Controversial wind farm to build U.S. turbine plant

Global Energy Investment Decline risks future oil and electricity supply, says the IEA, as spending on upstream, coal plants, and grids falls while renewables, storage, and flexible generation lag in the energy transition.

Key Points

Multi-year cuts to oil, power, and grid spending that increase risks of future supply shortages and market tightness.

✅ IEA warns underinvestment risks oil supply squeeze

✅ China and India slow coal plant additions; renewables rise

✅ Batteries aid flexibility but cannot replace seasonal storage

An almost 20 per cent fall in global energy investment over the past three years could lead to oil and electricity shortages, as surging electricity demand persists, and there are concerns about whether current business models will encourage sufficient levels of spending in the future, according a new report.

The International Energy Agency’s second annual IEA benchmark analysis of energy investment found that while the world spent $US1.7 trillion ($2.2 trillion) on fossil-fuel exploration, new power plants and upgrades to electricity grids last year, with electricity investment surpassing oil and gas even as global energy investment was down 12 per cent from a year earlier and 17 per cent lower than 2014.

While the IEA said continued oversupply of oil and electricity globally would prevent any imminent shock, falling investment “points to a risk of market tightness and undercapacity at some point down the line’’.

The low crude oil price drove a 44 per cent drop in oil and gas investment between 2014 and 2016. It fell 26 per cent last year. It was due to falls in upstream activity and a slowdown in the sanctioning of conventional oilfields to the lowest level in more than 70 years.

“Given the depletion of existing fields, the pace of investment in conventional fields will need to rise to avoid a supply squeeze, even on optimistic assumptions about technology and the impact of climate policies on oil demand,’’ the IEA warned in its report released yesterday evening. “The energy transition has barely begun in several key sectors, such as transport and industry, which will continue to rely heavily on oil, gas and coal for the foreseeable future.’’

The fall in global energy spending also reflected declining investment in power generation, particularly from coal plants.

While 21 per cent of global ­energy investment was made by China in 2016, the world’s fastest growing economy had a 25 per cent decline in the commissioning of new coal-fired power plants, due largely to air pollution issues and investment in renewables.

Investment in new coal-fired plants also fell in India.

“India and China have slammed the brakes on coal-fired generation. That is the big change we have seen globally,’’ said ­Bruce Mountain a director at CME Australia.

“What it confirms is the ­pressures and the changes we are seeing in Australia, the restructuring of our energy supply, is just part of a global trend. We are facing the pressures more sharply in Australia because our power prices are very high. But that same shift in energy source in Australia are being mirrored internationally.’’ The IEA — a Paris-based adviser to the OECD on energy policy — also highlighted Australia’s reduced power reserves in its report and called for regulatory change to encourage greater use of renewables.

“Australia has one of the highest proportions of households with PV systems on their roof of any country in the world, and its ­electricity use in its National ­Electricity Market is spread out over a huge and weakly connected network,’’ the report said.

“It appears that a series of accompanying investments and regulatory changes are needed, including a plan to avoid supply threats, to use Australia’s abundant wind and solar potential: changing system operation methods and reliability procedures as well as investment into network capacity, flexible generation and storage.’’ The report found that in Australia there had been an increase in grid-scale installations mostly associated with large-scale solar PV plants.

Last month the Turnbull ­government revealed it was prepared to back the construction of new coal-fired power stations to prevent further shortfalls in electricity supplies, while the PM ruled out taxpayer-funded plants and declared it was open to using “clean coal” technology to replace existing generators.

He also pledged “immediate” ­action to boost the supply of gas by forcing exporters to divert ­production into the domestic ­market.

Since then technology billionaire Elon Musk has promised to solve South Australia’s energy ­issues by building the world’s largest lithium-ion battery in the state.

But the IEA report said batteries were unlikely to become a “one size fits all” single solution to ­electricity security and flexibility provision.

“While batteries are well-suited to frequency control and shifting hourly load, they cannot provide seasonal storage or substitute the full range of technical services that conventional plants provide to stabilise the system,’’ the report said.

“In the absence of a major technological breakthrough, it is most likely that batteries will complement rather than substitute ­conventional means of providing system flexibility. While conventional plants continue to provide essential system services, their business model is increasingly being called into question in ­unbundled systems.’’

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Three Mile Island Nuclear Debate spotlights subsidies, carbon pricing, wholesale power markets, grid reliability, and zero-emissions goals as Pennsylvania weighs keeping Exelon's reactor open amid natural gas competition and flat electricity demand.

Key Points

Debate over subsidies, carbon pricing, and grid reliability shaping Three Mile Island's zero-emissions future.

✅ Zero emissions credits vs market integrity

✅ Carbon pricing to value clean baseload power

✅ Closure risks jobs, tax revenue, and reliability

Three Mile Island is at the center of a new conversation about the future of nuclear energy in the United States nearly 40 years after a partial meltdown at the Central Pennsylvania plant sparked a national debate about the safety of nuclear power.

The site is slated to close in just two years, a closure plan Exelon has signaled, unless Pennsylvania or a regional power transmission operator delivers some form of financial relief, says Exelon, the Chicago-based power company that operates the plant.

That has drawn the Keystone State into a growing debate: whether to let struggling nuclear plants shut down if they cannot compete in the regional wholesale markets where energy is bought and sold, or adopt measures to keep them in the business of generating power without greenhouse gas emissions.

""The old compromise — that in order to have a reliable, affordable electric system you had to deal with a significant amount of air pollution — is a compromise our new customers today don't want to hear about.""
-Joseph Dominguez, Exelon executive vice president
Nuclear power plants produce about two-thirds of the country's zero-emissions electricity, a role many view as essential to net-zero emissions goals for the grid.

The debate is playing out as some regions consider putting a price on planet-warming carbon emissions produced by some power generators, which would raise their costs and make nuclear plants like Three Mile Island more viable, and developments such as Europe's nuclear losses highlight broader energy security concerns.

States that allow nuclear facilities to close need to think carefully because once a reactor is powered down, there's no turning back, said Jake Smeltz, chief of staff for Pennsylvania State Sen. Ryan Aument, who chairs the state's Nuclear Energy Caucus.

"If we wave goodbye to a nuclear station, it's a permanent goodbye because we don't mothball them. We decommission them," he told CNBC.

Three Mile Island's closure would eliminate more than 800 megawatts of electricity output. That's roughly 10 percent of Pennsylvania's zero-emissions energy generation, by Exelon's calculation. Replacing that with fossil fuel-fired power would be like putting roughly 10 million cars on the road, it estimates.

A closure would also shed about 650 well-paying jobs, putting the just transition challenge in focus for local workers and communities, tied to about $60 million in wages per year. Dauphin County and Londonderry Township, a rural area on the Susquehanna River where the plant is based, stand to lose $1 million in annual tax revenue that funds schools and municipalities. The 1,000 to 1,500 workers who pack local hotels, stores and restaurants every two years for plant maintenance would stop visiting.

Pennsylvanians and lawmakers must now decide whether these considerations warrant throwing Exelon a lifeline. It's a tough sell in the nation's second-largest natural gas-producing state, which already generates more energy than it uses. And time is running out to reach a short-term solution.

"What's meaningful to us is something where we could see the results before we turn in the keys, and we turn in the keys the third quarter of '19," said Joseph Dominguez, Exelon's executive vice president for governmental and regulatory affairs and public policy.

The end of the nuclear age?

The problem for Three Mile Island is the same one facing many of the nation's 60 nuclear plants: They are too expensive to operate.

Financial pressure on these facilities is mounting as power demand remains stagnant due to improved energy efficiency, prices remain low for natural gas-fired generation and costs continue to fall for wind and solar power.

Three Mile Island is something of a special case: The 1979 incident left only one of its two reactors operational, but it still employs about as many people as a plant with two reactors, making it less efficient. In the last three regional auctions, when power generators lock in buyers for their future energy generation, no one bought power from Three Mile Island.

But even dual-reactor plants are facing existential threats. FirstEnergy Corp's Beaver Valley will sell or close its nuclear plant near the Pennsylvania-Ohio border next year as it exits the competitive power-generation business, and facilities like Ohio's Davis-Besse illustrate what's at stake for the region.

Five nuclear power plants have shuttered across the country since 2013. Another six have plans to shut down, and four of those would close well ahead of schedule. An analysis by energy research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that more than half the nation's nuclear plants are facing some form of financial stress.

Today's regional energy markets, engineered to produce energy at the lowest cost to consumers, do not take into account that nuclear power generates so much zero-emission electricity. But Dominguez, the Exelon vice president, said that's out of step with a world increasingly concerned about climate change.

"What we see is increasingly our customers are interested in getting electricity from zero air pollution sources," Dominguez said. "The old compromise — that in order to have a reliable, affordable electric system you had to deal with a significant amount of air pollution — is a compromise our new customers today don't want to hear about."

Strange bedfellows

Faced with the prospect of nuclear plant closures, Chicago and New York have both allowed nuclear reactors to qualify for subsidies called zero emissions credits. Exelon lobbied for the credits, which will benefit some of its nuclear plants in those states.

Even though the plants produce nuclear waste, some environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council supported these plans. That's because they were part of broader packages that promote wind and solar power, and the credits for nuclear are not open-ended. They essentially provide a bridge that keeps zero-emissions power from nuclear reactors on the grid as renewable energy becomes more viable.

Lawmakers in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Connecticut are currently exploring similar options. Jake Smeltz, chief of staff to state Sen. Aument, said legislation could surface in Pennsylvania as soon as this fall. The challenge is to get people to consider the attributes of the sources of their electricity beyond just cost, according to Smeltz.

"Are the plants worth essentially saving? That's a social choice. Do they provide us with something that has benefits beyond the electrons they make? That's the debate that's been happening in other states, and those states say yes," he said.

Subsidies face opposition from anti-nuclear energy groups like Three Mile Island Alert, as well as natural gas trade groups and power producers who compete against Exelon by operating coal and natural gas plants.

"Where we disagree is to have an out-of-market subsidy for one specific company, for a technology that is now proven and mature in our view, at the expense of consumers and the integrity of competitive markets," NRG Energy Mauricio Gutierrez told analysts during a conference call this month.

Smeltz notes that power producers like NRG would fill in the void left by nuclear plants as they continue to shut down.

"The question that I think folks need to answer is are these programs a bailout or is the opposition to the program a payout? Because at the end of the day someone is going to make money. The question is who and how much?" Smeltz said.

Changing the market

Another critic is PJM Interconnection, the regional transmission organization that operates the grid for 13 states, including Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.

The subsidies distort price formation and inject uncertainty into the markets, says Stu Bresler, senior vice president in charge of operations and markets at PJM.

The danger PJM sees is that each new subsidy creates a precedent for government intervention. The uncertainty makes it harder for investors to determine what sort of power generation is a sound investment in the region, Bresler explained. Those investors could simply decide to put their capital to work in other energy markets where the regulatory outlook is more stable, ultimately leading to underinvestment in places where government intervenes, he added.

Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, Londonderry Township, Pennsylvania
PJM believes longer-term, regional approaches are more appropriate. It has produced research that outlines how coal plants and nuclear energy, which provide the type of stable energy that is still necessary for reliable power supply, could play a larger role in setting prices. It is also preparing to release a report on how to put a price on carbon emissions in all or parts of the regional grid.

"If carbon emissions are the concern and that is the public policy issue with which policymakers are concerned, the simple be-all answer from a market perspective is putting a price on carbon," Bresler said.

Three Mile Island could be viable if natural gas prices rose from below $3 per million British thermal units to about $5 per mmBtu and if a "reasonable" price were applied to carbon, according to Exelon's Dominguez. He is encouraged by the fact that conversations around new pricing models and carbon pricing are gaining traction.

"The great part about this is everybody understands we have a major problem. We're losing some of the lowest-cost, cleanest and most reliable resources in America," Dominguez said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Wall Street Fossil Fuel Pivot signals banks reassessing ESG, net-zero, and decarbonization goals, reviving oil, gas, and coal financing while recalibrating clean energy exposure amid policy shifts, regulatory rollbacks, and investment risk realignment.

Key Points

A shift as major U.S. banks ease ESG limits to fund oil, gas, coal while rebalancing alongside renewables.

✅ Banks revisit lending to oil, gas, and coal after policy shifts.

✅ ESG and net-zero commitments face reassessment amid returns.

✅ Renewables compete for capital as risk models are updated.

The global energy finance sector, worth a staggering $1.4 trillion, is undergoing a significant transformation, largely due to former President Donald Trump's renewed support for the oil, gas, and coal industries. Wall Street, which had previously aligned itself with global climate initiatives and the energy transition and net-zero goals, is now reassessing its strategy and pivoting toward a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance.

This shift represents a major change from the earlier stance, where many of the largest U.S. banks and financial institutions took a firm stance on decarbonization push, including limiting their exposure to fossil-fuel projects. Just a few years ago, these institutions were vocal supporters of the global push for a sustainable future, with many committing to support clean energy solutions and abandon investments in high-carbon energy sources.

However, with the change in administration and the resurgence of support for traditional energy sectors under Trump’s policies, these same banks are now rethinking their strategies. Financial institutions are increasingly discussing the possibility of lifting long-standing restrictions that limited their investments in controversial fossil-fuel projects, including coal mining, where emissions drop as coal declines, and offshore drilling. The change reflects a broader realignment within the energy finance sector, with Wall Street reexamining its role in shaping the future of energy.

One of the most significant developments is the Biden administration’s policy reversal, which emphasized reducing the U.S. carbon footprint in favor of carbon-free electricity strategies. Under Trump, however, there has been a renewed focus on supporting the traditional energy sectors. His administration has pushed to reduce regulatory burdens on fossil-fuel companies, particularly oil and gas, while simultaneously reintroducing favorable tax incentives for the coal and gas industries. This is a stark contrast to the Biden administration's efforts to incentivize the transition toward renewable energy and zero-emissions goals.

Trump's policies have, in effect, sent a strong signal to financial markets that the fossil-fuel industry could see a resurgence. U.S. banks, which had previously distanced themselves from financing oil and gas ventures due to the pressure from environmental activists and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investors, as seen in investor pressure on Duke Energy, are now reconsidering their positions. Major players like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are reportedly having internal discussions about revisiting financing for energy projects that involve high carbon emissions, including controversial oil extraction and gas drilling initiatives.

The implications of this shift are far-reaching. In the past, a growing number of institutional investors had embraced ESG principles, with the goal of supporting the transition to renewable energy sources. However, Trump’s pro-fossil fuel stance appears to be emboldening Wall Street’s biggest players to rethink their commitment to green investing. Some are now advocating for a “balanced approach” that would allow for continued investment in traditional energy sectors, while also acknowledging the growing importance of renewable energy investments, a trend echoed by European oil majors going electric in recent years.

This reversal has led to confusion among investors and analysts, who are now grappling with how to navigate a rapidly changing landscape. Wall Street's newfound support for the fossil-fuel industry comes amid a backdrop of global concerns about climate change. Many investors, who had previously embraced policies aimed at curbing the effects of global warming, are now finding it harder to reconcile their environmental commitments with the shift toward fossil-fuel-heavy portfolios. The reemergence of fossil-fuel-friendly policies is forcing institutional investors to rethink their long-term strategies.

The consequences of this policy shift are also being felt by renewable energy companies, which now face increased competition for investment dollars from traditional energy sectors. The shift towards oil and gas projects has made it more challenging for renewable energy companies to attract the same level of financial backing, even as demand for clean energy continues to rise and as doubling electricity investment becomes a key policy call. This could result in a deceleration of renewable energy projects, potentially delaying the progress needed to meet the world’s climate targets.

Despite this, some analysts remain optimistic that the long-term shift toward green energy is inevitable, even if fossil-fuel investments gain a temporary boost. As the world continues to grapple with the effects of climate change, and as technological advancements in clean energy continue to reduce costs, the transition to renewables is likely to persist, regardless of the political climate.

The shift in Wall Street’s approach to energy investments, spurred by Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies, is reshaping the $1.4 trillion global energy finance market. While the pivot towards fossil fuels may offer short-term gains, the long-term trajectory for energy markets remains firmly in the direction of renewables. The next few years will be crucial in determining whether financial institutions can balance the demand for short-term profitability with their long-term environmental responsibilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Duke Energy zero-coal 2050 plan outlines a decarbonized energy mix, aligning with Paris goals, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, driven by investor pressure, shifting to natural gas, extending nuclear power, and phasing out coal.

Key Points

An investor-driven scenario to end coal by 2050, shift to natural gas, extend nuclear plants, and manage climate risk.

✅ Eliminates coal from the generation mix by 2050

✅ Prioritizes natural gas transitions without CCS breakthroughs

✅ Extends nuclear plant licenses to limit carbon emissions

One of America’s largest utility companies, Duke Energy, is set to release a report later this month that sketches a drastically changed electricity mix in a carbon-constrained future.

The big picture: Duke is the latest energy company to commit to releasing a report about climate change in response to investor pressure, echoing shifts such as Europe's oil majors going electric across the sector, conveyed by non-binding but symbolically important shareholder resolutions. Duke provides electricity to more than seven million customers in the Carolinas, the Midwest and Florida.

Gritty details: The report is expected to find that coal, currently 33% of Duke’s mix, gone entirely from its portfolio by 2050 in a future scenario where the world has taken steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and where global coal-fired electricity use is falling markedly, to a level consistent with keeping global temperatures from rising two degrees Celsius. That’s the big ambition of the 2015 Paris climate deal, but the current commitments aren’t close to reaching that.

What they're saying: “What’s difficult about this is we are trying to overlay what we understand currently about technology,” Lynn Good, Duke CEO, told Axios in an interview on the sidelines of a major energy conference here.

She went on to say that this scenario of zero coal by 2050 doesn’t assume any breakthroughs in technology that captures carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. “We don’t see that technology today, and we need to make economic decisions to get those units moving and replacing them with natural gas.”

Good also stressed the benefits of its several nuclear power plants, highlighting the role of sustaining U.S. nuclear power in decarbonization, which emit no carbon emissions. She said Duke isn’t considering investing in new nuclear plants, but plans to seek federal relicensing of current plants.

“If I turn them off, the resource that would replace them today is natural gas, so carbon will go up,” Good said. “Our objective is to continue to keep those plants as long as possible.”

What’s next: A spokesman said the other details of their 2050 scenario estimates will be available when the report is officially released by month’s end.

Axios reports that Duke Energy will release a report later this month that detail the utility's efforts to mitigate climate change risks and plan carbon-free electricity investments across its operations. The report includes a scenario that eliminates coal entirely from the company's power mix by 2050. Coal currently makes up about a third of Duke's generation.

Duke CEO Lynn Good told the news outlet the scenario ending coal-fired generation assumes no technological advances in emissions capture, seemingly leaving open the possibility.

Last year, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded one in four of the remaining operating coal-fired plants in the U.S. are slated for closure or conversion to natural gas, amid falling power-sector carbon emissions across the country. Duke's report is expected to be released by the end of the month.

Duke's report on its carbon plans comes at the behest of shareholders, a trend utility companies have seen growing among investors who are increasingly concerned about companies' sustainability and their financial exposure to climate policy.

Last year, a majority of shareholders of Pennsylvania utility PPL Corp. called on company management to publish a report on how climate change policies and technological innovations will affect the company's bottom line. Almost 60% of shareholders voted in favor of the non-binding proposal.

The vote, reportedly a first for the power sector, followed a similar decision by shareholders of Occidental Petroleum, which was supported by about 66% of shareholders.

Duke's Good told Axios that right now the utility does not see the coal technology on the horizon that would keep it operating plants. “We don't see that technology today, and we need to make economic decisions to get those units moving and replacing them with natural gas," Good said. However, it does not mean the utility is making near-term efforts to erase coal from its power mix. However, some utilities are taking those steps as they prepare for en energy landscape with more carbon regulations.

In addition to the 25% of coal plants heading for closure or conversion, the UCS report also said that another 17% of the nation’s operating coal plants are uneconomic compared with natural gas-fired generation, and could face retirement soon. But there is plenty of ongoing research into "clean coal" possibilities, and the federal government has expressed an interest in smaller, modular coal units.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Solid-State AC Switching reimagines electrification with silicon-based, firmware-driven controls, smart outlets, programmable circuit breakers, AC-DC conversion, and embedded sensors for IoT, energy monitoring, surge protection, and safer, globally compatible devices.

Key Points

Solid-state AC switching replaces mechanical switches with silicon chips for intelligent, programmable power control.

✅ Programmable breakers trip faster and add surge and GFCI protection

✅ Shrinks AC-DC conversion, boosting efficiency and device longevity

✅ Enables sensor-rich, IoT-ready outlets with energy monitoring

Electricity is a paradox. On the one hand, it powers our most modern clean cars and miracles of computing like your phone and laptop. On the other hand, it’s one of the least updated, despite efforts to build a smarter electricity infrastructure nationwide, and most ready-for-disruption parts of our homes, offices, and factories.

A startup in Silicon Valley plans to change all that, in California’s energy transition where reliability is top of mind, and has just signed deals with leading global electronics manufacturers to make it happen.

“The end point of the electrification infrastructure of every building out there right now is based on old technology,” Thar Casey, CEO of Amber Solutions, told me recently on the TechFirst podcast. “Basically some was invented ... last century and some came in a little bit later on in the fifties and sixties.”

Ultimately, it’s an almost 18th century part of modern homes.

Even smart homes, with add-ons like the Tesla Powerwall, still rely on legacy switching.

The fuses, breakers, light switches, and electrical outlets in your home are ancient technology that would easily understood by Thomas Edison, who was born in 1847. When you flip a switch and instantly flood your room with light, it feels like a modern right. But you are simply pushing a piece of plastic which physically moves one wire to touch another wire. That completes a circuit, electricity flows, and ... let there be light.

Casey wants to change all that. To transform our hard-wired electrical worlds and make them, in a sense, soft wired. And the addressable market is literally tens of billions of devices.

The core innovation is a transition to solid-state switches.

“Take your table, which is a solid piece of wood,” Casey says. “If you can mimic what an electromechanical switch does, opening and closing, inside that table without any actual moving parts, that means you are now solid state AC switching.”

And solid-state is exactly what Silicon Valley is all about.

“Solid state it means it can be silicon,” Casey says. “It can be a chip, it can be smaller, it can be intelligent, you can have firmware, you can add software ... now you have a mini computer.”

That’s a significant innovation with a huge number of implications. It means that the AC to DC converters attached to every appliance you plug into the wall — the big “bricks” that are part of your power cord, for instance — can now be a tiny fraction of the size. Appliance run on DC, direct current, and the electricity in your walls is AC, alternating current; similar principles underpin advanced smart inverters in solar systems, and it needs to be converted before it’s usable, and that chunk of hardware, with electrolytics, magnetics, transformers and more, can now be replaced, saving space in thermostats, CO2 sensors, coffee machines, hair dryers, smoke detectors ... any small electric device.

(Since those components generally fail before the device does, replacing them is a double win.)

Going solid state also means that you can have dynamic input range: 45 volts all the way up to 600 volts.

So you can standardize one component across many different electric devices, and it’ll work in the U.S., it’ll work in Europe, it’ll work in Japan, and it will work whether it’s getting 100 or 120 or 220 volts.

Building it small and building it solid state has other benefits as well, Casey says, including a much better circuit breaker for power spikes as the U.S. grid faces climate change impacts today.

“This circuit breaker is programmable, it has intelligence, it has WiFi, it has Bluetooth, it has energy monitoring metering, it has surge protection, it has GFCI, and here’s the best part: we trip 3000 times faster than a mechanical circuit breaker.”

What that means is much more ambient intelligence that can be applied all throughout your home. Rather than one CO2 sensor in one location, every power outlet is now a CO2 sensor that can feed virtual power plant programs, too. And a particulate matter sensor and temperature sensor and dampness sensor and ... you name it.

Amber’s next-generation system-on-chip complete replacement for smart outlets
Amber’s next-generation system-on-chip complete replacement for smart outlets JOHN KOETSIER
“We put as many as fifteen functions ... in one single gang box in a wall,” Casey told me.

Solid state is the gift that keeps giving, because now every outlet can be surge-protected. Every outlet can have GFCI — ground fault circuit interruption — not just the ones in your bathroom. And every outlet and light switch in your home can participate in the sensor network that powers your home security system. Oh, and, if you want, Alexa or Siri or the Google Assistant too. Plus energy-efficient dimmers for all lighting appliances that don’t buzz.

So when can you buy Amber switches and outlets?

In a sense, never.

Casey says Amber isn’t trying to be a consumer-facing company and won’t bring these innovations to market themselves. This July, Amber announced a letter of intent with a global manufacturer that includes revenue, plus MOUs with six other major electronics manufacturers. Letters of intent can be a dime a dozen, as can memoranda of understanding, but attaching revenue makes it more serious and significant.

The company has only raised $6.7 million, according to Craft, and has a number of competitors, such as Blixt, which has funding from the European Union, and Atom Power, which is already shipping technology. But since Amber is not trying to be a consumer product and take its innovations to market itself, it needs much less cash to build a brand and a market. You’ll be able to buy Amber’s technology at some point; just not under the Amber name.

“We have over 25 companies that we’re in discussions with,” Casey says. “We’re going to give them a complete solution and back them up and support them toward success. Their success will be our success at the end of the day.”

Ultimately, of course, cost will be a big part of the discussion.

There are literally tens of billions of switches and outlets on the planet, and modernizing all of them won’t happen overnight. And if it’s expensive, it won’t happen quickly either, even as California turns to grid-scale batteries to ease strain.

Casey is a big cagey with costs — there are still a lot of variables, after all. But it seems it won’t cost that much more than current technology.

“This can’t be $1.50 to manufacture, at least not right now, maybe down the road,” he told me. “We’re very competitive, we feel very good. We’re talking to these partners. They recognize that what we’re bringing, it’s a cost that is cost effective.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Electricity Market Competition drives lower wholesale prices, stable retail rates, better grid reliability, and faster emissions cuts as deregulation and renewables adoption pressure utilities, improve efficiency, and enhance consumer choice in power markets.

Key Points

Electricity market competition opens supply to rivals, lowering prices, improving reliability, and reducing emissions.

✅ Wholesale prices fell faster in competitive markets

✅ Retail rates rose less than in monopoly states

✅ Fewer outages, shorter durations, improved reliability

By Bernard L. Weinstein

Electricity used to be boring.  Public utilities that provided power to homes and businesses were regulated monopolies and, by law, guaranteed a fixed rate-of-return on their generation, transmission, and distribution assets. Prices per kilowatt-hour were set by utility commissions after lengthy testimony from power companies, wanting higher rates, and consumer groups, wanting lower rates.

About 25 years ago, the electricity landscape started to change as economists and others argued that competition could lead to lower prices and stronger grid reliability. Opponents of competition argued that consumers weren’t knowledgeable enough about power markets to make intelligent choices in a competitive pricing environment. Nonetheless, today 20 states have total or partial competition for electricity, allowing independent power generators to compete in wholesale markets and retail electric providers (REPs) to compete for end-use customers, a dynamic echoed by the Alberta electricity market across North America. (Transmission, in all states, remains a regulated natural monopoly).

A recent study by the non-partisan Pacific Research Institute (PRI) provides compelling evidence that competition in power markets has been a boon for consumers. Using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), PRI’s researchers found that wholesale electricity prices in competitive markets have been generally declining or flat, prompting discussions of free electricity business models, over the last five years. For example, compared to 2015, wholesale power prices in New England have dropped more than 44 percent, those in most Mid-Atlantic States have fallen nearly 42 percent, and in New York City they’ve declined by nearly 45 percent. Wholesale power costs have also declined in monopoly states, but at a considerably slower rate.

As for end-users, states that have competitive retail electricity markets have seen smaller price increases, as consumers can shop for electricity in Texas more cheaply than in monopoly states. Again, using EIA data, PRI found that in 14 competitive jurisdictions, retail prices essentially remained flat between 2008 and 2020. By contrast, retail prices jumped an average of 21 percent in monopoly states.  The ten states with the largest retail price increases were all monopoly-based frameworks. A 2017 report from the Retail Energy Supply Association found customers in states that still have monopoly utilities saw their average energy prices increase nearly 19 percent from 2008 to 2017 while prices fell 7 percent in competitive markets over the same period.

The PRI study also observed that competition has improved grid reliability, the recent power disruptions in California and Texas, alongside disruptions in coal and nuclear sectors across the U.S., notwithstanding. Looking at two common measures of grid resiliency, PRI’s analysis found that power interruptions were 10.4 percent lower in competitive states while the duration of outages was 6.5 percent lower.

Citing data from the EIA between 2008 and 2018, PRI reports that greenhouse gas emissions in competitive states declined on average 12.1 percent compared to 7.3 percent in monopoly states. This result is not surprising, and debates over whether Israeli power supply competition can bring cheaper electricity mirror these dynamics.  In a competitive wholesale market, independent power producers have an incentive to seek out lower-cost options, including subsidized renewables like wind and solar. By contrast, generators in monopoly markets have no such incentive as they can pass on higher costs to end-users. Perhaps the most telling case is in the monopoly state of Georgia where the cost to build nuclear Plant Vogtle has doubled from its original estimate of $14 billion 12 years ago. Overruns are estimated to cost Georgia ratepayers an average of $854, and there is no definite date for this facility to come on line. This type of mismanagement doesn’t occur in competitive markets.

Unfortunately, some critics are attempting to halt the momentum for electricity competition and have pointed to last winter’s “deep freeze” in Texas that left several million customers without power for up to a week. But this example is misplaced. Power outages in February were the result of unprecedented and severe weather conditions affecting electricity generation and fuel supply, and numerous proposals to improve Texas grid reliability have focused on weatherization and fuel resilience; the state simply did not have enough access to natural gas and wind generation to meet demand. Competitive power markets were not a factor.

The benefits of wholesale and retail competition in power markets are incontrovertible. Evidence shows that households and businesses in competitive states are paying less for electricity while grid reliability has improved. The facts also suggest that wholesale and retail competition can lead to faster reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In short, competition in power markets is good for consumers and good for the environment.

Bernard L. Weinstein is emeritus professor of applied economics at the University of North Texas, former associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, and a fellow of Goodenough College, London. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News