"Energy storage" is a term bandied about rather loosely. In fact, the term represents a slew of potential applications, which according to four California utilities must be defined first, before a technology solution is selected. Whether the solution is storage or an existing technology must be weighed based on cost effectiveness. For several utility insights to a potentially complex subject, read this column.
We've kicked around energy storage this week and it's appropriate to finish up the week's focus with a few points straight from the horse's mouth: four large California utilities that last week shared their thinking with the California Energy Commission . (Two were large municipal utilities, two were investor owned.) Their points weren't exactly news but certainly deserve a wider audience.
I encourage you to look over the four utilities' (and other parties') presentations through the link above or through the specific links below, as they contain much food for thought.
The presentations were based around three key questions:
Rather than trot out four utilities' answers to three questions, I'll just share a few standout comments that reveal current thinking by these utilities, now driven by a legislative mandate to explore storage options.
First, it was good to hear a theme emerge that both simplifies a potentially complicated subject and encourages me that utilities are acting thoughtfully in this area.
"Energy storage is not a single application or technology," according to San Diego Gas & Electric  (SDG&E).
"Identifying where and how storage may be