Over the past few years, mandates and incentives for energy storage have increased dramatically. For example, in 2010 the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 2514 that resulted in the California Public Utilities Commission releasing a procurement target for 1.3 gigawatts (GW) of energy storage in the state by 2020 (Greentech,2013). Approximately 15% of this allotment has been planned for customer-sited, behind-the-meter storage (Berkeley, 2013). Customer-sited storage has been encouraged in California by the self-generation incentive program, which offers up to $1.62 per watt installed. In New York, ConEdison offers up to $2.10 per watt installed for advanced batteries through an enhanced load reduction program. Such incentives can make energy storage attractive to some customers; however, as they are often capped at some percentage of total installed cost, customers must have a viable value stream from the use of this storage to make the venture economically viable. Reduction of facility demand charges—a fee proportional to peak power rather than total energy—is a commonly referenced means to provide that value. In some instances, demand charges can constitute more than 50% of a commercial customer’s monthly electricity cost. While installation of behind-the-meter solar 2 power generation decreases energy costs, solar intermittency due to cloud cover may cause the peak load—and thereby demand charges—to remain unaffected.