Ireland and France will connect their electricity grids - here's how

PG&E Wildfire Blackouts highlight California power shutoffs as high winds and suspected transmission line faults trigger evacuations, CPUC investigations, and grid safety reviews, with utilities weighing risk, compliance, and resilience during Santa Ana conditions.

Key Points

PG&E Wildfire Blackouts are outages during wind-driven fire threats linked to power lines, spurring CPUC investigations.

✅ Wind and line faults suspected amid Lafayette evacuations

✅ CPUC to probe shutoffs, notifications, and compliance

✅ Utilities plan more outages as Santa Ana winds return

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. power lines may have started two wildfires over the weekend in the San Francisco Bay Area, the utility said Monday, even though widespread blackouts were in place to prevent downed lines from starting fires during dangerously windy weather.

The fires described in PG&E reports to state regulators match blazes that destroyed a tennis club and forced evacuations in Lafayette, about 20 miles (32 kilometres) east of San Francisco.

The fires began in a section of town where PG&E had opted to keep the lights on. The sites were not designated as a high fire risk, the company said.

Powerful winds were driving multiple fires across California and forcing power shut-offs intended to prevent blazes, even as electricity prices are soaring across the state as well.

More than 900,000 power customers -- an estimated 2.5 million people -- were in the dark at the height of the latest planned blackout, nearly all of them in PG&E's territory in Northern and central California. By Monday evening a little less than half of those had their service back. But some 1.5 million people in 29 counties will be hit with more shut-offs starting Tuesday because another round of strong winds is expected, a reminder of grid stress during heat waves that test capacity, the utility said.

Southern California Edison had cut off power to 25,000 customers and warned that it was considering disconnecting about 350,000 more as power supply lapses and Santa Ana winds return midweek.

PG&E is under severe financial pressure after its equipment was blamed for a series of destructive wildfires and its 2018 Camp Fire guilty plea compounded liabilities during the past three years. Its stock dropped 24% Monday to close at $3.80 and was down more than 50% since Thursday.

The company reported last week that a transmission tower may have caused a Sonoma County fire that has forced 156,000 people to evacuate.

PG&E told the California Public Utilities Commission that a worker responded to a fire in Lafayette late Sunday afternoon and was told firefighters believed contact between a power line and a communication line may have caused it.

A worker went to another fire about an hour later and saw a fallen pole and transformer. Contra Costa Fire Department personnel on site told the worker they were looking at the transformer as a potential ignition source, a company official wrote.

Separately, the company told regulators that it had failed to notify 23,000 customers, including 500 with medical conditions, before shutting off their power earlier this month during windy weather.

Before a planned blackout, power companies are required to notify customers and take extra care to get in touch with those with medical problems who may not be able to handle extended periods without air conditioning or may need power to run medical devices.

PG&E said some customers had no contact information on file. Others were incorrectly thought to be getting electricity.

After that outage, workers discovered 43 cases of wind-related damage to power lines, transformers and other equipment.

Jennifer Robison, a PG&E spokeswoman, said the company is working with independent living centres to determine how best to serve people with disabilities.

The company faced a growing backlash from regulators and lawmakers, and a judge's order on wildfire risk spending added pressure as well.

U.S. Rep. Josh Harder, a Democrat from Modesto, said he plans to introduce legislation that would raise PG&E's taxes if it pays bonuses to executives while engaging in blackouts.

The Public Utilities Commission plans to open a formal investigation into the blackouts and the broader climate policy debate surrounding reliability within the next month, allowing regulators to gather evidence and question utility officials. If rules are found to be broken, they can impose fines up to $100,000 per violation per day, said Terrie Prosper, a spokeswoman for the commission.

The commission said Monday it also plans to review the rules governing blackouts, will look to prevent utilities from charging customers when the power is off and will convene experts to find grid improvements that might lessen blackouts during next year's fire season, as debates over rate stability in 2025 continue across PG&E's service area.

The state can't continue experiencing such widespread blackouts, "nor should Californians be subject to the poor execution that PG&E in particular has exhibited," Marybel Batjer, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, said in a statement.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Urban Piezoelectric Energy Textiles capture wind-driven motion on tunnels, bridges, and facades, enabling renewable microgeneration for smart cities with decentralized power, resilient infrastructure, and flexible lamellae sheets that harvest airflow vibrations.

Key Points

Flexible piezoelectric sheets that convert urban wind and vibration into electricity on tunnels, bridges, and facades.

✅ Installed on London Crossrail to test airflow energy capture

✅ Flexible lamellae panels retrofit tunnels, bridges, facades

✅ Supports decentralized, resilient urban microgrids

Charlotte Slingsby and her startup Moya Power are researching piezo-electric textiles that gain energy from movement, similar to advances like a carbon nanotube energy harvester being explored by materials researchers. It seems logical that Slingsby originally came from a city with a reputation for being windy: “In Cape Town, wind is an energy source that you cannot ignore,” says the 27-year-old, who now lives in London.

Thanks to her home city, she also knows about power failures. That’s why she came up with the idea of not only harnessing wind as an alternative energy source by setting up wind farms in the countryside or at sea, but also for capturing it in cities using existing infrastructure.

The problem

The United Nations estimates that by 2050, two thirds of the world’s population will live in cities. As a result, the demand for energy in urban areas will increase dramatically, spurring interest in nighttime renewable technology that can operate when solar and wind are variable. Can the old infrastructure grow fast enough to meet demand? How might we decentralise power generation, moving it closer to the residents who need it?

For a pilot project, she has already installed grids of lamellae-covered plastic sheets in tunnels on London Crossrail routes; the draft in the tube causes the protrusions to flutter, which then generates electricity.

“If we all live in cities that need electricity, we need to look for new, creative ways to generate it, including nighttime solar cells that harvest radiative cooling,” says Slingsby, who studied design and engineering at Imperial College and the Royal College of Art. “I wanted to create something that works in different situations and that can be flexibly adapted, whether you live in an urban hut or a high-rise.”

The yield is low compared to traditional wind power plants and is not able to power whole cities, but Slingsby sees Moya Power as just a single element in a mixture of urban energy sources, alongside approaches like gravity power that aid grid decarbonization.

In the future, Slingsby’s invention could hang on skyscrapers, in tunnels or on bridges – capturing power in the windiest parts of the city, alongside emerging air-powered generators that draw energy from humidity. The grey concrete of tunnels and urban railway cuttings could become our cities’ most visually appealing surfaces...

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

FERC Transmission Rule accelerates grid modernization and interregional high-voltage lines, enabling renewable energy integration, load balancing, and reliability to advance net-zero goals while strengthening resilience, capacity expansion, and decarbonization across U.S. regional transmission organizations.

Key Points

A federal policy mandating interregional grid planning and cost sharing to expand high-voltage lines for renewables.

✅ Expands interregional high-voltage transmission capacity

✅ Improves reliability, resilience, and load balancing

✅ Aligns cost allocation and long-term planning for renewables

On May 13th, 2024, the US took a monumental step towards its clean energy goals. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a long-awaited rule designed to significantly expand the transmission of renewable energy across the nation's power grid, a US grid overhaul that many advocates say was overdue. This decision aligns with President Biden's ambitious plan to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, with renewable energy playing a central role.

The new rule tackles a critical bottleneck hindering the widespread adoption of renewables – transmission infrastructure. Unlike traditional power plants like coal or natural gas that run constantly, solar and wind power generation fluctuates with weather conditions. This variability poses a challenge for the existing grid, which is not designed to efficiently handle large-scale integration of these intermittent sources, helping explain why the grid isn't 100% renewable today.

The FERC rule aims to address this by promoting the construction of new, high-voltage transmission lines, particularly those connecting different regions, where grid limitations in the Pacific Northwest have highlighted the need for better interregional transfers. This improved connectivity would allow for a more strategic distribution of renewable energy. Imagine solar energy harnessed in the sun-drenched Southwest being transmitted eastward to meet peak demand during hot summer days on the Atlantic Coast.

The benefits of this expanded transmission network are multifaceted. First, it unlocks the full potential of renewable resources by allowing for their efficient utilization across the country, a trend consistent with wind and solar surpassing coal in U.S. generation. Abundant wind power in the Midwest could be utilized on the West Coast, while surplus solar energy from the South could supplement demand in the Northeast.

Second, a more robust grid with a higher capacity for renewables reduces reliance on fossil fuel-based power plants and complements other ways to meet decarbonization goals across sectors. This translates to cleaner air and a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to the fight against climate change.

Third, a modernized grid with improved long-distance transmission bolsters the nation's energy security. Extreme weather events, a growing concern due to climate change, can disrupt energy production in specific regions. This interconnected grid would provide a buffer, ensuring a more reliable and resilient power supply and helping put regions on the road to 100% renewables even during adverse weather conditions.

The FERC's decision is a win for environmental groups and the renewable energy industry. They see it as a critical step towards a cleaner energy future and a significant driver of job creation in the construction and maintenance of new transmission lines. However, concerns have been raised by some stakeholders, particularly investor-owned utilities. They worry about the potential cost burden associated with building these expansive new lines, and recent reports of stalled grid spending underscore those concerns and the need for efficient cost allocation mechanisms. Striking a balance between efficiency, affordability, and environmental responsibility will be crucial for the successful implementation of this policy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Texas wholesale electricity price spike disrupts ERCOT markets as Griddy and other retail energy providers face surge pricing; customers confront spot market exposure, fixed-rate plan switching, demand response appeals, and deep-freeze grid constraints across Texas.

Key Points

An extreme ERCOT market surge sending real-time rates to caps, exposing Griddy users and driving provider-switch pleas.

✅ Wholesale index plans pass through $9,000/MWh scarcity pricing.

✅ Retailers urge switching; some halt enrollments amid volatility.

✅ Demand response incentives and conservation pleas reduce load.

Some retail power companies in Texas are making an unusual plea to their customers amid a winter storm that has sent electricity prices skyrocketing: Please, leave us.

Power supplier, Griddy, told all 29,000 of its customers that they should switch to another provider as spot electricity prices soared to as high as $9,000 a megawatt-hour. Griddy’s customers are fully exposed to the real-time swings in wholesale power markets, so those who don’t leave soon will face extraordinarily high electricity bills.

“We made the unprecedented decision to tell our customers — whom we worked really hard to get — that they are better off in the near term with another provider,” said Michael Fallquist, chief executive officer of Griddy. “We want what’s right by our consumers, so we are encouraging them to leave. We believe that transparency and that honesty will bring them back” once prices return to normal.

Texas is home to the most competitive electricity market in America. Homeowners and businesses shopping for electricity churn power providers there like credit cards. In the face of such cutthroat competition, retail power providers in the region have grown accustomed to offering new customers incredibly low rates, incentives and, at least in Griddy’s case, unusual plans that allow customers to pay wholesale power prices as opposed to fixed ones.

The ruthless nature of the business has power traders speculating over which firms might have been caught short this week in the most dramatic run-up in spot power prices they’ve ever seen, and even talk of a market bailout has surfaced.

Not all companies are asking customers to leave. Others are just pleading for them to cut back to reduce blackout risks during extreme weather.

Pulse Power, based in The Woodlands, Texas, is offering customers a chance to win a Tesla Model 3, or free electricity for up to a year if they reduce their power usage by 10% in the coming days. Austin-based Bulb is offering $2 per kilowatts-hour, up to $200, for any energy customers save.

Griddy, however, is in a different position. Its service is simple — and controversial. Members pay a $9.99 monthly fee and then pay the cost of spot power traded on Texas’s power grid based on the time of day they use it. Earlier this month, that meant customers were saving money — and at times even getting paid — to use electricity at night. But in recent days, the cost of their power has soared from about 5 to 6 cents a kilowatt-hour to $1 or more. That’s when Fallquist knew it was time to urge his customers to leave.

“I can tell you it was probably one of the hardest decisions we’ve ever made,” he said. “Nobody ever wants to see customers go.”

Griddy isn’t the only one out there actively encouraging its customers to leave. People were posting similar pleas on Twitter over the holiday weekend from other Texas utilities and retail power providers offering everything from $100 rebates to waived cancellation fees as incentives to switch.

Customers may not even be able to switch. Rizwan Nabi, president of energy consultancy Riz Energy in Houston, said several power providers in Texas have told him they aren’t accepting new customers due to this week’s volatile prices, while grid improvements are debated statewide.

Hector Torres, an energy trader in Texas, who is a Griddy customer himself, said he tried to switch services over the long weekend but couldn’t find a company willing to take him until Wednesday, when the weather is forecast to turn warmer.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electricity Market Competition drives lower wholesale prices, stable retail rates, better grid reliability, and faster emissions cuts as deregulation and renewables adoption pressure utilities, improve efficiency, and enhance consumer choice in power markets.

Key Points

Electricity market competition opens supply to rivals, lowering prices, improving reliability, and reducing emissions.

✅ Wholesale prices fell faster in competitive markets

✅ Retail rates rose less than in monopoly states

✅ Fewer outages, shorter durations, improved reliability

By Bernard L. Weinstein

Electricity used to be boring.  Public utilities that provided power to homes and businesses were regulated monopolies and, by law, guaranteed a fixed rate-of-return on their generation, transmission, and distribution assets. Prices per kilowatt-hour were set by utility commissions after lengthy testimony from power companies, wanting higher rates, and consumer groups, wanting lower rates.

About 25 years ago, the electricity landscape started to change as economists and others argued that competition could lead to lower prices and stronger grid reliability. Opponents of competition argued that consumers weren’t knowledgeable enough about power markets to make intelligent choices in a competitive pricing environment. Nonetheless, today 20 states have total or partial competition for electricity, allowing independent power generators to compete in wholesale markets and retail electric providers (REPs) to compete for end-use customers, a dynamic echoed by the Alberta electricity market across North America. (Transmission, in all states, remains a regulated natural monopoly).

A recent study by the non-partisan Pacific Research Institute (PRI) provides compelling evidence that competition in power markets has been a boon for consumers. Using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), PRI’s researchers found that wholesale electricity prices in competitive markets have been generally declining or flat, prompting discussions of free electricity business models, over the last five years. For example, compared to 2015, wholesale power prices in New England have dropped more than 44 percent, those in most Mid-Atlantic States have fallen nearly 42 percent, and in New York City they’ve declined by nearly 45 percent. Wholesale power costs have also declined in monopoly states, but at a considerably slower rate.

As for end-users, states that have competitive retail electricity markets have seen smaller price increases, as consumers can shop for electricity in Texas more cheaply than in monopoly states. Again, using EIA data, PRI found that in 14 competitive jurisdictions, retail prices essentially remained flat between 2008 and 2020. By contrast, retail prices jumped an average of 21 percent in monopoly states.  The ten states with the largest retail price increases were all monopoly-based frameworks. A 2017 report from the Retail Energy Supply Association found customers in states that still have monopoly utilities saw their average energy prices increase nearly 19 percent from 2008 to 2017 while prices fell 7 percent in competitive markets over the same period.

The PRI study also observed that competition has improved grid reliability, the recent power disruptions in California and Texas, alongside disruptions in coal and nuclear sectors across the U.S., notwithstanding. Looking at two common measures of grid resiliency, PRI’s analysis found that power interruptions were 10.4 percent lower in competitive states while the duration of outages was 6.5 percent lower.

Citing data from the EIA between 2008 and 2018, PRI reports that greenhouse gas emissions in competitive states declined on average 12.1 percent compared to 7.3 percent in monopoly states. This result is not surprising, and debates over whether Israeli power supply competition can bring cheaper electricity mirror these dynamics.  In a competitive wholesale market, independent power producers have an incentive to seek out lower-cost options, including subsidized renewables like wind and solar. By contrast, generators in monopoly markets have no such incentive as they can pass on higher costs to end-users. Perhaps the most telling case is in the monopoly state of Georgia where the cost to build nuclear Plant Vogtle has doubled from its original estimate of $14 billion 12 years ago. Overruns are estimated to cost Georgia ratepayers an average of $854, and there is no definite date for this facility to come on line. This type of mismanagement doesn’t occur in competitive markets.

Unfortunately, some critics are attempting to halt the momentum for electricity competition and have pointed to last winter’s “deep freeze” in Texas that left several million customers without power for up to a week. But this example is misplaced. Power outages in February were the result of unprecedented and severe weather conditions affecting electricity generation and fuel supply, and numerous proposals to improve Texas grid reliability have focused on weatherization and fuel resilience; the state simply did not have enough access to natural gas and wind generation to meet demand. Competitive power markets were not a factor.

The benefits of wholesale and retail competition in power markets are incontrovertible. Evidence shows that households and businesses in competitive states are paying less for electricity while grid reliability has improved. The facts also suggest that wholesale and retail competition can lead to faster reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In short, competition in power markets is good for consumers and good for the environment.

Bernard L. Weinstein is emeritus professor of applied economics at the University of North Texas, former associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, and a fellow of Goodenough College, London. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News