Down, Danger, Dial: Electrical Safety Tips to Help British Columbians Stay Safe During Storm Season

North Seattle Power Outage disrupts 13,000 in Ballard, Northgate, and Lake City as Seattle City Light crews repair equipment failures. Aging infrastructure, smart grid upgrades, microgrids, and emergency preparedness highlight resilience and reliability challenges.

Key Points

A major outage affecting 13,000 in North Seattle from equipment failures and aging grid, prompting repairs and planning.

✅ 13,000 customers in Ballard, Northgate, Lake City affected

✅ Cause: equipment failures and aging infrastructure

✅ Crews, smart grid upgrades, and preparedness improve resilience

On a recent Wednesday morning, a significant power outage struck a large area of North Seattle, affecting approximately 13,000 residents and businesses. This incident not only disrupted daily routines, as seen in a recent London outage, but also raised questions about infrastructure reliability and emergency preparedness in urban settings.

Overview of the Outage

The outage began around 9 a.m., with initial reports indicating that neighborhoods including Ballard, Northgate, and parts of Lake City were impacted. Utility company Seattle City Light quickly dispatched crews to identify the cause of the outage and restore power as soon as possible. By noon, the utility reported that repairs were underway, with crews working diligently to restore service to those affected.

Such outages can occur for various reasons, including severe weather, such as windstorm-related failures, equipment failure, or accidents involving utility poles. In this instance, the utility confirmed that a series of equipment failures contributed to the widespread disruption. The situation was exacerbated by the age of some infrastructure in the area, highlighting ongoing concerns about the need for modernization and upgrades.

Community Impact

The power outage caused significant disruptions for residents and local businesses. Many households faced challenges as their morning routines were interrupted—everything from preparing breakfast to working from home became more complicated without electricity. Schools in the affected areas also faced challenges, as some had to adjust their schedules and operations.

Local businesses, particularly those dependent on refrigeration and electronic payment systems, felt the immediate impact. Restaurants struggled to serve customers without power, while grocery stores dealt with potential food spoilage, leading to concerns about lost inventory and revenue. The outage underscored the vulnerability of businesses to infrastructure failures, as recent Toronto outages have shown, prompting discussions about contingency plans and backup systems.

Emergency Response

Seattle City Light’s swift response was crucial in minimizing the outage's impact. Utility crews worked through the day to restore power, and the company provided regular updates to the community, keeping residents informed about progress and estimated restoration times. This transparent communication was essential in alleviating some of the frustration among those affected, and contrasts with extended outages in Houston that heightened public concern.

Furthermore, the outage served as a reminder of the importance of emergency preparedness for both individuals and local governments, and of utility disaster planning that supports resilience. Many residents were left unprepared for an extended outage, prompting discussions about personal emergency kits, alternative power sources, and community resources available during such incidents. Local officials encouraged residents to stay informed about power outages and to have a plan in place for emergencies.

Broader Implications for Infrastructure

This incident highlights the broader challenges facing urban infrastructure. Many cities, including Seattle, are grappling with aging power grids that struggle to keep up with modern demands, and power failures can disrupt transit systems like the London Underground during peak hours. Experts suggest that regular assessments and updates to infrastructure are critical to ensuring reliability and resilience against both natural and human-made disruptions.

In response to increasing frequency and severity of power outages, including widespread windstorm outages in Quebec, there is a growing call for investment in modern technologies and infrastructure. Smart grid technology, for instance, can enhance monitoring and maintenance, allowing utilities to respond more effectively to outages. Additionally, renewable energy sources and microgrid systems could offer more resilience and reduce reliance on centralized power sources.

The recent power outage in North Seattle was a significant event that affected thousands of residents and businesses. While the immediate response by Seattle City Light was commendable, the incident raised important questions about infrastructure reliability and emergency preparedness. As cities continue to grow and evolve, the need for modernized power systems and improved contingency planning will be crucial to ensuring that communities can withstand future disruptions.

As residents reflect on this experience, it serves as a reminder of the interconnectedness of urban living and the critical importance of reliable infrastructure in maintaining daily life. With proactive measures, cities can work towards minimizing the impact of such outages and building a more resilient future for their communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Puerto Rico Microgrid Regulations outline renewable energy, CHP, and storage standards, enabling islanded systems, PREPA interconnection, excess energy sales, and IRP alignment to boost resilience, distributed resources, and community power across the recovering grid.

Key Points

Rules defining microgrids, requiring 75 percent renewables or CHP, and setting interconnection and PREPA fee frameworks.

✅ 75 percent renewables or CHP; hybrids allowed

✅ Registration, engineer inspection, and annual generation reports

✅ PREPA interconnection fees; excess energy sales permitted

The Puerto Rico Energy Commission unveiled 29 pages of proposed regulations last week for future microgrid installations on the island.

The regulations, which are now open for 30 days of public comment, synthesized pages of responses received after a November 10 call for recommendations. Commission chair José Román Morales said it’s the most interest the not-yet four-year-old commission has received during a public rulemaking process.

The goal was to sketch a clearer outline for a tricky-to-define concept -- the term "microgrid" can refer to many types of generation islanded from the central grid -- as climate pressures on the U.S. grid mount and more developers eye installations on the recovering island.

“There’s not a standard definition of what a microgrid is, not even on the mainland,” said Román Morales.

According to the commission's regulation, “a microgrid shall consist, at a minimum, of generation assets, loads and distribution infrastructure. Microgrids shall include sufficient generation, storage assets and advanced distribution technologies, including advanced inverters, to serve load under normal operating and usage conditions.”

All microgrids must be renewable (with at least 75 percent of power from clean energy), combined heat and power (CHP) or hybrid CHP-and-renewable systems. The regulation applies to microgrids controlled and owned by individuals, customer cooperatives, nonprofit and for-profit companies, and cities, but not those owned by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA). Owners must submit a registration application for approval, including a certification of inspection from a licensed electric engineer, and an annual fuel, generation and sales report that details generation and fuel source, as well as any change in the number of customers served.

Microgrids, like the SDG&E microgrid in Ramona in California, can interconnect with the PREPA system, but if a microgrid will use PREPA infrastructure, owners will incur a monthly fee. That amounts to $25 per customer up to a cap of $250 per month for small cooperative microgrids. The cost for larger systems is calculated using a separate, more complex equation. Operators can also sell excess energy back to PREPA.

Big goals for the island's future grid

In total, 53 groups and companies, including Sunnova, AES, the Puerto Rico Solar Energy Industries Association (PR-SEIA), the Advanced Energy Management Alliance (AEMA), and the New York Smart Grid Consortium, submitted their thoughts about microgrids or, in many cases, broader goals for the island’s future energy system. It was a quick turnaround: The Puerto Rico Energy Commission offered a window of just 10 days to submit advice, although the commission continued to accept comments after the deadline.

“PREC wanted the input as fast as possible because of the urgency,” said AES CEO Chris Shelton.

AES’ plan includes a network of “mini-grids” that could range in size from several megawatts to one large enough to service the entire city of San Juan.

“The idea is, you connect those to each other with transmission so they can have a co-optimized portfolio effect and lower the overall cost,” said Shelton. “But they would be largely autonomous in a situation where the tie-lines between them were broken.”

According to estimates provided in AES’ filing, utility-scale solar installations over 50 megawatts on the island could cost between $40 and $50 per megawatt-hour. Those prices make solar located near load centers an economic alternative to the island’s fossil-fuel generating plants. The utility’s analysis showed that a 10,000-megawatt solar system could replace 12,000 gigawatt-hours of fossil generation, with 25 gigawatt-hours of battery storage leveling out load throughout the day. Puerto Rico’s peak load is 3,000 megawatts.

In other filings, PR-SEIA urged a restructuring of FEMA funds so they’re available for microgrid development. GridWise Alliance wrote that plans should consider cybersecurity, and AEMA recommended the commission develop an integrated resource plan (IRP) that includes distributed energy resources, microgrids and non-wires alternatives.

An air of optimism, though 1.5 million are still without power

After the commission completes the microgrid rulemaking, a new IRP is next on the commission’s to-do list. PREPA must file that plan in July, and regulators are working furiously to make sure it incorporates the recent flood of rebuilding recommendations from the energy industry.

Though the commission has the final say when it comes to approval of the plan, PREPA will lead the IRP process. The utility’s newly formed Transformation Advisory Council (TAC), a group of 11 energy experts, will contribute.

With that group, along with New York’s Resiliency Working Group, lessons from California's grid transition, the Energy Commission, the utility itself, and the dozens of other clean energy experts and entrepreneurs who want to offer their two cents, the energy planning process has a lot of moving parts. But according to Julia Hamm, CEO of the Smart Electric Power Alliance and a member of both the Energy Resiliency Working Group and the TAC, those working to establish standards for Puerto Rico’s future are hitting their stride.

“Certainly over the past three months, it has been a bit of a challenge to ensure that everybody has been coordinating efforts. Just over the past couple of weeks, we’ve seen some good progress on that front. We’re starting to see a lot more communication,” she said, adding that an air of optimism has settled on the process. “The key stakeholders all have a very common vision for Puerto Rico when it comes to the power sector.”

Nisha Desai, a PREPA board member who is liaising with the TAC, affirmed that collaborators are on the same page. “Everyone is violently in agreement that the future of Puerto Rico involves renewables, microgrids and distributed generation,” she said.

The TAC will hold its first in-person meeting in mid-January, and has already consulted with the utility on its formal fiscal plan submission, due January 10.

Though many taking part in the process feel the once-harried recovery is beginning to adopt a more organized approach, Desai acknowledges that “there are a lot of people in Puerto Rico who feel forgotten.”

Puerto Rico’s current generation sits at just 72.6 percent, in a nation facing longer, more frequent outages due to extreme weather. The government recently offered its first estimate that about half the island, 1.5 million residents, remains without power.

In late December and into January, 1,500 more crewmembers from 18 utilities in states as far flung as Minnesota, Missouri and Arizona will land on the island to aid further restoration through mutual aid agreements.

“The system is getting up to speed, getting to 100 percent, but there’s still some instability,” said Román Morales. “Right now it’s a matter of time.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

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

Dragonfly energy sector cyberattacks target ICS and SCADA across critical infrastructure, including the power grid and nuclear facilities, using spearphishing, watering-hole sites, supply-chain compromises, malware, and VPN exploits to gain operational access.

Key Points

Dragonfly APT campaigns target energy firms and ICS to gain grid access, risking manipulation and service disruption.

✅ Breaches leveraged spearphishing, watering-hole sites, and supply chains.

✅ Targeted ICS, SCADA, VPNs to pivot into operational networks.

✅ Aimed to enable power grid manipulation and potential outages.

An October, 2017 report by researchers at Symantec Corp., cited by the U.S. government, has linked recent US power grid cyber attacks to a group of hackers it had code-named "Dragonfly", and said it found evidence critical infrastructure facilities in Turkey and Switzerland also had been breached.

The Symantec researchers said an earlier wave of attacks by the same group starting in 2011 was used to gather intelligence on companies and their operational systems. The hackers then used that information for a more advanced wave of attacks targeting industrial control systems that, if disabled, leave millions without power or water.

U.S. intelligence officials have long been concerned about the security of the country’s electrical grid. The recent attacks, condemned by the U.S. government, striking almost simultaneously at multiple locations, are testing the government’s ability to coordinate an effective response among several private utilities, state and local officials, and industry regulators.

#google#

While the core of a nuclear generator is heavily protected, a sudden shutdown of the turbine can trigger safety systems. These safety devices are designed to disperse excess heat while the nuclear reaction is halted, but the safety systems themselves may be vulnerable to attack.

The operating systems at nuclear plants also tend to be legacy controls built decades ago and don’t have digital control systems that can be exploited by hackers.

“Since at least March 2016, Russian government cyber actors… targeted government entities and multiple U.S. critical infrastructure sectors, including the energy, nuclear, commercial facilities, water, aviation, and critical manufacturing sectors,” according to Thursday’s FBI and Department of Homeland Security report. The report did not say how successful the attacks were or specify the targets, but said that the Russian hackers “targeted small commercial facilities’ networks where they staged malware, conducted spearphishing, and gained remote access into energy sector networks.” At least one target of a string of infrastructure attacks last year was a nuclear power facility in Kansas.

Symantec doesn’t typically point fingers at particular nations in its research on cyberattacks, said Eric Chien, technical director of Symantec’s Security Technology and Response division, though he said his team doesn’t see anything it would disagree with in the new federal report. The government report appears to corroborate Symantec’s research, showing that the hackers had penetrated computers and accessed utility control rooms that would let them directly manipulate power systems, he says.

“There were really no more technical hurdles for them to do something like flip off the power,” he said.

And as for the group behind the attacks, Chien said it appears to be relatively dormant for now, but it has gone quiet in the past only to return with new hacks.

“We expect they’re sort of retooling now, and they likely will be back,”

In some cases, Dragonfly successfully broke into the core systems that control US and European energy companies, Symantec revealed.

“The energy sector has become an area of increased interest to cyber-attackers over the past two years,” Symantec said in its report.

“Most notably, disruptions to Ukraine’s power system in 2015 and 2016 were attributed to a cyberattack and led to power outages affecting hundreds of thousands of people. In recent months, there have also been media reports of attempted attacks on the electricity grids in some European countries, as well as reports of companies that manage nuclear facilities in the US being compromised by hackers.

“The Dragonfly group appears to be interested in both learning how energy facilities operate and also gaining access to operational systems themselves, to the extent that the group now potentially has the ability to sabotage or gain control of these systems should it decide to do so. Symantec customers are protected against the activities of the Dragonfly group.”

In recent weeks, senior US intelligence officials said that the Kremlin believes it can launch hacking operations against the West with impunity, including a cyber weapon that can disrupt power grids, according to assessments.

The DHS and FBI report further elaborated: “This campaign comprises two distinct categories of victims: staging and intended targets. The initial victims are peripheral organisations such as trusted third-party suppliers with less-secure networks, referred to as ‘staging targets’ throughout this alert.

“The threat actors used the staging targets’ networks as pivot points and malware repositories when targeting their final intended victims. National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center and FBI judge the ultimate objective of the actors is to compromise organisational networks, also referred to as the ‘intended target’.”

According to the US alert, hackers used a variety of attack methods, including spear-phishing emails, watering-hole domains, credential gathering, open source and network reconnaissance, host-based exploitation, and deliberate targeting of ICS infrastructure.

The attackers also targeted VPN software and used password cracking tools.

Once inside, the attackers downloaded tools from a remote server and then carried out a number of actions, including modifying key systems to store plaintext credentials in memory, and built web shells to gain command and control of targeted systems.

“This actors’ campaign has affected multiple organisations in the energy, nuclear, water, aviation, construction and critical manufacturing sectors, with hundreds of victims across the U.S. power grid confirmed,” the DHS said, before outlining a number of steps that IT managers in infrastructure organisations can take to cleanse their systems and defend against Russian hackers. he said.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Germany Energy Demand Decline reflects economic stagnation, IEA forecasts, and the Energiewende, as industrial output slips and efficiency gains, renewables growth, and cost-cutting reduce fossil fuel use while reshaping sustainability and energy security.

Key Points

A projected 7% drop in German energy use driven by industrial slowdown, efficiency gains, and renewables expansion.

✅ IEA projects up to 7% demand drop in the next year

✅ Industrial slowdown and efficiency programs cut consumption

✅ Energiewende shifts mix to wind, solar, and less fossil fuel

Germany is on the verge of experiencing a significant decline in energy demand, with forecasts suggesting that usage could hit a record low as the country grapples with economic stagnation. This shift highlights not only the immediate impacts of sluggish economic growth but also broader trends in energy consumption, Europe's electricity markets, sustainability, and the transition to renewable resources.

Recent data indicate that Germany's economy is facing substantial challenges, including high inflation and reduced industrial output. As companies struggle to maintain profitability amid nearly doubled power prices and rising costs, many have begun to cut back on energy consumption. This retrenchment is particularly pronounced in energy-intensive sectors such as manufacturing and chemical production, which are crucial to Germany's export-driven economy.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has projected that German energy demand could decline by as much as 7% in the coming year, a stark contrast to the trends seen in previous decades. This decline is primarily driven by a combination of factors, including reduced industrial activity, increased energy efficiency measures, and a shift toward alternative energy sources, as well as mounting pressures on local utilities to stay solvent. The current economic landscape has led businesses to prioritize cost-cutting measures, including energy efficiency initiatives aimed at reducing consumption.

In the context of these developments, Germany’s energy transition—known as the "Energiewende"—is becoming increasingly significant. The country has made substantial investments in renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass in recent years. As energy efficiency improves and the share of renewables in the energy mix rises, traditional fossil fuel consumption has begun to wane. This transition is seen as both a response to climate change and a strategy for energy independence, particularly in light of geopolitical tensions and Europe's wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels across the continent.

However, the current stagnation presents a paradox for the German energy sector. While lower energy demand may ease some pressures on supply and prices, it also raises concerns about the long-term viability of investments in renewable energy infrastructure, even as debates continue over electricity subsidies for industry to support competitiveness. The economic slowdown has the potential to derail progress made in reducing carbon emissions and achieving energy targets, particularly if it leads to decreased investment in green technologies.

Another layer to this issue is the potential impact on employment within the energy sector. As energy demand decreases, there may be a ripple effect on jobs tied to traditional energy production and even in renewable energy sectors if investment slows. Policymakers are now tasked with balancing the immediate need for economic recovery, illustrated by the 200 billion-euro energy price shield, with the longer-term goal of achieving sustainability and energy security.

The effects of the stagnation are also being felt in the residential sector. As households face increased living costs and rising heating and electricity costs, many are becoming more conscious of their energy consumption. Initiatives to improve home energy efficiency, such as better insulation and energy-efficient appliances, are gaining traction among consumers looking to reduce their utility bills. This shift toward energy conservation aligns with broader national goals of reducing overall energy consumption and carbon emissions.

Despite the challenges, there is a silver lining. The current situation offers an opportunity for Germany to reassess its energy strategies and invest in technologies that promote sustainability while also addressing economic concerns. This could include increasing support for research and development in green technologies, enhancing energy efficiency programs, and incentivizing businesses to adopt cleaner energy practices.

Furthermore, Germany’s experience may serve as a case study for other nations grappling with similar issues. As economies around the world face the dual pressures of recovery and sustainability, the lessons learned from Germany’s current energy landscape could inform strategies for balancing these often conflicting priorities.

In conclusion, Germany is poised to witness a historic decline in energy demand as economic stagnation takes hold. While this trend poses challenges for the energy sector and economic growth, it also highlights the importance of sustainability and energy efficiency in shaping the future. As the nation navigates this complex landscape, the focus will need to be on fostering innovation and investment that aligns with both immediate economic needs and long-term environmental goals. The path forward will require a careful balancing act, but with the right strategies, Germany can emerge as a leader in sustainable energy practices even in challenging times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Electricity Demand Stagnation reflects decoupling from GDP as TVA's IRP revises outlook, with energy efficiency, distributed generation, renewables, and cheap natural gas undercutting coal, reshaping utility business models and accelerating grid modernization.

Key Points

US electricity demand stagnation is flat load growth driven by efficiency, DG, and decoupling from GDP.

✅ Flat sales pressure IOU profits and legacy baseload investments.

✅ Efficiency and rooftop solar reduce load growth and capacity needs.

✅ Utilities must pivot to services, DER orchestration, and grid software.

The US electricity sector is in a period of unprecedented change and turmoil, with emerging utility trends reshaping strategies across the industry today. Renewable energy prices are falling like crazy. Natural gas production continues its extraordinary surge. Coal, the golden child of the current administration, is headed down the tubes.

In all that bedlam, it’s easy to lose sight of an equally important (if less sexy) trend: Demand for electricity is stagnant.

Thanks to a combination of greater energy efficiency, outsourcing of heavy industry, and customers generating their own power on site, demand for utility power has been flat for 10 years, with COVID-19 electricity demand underscoring recent variability and long-run stagnation, and most forecasts expect it to stay that way. The die was cast around 1998, when GDP growth and electricity demand growth became “decoupled”:

This historic shift has wreaked havoc in the utility industry in ways large and small, visible and obscure. Some of that havoc is high-profile and headline-making, as in the recent requests from utilities (and attempts by the Trump administration) to bail out large coal and nuclear plants amid coal and nuclear industry disruptions affecting power markets and reliability.

Some of it, however, is unfolding in more obscure quarters. A great example recently popped up in Tennessee, where one utility is finding its 20-year forecasts rendered archaic almost as soon as they are released.

Falling demand has TVA moving up its planning process

Every five years, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) — the federally owned regional planning agency that, among other things, supplies electricity to Tennessee and parts of surrounding states — develops an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) meant to assess what it requires to meet customer needs for the next 20 years.

The last IRP, completed in 2015, anticipated that there would be no need for major new investment in baseload (coal, nuclear, and hydro) power plants; it foresaw that energy efficiency and distributed (customer-owned) energy generation would hold down demand.

Even so, TVA underestimated. Just three years later, the Times Free Press reports, “TVA now expects to sell 13 percent less power in 2027 than it did two decades earlier — the first sustained reversal in the growth of electricity usage in the 85-year history of TVA.”

TVA will sell less electricity in 10 years than it did 10 years ago. That is bonkers.

This startling shift in prospects has prompted the company to accelerate its schedule. It will now develop its next IRP a year early, in 2019.

Think for a moment about why a big utility like TVA (serving 9 million customers in seven states, with more than $11 billion in revenue) sets out to plan 20 years ahead. It is investing in extremely large and capital-intensive infrastructure like power plants and transmission lines, which cost billions of dollars and last for decades. These are not decisions to make lightly; the utility wants to be sure that they will still be needed, and will still pay off, for many years to come.

Now think for a moment about what it means for the electricity sector to be changing so fast that TVA’s projections are out of date three years after its last IRP, so much so that it needs to plunge back into the multimillion-dollar, year-long process of developing a new plan.

TVA wanted a plan for 20 years; the plan lasted three.

The utility business model is headed for a reckoning

TVA, as a government-owned, fully regulated utility, has only the goals of “low cost, informed risk, environmental responsibility, reliability, diversity of power and flexibility to meet changing market conditions,” as its planning manager told the Times Free Press. (Yes, that’s already a lot of goals!)

But investor-owned utilities (IOUs), which administer electricity for well over half of Americans, face another imperative: to make money for investors. They can’t make money selling electricity; monopoly regulations forbid it, raising questions about utility revenue models as marginal energy costs fall. Instead, they make money by earning a rate of return on investments in electrical power plants and infrastructure.

The problem is, with demand stagnant, there’s not much need for new hardware. And a drop in investment means a drop in profit. Unable to continue the steady growth that their investors have always counted on, IOUs are treading water, watching as revenues dry up

Utilities have been frantically adjusting to this new normal. The generation utilities that sell into wholesale electricity markets (also under pressure from falling power prices; thanks to natural gas and renewables, wholesale power prices are down 70 percent from 2007) have reacted by cutting costs and merging. The regulated utilities that administer local distribution grids have responded by increasing investments in those grids, including efforts to improve electricity reliability and resilience at lower cost.

But these are temporary, limited responses, not enough to stay in business in the face of long-term decline in demand. Ultimately, deeper reforms will be necessary.

As I have explained at length, the US utility sector was built around the presumption of perpetual growth. Utilities were envisioned as entities that would build the electricity infrastructure to safely and affordably meet ever-rising demand, which was seen as a fixed, external factor, outside utility control.

But demand is no longer rising. What the US needs now are utilities that can manage and accelerate that decline in demand, increasing efficiency as they shift to cleaner generation. The new electricity paradigm is to match flexible, diverse, low-carbon supply with (increasingly controllable) demand, through sophisticated real-time sensing and software.

That’s simply a different model than current utilities are designed for. To adapt, the utility business model must change. Utilities need newly defined responsibilities and new ways to make money, through services rather than new hardware. That kind of reform will require regulators, politicians, and risky experiments. Very few states — New York, California, Massachusetts, a few others — have consciously set off down that path.

Flat or declining demand is going to force the issue

Even if natural gas and renewables weren’t roiling the sector, the end of demand growth would eventually force utility reform.

To be clear: For both economic and environmental reasons, it is good that US power demand has decoupled from GDP growth. As long as we’re getting the energy services we need, we want overall demand to decline. It saves money, reduces pollution, and avoids the need for expensive infrastructure.

But the way we’ve set up utilities, they must fight that trend. Every time they are forced to invest in energy efficiency or make some allowance for distributed generation (and they must always be forced), demand for their product declines, and with it their justification to make new investments.

Only when the utility model fundamentally changes — when utilities begin to see themselves primarily as architects and managers of high-efficiency, low-emissions, multidirectional electricity systems rather than just investors in infrastructure growth — can utilities turn in earnest to the kind planning they need to be doing.

In a climate-aligned world, utilities would view the decoupling of power demand from GDP growth as cause for celebration, a sign of success. They would throw themselves into accelerating the trend.

Instead, utilities find themselves constantly surprised, caught flat-footed again and again by a trend they desperately want to believe is temporary. Unless we can collectively reorient utilities to pursue rather than fear current trends in electricity, they are headed for a grim reckoning.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News