Re-Volted by policy

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Pennsylvania Electricity Market Deregulation has driven competitive pricing, leveraged low-cost natural gas, and spurred private investment, jobs, and efficient power plants, while nuclear subsidies threaten wholesale market signals and long-term consumer savings.

Key Points

Policy that opens generation to competition, leverages cheap gas, lowers rates, and resists subsidies for nuclear plants.

✅ Competitive wholesale pricing benefits consumers statewide

✅ Gas-driven plants add efficient, flexible capacity and jobs

✅ Nuclear subsidies distort market signals and raise costs

For decades, the government regulation of Pennsylvania's electricity markets dictated all aspects of power generation resources in the state, thus restricting market-driven prices for consumers and hindering new power plant development and investment.

Deregulation has enabled competitive markets to drive energy prices downward, as recent grid auction payouts fell 64% indicate, which has transformed Pennsylvania from a higher-electricity-cost state to one with prices below the national average.

Recently, the economic advantage of abundant low-cost natural gas has spurred an influx of billions of dollars of private capital investment and thousands of jobs to construct environmentally responsible natural gas power generation facilities throughout the commonwealth — including our three power generation facilities in operation and one presently under construction.

Calpine is an independent power provider with a national portfolio of 80 highly efficient power plants in operation or under construction with an electric generating capacity of approximately 26,000 megawatts. Collectively, these resources can provide sufficient power for more than 30 million residential homes. We are not a regulated utility receiving a guaranteed rate of return on investment. Rather, Calpine competes to sell wholesale power into the electric markets, and the economics of supply and demand are fundamental to the success of our business.

Pennsylvania's deregulated electricity market is working. Consumers are benefiting from low-cost natural gas, as broader evidence shows competition benefits consumers and the environment across markets, and companies such as Calpine are investing billions of dollars and creating thousands of jobs to build advanced, energy efficient, environmentally responsible and flexible power generating facilities.

There are presently seven electric generating projects under construction in the commonwealth, representing about a $7 billion capital investment that will produce about 7,000 megawatts of efficient electrical power, with additional facilities being planned.

Looking back 20 years following the enactment of the Pennsylvania Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, Pennsylvania's regulators and policymakers must conclude that the results of a free and fair market-driven structure have delivered indisputable benefits to the consumer, even amid potential winter rate spikes for residents, and the Pennsylvania economy.

While consumers are now reaping the benefits of open and competitive electricity markets, we see challenges on the horizon that could threaten the foundation of those markets. Due to pressure from nuclear power generators, state policymakers throughout the nation have been increasing efforts to impact the generation mix in their respective states by offering ratepayer funded subsidies to existing nuclear generation resources or by considering a market structure overhaul in New England.

Subsidizing one power generation type over others is having a significant, negative impact on wholesale electric markets, competitive retails markets and ultimately the cost the consumer will have to pay, and can exacerbate disruptions in coal and nuclear industries that strain the economy and risk brownouts.

In Pennsylvania, these subsidies would follow nearly $9 billion already paid by ratepayers to help the commonwealth's nuclear industry transition from regulated to competitive energy markets.

The deregulation of Pennsylvania's electricity markets in the late 1990s allowed the nuclear industry to receive billions of dollars from ratepayers to recover "stranded costs" related to investments in the commonwealth's nuclear plants. These costs were negotiated amounts based on settlements with Pennsylvania's Public Utility Commission to allow the nuclear industry to prepare and transition to competitive electricity markets.

Enough is enough. Regulatory or governmental interference in well functioning markets does not lead to better outcomes. Pennsylvania's state Legislature should not pick winners and losers by enacting legislation that would create an uneven playing field that subsidizes nuclear generating resources in the commonwealth.

William Ferguson is regional vice president for Calpine Corp.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

V.C. Summer nuclear plant leak update: Dominion Energy repaired a valve in the reactor cooling system; radioactive water stayed within containment, NRC oversight continues as power output ramps toward full operation.

Key Points

A minor valve leak in the reactor cooling system contained onsite; Dominion repaired it as the plant resumes power.

✅ Valve leak in piping to steam generators, not environmental release.

✅ Radioactive water remained in containment, monitored per NRC rules.

✅ Plant ramping from 17% power; full operations may take days.

The V.C. Summer nuclear power plant, which has been shut down since early November because of a pipe leak, is expected to begin producing energy in a few days, a milestone comparable to a new U.S. reactor startup reported recently.

Dominion Energy says it has fixed the small leak in a pipe valve that allowed radioactive water to drip out. The company declined to say when the plant would be fully operational, but spokesman Ken Holt said that can take several days, amid broader discussions about the stakes of early nuclear closures across the industry.

The plant was at 17 percent power Wednesday, he said, as several global nuclear project milestones continue to be reported this year.

Holt, who said Dominion is still investigating the cause, said water that leaked was part of the reactor cooling system. While the water came in contact with nuclear fuel in the reactor, the water never escaped the plant's containment building and into the environment, Holt said.

He characterized the valve leak as '"uncommon" but not unexpected. The nuclear leak occurred in piping that links the nuclear reactor with the power plant's steam generators. Hundreds of pipes are in that part of the nuclear plant, a complexity often cited in the energy debate over struggling nuclear plants nationwide.

"There is always some level of leakage when you are operating, but it is contained and monitored, and when it rises to a certain level, you may take action to stop it," Holt said.

A nuclear safety watchdog has criticized Dominion for not issuing a public notice about the leak, but both the company and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission say the amount was so small it did not require notice.

The V.C. Summer Nuclear plant is about 25 miles northwest of Columbia in Fairfield County. It was licensed in the early 1980s. At one point, Dominion's predecessor, SCE&G, partnered with state owned Santee Cooper to build two more reactors there, even as new reactors in Georgia were taking shape. But the companies walked away from the project in 2017, citing high costs and troubles with its chief contractor, Westinghouse, even as closures such as Three Mile Island's shutdown continued to influence policy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

DOE Wind Energy Funding backs 13 R&D projects advancing offshore wind, distributed energy, and utility-scale turbines, including microgrids, battery storage, nacelle and blade testing, tall towers, and rural grid integration across the United States.

Key Points

DOE Wind Energy Funding is a $28M R&D effort in offshore, distributed, and utility-scale wind to lower cost and risk.

✅ $6M for rural microgrids, storage, and grid integration.

✅ $7M for offshore R&D, nacelle and long-blade testing.

✅ Up to $10M demos; $5M for tall tower technology.

The U.S. Department of Energy announced that in order to advance wind energy in the U.S., 13 projects have been selected to receive $28 million. Project topics focus on technology development while covering distributed, offshore wind growth and utility-scale wind found on land.

The selections were announced by the DOE’s Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Daniel R. Simmons, at the American Wind Energy Association Offshore Windpower Conference in Boston, as New York's offshore project momentum grows nationwide.

Wind Project Awards

According to the DOE, four Wind Innovations for Rural Economic Development projects will receive a total of $6 million to go toward supporting rural utilities via facilitating research drawing on U.K. wind lessons for deployment that will allow wind projects to integrate with other distributed energy resources.

These endeavors include:

Bergey WindPower (Norman, Oklahoma) working on developing a standardized distributed wind/battery/generator micro-grid system for rural utilities;

Electric Power Research Institute (Palo Alto, California) working on developing modeling and operations for wind energy and battery storage technologies, as large-scale projects in New York progress, that can both help boost wind energy and facilitate rural grid stability;

Iowa State University (Ames, Iowa) working on optimization models and control algorithms to help rural utilities balance wind and other energy resources; and

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Arlington, Virginia) providing the development of standardized wind engineering options to help rural-area adoption of wind.

Another six projects are to receive a total of $7 million to facilitate research and development in offshore wind, as New York site investigations advance, with these projects including:

Clemson University (North Charleston, South Carolina) improving offshore-scale wind turbine nacelle testing via a “hardware-in-the-loop capability enabling concurrent mechanical, electrical and controller testing on the 7.5-megawatt dynamometer at its Wind Turbine Drivetrain Testing Facility to accelerate 1 GW on the grid progress”; and

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (Boston) upgrading its Wind Technology Testing Center to facilitate structural testing of 85- to 120-meter-long (roughly 278- to 393-foot-long) blades, as BOEM lease requests expand, among other projects.

Additionally, two offshore wind technology demonstration projects will receive up to $10 million for developing initiatives connected to reducing wind energy risk and cost. One last project will also be granted $5 million for the development of tall tower technology that can help overcome restrictions associated with transportation.

“These projects will be instrumental in driving down technology costs and increasing consumer options for wind across the United States as part of our comprehensive energy portfolio,” said Simmons.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

UAE Nuclear Power Plant launches the Barakah facility, delivering clean electricity to the Middle East under IAEA safeguards amid Gulf tensions, proliferation risks, and debates over renewables, natural gas, grid resilience, and energy security.

Key Points

The UAE Nuclear Power Plant, Barakah, is a civilian facility expected to supply 25% of electricity under IAEA oversight.

✅ Barakah reactors target 25% of national electricity.

✅ Operates under IAEA oversight, no enrichment per US 123 deal.

✅ Raises regional security, proliferation, and environmental concerns.

The United Arab Emirates became the first Arab country to open a nuclear power plant on Saturday, following a crucial step in Abu Dhabi earlier in the project, raising concerns about the long-term consequences of introducing more nuclear programs to the Middle East.

Two other countries in the region — Israel and Iran — already have nuclear capabilities. Israel has an unacknowledged nuclear weapons arsenal and Iran has a controversial uranium enrichment program that it insists is solely for peaceful purposes.

The U.A.E., a tiny nation that has become a regional heavyweight and international business center, said it built the plant to decrease its reliance on the oil that has powered and enriched the country and its Gulf neighbors for decades. It said that once its four units were all running, the South Korean-designed plant would provide a quarter of the country’s electricity, with Unit 1 reaching 100% power as a milestone toward commercial operations.

Seeking to quiet fears that it was trying to build muscle to use against its regional rivals, it has insisted that it intends to use its nuclear program only for energy purposes.

But with Iran in a standoff with Western powers over its nuclear program, Israel in the neighborhood and tensions high among Gulf countries, some analysts view the new plant — and any that may follow — as a security and environmental headache. Other Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iraq, are also starting or planning nuclear energy programs.

The Middle East is already riven with enmities that pit Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. against Iran, Qatar and Iran’s regional proxies. One of those proxies, the Yemen-based Houthi rebel group, claimed an attack on the Barakah plant when it was under construction in 2017.

And Iran is widely believed to be behind a series of attacks on Saudi oil facilities and oil tankers passing through the Gulf over the last year.

“The UAE’s investment in these four nuclear reactors risks further destabilizing the volatile Gulf region, damaging the environment and raising the possibility of nuclear proliferation,” Paul Dorfman, a researcher at University College London’s Energy Institute, wrote in an op-ed in March.

Noting that the U.A.E. had other energy options, including “some of the best solar energy resources in the world,” he added that “the nature of Emirate interest in nuclear may lie hidden in plain sight — nuclear weapon proliferation.”
But the U.A.E. has said it considered natural gas and renewable energy sources before dismissing them in favor of nuclear energy because they would not produce enough for its needs.

Offering evidence that its intentions are peaceful, it points to its collaborations with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has reviewed the Barakah project, and the United States, with which it signed a nuclear energy cooperation agreement in 2009 that allows it to receive nuclear materials and technical assistance from the United States while barring it from uranium enrichment and other possible bomb-development activities.

That has not persuaded Qatar, which last year lodged a complaint with the international nuclear watchdog group over the Barakah plant, calling it “a serious threat to the stability of the region and its environment.”

The U.A.E.’s oil exports account for about a quarter of its total gross domestic product. Despite its gusher of oil, it has imported increasing amounts of natural gas in recent years in part to power its energy-intensive desalination plants.

“We proudly witness the start of Barakah nuclear power plant operations, in alignment with the highest international safety standards,” Mohammed bin Zayed, the U.A.E.’s de facto ruler, tweeted on Saturday.

The new nuclear facility, which is in the Gharbiya region on the coast, close to Qatar and Saudi Arabia, is the first of several prospective Middle East nuclear plants, even as Europe reduces nuclear capacity elsewhere. Egypt plans to build a power plant with four nuclear reactors.

Saudi Arabia is also building a civilian nuclear reactor while pursuing a nuclear cooperation deal with the United States, and globally, China's nuclear program remains on a steady development track, though the Trump administration has said it would sign such an agreement only if it includes safeguards against weapons development.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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