Mr. Paul Blount:

Everything we have said is about flexibility rather than storage in particular. If flexibility can be provided through a demand-side response, that should be done as well. The cheapest form of flexibility is probably a demand-side response that can respond to short-term price signals. The issue is that one would never get anywhere near enough flexibility from only that source. If one can do it, though, then one should.

Other demand-side response technologies are a bit like storage, insofar as they may require capital investment. We have not been framing this as purely a storage auction. The term I have been using recently is “bulk energy time-shifting auctions”, which are auctions to time shift lots of energy. All sources of flexibility should be allowed to compete in such auctions if they want to, including demand-side response technologies.

From my perspective all sources of flexibility should be allowed to compete. In the context of EVs, the demand-side response aspect is probably easier to do. Vehicle to grid is probably trickier for the reasons outlined by the Deputy, which is that you are utilising the battery. That will degrade the battery quicker. I would not rule it out as a possibility. It should be in the mix, but that would be a challenge to it.