CAA Quebec Shines at the Quebec Electric Vehicle Show

ComEd Hosting Capacity Map helps Illinois communities assess photovoltaic capacity, distributed energy resources, interconnection limits, and grid planning needs, guiding developers and policymakers on siting solar, net metering feasibility, and RPS-aligned deployment by circuit.

Key Points

An online tool showing circuit-level DER capacity, PV limits, and interconnection readiness across ComEd.

✅ Circuit-level estimates of solar hosting capacity

✅ Guides siting, interconnection, and net metering

✅ Supports RPS goals with grid planning insights

As the Illinois solar market grows from the Future Energy Jobs Act, the largest utility in the state has posted a planning tool to identify potential PV capacity in their service territory. ComEd, a Northern Illinois subsidiary of Exelon, has a hosting capacity website for its communities indicating how much photovoltaic capacity can be sited in given areas, based on the existing electrical infrastructure, as utilities pilot virtual power plant programs that leverage distributed resources.

According to ComEd’s description, “Hosting Capacity is an estimate of the amount of DER [distributed energy resources] that may be accommodated under current configurations at the overall circuit level without significant system upgrades to address adverse impacts to power quality or reliability.” This website will enable developers and local decision makers to estimate how much solar could be installed by township, sections and fractions of sections as small as ½ mile by ½ mile and to gauge EV charging impacts with NREL's projection tool for distribution planning. The map sections indicate potential capacity by AC kilowatts with a link to to ComEd’s recently upgraded Interconnection and Net Metering homepage.

The Hosting Map can provide insight into how much solar can be installed in which locations in order to help solar reach a significant portion of the Illinois Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) of 25% electricity from renewable sources by 2025, and to plan for transportation electrification as EV charging infrastructure scales across utility territories. For example, the 18 sections of Oak Park Township capacity range from 612 to 909 kW, and total 13,260 kW of photovoltaic power. That could potentially generate around 20 million kWh, and policy actions such as the CPUC-approved PG&E EV program illustrate how electrification initiatives may influence future demand. Oak Park, according to the PlanItGreen Report Card, a joint project of the Oak Park River Forest Community Foundation and Seven Generations Ahead, uses about 325 million kWh.

Based on ComEd’s Hosting Capacity, Oak Park could generate about 6% of its electricity from solar power located within its borders. Going significantly beyond this amount would likely require a combination of upgrades by ComEd’s infrastructure, potentially higher interconnection costs and deployment of technologies like energy storage solutions. What this does indicate is that a densely populated community like Oak Park would most likely have to get the majority of its solar and renewable electricity from outside its boundaries to reach the statewide RPS goal of 25%. The Hosting Capacity Map shows a considerable disparity among communities in ½ mile by ½ mile sections with some able to host only 100-200 kWs to some with capacities of over 3,000 kW.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

EV Charging Infrastructure Incentives are expanding as utilities fund public chargers, Level 2 networks, DC fast charging, grid-managed off-peak programs, and equitable access across Ohio, New Jersey, and Florida to accelerate clean transportation.

Key Points

Utility-backed programs funding Level 2 and DC fast chargers, managing grid demand, and expanding EV equity.

✅ Incentives for Level 2 and DC fast public charging stations.

✅ Grid-friendly off-peak charging to balance demand.

✅ Equity targets place chargers in low-income communities.

Electric providers in Florida, Ohio and New Jersey recently announced plans to expand electric vehicle charging networks and infrastructure through various incentive programs that could add thousands of new public chargers in the next several years.

Elsewhere, utilities are advancing similar efforts, with Michigan EV programs proposing more than $20 million for charging infrastructure to accelerate adoption.

American Electric Power in Ohio will offer nearly $10 million in incentives toward the build out of 375 EV charging stations throughout the company's service territory, which largely includes Columbus.

Meanwhile, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), an electric utility provider in New Jersey, has proposed a six-year plan to support the development of nearly 40,000 electric vehicle chargers across a wide range of customers and sectors, said Francis Sullivan, a spokesperson for PSE&G.

And Duke Energy in Florida is installing up to 530 EV charging stations across its service area, as part of its Park and Plug pilot program, which will be making the charging ports available in multifamily housing complexes, workplaces and other high traffic areas.

"We are bringing cleaner energy to Florida through 700 megawatts of new universal solar, and we are helping our customers to bring clean transportation to the state as well," Catherine Stempien, Duke Energy Florida president, said in a statement. "We are committed to providing smarter, cleaner energy alternatives for all our customers."

The project in Ohio is making incentive funding available to government organizations, multifamily housing developments and workplaces, covering from 50 percent to all of the costs. The plan, to be rolled out in the next four years, aims to incentivize the development of 300 level-two chargers and 75 "fast chargers" capable of charging a car's battery in minutes rather than hours.

"I think what's interesting about what we're seeing now in the industry is that electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging are expanding beyond California, and like other Pacific Coast states," said Scott Fisher, vice president of marketing at Greenlots, maker of car chargers and software. Greenlots has been selected as one of the companies to provide the chargers for the AEP project.

California has occupied the lion's share of the electric vehicle market, making up about 5 percent of the cars on the state's highways. The U.S. market sits at about 1.5 percent. However, indications show the EV boom may be set to take off as more models are being rolled out, and prices are making the electric cars more competitive with their gas-powered counterparts. The group Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) announced the one-millionth electric vehicle is on course to be sold in the United States this month.

In a statement, Ben Prochazka, vice president of the Electrification Coalition, an EV advocacy group, called this "a major milestone and brings us one step closer to reducing our transportation system's dependence on oil. This is a direct result of the tireless efforts by communities and advocates throughout the 'EV ecosystem.'"

In New Jersey, PSE&G's efforts -- which are part of the company's proposed Clean Energy Future program -- will not only focus on building out the charging infrastructure, but structure car recharging to control charging and encourage residents to charge their cars during off-peak times.

"For now, with a modest number of charging stations in the market, it's not a huge problem. But over time, as you're putting in many thousands of these stations, what you want to make sure is that those stations are operating in sync with state power grids, where you don't have people all charging at the same time at like 5 p.m. on a hot summer day," said Fisher.

PSE&G also plans to offer incentives to encourage the development of level-two chargers and DC fast-chargers, as well as "provide grants and incentives for 100 electric school buses and EV charging infrastructure at school districts in PSE&G's service territory," said Sullivan.

"PSE&G will also help fund electrification projects at customer locations such as ports, airports and transit facilities," Sullivan added, via email.

Utilities and transportation planners are also keeping the concept of equity in mind -- to ensure EVs are adopted by more than just the Tesla owner -- and will also focus on placing infrastructure in low-income areas.

"Ten percent of the stations will be in low income areas, defined by census blocks," said Scott Blake, a communications consultant at AEP in Columbus.

Duke Energy also announced 10 percent of the chargers it is installing in Florida will be in "income-qualified communities," according to a company press release.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Vancouver October 2024 Windstorm brought extreme weather to British Columbia, causing power outages, storm damage, and downed lines as BC Hydro crews led emergency response and restoration, highlighting climate change resilience and community preparedness.

Key Points

A severe storm with 100 km/h gusts that caused outages and damage in Vancouver, prompting wide power restoration.

✅ 100 km/h gusts toppled trees and downed power lines

✅ Over 200,000 BC Hydro customers lost electricity

✅ Crews and communities coordinated emergency response

In October 2024, a powerful windstorm swept through the Vancouver area, resulting in widespread power outages and disruption across the region. The storm, characterized by fierce winds and heavy rainfall, reflected conditions seen when strong winds in the Miami Valley knocked out power earlier this year, and was part of a larger weather pattern that affected much of British Columbia. Residents braced for the impacts, with local authorities and utility companies preparing for the worst.

The Storm's Impact

The windstorm hit Vancouver with wind gusts exceeding 100 km/h, toppling trees, and downing power lines. As the storm progressed, reports of damaged properties and fallen trees began to flood in. Many neighborhoods experienced significant power outages, mirroring widespread outages in Quebec earlier in the season, with thousands of residents left without electricity for extended periods. The areas hardest hit included the West End, Kitsilano, and parts of the North Shore, where the impact of the storm was particularly severe.

Utility companies, including BC Hydro operations, mobilized their crews quickly in response to the storm's aftermath. Emergency response teams worked tirelessly to restore power, often facing challenging conditions. The restoration efforts were complicated by the sheer number of outages reported—over 200,000 customers were affected at the height of the storm. Crews encountered not only downed lines but also hazardous conditions as they navigated through debris-laden streets.

Community Response and Resilience

In the wake of the storm, the community showcased remarkable resilience. Local residents rallied together to assist one another, sharing resources and providing support to those most affected. Many community centers opened their doors as emergency shelters, offering warmth and safety to those without power, a step also taken when a London power outage disrupted mornings for thousands across the city.

Authorities also emphasized the importance of preparedness in such situations. They urged residents to have emergency kits ready, including food, water, and essential supplies, noting that nearby areas like North Seattle can face sudden outages with little warning. Local officials highlighted the value of staying informed through weather updates and alerts, allowing residents to make informed decisions during extreme weather events.

The Role of Climate Change

The October windstorm serves as a stark reminder of the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, a trend often linked to climate change. Experts have noted that rising global temperatures are contributing to more severe weather patterns, including stronger storms and increased Toronto flooding events. As cities like Vancouver face the reality of climate change, discussions about infrastructure resilience and adaptation strategies have gained urgency.

City planners and environmental advocates are pushing for initiatives that enhance the city's ability to withstand extreme weather. This includes improving stormwater management systems, increasing green spaces to absorb rainfall, and investing in renewable energy sources. By addressing these challenges proactively, Vancouver aims to mitigate the impacts of future storms and protect its residents.

Moving Forward

As recovery efforts continue, the focus now shifts to restoring normalcy and preparing for future weather events. Residents are encouraged to report any ongoing outages or hazards to local authorities and to stay updated through reliable news sources. BC Hydro and other utility companies are committed to transparency, providing regular updates on power restoration efforts, even as outages can persist for days as seen in Toronto after a spring storm.

The October 2024 windstorm will be remembered not only for its immediate impacts but also as a catalyst for discussions on resilience and community preparedness. As Vancouver looks ahead, the lessons learned from this storm will shape strategies for better handling extreme weather, ensuring that the city is equipped to face the challenges posed by a changing climate.

In conclusion, while the windstorm caused significant disruption and hardship for many, it also highlighted the strength of community spirit and the importance of proactive planning in the face of climate challenges. Vancouver's response and recovery will be crucial in building a more resilient future for all its residents.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations 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

Georgia Electricity Imports October 2017 surged as hydropower output fell and thermal power plants underperformed; ESCO balanced demand via low-cost imports, mainly from Azerbaijan, amid rising tariffs, kWh consumption growth, and a widening generation-consumption gap.

Key Points

They mark a record import surge due to costly local generation, lower hydropower, ESCO balancing costs, and rising demand.

✅ Imports rose 832% YoY to 157 mln kWh, mainly from Azerbaijan

✅ TPP output fell despite capacity; only low-tariff plants ran

✅ Balancing price 13.8 tetri/kWh signaled costly domestic PPAs

In October 2017, Georgian power plants generated 828 mln. KWh of electricity, marginally up (+0.79%) compared to September. Following the traditional seasonal pattern and amid European concerns over dispatchable power shortages affecting markets, the share of electricity produced by renewable sources declined to 71% of total generation (87% in September), while thermal power generation’s share increased, accounting for 29% of total generation (compared to 13% in September). When we compare last October’s total generation with the total generation of October 2016, however, we observe an 8.7% decrease in total generation (in October 2016, total generation was 907 mln. kWh). The overall decline in generation with respect to the previous year is due to a simultaneous decline in both thermal power and hydro power generation. 

Consumption of electricity on the local market in the same period was 949 mln. kWh (+7% compared to October 2016, and +3% with respect to September 2017), and reflected global trends such as India's electricity growth in recent years. The gap between consumption and generation increased to 121 mln. kWh (15% of the amount generated in October), up from 100 mln. kWh in September. Even more importantly, the situation was radically different with respect to the prior year, when generation exceeded consumption.

The import figure for October was by far the highest from the last 12 years (since ESCO was established), occurring as Ukraine electricity exports resumed regionally, highlighting wider cross-border dynamics. In October 2017, Georgia imported 157 mln. kWh of electricity (for 5.2 ¢/kWh – 13 tetri/kWh). This constituted an 832% increase compared to October 2016, and is about 50% larger than the second largest import figure (104.2 mln. kWh in October 2014). Most of the October 2017 imports (99.6%) came from Azerbaijan, with the remaining 0.04% coming from Russia.

The main question that comes to mind when observing these statistics is: why did Georgia import so much? One might argue that this is just the result of a bad year for hydropower generation and increased demand. This argument, however, is not fully convincing. While it is true that hydropower generation declined and demand increased, the country’s excess demand could have been easily satisfied by its existing thermal power plants, even as imported coal volumes rose in regional markets. Instead of increasing, however, the electricity coming from thermal power plants declined as well. Therefore, that cannot be the reason, and another must be found. The first that comes to mind is that importing electricity may have been cheaper than buying it from local TPPs, or from other generators selling electricity to ESCO under power purchase agreements (PPAs). We can test the first part of this hypothesis by comparing the average price of imported electricity to the price ceiling on the tariff that TPPs can charge for the electricity they sell. Looking at the trade statistics from Geostat, the average price for imported electricity in October 2017 remained stable with respect to the same month of the previous year, at 5.2 ¢ (13 tetri) per kWh. Only two thermal power plants (Gardabani and Mtkvari) had a price ceiling below 13 tetri per kWh. Observing the electricity balance of Georgia, we see that indeed more than 98% of the electricity generated by TPPs in October 2017 was generated by those two power plants.

What about other potential sources of electricity amid Central Asia's power shortages at the time? To answer this question, we can use the information derived from the weighted average price of balancing electricity. Why balancing electricity? Because it allows us to reconstruct the costs the market operator (ESCO) faced during the month of October to make sure demand and supply were balanced, and it allows us to gain an insight about the price of electricity sold through PPAs.

ESCO reports that the weighted average price of balancing electricity in October 2017 was 13.8 tetri/kWh, (25% higher than in October 2016, when it was below the average weighted cost of imports – 11 vs. 13 – and when the quantity of imported electricity was substantially smaller). Knowing that in October 2017, 61% of balancing electricity came from imports, while 39% came from hydropower and wind power plants selling electricity to ESCO under their PPAs, we can deduce that in this case, internal generation was (on average) also substantially more expensive than imports. Therefore, the high cost of internally generated electricity, rather than the technical impossibility of generating enough electricity to satisfy electricity demand, indeed appears to be one the main reasons why electricity imports spiked in October 2017.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EU Smart Meter Analytics integrates AMI data with grid edge platforms, enabling back-office efficiency, revenue assurance, and customer insights via cloud and PaaS solutions, while system integration cuts costs and improves utility performance.

Key Points

EU smart meter analytics uses AMI data and cloud to improve utility performance, revenue assurance, and outcomes.

✅ AMI underpins grid edge analytics and utility IT/OT integration

✅ Cloud and PaaS reduce costs and scale data-driven applications

✅ Focus shifts from meter rollout to back-office and revenue analytics

Europe's investment in smart meters has begun to open up the market for analytics that benefit both utilities and customers.

Two new reports from GTM Research demonstrate the substantial investment in both advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) and specific customer analytics segments -- the first report analyzes the progress of AMI deployment in Europe, while the second is a comprehensive assessment of analytics use cases, including AI in utility operations, enabled by or interacting with AMI.

The Third Energy Package mandated EU member states to perform a cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the economic viability of deploying smart meters and broader grid modernization costs across member states. Two-thirds of the member states found there was a net positive result, while seven members found negative or inconclusive results.

“The mandate spurred AMI deployment in the EU, but all member states are deploying some AMI. Even without an overall positive cost-benefit outcome, utilities found pockets of customers where there is a positive business case for AMI,” said Paulina Tarrant, research associate at GTM Research and lead author of “Racing to 2020: European Policy, Deployment and Market Share Primer.”

Annual AMI contracting peaked in 2013 -- two years after the mandate -- with 29 million contracted that year. Today, 100 million meters have been contracted overall. As member states reach their respective targets, the AMI market will cool in Europe and spending on analytics and applications will continue to ramp up, aligning with efforts to invest in smarter infrastructure across the sector, Tarrant noted.

Between 2017 and 2021, more than $30 billion will be spent on utility back-office and revenue-assurance analytics in the EU, reflecting the shift toward the digital grid architecture, according to GTM Research’s Grid Edge Customer Utility Analytics Ecosystems: Competitive Analysis, Forecasts and Case Studies.

The report examines the broad landscape of customer analytics showing how AMI interacts with the larger IT/OT environment of a utility.

“The benefits of AMI expand beyond revenue assurance -- in fact, AMI represents the backbone of many customer utility analytics and grid edge solutions,” said Timotej Gavrilovic, author of the Grid Edge Customer Utility Ecosystems report.

Integration is key, according to the report.

“Technology providers are integrating data sets, solutions and systems and partnering with others to provide a one-stop shop serving broad utility needs, increasing efficiencies and reducing costs,” Gavrilovic said. “Cloud-based deployments and platform-as-a-service offerings are becoming commonplace, creating an opportunity for utilities to balance the cost versus performance tradeoff to optimize their analytics systems and applications.”

A diverse array of customer analytics applications is a critical foundation for demonstrating the positive cost-benefit of AMI.

“Advanced analytics and applications are key to ensuring that AMI investments provide a positive return after smart meters are initiated,” said Tarrant. “Improved billing and revenue assurance was not enough everywhere to show customer benefit -- these analytics packages will leverage the distributed network infrastructure, including advanced inverters used with distributed energy resources, and subsequent increased data access, uniting the electricity markets of the EU.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News