UNSPSC 26111733: Battery energy storage control and management system

An energy storage system / power management system provides firm frequency response (FFR) services, performs Triad management, wholesale trading, and other related services (includes lithium-ion batteries), and evaluates user consumption data taking weather statistics into account, to determine the ideal charging and discharging intervals. It is fully integrated into the ESS system, including the battery modules, an integrated power inverter, a power management unit, along with electronic meters for power consumption in the building, photovoltaic power generation, and power sharing.

UNSPSC 26111733 Battery energy storage control and management system (Commodity) shows minimal recent state and local procurement activity directly matching the code's nominal scope. The recent opportunities tagged to this code reflect substantial misalignment: the City of Augusta, Georgia seeks electronic waste disposal and recycling (ITB 27-075); the City of Phoenix solicits parts, installation, and service for direct current batteries and power plants for the Regional Wireless Cooperative (IFB 26-0107), a narrower infrastructure-support function; the State of Nevada Purchasing Division seeks a battery backup system for the Department of Human Services (EcoFlow procurement); the City of Tampa seeks 400 PowerSonic 12VDC rechargeable batteries (RFQ 26-P-00296); and the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority solicits Battery 1 Cell 685AH units (purchase order 2099270). Several other recent opportunities — including Maricopa County and Tucson City's relocation compliance consulting, the Salt Lake City School District's solar photovoltaic modules (IFB TB2711-SM), and Sourcewell's cooperative law enforcement equipment procurement — carry no substantive connection to energy storage control and management systems. The code's abstract name does not align with the concrete work state and local governments are actually buying under it.

The issuing bodies include transit authorities, counties, municipalities, and school districts, but the volume is too sparse and the work too divergent to characterize issuing-body patterns or geographic concentration. Recent activity appears in Arizona (Phoenix, Tempe), Florida (Augusta, Tampa, Escambia County), Nevada, Texas (Dallas), and Utah (Salt Lake City), but no cluster or repeat-buyer pattern emerges from the record. State and local procurement under this code does not support a pursuit strategy at this time — the code either receives minimal tagging accuracy from state and local procurement offices or the work genuinely falls outside core state and local spending patterns.