Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports (2021) 8:138–148

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-021-00182-8

ENERGY STORAGE (M KINTNER-MEYER, SECTION EDITOR)

Review of Codes and Standards for Energy Storage Systems

Charlie Vartanian 1 & Matt Paiss 1 & Vilayanur Viswanathan 1 & Jaime Kolln 1 & David Reed 1

Accepted: 14 April 2021 / Published online: 3 August 2021

# Battelle Memorial Institute, under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Abstract
Purpose of Review This article summarizes key codes and standards (C&S) that apply to grid energy storage systems. The article
also gives several examples of industry efforts to update or create new standards to remove gaps in energy storage C&S and to
accommodate new and emerging energy storage technologies.
Recent Findings While modern battery technologies, including lithium ion (Li-ion), increase the technical and economic viability
of grid energy storage, they also present new or unknown risks to managing the safety of energy storage systems (ESS). This
article focuses on the particular challenges presented by newer battery technologies.
Summary Prior publications about energy storage C&S recognize and address the expanding range of technologies and their
unique characteristics. However, there remains significant need and opportunity for researchers to add to the knowledge base that
informs the development of technical references and standards, and ultimately, the application of published standards for the
effective and safe design and use of modern ESS.

Keywords Energy storage . Energy storage systems . Codes and standards . Energy storage safety

Introduction As cited in the DOE OE ES Program Plan, “Industry

requires specifications of standards for characterizing the
For the past decade, industry, utilities, regulators, and the U.S. performance of energy storage under grid conditions and
Department of Energy (DOE) have viewed energy storage as an for modeling behavior. Discussions with industry pro-
important element of future power grids, and that as technology fessionals indicate a significant need for standards …”
matures and costs decline, adoption will increase. This future was [1, p. 30]. Under this strategic driver, a portion of
identified in the DOE Office of Electricity Energy Storage (DOE DOE-funded energy storage research and development
OE ES) Program Planning report [1], and the expected expansion (R&D) is directed to actively work with industry to fill
of global adoption of energy storage is becoming a reality. energy storage Codes & Standards (C&S) gaps.
As technology costs decline, the proportional contribution A key aspect of developing energy storage C&S is
of soft costs will grow unless deliberate actions are taken to access to leading battery scientists and their R&D in-
manage them. Soft costs are associated with high engineering sights. DOE-funded testing and related analytic capabil-
costs incurred for individual projects due to lack of standards. ities inform perspectives from the research community
In addition, there is a foundational mismatch between tech- toward the active development of new C&S for energy
nology advancements and the long-lead time for getting stan- storage. Examples of such perspectives include the chal-
dards developed and ratified. lenges to creating C&S for newer storage technologies
with limited operational track records and limited user
experience. The C&S lifecycle from development
Topical Collection on Energy Storage through compliance is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Given the relative newness of battery-based grid ES tech-
* Charlie Vartanian nologies and applications, this review article describes the
[email protected] state of C&S for energy storage, several challenges for devel-
oping C&S for energy storage, and the benefits from address-
1
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, ing these gaps, which include lowering the cost of adoption
USA and deployment.
Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep (2021) 8:138–148 139

Fig. 1 C&S development timeline

Active Energy Storage C&S Development

Segments of C&S development activities can be grouped

broadly under the areas of Performance, Reliability, and
Safety. These activity areas map to the major stakeholder Fig. 3 C&S for energy storage systems and their respective locations in
the built environment
groups as represented by their respective Standards
Developing Organizations (SDOs), shown in Fig. 2.
Key energy storage C&S and their respective locations
within the built environment are highlighted in Fig. 3, which
safety and performance C&S for both energy storage equip-
also identifies the various SDOs involved in creating require-
ment and complete ESSs, but not the overall power system.
ments. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation,
Two specific examples of active C&S development are:
or NERC, focuses on overall power system reliability and
generally does not create standards specific to equipment, so
& UL 9540 Standard for Stationary Energy Storage Systems
is not cited in Fig. 3 below. Likewise, this article focuses on
(ESS)
& IEC TS 62933-3-1 Electrical Energy Storage (EES)
Systems–part 3-1: planning and performance assessment
of electrical energy storage systems
& IEC 62933-5-2 Electrical Energy Storage (EES) Systems–
part 5-2: safety requirements for grid-integrated ESS (ex-
pected publishment date in 2024)

These examples address energy storage performance and

safety, respectively, and are discussed in the next section.

Safety Standards

As shown in Fig. 3, many safety C&S affect the design and

installation of ESS. One of the key product standards that
covers the full system is the UL9540 Standard for Safety:
Energy Storage Systems and Equipment [2]. Here, we discuss
this standard in detail; some of the remaining challenges are
Fig. 2 Mapping C&S activity areas to standards developing discussed in the next section.
organizations (NFPA, National Fire Protection Association, https://
www.nfpa.org/; UL, Underwriters Laboratory, https://www.ul.com/, UL 9540
NERC, North American Electric Reliability Corp., https://www.nerc.
com/Pages/default.aspx; IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, https://www.ieee.org/; IEC, International Electrotechnical The UL 9540-2020 product standard is the key product
Commission, https://www.iec.ch/) safety listing for stationary ESS. The current standard is
140 Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep (2021) 8:138–148

the second edition (February 2020), and is a require- UL 9540a

ment for installation via reference by one of the two
model Fire Codes in use in the United States: Lithium ion (Li-ion) chemistry is the predominant battery
International Fire Code (IFC) and NFPA 1 Fire Code technology, and all Li-ion cells are currently capable of ther-
[3]. The IFC is in use or adopted in 41 U.S. states, the mal runaway and producing flammable gases. A key safety
District of Columbia, New York City, Guam, and test cited in UL9540-2020 is the UL9540a-2019, “Test
Puerto Rico [4]. The NFPA 1 Fire Code is adopted Method for Evaluating Thermal Runaway Fire Propagation
statewide in 19 states but used for construction in only in Battery Energy Storage Systems” [6]. This document,
5 states. The IFC currently references standards cited in now in its fourth edition (Nov 2019), outlines the test proce-
the Code in Chapter 80. In the current edition of the dures to characterize the performance of cells, modules, and
IFC (2021), the UL9540-2014 edition is cited. The sig- units/racks under possible worst-case thermal runaway condi-
nificant changes from the first edition to the second tions. The fourth edition includes performance criteria missing
include [5]: in previous editions.
Abuse testing starts at the cell-level test to determine if
& Scope now identifies applications with size and spacing thermal runaway can be induced or if flammable gases are
requirements produced during the test. The test will identify gases that will
& Performance criteria in accordance with UL 9540a fire test be used in later testing to determine lower flammability limits
& Construction to include non-combustible materials and explosion studies. The testing sequence and requirements
& Critical safety controls to comply with applicable for further testing is based on the cell-level performance as
standards. seen in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4 UL 9540a test flow chart (used with UL permission) [7]

Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep (2021) 8:138–148 141

The UL9540a testing sequence follows: This is a module-level test with full rack/unit to determine
fire propagation and evolution of fire/explosion hazards.
& Cell level
& Installation level
Tests are conducted on individual sample cells for ther-
mal runaway and flammable gas production. Cells not If unit-level testing identifies fire propagation outside of
capable of thermal runaway or producing flammable gas- unit, a fire suppression system is required and tested in
es can be marked “For use in Residential Dwellings.” conjunction with additional unit-level test. This test de-
While current Li-ion technologies are not capable of termines the effectiveness of a fire suppression system to
meeting this high bar of safety, other emerging technol- mitigate fire propagation outside of target unit/rack.
ogies may meet this criterion in the future. For technolo-
gies lacking inherent safety based on cell-level character- A typical 9540a test report includes a summary of the cell,
istics, safety testing and evaluation must take place for module, and unit-level performance. A graphic example of a
product sub-systems that include multiple cells, e.g., cell-level test report (Fig. 5) shows the various data points
multi-cell modules. obtained, such as cell temperature at venting versus thermal
runaway, vent gas properties, gas composition, and
& Module level time/temperature curves.

This test outfits a single module with heaters around in- Safety Bottom Line
dividual cells to induce fire propagation from heated cells
to target cells. This test determines the level of propaga- The utility industry is actively involved in the development of
tion and fire/explosion hazards. best practices for the safe deployment of ESSs. Best practices
learned from recent failures include early detection as well as
& Unit or rack level designing features that prevent fire propagation. While

Fig. 5 Sample 9540a cell-level test report (used with permission of CUNY SMART DG Hub) [8]
142 Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep (2021) 8:138–148

eliminating the chance of a single cell failure may not be & Class A, with volatile duty cycles with respect to power
possible, the key is to design features that ensure propagation & Class B, for energy intensive applications, and
to other cells is minimal. Should a larger event occur, & Class C, which combines Class A and Class B duty cycles,
preventing an explosion is the next critical step. Deflagration such as storage for microgrids.
vents (blow-out panels) can direct the flame front and pressure
wave in designed directions. Continuing work on technical specification IEC TS 62933-
The key to preventing a deflagration is gas management. 2-2 [16] focuses on applications and performance testing, in-
Exhaust venting of an enclosed space is the objective, yet the cluding specific duty cycles as described in the DOE-OE pro-
move toward smaller cabinet-style enclosures with less open tocol, Revision 2. Performance metrics such as round-trip ef-
volume makes this more challenging. Lower open-air volume ficiency, ramp rate, response time, and reference signal fol-
translates to a flammable gas exceeding the 25% lower flam- lowing were defined, and the method to determine them was
mability limit much faster. Innovative exhaust methods will described to enable end users to provide performance specifi-
be needed, in addition to retrofitting options for existing cations per the metrics defined in the standard.
enclosures. Another technical specification by TC120 [11] was developed
to address multiple grid services, the power conversion system,
and grid integration issues in more detail. Some of the DOE-OE
performance protocol duty cycles were included so that end users
Performance Standards can evaluate various ESS using these generic duty cycles.
IEC TC120 also published a standard on definitions for
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Sandia Electrical Energy Storage Systems (EESS) [17]. This standard
National Laboratories, sponsored by DOE OE ES, have led used several definitions from the DOE-OE performance pro-
multiple industry working groups to develop ESS perfor- tocol, such as duty cycle round trip efficiency, electrical ener-
mance protocols for various grid services [9]. A total of eight gy storage system, ramp rate, rated power/energy and self-
grid services were considered, with duty cycles ranging from discharge. As a part of TC120, IEC also has working groups
volatile (frequency regulation), constant power (peak shav- developing safety and environmental standards for EESS who
ing), and a combination (microgrid). The ESS was considered have published technical specifications [18] and are working
a black box with power exchange between the ESS and the on an EESS safety standard [ [19] and a technical report on
grid being measured. From the working groups, performance environmental issues [20].
metrics such as round-trip efficiency, ramp rate for real and The standards and technical specifications discussed
reactive power, stored energy capacity at various percent of above provide utilities and end users unique resources
rated power, energy capacity stability, and standby energy to compare various ESS technologies on an equitable
loss were developed. Duty cycle specific performance metrics, basis in terms of performance, environmental compli-
such as reference signal tracking and peak continuous power ance, and safety.
for various durations, were also developed. It is important to treat the ESS as a black box for a
The national laboratories are also actively engaged with direct comparison independent of battery technology.
national and international SDOs to develop ESS performance However, the performance of DC and AC storage com-
standards. SDOs working on the standards include NEMA, ponents should be monitored separately to fully assess
IEEE, and the IEC. The DOE ESS performance protocol ESS performance. Hence, work continues toward the
was directly incorporated into a NEMA Standard published development of chemistry-specific standards. Some ex-
in 2019 [10], while parts of it are included in IEC Standard amples of ongoing work in IEC for transportation and
62933-2-1 and IEC Technical Specification 62933-3-1 [11]. stationary storage include the following technical com-
The national laboratories also collaborated with the Electric mittees and working groups:
Power Research Institute’s Energy Storage Integration
Council (EPRI ESIC) to develop test procedures for evaluat- & IEC TC 21: Secondary cells and batteries
ing the performance of ESSs [12]. ESIC also developed a & IEC TC21 JWG 82: Secondary cells and batteries for re-
detailed technical specifications document that utilities and newable energy storage
end users can use to specify their ESS [13], and an energy & IEC TC21: Traction and stationary batteries
storage implementation guide to help end users throughout the & IEC TC 21 JWG 7: Flow battery systems for stationary
life of the ESS from commissioning to decommissioning [14]. applications.
The effort by IEC TC 120 was the first to develop an ESS
standard and technical specification considering the ESS as a Draft IEC standards for various battery chemistries are
black box. In the standard IEC 62933-2-1 [15], three classes of listed below.
ESSs were defined: High temperature sodium-based batteries
Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep (2021) 8:138–148 143

& IEC 62984-3 ED1–high-temperature secondary batteries– As discussed earlier, technology-specific and technology-
part 3: sodium-based batteries-performance requirements neutral standards describe performance metrics and methods
and tests. to evaluate them for various duty cycles or grid services. The
standards also specify ambient conditions such as tempera-
Flow batteries ture, relative humidity, and barometric pressure.

& IEC 62932-1: 2020 International Standard-flow battery

energy systems for stationary applications–part 1: termi-
nology and general aspects. Published February 18, 2020. GAPS in C&S for Energy Storage
& IEC 62932-2-1: 2020 International Standard-flow battery
energy systems for stationary applications–part 2-1: per- Gaps in C&S are a significant barrier to the adoption of energy
formance general requirements and test methods. storage. A potential gap in the 9540a test is the ability to
Published February 18, 2020. accurately measure flammable gases at the module and unit
& IEC 62932-2-2: 2020 International Standard-flow battery level tests. This is based on both sensor accuracy and the size
energy systems for stationary applications–part 2-2 Safety of the test and large volume of exhaust air needed to safely
requirements. Published February 18, 2020. conduct the test.
In the residential ESS space, this testing has criteria that
Lead acid batteries does not allow fire to extend outside of the unit, which will be
challenging for some manufacturers. Because the current fire
& IEC 62193–Lead-acid batteries for propulsion and opera- codes do not require 9540a testing for residential installations
tion of lightweight vehicles and equipment–general re- that meet the size & separation requirements, a gap in safety
quirements and methods of test exists. This has resulted in fire damage to structures in several
& IEC TR 61431–Technical report in draft stage–guide for residential installations due to the lack of fire testing that
the use of monitor systems for lead-acid traction batteries guides safe design & installation practices. In addition to a
& IEC TR 61044 ED3–Technical report in draft stage–op- risk of fire, there is also the risk of flammable gas production.
portunity-charging of lead-acid traction batteries The testing criteria states that “concentration of flammable gas
& IEC 63193–International Standard in draft stage–lead-acid does not exceed 25% LFL (lower flammability limit) in air for
batteries for propulsion of lightweight means of the smallest specified room installation size.” This would re-
locomotion–general requirements and methods of test. quire the manufacturer to identify the minimum space a par-
ticular battery could be placed in, and this is not currently
For Li-ion, high-temperature sodium-based batteries, and provided in existing product specs.
redox flow battery systems, work is ongoing to develop rec- Standards that measure battery performance and determine
ommended practices that focus on definitions, performance, state of health are also lacking. Note that state of health esti-
degradation, safety, life cycle cost [21], and additional mation is performed by periodic reference performance tests.
chemistry-specific recommended practices. However, there is no process for the battery owner to maintain
While it may appear that each SDO is on a parallel path, there is the original and last performance test to assess the fade of
considerable coordination with IEC among various technical com- capacity or performance.
mittees to ensure consistency and to identify areas of overlap at an A better understanding of performance and life expectancy
early stage. Similarly, the IEEE effort considers developments in is needed to access the risks of an ESS project. For example,
IEC to avoid duplication and to use information developed within consider an e-bike owner who has charged their bike to 100%
the IEC standards rather than reinvent the wheel. and heads out for a ride. The distance they can travel is con-
While the above standards provide a method to evaluate per- stantly changing based on how hard they pedal or how many
formance and safety of ESS, they do not provide ESS specifica- hills they encounter; the difference in terrain can influence
tions that utilities can use for procurement purposes. As stated battery degradation. For that user, knowing how far they can
earlier, EPRI ESIC has developed detailed energy storage specifi- ride at any time and under any road conditions over the life of
cations which utilities can use to specify ESS characteristics. The the battery is valuable information. The same is true for an
utilities, in their request for proposals, can specify which standards owner of an ESS who is using it for a variety of grid services.
apply to meet the technical specifications. In other words, the A commonly acceptable state-of-health standard would
technical specifications developed need to be used in conjunction enable a secondary market for used batteries that may
with applicable standards for procurement. Performance and safety have completed their first use (such as transportation
metrics that apply to all storage technologies as described in IEC batteries) and still have some value for secondary use
TC120 can be supplemented with technology specific metrics as for grid services. A clear understanding of remaining
detailed in the corresponding standards. life is necessary to enable the valuation.
144 Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep (2021) 8:138–148

Education for end users is needed to teach proper use of the Energy Storage C&S Development Impacts
standards that verify the technical specifications. For example, and Challenges
there are ESSs that do not require reference performance tests,
which makes estimating the state-of-health difficult. Gaps in C&S development can lead to a variety of impacts.
Identification of the right standard is crucial—a Li-ion DC
battery module specification needs to be verified by a standard & Poorly written requirements can lead to unenforceable
for Li-ion battery modules, while an ESS specification needs code. For example, a technical requirement written to
to be verified by an ES performance standard. say, “Shall have thermal runaway mitigation” could ap-
A good understanding and standardization of battery man- pear in an installation or fire code. This puts the jurisdic-
agement systems (BMS) would add efficiency to battery- tional authority in the difficult situation of understanding
based ESS (BESS) design and operations. Standardizing the technical details to verify all situations and ensure
how BMS track key performance metrics is also very impor- compliance. The requirement would be better managed
tant to achieve an adequate performance and life from the total in a product safety standard such as UL 9540.
BESS. While this is especially true for Li-ion BESS, other & C&S can be overly restrictive for newer technologies that
battery chemistries also have complex BMS that play a crucial have yet to demonstrate a history or data set of safe
role in performance and life. A reliable BMS is critical to performance.
battery safety by ensuring the battery operates in a safe enve- & Industries or manufacturers seeking to obtain exemptions
lope with multiple layers of protection. There is an immediate from the code can erode adoption of the code as jurisdic-
need for standardization in this area. The IEEE Working tions amend certain sections or, in some cases, the entire
Group P2686 “Battery Management Systems in Energy code. This situation defeats the ability to ensure safe ESS
Storage Applications” is leading efforts to write a recom- installations on a consistent basis.
mended practice for BMS [22], and the Canadian Standards & Providers of risk management tools have difficulty pricing
Association is developing a Li-ion BMS standard. and providing their products, including warranties and
Frequency regulation duty cycles are different from performance bonds.
balancing area to balancing area based on regional specific & Financial providers charge risk-premium cost adders or
operating procedures and market designs. It would be useful are unable to provide financing at all.
to provide prototypical frequency services profiles by
balancing area or by wholesale power markets (e.g., At the bottom line, gaps in energy storage C&S increase
Independent System Operators (ISO) in No. America). the cost (the “-” net cost portion of the graph in Fig. 6) and
Hierarchically, the Energy Storage Management System time needed to deploy energy storage projects, while also
(ESMS) is above the BMS. The ESMS manages the total limiting the scale of viable projects. In Fig. 6, the curves from
system (battery, inverter, and balance of plant) versus the A to C correspond to an environment where C&S are well
BMS focus on DC module and rack sub-systems of a BESS. developed (less time to reach + net cost, or benefit) to a less
The ESMS also communicates and controls the interface with developed C&S environment resulting in relatively more time
the dispatching entity (e.g., building management system, for a deployed project to reach positive net economic benefit.
ISO/Utility Automatic Generator Control), and controls mul- The negative-to-positive change in slope corresponds robust
tiple BESS units within a single ES project border/fence line. C&S versus weaker C&S being available to all stakeholders,
While current standards describe duty cycles corresponding to with projects going into service and delivering net positive
various grid services, no uniform way exists to develop and returns sooner versus later, respectively.
implement an ESMS to operate the ESS for specific well- Impacts due to gaps in C&S affect all scales of energy
defined grid service, e.g., frequency regulation. In addition, storage, from permitting and installing residential scale energy
the ESMS preserves the flexibility to accommodate future storage products through the design, financing, construction,
stacked storage applications, i.e., more than one grid service and commissioning of very complex engineered ESSs con-
application at a time. This is a challenge because the strategy nected to large-scale electric grids. The DOE sponsored an
to operate the ESS depends on site-specific conditions. There effort to gather input from traditional risk products and finance
remains a need to develop a site ESMS standard for a suite of providers serving more established technologies (e.g., wind,
use cases. IEEE is working to develop an ESMS standard with gas generation) to identify how the energy storage industry
a target publication date of 2023. can access critical tools needed for 100 MW or larger scale
Finally, standards to estimate standby losses for seasonal en- projects. The resulting report, published in 2019, is a “best
ergy storage are lacking. With increasing penetration of renew- practice guide” [23] that includes guidance [24], pp. 293–
ables, the demand for long-duration storage is expected to grow. 311] on how energy storage C&S can help facilitate the use
The ability to quantify standby losses for days to months of of risk and financial tools needed for the development of larg-
storage is key to successful deployment of seasonal storage. er ESS projects. Another financial example comes from the
Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep (2021) 8:138–148 145

installation without hobbling technical innovation. This

hurdle can occur when the requirements are
prescriptive-based as opposed to performance-based.
Using the deflagration prevention topic discussed earli-
er, an example might be a requirement for deflagration
protection to ensure that a battery cabinet does not ex-
plode or cause significant personal or property damage
as a result of a catastrophic failure. The language might
specify an exhaust system compliant with NFPA 69 be
installed, with language that states that buildup of flam-
mable gases above 25% of the lower explosive limit
(LEL) not be permitted to occur, and leave the “How”
to accomplish this up to the system designer. The sys-
tem could be designed with no doors, or with constant
ventilation, or with an igniter to ensure gas buildup
does not occur. Each system may not be NFPA 69
compliant yet meet the performance criteria. Whereas
providing a system designed to NFPA 69 may require
very large fans to activate faster than the gas production
is generated. This is a real challenge in cabinet-style
Fig. 6 Closing C&S gaps decreases time and money for ES project ESS enclosures as identified earlier. Achieving gas ac-
development
cumulation above 25% of LEL could occur very rapidly
and incorporating an active exhaust system capable of
maintaining safe gas levels may be challenging in meet-
experiences of solar photovoltaic (PV) installation. The PV ing the requirements of NFPA 69.
cells have traditionally been the largest cost component of One challenge to moving further toward performance-
an installed PV system, but with the rapidly declining cost based versus prescriptive-based standards is a lack of
of the cells, soft costs (i.e., permitting, siting, balance of plant, operating experience with some of the newer battery
installation) are now the dominant cost. Robust C&S can re- technologies. A potential solution is for a public-
duce soft cost components by streamlining the integration of funded entity to replicate the type-testing performed by
ancillary technologies and permitting procedures. nationally recognized testing laboratories (e.g., UL) for
The need to close the gaps in energy storage C&S is moti- commercial clients (product manufacturers), with the in-
vating SDO communities to collaboratively work to meet the tent of providing publicly available data to assist man-
challenges. Several specific challenges and industry efforts to ufacturers in understanding safe design best practices.
address them are discussed next. Another long-term benefit of disseminating safety test
information could be baselining minimum safety metrics
related to gas evolution and related risk limits for crea-
Selected Energy Storage Safety C&S Challenges tion of a pass/fail criteria for energy storage safety test-
ing and certification processes, including UL 9540A.
Filling gaps in energy storage C&S presents several chal- This selected example of an energy storage C&S safety
lenges, including (1) the variety of technologies that are used challenge highlights a more general challenge to energy
for creating ESSs, and (2) the rapid pace of advances in stor- storage C&S—diversity of technologies. As Fig. 7 and
age technology and applications, e.g., battery technologies are Fig. 8 show, Li-ion batteries are the most prevalent form
making significant breakthroughs relative to more established of battery-based ESSs being deployed today. The chal-
resources including photovoltaic and traditional fossil-fired lenge described above is driven in part by this market
generation. The discussion below puts these selected chal- reality. However, great care must be taken to address in-
lenges into the context of specific technology-driven issues dustry needs for energy storage C&S today, without clos-
from the perspective of safety C&S and performance C&S. ing off or inadvertently limiting access to and use of the
expanding range of energy storage technologies. For ex-
Energy Storage Safety C&S and Technology Challenge ample, flow batteries, which are discussed in the section
on energy storage performance C&S above, may have a
The challenge in any code or standards development is different risk profile where gas evolution and management
to balance the goal of ensuring a safe, reliable is not a driving safety risk factor.
146 Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep (2021) 8:138–148

Fig. 7 Installed Li-ion ESS capacity Increase vs. cost decline [24]

Energy Storage Performance C&S and Pace of operational components. MESA-Device specifications
Technology Development Challenge are built on the Modbus protocol.
The MESA Standards Alliance and the SunSpec
The pace of change in storage technology outpaces the fol- Alliance have developed a joint testing and certification
lowing example of the technical standards development program for the MESA-Device specification [29].
processes. Vendors can now receive certification via third-party
All published IEEE standards have a ten-year maintenance authenticators, ensuring their products meet the require-
cycle, where IEEE standards must undergo and complete a ments of this specification and will be interoperable
revision process within ten years from the standard’s approval with other certified components of ESS. Compliance
to retain an active standard status. [26], p. 7] with the MESA-Device specification ensures greater in-
Non-SDO industry groups are helping to meet this pacing teroperability among the components of the ESS (the
challenge. SunSpec Alliance1 and Modular Energy Storage inverter, power control system, and energy source
Architecture Alliance (MESA)2 are examples of non-SDO (e.g., Li-ion battery) across the spectrum of
industry entities that are issuing specifications that can be used distribution-connected DER-scale ESS to large-scale
now and refined over time for use or reference by formal transmission-connected ESS.
SDO-published standards in the future. The MESA-DER specification is built on the IEEE Std.
MESA is an industry association that focuses on the devel- 1815 (DNP3) protocol [30], with further specificity prescribed
opment of communication specifications for utility scale in the DNP Application Note (AN2018-001), which describes
ESSs. The membership includes utilities, technology sup- the DNP3 Profile for communications with DERs. The
pliers, and integrators. Together, the members work to devel- MESA-DER specification addresses how utility and other grid
op interoperable solutions by specifying the communication SCADA communicate with DERs and ESS, including config-
protocols and implementation requirements that will allow the uration management and operational states, and the profile of
management of ESSs and control of the advanced capabilities the DNP Application Note (AN2018-001) [31] based on the
they can provide. IEC 61850-7-420 information model for advanced DER func-
MESA has developed and manages two specifications: tions [32]. This includes all the functions defined in IEEE
MESA-DER [27] (formerly MESA-ESS) and MESA- 1547-2018 [33], California’s Utility DER Electric Rule 21
Device/SunSpec Energy Storage Model [28]. MESA-DER Interconnection [34], and the European ENTSO-E DER inter-
addresses communication between a utility’s control system connection requirements (2016) [35], as well as additional
and distributed energy resources (DERs), including ESSs. functions specifically applicable to ESS.
MESA-Device specifies standardized communications be- The use-by-reference of MESA specifications by
tween components within the ESS. Standards IEC 61850 and IEEE 1547-2018, respectively, are
MESA-Device Specifications/SunSpec Energy Storage examples of industry-group non-SDO products being used to
Model addresses how energy storage components within accelerate development of formal SDO-published
an ESS communicate with each other and other Performance Standards for ESSs and their major sub compo-
nents. However, a remaining challenge is third party verifica-
1 tion and certification (e.g., UL Listing) of compliance with
https://sunspec.org/
2
http://mesastandards.org/ MESA and other industry specifications. Where MESA
Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep (2021) 8:138–148 147

Fig. 8 Installed energy storage

technology breakdown excluding
pumped storage as of 2018 [25]

specifications are incorporated in a formal SDO standard, the the underlying storage technologies change, and the diver-
certification processes for referencing the formal standard can sity of technologies to which any standard will apply. A
be leveraged. IEEE 1547-2018 is an example. theme in discussions for solution is the application of
UL 1741 [36], based on the IEEE Std. 1547.1-2020 test impartial science-based input to the standards develop-
method [37], is a means for third party verification of compli- ment process. Examples of this approach have been pre-
ance with IEEE 1547-2018 performance requirements, and by sented in this article, including the adoption of DOE-
extension the portion of MESA that is referenced in IEEE funded national laboratory work on energy storage perfor-
1547-2018. Specifically, IEEE 1547-2018 cites SunSpec mance metrics in IEC performance standards. The article
Modbus, which incorporates portions of the MESA-Device also offers ideas on extending impartial science-based
specification, is one of three protocols that meet the commu- support for continued C&S development. For example,
nications protocol requirements. The SunSpec/MESA Device public entities replicating confidential product fire safety
Profile applies this protocol; however, the IEEE 1547-2018 testing for the purpose of wider public data dissemination
Standard only addresses a subset of performance requirements and use to baseline minimally acceptable risk and risk
specific to interconnection of distributed resources (including mitigation could be formalized later in published C&S.
ES) with distribution systems. Thus, the UL 1741 listing as a Several other gaps in C&S associated with the specification
form of certification of ES performance is not comprehensive. and certification of ESS still remain. It will be crucially im-
To address this challenge, MESA Alliance, with support portant for the continual cost decline of ESS to fill the gaps
from DOE, expanded its mission to address certification pro- that will make the specification of a new ESS as common as
cedures and processes for MESA’s industry (non-SDO) spec- the specification of a diesel generator or another common grid
ifications. The MESA Testing and Certification Work Group asset. Furthermore, to improve the risk exposure for investors
was started in 2020 to cover certification of the MESA-Device of this technology and to enable a second market for storage
and MESA-DER specifications. devices, more transparency in remaining life and state-of-
health standards and best practices are necessary.
While some energy storage devices, e.g., Li-ion battery
technologies, have already become commodity products with
Conclusions a continually declining unit cost, C&S will help to drive down
soft costs related to planning, purchase, financing, deploy-
Energy storage has made massive gains in adoption in the
ment, commissioning, operations, and de-commissioning.
United States and globally, exceeding a gigawatt of battery-
based ESSs added over the last decade. While a lack of C&S
for energy storage remains a barrier to even higher adoption,
Declaration
advances have been made and efforts continue to fill remain-
ing gaps in codes and standards. Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.
Key challenges presented in this article include the ten-
sion between the deliberative slow speed of the formal Human and Animal Rights The article does not contain any studies with
standards development process relative to the rapid rate human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
148 Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep (2021) 8:138–148

References 20. IEC Standard TR 62933-4-200/Ed.1. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-

sion reduction by electrical energy storage (EES) systems.
International Electrotechnical Commission.
1. Energy Storage Program Planning Document. In: U.S. Dept. of
21. IEEE Standard 1679. IEEE recommended practice for the charac-
Energy Office of Electricity. February 2011.
terization and evaluation of emerging energy storage technologies
2. UL Standard 9540. ANSI/CAN/UL Standard for Energy Storage
in stationary applications. 2010. https://standards.ieee.org/standard/
Systems and Equipment.. Underwriters Laboratories. February
1679-2010.html
2020. https://standardscatalog.ul.com/ProductDetail.aspx?
22. IEEE Draft Standard P2868, approved project scope (PAR). IEEE
productId=UL9540
recommended practice for battery management systems in energy
3. National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 1, Fire Code. 2021.
storage applications. , September 27, 2018. https://standards.ieee.
https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-
org/project/2868.html
standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=1
23. Energy Storage Best Practice Guide. Developed by the Advancing
4. International Code Council’s country adoption information web
Contracting in Energy Storage (ACES) Working Group, Richard
page. https://www.iccsafe.org/international-code-adoptions/
Baxter, Executive Director, ACES Working Group. December
5. UL 9540 Second Edition: Understanding the Impacts of
2019.
Requirement Changes. Underwriters Laboratories, CT 26157086-
24. Twitchell J. A review of state-level policies on electrical energy
0520. 2020. https://www.ul.com/insights/ul-9540-second-edition-
storage. Curr Sustain/Renew Energy Rep. 2019;6:35–41. https://
understanding-impacts-required-changes
doi.org/10.1007/s40518-019-00128-1.
6. UL 9540A. Test Method for Evaluating Thermal Runaway Fire
25. Mongird K, et al. Energy storage technology and cost characteriza-
Propagation in Battery Energy Storage Systems. Underwriters
tion report. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for the U.S.
Laboratories. November 12, 2019.
7. UL 9540A Data Utilization Guide For NYC: Flow Charts. City Dept. of Energy. PNNL-28866. 2019, https://energystorage.pnnl.
University of New York (CUNY) Digital Hub. https:// gov/pdf/PNNL-28866.pdf
nysolarmap.com/media/2041/fire-safety-testing-data-analysis- 26. IEEE-SA Working Group Chair Quick Reference Guide. IEEE
supplement-for-nyc-outdoor-ess_v1.pdf Standards Association 1602-01, 2016, p.7.
8. Smart Distributed Generation Hub (Smart DG Hub). City 27. MESA-ESS(DER) draft specification, Modular Energy Systems
University of New York for the U.S. Dept. of Energy. https:// Architecture (MESA) Alliance. 2018. http://mesastandards.org/
nysolarmap.com/solarplusstorage/ mesa-downloads/
9. Conover D, et al. Protocol for Uniformly Measuring and 28. MESA-Device specification, Modular Energy Systems
Expressing the Performance of Energy Storage Systems. Pacific Architecture (MESA) Alliance. http://mesastandards.org/mesa-
Northwest National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory device/
for the U.S. Dept. of Energy Office of Electricity. PNNL−22010 29. Verifying MESA Device Specification Compliance Using SunSpec
Rev. 2 / SAND2016-3078 R. 2016, https://energystorage.pnnl.gov/ Modbus Certification with the MESA Profile. Modular Energy
pdf/PNNL-22010Rev2.pdf Systems Architecture (MESA) Alliance. 2020, http://
10. Standard for Uniformly Measuring and Expressing the Performance mesastandards.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/MESA-Device-
of Electrical Energy Storage Systems” NEMA Standard ESS 1- Certification-Guide-Final-Draft.pdf
2019, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2019 30. IEEE Standard 1815: IEEE Standard for Electric Power Systems
11. IEC Standard TS 62933-3-1. Electrical Energy Storage (EES) Communications-Distributed Network Protocol (DNP3). 2012.
systems–part 3-1: planning and performance assessment of electri- https://standards.ieee.org/standard/1815-2012.html
cal energy storage systems–general specification. International 31. DNP Application Note AN2018-001. DNP3 Profile for
Electrotechnical Commission Communications with Distributed Energy Resources. DNP Users
12. Westlake B and Thompson J. Energy Storage Integration Council Group. January 2019.
(ESIC) Energy Storage Test Manual. 3003013530, Technical 32. IEC Standard 61850-7-420:2009. Basic communication structure–
Update. December 2019. distributed energy resources logical nodes. International
13. Kaun B, et al. ESIC Energy Storage Technical Specification Electrotechnical Commission.
Template v3.0. EPRI Product 3002013531. 33. IEEE 1547-2018: IEEE Standard for Interconnection and
14. Minear E. Energy Storage Integration Council (ESIC) Energy Interoperability of Distributed Energy Resources with Associated
Storage Implementation Guide. 3002013533, Technical Update. Electric Power Systems Interfaces. 2018. https://standards.ieee.org/
March 2019 standard/1547-2018.html
15. IEC Standard 62933-2-1. Electrical energy storage (EES) systems– 34. California Interconnection guidebook: a guide to interconnecting
part 2-1: unit parameters and testing methods–general specification, customer-owned electric generation equipment to the electric utility
Ed. 1.0, 2017-12. distribution system using California’s electric rule 21. California
16. IEC Standard 62933-2-2. Electric Energy Storage Systems–part 2- Energy Commission, P500-03-083. September 2003.
2: unit parameters and testing methods–applications and 35. ENTSO-E Network Codes. European Network of Transmission
Performance testing. International Electrotechnical Commission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E). 2016.
17. IEC Standard 62933-1. Electric Energy Storage Systems–part 1: 36. UL Standard 1741. Inverters, converters, controllers and intercon-
vocabulary. International Electrotechnical Commission nection system equipment for use with distributed energy resources.
18. IEC Standard TS 62933-5-1:2017. Technical specifications– Underwriters Laboratories. January 2020.
electrical energy storage (EES) systems–part 5-1: safety consider- 37. IEEE 1547.1-2020: IEEE Standard Conformance Test Procedures
ations for grid-integrated EES systems–general specification. for Equipment Interconnecting Distributed Energy Resources with
International Electrotechnical Commission Electric Power Systems and Associated Interfaces. 2020. https://
19. IEC 62933-5-2: 2020 PRV (Pre-release version). Electrical energy standards.ieee.org/standard/1547_1-2020.html
storage (EES) systems–part 5-2: safety requirements for grid inte-
grated EES systems–electrochemical based systems. International Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
Standard, International Electrotechnical Commission. tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.