Aging U.S. power grid threatens progress on renewables, EVs

Electrical Grounding and Bonding NEC 250 Training equips electricians with Article 250 expertise, OSHA compliance knowledge, lightning protection strategies, and low-impedance fault current path design for safer industrial, commercial, and institutional power systems.

Key Points

Live NEC 250 course on grounding and bonding, covering safety, testing, and OSHA-compliant design.

✅ Interprets NEC Article 250 grounding and bonding rules

✅ Designs low-impedance fault current paths for safety

✅ Aligns with OSHA, lightning protection, and testing best practices

The Electricity Forum is organizing a series of live online Electrical Grounding and Bonding - NEC 250 training courses this Fall:

• September 8-9 , 2020 - 10:00 am - 4:30 pm ET
• October 29-30 , 2020 - 10:00 am - 4:30 pm ET
• November 23-24 , 2020 - 10:00 am - 4:30 pm ET

This interactive 12-hour live online instructor-led  Grounding and Bonding and the NEC Training course takes an in-depth look at Article 250 of the National Electrical Code (NEC) and is designed to give students the correct information they need to design, install and maintain effective electrical grounding and bonding systems in industrial, commercial and institutional power systems, with substation maintenance training also relevant in many facilities.

One of the most important AND least understood sections of the NEC is the section on Electrical Grounding, where resources like grounding guidelines can help practitioners navigate key concepts.

No other section of the National Electrical Code can match Article 250 (Grounding and Bonding) for confusion that leads to misapplication, violation, and misinterpretation. It's generally agreed that the terminology used in Section 250 has been a source for much confusion for industrial, commercial and institutional electricians. Thankfully, this has improved during the last few revisions to Article 250.

Article 250 covers the grounding requirements for providing a path to the earth to reduce overvoltage from lightning, with lightning protection training providing useful context, and the bonding requirements for a low-impedance fault current path back to the source of the electrical supply to facilitate the operation of overcurrent devices in the event of a ground fault.

Our Electrical Grounding Training course will address all the latest changes to  the Electrical Grounding rules included in the NEC, and relate them to VFD drive training considerations for modern systems.

Our course will cover grounding fundamentals, identify which grounding system tests can prevent safety and operational issues at your facilities, and introduce related motor testing training topics, and details regarding which tests can be conducted while the plant is in operation versus which tests require a shutdown will be discussed. 

Proper electrical grounding and bonding of equipment helps ensure that the electrical equipment and systems safely remove the possibility of electric shock, by limiting the voltage imposed on electrical equipment and systems from lightning, line surges, unintentional contact with higher-voltage lines, or ground-fault conditions. Proper grounding and bonding is important for personnel protection, with electrical safety tips offering practical guidance, as well as for compliance with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.304(g) Grounding.

It has been determined that more than 70 per cent of all electrical problems in industrial, commercial and institutional power systems, including large projects like the New England Clean Power Link, are due to poor grounding, and bonding errors. Without proper electrical grounding and bonding, sensitive electronic equipment is subjected to destruction of data, erratic equipment operation, and catastrophic damage. This electrical grounding and bonding training course will National Electrical Code.

Complete course details here:

https://electricityforum.com/electrical-training/electrical-grounding-nec

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Duration Portfolio Energy Storage aligns layered peak demand with right-sized batteries, enabling peak shaving, gas peaker replacement, and solar-plus-storage synergy while improving grid flexibility, reliability, and T&D deferral through two- to four-hour battery durations.

Key Points

An approach that layers battery durations to match peaks, cut costs, replace peakers, and boost grid reliability.

✅ Layers 2- to 4-hour batteries by peak duration

✅ Enables solar-plus-storage and peak shaving

✅ Cuts T&D upgrades, emissions, and fuel costs

The debate over energy storage replacing gas-fired peakers has raged for years, but a new approach that shifts the terms of the argument could lead to an acceleration of storage deployments.

Rather than looking at peak demand as a single mountainous peak, some analysts now advocate a layered approach that allows energy storage to better match peak needs and complement ongoing efforts to improve solar and wind power across the grid.

"You don’t have to have batteries that run to infinity."

Some developers of solar-plus-storage projects, bolstered by cheap batteries, say they can already compete head-to-head with gas-fired peakers. "I can beat a gas peaker anywhere in the country today with a solar-plus-storage power plant," Tom Buttgenbach, president and CEO of developer 8minutenergy Renewables, recently told S&P Global.

Customers are very busy these days and rebate programs need to fit the speed of their life. Participation should be quick, easy, and accessible anywhere.

Others disagree. Storage is not disruptive for generation, but will be disruptive for transmission and distribution, Kris Zadlo, executive vice president and chief development officer at Invenergy, told the audience at a Bloomberg New Energy Finance conference last spring. Invenergy, like many renewable power developers, develops generation, energy storage and transmission projects.

But there is another path that avoids the pitfalls of positions on either end of the all-or-none approach. "Do the analysis of the need itself," Ray Hohenstein, market applications director at Fluence, told Utility Dive. If the need is only two hours in duration, it may be best served by a two-hour battery. "You don’t have to have batteries that run to infinity."

Storage vs. fossil fuel peakers

Energy storage has several benefits over traditional fossil fuel peaking plants, Hohenstein said. It is instantaneous, it has no emissions and requires no fuel, and has limited infrastructure needs. It can also help the grid absorb higher levels of renewable generation by soaking up excess output, such as solar power at noon, and many planned storage additions will be paired with solar in the next few years. But the one thing energy storage cannot do, he said, is provide limitless energy.

So, instead of looking at replacing an individual peaker, Hohenstein advocated a "duration portfolio" approach that uses energy storage to shave peak load.

If the need is for 150 MW of resources that will never need to run for more than two hours at a time, then a battery is "quite cheap," significantly less than a four or eight-hour battery, said Hohenstein. "If you fill up your peak by duration layer, it could be more cost effective."

NREL research driver

Fluence’s approach is informed by research by Paul Denholm and Robert Margolis at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), released last spring.

The NREL researchers looked at the California market where they said 11 GW of fossil fuel capacity is expected to be retired by 2029 because of new once-through-cooling requirements that are taking effect. A lot of that capacity is peaking capacity and, according to NREL’s analysis, a large fraction could be replaced with four-hour energy storage, assuming continued storage cost reductions and growth in solar installations.

The key in NREL’s research was the level of solar power penetration. There is a "synergistic" relationship between solar penetration and storage deployment, the researchers wrote, and other studies suggest wind and solar could meet 80% of U.S. demand as these trends continue.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Global Adjustment Charge faces constitutional scrutiny as a regulatory charge vs tax; Court of Appeal revives case over electricity pricing, feed-in tariff contracts, IESO policy, and hydro rate impacts on consumers and industry.

Key Points

A provincial electricity fee funding generator contracts, now central to a court fight over tax versus regulatory charge.

✅ Funds gap between market price and contracted generator rates

✅ At issue: regulatory charge vs tax under constitutional law

✅ Linked to feed-in tariff, IESO policy, and hydro rate hikes

Ontario’s court of appeal has decided that a constitutional challenge of a steep provincial electricity charge should get its day in court, overturning a lower-court judgment that had dismissed the legal bid.

Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. launched the challenge in 2017, saying Ontario’s so-called global adjustment charge was unconstitutional because it is a tax — not a valid regulatory charge — that was not passed by the legislature.

The global adjustment funds the difference between the province’s hourly electricity price and the price guaranteed under contracts to power generators. It is “the component that covers the cost of building new electricity infrastructure in the province, maintaining existing resources, as well as providing conservation and demand management programs,” the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator says.

However, the global adjustment now makes up most of the commodity portion of a household electricity bill, and its costs have ballooned, as regulators elsewhere consider a proposed 14% rate hike in Nova Scotia.

Ontario’s auditor general said in 2015 that global adjustment fees had increased from $650 million in 2006 to more than $7 billion in 2014. She added that consumers would pay $133 billion in global adjustment fees from 2015 to 2032, after having already paid $37 billion from 2006 to 2014.

National Steel Car, which manufactures steel rail cars and faces high electricity rates that hurt Ontario factories, said its global adjustment costs went from $207,260 in 2008 to almost $3.4 million in 2016, according to an Ontario Court of Appeal decision released on Wednesday.

The company claimed the global adjustment was a tax because one of its components funds electricity procurement contracts under a “feed-in tariff” program, or FIT, which National Steel Car called “the main culprit behind the dramatic price increases for electricity,” the decision said.

Ontario’s auditor general said the FIT program “paid excessive prices to renewable energy generators.” The program has been ended, but contracts awarded under it remain in place.

National Steel Car claimed the FIT program “was actually designed to accomplish social goals unrelated to the generation of electricity,” such as helping rural and indigenous communities, and was therefore a tax trying to help with policy goals.

“The appellant submits that the Policy Goals can be achieved by Ontario in several ways, just not through the electricity pricing formula,” the decision said.

National Steel Car also argued the global adjustment violated a provincial law that requires the government to hold a referendum for new taxes.

“The appellant’s principal claim is that the Global Adjustment was a ‘colourable attempt to disguise a tax as a regulatory charge with the purpose of funding the costs of the Policy Goals,’” the decision said. “The appellant pressed this argument before the motion judge and before this court. The motion judge did not directly or adequately address it.”

The Ontario government applied to have the challenge thrown out for having “no reasonable cause of action,” and a Superior Court judge did so in 2018, saying the global adjustment is not a tax.

National Steel Car appealed the decision, and the decision published Wednesday allowed the appeal, set aside the lower-court judgment, and will send the case back to Superior Court, where it could get a full hearing.

“The appellant’s claim is sufficiently plausible on the evidentiary record it put forward that the applications should not have been dismissed on a pleadings motion before the development of a full record,” wrote Justice Peter D. Lauwers. “It is not plain, obvious and beyond doubt that the Global Adjustment, and particularly the challenged component, is properly characterized as a valid regulatory charge and not as an impermissible tax.”

Jerome Morse of Morse Shannon LLP, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers, said the Ontario government would now have 60 days to decide whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“What the court has basically said is, ‘this is a plausible argument, here are the reasons why it’s plausible, there was no answer to this,’” Morse told the Financial Post.

Ontario and the IESO had supported the lower-court decision, but there has been a change in government since the challenge was first launched, with Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford replacing the Liberals and Kathleen Wynne in power. The Liberals had launched a plan aimed at addressing hydro costs before losing in a 2018 election, the main thrust of which had been to refinance global adjustment costs.

Wednesday’s decision states that “Ontario’s counsel advised the court that the current Ontario government ‘does not agree with the former government’s electricity procurement policy (since-repealed).’

“The government’s view is that: ‘The solution does not lie with the courts, but instead in the political arena with political actors,’” it adds.

A spokesperson for Ontario Energy Minister Greg Rickford said in an email that they are reviewing the decision but “as this matter is in the appeal period, it would be inappropriate to comment.” 

Ontario had also requested to stay the matter so a regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, could weigh in, while the Nova Scotia regulator approved a 14% hike in a separate case.

“However, Ontario only sought this relief from the motion judge in the alternative, and given the motion judge’s ultimate decision, she did not rule on the stay,” Thursday’s decision said. “It would be premature for this court to rule on the issue, although it seems incongruous for Ontario to argue that the Superior Court is the convenient forum in which to seek to dismiss the applications as meritless, but that it is not the convenient forum for assessing the merits of the applications.”

National Steel Car’s challenge bears a resemblance to the constitutional challenges launched by Ontario and other provinces over the federal government’s carbon tax, but Justice Lauwers wrote “that the federal legislative scheme under consideration in those cases is distinctly different from the legislation at issue in this appeal.”

“Nothing in those decisions impacts this appeal,” the judge added.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

FERC Grid Resiliency Pricing Opposition underscores industry groups, RTOs, and ISOs rejecting DOE's NOPR, warning against out-of-market subsidies for coal and nuclear, favoring competitive markets, reliability, and true grid resilience.

Key Points

Coalition urging FERC to reject DOE's NOPR subsidies, protecting reliability and competitive power markets.

✅ Industry groups, RTOs, ISOs oppose DOE NOPR

✅ PJM reports sufficient reliability and resilience

✅ Reject out-of-market aid to coal, nuclear

A diverse group of a dozen energy industry associations representing oil, natural gas, wind, solar, efficiency, and other energy technologies today submitted reply comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) continuing their opposition to the Department of Energy's (DOE) proposed rulemaking on grid resiliency pricing and electricity pricing changes within competitive markets, in the next step in this FERC proceeding.

Action by FERC, as lawmakers urge movement on aggregated DERs to modernize markets, is expected by December 11.

In these comments, this broad group of energy industry associations notes that most of the comments submitted initially by an unprecedented volume of filers, including grid operators whose markets would be impacted by the proposed rule, urged FERC not to adopt DOE'sproposed rule to provide out-of-market financial support to uneconomic coal and nuclear power plants in the wholesale electricity markets overseen by FERC.

Just a small set of interests - those that would benefit financially from discriminatory pricing that favors coal and nuclear plants - argued in favor of the rule put forward by DOE in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NOPR, as did coal and business interests in related regulatory debates. But even those interests - termed 'NOPR Beneficiaries' by the energy associations - failed to provide adequate justification for FERC to approve the rule, and their specific alternative proposals for implementing the bailout of these plants were just as flawed as the DOE plan, according to the energy industry associations.

'The joint comments filed today with partners across the energy spectrum reflect the overwhelming majority view that this proposed rulemaking by FERC is unprecedented and unwarranted, said Todd Foley, Senior Vice President, Policy & Government Affairs, American Council on Renewable Energy.

We're hopeful that FERC will rule against an anti-competitive distortion of the electricity marketplace and avoid new unnecessary initiatives that increase power prices for American consumers and businesses.'

In the new reply comments submitted in response to the initial comments filed by hundreds of stakeholders on or before October 23 - the energy industry associations made the following points: Despite hundreds of comments filed, no new information was brought forth to validate the assertion - by DOE or the NOPR Beneficiaries - that an emergency exists that requires accelerated action to prop up certain power plants that are failing in competitive electricity markets: 'The record in this proceeding, including the initial comments, does not support the discriminatory payments proposed' by DOE, state the industry groups.

Nearly all of the initial comments filed in the matter take issue with the DOE NOPR and its claim of imminent threats to the reliability and resilience of the electric power system, despite reports of coal and nuclear disruptions cited by some advocates: 'Of the hundreds of comments filed in response to the DOE NOPR, only a handful purported to provide substantive evidence in support of the proposal. In contrast, an overwhelming majority of initial comments agree that the DOE NOPR fails to substantiate its assertions of an immediate reliability or resiliency need related to the retirement of merchant coal-fired and nuclear generation.'

Grid operators filed comments refuting claims that the potential retirement of coal and nuclear plants which could not compete for economically present immediate or near-term challenges to grid management, even as a coal CEO criticism targeted federal decisions: 'Even the RTOs and ISOs themselves filed comments opposing the DOE NOPR, noting that the proposed cost-of-service payments to preferred generation would disrupt the competitive markets and are neither warranted nor justified.... Most notably, this includes PJM Interconnection, ... the RTO in which most of the units potentially eligible for payments under the DOE NOPR are located. PJM states that its region 'unquestionably is reliable, and its competitive markets have for years secured commitments from capacity resources that well exceed the target reserve margin established to meet [North American Electric Reliability Corp.] requirements.' And PJM analysis has confirmed that the region's generation portfolio is not only reliable, but also resilient.'

The need for NOPR Beneficiaries to offer alternative proposals reflects the weakness of DOE'srule as drafted, but their options for propping up uneconomic power plants are no better, practically or legally: 'Plans put forward by supporters of the power plant bailout 'acknowledge, at least implicitly, that the preferential payment structure proposed in the DOE NOPR is unclear, unworkable, or both. However, the alternatives offered by the NOPR Beneficiaries, are equally flawed both substantively and procedurally, extending well beyond the scope of the DOE NOPR.'

Citing one example, the energy groups note that the detailed plan put forward by utility FirstEnergy Service Co. would provide preferential payments far more costly than those now provided to individual power plants needed for immediate reasons (and given a 'reliability must run' contract, or RMR): 'Compensation provided under [FirstEnergy's proposal] would be significantly expanded beyond RMR precedent, going so far as to include bailing [a qualifying] unit out of debt based on an unsupported assertion that revenues are needed to ensure long-term operation.'

Calling the action FERC would be required to take in adopting the DOE proposal 'unprecedented,' the energy industry associations reiterate their opposition: 'While the undersigned support the goals of a reliable and resilient grid, adoption of ill-considered discriminatory payments contemplated in the DOE NOPR is not supportable - or even appropriate - from a legal or policy perspective.

About ACORE

The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) is a national non-profit organization leading the transition to a renewable energy economy. With hundreds of member companies from across the spectrum of renewable energy technologies, consumers and investors, ACORE is uniquely positioned to promote the policies and financial structures essential to growth in the renewable energy sector. Our annual forums in Washington, D.C., New York and San Franciscoset the industry standard in providing important venues for key leaders to meet, discuss recent developments, and hear the latest from senior government officials and seasoned experts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

SOO Green Underground Transmission Line proposes an HVDC corridor buried along Canadian Pacific railroad rights-of-way to deliver Iowa wind energy to Chicago, enhance grid interconnection, and reduce landowner disruption from new overhead lines.

Key Points

A proposed HVDC project burying lines along a railroad to move Iowa wind power to Chicago and link two grids.

✅ HVDC link from Mason City, IA, to Plano, IL

✅ Buried in Canadian Pacific railroad right-of-way

✅ Connects MISO and PJM grids for renewable exchange

The company behind a proposed underground transmission line that would carry electricity generated mostly by wind turbines in Iowa to the Chicago area said Monday that the $2.5 billion project could be operational in 2024 if regulators approve it, reflecting federal transmission funding trends seen recently.

Direct Connect Development Co. said it has lined up three major investors to back the project. It plans to bury the transmission line in land that runs along existing Canadian Pacific railroad tracks, hopefully reducing the disruption to landowners. It's not unusual for pipelines or fiber optic lines to be buried along railroad tracks in the land the railroad controls.

CEO Trey Ward said he "believes that the SOO Green project will set the standard regarding how transmission lines are developed and constructed in the U.S."

A similar proposal from a different company for an overhead transmission line was withdrawn in 2016 after landowners raised concerns, even as projects like the Great Northern Transmission Line advanced in the region. That $2 billion Rock Island Clean Line was supposed to run from northwest Iowa into Illinois.

The new proposed line, which was first announced in 2017, would run from Mason City, Iowa, to Plano, Ill., a trend echoed by Canadian hydropower to New York projects. The investors announced Monday were Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, Jingoli Power and Siemens Financial Services.

The underground line would also connect two different regional power operating grids, as seen with U.S.-Canada cross-border transmission approvals in recent years, which would allow the transfer of renewable energy back and forth between customers and producers in the two regions.

More than 36 percent of Iowa's electricity comes from wind turbines across the state.

Jingoli Power CEO Karl Miller said the line would improve the reliability of regional power operators and benefit utilities and corporate customers in Chicago, even amid debates such as Hydro-Quebec line opposition in the Northeast.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

California Battery Storage is transforming grid reliability as distributed energy, solar-plus-storage, and demand response mitigate rolling blackouts, replace peaker plants, and supply flexible capacity during heat waves and evening peaks across utilities and homes.

Key Points

California Battery Storage uses distributed and utility batteries to stabilize power, shift solar, and curb blackouts.

✅ Supplies flexible capacity during peak demand and heat waves

✅ Enables demand response and replaces gas peaker plants

✅ Aggregated assets form virtual power plants for grid support

Last month as a heat wave slammed California, state regulators sent an email to a group of energy executives pleading for help to keep the lights on statewide. “Please consider this an urgent inquiry on behalf of the state,” the message said.

The manager of the state’s grid was struggling to increase the supply of electricity because power plants had unexpectedly shut down and demand was surging. The imbalance was forcing officials to order rolling blackouts across the state for the first time in nearly two decades.

What was unusual about the emails was whom they were sent to: people who managed thousands of batteries installed at utilities, businesses, government facilities and even homes. California officials were seeking the energy stored in those machines to help bail out a poorly managed grid and reduce the need for blackouts.

Many energy experts have predicted that batteries could turn homes and businesses into mini-power plants that are able to play a critical role in the electricity system. They could soak up excess power from solar panels and wind turbines and provide electricity in the evenings when the sun went down or after wildfires and hurricanes, which have grown more devastating because of climate change in recent years. Over the next decade, the argument went, large rows of batteries owned by utilities could start replacing power plants fueled by natural gas.

But that day appears to be closer than earlier thought, at least in California, which leads the country in energy storage. During the state’s recent electricity crisis, more than 30,000 batteries supplied as much power as a midsize natural gas plant. And experts say the machines, which range in size from large wall-mounted televisions to shipping containers, will become even more important because utilities, businesses and homeowners are investing billions of dollars in such devices.

“People are starting to realize energy storage isn’t just a project or two here or there, it’s a whole new approach to managing power,” said John Zahurancik, chief operating officer at Fluence, which makes large energy storage systems bought by utilities and large businesses. That’s a big difference from a few years ago, he said, when electricity storage was seen as a holy grail — “perfect, but unattainable.”

On Friday, Aug. 14, the first day California ordered rolling blackouts, Stem, an energy company based in the San Francisco Bay Area, delivered 50 megawatts — enough to power 20,000 homes — from batteries it had installed at businesses, local governments and other customers. Some of those devices were at the Orange County Sanitation District, which installed the batteries to reduce emissions by making it less reliant on natural gas when energy use peaks.

John Carrington, Stem’s chief executive, said his company would have provided even more electricity to the grid had it not been for state regulations that, among other things, prevent businesses from selling power from their batteries directly to other companies.

“We could have done two or three times more,” he said.

The California Independent System Operator, which manages about 80 percent of the state’s grid, has blamed the rolling blackouts on a confluence of unfortunate events, including extreme weather impacts on the grid that limited supply: A gas plant abruptly went offline, a lack of wind stilled thousands of turbines, and power plants in other states couldn’t export enough electricity. (On Thursday, the grid manager urged Californians to reduce electricity use over Labor Day weekend because temperatures are expected to be 10 to 20 degrees above normal.)

But in recent weeks it has become clear that California’s grid managers also made mistakes last month, highlighting the challenge of fixing California’s electric grid in real time, that were reminiscent of an energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 when millions of homes went dark and wholesale electricity prices soared.

Grid managers did not contact Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office until moments before it ordered a blackout on Aug. 14. Had it acted sooner, the governor could have called on homeowners and businesses to reduce electricity use, something he did two days later. He could have also called on the State Department of Water Resources to provide electricity from its hydroelectric plants.

Weather forecasters had warned about the heat wave for days. The agency could have developed a plan to harness the electricity in numerous batteries across the state that largely sat idle while grid managers and large utilities such as Pacific Gas & Electric scrounged around for more electricity.

That search culminated in frantic last-minute pleas from the California Public Utilities Commission to the California Solar and Storage Association. The commission asked the group to get its members to discharge batteries they managed for customers like the sanitation department into the grid. (Businesses and homeowners typically buy batteries with solar panels from companies like Stem and Sunrun, which manage the systems for their customers.)

“They were texting and emailing and calling us: ‘We need all of your battery customers giving us power,’” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the solar and storage association. “It was in a very last-minute, herky-jerky way.”

At the time of blackouts on Aug. 14, battery power to the electric grid climbed to a peak of about 147 megawatts, illustrating how virtual power plants can rapidly scale, according to data from California I.S.O. After officials asked for more power the next day, that supply shot up to as much as 310 megawatts.

Had grid managers and regulators done a better job coordinating with battery managers, the devices could have supplied as much as 530 megawatts, Ms. Del Chiaro said. That supply would have exceeded the amount of electricity the grid lost when the natural gas plant, which grid managers have refused to identify, went offline.

Officials at California I.S.O. and the public utilities commission said they were working to determine the “root causes” of the crisis after the governor requested an investigation.

Grid managers and state officials have previously endorsed the use of batteries, using AI to adapt as they integrate them at scale. The utilities commission last week approved a proposal by Southern California Edison, which serves five million customers, to add 770 megawatts of energy storage in the second half of 2021, more than doubling its battery capacity.

And Mr. Zahurancik’s company, Fluence, is building a 400 megawatt-hour battery system at the site of an older natural gas power plant at the Alamitos Energy Center in Long Beach. Regulators this week also approved a plan to extend the life of the power plant, which was scheduled to close at the end of the year, to support the grid.

But regulations have been slow to catch up with the rapidly developing battery technology.

Regulators and utilities have not answered many of the legal and logistical questions that have limited how batteries owned by homeowners and businesses are used. How should battery owners be compensated for the electricity they provide to the grid? Can grid managers or utilities force batteries to discharge even if homeowners or businesses want to keep them charged up for their own use during blackouts?

During the recent blackouts, Ms. Del Chiaro said, commercial and industrial battery owners like Stem’s customers were compensated at the rates similar to those that are paid to businesses to not use power during periods of high electricity demand. But residential customers were not paid and acted “altruistically,” she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News