Member Info for PMC2022

Https://insider.govtech.com/california/news/vacaville-moves-to-block-lithium-ion-battery-storage-projects

Senior Planner Albert Enault said the city received a Technology Assessment for BESS from consultants at Larsen and Toubroo in December. That report argued that Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries (VRFB) could be used in the community rather than the Lithium-Ion batteries that community members have expressed safety concerns about.

A load of documents uploaded yesterday relating to that CA BESS here - https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=26-OPT-01

If someone has time to fish through them to see if there is anything of interest...

The problem is they all list on Nasdaq get ridiculous valuations and they soon deflate.

Look at ESS Inc.a few years back. Rocked up with the ticker GWH and has since crashed 99%.

At least IES has the BEST LDES product globally - so hopefully the rest of the competition is just noise on the way up.

I had noticed that about Ayr and Busby...

If they are on the IDL, I will be writing to Ofgem as those sites are definitely not worthy of allocations under C&F, particularly as they will be all Eos batteries.

The problem is Eos batteries don't really work and could therefore be highly damaging for the non-lithium battery sector.

The evidence is there, Veijas, PSG, and these are not big projects in the grand scheme of things.

The CA broker note states that two expected were expected to have been granted the project, but they selected IES only in the end.

My bet is on that IES went in with EOSE at the start on the basis that they thought they would stand a better chance of delivering such a large project with Cerberus etc backing but ultimately as the RFP progressed it became apparent that Flexbase wanted Invinity only.

Frontier Power will also be aware of all this - Timely for the C&F.

Unbelievable value on offer here rn.....

US #EOSE investors on X have noticed the contract loss to IES…

Does anyone have a link to the canaccord note?

It was mentioned in the Fuzzy Panda research -

It references Viejas (Indian Energy’s Viejas project in California) in several places:

Part I (Deadly Hydrogen Bromide Gas): lists Viejas as one of multiple customer sites with thermal/off‑gassing incidents — “a couple” of incidents reported.

FOIA/CEC notes: CEC FOIA revealed Z3 battery degradation, premature tripping, and an off‑gassing event at the Indian Energy (Viejas) site; commissioning began in Oct 2025.

Part IV (Performance Issues): references Viejas again in connection with expected RTE problems and off‑gassing during commissioning.

In short: the report says Viejas experienced multiple thermal/off‑gassing events (hydrogen bromide leaks) and battery performance issues (degradation, premature tripping, low RTE).

https://fuzzypandaresearch.com/eos-energy-eose-deadly-gas-doe-loan-default/

Btw, IES stole this from Eos.

Probably because of the feedback the CEC have on Eos batteries at Veijas - which are underperforming.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/long-duration-energy-storage-program#accordion-15040

IES stepping in to deliver where others cannot - In 2025, the CEC awarded Pacific Steel Group a $14 million grant to deploy a 4 MW/32 MWh zinc hybrid cathode battery LDES system…

https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/long-duration-energy-storage-program

Nonesense.

Doyezee

I have already explained this logic to you once before. See below -

Total eligible Window 1 capacity is 28.7 GW.

The Frontier/VFB projects that IES is exposed to add up to 2.1 GW of that.

If, for argument’s sake, Ofgem only awards 5 GW in this first window, then IES's share of the eligible pool is:

2.1 / 28.7 ≈ 7.3%

If Ofgem allocated purely pro‑rata by GW (they won’t, but as a baseline), you’d expect IES to land about 7.3% of the 5 GW “pot”:

5 GW × 7.3% ≈ 0.36 GW (roughly 350–400 MW)

On top of that, Ofgem has been explicit that it won’t put all its eggs in one basket – it wants a mix of technologies. That tech‑diversity objective should, if anything, push some capacity towards IES, but it still doesn’t point to the full 2.1 GW going through in one go.

So on a pure probability/size‑of‑pool view, you’re in the hundreds of MW for IES in W1 – not zero, and not the full book – with the exact number then depending on how hard Ofgem leans into that “technology mix/cost/ other relevant factors", principle in the project assessment.

Anything other than the above is just not respecting the competitive nature of the bidding process.

You are welcome to think I am being overly cautious, but I have a decent amount of skin in the game, lets just say more than most here...

There are plenty of other technologies capable of delivering LDES not just IES.

The max window 1 will be 7GW, that is only 25% of the initial assessment list. Based on the laws of probability IES will get only 500MW which would just be Hagshaw and no other Frontier/Centrica etc projects.

Chargrin, with all due respect, you have no visibility of the project assessment data submitted, so how on earth do you know that it ticks all the boxes from Ofgems perspective?

Agreed Billhunt. I actually think there is good chance that Hagshaw gets the go ahead (as a flagship LDES site), and IES also get a similar ITM Power grant from DESNZ to build out the manufacturing plant.

DESNZ are of course visiting the IES manufacturing plant today, as JM mentioned on yesterday's call.

That would also de-risk it for IES, since frontier power have optionality on who supplies the batteries to their projects.

I think some need a dose of realism on C&P. There are currently about 69 projects in the running, over 28GW in total. Only 5-6 GW are expected to get through window 1, and IES will be very lucky to get even 500 MW.

500MW is 4GWH of work which is still an obscene amount of work/cashflow.

Mentioned at 48 minutes by JM on todays investor meeting.

Timely stuff for Cap and Floor awards...

Note the anchor investor who is backstopping the project.

https://dmiag.ch

Appreciate most are focusing on the former right now but does anyone know where things are at with Killean AI growth zone?

The numbers here are huge https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6762cd4c40ea67044a0810b3/t/6849f32648c8072a4b362693/1749676844583/Killellan+AI+Growth+Zone+Application+30052025_FinalApproved.pdf

Last time I checked they raised £500m so its definitely going ahead.... https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC870385/filing-history

Doyezee,

The way I’ve been thinking about it is just on a “share of pie” basis to get a rough sanity‑check.

Total eligible Window 1 capacity is 28.7 GW.

The Frontier/VFB projects that IES is exposed to add up to 2.1 GW of that.

If, for argument’s sake, Ofgem only awards 5 GW in this first window, then IES's share of the eligible pool is:

2.1 / 28.7 ≈ 7.3%

If Ofgem allocated purely pro‑rata by GW (they won’t, but as a baseline), you’d expect IES to land about 7.3% of the 5 GW “pot”:

5 GW × 7.3% ≈ 0.36 GW (roughly 350–400 MW)

On top of that, Ofgem has been explicit that it won’t put all its eggs in one basket – it wants a mix of technologies. That tech‑diversity objective should, if anything, push some capacity towards IES, but it still doesn’t point to the full 2.1 GW going through in one go.

So on a pure probability/size‑of‑pool view, you’re in the hundreds of MW for IES in W1 – not zero, and not the full book – with the exact number then depending on how hard Ofgem leans into that “technology mix/cost/ other relevant factors", principle in the project assessment.

Anything other than the above is just not respecting the competitive nature of the bidding process.