Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “closed-loop pumped storage hydropower”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

17 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Environmental Impacts of Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower

The goal of this report is to help license applicants, resource agencies, and other members of the hydropower community involved in closed-loop pumped storage hydropower permitting and licensing process, focus the scope of environmental reviews, and more quickly identify impacts with project nexus and potential mitigation measures for these impacts. Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) is an energy storage technology that uses energy to pump water up from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir where water is stored until electricity is needed and the water is released to a lower reservoir passing through turbines. Closed-loop PSH—PSH that is not continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature—is one of the lowest greenhouse gas emitting energy storage technologies and is therefore a critical part of the transition to renewable energy (Simon et al. 2023). Proposals for closed-loop PSH facilities in the United States currently account for more than 40% of original licenses and 99% of potential generation capacity in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower licensing pipeline (Johnson et al. 2023). While closed-loop PSH facilities can have lower environmental impacts than open-loop PSH facilities, no closed-loop facilities have been constructed in the United States to enable direct accounting of project impacts and efficacy of mitigations. Many proposals for closed-loop PSH submitted to FERC are abandoned early in the permitting and licensing process prior to license applications and environmental assessments, so there is little documentation describing potential project impacts and proposed mitigations. The newness of closed-loop PSH proposals in the United States may mean that tribal, federal, and state agencies with authorities for cultural and natural resources protection and management involved in the FERC licensing process may not have experience with closed-loop PSH regulation. Moreover, many proposed closed-loop PSH facilities are in areas that do not have high concentrations of conventional hydropower, so these agencies may also be unfamiliar with the FERC hydropower licensing process. The goal of this report is to help license applicants, resource agencies, and other members of the hydropower community focus the scope of environmental review for the closed-loop PSH development, licensing, and federal authorization process enabling quicker identification of potential impacts, mitigations, and situations where mitigation may not be possible. We found that environmental impacts of closed-loop PSH are highly site-specific, and generalizations about the types of environmental impacts across closed-loop PSH projects are difficult to make. Environmental impacts of closed-loop PSH are like those for open-loop PSH with a few exceptions including water sourcing, which can lead to delays and contention due to potential complexities with water rights, impacts to aquatic resources, and greenhouse gas emission potential. Cultural resource impacts were commonly reported in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents reviewed and discussed in interviews, but in many cases such impacts cannot be mitigated.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Comparison of the Environmental Effects of Open-Loop and Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower

Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) capabilities are generally characterized as either open-loop or closed-loop. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) defines open-loop PSH as “continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature,” and closed-loop PSH as “not continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature.” All the PSH projects constructed in the United States to date are open-loop, so the potential environmental effects of closed-loop systems are not as well documented as the effects of open-loop systems. To address this knowledge gap, the DOE Water Power Technologies Office, under its HydroWIRES Initiative, has prepared this report to: (1) compare the potential environmental effects of open-loop PSH projects with those of closed-loop PSH projects; (2) describe how these effects are being avoided, minimized, or mitigated at existing projects in other countries and proposed projects in the United States; and (3) discuss the relative significance of the environmental issues. The report begins with a brief introduction on the current status of PSH development in the United States. Next, the report describes the current Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower licensing process, emphasizing some recent regulatory changes that affect closed-loop PSH development. The report then provides a summary comparison of the environmental effects of constructing and operating open-loop and closed-loop PSH systems and discusses the relative significance of those issues. This comparison and discussion are based on the results of a literature review and a review of FERC licensing records. The literature review includes journal articles, technical reports, and presentations on the environmental effects of PSH systems. It includes literature from the United States as well as countries where closed-loop PSH projects have been constructed. The FERC records review examines the FERC licensing record (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act documents and license orders) to identify the environmental effects anticipated and mitigation measures proposed for six of the closed-loop PSH projects currently licensed or permitted in the United States. For comparison, the FERC records review also discusses the environmental effects and mitigation measures for four open-loop PSH projects proposed or currently operating in the United States. The comparison of effects between open-loop and closed-loop projects is relative; that is, it characterizes the impacts of each project type as generally lower or higher than another project type. The comparison reflects general trends among project types because there are sometimes exceptions to the examples cited. The comparison is based on both spatial (location) and temporal (duration) factors and reflects both the severity and likelihood of effects. The report concludes that the environmental effects of closed-loop PSH projects are generally lower (i.e., more localized and of shorter duration) than those of open-loop PSH projects because they are located “off-stream,” minimizing aquatic and terrestrial impacts, and often have greater siting flexibility than open-loop PSH projects. For certain closed-loop project designs, however, impacts to groundwater may be higher relative to open-loop projects and should be considered in any environmental review.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower Resource Assessment for the United States. Final Report on HydroWIRES Project D1: Improving Hydropower and PSH Representations in Capacity Expansion Models

Pumped storage hydropower represents the bulk of the United States' current energy storage capacity: 23 gigawatts (GW) of the 24-GW national total (Denholm et al. 2021). This capacity was largely built between 1960 and 1990. PSH is a mature and proven method of energy storage with competitive round-trip efficiency and long life spans. These qualities make PSH a very attractive potential solution to energy storage needs, particularly for longer-duration storage (8 hours or more); such storage will be crucial to bridge gaps in electricity production as variable wind and solar production continue to comprise an ever-larger portion of the United States' energy portfolio (Cole et al. 2021; Frazier et al. 2021). However, it is unclear how much potential the United States has for the development of new PSH. No new large PSH has been constructed in the United States since the 1990s, and attempts to quantify technical potential capacity from PSH project applications to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) suffer from inconsistent site and cost evaluation methodologies and likely are not representative of all PSH opportunities. This study seeks to better under understand the technical potential for PSH development in the United States by developing a national-scale resource assessment for closed-loop PSH. Individual sites are not modeled in sufficient detail for project-level development, but they do provide valuable insights into potential resource areas across the United States, including the ability to provide estimates for a range of long-term development scenarios.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Comparison of the Environmental Effects of Open-Loop and Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower

Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) is a type of energy storage that uses the pumping and release of water between two reservoirs at different elevations to store water and generate electricity (Figure ES-1). When demand for electricity is low, a PSH project can use low cost energy to pump water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir for storage. When demand for electricity is high, a PSH project can release water from the upper reservoir through a powerhouse to generate electricity. Traditionally, this meant that PSH plants generated power during the day and pumped at night, with modest diurnal or seasonal variation.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Life Cycle Assessment for Closed-Loop Pumped Hydropower Energy Storage in the United States

The federal government has initiated an aggressive set of policies to achieve a net-zero carbon emission goal for the electricity sector by 2050. As a result, rapid growth in deployment of renewable energy technologies is expected. Most commercially mature technologies are temporally variable and do not provide grid inertia, while renewable technologies with high projected deployment have intermittent generation methods. Energy storage technologies are needed to both dispatch power on-demand and help provide the needed grid inertia. Pumped storage hydro (PSH) is a well-established technology that has gained renewed interest in recent years offering energy-balancing, grid stability, control of electrical network frequency, and large-scale storage capacity. For widespread adoption of PSH, more information is needed regarding its current life cycle environmental impacts. The objective of this study is to perform a full life cycle assessment (LCA) of new closed-loop PSH in the U.S. The functional unit for this study is 1 kWh of electrical power delivered to the grid and the base case project lifetime is 80 years. The life cycle inventory for this project accounts for all material and energy flows associated with the green-field construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a closed-loop PSH plant in the U.S. Collected data represents a range of potential PSH specifications and geographic locations coming from all prospective closed-loop PSH installations in the U.S. with data available. In addition, existing PSH installations are used to provide assumptions for inventory inputs. Results presented will include the global warming potential (GWP IPCC 100a) and Energy Return on Investment (EROI) from our base case (average PSH installation) as well as from scenario analyses and model sensitivity. These results will be compared to the impacts from existing PSH sites and alternate storage technologies. Methods align with the assumptions and guidelines put in place by previous PSH LCAs to ensure an accurate comparison with the results from this report.

ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY,HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

From Concept to Capital: How Developers Secure Private Investment

With an increased need for funding diversity in hydropower, private capital is becoming more important than ever. Investors are actively seeking opportunities, but what makes a project attractive for investment, and how can companies secure private equity or venture capital backing? This session brings together experts to discuss what capital providers look for in providing financing for hydropower projects. Panelists will explore key barriers - such as the lack of diversified portfolios and long-term revenue certainty - and strategies to overcome them through innovative financing mechanisms, partnerships, and market-driven solutions.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2023

Aquapv

This project brings together a multidisciplinary team to develop tools and analysis that will help U.S. industry accelerate deployment of floating PV on reservoirs and estuaries through producing: • A tool to assess potential environmental interactions of FPV on reservoirs and estuaries and thresholds for corresponding impacts. • A tailored FPV-specific techno-economic tool to guide users on financial performance and corresponding design considerations. • A synthesized tool, AquaPV, that combines the environmental and economic tools. • A set of case studies on an open-loop reservoir with a traditional hydropower plant (i.e., connected to a natural waterbody), closed-loop reservoir with a proposed pumped storage hydropower plant (i.e., manmade and disconnected from a natural waterbody), and a marine estuary (i.e., where a river meets the ocean), with an FPV system designed and modeled for each site. • A review of regulatory, environmental, and stakeholder opportunities and challenges to identify clear regulatory and environmental pathways to siting FPV on U.S. reservoirs. • A novel, high-fidelity geospatial resource assessment to estimate FPV technical potential on reservoirs in the United States.

Phillips, TylerB. [Idaho National Laboratory (INL)↗
DOE OSTI2023

Representing the Future Role of Hydropower and Pumped Storage Hydropower (PSH) in Electricity Planning Tools

Existing tools for long-term electric sector planning struggle to represent hydropower's nuanced site-specific technical and operating characteristics, which depend on technical specifications as well as water management practices and regulations. As a result, long-term planning models and tools insufficiently characterize hydropower value and incentives, and they cannot fully represent the role hydropower can play in a future electricity system that could include a high penetration of variable wind and solar generation, battery storage, and other low-carbon technologies. This presentation demonstrates the culmination of a multi-year effort to enhance hydropower representations in electricity planning models at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), as part of the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) HydroWIRES Initiative. New modeling techniques are demonstrated using the NREL Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS), an open-access electric sector capacity expansion model used extensively in a wide range of technology deployment and integration analysis, including the 2016 USDOE Hydropower Vision. ReEDS uses a least-cost optimization approach to understand investment and operation of electricity generation, storage, and transmission technologies under future scenarios of electricity technology innovation, demand, policy, and other sectoral drivers. ReEDS was modified to better represent value and opportunities for both pumped storage hydropower (PSH) and hydropower systems without pumping. We incorporated a new national closed-loop PSH resource and cost assessment to explore new PSH deployment opportunities and added plant-level data to better represent the existing PSH fleet. New upgrade pathways enable opportunities for enhanced hydropower flexibility by adding pumps, upgrading dispatchability, increasing capacity, or increasing energy availability. The model was also modified to better represent the value of long-duration energy storage beyond diurnal time scales, allowing both hydropower and PSH to better balance energy supply and demand variations in high-renewable systems. These new features are demonstrated under reference and high-renewable futures and a range of sensitivity scenarios to understand which hydropower and PSH deployment and upgrade opportunities are the most attractive. These scenarios indicate potential for new closed-loop PSH deployment and for hydropower flexibility improvements to have important impacts on long-term electricity system emissions and economic outcomes. Increasing flexibility of the existing hydropower fleet can reduce the need to invest in new flexible grid technologies and help achieve decarbonization goals. Systems with sufficient energy storage could also be valuable for balancing seasonal differences in renewable energy availability, particularly from solar energy. The methods developed for ReEDS and subsequent scenario results reveal important considerations for future hydropower and grid system planning, and all data and code is freely available in a public code repository for use throughout the hydropower industry.

capacity expansion↗
DOE OSTI2022

FAST Equipment Lease with Liberty University, Inc. (Cooperative Research and Development Final Report)

Liberty University, Inc. (Participant) will receive government owned equipment from NREL to evaluate and perform fatigue testing of bladders in use for small scale pumped storage hydropower. NREL is providing technical support to advance Liberty University's pumped storage hydropower (PSH) concept towards commercialization. The concept creates modular upper and lower watertight enclosures (tanks or reservoirs) connected by a series of modular pipe lengths (penstock).

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Advanced Hydropower and PSH Capacity Expansion Modeling (Final Report on HydroWIRES D1 Improvements to Capacity Expansion Modeling)

Hydropower and pumped-storage hydropower (PSH) have played a key role in providing flexible, low-carbon electricity to the U.S. electricity system for over a century. As variable generation (VG) deployment increases the demand for flexible, dispatchable generation, it is important to use all available methods for understanding how hydropower and PSH interfaces with VG in a future low-carbon grid. Capacity expansion models (CEMs) of electricity systems are often used to study future electricity scenarios, but these tools often have difficulty representing site- and technology-details of hydropower and PSH due to limited spatial, temporal, or process resolution. This report demonstrates a set of model advancements to improve hydropower and PSH representations in CEMs and other models that consider hydropower and PSH's role in electricity systems. Model advancements include new data integration to define closed-loop PSH resource availability and cost, along with site-level parameterizations of existing PSH capacity and energy storage specifications. Shifting energy across seasons for both hydropower and PSH is explored to demonstrate the potential value of long-duration storage. New representations of hydropower upgrades offer opportunities to increase dispatchability, add pumps, or independently add capacity or energy depending on what is most valuable. New model structures and data are demonstrated individually and in combination to observe their impact on model results and provide initial insights into what is most important for analysts, electricity system planners, and hydropower decision-makers to consider when assessing future roles of hydropower. Improving flexibility of existing hydropower assets has the potential to reduce CO 2 emissions through complementing VG technologies and/or improve electricity system economics by reducing the need to deploy higher-cost systems. Large-scale energy storage is also shown to provide opportunities for balancing seasonal differences in VG, particularly solar photovoltaics (PV). Initial analysis with a new closed-loop PSH resource and cost dataset also demonstrate the potential for new PSH deployment to offer new grid flexibility opportunities. Future analysis and modeling of hydropower's role in the U.S. and other electricity systems could include methodological improvements based on those discussed here along with sensitivity analysis to better represent current and future potential hydropower and PSH flexibility. Improvements to geospatial and site-level data can further improve the understanding of how hydropower and PSH can be upgraded and operated in response to future electricity system needs. This work lays the groundwork to use advanced planning models to explore the range of roles hydropower and PSH can play in the grid of the future.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

The Prospects for Pumped Storage Hydropower in Alaska

Key Takeaways: The resource mapping analysis confirmed that numerous locations in Alaska are suitable for the development of pumped storage hydropower (PSH) projects, both larger grid scale projects and smaller projects that could be suitable for remote communities; The resource assessment for larger, grid-scale projects showed the potential for more than 1,800 closed-loop systems in Alaska, with a total energy storage capacity of about 4 terawatt hours (TWh); Because of their small reservoir sizes and dam heights, many locations were identified as potentially suitable for small-scale PSH systems. Nearly 50% of the identified potentially suitable small-scale PSH sites are in Southeast Alaska; PSH candidate sites were part of the optimal capacity expansion solution in all scenarios analyzed for the Railbelt system. Depending on the scenario, the new PSH capacity that the model selected for the analysis period until 2046 ranged from 300 MW to 600 MW. The locations and timing of new PSH investments vary in different scenarios; Lithium-ion batteries were also selected a source of new generating capacity in all analyzed scenarios for the Railbelt system, indicating that the system will need a mix of short- and long-duration energy storage to support variable renewable energy sources and provide system reliability in the future; For rural communities, analysis results showed that PSH suitability is very site-specific; in addition to diesel fuel costs and PSH capital costs, suitability depends heavily on available renewable resources and existing infrastructure (e.g., reservoirs, transmission access and construction road access); The analysis for rural communities also showed that PSH projects with 10-hour energy storage are likely to be more economical for remote community applications in Alaska than those with larger reservoirs that could provide 10 days of energy storage; Lithium-ion batteries seem to be an economically more viable energy storage option for small, remote communities in Alaska.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Clean Energy Technology Applications on US Mine Land: Technical Analysis

As the United States transitions toward a clean energy economy, an opportunity exists for redeveloping the more than 17,000 mine land sites located across the nation with clean energy technologies, which have a combined potential for generating more than 85 GW of clean electricity. This report provides an overview of the potential of demonstrating and deploying clean energy projects on current and former mine land. Clean energy project refers to a project that demonstrates one or more of the following technologies: solar; microgrids; geothermal; direct air capture; fossil-fueled electricity generation with carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration; energy storage, including pumped storage hydropower and compressed air energy storage; and advanced nuclear technologies. The report discusses the following technologies and their potential for creating jobs and generating tax revenue that would result in direct and indirect benefits to the local economy: Solar photovoltaics (PV) is being developed on current and former mine land in various parts of the world, including the United States. This approach is attractive because it requires limited infrastructure investment and would utilize the bare surfaces of mines and tailing ponds. Solar resource availability may be greater in the southern regions, including the Interior and Appalachian Basins and the southwestern United States. However, since some mine land sites include areas of significant change in elevation, the deployment of PV on mine land may require sophisticated planning to account for shading and irradiance, or may require regrading of the areas. PV does not create significant environmental risks and generally does not face public resistance; Geothermal systems are often spatially and genetically associated with ore deposits, and in some cases, they have been discovered while in search for epithermal mineral resources. Numerous diverse geothermal applications have been employed at mine land around the world, including power generation, mineral extraction from geothermal brines, process heating, direct use for other mining operations, and direct use for non-mining operations and subsurface energy storage, including geothermal heat pumps. Case studies highlighting these applications provide key lessons relating to identifying drivers and barriers to geothermal resource deployment and can be used to create screening tools for identifying the types and locations of mine land most amenable to utilizing geothermal resources; Carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration technologies include direct air capture (DAC) and enhanced weathering. DAC technologies include air contactors, regeneration systems, and CO 2 compression systems. Captured CO 2 can be converted to valuable feedstocks or possibly injected into abandoned subsurface mines where it would be absorbed by alkaline rock waste and mine tailings or by the porous minerals along the walls of the mine. DAC systems can be coupled with energy sources such as wind, solar, grid, or geothermal. Many DAC systems require a source of water or steam; however, some are expected to be net producers of water. Local impacts of DAC systems are expected to be low, and are related to land footprint, material disposal, and upstream impacts of energy and material production; Compressed air energy storage is an established energy storage technology in salt caverns. It has the potential for implementation in underground mines by pressurizing and storing a large amount of air using electrical compressors when excess electricity is available. When a need for discharge emerges, the air is used to spin turbines and produce the necessary volume of electricity. Abandoned or unused mine openings, including shafts, adits, access tunnels, and mined workings of any orientation, offer potential for vast amounts of compressed air energy storage if the site characteristics meet operational requirements; Pumped hydropower storage can be implemented in surface and subsurface mines. In surface mine applications, both reservoirs may be located in a mine pit or artificial reservoirs made of excavated materials. In subsurface mines, the lower reservoir may be implemented by waterproofing and flooding mine shafts and tunnels. The water is then pumped from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir during periods of low load and high production, and it is discharged through the turbines during periods of peak demand. The potential environmental damages associated with acidity of mine water or the presence of toxic chemicals incentivizes the development of closed-loop technologies, in which water circulates inside the pumped hydropower facility without being discharged into the external water basins; Advanced nuclear energy technologies include small modular reactors, which can be deployed locally to produce electricity and heat. Such units require seismic stability and a supply of cooling water, but population constraints may exist in some areas. Therefore, remote mine land could represent an optimal location for siting advanced nuclear energy technologies.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Pumped Storage Hydropower FAST Commissioning Technical Analysis

This report is designed to address barriers and solutions to modern pumped storage hydropower (PSH) development by establishing baseline project development knowledge, defining key aspects of project development, and identifying opportunities to reduce project timelines, costs, and risks. This report’s scope includes post-licensing activities and excludes factors related to permitting or licensing. The U.S. PSH fleet is composed of 43 projects providing the majority (95%) of utility-scale electricity storage in the US. However, only one new PSH facility has become operational in the past 20 years. Several factors contribute to diminishing PSH growth in the US, including the magnitude of project costs and financing interest during development and construction; the length of time from project investment until project revenue; permitting challenges and construction risks; competition from other storage technologies; and unrecognized energy storage valuation. Although innovative PSH concepts (including underground, small, and modular systems) have been investigated, widespread application has yet to occur. In short, the time, cost, and risk associated with modern PSH development has resulted in limited recent growth in the United States, despite the rising energy storage demand from increased deployment of variable renewable technologies. To address these challenges, the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Water Power Technologies Office initiated the PSH Furthering Advancements to Shorten Time to (FAST) Commissioning project, aimed at catalyzing new solutions, designs, and strategies to accelerate PSH development. This report uses available data from previous license applications, ongoing project cost data, and other global PSH project information based on a typical closed-loop PSH project.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Closed Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower Resource Assessment of the United States

The data includes a geospatial and spreadsheet representation of a resource analysis for closed loop pumped storage systems across the Continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The data includes energy storage potential, water volume, distance from source to storage, hydraulic head, dollars per kilowatt of storage, and transmission spurline cost for each pumped storage hydropower (PHS) reservoir. Each reservoir represented in this dataset is represented on potential 10 hour storage duration PSH system comprised of two reservoirs. Units of measure are laid out in the dataset. Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) represents the bulk of the United States' current energy storage capacity: 23 gigawatts (GW) of the 24 GW national total (Denholm et al. 2021). This capacity was largely built between 1960 and 1990. PSH is a mature and proven method of energy storage with competitive round-trip efficiency and long life spans. These qualities make PSH a very attractive potential solution to energy storage needs, particularly for longer-duration storage (8 hours or more); such storage will be crucial to bridge gaps in electricity production as variable wind and solar production continue to comprise an ever-larger portion of the United States' energy portfolio. This study seeks to better understand the technical potential for PSH development in the United States by developing a national-scale resource assessment for closed-loop PSH. For more information, please refer to the Closed Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower Resource Assessment for the United States linked in the resources.

Array↗
DOE OSTI2026

PSH Assessment and Site Identification [Slides]

NLR's Pumped Storage Hydropower (PSH) geospatial and cost model algorithms are applied to the Chemehuevi Reservation to assess the potential for PSH within the reservation. The algorithm identifies both "open-loop" PSH opportunities formed by constructing a new reservoir within the reservation paired with bordering Lake Havasu and "closed-loop" systems formed by two new reservoirs within the reservation. Options range from 28 to 538 MW of electrical generation power at maximum generation and 10 hours of storage. CAPEX is estimates as 4422 2022 $\$$/kW of generating power, which is meaningfully higher than the lowest cost systems identified in NLR's national scale assessments. Further economic analysis is needed to fully evaluate whether this would be an attractive option to meet the Chemehuevi Reservation's goals.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗