<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: California Has Now Mandated (Some) Energy Storage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/21/california-now-mandated-energy-storage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/21/california-now-mandated-energy-storage/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2014 06:27:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Onefinity</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/21/california-now-mandated-energy-storage/#comment-187875</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Onefinity]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=57996#comment-187875</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is my understanding that, indeed, the exclusion of large-scale pumped storage reflects a desire to give alternative storage technologies a chance to come forth. Of course, given its inherent advantages, some pumped storage could end up winning through this process anyway. As for the big pumped storage, that still has a good market in the need for new firm, flexible capacity in all three California utility regions.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is my understanding that, indeed, the exclusion of large-scale pumped storage reflects a desire to give alternative storage technologies a chance to come forth. Of course, given its inherent advantages, some pumped storage could end up winning through this process anyway. As for the big pumped storage, that still has a good market in the need for new firm, flexible capacity in all three California utility regions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JamesWimberley</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/21/california-now-mandated-energy-storage/#comment-187845</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JamesWimberley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=57996#comment-187845</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why exclude pumped storage? It&#039;s not high-tech, but it&#039;s proven at a large scale and quite cheap. This move looks like a subsidy to Silicon Valley battery entrepreneurs.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why exclude pumped storage? It&#8217;s not high-tech, but it&#8217;s proven at a large scale and quite cheap. This move looks like a subsidy to Silicon Valley battery entrepreneurs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
