Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Duration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Company witness says six‑hour battery now best option for ratepayers
Summary
A company witness told commissioners the firm moved back to a six-hour battery because it believes the longer duration provides greater benefit to ratepayers; the witness also explained delaying supplier selection allows cost hedging as prices evolve.
Mister Latham, a company witness, said Tenaska returned to a six-hour battery configuration and that the company is now "convinced, [a] 6 hour battery ... makes the most sense for the rate payers."
Latham explained the supplier-timing decision is primarily monetary: by waiting the company can hedge risk if prices rise or wait for declining costs. "If we see the cost going in the wrong direction, we can hedge that and purchase a hedge to avoid higher cost that would ultimately flow through to the ratepayers," he said. Commissioners pressed whether changing duration earlier had disadvantaged ratepayers; Latham described the change as a modification the firm has since reversed.
The witness said many of the manufacturers Tenaska has discussed with now offer longer-duration lithium iron phosphate (LFP) options; he also cited an industry study showing a drop in incident rates as chemistry and standards evolved. Commissioners asked for documentation of the cost assumptions and hedging strategy before any final procurement decisions.
