My Authors
Read all threads
Key update on #EnergyStorage-as-transmission! @FERC accepted @misoenergy's "storage-as-transmission-only asset" (SATOA) proposal, subject to a further tariff filing by 9/24 elibrary.ferc.gov/IDMWS/common/o…

A thread on the issues in the order and some observations 1/
First, FERC approves the basic premise of MISO's SATOA, noting it as an extenstion of the Western Grid precedent that established storage-as-Tx. No real suprise there, other than that it re-affirms the distinction from NTAs 2/
FERC approves MISO's requirement only TOs may own SATOA, since MISO functional control depends on a Tx Owners Agreement; this seems to eliminate the possibility of a TO contracting for a SATOA asset, and thus would require non-TOs to become merchant TOs to offer SATOA 3/
FERC tells MISO to file clarifications that SATOA will only be evaluated for resolving non-routine reliability issues that cannot be addressed by market solutions, which reinforces the "unique capabilities" approach MISO proposed and seems to narrow the use-cases for SATOA 4/
FERC dismisses arguments that MISO SATOA is discriminatory toward non-TOs. Says that revisiting TO right-of-1st-refusal is out of scope and that "both SATOAs and NTAs will be considered appropriately" in Tx planning. FERC then says cost-recovery for NTAs is beyond scope 5/
Next, FERC accepts the use of operating guides to bound SATOA charge/discharge behavior, dismissing concerns about it being unproven. FERC stops short of requiring public terms, instead "encourages" public terms to give mkt participants predictability on SATOA charge/discharge 6/
FERC agrees that MISO should direct the use of SATOA & that a TO may manage SATOA state-of-charge to be "ready to serve" subject to an ops guide. FERC does order MISO to constrain SATOA buying/selling of energy only for charge/discharge needed to be "ready to serve" or used 7/
FERC dismisses concerns on energy market price impacts of SATOA, stating that eligibility criteria (i.e., only N-2+) & constrained operations are "unlikely" to impact real-time prices and thus adequately reduce risks. Impacts from emergency ops also not considered a concern. 8/
FERC also dismisses concerns about non-public Tx info being shared between a SATOA owner & its affiliated market rep, citing that MISO/TO retains operational control which its market participating entity does not affect, and that Stds of Conduct will apply to SATOA 9/
FERC orders accounting changes for SATOA to match Tx need and SATOA capacity, consistent with Order 784; in doing so dismisses concerns that SATOA may be oversized relative to Tx need. FERC generally sees oversizing concerns as premature, which leaves open challenges 10/
There's brief discussion of augmenting SATOA with storage for energy market use--creating dual-use storage-as-Tx. MISO says excess capacity will go through generator interconnection; FERC punts on how to allocate costs in this hypothetical (as it does for other dual-use Qs) 11/
FERC only conditionally accepts MISO's argument that its SATOA process does not interfere with generator interconnection, directing MISO to file a tariff that states SATOA will be allocated costs of any upgrades it causes for queued projects 12/
Onto some observations! First, there are many issues that FERC dismisses as premature. While some concerns are ruled out definitively, it seems like FERC leaves open challenges to this storage-as-Tx framework in the future, should some of those speculative issues arise 13/
While FERC does not want to pronounce on "dual-use" storage for both Tx and market services, FERC does make clear both explicitly and implicitly that generator interconnection will be a requirement for storage-as-Tx to become dual-use and participate in markets 14/
FERC's discussion of discrimination misses the inherent tension between saying (a) storage-as-Tx and storage-as-NTA can both be considered in Tx planning, and (b) that a ROFR and cost-recovery option applies only for the former 15/
The MISO NTA framework has not, to my knowledge, ever brought forward NTA solutions (tho someone correct me if I'm wrong!). Lack of ROFR and cost-recovery is a big disincentive to do so 16/
(As an aside, the recent FERC ruling dismissing arguments that Baseline Reliabity Projects should be subject to greater competition seems to indicate no changes in this framework anytime soon) 17/
FERC doesn't allow TOs to contract with non-TOs for SATOA, which is a missed oppt'y. This business model innovation could resolve the SATOA/NTA tension. Seems the TO Agreement framework could be modified to allow it. Now the only route for non-TOs is to become a merchant TO 18/
We at @storage_ESA do believe that the ability to propose, develop, own, operate, and receive fixed cost recovery for any storage-as-Tx solution should be open to any capable and, where appropriate, qualified industry participant energystorage.org/policy-stateme… 19/
All that said, #energystorage-as-transmission can and should move forward *with transparency*. The details of these novel Tx assets & operations should be as clear as practicable to all stakeholders to address some concerns FERC deems premature and build capability & trust 20/
A predilection to transparency could mean making operating agreements as public as possible; clearly demonstrating the match between Tx need & SATOA capacity; studying and reporting any effects on LBMPs; and other areas where information on storage-as-Tx is sparse 21/
One thing is certain--storage-as-Tx is the next frontier for the #energystorage value proposition. There are international examples already worth paying attention to, @kiranrak has details 22/
And I'm particularly eager to see longer-duration #energystorage technologies find a fit in transmission service, where they are likely to have a business case much earlier than for integrating high levels of renewables 23/
Also, a performance-based Tx incentive for enhancing existing transmission infrastructure would be useful to drive cost-saving solutions that include #energystorage 24/
As ever, the devil is in the details. The need for further refinements beyond FERC's order may eventually become clearer, and complementary developments in @pjminterconnect @SPPorg are likely to be informed by this Order. Possible a FERC rulemaking may ultimately be needed 25/
And if someone does decide to uncork the Order 1000 genie, certainly improvements to the the NTA framework could be a useful part of the discussion too 26/
I'd be remiss on not stating that storage-as-transmission is just one of the exciting business developments for #energystorage you can get the latest on at #ESACon20, the biggest baddest storage industry gathering Aug 24-27 - register today!! esacon.org/ESACon20-Promo…
CODA: Commissioner Danly dissented on the order: "MISO’s filing would eliminate the distinction between generation and
transmission facilities based on function, and instead define transmission facilities based on the service provided." 28/
Cmr. Danly presents an objection that the Order errs in distinguishing between Tx & gen by *service* rather than by *function,* noting that storage injections are generation functions 29/
Cmr. Danly then concludes "More of an explanation is required for why
discrimination between similarly situated parties is not undue," echoing the concerns of many non-TOs capable of providing storage 30/
Indeed, this is the aforementioned SATOA/NTA tension. But the remedy may not be to move away from defining services and back to functions (which eliminates storage-as-Tx), but perhaps to improve processes associated with competitive provision of storage-as-transmission FIN/
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Keep Current with Jason Burwen 🔋🔋🔋

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!