14 RENEWABLE ENERGY IN FINLAND: FROM A PRODUCTION-CENTRIC …
367
through the capacity reserve mechanism, in which 729 MW of capacity
was included by the Energy Authority in 2019.
The interviews highlight that distribution companies wrestle with the
issue of energy storage and the question of ownership. Whereas the smart
grid working group recommended prohibiting network companies from
owning energy storage, and while pilot projects of battery storage exist,
the question over who ultimately should own, invest in and operate such
storage and the reasoning provided for this policy position surfaced in
several interviews. DSOs not being able to own energy storage was seen
as relying on an unnecessarily narrow definition of what the purpose of
owning energy storage is, arguing that grid companies could utilise storages to avoid supply interruptions. Allowing the use of energy storages
in this way requires their development—however, how this development
can be supported if DSOs are excluded from ownership has been questioned (interview 5). This is also in line with EDSO (2018, p. 5) arguing
that DSOs can support the market uptake and the implementation of
innovative solutions such as energy storage.
One interviewee points out that while a more structured approach
in this area is needed, regulations should not be overly detailed either
and instead focus on a systemic view of the issue at hand, and on the
interconnections of different moving parts. The exact procedures on
defining what an exceptional case is are unclear and should be clarified
from a systemic perspective (interview 2). Moreover, the interviewed
stakeholders call for a clearer, more coherent approach from the EU
(interview 6, interview 4). Such calls for more regulatory clarity also
prevail more widely beyond Finland (EASE 2018). Whereas some interviewees lamented the lack of clear regulation, others warned against too
narrow a definition of what energy storage is. Treating storage as production does not do justice to the complexity of the issue (interview 9). In
line with EASE (2018) and EDSO (2018), DSOs should be allowed to
own storage if this helps them to fulfil their tasks, while they should also
be consulted more in policy development (interview 9, interview 11).
A contrasting, though minor, view also emerged from the interviews, questioning whether storage should instead of a service, as part of
competitive energy business, be seen as a means of activating consumers
(prosumers) in the electric energy system (interview 18). This is in line
with the smart grid vision put forth by the working group. Technology
and the changing energy system open up new and varied possibilities for
consumers to participate in the electricity market—whether as an active
367
through the capacity reserve mechanism, in which 729 MW of capacity
was included by the Energy Authority in 2019.
The interviews highlight that distribution companies wrestle with the
issue of energy storage and the question of ownership. Whereas the smart
grid working group recommended prohibiting network companies from
owning energy storage, and while pilot projects of battery storage exist,
the question over who ultimately should own, invest in and operate such
storage and the reasoning provided for this policy position surfaced in
several interviews. DSOs not being able to own energy storage was seen
as relying on an unnecessarily narrow definition of what the purpose of
owning energy storage is, arguing that grid companies could utilise storages to avoid supply interruptions. Allowing the use of energy storages
in this way requires their development—however, how this development
can be supported if DSOs are excluded from ownership has been questioned (interview 5). This is also in line with EDSO (2018, p. 5) arguing
that DSOs can support the market uptake and the implementation of
innovative solutions such as energy storage.
One interviewee points out that while a more structured approach
in this area is needed, regulations should not be overly detailed either
and instead focus on a systemic view of the issue at hand, and on the
interconnections of different moving parts. The exact procedures on
defining what an exceptional case is are unclear and should be clarified
from a systemic perspective (interview 2). Moreover, the interviewed
stakeholders call for a clearer, more coherent approach from the EU
(interview 6, interview 4). Such calls for more regulatory clarity also
prevail more widely beyond Finland (EASE 2018). Whereas some interviewees lamented the lack of clear regulation, others warned against too
narrow a definition of what energy storage is. Treating storage as production does not do justice to the complexity of the issue (interview 9). In
line with EASE (2018) and EDSO (2018), DSOs should be allowed to
own storage if this helps them to fulfil their tasks, while they should also
be consulted more in policy development (interview 9, interview 11).
A contrasting, though minor, view also emerged from the interviews, questioning whether storage should instead of a service, as part of
competitive energy business, be seen as a means of activating consumers
(prosumers) in the electric energy system (interview 18). This is in line
with the smart grid vision put forth by the working group. Technology
and the changing energy system open up new and varied possibilities for
consumers to participate in the electricity market—whether as an active