Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. Completes Acquisition of The Empire District Electric Company

Noncarbon Electricity Investment Strategy helps utilities hedge policy uncertainty, carbon tax risks, and emissions limits by scaling wind, solar, and CCS, avoiding stranded assets while balancing costs, reliability, and climate policy over decades.

Key Points

A strategy for utilities to invest 20-30 percent of capacity in low carbon sources to hedge emissions and carbon risks.

✅ Hedges future carbon tax and emissions limits

✅ Targets 20-30 percent of new generation from clean sources

✅ Reduces stranded asset risk and builds renewables capacity

When utility executives make decisions about building new power plants, a lot rides on their choices. Depending on their size and type, new generating facilities cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. They typically will run for 40 or more years — 10 U.S. presidential terms. Much can change during that time.

Today one of the biggest dilemmas that regulators and electricity industry planners face is predicting how strict future limits on greenhouse gas emissions will be. Future policies will affect the profitability of today’s investments. For example, if the United States adopts a carbon tax 10 years from now, it could make power plants that burn fossil fuels less profitable, or even insolvent.

These investment choices also affect consumers. In South Carolina, utilities were allowed to charge their customers higher rates to cover construction costs for two new nuclear reactors, which have now been abandoned because of construction delays and weak electricity demand. Looking forward, if utilities are reliant on coal plants instead of solar and wind, it will be much harder and more expensive for them to meet future emissions targets, even as New Zealand's electrification push accelerates abroad. They will pass the costs of complying with these targets on to customers in the form of higher electricity prices.

With so much uncertainty about future policy, how much should we be investing in noncarbon electricity generation in the next decade? In a recent study, we proposed optimal near-term electricity investment strategies to hedge against risks and manage inherent uncertainties about the future.

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, 20 to 30 percent of new generation in the coming decade should be from noncarbon sources such as wind and solar energy across markets. For most U.S. electricity providers, this strategy would mean increasing their investments in noncarbon power sources, regardless of the current administration’s position on climate change.

Many noncarbon electricity sources — including wind, solar, nuclear power and coal or natural gas with carbon capture and storage — are more expensive than conventional coal and natural gas plants. Even wind power, which is often mentioned as competitive, is actually more costly when accounting for costs such as backup generation and energy storage to ensure that power is available when wind output is low.

Over the past decade, federal tax incentives and state policies designed to promote clean electricity sources spurred many utilities to invest in noncarbon sources. Now the Trump administration is shifting federal policy back toward promoting fossil fuels. But it can still make economic sense for power companies to invest in more expensive noncarbon technologies if we consider the potential impact of future policies.

How much should companies invest to hedge against the possibility of future greenhouse gas limits? On one hand, if they invest too much in noncarbon generation and the federal government adopts only weak climate policies throughout the investment period, utilities will overspend on expensive energy sources.

On the other hand, if they invest too little in noncarbon generation and future administrations adopt stringent emissions targets, utilities will have to replace high-carbon energy sources with cleaner substitutes, which could be extremely costly.

Economic modeling with uncertainty

We conducted a quantitative analysis to determine how to balance these two concerns and find an optimal investment strategy given uncertainty about future emissions limits. This is a core choice that power companies have to make when they decide what kinds of plants to build.

First we developed a computational model that represents the sectors of the U.S. economy, including electric power. Then we embedded it within a computer program that evaluates decisions in the electric power sector under policy uncertainty.

The model explores different electric power investment decisions under a wide range of future emissions limits with different probabilities of being implemented. For each decision/policy combination, it computes and compares economy-wide costs over two investment periods extending from 2015 to 2030.

We looked at costs across the economy because emissions policies impose costs on consumers and producers as well as power companies. For example, they may lead to higher electricity, fuel or product prices. By seeking to minimize economy-wide costs, our model identifies the investment decision that produces the greatest overall benefits to society.

More investments in clean generation make economic sense

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, the optimal investment strategy for the coming decade is for 20 to 30 percent of new generation to be from noncarbon sources. Our model identified this as the best level because it best positions the United States to meet a wide range of possible future policies at a low cost to the economy.

From 2005-2015, we calculated that about 19 percent of the new generation that came online was from noncarbon sources. Our findings indicate that power companies should put a larger share of their money into noncarbon investments in the coming decade.

While increasing noncarbon investments from a 19 percent share to a 20 to 30 percent share of new generation may seem like a modest change, it actually requires a considerable increase in noncarbon investment dollars. This is especially true since power companies will need to replace dozens of aging coal-fired power plants that are expected to be retired.

In general, society will bear greater costs if power companies underinvest in noncarbon technologies than if they overinvest. If utilities build too much noncarbon generation but end up not needing it to meet emissions limits, they can and will still use it fully. Sunshine and wind are free, so generators can produce electricity from these sources with low operating costs.

In contrast, if the United States adopts strict emissions limits within a decade or two, they could prevent carbon-intensive generation built today from being used. Those plants would become “stranded assets” — investments that are obsolete far earlier than expected, and are a drain on the economy.

Investing early in noncarbon technologies has another benefit: It helps develop the capacity and infrastructure needed to quickly expand noncarbon generation. This would allow energy companies to comply with future emissions policies at lower costs.

Seeing beyond one president

The Trump administration is working to roll back Obama-era climate policies such as the Clean Power Plan, and to implement policies that favor fossil generation. But these initiatives should alter the optimal strategy that we have proposed for power companies only if corporate leaders expect Trump’s policies to persist over the 40 years or more that these new generating plants can be expected to run.

Energy executives would need to be extremely confident that, despite investor pressure from shareholders, the United States will adopt only weak climate policies, or none at all, into future decades in order to see cutting investments in noncarbon generation as an optimal near-term strategy. Instead, they may well expect that the United States will eventually rejoin worldwide efforts to slow the pace of climate change and adopt strict emissions limits.

In that case, they should allocate their investments so that at least 20 to 30 percent of new generation over the next decade comes from noncarbon sources. Sustaining and increasing noncarbon investments in the coming decade is not just good for the environment — it’s also a smart business strategy that is good for the economy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

PG&E property tax payments bolster counties, education, public safety, and infrastructure across Northern and Central California, reflecting semi-annual levies tied to utility assets, capital investments, and economic development that serve 16 million customers.

Key Points

PG&E property tax payments are semi-annual county taxes funding public services and linked to utility infrastructure.

✅ $230M paid for Jul-Dec 2017 across 50 California counties

✅ Estimated $461M for FY 2017-2018, up 12% year over year

✅ Investments: $5.9B in grid, Gas Safety Academy, control center

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) paid property taxes of more than $230 million this fall to the 50 counties where the energy company owns property and operates gas and electric infrastructure that serves 16 million Californians. The tax payments help support essential public services like education and public health and safety actions across the region.

The semi-annual property tax payments made today cover the period from July 1 to December 31, 2017.

Total payments for the full tax year of July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 are estimated to total more than $461 million—an increase of $50 million, or 12 percent, compared with the prior fiscal year, even as customer rates are expected to stabilize in the years ahead.

“Property tax payments provide crucial resources to the many communities where we live and work, supporting everything from education to public safety. By continuing to make local investments in gas and electric infrastructure, we are not only creating one of the safest and most reliable energy systems in the country, including wildfire risk reduction programs and related efforts, we’re investing in the local economy and helping our communities thrive,” said Jason Wells, senior vice president and chief financial officer for PG&E.

PG&E invested more than $5.7 billion last year and expects to invest $5.9 billion this year to enhance and upgrade its gas and electrical infrastructure amid power line fire risks across Northern and Central California.

Some recent investments include the construction of PG&E’s $75 millionGas Safety Academy in Winters in Yolo County, which opened in September. Last year, PG&E opened a $36 million, state-of-the-art electric distribution control center in Rocklin.

PG&E supports the communities it serves in a variety of ways. In 2016, PG&E provided more than $28 million in charitable contributions to enrich local educational opportunities, preserve the environment, and support economic vitality and emergency preparedness and safety, including its Wildfire Assistance Program for impacted residents. PG&E employees provide thousands of hours of volunteer service in their local communities. The company also offers a broad spectrum of economic development services to help local businesses grow.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Philippines Renewable Energy Mini-Grids address rising electricity demand, rolling blackouts, off-grid electrification, and decentralized power in an archipelago, leveraging solar, wind, and hybrid systems to close the generation capacity gap and expand household access.

Key Points

Decentralized solar, wind, and hybrid systems powering off-grid areas to relieve shortages and expand access.

✅ Targets 2.3M unelectrified homes with reliable clean power

✅ Mitigates rolling blackouts via modular mini-grid deployments

✅ Supports energy access, resilience, and grid decentralization

The reason why IRENA made its study in the Philippines is because of the country’s demand for electricity is on a steady rise while the generating capacity lags behind. To provide households the electricity, the government is constrained to implement rolling blackouts in some regions. By 2030, the demand for electricity is projected to reach 30 million kilowatts as compared to 17 million kilowatts which is its current generating capacity.

One of the country’s biggest conglomerations, San Miguel Corporation is accountable for almost 20% of power output. It has power plants that has a 900,000-kW generation capacity. Another corporation in the energy sector, Aboitiz Power, has augmented its facilities as well to keep up with the demand. As a matter fact, even foreign players such as Tokyo Electric Power and Marubeni, as a result of the gradual privatization of the power industry which started in 2001, have built power plants in the country, a challenge mirrored in other regions where electricity for all demands greater investment, yet the power supply remains short.

And so, the IRENA came up with the study entitled “Accelerating the Deployment of Renewable Energy Mini-Grids for Off-Grid Electrification – A Study on the Philippines” to provide a clearer picture of what the current state of the crisis is and lay out possible solutions. It showed that as of 2016, a record year for renewables worldwide, the Philippines has approximately 2.3 million households without electricity. With only 89.6 percent of household electrification, that leaves about 2.36 million homes either with limited power of four to six hours each day or totally without electricity.

By the end of 2017, the Philippine government will have provided 90% of Philippine households with electricity. It is worth mentioning that in 2014, the National Capital Region together with two other regions had received 90 percent electrification. However, some areas are still unable to access power that’s within or above the national average. IRENA’s study has become a source of valuable information and analysis to the Philippines’ power systems and identified ways on how to surmount the challenges involving power systems decentralization, with renewable energy funding supporting those mini-grids which are either powered in parts or in full by renewable energy resources. This, however, does not discount the fact that providing electricity in every household still is an on-going struggle. Considering that the Philippines is an archipelago, providing enough, dependable, and clean modern energy to the entire country, including the remote and isolated islands is difficult. The onset of renewable energy is a viable and cost-effective option to support the implementation of mini-grids, as shown by Ireland's green electricity targets rising rapidly.

 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Smart solar inverters anchor DER communications and control, meeting IEEE 1547 and California Rule 21 for volt/VAR, reactive power, and ride-through, expanding hosting capacity and enabling grid services via secure real-time telemetry and commands.

Key Points

Smart solar inverters use IEEE 1547, volt/VAR and reactive power to stabilize circuits and integrate DER safely.

✅ Meet IEEE 1547, Rule 21 ride-through and volt/VAR functions

✅ Support reactive power to manage voltage and hosting capacity

✅ Enable utility communications, telemetry, and grid services

Advanced solar inverters could be one of the biggest distributed energy resource communications and control points out there someday. With California now requiring at least early-stage “smart” capabilities from all new solar projects — and a standards road map for next-stage efforts like real-time communications and active controls — this future now has a template.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions about how smart inverters will be used.

That was the consensus at Intersolar this week, where experts discussed the latest developments on the U.S. smart solar inverter front. After years of pilot projects, multi-stakeholder technical working groups, and slow and steady standards development, solar smart inverters are finally starting to hit the market en masse — even if it’s not yet clear just what will be done with them once they’re installed.

“From the technical perspective, the standards are firm,” Roger Salas, distribution engineering manager for Southern California Edison, said. In September of last year, his utility started requiring that all new solar installations come with “Phase 1" advanced inverter functionality, as defined under the state’s Rule 21.

Later this month, it’s going to start requiring “reactive power priority” for these inverters, and in February 2019, it’s going to start requiring that inverters support the communications capabilities described in “Phase 2,” as well as some more advanced “Phase 3” capabilities.

Increasing hosting capacity: A win-win for solar and utilities

Each of these phases aligns with a different value proposition for smart inverters. The first phase is largely preventative, aimed at solving the kinds of problems that have forced costly upgrades to how inverters operate in solar-heavy Germany and Hawaii.

The key standard in question in the U.S. is IEEE 1547, which sets the rules for what grid-connected DERs must do to stay safe, such as trip offline when the grid goes down, or avoid overloading local transformers or circuits.

The old version of the standard, however, had a lot of restrictive rules on tripping off during relatively common voltage excursions, which could cause real problems on circuits with a lot of solar dropping off all at once.

Phase 1 implementation of IEEE 1547 is all about removing these barriers, Salas said. “They need to be stable, they need to be connected, they need to be able to support the grid.”

This should increase hosting capacity on circuits that would have otherwise been constrained by these unwelcome behaviors, he said.

Reactive power: Where utility and solar imperatives collide

The old versions of IEEE 1547 also didn’t provide rules for how inverters could use one of their more flexible capabilities: the ability to inject or absorb reactive power to mitigate voltage fluctuations, including those that may be caused by the PV itself. The new version opens up this capability, which could allow for an active application of reactive power to further increase hosting capacity, as well as solve other grid edge challenges for utilities.

But where utilities see opportunity, the solar industry sees a threat. Every unit of reactive power comes at the cost of a reduction in the real power output of solar inverters — and almost every solar installation out there is paid based on the real power it produces.

“If you’re tasked to do things that rob your energy sales, that will reduce compensation,” noted Ric O'Connell, executive director of the Oakland, Calif.-based GridLab. “And a lot of systems have third-party owners — the Sunruns, the Teslas — with growing Powerwall fleets — that have contracts, performance guarantees, and they want to get those financed. It’s harder to do that if there’s uncertainty in the future with curtailment."

“That’s the bottleneck right now,” said Daniel Munoz-Alvarez, a GTM Research grid edge analyst. “As we develop markets on the retail end for ...volt/VAR control to be compensated on the grid edge and that is compensated back to the customer, then the customer will be more willing to allow the utility to control their smart inverters or to allow some automation.”

But first, he said, “We need some agreed-upon functions.”

The future: Communications, controls and DER integration

The next stage of smart inverter functionality is establishing communications with the utility. After that, utilities will be able use them to monitor key DER data, or issue disconnect and reconnect commands in emergencies, as well as actively orchestrate other utility devices and systems through emerging virtual power plant strategies across their service areas.

This last area is where Salas sees the greatest opportunity to putting mass-market smart solar inverters to use. “If you want to maximize the DERs and what they can do, the need information from the grid. And DERs provide operational and capability information to the utility.”

Inverter makers have already been forced by California to enable the latest IEEE 1547 capabilities into their existing controls systems — but they are clearly embracing the role that their devices can play on the grid as well. Microinverter maker Enphase leveraged its work in Hawaii into a grid services business, seeking to provide data to utilities where they already had a significant number of installations. While Enphase has since scaled back dramatically, its main rival SolarEdge has taken up the same challenge, launching its own grid services arm earlier this summer.

Inverters have been technically capable of doing most of these things for a long time. But utilities and regulators have been waiting for the completion of IEEE 1547 to move forward decisively. Patrick Dalton, senior engineer for Xcel Energy, said his company’s utilities in Colorado and Minnesota are still several years away from mandating advanced inverter capabilities and are waiting for California’s energy transition example in order to choose a path forward.

In the meantime, it’s possible that Xcel's front-of-meter volt/VAR optimization investments in Colorado, including grid edge devices from startup Varentec, could solve many of the issues that have been addressed by smart inverter efforts in Hawaii and California, he noted.

The broader landscape for rolling out smart inverters for solar installations hasn’t changed much, with Hawaii and California still out ahead of the pack, while territories such as Puerto Rico microgrid rules evolve to support resilience. Arizona is the next most important state, with a high penetration of distributed solar, a contentious policy climate surrounding its proper treatment in future years, and a big smart inverter pilot from utility Arizona Public Service to inform stakeholders.

All told, eight separate smart inverter pilots are underway across eight states at present, according to GTM Research: Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric in California; APS and Salt River Project in Arizona; Hawaiian Electric in Hawaii; Duke Energy in North Carolina; Con Edison in New York; and a three-state pilot funded by the Department of Energy’s SunShot program and led by the Electric Power Research Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Russia Bitcoin Mining Ban highlights electricity deficits, grid stability concerns, and sustainability challenges, prompting stricter cryptocurrency regulation as mining operations in Siberia face shutdowns, relocations, and renewed focus on energy efficiency and resource allocation.

Key Points

Policy halting Bitcoin mining in key regions to ease electricity deficits, stabilize the grid, and prioritize energy.

✅ Targets high-load regions like Siberia facing electricity deficits

✅ Protects residential and industrial energy security, limits outages

✅ Prompts miner relocations, regulation, and potential renewables

In a significant shift in its stance on cryptocurrency, Russia has announced plans to ban Bitcoin mining in several key regions, primarily due to rising electricity deficits. This move highlights the ongoing tensions between energy management and the growing demand for cryptocurrency mining, which has sparked a robust debate about sustainability and resource allocation in the country.

Background on Bitcoin Mining in Russia

Russia has long been a major player in the global cryptocurrency landscape, particularly in Bitcoin mining. The country’s vast and diverse geography offers ample opportunities for mining, with several regions boasting low electricity costs and cooler climates that are conducive to operating the high-powered computers used for mining, similar to Iceland's mining boom in cold regions.

However, the boom in mining activities has put a strain on local electricity grids, as seen with BC Hydro suspensions in Canada, particularly as demand for energy continues to rise. This situation has become increasingly untenable, leading government officials to reconsider the viability of allowing large-scale mining operations.

Reasons for the Ban

The decision to ban Bitcoin mining in certain regions stems from a growing electricity deficit that has been exacerbated by both rising temperatures and increased energy consumption. Reports indicate that some regions are struggling to meet domestic energy needs, and jurisdictions like Manitoba's pause on crypto connections reflect similar grid concerns, particularly during peak consumption periods. Officials have expressed concern that continuing to support cryptocurrency mining could lead to blackouts and further strain on the electrical infrastructure.

Additionally, this ban is seen as a measure to redirect energy resources toward more critical sectors, including residential heating and industrial needs. By curbing Bitcoin mining, the government aims to prioritize the energy security of its citizens and maintain stability within its energy markets and the wider global electricity market dynamics.

Regional Impact

The regions targeted by the ban include areas that have seen a significant influx of mining operations, often attracted by the low costs of electricity. For instance, Siberia, known for its abundant natural resources and inexpensive power, has become a major center for miners. The ban is likely to have profound implications for local economies that have come to rely on the influx of investments from cryptocurrency companies.

Many miners are expected to be affected financially as they may have to halt operations or relocate to regions with more favorable regulations. This could lead to job losses and a decline in local business activities that have sprung up around the mining industry, such as hardware suppliers and tech services.

Broader Implications for Cryptocurrency in Russia

This ban reflects a broader trend within Russia’s approach to cryptocurrencies. While the government has been cautious about outright banning digital currencies, it has simultaneously sought to regulate the industry more stringently. Recent legislation has aimed to establish a legal framework for cryptocurrencies, focusing on taxation and oversight while navigating the balance between innovation and regulation.

As other countries around the world grapple with the implications of cryptocurrency mining, Russia’s decision adds to the narrative of the challenges associated with energy consumption in this sector. The international community is increasingly aware of the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining, which has come under fire for its significant energy use and carbon footprint.

Future of Mining in Russia

Looking ahead, the future of Bitcoin mining in Russia remains uncertain. While some regions may implement strict bans, others could potentially embrace a more regulated approach to mining, provided it aligns with energy availability and environmental considerations. The country’s vast landscape offers opportunities for innovative solutions, such as utilizing renewable energy sources, even as India's solar growth slows amid rising coal generation, to power mining operations.

As global attitudes toward cryptocurrency evolve, Russia will likely continue to adapt its policies in response to both domestic energy needs and international pressures, including Europe's shift away from Russian energy that influence policy choices. The balance between fostering a competitive cryptocurrency market and ensuring energy sustainability will be a key challenge for Russian policymakers moving forward.

Russia’s decision to ban Bitcoin mining in key regions marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of cryptocurrency and energy management. As the nation navigates its energy deficits, the implications for the mining industry and the broader cryptocurrency landscape will be significant. This move not only underscores the need for responsible energy consumption in the digital age but also reflects the complexities of integrating emerging technologies within existing frameworks of governance and infrastructure. As the situation unfolds, all eyes will be on how Russia balances innovation with sustainability in its approach to cryptocurrency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Australian Rooftop Solar Grid Constraints are driving debates over voltage rise, export limits, inverter curtailment, DER integration, and network reliability, amid concerns about localized blackouts, infrastructure protection, tariff reform, and battery storage adoption.

Key Points

Limits on solar exports to curb voltage rise, protect equipment, and keep the distribution grid reliable.

✅ Voltage rise triggers transformer protection and local outages.

✅ Export limits and smart inverter curtailment manage midday backfeed.

✅ Tariff reform and DER orchestration defer costly network upgrades.

With almost 1.8 million Australian homes and businesses relying on power from rooftop solar panels, there is a fight brewing over the impact of solar energy on the national electricity grid.

Electricity distributors are warning that as solar uptake continues to increase, there is a risk excess solar power could flow into the network, elevating power outage risks, causing blackouts and damaging infrastructure.

But is it the network businesses that are actually at risk, as customers turn away from centrally produced electricity?

This is what three different parties have to say:

Andrew Dillon of the network industry peak body, Energy Networks Australia (ENA), told 7.30 the way customers are charged for electricity has to change, or expensive grid upgrades to poles and wires will be needed to keep solar customers on the grid.

"The engineering reality is once we get too much solar in a certain space it does start to cause technical issues," he said.

"If there is too much energy coming back up the system in the middle of the day, it can cause frequency voltage disturbances in the system, which can lead to transformers tripping off to protect themselves from being damaged and that will cause localised blackouts.

"There are pockets of the grid already where we have significant penetration and we are starting to see technical issues."

However, he acknowledges that excess solar power has yet to cause any blackouts, or damage electricity infrastructure.

"I don't buy that at all," he said.

"It can be that in some suburbs or parts of suburbs a high penetration of solar on the point of use can raise voltage, these issues generally can be dealt with quickly.

"The critical issue is think where you are getting that perspective from. It is from an industry whose underlying market is threatened by customers doing it for themselves through peer-to-peer energy models. So, think with some critical insight to these claims."

He said when too many people rely on solar it threatens the very business model of the companies that own Australia's poles and wires.

"When the customers use the network less to buy centrally produced electricity, they ship less product," he said.

"When they ship less product, their underlying business is undermined, they need to charge more to the customers left and that leads to what has been called a death spiral.

"We are seeing rapid reductions in consumption at the point of use per household."

But Mr Dillon denies the distributors are acting out of self-interest.

"I absolutely reject that claim," he said.

"[What] we, as networks, have an interest in is running a safe network, running a reliable network, enabling the transition to a low carbon future and doing all that while keeping costs down as much as possible."

Solar installers say the networks are holding back business

Around Australia the poles and wires companies can decide which solar systems can connect to the grid.

Small systems can connect automatically, but in some areas, those wanting a larger system can find themselves caught up in red tape.

The vice-president of the Australian Solar Council, Glen Morris, said these limitations were holding back solar installation businesses and preventing the take-up of new battery storage technology.

"If you've already got a five kilowatt system, your house is full as far as the network is concerned," Mr Morris said.

"You go to add a battery, that's another five kilowatts and so they say no you're already full … so you can't add storage to your solar system."

The powers that be are stumbling in the dark to prevent a looming energy crisis, as the grid seeks to balance renewables' hidden challenges and competing demands.

Mr Morris also said the networks had the capacity to solve the problem of any excess solar flows into the grid, and infrastructure upgrades were not necessary.

"They already have the capability to turn off your solar invertor whenever they feel like it," he said.

"If they choose to connect that functionality, it's there in the inverter. The customer already has it."

ENA has acknowledged there is frustration with rooftop system size limits in the solar industry.

"What we are seeing is solar installers and others slightly frustrated at different requirements for different networks and sometimes they are unclear on the reasons for that," Mr Dillon said.

"Limitations are in place across the country to keep the lights on and make sure the network stays safe and we don't have sudden rushes of people connecting to the grid that causes outage issues."

But Mr Mountain is unconvinced, calling the limitations "somewhat spurious".

"The published, documented, critically reviewed analyses are few and far between, so it is very easy for engineers to make these arguments and those in policy circles only have so much tolerance for the detail," he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News