> I assume most of the saving is from grid stabilisation, rather than supplying/storing energy but still. Yes, the entire reported savings was by avoiding buil

> I assume most of the saving is from grid stabilisation, rather than supplying/storing energy but still. Yes, the entire reported savings was by avoiding building a fast-response generator, which would cost tens of millions to maintain each year. From the article: > Has contributed to the removal of the requirement for a 35 MW local Frequency Control Ancillary Service (FCAS), saving nearly $40 million per year in typical annual costs The article several includes other significant benefits as well that aren't even included in the $40 million.