Texas city and flag

“Allowing Utilities to own and operate non-transmission or non-distribution alternatives creates two inefficient conditions that a competitive supplier can resolve.” The Wind Coalition.

For the past year, the Texas Public Utility Commission debated Project 48023, a proposal which would allow utilities to store energy. Earlier this year, the PUC put 48023 on hold. Now, sources with whom Energy Pages corresponded said that there’s a chance the PUC could take up the issue again before the year is out.

Since Feb. 5, 2018, there have been 69 filings regarding Project 48023, or, “Rulemaking to address the use of non-traditional technologies in electric delivery service.” The project’s goal, according to documents, is to determine a variety of factors that may or may not come into play if utilities could use non-traditional technology like battery storage.

The PUC put out a public notice of request for comments in September, the first memorandum filed for the project.

The first question listed in the call for opinions was, “Apart from energy storage, what non-traditional technologies could provide a potentially cost-effective solution to reliability issues on a utility’s transmission or distribution system?”

Subsequent questions the PUC wanted to tackle were just as interesting. For example, the PUC wants to explore whether or not transmission and distribution utilities have the legal authority to use “non-traditional” technology devices like batteries to store power.

Furthermore, the call for opinions says the PUC wanted to clear up whether or not its “appropriate” for transmission and distribution utilities to store energy in batteries in order to stabilize their grid’s reliability in times of high demand.

As part of their fact-finding mission, the PUC requested that utilities who use battery storage or who plan to use it need to “explain the purpose, use, metering, and deployment of these technologies.”

Multiple energy companies around the state offered their answers to the PUC’s questions. One such response came from The Wind Coalition, who offered the following conclusion regarding the PUC’s questions:

“Allowing Utilities to own and operate non-transmission or non-distribution alternatives creates two inefficient conditions that a competitive supplier can resolve. First, a competitive provider can ensure that the full value, including Energy and Ancillary Services, is realized in the market rather than just a reliability service. Second, the investment risk of the assets is properly shifted from the rate base onto the competitive supplier.” said The Wind Coalition.

Author:
Energy Pages is an online trade publication and business directory for the retail energy industry. We publish editorials, resources, case studies, practical information and industry news. Our content is about and for industry leaders, innovators, investors and influencers.

Your Opinion Matters

Have Something To Say About This Story?

Sign Up for the Energy Pages Digest

Our weekly must-see brief

You May Also Like

Future U.S. Electricity Generation Mix Will Depend Largely on Natural Gas Prices

In 2018, natural gas accounted for 34% of total electricity generation, and EIA projects its share to grow to 40% by 2032

Shell Believes It Can Be the World’s Largest Electricity Company

Consumers will drive the growth of electrification and will be the major contributor to what Shell predicts will bet 8-12% returns on new energy

Understanding NAESB and the FERC Version 3.1 Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NOPR)

As you may already be aware, FERC has proposed to adopt Version 3.1 of the NAESB Standards. Today we will provide an overview of the upcoming North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) Version 3.1 Standards which have been proposed for adoption by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Our organization has been involved with NAESB since its inception in 2002, and with the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB), the precursor to NAESB, before that.