
UL 9540 provides a basis for safety of energy storage systems that includes reference to critical technology safety standards and codes, such as UL 1973, the Standard for Batteries for Use in Stationary, Vehicle Auxiliary Power and Light Electric Rail (LER) Applications; UL 1741, the Standard for Inverters, Converters, Controllers and Interconnection System Equipment for Use With Distributed Energy Resources; IEEE 1547 and 1547.1; CSA FC1; NFPA 70; NFPA 2; ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code; and ASME B31 piping codes. [pdf]
no way to complete a regular certification.This is common when a large energy storage system is already installed in a location already but must be evaluated. A qualified inspector must examine that specific system in the field and place the certification safety mark on the system once it
The Standard covers a comprehensive review of energy storage systems, covering charging and discharging, protection, control, communication between devices, fluids movement and other aspects.
We provide a range of energy storage testing and certification services. These services benefit end users, such as electrical utility companies and commercial businesses, producers of energy storage systems, and supply chain companies that provide components and systems, such as inverters, solar panels, and batteries, to producers.
Energy storage systems are reliable and efficient, and they can be tailored to custom solutions for a company’s specific needs. Benefits of energy storage system testing and certification: We have extensive testing and certification experience.
Energy storage systems (ESS) are gaining traction as the answer to a number of challenges facing availability and reliability in today’s energy market. ESS, particularly those using battery technologies, help mitigate the variable availability of renewable sources such as PV or wind power.
Global changes in energy generation and delivery have made Energy Storage Systems (ESS) crucial. CSA Group can evaluate and test your ESS at our advanced laboratories or in the field so you can provide an uninterrupted and safe supply of energy for your customers. Standards offer enormous quality, safety and sustainability benefits.

Based on our bottom-up modeling, the Q1 2021 PV and energy storage cost benchmarks are: $2.65 per watt DC (WDC) (or $3.05/WAC) for residential PV systems, 1.56/WDC (or $1.79/WAC) for commercial rooftop PV systems, $1.64/WDC (or $1.88/WAC) for commercial ground-mount PV systems, $0.83/WDC (or $1.13/WAC) for fixed-tilt utility-scale PV systems, $0.89/WDC (or $1.20/WAC) for one-axis-tracking utility-scale PV systems, $30,326-$33,618 for a 7.15-kWDC residential PV system with 5 kW/12.5 kWh nameplate of storage, $2.04 - $2.10 million for a 1-MWDC commercial ground-mount PV system colocated with 600 kW/2.4 MWhusable of storage, $166 - $167 million for a 100-MWDC one-axis tracker PV system colocated with 60 MW/240 MWhusable of storage. [pdf]
The benchmarks in this report are bottom-up cost estimates of all major inputs to PV and energy storage system (ESS) installations. Bottom-up costs are based on national averages and do not necessarily represent typical costs in all local markets.
Non-battery systems, on the other hand, range considerably more depending on duration. Looking at 100 MW systems, at a 2-hour duration, gravity-based energy storage is estimated to be over $1,100/kWh but drops to approximately $200/kWh at 100 hours.
The cost estimates provided in the report are not intended to be exact numbers but reflect a representative cost based on ranges provided by various sources for the examined technologies. The analysis was done for energy storage systems (ESSs) across various power levels and energy-to-power ratios.
Cost metrics are approached from the viewpoint of the final downstream entity in the energy storage project, ultimately representing the final project cost. This framework helps eliminate current inconsistencies associated with specific cost categories (e.g., energy storage racks vs. energy storage modules).
The cost categories used in the report extend across all energy storage technologies to allow ease of data comparison. Direct costs correspond to equipment capital and installation, while indirect costs include EPC fee and project development, which include permitting, preliminary engineering design, and the owner’s engineer and financing costs.
Additionally, given their long calendar life, decommissioning costs are considered to be very small on a present value basis. Thermal energy storage also benefits from easy recyclability of power equipment and for most of the thermal SB. For these reasons, decommissioning costs are not considered in this analysis.
We are deeply committed to excellence in all our endeavors.
Since we maintain control over our products, our customers can be assured of nothing but the best quality at all times.