[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-203312-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-203312-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","energy-storage-revenue-in-iso-ne-energy-and-reserves-markets-alternative-ortp-eas-offset-estimates","Energy Storage Revenue in ISO-NE Energy and Reserves Markets - Alternative ORTP EAS Offset Estimates","","Memorandum outlining an optimization-based approach to estimate energy and ancillary services (EAS) revenues for energy storage participating in ISO New England markets. It models storage dispatch across energy, ten-minute spinning reserves (TMSR), and regulation while enforcing the device’s energy limits and technical efficiency constraints. The analysis tests the reasonableness of Concentric Energy Advisors’ revenue estimates using CEA market-price inputs and battery specifications, then compares alternative revenue outcomes under different FRM scenarios.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/energy-storage-revenue-in-iso-ne-energy-and-reserves-markets-alternative-ortp-eas-offset-estimates/203312/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/energy-storage-revenue-in-iso-ne-energy-and-reserves-markets-alternative-ortp-eas-offset-estimates/203312.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Aditya","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",15,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What markets and revenue streams does the memorandum assess for the storage device?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It evaluates revenues from ISO-NE energy, ten-minute spinning reserves (TMSR), and regulation, using a single optimization framework that schedules dispatch under technical limits.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How does the AGO’s optimization model treat pricing information and dispatch?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The model uses CEA-sourced day-ahead energy and real-time-related inputs to generate an operational schedule that assumes real-time operation consistent with the observed day-ahead prices, without requiring actual real-time price foresight or intraday updates.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How do the AGO’s alternative revenue estimates compare with CEA’s estimates under FRM scenarios?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"For the FRM sunset case, the AGO proposes about $8.23M versus CEA’s about $6.86M; for the FRM maintained case, the AGO proposes about $8.87M versus CEA’s about $8.29M, translating to roughly 20% and 7% higher revenues respectively.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},203312,1788559611,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":112,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":118,"preview_page_count":4},962085564549,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","Revenue for Energy Storage Participating in ISO-NE Energy and Reserves Markets  \nAlternative ORTP EAS Offset Estimates  \nMassachusetts Attorney General’s Office | B.W.Griffiths | Updated 10-2-2020  \n1. Introduction  \nAccurately modeling energy storage dispatch and market revenues poses unique challenges. Therevenues that storage generates from energy and reserves depends on its ability to purchase electricity in low-priced periods and sell electricity or reserves in higher priced periods. Storage dispatch is further complicated by its energy-limited status, which introduces significant cross-product and intertemporal opportunity costs, and by technical characteristics such as its efficiency at charging and discharging. How storage should operate, conceptually, is generally quite different from how deterministic modeling will simulate how storage could operate. Deterministic modeling of energy storage will generally leave money on the table that, in practice, a reasonably competent operator could earn.  \nThe Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (AGO) offers this memorandum outlining a straightforward optimization model to more reasonably estimate energy and ancillary services (“EAS”) revenues available to a storage device. More specifically, the model produces an operational schedule for storage that maximizes revenues from participation in three ISO New England (“ISO-NE”) markets – energy, tenminute spinning reserves (“TMSR”), and regulation – while respecting the technical limitations of the storage device.  \nWe employed this optimization model to evaluate the reasonableness of the Concentric Energy Advisors (“CEA”) EAS revenue estimate. The AGO ran its optimization model – using CEA-sourced market prices and battery specification – assuming that storage was scheduled optimally based on known day-ahead energy prices, but operated only in the real-time market. Put differently, the AGO assumes that storage is dispatched in real-time based on the observed prices from the day-ahead market. The AGO dispatch methodology does not require foresight of the market’s actual real-time prices nor does it require intraday updating based on prevailing market conditions. The dispatch strategy reflects a readily achievable, albeit simple dispatch scheme.  \nThe AGO’s operational approach is based on a dispatch scheme outlined by the ISO-NE External Market Monitor (“EMM”) in their comments in ER20-308.1 In its comments, the EMM noted the ”limited sophistication” of the dispatching of storage based on day-ahead price curves “represents the minimum that an [energy storage resource] developer could reasonably expect to receive in EAS net revenues.”2  \nThe AGO finds that the CEA revenue estimates for energy storage are unreasonably low assuming the FRM is sunset and somewhat too low assuming the FRM is maintained. Based on the specific modeling  \n1 EMM Comments at 6 [https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/fi](https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/fi)lelist?accession num=20191112-5337&optimized=false 2 Id.  \nconducted in this analysis, the AGO proposes alternative energy, TMSR, and regulation revenue estimates of $ 8,231,249 ($54.87/kW-year), assuming the FRM sunsets, and $ 8,866,214 ($59.11/kWyear), assuming the FRM is maintained. In contrast, CEA estimates average EAS revenue from these three markets at $6,856,653 ($45 .71/kW-year) assuming the FRM is sunset and $8,288,982 ($55 . 26/kWyear) assuming the FRM is maintained. An energy storage resource dispatched using the AGO’s scheme would earn 20 percent more money – in the same markets – than that same resource under CEA’s analysis, assuming the FRM is sunset. Assuming the FRM is maintained, the AGO’s dispatch scheme would earn the resource about 7 percent more than the CEA estimate.  \nThe AGO suggests that a more sophisticated developer could earn still more EAS revenues if it employed less rudimentary dispatch logic; there is substantial headroom between what a developer could earn if it had more pe","cbCaitX4vQHOez0E","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaitX4vQHOez0E","pdf",312739,"English","# Introduction\n## Methodology\n### Prices\n## Revenue Comparison","[{\"question\":\"What markets and revenue streams does the memorandum assess for the storage device?\",\"answer\":\"It evaluates revenues from ISO-NE energy, ten-minute spinning reserves (TMSR), and regulation, using a single optimization framework that schedules dispatch under technical limits.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the AGO’s optimization model treat pricing information and dispatch?\",\"answer\":\"The model uses CEA-sourced day-ahead energy and real-time-related inputs to generate an operational schedule that assumes real-time operation consistent with the observed day-ahead prices, without requiring actual real-time price foresight or intraday updates.\"},{\"question\":\"How do the AGO’s alternative revenue estimates compare with CEA’s estimates under FRM scenarios?\",\"answer\":\"For the FRM sunset case, the AGO proposes about $8.23M versus CEA’s about $6.86M; for the FRM maintained case, the AGO proposes about $8.87M versus CEA’s about $8.29M, translating to roughly 20% and 7% higher revenues respectively.\"}]","Energy Storage Revenue in ISO-NE Energy and Reserves Markets - Alternative ORTP EAS Offset Estimates | PDF"]