warrant the information’s completeness or accuracy, and it should not be relied upon as such.
Published: February 10, 2025
By Concentric Staff Writer
Key takeaways
- The new administration of President Donald Trump is reversing policies of President Joe Biden regarding liquified natural gas, such as a U.S. Department of Energy decision almost a year ago to halt permits for new LNG export facilities, which Trump did away with on his first day in office.
- The war between Russia and Ukraine is leading Europe to seek natural gas supplies elsewhere, prodding production in the U.S., where LNG export capacity is set to double with the construction of new export facilities.
- U.S. House Republicans and others had resisted the release last month of a U.S. Department of Energy Report saying that increasing U.S. export capacity would drive up domestic prices and increase greenhouse gas emissions.
The dynamics around liquified natural gas (LNG), a major U.S. energy export, have been in flux. We are now observing the impact of President Donald Trump and his immediate reversal of the actions taken by President Joe Biden that froze permits for new LNG export terminals.
Biden’s focus had been on mitigating LNG exports in the name of climate change, while Trump stands in sharp opposition to that viewpoint for the U.S., the world’s number one exporter of LNG.
Trump on Jan. 20 reversed the Biden Administration’s pause on LNG exports with an executive order, part of his “Unleashing American Energy” initiative. The move drew praise from natural gas producers.
“There is the initial positive impact of putting people back to work not only with LNG transport, but with the existing ongoing LNG construction sites that are currently under contract but were paused by Biden, as well as several projects that had been permitted and will now be financed and the construction work allowed to begin,” James Flores, CEO, Sable Offshore Corp., said in an online post promoted by DOE.
Flores said the move would cause a wave of LNG exports that would help balance a trade deficit and strengthen America’s energy security.
Additionally, Trump on Feb. 1 announced a 25-percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico and 10-percent on Chinese imports to address what he called “an emergency situation” at U.S. borders posed by “illegal aliens and drugs, including deadly fentanyl.”
Trump then put a 30-day pause on the new tariffs a few days later after public statements from Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that they would bolster border security.
China quickly retaliated with tariffs of its own, including a 10-percent tariff on U.S. coal and LNG, to take effect Feb. 10.
U.S. LNG exports rose since halfway through 2024, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, rising from 356,423 million cubic feet in June 2024 to 376,065 million cubic feet in November.
The LNG export price also rose during that time, from $6.57 per thousand cubic feet to $6.70 per thousand cubic feet between June 2024 and November 2024, according to EIA.
Biden’s efforts to slow U.S. exports faltered when Judge James Cain of the Western District of Louisiana, a Trump appointee, in July put a stay on the Biden LNG export ban, ruling on a request from 16 states. Cain argued that DOE had ignored the stay’s impact on national security, state revenues, employment opportunities, funding for schools and charities, and pollution allegedly caused by increased reliance on foreign energy sources.
In December, Biden’s DOE released a study saying that large amounts of LNG exports will drive up domestic energy prices and thwart greenhouse gas-reduction goals, including development of wind and solar generation.
Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives pushed back on both Biden’s moratorium and the study. In February 2024, 150 House Republicans called for Biden to reverse his moratorium, saying it is “economically and strategically dangerous and unnecessary.” Noting that other countries are looking for supplies outside of Russia, the moratorium reduces national security and puts strategic markets at risk, the elected officials said.
“Your administration should do everything it can to encourage greater production of clean-burning and reliable natural gas, and to grant the export permits that allow access to global markets,” a Feb. 4, 2024 letter to Biden from the House Republicans says.
The debate occurs as North America’s LNG export capacity is due to more than double between 2024 and 2028, from 114 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in 2023 to 24.4 Bcf/d in 2028, based on current construction plans, according to EIA data. Over that period, export capacity is projected to grow by 0.8 Bcf/d in Mexico, 2.5 Bcf/d in Canada, and 9.7 Bcf/d in the U.S. from 10 new projects that are currently under construction in the three countries.
Five LNG export projects with a combined export capacity of 9.7 Bcf/d are under construction in the U.S., including Venture Global’s Plaquemines Phase I and Phase II in Port Sulphur, Louisiana and Cheniere Energy’s Corpus Christi Stage III on the Gulf Coast in Texas, both of which began producing LNG in December.
There are also other LNG projects in the works, including QatarEnergy and ExxonMobil’s Golden Pass, NextDecade’s Rio Grande (Phase I), and Port Arthur (Phase I), all in Texas.
Natural gas is also flowing from the U.S. via the Sur de Texas-Tuxpan pipeline to Mexican floating LNG terminals such as the Fast LNG Altamira and Energía Costa Azul LNG export terminal (0.4 Bcf/d export capacity) in Baja, California in western Mexico. Phase II of the later project is due to expand by 1.6 Bcf/d. Five other projects are proposed on the west coast of Mexico, with a combined capacity of 4.5 Bcf/d, according to the EIA.
In the North, gas from western Canada will supply three proposed projects with a combined capacity of 2.5 Bcf/d in British Columbia on Canada’s west coast. They include LNG Canada (export capacity 1.8 Bcf/d) with a plan to begin LNG exports from Train 1 in the summer of 2025; Woodfibre LNG (export capacity 0.3 Bcf/d) with exports beginning in 2027; and Cedar LNG, the nation’s first indigenous-owned project with a capacity of 0.4 Bcf/d, due to begin exports in 2028. Canada has authorized four other LNG expansion projects with a combined capacity of 4.1 Bcf/d.
The relationship between domestic production, imports, and exports have shifted as the production environment in the U.S. has changed. The shale gas boom of the late 2000s reversed trends and led to efforts to reactivate dormant import facilities, some of which were transferred to export beginning in 2016, according to S&P Global. U.S. export capacity sat at 13 bcf/d in 2024, with exports going to Europe, South America, Asia, and North Africa.
The value of LNG exports has exceeded others such as soybeans, corn, and even movies and television entertainment.
DOE’s study issued in December is intended to “provide an updated understanding of the potential effects of U.S. LNG exports on the domestic economy, U.S. households and consumers; communities that live near locations where natural gas is produced or exported; domestic and international energy security, including effects on U.S. trading partners; and the environment and climate,” the agency said.
There is “inherent uncertainty” regarding the state of U.S. LNG exports through 2050, the study says, which added the effort is not intended to be a forecast but rather explore a range of scenarios. DOE is responsible for authorizing exports of LNG under the Natural Gas Act. By 2050, projections of U.S. LNG exports exceed the export volume from LNG projects in operation or under construction, the agency said.
Globally, the market for LNG has been increasing in recent years and re-gasification and import infrastructure is being built, although future demand is uncertain and centers of demand are shifting, DOE said. Overseas countries include LNG as part of their strategies because it supports dispatchable power generation, often from existing infrastructure, which also leads to their policies driving U.S. export dynamics. Europe has been the primary destination for U.S. natural gas historically.
In Europe, policies reducing the usage of fossil fuels, including natural gas, could come into play, but demand for gas and LNG from Asia is expected to increase. By 2050, China is expected to be the largest LNG importer, according to the DOE study.
In analyzing the economic impact of new LNG projects in the U.S., DOE said, “natural gas production and the development of natural gas export infrastructure tends to increase employment in regions and communities where it occurs, but some evidence indicates that jobs often go to people who either move to the area for the jobs or commute from other areas, rather than to long-term residents.”
The U.S. has been a net exporter of LNG since 2016, when the first export terminal in the lower 48 states began operation. Average annual U.S. nameplate export capacity increased from 1.0 Bcf/d in 2016 to 11.9 Bcf/d in 2023, DOE said.
LNG demand growth in the first half of 2024 was driven by double-digit growth in China and India, but the outlook demand is “fragile,” according to the International Energy Agency. The second quarter of 2024 was marked by slacking global LNG production and price volatility. Asian demand was forecast to push up 2024 global demand by 2.5 percent, IEA said.
“Geopolitical instability represents the greatest risk to the short-term outlook. LNG trade has practically halted across the Red Sea since the start of the year, while Russia is increasingly targeting energy infrastructure in Ukraine, including underground gas storage facilities,” IEA said in its quarterly Gas Market Report.
Asia accounted for about 60 percent of the increase in global gas demand over the first half of 2024, with demand increasing by about 10 percent in both China and India.
Production-wise, global LNG supply growth was a scant 2 percent in the first half of 2024. LNG output fell in the second quarter by .5 percent or .5 billion cubic meters (bcm). This was the first quarter-over-quarter decline since Covid-19 lockdowns crippled LNG demand and caused the cancellation of cargos. Feed gas supply issues and unexpected outages drove production declines in the second quarter. But the expansion of U.S. export capability accelerated LNG supply capability in the second half of 2024.
In North America, residential and commercial demand weakened in the first quarter of 2024 because of unseasonably mild weather, but growth in natural gas-fired power generation offset this. Low gas prices in the early part of the year led U.S. upstream suppliers to cut dry gas output, damping gas production downward by 1.5 percent in the U.S. in the second quarter of 2024.
The war in Ukraine is leading European countries to push to diversify their natural gas supply, spurring interest in new projects such as a $44 billion natural gas pipeline in Alaska that would run between the North Slope and Nikiski, along the shore of Cook Inlet.
State corporation Alaska Gasline Development Corp. is leading an effort to develop the pipeline, recently announcing a contractual agreement with Glenfarne Group LLC, according to Alaska Public Media. The 800-mile project has been in the works for decades with its prospects fluctuating depending on costs and demand dynamics. Gov. Mike Dunleavey said that the Trump administration will be more accommodating to the project compared with Biden.
Background information and cited sources
This article drew on sources such as the U.S. DOE, corporate websites, S&P Global, U.S. House documents, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the International Energy Agency, and Alaska Public Media.
President Donald Trump Jan. 20 executive order
President Donald Trump Feb. 1 executive order
EIA data: U.S. Natural Gas Exports and Re-Exports by Country
Feb. 24 letter to President Joe Biden from U.S. House of Representatives Republicans
U.S. DOE Study: Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports
— All views expressed by the author are solely the author’s current views and do not reflect the views of Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc., its affiliates, subsidiaries, related companies, or clients. The author’s views are based upon information the author considers reliable at the time of publication. However, neither Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc., nor its affiliates, subsidiaries, and related companies warrant the information’s completeness or accuracy, and it should not be relied upon as such.
Published: June 6, 2023
By: Concentric Staff Writer
“Energy insecure” households in the U.S. were billed at a higher rate for energy than other households in 2020, according to a new report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Households identified as “energy insecure”—those in which there is an inability to meet basic energy needs and there are challenges in purchasing adequate energy—were billed 20 cents more per square foot than the national average of $1.04 per square foot, EIA said. Energy insecure households were also billed at 26 cents more per square foot than houses that are not energy insecure.
“Household energy expenditures are influenced by many factors, including weather, the types of energy sources used, household behavior, and the energy-consuming space (or square footage) of the home,” EIA said May 30. “Energy insecure households are more likely to report their homes are drafty, poorly or not insulated, and smaller than households that did not experience energy insecurity.”
EIA said its Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) uses energy insecurity as a measure to identify households that have received a disconnection notice, have reduced or foregone basic necessities to pay bills, kept their houses at unsafe temperatures to reduce costs, or have been unable to repair cooling or heating equipment because of cost.
Data from the survey showed that in 2020, households making less than $10,000 per year were billed at a rate of $1.31 per square foot for energy while households with incomes higher than $100,000 were billed at $1.21 per square foot. Survey respondents in rented homes were billed 28 cents more across all energy sources than owners were. The EIA said that “differences greater than $0.05 per square foot are statistically significant at the 5% level, meaning that there’s a less than 5% chance that the difference is explainable by chance alone.”
The 2020 RECS collected data from about 19,000 households, the largest sample in its history, the agency said, and for the first time the data is available at the state level in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
—
All views expressed by the author are solely the author’s current views and do not reflect the views of Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc., its affiliates, subsidiaries, or related companies. The author’s views are based upon information the author considers reliable at the time of publication. However, neither Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc., nor its affiliates, subsidiaries, and related companies warrant the information’s completeness or accuracy, and it should not be relied upon as such.