TL;DR
Get backup power and energy gear delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A panel discussion and interviews reported by Energy-Storage.News highlighted persistent interoperability gaps across US battery energy storage system software. Industry participants described overlapping controls, inconsistent performance definitions and costly replacement work, while calling for data portability and cross-vendor standards; no agreed standard or timetable was identified.
Industry participants are calling for common interoperability standards and more portable data across US battery energy storage systems, as overlapping software controls and inconsistent performance definitions complicate operations and replacement projects. A report by Energy-Storage.News describes a fragmented stack spanning site controls, cloud services and analytics, with no shared sector-wide definitions for measures such as round-trip efficiency and availability.
The systems discussed include supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA), energy management systems (EMS), power plant controllers (PPCs) and battery management systems (BMS). Their responsibilities can overlap: software may log and aggregate data, interface with power conversion equipment, or execute dispatch. External connections often use firewalls and virtual private networks, while cloud-based systems can add portfolio controls, asset-performance analytics and application programming interfaces. The report says the robustness of external-access arrangements varies by project.
Panelists described different roles for companies in this stack. Camelot Energy Group CEO Shawn Shaw said his company acts as “the glue between the pieces,” often working with owners who are uncertain whether their assets will perform as expected financially. Emerson’s Ryan Franks said its Ovation platform combines EMS, PPC and SCADA functions with hardware, software and services. Power Factors’ Kristen Wagner said the company works across the stack, while PowerUp’s Abdelkrim Benamar described its product as an analytics layer intended to augment existing infrastructure.
Participants also identified risks that differ by layer. Franks said misconfigured or poorly tuned controls can lead to faults or shutdowns, while the BMS is responsible for worst-case protections such as responding to thermal runaway. Benamar said an analytics failure would affect preventive-maintenance capability and root-cause visibility rather than directly causing an outage. These comments describe panelists’ accounts, not a quantified assessment of failure rates across the industry.
Interoperability Affects Replacement Costs
Software compatibility can shape whether a battery project can keep operating as planned when a supplier leaves the market, an owner changes vendors or a system needs upgrades. Shaw said EMS “rip and replace” work is becoming more frequent when battery OEMs exit, and put a typical replacement timeline at six to nine months. He said supply constraints can lengthen that process, citing a case in which an inverter maker lacked laboratory bench capacity for hardware-in-the-loop testing for six months.
That makes interoperability more than a technical preference. If historical operating data, its meaning and previous analytical work cannot move to replacement software, owners may lose useful records and face additional work to establish comparable performance. The source report does not quantify the financial cost of these issues, but the accounts indicate that delays and gaps in data continuity can complicate project operations and assessment against a financial model.
Products Worth Considering
Ring Battery Doorbell Plus, Satin Nickel
Ring Battery Doorbell Plus (2nd Gen) and Indoor Cam Plus Bundle, Nickel Silver and White
Ring Battery Doorbell (2nd Gen), Indoor Cam Plus, and Chime (3rd Gen) Bundle
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Three Layers of Data Portability
Benamar argued that interoperability should be addressed at project design, with a documented blueprint covering interface definitions, vendor portability and exit terms. He described three parts: raw data portability, so historical records can be extracted in usable form; semantic portability, so data definitions and timestamps remain clear; and decision portability, so prior analytical work can carry over to a replacement system.
The report also points to disagreement over how project performance is measured. Panel moderator Villana said a room poll on defining round-trip efficiency or availability might produce ten different answers. Wagner said EMS capabilities vary and software providers are constrained by inconsistency at the BMS layer. Benamar said PowerUp asks customers to provide their existing definitions before making comparisons, treating each customer’s definition as authoritative within that relationship while seeking to reconcile differences.
Franks cited the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel, created after the global financial crisis to set data-formatting standards across metering, distribution and transmission, as a precedent for cross-vendor coordination. The comparison was offered as a model; the source does not report that a comparable BESS standard-setting body has been established.
““the glue between the pieces””
— Shawn Shaw, CEO of Camelot Energy Group
Standards and Definitions Remain Open
The report identifies no adopted, sector-wide interoperability standard for US BESS and provides no timetable for one. It also does not establish how common the cited software failures, OEM exits or six-to-nine-month replacement timelines are across projects. The timeframe is Shaw’s estimate, and the example involving laboratory capacity is a specific case he cited.
Performance comparisons remain difficult where companies use different definitions for availability and round-trip efficiency. The source does not give a single agreed methodology or specify which industry group would lead efforts to reconcile them. The report also does not detail particular interface protocols, data formats or regulatory requirements that would apply across all projects.
Owners and Vendors Face Design Choices
The next steps described by participants are practical rather than tied to a named deadline: document interfaces and exit terms early, make historical data usable outside the original platform, and clarify the meaning of performance metrics when contracts and analytics are set up. Benamar said shared definitions should emerge through collective action by independent power producers and energy companies, rather than being imposed by one vendor. The source does not report a formal process or schedule for that work.
A live poll during the panel also pointed to different approaches to software ownership. Forty percent of attendees expected to build some or some modules of their storage software stack in-house within three years; 28 percent said they were already building internally, and 20 percent expected to build none. A smaller share expected to build most of the stack. The poll reflects the attendees’ responses, not a representative industry survey. Whether more in-house development will improve portability, or add another layer of integration work, remains unsettled.
Key Questions
What is the main interoperability problem in US battery storage software?
Battery projects use overlapping systems for monitoring, dispatch, controls and analytics, but the report describes inconsistent interfaces and performance definitions. That can make it harder to compare results or move between vendors.
How long can an EMS replacement take?
Camelot CEO Shawn Shaw said a typical EMS “rip and replace” takes six to nine months. He said equipment supply constraints can extend projects, but the report does not establish an industry-wide average.
What does data portability mean in this discussion?
PowerUp CEO Abdelkrim Benamar described portability in three parts: extracting historical data in usable form, preserving the meaning and timestamps of that data, and carrying prior analytical work into a replacement system.
Is there already a common BESS software standard?
The source report says the sector still lacks the kind of cross-vendor standardisation discussed by panelists. It does not identify an adopted common standard or a timetable for creating one.
What is the difference between physics-informed AI and an LLM?
Benamar described physics-informed models as constrained by established physical relationships, while LLMs can support natural-language interaction with data. He argued that reliable data foundations are needed before relying on generative AI for analysis.
Source: energy-storage.news
