Search Results

Sep 11, 2024 Solar Availability Series Part 4 Welcome back for Part 4 of Camelot’s series on solar availability. If you’re just joining us for the series, here are some links to parts 1 , 2 , and 3 . We’ve set the groundwork with a summary of the ongoing validation efforts from IEs, and the resulting changes the industry is making to their assumptions. We’ll revisit their reasoning here. We’ve also described how availabilities are calculated and reported, and touched on ways of maximizing availability by minimizing downtime. If you’ve followed along with the last few parts and you’ve been waiting for our own stance as an Independent Engineer (IE), look no further! Thank you for joining us. Re-Setting the Scene Until somewhat recently, the utility-scale solar industry didn’t have the kind of established history needed to accurately predict or validate what long-term average availabilities will be at newly-proposed projects. Engineering judgement said that a relatively simple solar project would see the equivalent of about 3-5 days of total site outages per year, leading to expected availabilities of about 98.5% to 99.2%. For modeling simplicity, most everyone assumed a relatively consistent availability throughout a project’s lifetime. However, as projects became operational, the industry started to question itself. Especially early in new projects’ operational lives, downtime was high and availabilities were lower than expected due to teething issues. Even after the initial startup period, many folks started seeing trends with their average availability levels below what they had hoped. Over the last year we have started to see the beginnings of some robust data-backed approaches to redefining availability assumptions, aided by all the new operating data which is available to us. There have been three IEs who have recently updated their assumptions based on aggregated data from the projects they supported. ICF led the charge with its performance paper published by kWh Analytics in 2023. DNV and Natural Power followed suit with their own methodology updates in early 2024. Others with access to the data have weighed in as well, from NREL to kWh Analytics. Here, we focus in on the results of the IE validations, each of which took slightly different approaches and used different data sets. The table below summarizes the projects which went into the IEs’ comparisons, and some key comments from their results. We’d like to highlight a few key findings from this comparison: Every IE relied on data from monthly operating reports produced by the operators, which are rarely independently calculated or verified. As described in part 2 of this series, there is no single, standard way that availabilities are defined or reported across the industry. The conclusions from these studies should be interpreted carefully, especially because the data QC processes have not been explicitly described. DNV’s analysis used more data and resulted in recommendations which are more clearly tailored to the sites. ICF found that fixed tilt systems showed lower availabilities than tracker systems while DNV found the opposite. Despite every IE noting lower availabilities early in a project’s life, only DNV adjusted their recommendation to treat the first year differently from other years. No IE has taken a stance on availability changes later in a project’s life yet. Here is a summary of the IE’s post-validation default availability recommendations. As you can see, only DNV makes a distinction between different kinds of projects at this time, though every IE noted that they are open to changing their assumptions based on project-specific data such as operator or technology history. In practice, however, IEs are often reluctant to deviate from their standard assumptions, as this requires going out on a proverbial limb. While that conservatism is understandable, it may be producing unintended consequences. For instance, if an IE will not give “credit” for more robust technology choices or operating strategies, then owners have little incentive to consider any options but those that can be considered “bankable” at the lowest possible cost. This approach penalizes owners for considering better than baseline equipment, spending more on O&M, or otherwise looking for creative solutions to improve availability. The need for more data was a theme repeated by each company, and this will likely ring true for as long as we do this kind of work. Our availability assumptions will need to be updated regularly, just like we update our approaches to Energy Yield Analyses. Camelot’s Recommendations The Camelot team is compiling the data needed to supplement these studies and validate our conclusions, and we welcome the opportunity to work with industry partners on this effort. In the meantime, we base our own recommendations off the meta-study described above and in Part 1. Without further ado, here is our own take on availability projections: Until we have more information, we should not be differentiating between different mounting types . ICF’s and DNV’s observations contradicted each other. It’s likely other factors influenced the analyses, especially the sample sizes and quality of the input data. The factors which can impact downtime should be studied further, which means collecting more data, ensuring its accuracy, and capturing all potentially-relevant project details. In addition to mounting types, the difference between inverter technologies must be studied further as one of the primary sources of downtime observed at operating sites. For instance, the higher availability noted by DNV on smaller fixed-tilt sites than larger fixed-tilt sites may indicate a reliability advantage for string inverters over relatively small sites with central inverters. This would align with our general experience with operating sites but the data to positively confirm this is not yet available in sufficient quantity. The major sources of downtime should be studied and modeled separately . Using an overall system availability as a metric can muddy the waters significantly, especially when trying to tease out the impact of different design decisions on future performance. When performing energy yield analyses for wind energy projects, some IEs will include assumptions for balance of plant availability, grid availability, and turbine availability separately. Not only can this improve our validations (data allowing), but it will improve the way we assess technology tradeoffs at the design stage. Swapping out a more robust system for a less-robust one should impact only the downtime assumption for that system. Camelot recommends the industry work towards a bottom-up availability model based on historical failure/downtime data at the module, tracker, inverter, MV, HV, and BOS levels. These levels correspond with likely failure points within the system and provide a lowest common denominator that can be adjusted during project design to optimize expected availability. Ensuring this approach has buy-in from IEs will provide a financial incentive to specify better equipment and design better sites. Year-1 availability should be modeled separately from later years due to initial startup issues observed in each validation. Nearly all financial models are already set up to account for annually-varying losses, so adjusting our assumptions based on the clear signals we see from the data appears to be a no brainer. The industry should start modeling a ramp-down in availability later in projects’ life, as DNV may have alluded to, because component failure rates impact availability trends. Without more data, it is difficult to say the magnitude of the decreases because of the other factors at play. However, based on our experience modeling availability at other infrastructure projects, Camelot considers it reasonable to model availability as a ramp-down as a project nears the end of its design life. The “bathtub curve” shown below is an Engineering concept which supports this idea. It shows how infant mortality failures likely contributed to the observed availabilities in the first 6-12 months of operation, and highlights the further need for more operational data as projects age. This is applicable to individual components in many physical systems. Aggregated across an entire system and accounting for typical replacements and maintenance, one might expect to see a flatter availability curve, but with some consideration for early- and late-stage failures. We have seen this already with 10-15 year old PV sites, where owners struggle to obtain compatible replacement equipment that can be “dropped in” to replace original equipment onsite. As technology continues evolving quickly, we can expect new module types, inverter technologies, sensing devices, and code requirements to all play a role in the maintainability of PV sites in the late stages of their useful life. Camelot’s Balanced Approach The summary below provides a graphical representation of each IE’s default availability recommendations over time, and includes Camelot’s own recommended defaults (when no other project-specific information is available). We note the following: Camelot’s approach accounts for the size impacts observed by DNV, which appears to be a strong signal in the data, but does not differentiate between technologies until more information is made available supporting the distinction. Much like DNV, Camelot’s recommended availability starts slightly lower in year 1 before reaching steady operations, as is supported by all studies. We recommend modeling availability declines after year 20 based on several factors, including the bathtub curve concept described above, the typical useful life for major components, and our expectation that the impacts of mid-life failures will likely offset by the efficiencies gained from experience during operations. While we see this assumption as a necessary recognition of late-stage wear-out failures, it’s worth noting that its impacts on a financial model are muted by the time value of money. On average, Camelot’s assumptions are less pessimistic than ICF, and strike a balance between the assumptions reported by Natural Power and DNV. Camelot will consider quantitative adjustment to our base availability assumptions for sponsor efforts that materially result in increased reliability, such as: Demonstrating better than average historical availability for project- specific equipment (e.g., inverters) through operational data (as described in item 3 above) Adding incentives to O&M Agreements for increased availability, beyond simply guaranteed levels Purchasing extra spare parts for more vulnerable system components likely to need frequent replacing Investing in predictive analytics and above-market O&M services to reduce the frequency and severity of unplanned maintenance events While these recommendations may be Camelot’s “default” values, as an IE which cares heavily about the accuracy of our projections, we will always consider factors such as operator experience or the relative track record of the technologies deployed at each site. As the saying goes, “show us the data.” Before we close, it is important to underscore an important point. Recent reporting that indicates PV projects are falling short of expected availability is a call to action for all of us. It is a call to action for more data, better analysis, and a deeper understanding of what causes PV systems to underperform. It is, notably, not a call to action for unnuanced conservatism. Simply whacking a few points off availability is, in our view, insufficient to the task of ensuring a better-performing PV fleet and it creates blind spots. We hope our fellow IEs will join us in not simply erring on the side of conservatism but, rather, will continue to advance our knowledge of these issues and build better, and more nuanced models that reward innovation, investment, and effort. We hope you’ve found this series to be helpful, and we welcome the opportunity to partner with any of our readers who would be able to support with future efforts. Although this is the last of our solar availability series for now, we fully intend to revisit the topic in the future. For our storage-oriented audience, you can expect a similar discussion on availability assumptions for BESS technologies in upcoming articles. About Camelot Energy Group is a technical and strategic advisor to owners and investors in clean energy and energy storage projects, programs, and infrastructure. Guided by our core values of courage, empathy, integrity, and service we seek to support the energy needs of a just, sustainable, and equitable future. Our team has experience in supporting 7+GW of solar PV and 10+ GWh of energy storage and offers expertise in technology, codes and standards, engineering, public programs, project finance, installation methods, quality assurance, safety, contract negotiation, and related topics. Our services are tailored to a providing a different kind of consulting experience that emphasizes the humanity of our clients and team members, resulting in a high quality bespoke service, delivered with focus, attention, and purpose. Key services include: -Technical due diligence of projects and technologies -Owner’s representative and engineer support -Strategic planning -Training and coaching -Codes and standards consulting -Contract negotiation and support. < Back Back

Mar 14, 2025 New Acquisition Opportunity in ISO-NE At Camelot, we always try to keep a finger on the pulse of the solar and energy storage M&A market, as many of our clients turn to us for technical and market due diligence on these sorts of engagements. We just had a noteworthy M&A opportunity come across our desk from our friends at Enerdatics and wanted to share this opportunity with our network. It’s for a portfolio of three hybrid (Solar + BESS) project in ISO-NE, a region where many folks have had development and acquisition interests in the MA SMART + Clean peak programs. A few details to highlight: This portfolio comprises three hybrid projects totaling 15 MW of solar + 6.72 MW of BESS , available for sale in Massachusetts, USA . Each project is for sale at the Notice to Proceed (NTP) stage, with land, permits, and interconnection already secured . The projects are expected to achieve Commercial Operation Date (COD) between Q3 and Q4 of 2026 . They participate in the MA SMART and Clean Peak programs , with potential eligibility under MA SMART 3.0 . The projects qualify for the 30% federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and offer strong revenue potential through offtake strategies and ancillary services in ISO-NE . Offers are welcome for the entire portfolio or individual projects , with transaction closing anticipated in Q2 2025 . Camelot has recently performed diligence on, and supported the development of, several projects in MA SMART + Clean Peak Programs and we find that revenues can vary widely based on the revenue stack, BESS system sizing, and offtake strategy. Similar hybrid projects present a great opportunity and favorable economics, especially with the significant adjustments made to the adders proposed in the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (MA DOER) straw proposal. This is in addition to the changes made to the Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP) rate, where starting in 2026, the rate will increase to $65/MWh and stay at this level until 2032. After 2032, the ACP will return to $45/MWh, where it will remain until 2050. Camelot also has recent data on CAPEX and OPEX applicable to the region and can perform a wholistic economic analysis of the projects to verify the seller’s assumptions. Overall, depending on the quality of the development of course, this could be a good opportunity in an active market. If you are new to the MA SMART + Clean Peak Programs, we encourage you to to check out our relevant articles: Massachusetts SMART and Clean Peak Overview MA SMART Part 2: Key Financial Implications for Hybrid Systems If you are interested, we would be glad to put you in touch with our friends at Enerdatics who are tracking the deal and, of course, if you decide to pursue and need any help on the due diligence side of things, please reach out to Taylor Parsons or Shawn Shaw, PE . The Enerdatics team will also be at #Infocast2025 next week and will have other exclusive deals and insights to share. Be sure to reach out to Mohit Kaul or Kshitij N R to connect! < Back Back

Site Under Construction Our new website is on it's way © Camelot Energy Group 2022 | All Rights Reserved | { Website design by Lore Design Co } Get In Touch First Name Last Name Email Message Sign Me Up Thanks for submitting!

< Back Calla Schultz Associate Project Engineer Calla Schultz is an Associate Project Engineer at Camelot Energy Group, where she supports the Technical Services team in advancing clean energy projects. Her focus is on engineering analysis, market and policy research, and technical documentation to inform decision-making and advance solar and battery energy storage project deployment. Previously, she interned at Camelot on the Programs and Policy team, contributing to technical advisory work and feasibility studies for public sector clients. Before joining Camelot, she worked as a Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) Intern at PureSky Energy. She has also conducted laboratory research in both academic and industry settings across life sciences and geochemistry, reflecting her interest in applying physical science to address environmental problems. Calla values collaborating with Camelot's experienced and thoughtful team to help build a resilient, accessible energy system for future generations. Outside of work, she enjoys traveling and learning about different cultures, practicing yoga, drinking coffee, and spending time in nature. She has an M.S. in Materials Science and Engineering from Boston University, with a concentration in Materials for Energy and Environment, and holds a B.S. in Chemistry from McGill University. calla.schultz@camelotenergygroup.com

OUR MISSION To power a just and sustainable society with clean energy Getting to this point will require substantial investment in solar, energy storage, and other clean energy technologies, with such investment coming not only from banks and investment funds but communities, corporations, and governments. Building the energy systems of tomorrow offers a chance to rethink energy systems, infrastructure, ownership, and equity. Enabling the investment required to scale clean energy is about people. Investors in the clean energy future have very human questions, concerns, and anxiety as they step into unknown technologies, financing mechanisms, commercial agreements, and other challenges. These people, whether experienced investors or community leaders new to energy topics, deserve respect, expertise, empathy, and service as they bravely step into the future. At Camelot Energy Group , to these brave owners, investors, and visionaries putting their resources into the clean energy future, we say: “We’ve got your backs”. Camelot was founded to accelerate investment in the clean energy infrastructure of the future but also to embrace the human aspects of this transition. By taking the time to listen to our clients, staff, and partners and give each the focus and attention they deserve, we set ourselves apart from other consultancies that focus on sales, overly standardized services, and lackluster support provided by overworked and distracted teams. We believe that by treating our team and clients with respect, dignity, and empathy we provide the best possible advisory services and solve real-world challenges. OUR CORE VALUES Integrity, empathy, courage, and service > Back

Apr 27, 2026 Round-Trip Efficiency Is Not a Spec Sheet Number - It's a System Behavior Under Load When we started looking at the data from ERCOT more closely, we couldn't help but notice that the AC RTE across the fleet is in the low-80s or high 70s, underscoring that RTE isn't a fixed property - it's an operating point. Here's what actually determines it: Cell/Module/Pack: I²R losses scale quadratically with current — high C-rate dispatch is inherently less efficient Internal resistance rises with decreasing temperature and SOH degradation Efficiency varies non-monotonically across SOC; mid-SOC operation generally minimizes losses Power Conversion System (PCS): Inverter efficiency is load-dependent — partial load (frequency regulation) can drop well below 90%; high load (energy arbitrage) approaches 97–98% Switching losses scale linearly with power; conduction losses scale quadratically — distinct mechanisms, distinct mitigation strategies Reactive power dispatch increases apparent power through the PCS without contributing to metered real energy output — a direct RTE penaltyFixed standby draw amortizes poorly over short or infrequent cycles Thermal Management: HVAC auxiliary load is a direct RTE deduction, highly climate- and architecture-dependent, and routinely underestimated in project models Liquid cooling typically carries a lower parasitic load than air-cooled equivalents while providing tighter thermal control Balance of Plant: Transformer no-load (core) losses are present even at zero throughput — continuous and unavoidable Conductor losses, site auxiliaries (BMS, EMS, SCADA, fire suppression) add a persistent baseline draw often excluded from headline RTE figures Dispatch Profile: RTE is path-dependent: same energy, different C-rate profiles → different losses Low average utilization (peakers, ancillary services) amplifies the relative weight of standby and self-discharge losses Cell-terminal, DC-meter, and AC-meter RTE can differ materially on identical hardware. This single variable explains most vendor datasheet discrepancies. A quoted AC RTE without a defined C-rate, SOC window, ambient temperature, dispatch profile, and metering boundary is a marketing number. What assumptions do you see most often buried in BESS efficiency specs? Email us at hello@camelotenergygroup.com for any questions! Raafe Khan < Back Back

Feb 12, 2025 MA SMART Part 2 Massachusetts continues to establish itself as a leader in state-level clean energy programs, and Camelot is staying closely aligned on the latest developments in the region. Developers and other players take note: Through the Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target (SMART) Program and the Clean Peak Energy Standard, the state has introduced dynamic frameworks designed to accelerate renewable energy adoption while addressing grid reliability and peak demand challenges. Here, in part 1 of our two-part series on the Massachusetts programs, we’ll set the scene with what you need to know about the programs, and will dive more deeply into the key financial implications in part 2. Massachusetts SMART Program Overview The Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target (SMART) Program is a pioneering initiative aimed at promoting solar energy adoption across the state. Managed by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER), the program provides long-term incentives for solar photovoltaic (PV) projects, encouraging residential, commercial and small utility scale installations up to 5MW AC. Here’s an in-depth look at its objectives, structure, and benefits. The SMART program is a feed-in-tariff program that assigns a unique energy rate to different qualifying solar projects based on system size, system type, system location, offtaker type, and associated energy storage system size. The SMART program has a total capacity of 3,200 MW AC, which is distributed among Massachusetts' three investor-owned electric distribution companies: National Grid , Eversource Energy , and Unitil . The capacity assigned to each utility is proportional to the number of customers in their service area. Generally, sites serviced by municipally-owned electric utilities are not eligible for the SMART program. Each utility’s allocated capacity is further divided into two categories: one for systems larger than 25kW AC and one for systems smaller than 25kW AC. These categories are then subdivided into 16 "capacity blocks." As SMART applications are approved, these blocks gradually fill up. Once a block is fully subscribed, it is considered at capacity, and the program advances to the next block. The incentive rate for the new block is lower than that of the previous one, declining by 4% each block. Figure 1: Summary of Capacity Blocks as of 1/9/2025. SMART Capacity Block updates are posted at www.masmartsolar.com for each utility company To determine the exact SMART tariff rate that a project is granted, the DOER determines a base compensation rate based on the system size and the current utility capacity block. Then adders are applied based on system location, off-taker type, energy storage and racking (see Figure 1). Similar to the declining capacity blocks, the adders have declining “tranches”, and as each tranche is filled at the state level, the incentive rate declines by 4%. However, the adder rates for the Agricultural, Brownfield, Canopy, Floating and Landfill Adders will be locked in at their Tranche 1 rates for the duration of the SMART program and the adder rate for the Building Mounted Adder will be locked in at the Tranche 2 rate for the duration of the SMART program as modified by order 20-145-B released by the Department of Public Utilities on 12/30/2021. Figure 2: Previous Adder Values Massachusetts DOER SMART Program – Initial Release 2018 *Significant adjustments to this table are proposed in the Straw proposal: Figure 3: Straw proposal for new adders Massachusetts DOER SMART Updates – Straw Proposal 2024 SMART and Energy Storage Under the current SMART regulations, all projects over 500kW must be coupled with an Energy Storage System (ESS).* SMART projects coupled with ESS are provided with an “energy storage adder” that ranges between 0.025 – 0.077 $/kWh. The exact adder value is dependent on the max power output of the ESS and the duration, with the maximum adder being granted to projects with 100% of the max power of the PV system and 6 hours duration and the minimum adder being granted to projects with max 25% of max PV power and 2 hour duration. The incentive of the Energy Storage adder is applied to all power generated by the system, independent of the use case of the ESS. There is a requirement that each year the ESS must be cycled a minimum of 52 times to maintain eligibility for this adder.** * The new straw proposal published 7/29/24 specifies only projects over 1MW AC will require ESS ** The new straw proposal published 7/29/24 increases this requirement to 156 cycles per year and adds the requirement that the ESS is online and able to discharge 85% of the time during summer and winter months. Figure 4: Energy Storage Adder Matrix Massachusetts Clean Peak Energy Program Overview The Massachusetts Clean Peak Energy Standard (CPS) is a first-of-its-kind program designed to encourage the use of clean energy during peak electricity demand periods. Managed by the Massachusetts DOER, the program incentivizes renewable energy systems and energy storage solutions that contribute to grid stability and reduce reliance on fossil fuel-based power during high-demand hours. How the Program Works Clean Peak Energy Certificates (CPECs): Eligible resources earn Clean Peak Energy Certificates (CPECs) by generating or dispatching energy during defined Seasonal Peak Periods and the Actual Monthly System Peak, as specified by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (MA DOER). CPECs can be traded in the market to electricity suppliers required to meet clean peak compliance obligations. Various applicable multipliers align CPEC generation with time periods and resource attributes that have the highest impact. For instance, higher multipliers are assigned for summer and winter months (4x) compared to other season months (1x). The Actual Monthly System Peak is weighted disproportionately to incentivize project owners to optimize performance during the peak hour of a given month, which determines the infrastructure sizing requirements. Hybrid Solar + ESS projects that are enrolled in the SMART program can also participate in the Clean Peak program and generate CPECs. However, these projects are awarded a 0.3 multiplier for all CPECs generated, effectively derating the value of their incentive by 70%. Eligible Resources: Wind turbines with storage. Solar PV systems paired with energy storage. Standalone storage systems charged with renewable energy. Demand response resources that reduce load during peak periods. Figure 5 – Energy Storage Charging Windows for Solar-Based Charging Hours Defined Peak Periods: Peak hours are established seasonally to reflect times of highest grid demand. These periods typically occur during late afternoon to early evening hour Figure 6 – Clean Peak Season (CPS) Windows Market-Driven Prices: The value of CPECs fluctuates based on market supply and demand, providing financial incentives for participating resources. Things To Note CPEC Revenues CPEC revenues are designed to incentivize clean energy generation during peak demand periods and can apply to projects that include solar paired with energy storage systems (solar + storage), as these systems are particularly effective at delivering energy during peak periods. Standalone solar projects can still qualify for CPEC revenues, but their ability to maximize these revenues is typically limited compared to solar-plus-storage systems, which offers greater flexibility in aligning energy delivery with peak periods because storage enhances the ability to participate in the Clean Peak Standard (CPS) program. By storing solar energy and dispatching it during peak demand hours, hybrid systems can generate additional CPEC revenues, making them a financially attractive option. ACP Rate Changes The DOER has implemented significant updates to the Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP) rate as part of its emergency rulemaking. The ACP rate will remain at $45/MWh through Compliance Year 2025. However, starting in 2026, the rate will increase to $65/MWh and stay at this level until 2032. After 2032, the ACP will return to $45/MWh, where it will remain through 2050. This marks a major departure from the original regulations, which planned for a declining ACP rate, dropping to $4.96 by the end of the policy period. While the higher ACP rate is expected to boost market prices, there is still a risk of steep price drops if surpluses exceed the banking limits of load-serving entities. Figure 7 – CPS Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP) Rates Near-Term Resource Multiplier (NTRM) DOER has also introduced a new NTRM under the CPS. The NTRM will provide a 2x multiplier on CPECs for up to 50 MW of qualified energy storage systems for a duration of 10 years. To qualify, the QESS must be a standalone, front-of-the-meter system interconnected to the distribution system, with a commercial operation date between January 1, 2019, and January 1, 2027. Additionally, it must not have received a Statement of Qualification before January 1, 2025, or the Distribution Credit Multiplier. Ownership is restricted to prevent any single entity from controlling more than 50% (25 MW) of the program’s capacity. DOER released the NTRM application on January 7, 2025[SS3] . Applications submitted by January 21, 2025, will be prioritized based on interconnection service agreement dates. Any applications received after this deadline will be reviewed on a first-come, first-served basis. These updates aim to encourage the development of energy storage systems while addressing previous concerns about market pricing and resource deployment under the CPS. Conclusions Looking forward, Massachusetts aims to expand and refine the SMART & Clean Peak Program to adapt to emerging technologies and evolving market conditions. By integrating solar energy with battery storage and enhancing equitable access, the program continues to serve as a model for other states aiming to transition to a clean energy future. For those considering solar or hybrid projects in the state, the program offers a valuable opportunity to contribute to sustainability while enjoying financial benefits. Stay tuned for Part 2, where we will discuss the revenue stack for hybrid projects, containing a combination of the SMART Program & Clean Peak Program. If you're interested in assessing solar, energy storage, and/or hybrid projects in ISO-NE’s MA SMART Program, feel free to reach out to us at info@camelotenergygroup.com . About Camelot Energy Group is a technical and strategic advisor to owners and investors in clean energy and energy storage projects, programs, and infrastructure. Guided by our core values of courage, empathy, integrity, and service we seek to support the energy needs of a just, sustainable, and equitable future. Our team has experience in supporting 7+GW of solar PV and 10+ GWh of energy storage and offers expertise in technology, codes and standards, engineering, public programs, project finance, installation methods, quality assurance, safety, contract negotiation, and related topics. Our services are tailored to a providing a different kind of consulting experience that emphasizes the humanity of our clients and team members, resulting in a high-quality bespoke service, delivered with focus, attention, and purpose. Key services include: -Technical due diligence of projects and technologies -Owner’s representative and engineer support -Strategic planning -Training and coaching -Codes and standards consulting -Contract negotiation and support. < Back Back

The Clean Energy Helpdesk At Camelot, we believe that local authorities, communities, local governments, and non-profits should have access to the same expert advice that is available to developers and big banks. After all, if we are going to power a just and sustainable society with clean energy, it is going to take support from everyone. As such, we have launched the Clean Energy Helpdesk, wherein members of these groups can ask for pro bono support from Camelot’s team of experts. Requests will be responded to in the order received and Camelot staff will provide up to 8 hours of expert consulting to help address topics such as: Training and technical support on battery energy storage systems for local authorities Technical assistance on energy storage codes and standards Guidance on zoning best practices Q&A with municipal officials about a planned project Business case for community renewable energy If you are a community, local authority, local government entity, or non-profit and need help with questions like these, please fill out the form below. We will be glad to review your questions with you and offer help. Clean energy should be a win-win for everyone, so if you have questions please reach out. How can we help? First name Last name Organization* Email* Phone Tell us what you need help with... Send

Mar 27, 2026 From lab to grid: making LDES bankable The grid already faces multi-hour and multi-day imbalances caused by transmission constraints, renewable intermittency, and extreme weather volatility. The rapid addition of data centers further complicates this situation, adding peak load to an already stressed grid. As the traditional 2-4 hour storage market tightens, and large-AI-based loads demand a higher degree of reliability and redundancy, long-duration energy storage (LDES) is gaining serious attention from developers, Independent Power Producers (IPPs), utilities, and investors. LDES matters now more than ever because: Renewable penetration is accelerating , leading to increased curtailment. Industrial electrification is increasing baseload demand , adding stress to transmission and distribution systems. Peak load is growing , leading to overbuilding of generation. Extreme weather is stressing grids globally , increasing the need for flexibility. Contrary to popular belief, LDES is not a future solution. The technologies exist today, but have yet to be successfully field-tested in long-term projects. When deploying LDES at scale, the deciding factors will be cost, performance, and commercial viability, which will all determine the market’s true winners and losers. The chemistry war: A distraction from the real issue Energy storage professionals have debated which chemistry or brand name is ideal for long-duration applications. This debate, while lively, is besides the point. Industry efforts should focus on technology-agnostic procurement – picking the technology that fits the use case. While most markets still anchor to the 4-hour lithium-ion benchmark, reflecting yesterday’s grid needs, intraday needs exceed 4 hours, and multi-day reliability events are increasing. Lithium currently wins on performance and experience, with ~90% round-trip efficiency, a mature bankability profile, and proven deployment at scale. However, lithium performs best for 4-hour use cases (or less) and 15-20 year technical life expectations. If efficiency, upfront capital outlay, and energy density are critical to the project, lithium-ion typically wins. But when fire safety, total cost of ownership, a fully or primarily domestic supply chain, or >8-hour discharge needs dominate, a non-lithium technology may be superior. “The longer the better” is the right answer for most LDES projects, but each deployment will have varying problems and solutions. Longer doesn’t just mean longer discharge duration, but also a longer calendar life. Duration should be defined by system need, not by lithium’s historical average, and the right chemistry cocktail should be tailored not to industry standard but to individual use cases. Scaling too fast will break things Despite record installation numbers, the long-term degradation performance of utility-scale storage remains uncertain. Most assets are underwritten on lab-based, accelerated testing, so we truly don’t understand how these systems are expected to perform between years 10 and 20 of their operating lives. The utility-scale storage industry is little more than a decade old, and no battery fleet has reached end-of-life. At this stage, decommissioning frameworks remain theoretical rather than concrete. Commissioning engineers and project managers currently rely on performance metrics documented by accelerated lab testing instead of real-world use cases and stressors. Furthermore, few asset owners of deployed projects possess true fleet-level transparency regarding battery health and key dispatch metrics. Taken together, these factors make project failure – or faster-than-promised degradation – highly likely. Depending on the project structure, some teams will catch and fix these issues over time. However, many won’t have a fix available to them due to the rapid evolution of cell form factors and subsystem hardware and software architecture. With storage remaining untested in long-term, real-world projects, industry skepticism remains a hurdle. Overcoming this will require LDES demonstrating real-world degradation performance, ease of integration, enhanced safety, lower lifecycle costs, and reliability comparable to lithium. Long-term financial viability also matters. Buyers need confidence that the supplier will be around for multiple decades to provide technical support, spare parts, and warranty response. We also need to ensure that we close the gap between economic forecasts and operational realities, and how risk is underwritten. Hopefully, with deployment and manufacturing scale, the economics will follow, making LDES the right choice for energy generation projects and facilities. Policy frameworks shape LDES deployment now, but they remain far behind Historically, ancillary service markets have been the early proving ground for energy storage around the world. Because these products reward fast response over short time windows—typically minutes to about an hour—short-duration batteries had a built-in advantage: they could follow rapid control signals and deliver frequent, shallow charge-and-discharge cycles that align well with today’s battery performance. But as growing renewable generation pushes fossil “thermal” plants further down the dispatch order and into a more backup role, the grid increasingly needs LDES to do what fast services can’t: capture excess clean energy that would otherwise be curtailed, provide resilience and flexibility during longer imbalances, and help keep the lowest-cost electricity available when it’s needed. That said, the current ancillary service market designs reward speed, not endurance. If fundamental price signals evolve to incentivize lower-cost, longer-duration assets that perform at a high reliability standard, the market will rise to the challenge. LDES needs clear market incentives. Those signals may show up over time, but capacity markets could help make long-term projects financeable now. The recent federal policy changes promoting domestic manufacturing now reshape the equation. Lithium-ion supply chains remain heavily dependent on both mining and processing outside the U.S.. With new FEOC guidance under the OBBB and tariff policy implementation, any critical mineral material that can be found domestically gains a huge homefield advantage in cost and tax credit eligibility. Many lithium alternatives in LDES, such as zinc and sodium, draw on U.S. deposits. While gaining traction, these technologies remain untested at a mass scale and still lack the affordability and performance of lithium-ion. Policy levers can accelerate innovation and encourage market adoption, and policymakers have many in the works. LDES provides essential infrastructure. As the grid incorporates more renewable energy sources and retires older fossil fuel facilities, only massive deployment and integration of LDES can guarantee grid reliability. The technology exists; companies are building it, and deployments are happening. Yet cost competitiveness, efficiency gaps, and operability at commercial scale remain real barriers. Companies that can combine cost discipline, bankability, and execution excellence will define the next era of grid infrastructure, and we need it sooner rather than later. As featured in ESS News. What's your take? Email us at hello@camelotenergygroup.com for any questions! Raafe Khan < Back Back

< Back Sagar Bharadwaj Project Manager Sagar Bharadwaj is a Project Manager at Camelot Energy Group with experience in renewable energy, energy storage, and project management. His work spans battery energy storage systems (BESS), long-duration energy storage, hydrogen technologies, technical project management, and engineering coordination, supporting projects from early-stage development through execution. Prior to joining Camelot, Sagar worked across the energy storage and clean energy sectors, supporting the development of lithium-ion and non-lithium battery technologies, hydrogen-powered aviation systems, and utility-scale energy storage projects. He managed the development of a long-duration battery energy storage project at the University of Minnesota, leading technical evaluations, procurement strategy, financial analysis, and project planning. He also supported the development of hydrogen-powered aviation systems at ZeroAvia and contributed to the development of battery technologies at Aerosapien Technologies. Sagar holds a Master of Science in Energy Science, Technology & Policy from Carnegie Mellon University and a Bachelor of Technology in Mechanical Engineering from Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT). He is also a certified Project Management Professional (PMP®). Outside of work, Sagar enjoys producing music, experimenting with new recipes, traveling to national parks, and staying up to date on emerging technologies Sagar.Bharadwaj@camelotenergygroup.com

Aug 8, 2025 Camelot Unpacks UL 9540 – Part 1 At Camelot, reviewing the UL Listing status of battery energy storage systems (BESS) for the projects we are overseeing as an Owner’s Engineer (OE) or Independent Engineer (IE) is something our team considers a good starting place in the due diligence process. This Listing is so foundational to a successful and code-compliant BESS project that we often take it for granted that everyone understands what this important Standard entails.   Unfortunately, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the UL 9540 Listing process, even among some engineers who are otherwise pretty familiar with BESS technologies. Missing a step in verifying the proper UL listing of the BESS on a project can have large implications. For instance, an astute authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) that notices your BESS is not properly Listed may find it is not code-compliant, causing significant delays in permitting and significant costs in addressing deficiencies with the BESS manufacturer. Moreover, a UL 9540 Listing represents the successful completion of a battery (we could not resist, of course) of tests related to safety, reliability, and performance.   Understanding Standards Most folks involved in BESS projects think they know what a Standard is, as it seems pretty self-explanatory, right? Perhaps, but once you move beyond the surface level and try to parse the difference between a “Listed”, “Certified”, and “Recognized” product, it can quickly get confusing. So, let’s address a few common misconceptions.   Misconception 1: Projects Have to Comply with Standards The rollout of new standards, like NFPA 855 and UL 9540, have undoubtedly made BESS projects safer. However, complying with these Standards is not required. Organizations like NFPA or UL have no legal authority to provide, or deny, any project a permit. Permits are issued, rather, based on Codes (e.g., Electrical Code, Building Code, Fire Code) and if the Code for your project’s jurisdiction does not incorporate one of these Standards, then the AHJ may not be able to enforce the requirement. This can happen, for instance, when a local Code has not been updated recently enough to incorporate the latest versions of relevant Standards. So, unless the Code references a particular Standard, the project does not have to comply with the Standard, at least from a permitting perspective. Fortunately, many savvy asset owners have developed their own BESS technical criteria. While these criteria are unrelated to permitting, they can be used as a condition of financing. In this way, the investment community can drive better and safer installations by holding developers to the highest current Standards (literally). Misconception 2: Standards Represent the Gold Standard of Safety and Quality Given all the time taken, and the expertise of the dozens of industry experts applied, in crafting Standards it is natural to assume that each one represents the pinnacle of current thinking in design, safety, and quality. Not so. It is best to think of a Standard as the lowest common denominator that a bunch of technical folks with often-competing priorities can agree on. Anyone that has ever got more than one engineer in a room to talk about BESS likely knows that we can be an opinionated bunch, so imagine what a room with fifty engineers is like when coming up with a new technical Standard. The results are incredible acts of service to the industry, but they are only a starting place. Complying with Standards should be a bare minimum, not a stretch goal.   Misconception 3: A BESS can “Pass” or be Listed to UL 9540A Most folks understand a Standard as something that can be “passed” or “failed”. This is an understandable interpretation, as it applies to everything from everyday household appliances to BESS equipment. Unfortunately, UL 9540A is a little different. UL 9540A is actually a testing Standard that describes how a testing laboratory is to initiate and measure the impacts of thermal runaway . In completing the tests, it is literally impossible to not destroy the BESS (/ the BESS is intentionally destroyed). If thermal runaway is not initiated through one initiation method (e.g., heating), then the test continues using other methods until thermal runaway occurs (e.g., nail penetration, overcharging). There are non-lithium-ion BESS that are not subject to thermal runaway but even these do not “pass”. Instead, at each level of testing, a higher level of testing is required unless the test results fall within a particular range . For example, if a cell is tested and does not exhibit thermal runaway, it is not required to test at the module or unit level.   Misconception 4: UL 9540 Replaces Other Battery Standards In fact, UL 9540 is carefully crafted to build on other key standards, not replace them. Though many spec sheets will list UL 9540 alongside UL 1973 or UL 1741, compliance with UL 9540 already includes many of these relevant equipment-specific Standards , such as: UL 1973 for battery cells and modules UL 1741 for inverters (such as in AC block BESS products) UL 9540A for testing thermal runaway propagation risks   Wrapping Up Part 1 Misunderstandings about UL 9540 aren’t just academic - they can cause costly delays, strained relationships with AHJs, and headaches during financing or commissioning. Clearing up the myths is the first step, but knowing exactly what UL 9540 covers, when it’s required, and how to navigate the Listing or Field Listing process is where the real project-saving insight comes in. In Part 2, we’ll take that next step: unpacking the key requirements baked into UL 9540, explaining how they connect to other Codes and Standards, and clarifying the often-misunderstood Field Listing process. If Part 1 was about avoiding the traps, Part 2 is about charting the course to a compliant, bankable BESS installation. < Back Back

Oct 31, 2024 U.S. ISO/RTO Regions The energy storage market, driven in large part by the Inflation Reduction Act, is hot and active, with many developers and investors making new investments and growing their storage portfolios. Unfortunately, overall market growth does not mean low risk for developers and the cost of picking the wrong market, revenue stack, contracting structure, or technology could spell disappointment for investors as they watch others pass them by. Sound and informed guidance on energy storage development is absolutely critical to capitalizing on this important growth area. At Camelot, we provide comprehensive market analyses across all U.S. Independent System Operator (ISO) and Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) regions. Our team analyzes each market’s unique characteristics, helping solar and energy storage developers identify the best opportunities for deploying Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) and hybrid projects. Here are some key points for each region: ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) ERCOT doesn't have a firm real-time ancillary service market, relying sporadically on Supplemental Ancillary Service Market (SASM) auctions to make up for gaps in day-ahead obligations. However, by 2026, ERCOT aims to roll out a real-time co-optimization system for energy and ancillary services. Moreover, as storage saturates the market and as real-time co-optimization between energy and ancillary services gets implemented, ancillary services prices are expected to decline in the near term. Despite the potential saturation of ancillary services in ERCOT, the ongoing deployment of non-dispatchable renewable energy there, and the potential for new load growth, is helping the Lone Star State retain center stage for energy storage developers. However, many developers that come to Camelot for guidance make the mistake of thinking any Texas ESS project is likely to be successful. In reality, identifying the optimal placement and technology mix means all the difference between a profitable ESS project and one that struggles to pencil. Overall, the Houston Hub faces a lower risk of ERCOT related issues, including curtailment, compared to the South hub, which is likely to experience increasing challenges. CAISO (California Independent System Operator) Energy price volatility in CAISO increased significantly in 2022 and is projected to remain elevated in upcoming years, driven by higher gas prices and concerns over system reliability, creates a strong opportunity for BESS. Gas Pricing: Despite less expensive generation from solar and wind, elevated gas prices, impacted by supply constraints and global market dynamics, contribute to higher electricity prices. The availability of cheap electricity from renewables, combined with relatively expensive electricity from gas turbines during periods of low solar and wind resource, create a strong economic opportunity for energy storage. In addition to daily arbitrage, the combination of renewables generating under long-term fixed price contracts and flexible energy storage assets creates a valuable price hedge against fluctuating natural gas prices. System Reliability: CAISO’s grid faces reliability challenges due to increasing reliance on non-dispatchable renewable energy sources like solar, coupled with aging infrastructure, severe weather, and peak demand spikes, especially during summer heatwaves. BESS can mitigate these issues by providing grid stability, fast-acting reserves, and ancillary services to maintain balance. This growing demand for reliability services, along with capacity payments, offers BESS projects multiple revenue streams and a strategic edge in this volatile market. Moreover, California’s aggressive renewable energy targets make it a prime market for BESS projects. Our market overview highlights CAISO’s resource adequacy and ancillary services market changes, helping you understand how to optimize project returns. SPP (Southwest Power Pool) SPP offers significant wind energy potential and continues to expand its transmission network. The surge in renewable energy within SPP is causing a downturn in electricity prices, especially during periods of strong winds, which places intense financial stress on thermal power sources and underscores the importance of adaptable capacity and presents an opportunity for Long Duration Energy Storage (LDES). Our insights into SPP’s market dynamics focus on strategies to capture ancillary service revenues and enhance renewable energy integration through storage solutions. In addition, our team has demonstrated experience in deploying LDES solutions for BTM and FTM projects, putting us in a position to provide strategic insights in this space. PJM (Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland) Interconnection PJM is undergoing rapid data center expansion, especially in Northern Virginia which has put pressure on the grid, causing congestion and high nodal power prices in the Dominion territory. As one of the largest RTOs, PJM presents a strong market with various revenue streams, including capacity and ancillary services. We provide clients with analysis of PJM’s capacity market changes, ensuring projects align with this highly competitive landscape. MISO (Midcontinent Independent System Operator) MISO is currently experiencing a significant transformation in its energy landscape. This shift is characterized by an accelerated adoption of renewable energy sources, alongside a concurrent phase-out of thermal generation plants. Key drivers behind this transition include elevated prices for natural gas and electricity, legislative actions at federal and state levels, demand from energy off-takers, and increasing pressure from stakeholders. MISO's vast geography and increasing renewable penetration create opportunities for BESS projects. Our team helps you understand the benefits of locating projects near congested nodes to optimize project returns. NYISO (New York Independent System Operator) New York is pioneering ambitious climate policies that prioritize storage development. With the recent update to the Energy Storage Roadmap by the New York PSC, storage deployments are expected to increase by 2030 to achieve 6 GW of energy storage. This includes the procurement of 3 GW of bulk storage through an Index Storage Credit (ISC) mechanism, 1.5 GW of retail (Community/C&I) storage, and 200 MW of residential energy storage through the VDER structure, marking a significant shift towards expanding utility-scale storage in the NYISO market to enhance grid reliability and support renewable energy integration. Our NYISO market overview covers key programs, including the Value Stack and Clean Energy Standard, providing guidance to help you understand program specifics and on to provide you with accurate project revenue estimates. We provided some background on the VDER program to help developers and investors better understand this critical framework, which you can view here . ISO-NE (ISO New England) ISO-NE is currently in the early stages of a major shift in market dynamics, transitioning into a period characterized by rapid renewable energy growth, concurrent retirement of thermal generation facilities, and a surge in storage deployment, all fueled by state policy objectives and incentives for clean energy. ISO-NE faces grid reliability challenges and peak demand concerns, making it ideal for storage solutions. We offer insights on ISO-NE’s capacity market changes and BESS opportunities in this renewable-rich region. With Camelot’s help, developers and investors can make confident investment decisions about target markets, project economics, and navigating the latest policy and regulation challenges. We work across all the major markets and developers rely on our market expertise for everything from negotiating tolling agreements to prioritizing their portfolios of merchant market ESS projects. If you're interested in any of the U.S. ISO/RTO market overviews, feel free to reach out to us at info@camelotenergygroup.com . < Back Back