France Hits Record: 20% Of Market Buys Electric Cars

California NEM-3 Tariff ushers a successor Net Energy Metering framework, revising export compensation, TOU rates, and non-bypassable charges to balance ratepayer impacts, rooftop solar growth, and energy storage adoption across diverse communities.

Key Points

The CPUC's successor NEM policy redefining export credits and rates to sustain customer-sited solar and storage.

✅ Sets export compensation methodology beyond NEM 2.0

✅ Aligns TOU rates and non-bypassable charges with costs

✅ Encourages solar-plus-storage adoption and equity access

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has officially commenced its “NEM-3” proceeding, which will establish the successor Net Energy Metering (NEM) tariff to the “NEM 2.0” program in California. This is a highly anticipated, high-stakes proceeding that will effectively modify the rules for the NEM tariff in California, amid ongoing electricity pricing changes that affect residential rooftop solar – arguably the single most important policy mechanism for customer-sited solar over the last decade.

The CPUC’s recent order instituting rule-making (OIR) filing stated that “the major focus of this proceeding will be on the development of a successor to existing NEM 2.0 tariffs. This successor will be a mechanism for providing customer-generators with credit or compensation for electricity generated by their renewable facilities that a) balances the costs and benefits of the renewable electrical generation facility and b) allows customer-sited renewable generation to grow sustainably among different types of customers and throughout California’s diverse communities.”

This successor tariff proceeding was initiated by Assembly Bill 327, which was signed into law in October of 2013. AB 327 is best known as the legislation that directed the CPUC to create the “NEM 2.0” successor tariff, which was adopted by the CPUC in January of 2016.

The original Net Energy Metering program in California (“NEM 1.0”) effectively enabled full-retail value net metering “allowing NEM customers to be compensated for the electricity generated by an eligible customer-sited renewable resource and fed back to the utility over an entire billing period.” Under the NEM 2.0 tariff, customers were required to pay charges that aligned them more closely with non-NEM customer costs than under the original structure. The main changes adopted when the NEM 2.0 was implemented were that NEM 2.0 customer-generators must: (i) pay a one-time interconnection fee; (ii) pay non-bypassable charges on each kilowatt-hour of electricity they consume from the grid; and (iii) customers were required to transfer to a time-of-use (TOU) rate, with potential changes to electric bills for many customers.

NEM 2.0

The commencement of the NEM-3 OIR was preceded by the publishing of a 318-page Net Energy Metering 2.0 Lookback Study, which was published by Itron, Verdant Associates, and Energy and Environmental Economics. The CPUC-commissioned study had been widely anticipated and was expected to act as the starting reference point for the successor tariff proceeding. Verdant also hosted a webinar, which summarized the study’s inputs, assumptions, draft findings and results.

The study utilized several different tests to study the impact of NEM 2.0. The cost effectiveness analysis tests, which estimate costs and benefits attributed to NEM 2.0 include: (i) total resource cost test, (ii) participant cost test, (iii) ratepayer impact measure test, and (iv) program administrator test. The evaluation also included a cost of service analysis, which estimates the marginal cost borne by the utility to serve a NEM 2.0 customer.

The opening paragraph of the report’s executive summary stated that “overall, we found that NEM 2.0 participants benefit from the structure, while ratepayers see increased rates.” In every test that the author’s conducted the results generally supported this conclusion for residential customers. There were some exceptions in their findings. For example, in the cost of service analysis the report stated that “residential customers that install customer-sited renewable resources on average pay lower bills than the utility’s cost to serve them. On the other hand, nonresidential customers pay bills that are slightly higher than their cost of service after installing customer-sited renewable resources. This is largely due to nonresidential customer rates having demand charges (and other fixed fees), and the lower ratio of PV system size to customer load when compared to residential customers.”

Similar debates over solar rate design, including Massachusetts solar demand charges, highlight how demand charges and TOU decisions can affect customer economics.

NEM-3 timeline

Popular content
The preliminary schedule that the CPUC laid out in its OIR estimates that the proceeding will take roughly 15 months in total, starting with a November 2020 pre-hearing conference.

The real meat of the proceeding, where parties will present their proposals for what they believe the successor tariff should be, as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid, and really show their hand will not begin until the Spring of 2021. So we’re still a little ways away from seeing the proposals that the key parties to this proceeding, like the Investor Owned Utilities (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E), solar and storage advocates such as SEIA, CALSSA, Vote Solar, and ratepayer advocates like TURN) will submit.

While the outcome for the new successor NEM tariff is anyone’s guess at this point, some industry policy folks are starting to speculate. We think it is safe to assume that the value of exported energy will get reduced, with debates over income-based utility charges also influencing rate design. How much and the mechanism for how exports get valued remains to be seen. Based on the findings from the lookback study, it seems like the reduction in export value will be more severe than what happened when NEM 2.0 got implemented. In NEM 2.0, non-bypassable charges, which are volumetric charges that must be paid on all imported energy and cannot be netted-out by exports, only equated to roughly $0.02 to $0.03/kWh.

Given that the value of exports will almost certainly get reduced, we expect that to be bullish for energy storage as America goes electric and load shapes evolve. Energy storage attachment rates with solar are already steadily rising in California. By the time NEM-3 starts getting implemented, likely in 2022, we think storage attachment rates will likely escalate further.

We would not be surprised to see future storage attachment rates in California look like the Hawaiian market today, which are upwards of 80% for certain types of customers and applications. Two big questions on our mind are: (i) will the NEM 3.0 rules be different for different customer class: residential, CARE (e.g., low-income or disadvantaged communities), and commercial & industrial; (ii) will the CPUC introduce some sort of glidepath or phased in implementation approach?

The outcome of this proceeding will have far reaching implications on the future of customer-sited solar and energy storage in California. The NEM-3 outcome in California may likely serve as precedent for other states, as California exports its energy policies across the West, and utility territories that are expected to redesign their Net Energy Metering tariffs in the coming years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EVI-Pro Lite EV Load Forecasting helps utilities model EV charging infrastructure, grid load shapes, and resilient energy systems, factoring home, workplace, and public charging behavior to inform planning, capacity upgrades, and flexible demand strategies.

Key Points

A NREL tool projecting EV charging demand and load shapes to help utilities plan the grid and right-size infrastructure.

✅ Visualizes weekday/weekend EV load by charger type.

✅ Tests home, workplace, and public charging access scenarios.

✅ Supports utility planning, demand flexibility, and capacity upgrades.

As electric vehicles (EVs) continue to grow in popularity, utilities and community planners are increasingly focused on building resilient energy systems that can support the added electric load from EV charging, including a possible EV-driven demand increase across the grid.

But forecasting the best ways to adapt to increased EV charging can be a difficult task as EV adoption will challenge state power grids in diverse ways. Planners need to consider when consumers charge, how fast they charge, and where they charge, among other factors.

To support that effort, researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have expanded the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Projection (EVI-Pro) Lite tool with more analytic capabilities. EVI-Pro Lite is a simplified version of EVI-Pro, the more complex, original version of the tool developed by NREL and the California Energy Commission to inform detailed infrastructure requirements to support a growing EV fleet in California, where EVs bolster grid stability through coordinated planning.

EVI-Pro Lite’s estimated weekday electric load by charger type for El Paso, Texas, assuming a fleet of 10,000 plug-in electric vehicles, an average of 35 daily miles traveled, and 50% access to home charging, among other variables, as well as potential roles for vehicle-to-grid power in future scenarios. The order of the legend items matches the order of the series stacked in the chart.

Previously, the tool was limited to letting users estimate how many chargers and what kind of chargers a city, region, or state may need to support an influx of EVs. In the added online application, those same users can take it a step further to predict how that added EV charging will impact electricity demand, or load shapes, in their area at any given time and inform grid coordination for EV flexibility strategies.

“EV charging is going to look different across the country, depending on the prevalence of EVs, access to home charging, and the kind of chargers most used,” said Eric Wood, an NREL researcher who led model development. “Our expansion gives stakeholders—especially small- to medium-size electric utilities and co-ops—an easy way to analyze key factors for developing a flexible energy strategy that can respond to what’s happening on the ground.”

Tools to forecast EV loads have existed for some time, but Wood said that EVI-Pro Lite appeals to a wider audience, including planners tracking EVs' impact on utilities in many markets. The tool is a user-friendly, free online application that displays a clear graphic of daily projected electric loads from EV charging for regions across the country.

After selecting a U.S. metropolitan area and entering the number of EVs in the light-duty fleet, users can change a range of variables to see how they affect electricity demand on a typical weekday or weekend. Reducing access to home charging by half, for example, results in higher electric loads earlier in the day, although energy storage and mobile charging can help moderate peaks in some cases. That is because under such a scenario, EV owners might rely more on public or workplace charging instead of plugging in at home later in the evening or at night.

“Our goal with the lite version of EVI-Pro is to make estimating loads across thousands of scenarios fast and intuitive,” Wood said. “And if utilities or stakeholders want to take that analysis even deeper, our team at NREL can fill that gap through partnership agreements, too. The full version of EVI-Pro can be tailored to develop detailed studies for individual planners, agencies, or utilities.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

The Netherlands grid crisis exposes how rapid renewable energy growth is straining transmission capacity. Solar, wind, and electric vehicle demand are overloading networks, forcing officials to urge reduced peak-time power use and accelerate national grid modernization plans.

Main Points

The Netherlands grid crisis refers to national electricity congestion caused by surging renewable energy generation and rising consumer demand.

✅ Grid congestion from rapid solar and wind expansion

✅ Strained transmission and distribution capacity

✅ National investment in smart grid upgrades

The Dutch government is urging households to reduce electricity consumption between 16:00 and 21:00 — a signal that the country’s once-stable power grid is under serious stress. The call comes amid an accelerating shift to wind and solar power that is overwhelming transmission infrastructure and creating “grid congestion” across regions, as seen in Nordic grid constraints this year.

In a government television campaign, a narrator warns: “When everyone uses electricity at the same time, our power grid can become overloaded. That could lead to failures — so please try to use less electricity between 4 pm and 9 pm.” The plea reflects a system where supply occasionally outpaces the grid’s ability to distribute it, with some regions abroad issuing summer blackout warnings already.

According to Dutch energy firm Eneco’s CEO, Kys-Jan Lamo, the root of the problem lies in the mismatch between modern renewable generation and a grid built for centralized fossil fuel plants. He notes that 70% of Eneco’s output already comes from solar and wind, and this “grid congestion is like traffic on the power lines.” Lamo explains:

“The grid congestion is caused by too much demand in some areas of the network, or by too much supply being pushed into the grid beyond what the network can carry.”

He adds that many of the transmission lines in residential areas are narrow — a legacy of when fewer and larger power plants fed electricity through major feeder lines, underscoring grid vulnerabilities seen elsewhere today. Under the new model, renewable generation occurs everywhere: “This means that electricity is now fed into the grid even in peripheral areas with relatively fine lines — and those lines cannot always cope.”

Experts warn that resolving these issues will demand years of planning and immense investment in smarter grid infrastructure over the coming years. Damien Ernst, an electrical engineering professor at Liège University and respected voice on European grids, states that the Netherlands is experiencing a “grid crisis” brought on by “insufficient investment in distribution and transmission networks.” He emphasizes that the speed of renewable deployment has outpaced the grid’s capacity to absorb it.

Eneco operates a “virtual power plant” control system — described by Lamo as “the brain we run” — that dynamically balances supply and demand. During periods of oversupply, the system can curtail wind turbines or shut down solar panels. Conversely, during peak demand, the system can throttle back electricity provision to participating customers in exchange for lower tariffs. However, these techniques only mitigate strain — they cannot replace the need for physical upgrades or bolster resilience to extreme weather outages alone.

The bottleneck has begun limiting new connections: “Consumers often want to install heat pumps or charge electric vehicles, but they increasingly find it difficult to get the necessary network capacity,” Lamo warns. Businesses too are struggling. “Companies often want to expand operations, but cannot get additional capacity from grid operators. Even new housing developments are affected, since there’s insufficient infrastructure to connect whole communities.”

Currently, thousands of businesses are queuing for network access. TenneT, the national grid operator, estimates that 8,000 firms await initial connection approval, and another 12,000 seek to increase their capacity allocations. Stakeholders warn that unresolved congestion risks choking economic growth.

According to Kys-Jan Lamo: “Looking back, almost all of this could have been prevented.” He acknowledges that post-2015 climate commitments placed heavy emphasis on adding generation and on grid modernization costs more broadly, but “we somewhat underestimated the impact on grid capacity.”

In response, the government has introduced a national “Grid Congestion Action Plan,” aiming to accelerate approvals for infrastructure expansions and to refine regulations to promote smarter grid use. At the same time, feed-in incentives for solar power are being scaled back in some regions, and certain areas may even impose charges to integrate new solar systems into the grid.

The scale of what’s needed is vast. TenneT has proposed adding roughly 100,000 km of new power lines by 2050 and investing in doubling or tripling existing capacity in many areas. However, permit processes can take eight years before construction begins, and many projects require an additional two years to complete. As Lamo points out, “the pace of energy transition far exceeds the grid’s existing capacity — and every new connection request simply extends waiting lists.”

Unless grid expansion keeps up, and as climate pressures intensify, the very clean energy future the Netherlands is striving for may remain constrained by the physics of distribution.

Related Articles

• Electricity Forum World News

Electrified Trucking Grid Integration explores vehicle-to-grid (V2G) strategies where rolling batteries backfeed power during peak demand, optimizing charging infrastructure, time-of-use pricing, and IESO market operations for Ontario shippers like Nature Fresh Farms.

Key Points

An approach using V2G-enabled electric trucks to support the grid, cut peak costs, and add revenue streams.

✅ Models charging sites, timing, and local grid impacts.

✅ Evaluates V2G backfeed economics and IESO pricing.

✅ Uses Nature Fresh Farms data for logistics and energy.

A University of Windsor project will study whether an electrified trucking industry might not only deliver the goods, but help keep the lights on with the timely off-loading of excess electrons from their powerful batteries via vehicle-to-grid approaches now emerging.

The two-year study is being overseen by Environmental Energy Institute director Rupp Carriveau and associate professor Hanna Moah of the Cross-Border Institute in conjunction with the Leamington-based greenhouse grower Nature Fresh Farms.

“The study will look at what happens if we electrified the transport truck fleet in Ontario to different degrees, considering the power demand for truck fleets that would result,” Carriveau said.

“Where trucks would be charging and how that will affect the electricity grid grid coordination in those locations at specific times. We’ll be able to identify peak times on the demand side.

“On the other side, we have to recognize these are rolling batteries. They may be able to backfeed the grid, sell electricity back to prop the grid up in locations it wasn’t able to in the past.”

The national research organization Mathematics of International Technology and Complex Systems (Mitacs) is funding the $160,000 study, and the Independent Electricity Systems Operator, a Crown corporation responsible for operating Ontario’s electricity market, amid an electricity supply crunch that is boosting storage efforts, is also offering support for the project.

Because of the varying electricity prices in the province based on usage, peak demand and even time of year, Carriveau said there could be times where draining off excess truck battery power will be cheaper than the grid, and vehicle-to-building charging models show how those savings can be realized.

“It could offer the truck owner another revenue stream from his asset, and businesses a cheaper electricity alternative in certain circumstances,” he said.

The local greenhouse industry was a natural fit for the study, said Carriveau, based on the amount of work the university does with the sector along with the fact it is both a large consumer and producer of electricity.

The study will be based on assumptions for electric truck capacity and performance because the low number of such vehicles currently on the road, though large electric bus fleets offer operational insights.

How will an electrified trucking industry affect Ontario’s electricity grid? University of Windsor engineering professor Rupp Carriveau is part of a new study on trucks being used to help deliver electricity as well as their products around Ontario. He is shown on campus on Tuesday, July 6, 2021.

How will an electrified trucking industry affect Ontario’s electricity grid? University of Windsor engineering professor Rupp Carriveau is part of a new study on trucks being used to help deliver electricity as well as their products around Ontario. He is shown on campus on Tuesday, July 6, 2021.

Nature Fresh Farms will supply all its data on power use, logistics, utility costs and shipping schedules to determine if switching to an electrified fleet makes sense for the company.

“As an innovative company, we are always thinking, ‘What is next?’, whether its developments in product varieties, technology or sustainability,” said company CEO Peter Quiring. “Green transportation is the next big focus.

“We were given the opportunity to work closely on this project and offer our operations as a case study to see how we can find feasible alternatives, not only for Nature Fresh Farms or even for companies in agriculture, but for every industry that relies on the transportation of their goods.”

Currently, Nature Fresh Farms doesn’t have any electrified trucks. Carriveau said the second phase of the study might actually involve an electric truck in a pilot project.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

NC WARN Solar Case tests third-party solar rights as North Carolina Supreme Court reviews Utilities Commission fines over a Greensboro church's rooftop power deal, challenging Duke Energy's monopoly, onsite electricity sales, and potential rate impacts.

Key Points

A North Carolina Supreme Court test of third-party solar could weaken Duke Energy's monopoly and change utility rules.

✅ NC Supreme Court weighs Utilities Commission penalty on NC WARN

✅ Case could permit onsite third-party solar sales statewide

✅ Outcome may pressure Duke Energy's monopoly and rates

North Carolina's highest court is taking up a case that could force new competition on the state's electricity monopolies.

The state Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider the Utilities Commission's decision to fine clean-energy advocacy group NC WARN for putting solar panels on a Greensboro church's rooftop and then charging it below-market rates for power.

The commission told NC WARN that it was producing electricity illegally and fined the group $60,000. The group said it was acting privately and appealed to the high court.

If the group prevails, it could put new pressure on Duke Energy's monopoly, which has seen an oversubscribed solar solicitation in recent procurements. State regulators say a ruling for NC WARN would allow companies to install solar equipment and sell power on site, shaving away customers and forcing Duke Energy to raise rates on everyone else.

#google#

That's because if NC WARN's deal with Faith Community Church is allowed, the precedent could open the door for others to lure away from Duke Energy, as debates over how solar owners are paid continue, "the customers with the highest profit potential, such as commercial and industrial customers with large energy needs and ample rooftop space," attorney Robert Josey Jr. wrote in a court filing.

Losing those power sales would force the country's No. 2 electricity company to make it up by charging remaining customers more to cover the cost of all of its power plants, transmission lines and repair crews, a dynamic echoed in New England's grid upgrade debates as solar grows, wrote Josey, an attorney for the Public Staff, the state's official utilities consumer advocate.

The dispute is whether NC WARN is producing electricity "for the public," which would mean it's intruding on the territory of the publicly regulated monopoly utility, or whether the move was allowed because it was a private power deal with the church alone.

NC WARN installed the church's power panels in 2015 as part of what it described as a test case, amid wider debates like Nova Scotia's delayed solar charge for customers, challenging Duke Energy's monopoly position to generate and sell electricity.

North Carolina was one of nine states that as of last year explicitly disallowed residential customers from buying electricity generated by solar panels on their roof from a third party that owns the system, even as Maryland opens solar subscriptions more broadly, according to the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center. State law allows purchased or leased solar panels, but not payments simply for the power they generate.

NC WARN's goals included "reducing the effects of Duke Energy's monopoly control that has such negative impacts on power bills, clean air and water, and climate change," the church's pastor, Rev. Nelson Johnson, said in a statement the same day the clean-energy group asked state regulators to clear the plan.

Instead, the North Carolina Utilities Commission ruled the arrangement violated the state's system of legal electricity monopolies and hit the group with nearly $60,000 in fines, which would be suspended if the church's payments were refunded with interest and the solar equipment donated. The group has set aside the money and will donate the gear if it loses the Supreme Court case, NC WARN Executive Director Jim Warren said.

NC WARN's three-year agreement saw the group mount a rooftop solar array for which the church would pay about half the average retail electricity price, state officials said. The agreement states plainly that it is not a contract for the sale or lease of the $20,000 solar system, the church never owns the panels, and the low electricity price means its payback for the equipment would take 60 years, Josey wrote.

"Clearly, the only thing of value (the church) is obtaining for its payments under this agreement is the electricity created," he wrote.

In court filings, the group's attorneys have stuck to the argument that NC WARN isn't selling to the public because the deal involved a single customer only.

The deal "is not open to any other member of the public ... A private, bargained-for contract under which only one party receives electricity is not a sale of electricity 'to or for the public,' " attorney Matthew Quinn wrote to the court.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Massachusetts Energy Storage Solicitation offers grants and matching funds via MassCEC and DOER for grid-connected, behind-the-meter projects, utility partners, and innovative business models, targeting 600 MW, clean energy leadership, and ratepayer savings.

Key Points

MassCEC and DOER matching-fund program for grid-connected storage pilots, advancing innovation and ratepayer savings.

✅ $100k-$1.25M matching funds; 50% cost share required

✅ Grid-connected, utility-partnered and behind-the-meter eligible

✅ 10-15 awards; proposals due June 9; install within 18 months

Massachusetts released a much-awaited energy storage solicitation on Thursday offering up to $10 million for new projects.

Issued by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) and the Department of Energy Resources (DOER), the solicitation makes available $100,000 to $1.25 million in matching funds for each chosen project.

The solicitation springs from a state report issued last year that found Massachusetts could save electricity ratepayers $800 million by incorporating 600 MW of energy storage projects. The state plans to set a specific energy storage goal, now the subject of a separate proceeding before the DOER.

The state is offering money for projects that showcase examples of future storage deployment, help to grow the state’s energy storage economy, and contribute to the state’s clean energy innovation leadership.

MassCEC anticipates making about 10-15 awards. Applicants must supply at least 50 percent of total project cost.

The state is offering money for projects that showcase examples of future storage deployment, help to grow the state’s energy storage economy, and contribute to the state’s clean energy innovation leadership.

MassCEC anticipates making about 10-15 awards. Applicants must supply at least 50 percent of total project cost.

The state plans to allot about half of the money from the energy storage solicitation to projects that include utility partners. Both distribution scale and behind-the-meter projects, including net-zero buildings among others, will be considered, but must be grid connected.

The solicitation seeks innovative business models that showcase the commercial value of energy storage in light of the specific local energy challenges and opportunities in Massachusetts.

Projects also should demonstrate multiple benefits/value streams to ratepayers, the local utility, or wholesale market.

And finally, projects should help uncover market and regulatory issues as well as monetization and financing barriers.

The state anticipates teams forming to apply for the grants. Teams may include public and private entities and are are encouraged to include the local utility.

Proposals are due June 9. The state expects to notify winners September 8, with contracts issued within the following month. Projects must be installed within 18 months of receiving contracts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News