In the newest episode of Resilience, Pillsbury’s Shellka Arora-Cox and guest Adam Hise, Managing Director of Storage Risk Solutions for Ascend Analytics, dive deep into the evolving world of battery storage, market volatility, and how companies are navigating risk in a dynamic energy landscape.
(Editor’s note: The following transcript has been edited for clarity.)
Shellka Arora-Cox: Welcome to Resilience, the vodcast where we explore the challenges and opportunities in the energy sector. I’m your host, Shellka Arora-Cox, partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. Joining me today is Adam Hise, Managing Director of Storage Risk Solutions at Ascend Analytics. Today, Adam and I will be plugging into the world of battery storage projects, discussing revenue streams, volatility, and the risks that keep the industry—and perhaps even Adam—on their toes.
Adam, welcome.
Adam Hise: Thank you for having me.
Arora-Cox: Before we dive into battery storage projects, could you tell us a little about what sparked your interest in energy analytics and how you came to assume your current role at Ascend?
Hise: Reflecting on how I ended up in this field, I’ll admit it’s tempting to think it was all by design, but honestly, that’s rarely been the case. I’ve been fortunate to follow what felt right at various moments in my career, which has led me to a position where I truly find meaning in my work every day.
I grew up in a rural area and spent a lot of time outdoors. That naturally led to an interest in understanding nature better—how we can take from it and give back to it. This led me to pursue studies in biological systems engineering, which focused on using nature’s processes to create engineered solutions for our problems. From there, I transitioned into the techno-economics of clean energy projects.
After that, I worked for a wind developer in Colorado, specifically focusing on offtake solutions—long-term contracts to help de-risk wind projects. This work sparked my interest in battery storage. By around 2016 – 2017, I realized that the same challenges faced by wind and solar in finding offtake solutions to attract low-cost capital would eventually affect the growth of energy storage. At the time, there were other barriers to the growth of storage, so it didn’t seem like the most pressing issue. But I felt intuitively that it would become a key challenge. That led me to Ascend Analytics. I was impressed by their ability to forecast power market trends, understand how batteries could participate, and probabilistically assess the future value of these projects. Given their capabilities and established trust in the industry, I felt that Ascend was in prime position to tackle this problem. That was five years ago, and I’ve been working on this ever since. It’s been amazing to see how much we’ve accomplished in the last year, moving from concept to reality. Today, we have nearly 1.5 gigawatt-hours of storage either operating or under construction in Texas, supported by our solutions, which are helping to secure long-term revenue contracts. I’m excited about the opportunities that lie ahead in the next few years.
Arora-Cox: That’s fascinating, and it seems your intuition really served you well, leading you into one of the most volatile and dynamic markets today. Speaking of volatility, battery storage projects thrive—or fail—based on how well they manage market risks. Could you share with our listeners how Ascend helps clients navigate these swings in the energy markets?
Hise: You’re absolutely right. The volatility in these power markets is what makes storage such a valuable solution. Without that volatility, a battery wouldn’t provide much value. However, the nature of that volatility varies significantly from market to market and is fundamentally tied to market dynamics. For example, in markets like Texas or California, where renewables make up a significant portion of the supply mix, weather plays a major role in driving volatility. In contrast, in markets that are less advanced in their energy transition—such as in the Northeast, including ISO New England, New York, or PJM—the relationship between weather and price volatility isn’t as dramatic. These markets are more influenced by natural gas, for example.
At Ascend, what we do is forecast and underwrite the risk based on an understanding of how these fundamental drivers—like weather patterns, renewables penetration and natural gas availability—impact volatility. We take a longer-term view on the value of battery storage, considering how volatility will evolve as market conditions change.
Our work is made easier by the interconnection queue, which provides a robust understanding of near-term shifts in supply and demand in these markets. While the process can be slow-moving, it allows us to predict with confidence how more renewables will enter the market and how coal and natural gas plant retirements will shape the future supply landscape. We can look at historical trends and observe that as renewable penetration increases, so does price volatility. This allows us to anticipate when certain dynamics will play out in specific markets.
Arora-Cox: Right, and that interconnection queue is certainly an understatement of how slow-moving it is!
Hise: Exactly. It’s a necessary outcome of the stakeholder input processes. If this were a more top-down planning approach, things would move faster, but there are always trade-offs.
The point is, we can confidently predict that in the next two to three years, more renewables will enter markets that have traditionally had lower levels of renewable generation. Based on techno-economics and regulatory pressures, we can also estimate the retirement timelines for coal and natural gas plants in these same markets. By looking at historical trends, we observe that as intermittent renewables increasingly supply power in a market, energy price volatility grows in tandem with the level of renewable penetration. We can draw on this historical precedent across various markets that have already crossed these thresholds, achieving high levels of renewable penetration and experiencing higher levels of volatility. This allows us to anticipate when similar dynamics will play out in other markets, like ISO New England or New York.
Arora-Cox: You touched on risk assessment and a whole host of risks. If we take an example of a specific risk, let’s take lithium-ion prices—over the last few years, prices have dropped significantly, but there’s another risk emerging—tariffs. Tariffs on lithium in the non-EV sector are scheduled to rise from 7% to 25% in 2026. This is just one example of the many risks in the market, showing how rapidly things can change.
Could you discuss how Ascend approaches risk assessment when working with developers and clients? How do you model the unpredictable, which is no easy task?
Hise: There are two main categories: the valuation side, which focuses on assessing the future value of an asset, and the operational side, which addresses the risk of how the project participates in the market.
On the valuation side, there are three key components to consider, especially for battery projects. First is the market value: Does the market signal that this asset is useful? This includes capacity prices, ancillary service prices and price volatility. Second is how you bid the asset based on these prices, predicting real-time price changes and leveraging the battery’s state of charge efficiently to capture value. Finally, there’s technical performance risk—if your battery is offline during a critical price spike, like in August when an evening price surge could account for a third of your yearly revenue, you could miss out on significant revenue, no matter how well you predicted the price.
We’ve focused on managing market and bidding performance risk, as there are solutions for technical performance risks, such as liquidated damages from equipment providers and O&M service providers. Though not perfect, they’re sufficient for most financing interests. We are also developing predictive maintenance solutions with analytics companies to ensure availability during high-value periods. Our primary focus is on estimating the value these projects will generate over time and implementing effective dispatch strategies to realize that value.
Arora-Cox: And how exactly do you do that?
Hise: To predict the unpredictable, we think in terms of envelopes of potential outcomes. We analyze historical trends—like how low natural gas prices and mild weather led to low volatility or how high gas prices combined with extreme weather created high revenue opportunities for batteries. We then extrapolate these conditions to future markets. As I mentioned earlier, volatility is shaped by market makeup. For instance, Texas in 2018 had different dynamics compared to 2024, with much more solar, wind and battery storage, and less thermal backup. Looking ahead, as grids like Texas in 2025 or NYISO/New England in 2030 evolve with more variable renewables, higher load and fewer thermal assets, the potential for very different outcomes increases.
Our market intelligence team provides expected revenue streams based on thermal retirements, renewable build-out, load growth and fuel prices. We engage with insurers by showing that there’s a 99% probability of earning more than 50% of expected revenue, with a 1% chance of earning over 250% of expected revenue. This probabilistic approach accounts for techno-economic risks, such as faster-than-expected declines in battery prices or new technologies, like fusion, that could drastically reshape the market and reduce volatility. We aim to account for these shifts in market conditions, ensuring that we anticipate future changes in the market makeup and how they might affect project trajectories.
Arora-Cox: You’ve touched on a number of factors, and I’d like to follow up on a few. First, predicting the unpredictable. Do you ever get surprised by what the data reveals? It sounds like you take the numbers from one market, extrapolate them, and predict outcomes under different scenarios. But have there been instances where the data surprised you?
Hise: Absolutely. I think one reason we encounter fewer surprises than one might expect is due to the multifaceted and ultimately interrelated ways that Ascend participates in the market. We’re not just outside observers or forecasters; we are actively dispatching several gigawatts of assets across multiple ISOs using our smart bidder optimization platform. This means we’re in the market every day, forecasting conditions from three days in advance to even longer time horizons—whether it’s monthly, yearly or even five to 30 years.
This integration between a long-term, fundamental market view and the short-term market dynamics at play allows us to better understand how assets are capturing value on an ongoing basis. It creates a framework where we can see how shifts in ancillary service products and market conditions impact revenue generation. For example, when we see price spikes in Texas that dramatically exceed our forecasts, they are less surprising than they might be if we were strictly market observers. Our active participation and understanding of the dynamic ways these assets engage with the market enables us to respond effectively to changes, rather than simply relying on static predictions tied to a single revenue stream.
Arora-Cox: That’s a great segue into the next topic I wanted to explore, which is the revenue streams. Could you talk a bit about the existing revenue streams in some of the key markets, like ERCOT? What revenue streams do you see on the horizon? Are they evolving, and do you anticipate any new revenue streams emerging in the near future?
Hise: My general perspective is that the revenue opportunity for batteries, given their dynamic and versatile participation in the market, is less about how the overall pie will grow or shrink in a given year and more about how it gets redistributed. From a storage perspective, this is particularly compelling because we are not limited to just engaging in energy arbitrage or focusing on a single ancillary service. As new ancillary service products are introduced onto the market, the outcome hasn’t been a dramatic reduction in opportunity. Instead, it’s about adapting our approach to capturing the new sources of value, as the pie has simply been split differently.
When people think about storage, energy arbitrage—buying low and selling high—is usually the first thing that comes to mind, whether that’s in the day-ahead or real-time energy markets. Historically, as renewable penetration increases, real-time volatility tends to rise as well, creating more opportunities for storage. However, this relationship isn’t one-to-one. For instance, adding one more unit of renewables doesn’t automatically create one more unit of value for storage. In fact, the growth of storage capacity itself can mitigate the volatility created by the additional renewable capacity. For example, adding 10 megawatts of storage could counteract the volatility generated by new renewable generation.
We’re forecasting that, over time, in markets like Texas, where energy prices have been supernormal, this has incentivized the deployment of more storage. But as more storage comes online, it will start to combat the growth of volatility that might have been generated by additional renewable generation. As such, we take a somewhat more conservative view compared to others forecasting future value. We’re realistic in recognizing that the value of storage will not continue to increase indefinitely, as the expansion of storage itself will begin to counteract the volatility and market dynamics that initially created those opportunities.
This more cautious approach is part of the reason we’ve built strong relationships with our insurance and reinsurance partners. They trust our view of the market because we have a realistic outlook on the eventual stabilization and possible erosion in value, rather than assuming that the value will grow exponentially without limit.
Arora-Cox: We’ve discussed revenue streams, so I’d like to shift focus a bit. Could you elaborate on the products that Ascend offers to manage revenue risk, particularly when it comes to merchant projects?
Hise: Certainly. When we think about future outcomes for assets in specific locations and markets over time, we aim to understand both the expected set of conditions that will yield expected revenues for those projects and the range of potential scenarios around that expectation. We take a probabilistic approach to forecasting how different market conditions—such as weather, supply-demand dynamics and fuel prices—can change revenues, as they alter the volatility within the market. For battery, we explicitly look at the revenues that can be captured from ancillary service markets and from the energy price volatility that exists. We then work with insurance and reinsurance companies, who have spent the past four to five years understanding our capabilities, conducting diligent evaluations, and back-testing how our forecasts have performed. As a result, they are able to write revenue insurance products that help manage risk for asset owners, banks or tax equity investors in these projects. For example, when market conditions—such as low gas prices, temperate weather or changes in the regulatory paradigm—cause revenues to be 50% less than expected, we can pay an insurance company to assume that risk. This gives asset owners the flexibility to secure the minimum viable cash flow they need from a project to achieve a reasonable return. While they still hope for better outcomes, this revenue insurance ensures a guaranteed minimum, which allows them to secure the efficient debt and tax credit monetization they need without sacrificing all of the upside potential, which is often the primary reason for entering this sector in the first place.
Arora-Cox: There’s been a lot of talk about whether a bubble is forming in ERCOT, so it’s interesting to hear your more conservative view on the market and the concept of self-cannibalization that the market might ultimately experience. You also mentioned optimization, which is something I’m keen to hear more about. In ERCOT, where prices can spike up to $5,000 per megawatt-hour under tight conditions, people have been chasing that arbitrage and those high prices. How does Ascend guide clients on revenue optimization, rather than simply focusing on arbitrage?
Hise: We’ve now successfully gained the confidence of our insuring partners by demonstrating hundreds of years of simulated performance using machine learning-based algorithms. These algorithms implement strategies that are created and iterated upon by humans to forecast and ensure dispatch performance moving forward. The insuring partners are now taking on the risk that our smart bidder dispatch platform will perform as effectively as the hundreds of years of simulated backcast data suggest. This is a more straightforward challenge than underwriting the future performance of a human trader, which involves efficacy risk. This isn’t to suggest that an algorithm will always outperform a human, but rather that, on average, it will.
Arora-Cox: That’s interesting. This brings to mind the topic of artificial intelligence, which is perhaps slightly beyond the scope of today’s discussion. However, regarding technology risk, how does Ascend incorporate this into its assessments, particularly to ensure that the technology used today does not become obsolete tomorrow? This is especially important when evaluating projects and valuations in emerging markets, where battery storage, despite years of experience, remains an evolving technology. Could you share some insights on how you approach this challenge?
Hise: The problem statement isn’t about selecting a technology for its 20-year lifespan; it’s about making an investment decision today that guarantees a minimum return. For instance, in Texas, building a two-hour battery may be cost-optimal now, but by preserving space for potential expansion, I can later increase capacity to four hours if market requirements change. This approach incorporates hedging, whether through physical options or financial solutions, to adapt to market shifts.
As for technology, it’s almost certain that the systems we deploy today will be outdated within 10 years. The real challenge is understanding the trajectory of technological evolution and how it impacts the market. For example, if fusion technology becomes commercialized in 2028, we need to consider how it could change energy supply dynamics. The problem isn’t just the falling cost of lithium batteries; there’s a lag in how those shifts affect the supply stack and market volatility. We also need to factor in changes in techno-economics, regulatory conditions and fuel prices. Learning curves for storage technologies could be 20% off, meaning the cost of deploying more storage could be significantly lower than anticipated. If long-duration storage solutions, like multi-day or seasonal storage, emerge from labs and enter the grid, it could change the value of your one-hour duration project. However, this also presents opportunities to augment existing projects with longer-duration solutions, maintaining their value.
On the financial side, we’re seeing more integration between short-term optimization and long-term hedging. Using algorithmic dispatch strategies allows asset owners to maximize value capture while leveraging market opportunities, such as volatility exposure, through financial contracts. This combination enables payback in just a few years rather than depending on a 20-year outlook.
Arora-Cox: You make it sound relatively straightforward—considering both the immediate term and future scenarios. Looking into your crystal ball, what trends do you see shaping the market? Are there any emerging analytic trends, shifts in market behavior, or factors we haven’t yet considered that could significantly impact battery storage projects and markets?
Hise: You mentioned AI data centers, and this raises an important question regarding the extent to which load will materialize in these markets, particularly through new data center deployments, reshoring of manufacturing, and the increasing electrification of our economy. There is considerable uncertainty around this. Ultimately, there is a significant tension between all the generation—especially renewable generation—trying to enter competitive power markets in the U.S. and the load, as they are often competing for the same resources, including equipment and the attention of interconnecting utilities to facilitate connections. This is a dynamic we are closely monitoring.
We are also examining the potential impacts if ERCOT brings online all the data centers that the hyperscalers plan to deploy. This could create scarcity conditions, influence supply-demand mismatches and drive market exposure, with substantial implications for battery value. It is a challenging dynamic to forecast at this time.
On the technology front, there are numerous innovations, including various chemistries for storage, both lithium and non-lithium, along with multi-day solutions.
From an analytics perspective, we are beginning to explore the role of distributed energy resources (DERs) and virtual power plants (VPPs), which hold great potential, particularly given the aforementioned challenges around interconnecting larger projects. This shift could recalibrate the value of smaller projects, which could become a compelling opportunity for financiers if the entire supply chain reorients its thinking. For financiers, this shift could help eliminate arbitrary minimum check size requirements and allow more efficient, experienced financiers to step into the space and scale the opportunity effectively.
Arora-Cox: It’s about making these assets more attractive and driving capital investment. That’s very insightful. As we are near the end of our conversation, I know you’re also deeply passionate about reading and writing on how we can collectively shape a world that our children will thrive in. With that in mind, and reflecting on today’s discussion, do you have any final thoughts or words of wisdom you’d like to share with our listeners?
Hise: I’m motivated by the idea that each of us has something uniquely valuable to contribute to the world. In my journey, I’ve been humbled by the opportunity to pursue something that felt authentic and intuitive to me, and to put something into the world that has the potential to benefit more people than just myself. While the journey has been personally fulfilling, I believe there is something inherently good in the work we’re doing—getting more batteries, wind and solar built.
I’m eager to understand how the growth of renewables can not only provide the opportunity for more people to contribute to the world, but also encourage more involvement in expanding clean energy infrastructure. My understanding of what it takes to bring clean energy to India will always be different from the experience of someone living in that environment. Empowering individuals to learn, grow and contribute by bringing clean energy to their communities will help identify the limits and possibilities for further expansion.
I think there’s a certain hubris in assuming that the people positioned to bring solutions into the world today are always the best suited to do so. Decentralizing the problem-solving process and bringing in more diverse perspectives is, in my view, the most promising path toward a resilient future. Historically, the pursuit of dominating and conquering nature has led to a lack of diversity, which undermines resilience. In contrast, getting more people involved and encouraging creativity from diverse minds, all empowered by the clean energy solutions we are working on, is the highest probability path toward a resilient and beautiful future for our children.
Arora-Cox: Yes, I completely agree. I don’t think we can afford to be complacent. As you mentioned, it’s not enough to assume that all the challenges will simply resolve themselves. Coming from India, I can tell you firsthand that what we do in the clean energy sector has a profound impact. It’s not just about generating clean energy; it directly influences people’s access to education and touches nearly every aspect of society. I’m grateful for that and for the opportunity to be part of this work. Thank you so much for your time today.
Hise: Thank you.
Arora-Cox: That’s it for today. Tune in next time for more Resilience.
PREVIOUS EPISODES
Resilience: Transforming the Energy Sector – AI and the Energy Transition | Episode 1 (10.7.24)
Resilience: Transforming the Energy Sector – The Solar M&A Landscape | Episode 2 (10.23.24)