Duke Energy Renewables acquires three California solar projects from SunPower

Ontario-Quebec Electricity Deal explores hydro imports, terawatt hours, electricity costs, greenhouse gas cuts, and baseload impacts, amid debates on Pickering nuclear operations and competitive procurement in Ontario's long-term energy planning.

Key Points

A proposed hydro import deal from Quebec, balancing costs, emissions, and reliability for Ontario electricity customers.

✅ Draft 20-year, 8 TWh offer reported by La Presse disputed

✅ Ontario seeks lower costs and GHG cuts versus alternatives

✅ Not a baseload replacement; Pickering closure not planned

Ontario is negotiating a possible energy swap agreement to buy electricity from Quebec, but the government is disputing a published report that it is preparing to sign a deal for enough electricity to power a city the size of Ottawa.

La Presse reported Tuesday that it obtained a copy of a draft, 20-year deal that says Ontario would buy eight terawatt hours a year from Quebec – about 6 per cent of Ontario’s consumption – whether the electricity is consumed or not.

Ontario Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault’s office said the province is in discussions to build on an agreement signed last year for Ontario to import up to two terawatt hours of electricity a year from Quebec.

But his office released a letter dated late last month to his Quebec counterpart, in which Mr. Thibeault said the offer extended in June was unacceptable because it would increase the average residential electricity bill by $30 a year.

“I am hopeful that your continued support and efforts will help to further discussions between our jurisdictions that could lead to an agreement that is in the best interest of both Ontario and Quebec,” Mr. Thibeault wrote July 27 to Pierre Arcand.

Ontario would prepare a “term sheet” for the next stage of discussions ahead of the two ministers meeting at the Energy and Mines Ministers Conference later this month in New Brunswick, Mr. Thibeault wrote.

Any future agreements with Quebec will have to provide a reduction in Ontario electricity rates compared with other alternatives and demonstrate measurable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, he wrote.

Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown said Ontario doesn’t need eight terawatt hours of additional power and suggested it means the Liberal government is considering closing power facilities such as the Pickering nuclear plant early.

A senior Energy Ministry official said that is not on the table. The government has said it intends to keep operating two units at Pickering until 2022, and the other four units until 2024.

Even if the Quebec offer had been accepted, the energy official said, that power wouldn’t have replaced any of Ontario’s baseload power because it couldn’t have been counted on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

The Society of Energy Professionals said Mr. Thibeault was right to reject the deal, but called on him to release the Long-Term Energy Plan – which was supposed to be out this spring – before continuing negotiations.

Some commentators have argued for broader reforms to address Ontario's hydro system challenges, urging policymakers to review all options as negotiations proceed.

The Ontario Energy Association said the reported deal would run counter to the government’s stated energy objectives amid concerns over electricity prices in the province.

“Ontarians will not get the benefit of competition to ensure it is the best of all possible options for the province, and companies who have invested in Ontario and have employees here will not get the opportunity to provide alternatives,” president and chief executive Vince Brescia said in a statement. “Competitive processes should be used for any new significant system capacity in Ontario.”

The Association of Power Producers of Ontario said it is concerned the government is even considering deals that would “threaten to undercut a competitive marketplace and long-term planning.”

“Ontario already has a surplus of energy, so it’s very difficult to see how this deal or any other sole-source deal with Quebec could benefit the province and its ratepayers,” association president and CEO David Butters said in a statement.

The Ontario Waterpower Association also said such a deal with Quebec would “present a significant challenge to continued investment in waterpower in Ontario.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Cooperative Energy bond rating upgrade signals lower debt costs as Fitch lifts GO Zone Bonds to A, reflecting Kemper exit, shift to owned generation, natural gas, and renewable energy for co-op members and borrowing rates.

Key Points

Fitch raised Cooperative Energy's GO Zone Bonds to A, cutting debt costs after Kemper exit and shift to natural gas.

✅ Fitch upgrades 2009A GO Zone Bonds from A- to A.

✅ Kemper divestment reduced risk and exposure to coal.

✅ Shift to owned generation, natural gas, renewables lowers costs.

Cooperative Energy and its 11 co-op members will see lower debt costs on $35.4 million bond; similar to regional utilities offering one-time bill decreases for customers recently.

Bailing out of its 15 percent ownership stake in Mississippi Power’s Kemper gasification plant, amid debates over coal and nuclear subsidies in federal policy, has helped Hattiesburg-based Cooperative Energy gain a ratings upgrade on a $35.4 million bond issue.

The electric power co-op, which changed its name to Cooperative Energy from South Mississippi Electric Power Association in November, received a ratings upgrade from A- to A for its 2009 2009A Mississippi Business Finance Corporation Gulf Opportunity Zone Bonds, even as other utilities announced bill reductions for customers during 2020.

“This rating upgrade reflects the success of our strategy to move from purchased power to owned generation resources, and from coal to natural gas and renewable energy as clean energy priorities gain traction,” said Cooperative Energy President/CEO Jim Compton in a press release.  “The result for our members is lower borrowing costs and more favorable rates.”

An “A” rating from Fitch designates the bond issue as “near premium quality,” a status noted as utilities adapted to pandemic-era electricity demand trends nationwide.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Key Points

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

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

✅ Support reactive power to manage voltage and hosting capacity

✅ Enable utility communications, telemetry, and grid services

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reactive power: Where utility and solar imperatives collide

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

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

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

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

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

The future: Communications, controls and DER integration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Hong Kong Electricity Tariff Increase reflects a projected 1-2% rise as HK Electric and CLP Power shift to cleaner fuel and natural gas, expand gas-fired units and LNG terminals, and adjust the fuel clause charge.

Key Points

An expected 1-2% 2018 rise from cleaner fuel, natural gas projects, asset growth, and shrinking fuel cost surpluses.

✅ Expected 1-2% rise amid cleaner fuel and gas shift

✅ Fuel clause charge and asset expansion pressure prices

✅ HK Electric and CLP Power urged to use surpluses prudently

Hong Kong customers have been asked to expect higher electricity bills next year, as seen with BC Hydro rate increases in Canada, with a member of a government panel on energy policy anticipating an increase in tariffs of one or two per cent.

The environment minister, Wong Kam-sing, also hinted they should be prepared to dig deeper into their pockets for electricity, as debates over California electric bills illustrate, in the wake of power companies needing to use more expensive but cleaner fuel to generate power in the future.

HK Electric supplies power to Hong Kong Island, Lamma Island and Ap Lei Chau. Photo: David Wong

The city’s two power companies, HK Electric and CLP Power, are to brief lawmakers on their respective annual tariff adjustments for 2018, amid Ontario electricity price pressures drawing international attention, at a Legislative Council economic development panel meeting on Tuesday.

HK Electric supplies electricity to Hong Kong Island and neighbouring Lamma Island and Ap Lei Chau, while CLP Power serves Kowloon and the New Territories, including Lantau Island.

Wong said on Monday: “We have to appreciate that when we use cleaner fuel, there is a need for electricity tariffs to keep pace. I believe it is the hope of mainstream society to see a low-carbon and healthier environment.”

Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing believes most people desire a low-carbon environment. Photo: Sam Tsang

But he declined to comment on how much the tariffs might rise.

World Green Organisation chief executive William Yu Yuen-ping, also a member of the Energy Advisory Committee, urged the companies to better use their “overflowing” surpluses in their fuel cost recovery accounts.

Tariffs are comprised of two components: a basic amount reflecting a company’s operating costs and investments, and the fuel clause charge, which is based on what the company projects it will pay for fuel for the year.

William Yu of World Green Organisation says the companies should use their surpluses more carefully. Photo: May Tse

Critics have claimed the local power suppliers routinely overestimate their fuel costs and amass huge surpluses.

In recent years, the two managed to freeze or cut their tariffs thanks to savings from lower fuel costs. Last year, HK Electric offered special rebates to its customers, which saw its tariff drop by 17.2 per cent. CLP Power froze its own charge for 2017.

Yu said the two companies should use the surpluses “more carefully” to stabilise tariffs.

Rise after fall in Hong Kong electricity use linked to subsidies

“We estimate a big share of the surplus has been used up and so the honeymoon period is over.”

Based on his group’s research, Yu believed the tariffs would increase by one or two per cent.

Economist and fellow committee member Billy Mak Sui-choi said the expansion of the power companies’ fixed asset bases, such as building new gas-fired units and offshore liquefied natural gas terminals, a pattern reflected in Nova Scotia's 14% rate hike recently approved by regulators, would also cause tariffs to rise.

To fight climate change and improve air quality, the government has pledged to cut carbon intensity by between 50 and 60 per cent by 2020. Officials set a target of boosting the use of natural gas for electricity generation to half the total fuel mix from 2020.

Both power companies are privately owned and monitored by the government through a mutually agreed scheme of control agreements, akin to oversight seen under the UK energy price cap in other jurisdictions. These require the firms to seek government approval for their development plans, including their projected basic tariff levels.

At present, the permitted rate of return on their net fixed assets is 9.99 per cent. The deals are due to expire late next year.

Earlier this year, officials reached a deal with the two companies on the post-2018 scheme, settling on a 15-year term. The new agreements slash their permitted rate of return to 8 per cent.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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