Illinois storage contracts fall short of first target as more rounds are planned

Illinois’s first storage procurement secured contracts supporting 600 megawatts of development against an initial target of 1,038 MW, the Illinois Power Agency reports. The agency states a 438 MW shortfall. The Illinois Commerce Commission approved the result on September 1, 2026; the contracts are not evidence that the storage is already operating.

The agency reports 520 MW procured in MISO territory against an initial 450 MW target, and 80 MW in PJM territory against a 588 MW target. Those figures describe contracted nameplate power, not the amount of energy that can be stored or delivered over time.

The agency’s program description sets an initial goal of 3,000 MW of cumulative nameplate storage capacity committed to reaching commercial operation by December 31, 2030. That is a commitment goal, not a finding that the capacity already exists or a guarantee that every project will be delivered.

The IPA describes 20-year contracts for Indexed Storage Credits. In an October 19 Canary Media report, Kari Lydersen explains the arrangement as utilities covering a revenue shortfall with customer funds and receiving excess revenue back when relevant prices are higher. That description does not establish actual payments or net savings for customers.

Canary reports that James Gignac of the Union of Concerned Scientists viewed the initial contracts as encouraging evidence of developer interest. The same report says Brett Sproul of Advanced Energy United pointed to uncertainty about PJM interconnection and meeting the 2030 deadline. Interest in development and concern about getting projects connected can both be true.

The IPA says further procurement is planned in 2027 and potentially 2028, with future requirements and the MISO–PJM split possibly differing. It lists November 15, 2026 as the expected filing date for the first Integrated Resource Plan and June 1, 2027 for a draft storage procurement plan. Those are scheduled steps, not evidence that a revised design has been adopted.

Rowan Finch analysis: A development contract is an intermediate step between procuring capacity and having storage available to operate. A megawatt measures power, not the amount of energy a battery can store or how long it can deliver that power. The award figures alone therefore cannot show how much storage will be available when needed. Likewise, a mechanism that addresses revenue risk does not by itself demonstrate a lower customer bill; that depends on actual payments and market outcomes that have not been established here.