Shutdown of Texas Utility Watchdog Will Hurt Consumers, Some Fear

Germany's Economic Downturn reflects an energy crisis, deindustrialization risks, export weakness, and manufacturing stress, amid Russia gas loss, IMF and EU recession forecasts, and debates over electricity price caps and green transition.

Key Points

An economic contraction from energy price shocks, export weakness, and bottlenecks in manufacturing and digitization.

✅ Energy shock after loss of cheap Russian gas

✅ Exports slump amid China slowdown and weak demand

✅ Policy gridlock on power price cap and permits

Germany went from envy of the world to the worst-performing major developed economy. What happened?

For most of this century, Germany racked up one economic success after another, dominating global markets for high-end products like luxury cars and industrial machinery, selling so much to the rest of the world that half the economy ran on exports.

Jobs were plentiful, the government’s financial coffers grew as other European countries drowned in debt, and books were written about what other countries could learn from Germany.

No longer. Now, Germany is the world’s worst-performing major developed economy, with both the International Monetary Fund and European Union expecting it to shrink this year.

It follows Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the loss of Moscow’s cheap Russian gas that underpinned industry — an unprecedented shock to Germany’s energy-intensive industries, long the manufacturing powerhouse of Europe.

The sudden underperformance by Europe’s largest economy has set off a wave of criticism, handwringing and debate about the way forward.

Germany risks “deindustrialization” as high energy costs and government inaction on other chronic problems threaten to send new factories and high-paying jobs elsewhere, said Christian Kullmann, CEO of major German chemical company Evonik Industries AG.

From his 21st-floor office in the west German town of Essen, Kullmann points out the symbols of earlier success across the historic Ruhr Valley industrial region: smokestacks from metal plants, giant heaps of waste from now-shuttered coal mines, a massive BP oil refinery and Evonik’s sprawling chemical production facility.

These days, the former mining region, where coal dust once blackened hanging laundry, is a symbol of the energy transition, as the power sector’s balancing act continues with wind turbines and green space.

The loss of cheap Russian natural gas needed to power factories “painfully damaged the business model of the German economy,” Kullmann told The Associated Press. “We’re in a situation where we’re being strongly affected — damaged — by external factors.”

After Russia cut off most of its gas to the European Union, spurring an energy crisis in the 27-nation bloc that had sourced 40% of the fuel from Moscow, the German government asked Evonik to turn to coal by keeping its 1960s coal-fired power plant running a few months longer.

The company is shifting away from the plant — whose 40-story smokestack fuels production of plastics and other goods — to two gas-fired generators that can later run on hydrogen amid plans to become carbon neutral by 2030 and following the nuclear phase-out of recent years.

One hotly debated solution: a government-funded cap on industrial electricity prices to get the economy through the renewable energy transition, amid an energy crisis that even saw a temporary nuclear extension to stabilize supply.

The proposal from Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck of the Greens Party has faced resistance from Chancellor Olaf Scholz, a Social Democrat, and pro-business coalition partner the Free Democrats. Environmentalists say it would only prolong reliance on fossil fuels, while others advocate a nuclear option to meet climate goals.

Kullmann is for it: “It was mistaken political decisions that primarily developed and influenced these high energy costs. And it can’t now be that German industry, German workers should be stuck with the bill.”

The price of gas is roughly double what it was in 2021, with a senior official arguing nuclear would do little to solve that gas issue, hurting companies that need it to keep glass or metal red-hot and molten 24 hours a day to make glass, paper and metal coatings used in buildings and cars.

A second blow came as key trade partner China experiences a slowdown after several decades of strong economic growth.

These outside shocks have exposed cracks in Germany’s foundation that were ignored during years of success, including lagging use of digital technology in government and business and a lengthy process to get badly needed renewable energy projects approved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro One investment risk reflects Ontario government influence, board shakeup, Avista acquisition uncertainty, regulatory hearings, dividend growth prospects, and utility M&A moves in Peterborough, with stock volatility since the 2015 IPO.

Key Points

Hydro One investment risk stems from political control, governance turnover, regulatory outcomes, and uncertain M&A.

✅ Ontario retains near-50% stake, affecting autonomy and policy risk

✅ Board overhaul and CEO exit create governance uncertainty

✅ Avista deal, OEB hearings, local utility M&A drive outcomes

Hydro One may be only half-owned by the province on Ontario but that’s enough to cause uncertainty about the company’s future, thus making for an investment risk, says Douglas Kee of Leon Frazer & Associates.

Since its IPO in November of 2015, Hydro One has seen its share of ups and downs, including a Q2 profit decline earlier this year, mostly downs at this point. Currently trading at $19.87, the stock has lost 11 per cent of its value in 2018 and 12 per cent over the last 12 months, despite a one-time gain boosting Q2 profit that followed a court ruling.

This year has been a turbulent one, to say the least, as newly elected Ontario premier Doug Ford made good this summer on his campaign promise re Hydro One by forcing the resignation of the company’s 14-person board of directors along with the retirement of its chief executive, an event that saw Hydro One shares fall amid the turmoil. An interim CEO has been found and a new 10-person board and chairman put in place, but Kee says it’s unclear what impact the shakeup will ultimately have, other than delaying a promising-looking deal to purchase US utility Avista Corp, with the companies moving to ask the U.S. regulator to reconsider the order.

Douglas Kee’s take on Hydro One stock

“We looked at Hydro One a couple of times two years ago and just decided that with the Ontario government’s still owning a big chunk of the company … there are other public companies where you get the same kind of yield, the same kind of dividend growth, so we just avoided it,” says Kee, managing director and chief investment officer with Leon Frazer & Associates, to BNN Bloomberg.

“The old board versus the new board, I’m not sure that there’s much of an improvement. It was politics more than anything,” he says. “The unfortunate part is that the acquisition they were making in the United States is kind of on hold for now. The regulatory procedures have gone ahead but they are worried, and I guess the new board has to make a decision whether to go ahead with it or not.”

“Their transmissions side is coming up for regulatory hearings next year, which could be difficult in Ontario,” says Kee. “The offset to that is that there are a lot of municipal distributions systems in Ontario that may be sold — they bought one in Peterborough recently, which was a good deal for them. There may be more of that coming too.”

Last month, Hydro One reached an agreement with the City of Peterborough to buy its Peterborough Distribution utility which serves about 37,000 customers for $105 million. Another deal to purchase Orillia Power Distribution Corp for $41 million has been cancelled after an appeal to the Ontario Energy Board was denied in late August. Hydro One’s sought-after Avista Corp acquisition is reported to be worth $7 billion.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Summerside Wind Power reached 61% in May, blending renewable energy, municipal utility operations, and P.E.I. wind farms, driving city revenue, advancing green city goals, and laying groundwork for smart grid integration.

Key Points

Summerside Wind Power is the city utility's wind supply, 61% in May, generating revenue that supports local services.

✅ 61% of electricity in May from wind; annual target 45%.

✅ Mix of city-owned farm and West Cape Wind Farm contract.

✅ Revenues projected at $2.9M; funds municipal budget and services.

During the month of May, 61 per cent of the electricity Summerside's homes, businesses and industries used came from wind power sources.

25 per cent was purchased from the West Cape Wind Farm in West Point, P.E.I. — the city has had a contract with it since 2007. The other 36 per cent came from the city's own wind farm, which was built in 2009. 

"One of the strategic goals that was planned for by the city back in 2005 was to try to become a 100 per cent green city," said Greg Gaudet, Summerside's director of municipal services.

"The city started looking at ways it could adopt green practices into its operations on everything it owns and operates and provides services to the community."

Summerside Electric powers about 6,200 residential, 970 commercial and 30 industrial customers and also sells to NB Power, while Nova Scotia Power now generates 30 per cent of its electricity from renewables.

The Summerside Wind Farm is owned by the City of Summerside, which then sells the electricity to Summerside Electric, which it also owns, for profit. 

For the months of April and May, the wind farm generated $630,000 for the city. Last year, it was $507,000 over the same time frame, which does not include a 2 per cent rate increase imposed this year.

"We had a lot of good, strong days of wind for the month of May over other years. So normally we'd be on average somewhere in the range of the 45 per cent range for those months," said Gaudet. 

The city's annual target for wind generation is also 45 per cent, which aligns with the view that more energy sources make better projects. Gaudet said it balances out over the year, with winter being the best and production dropping as low as 25 per cent in the summer months.

At Summerside council's monthly meeting on Monday, May's 61 per cent figure was touted as one of the highest months on record.

"To have one at 61 per cent means we had great production from our wind facilities and contracts, though communities such as Portsmouth have raised turbine noise and flicker concerns in other contexts," Gaudet said.

The utility also owns and provides power through a diesel generation plant.

Municipal money maker
The municipality projects its wind energy production will generate $2.9 million for the city in its current fiscal year, which began April 1, paralleling job gains seen in Alberta's renewables surge this year.

"Any revenues that are received from the wind farm facility goes into the City of Summerside budget," Gaudet said. "Then the council decides on how that money is accrued and where it goes and what it supports in the community."

Wind power generated $2.89 million for the city in the 2019-2020 fiscal year. The budget originally projected $3.2 million in revenue, but blade damage sustained during post-tropical storm Dorian put two turbines out of commission for a few weeks.

Gaudet called this their "only bad year" and officials said they see this year's target to be a bit more conservative and achievable regardless of hiccups and uncontrollable forces, such as the wind they're harnessing.

"It's performed outstandingly well," said Gaudet of the operation.

"There's been no huge, major cost factors with the wind farm to date ... its production has been fairly consistent from year to year." 

Gaudet said the technology has already been piloted at a smaller operation at Credit Union Place, aligning with municipal solar power projects elsewhere.

The goal of the project is to bring Summerside's renewable portfolio up to a yearly average of 62 per cent. Gaudet said it's expected to be commissioned by May 2022 at the latest and after that, the city hopes to focus on smart grid technology.

"It's a long-term goal and I think it's the right [investment] to make," he said. "You have to be environmentally conscious and a steward of your community.

"I think Summerside is that and does that ... a model for North America to look at how a city can work a relationship with an electric utility for the betterment."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ukraine nuclear safety risks escalate as IAEA warns of power grid attacks threatening reactor cooling, diesel generators, and Zaporizhzhia oversight, prompting UN calls for demilitarized zones to prevent radioactive releases and accidents.

Key Points

Escalating threats from grid attacks and outages that jeopardize reactor cooling, IAEA oversight, and public safety.

✅ Power grid strikes threaten reactor cooling systems.

✅ Emergency diesel generators are last defense lines.

✅ Calls grow for demilitarized zones around plants.

In early February 2025, Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), expressed grave concerns regarding the safety of Ukraine's nuclear facilities amid ongoing Russian attacks on the country's power grids, as Kyiv warned of a difficult winter without power after deadly strikes on energy infrastructure. Grossi's warnings highlight the escalating risks to nuclear safety and the potential for catastrophic accidents.

The Threat to Nuclear Safety

Ukraine's nuclear infrastructure, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant—the largest in Europe—relies heavily on a stable power supply to maintain critical cooling systems and other safety measures. Russian military operations targeting Ukraine's energy infrastructure have led to power outages, and created hazards akin to those highlighted in downed power line safety guidance during emergency repairs, jeopardizing the safe operation of these facilities. Grossi emphasized that such disruptions could result in severe nuclear accidents if cooling systems fail.

IAEA's Response and Actions

In response to these threats, the IAEA has been actively involved in monitoring and assessing the situation. Grossi visited Kyiv to inspect electrical substations and discuss safety measures with Ukrainian officials. He underscored the necessity of ensuring uninterrupted power to nuclear plants and the critical role of emergency diesel generators as a last line of defense, and noted that maintaining staffing continuity, including measures such as staff living on site at critical facilities, may be necessary. The IAEA has also postponed the rotation of its mission at the Zaporizhzhia plant due to security concerns, as reported by Reuters.

International Concerns and Diplomatic Efforts

The international community has expressed deep concern over the potential for nuclear accidents in Ukraine, echoing earlier grid overseer warnings about systemic risks in other crises that stress energy systems. The United Nations and various countries have called for the establishment of a demilitarized zone around nuclear facilities to prevent military activities that could compromise their safety. Diplomatic efforts are ongoing to facilitate dialogue between Russia and Ukraine, aiming to ensure the protection of nuclear sites and the safety of surrounding populations.

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, located in southeastern Ukraine, has been under Russian control since early in the conflict, with Rosatom cooperation agreements reflecting broader nuclear policy priorities that frame Moscow's approach to the sector. The plant consists of six reactors and has been a focal point of international concern due to its size and the potential consequences of any incident. The IAEA has been working to maintain oversight and ensure the plant's safety amid the ongoing conflict.

Potential Consequences of Nuclear Accidents

A nuclear accident at any of Ukraine's nuclear facilities could have catastrophic consequences, including the release of radioactive materials, displacement of populations, and long-term environmental damage, with communities potentially facing weeks without electricity and basic services in the aftermath. The proximity of these plants to densely populated areas further amplifies the risks. The international community continues to monitor the situation closely, emphasizing the need for immediate action to safeguard nuclear facilities.

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has introduced unprecedented challenges to nuclear safety. The IAEA's warnings and actions underscore the critical need for international cooperation to protect nuclear facilities from the dangers posed by military activities. Ensuring the safety of these sites is paramount to prevent potential disasters that could have far-reaching humanitarian and environmental impacts, and sustained attention to nuclear workers' safety concerns helps maintain operational readiness under strain.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Smart Grid Modernization unites distributed energy resources, energy storage, EV charging, advanced metering, and bidirectional power flows to upgrade transmission and distribution infrastructure for reliability, resilience, cybersecurity, and affordable, clean power.

Key Points

Upgrading grid hardware and software to integrate DERs, storage, and EVs for a reliable and affordable power system.

✅ Enables DER, storage, and EV integration with bidirectional flows

✅ Improves reliability, resilience, and grid cybersecurity

✅ Requires early investment in sensors, inverters, and analytics

Much has been written, predicted, and debated in recent years about the future of the electricity system. The discussion isn’t simply about fossil fuels versus renewables, as often dominates mainstream energy discourse. Rather, the discussion is focused on something much larger and more fundamental: the very design of how and where electricity should be generated, delivered, and consumed.

Central to this discussion are arguments in support of, or in opposition to, the traditional model versus that of the decentralized or “emerging” model. But this is a false choice. The only choice that needs making is how to best transition to a smarter grid, and do so in a reliable and affordable manner that reflects grid modernization affordability concerns for utilities today. And the most effective and immediate means to accomplish that is to encourage and facilitate early investment in grid-related infrastructure and technology.

The traditional, or centralized, model has evolved since the days of Thomas Edison, but the basic structure is relatively unchanged: generate electrons at a central power plant, transmit them over a unidirectional system of high-voltage transmission lines, and deliver them to consumers through local distribution networks. The decentralized, or emerging, model envisions a system that moves away from the central power station as the primary provider of electricity to a system in which distributed energy resources, energy storage, electric vehicles, peer-to-peer transactions, connected appliances and devices, and sophisticated energy usage, pricing, and load management software play a more prominent role.

Whether it’s a fully decentralized and distributed power system, or the more likely centralized-decentralized hybrid, it is apparent that the way in which electricity is produced, delivered, and consumed will differ from today’s traditional model. And yet, in many ways, the fundamental design and engineering that makes up today’s electric grid will serve as the foundation for achieving a more distributed future. Indeed, as the transition to a smarter grid ramps up, the grid’s basic structure will remain the underlying commonality, allowing the grid to serve as a facilitator to integrate emerging technologies, including EV charging stations, rooftop solar, demand-side management software, and other distributed energy resources, while maximizing their potential benefits and informing discussions about California’s grid reliability under ambitious transition goals.

A loose analogy here is the internet. In its infancy, the internet was used primarily for sending and receiving email, doing homework, and looking up directions. At the time, it was never fully understood that the internet would create a range of services and products that would impact nearly every aspect of everyday life from online shopping, booking travel, and watching television to enabling the sharing economy and the emerging “Internet of Things.”

Uber, Netflix, Amazon, and Nest would not be possible without the internet. But the rapid evolution of the internet did not occur without significant investment in internet-related infrastructure. From dial-up to broadband to Wi-Fi, companies have invested billions of dollars to update and upgrade the system, allowing the internet to maximize its offerings and give way to technological breakthroughs, innovative businesses, and ways to share and communicate like never before.  

The electric grid is similar; it is both the backbone and the facilitator upon which the future of electricity can be built. If the vision for a smarter grid is to deploy advanced energy technologies, create new business models, and transform the way electricity is produced, distributed, and consumed, then updating and modernizing existing infrastructure and building out new intelligent infrastructure need to be top priorities. But this requires money. To be sure, increased investment in grid-related infrastructure is the key component to transitioning to a smarter grid; a grid capable of supporting and integrating advanced energy technologies within a more digital grid architecture that will result in a cleaner, more modern and efficient, and reliable and secure electricity system.

The inherent challenges of deploying new technologies and resources — reliability, bidirectional flow, intermittency, visibility, and communication, to name a few, as well as emerging climate resilience concerns shaping planning today, are not insurmountable and demonstrate exactly why federal and state authorities and electricity sector stakeholders should be planning for and making appropriate investment decisions now. My organization, Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure, will release a report Wednesday addressing these challenges facing our infrastructure, and the opportunities a distributed smart grid would provide. From upgrading traditional wires and poles and integrating smart power inverters and real-time sensors to deploying advanced communications platforms and energy analytics software, there are numerous technologies currently available and capable of being deployed that warrant investment consideration.

Making these and similar investments will help to identify and resolve reliability issues earlier, and address vulnerabilities identified in the latest power grid report card findings, which in turn will create a stronger, more flexible grid that can then support additional emerging technologies, resulting in a system better able to address integration challenges. Doing so will ease the electricity evolution in the long-term and best realize the full reliability, economic, and environmental benefits that a smarter grid can offer.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News