Manitoba Hydro hikes face opposition as hearings begin

Western Grid Integration aligns CAISO with a regional transmission operator under FERC oversight, boosting renewables, reliability, and cost savings while respecting state energy policy, emissions goals, and utility regulation across the West.

Key Points

Western Grid Integration lets CAISO operate under FERC to cut costs, boost reliability, and accelerate renewables.

✅ Lowers wholesale costs via wider dispatch and resource sharing

✅ Improves reliability with regional balancing and reserves

✅ Preserves state policy authority under FERC oversight

A strong and timely endorsement for western grid integration forcefully rebuts claims that moving from a balkanized system with 38 separate entities to a regional operation could introduce environmental problems, raise costs, or, as critics warn, export California’s energy policies to other western states, or open state energy and climate policies to challenge by federal regulators. In fact, Yale University’s Environmental Protection Clinic identifies numerous economic and environmental benefits from allowing the California Independent System Operator to become a regional grid operator.

The groundbreaking report comprehensively examines the policy and legal merits of allowing the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) to become a regional grid operator, open to any western utility or generator that wants to join, as similar market structure overhauls proceed in New England.

The Yale report identifies the increasing constraints that today’s fragmented western grid imposes on system-wide electricity costs and reliability, addresses the potential benefits of integration, and evaluates  potential legal risks for the states involved. California receives particular attention because its legislature is considering the first step in the grid integration process, which involves authorizing the CAISO to create a fully independent board, even as it examines revamping electricity rates to clean the grid (other western states are unlikely to approve joining an entity whose governance is determined solely by California’s governor and legislature, as is the case now).

Elements of the report

The analysis examined all of California’s key energy and climate policies, from its cap on carbon emissions to its renewable energy goals and its pollution standards for power plants, and concludes that none would face additional legal risks under a fully integrated western grid. The operator of such a grid would be regulated by an independent federal agency (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)—but so is the CAISO itself, now and since its inception, by virtue of its extended involvement in interstate electricity commerce throughout the West. 

And if empowered to serve the entire region, the CAISO would not interfere with the longstanding rights of California and other states to regulate their utilities’ investments or set energy and climate policies. The study points out that grid operators don’t set energy policies for the states they serve; they help those states minimize costs, enhance reliability in the wake of California blackouts across the state, and avoid unnecessary pollution.

And as to whether an integrated grid would help renewable energy or fossil fuels, the report finds that renewable resources would be the inevitable winners, thanks to their lower operating costs, although the most important winners would be western utility customers, through lower bills, expanded retail choice options, and improved reliability.

Call to action

The Yale report concludes with what amounts to a call to action for California’s legislators:

“In sum, enhanced Western grid integration in general, and the emergence of a regional system operator in particular, would not expose California’s clean energy policies to additional legal risks. Shifting to a regional grid operator would enable more efficient, affordable and reliable integration of renewable resources without increasing the legal risk to California’s clean energy policies.”

The authors of the analysis, from the Yale Law School and the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, are Juliana Brint, Josh Constanti, Franz Hochstrasser. and Lucy Kessler. They dedicated months to the project, consulted with a diverse group of reviewers, and made the trek from New Haven to Folsom, CA, to visit the California Independent System Operator and interview key staff members.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

California Ports Electric Truck Leasing accelerates zero-emission logistics, cutting diesel pollution at Los Angeles and Long Beach. A $250 million nonprofit plan funds heavy-duty EVs and charging infrastructure to improve air quality and community health.

Key Points

A nonprofit's $250M plan to lease EV trucks at LA/Long Beach ports to cut diesel emissions and improve air quality.

✅ $250M lease program for heavy-duty EVs at LA/Long Beach ports

✅ Cuts diesel emissions; improves air quality in nearby communities

✅ Requires robust charging infrastructure and OEM partnerships

In a significant move towards sustainable transportation, a prominent U.S. nonprofit has announced plans to invest $250 million in leasing electric trucks for operations at California ports. This initiative aims to reduce air pollution and promote greener logistics, responding to the urgent need for environmentally friendly solutions in the transportation sector.

Addressing Environmental Concerns

California’s ports, particularly the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, are among the busiest in the United States. However, they also contribute significantly to air pollution due to the heavy reliance on diesel trucks for cargo transport. These ports are essential for the economy, facilitating trade and commerce, but the environmental toll is considerable. Diesel emissions are linked to respiratory issues and other health problems in nearby communities, which often bear the brunt of pollution.

The nonprofit's investment in electric trucks is a critical step towards mitigating these environmental challenges. By transitioning to electric vehicles (EVs), the project aims to significantly cut emissions from port operations, contributing to California's broader goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality.

The Scale of the Initiative

This ambitious initiative involves leasing a fleet of electric trucks that will operate within the ports and surrounding areas. The $250 million investment is expected to facilitate the acquisition of hundreds of electric vehicles, which will replace conventional diesel trucks used for cargo transport. This fleet will help demonstrate the viability and effectiveness of electric trucks in heavy-duty applications, paving the way for broader adoption.

The plan includes partnerships with established electric truck manufacturers, such as the Volvo VNR Electric platform, and local logistics companies to ensure seamless integration of these vehicles into existing operations. By collaborating with industry leaders, the initiative seeks to establish a model that can be replicated in other major logistics hubs across the country.

Economic and Community Benefits

The introduction of electric trucks is expected to yield multiple benefits, not only in terms of environmental impact but also economically. As these trucks begin operations, and as other fleets adopt electric mail trucks, they will create jobs within the green technology sector, from manufacturing to maintenance and charging infrastructure development. The project is anticipated to stimulate local economies, providing new opportunities in communities that have historically been disadvantaged by pollution.

Moreover, the initiative is poised to enhance public health. By reducing diesel emissions, the nonprofit aims to improve air quality for residents living near the ports, and emerging research links EV adoption to fewer asthma-related ER visits in local communities. This could lead to decreased healthcare costs associated with pollution-related illnesses, benefiting both the community and the healthcare system.

Challenges Ahead

While the initiative is promising, challenges remain. The successful implementation of electric trucks at scale requires a robust charging infrastructure capable of supporting the significant power needs of a large fleet. Additionally, the transition from diesel to electric vehicles involves significant upfront costs, even with leasing arrangements. Ensuring that logistics companies can manage these costs effectively will be crucial for the project's success.

Furthermore, electric trucks currently face limitations in terms of range and payload capacity compared to their diesel counterparts. Continued advancements in battery technology and infrastructure development will be necessary to fully realize the potential of electric vehicles in heavy-duty applications.

The Bigger Picture

This investment in electric trucks aligns with broader national and global efforts to combat climate change. As governments and organizations commit to reducing carbon emissions, initiatives like this one represent crucial steps toward achieving sustainability goals, and ports worldwide are also piloting complementary technologies like hydrogen-powered cranes to decarbonize cargo handling.

California has set ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including a mandate for all new trucks to be zero-emission by 2045. The nonprofit’s investment not only supports these goals, amid ongoing debates over funding priorities in the state, but also serves as a pilot program that could inform future policies and investments in clean transportation.

The $250 million investment in electric trucks for California ports marks a significant milestone in the push for sustainable transportation solutions. By addressing the urgent need for cleaner logistics, this initiative stands to benefit the environment, public health, and the economy. As the project unfolds, it will be closely watched as a potential model for similar efforts across the country and beyond, with developments such as the all-electric berth at London Gateway illustrating parallel advances, highlighting the critical intersection of innovation, sustainability, and community well-being in the modern logistics landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Russian Cyberattacks on U.S. Critical Infrastructure target energy grids, nuclear plants, water systems, and aviation, DHS and FBI warn, using spear phishing, malware, and ICS/SCADA intrusion to gain footholds for potential sabotage and disruption.

Key Points

State-backed hacks targeting U.S. energy, nuclear, water and aviation via phishing and ICS access for sabotage.

✅ DHS and FBI detail multi-stage intrusion since 2016

✅ Targets include energy, nuclear, water, aviation, manufacturing

✅ TTPs: spear phishing, lateral movement, ICS reconnaissance

Russia is attacking the U.S. energy grid, with reported power plant breaches unfolding alongside attacks on nuclear facilities, water processing plants, aviation systems, and other critical infrastructure that millions of Americans rely on, according to a new joint analysis by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

In an unprecedented alert, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FBI have warned of persistent attacks by Russian government hackers on critical US government sectors, including energy, nuclear, commercial facilities, water, aviation and manufacturing.

The alert details numerous attempts extending back to March 2016 when Russian cyber operatives targeted US government and infrastructure.

The DHS and FBI said: “DHS and FBI characterise this activity as a multi-stage intrusion campaign by Russian government cyber-actors who targeted small commercial facilities’ networks, where they staged malware, conducted spear phishing and gained remote access into energy sector networks.

“After obtaining access, the Russian government cyber-actors conducted network reconnaissance, moved laterally and collected information pertaining to industrial control systems.”

The Trump administration has accused Russia of engineering a series of cyberattacks that targeted American and European nuclear power plants and water and electric systems, and could have sabotaged or shut power plants off at will.

#google#

United States officials and private security firms saw the attacks as a signal by Moscow that it could disrupt the West’s critical facilities in the event of a conflict.

They said the strikes accelerated in late 2015, at the same time the Russian interference in the American election was underway. The attackers had compromised some operators in North America and Europe by spring 2017, after President Trump was inaugurated.

In the following months, according to the DHS/FBI report, Russian hackers made their way to machines with access to utility control rooms and critical control systems at power plants that were not identified. The hackers never went so far as to sabotage or shut down the computer systems that guide the operations of the plants.

Still, new computer screenshots released by the Department of Homeland Security have made clear that Russian state hackers had the foothold they would have needed to manipulate or shut down power plants.

“We now have evidence they’re sitting on the machines, connected to industrial control infrastructure, that allow them to effectively turn the power off or effect sabotage,” said Eric Chien, a security technology director at Symantec, a digital security firm.

“From what we can see, they were there. They have the ability to shut the power off. All that’s missing is some political motivation,” Mr. Chien said.

American intelligence agencies were aware of the attacks for the past year and a half, and the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. first issued urgent warnings to utility companies in June, 2017. Both DHS/FBI have now offered new details as the Trump administration imposed sanctions against Russian individuals and organizations it accused of election meddling and “malicious cyberattacks.”

It was the first time the administration officially named Russia as the perpetrator of the assaults. And it marked the third time in recent months that the White House, departing from its usual reluctance to publicly reveal intelligence, blamed foreign government forces for attacks on infrastructure in the United States.

In December, the White House said North Korea had carried out the so-called WannaCry attack that in May paralyzed the British health system and placed ransomware in computers in schools, businesses and homes across the world. Last month, it accused Russia of being behind the NotPetya attack against Ukraine last June, the largest in a series of cyberattacks on Ukraine to date, paralyzing the country’s government agencies and financial systems.

But the penalties have been light. So far, President Trump has said little to nothing about the Russian role in those attacks.

The groups that conducted the energy attacks, which are linked to Russian intelligence agencies, appear to be different from the two hacking groups that were involved in the election interference.

That would suggest that at least three separate Russian cyberoperations were underway simultaneously. One focused on stealing documents from the Democratic National Committee and other political groups. Another, by a St. Petersburg “troll farm” known as the Internet Research Agency, used social media to sow discord and division. A third effort sought to burrow into the infrastructure of American and European nations.

For years, American intelligence officials tracked a number of Russian state-sponsored hacking units as they successfully penetrated the computer networks of critical infrastructure operators across North America and Europe, including in Ukraine.

Some of the units worked inside Russia’s Federal Security Service, the K.G.B. successor known by its Russian acronym, F.S.B.; others were embedded in the Russian military intelligence agency, known as the G.R.U. Still others were made up of Russian contractors working at the behest of Moscow.

Russian cyberattacks surged last year, starting three months after Mr. Trump took office.

American officials and private cybersecurity experts uncovered a series of Russian attacks aimed at the energy, water and aviation sectors and critical manufacturing, including nuclear plants, in the United States and Europe. In its urgent report in June, the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. notified operators about the attacks but stopped short of identifying Russia as the culprit.

By then, Russian spies had compromised the business networks of several American energy, water and nuclear plants, mapping out their corporate structures and computer networks.

They included that of the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, which runs a nuclear plant near Burlington, Kan. But in that case, and those of other nuclear operators, Russian hackers had not leapt from the company’s business networks into the nuclear plant controls.

Forensic analysis suggested that Russian spies were looking for inroads — although it was not clear whether the goal was to conduct espionage or sabotage, or to trigger an explosion of some kind.

In a report made public in October, Symantec noted that a Russian hacking unit “appears to be interested in both learning how energy facilities operate and also gaining access to operational systems themselves, to the extent that the group now potentially has the ability to sabotage or gain control of these systems should it decide to do so.”

The United States sometimes does the same thing. It bored deeply into Iran’s infrastructure before the 2015 nuclear accord, placing digital “implants” in systems that would enable it to bring down power grids, command-and-control systems and other infrastructure in case a conflict broke out. The operation was code-named “Nitro Zeus,” and its revelation made clear that getting into the critical infrastructure of adversaries is now a standard element of preparing for possible conflict.

Reconstructed screenshot fragments of a Human Machine Interface that the threat actors accessed, according to DHS

Sanctions Announced

The US treasury department has imposed sanctions on 19 Russian people and five groups, including Moscow’s intelligence services, for meddling in the US 2016 presidential election and other malicious cyberattacks.

Russia, for its part, has vowed to retaliate against the new sanctions.

The new sanctions focus on five Russian groups, including the Russian Federal Security Service, the country’s military intelligence apparatus, and the digital propaganda outfit called the Internet Research Agency, as well as 19 people, some of them named in the indictment related to election meddling released by special counsel Robert Mueller last month.

In announcing the sanctions, which will generally ban U.S. people and financial institutions from doing business with those people and groups, the Treasury Department pointed to alleged Russian election meddling, involvement in the infrastructure hacks, and the NotPetya malware, which the Treasury Department called “the most destructive and costly cyberattack in history.”

The new sanctions come amid ongoing criticism of the Trump administration’s reluctance to punish Russia for cyber and election meddling. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said that, ahead of the 2018 mid-term elections, the administration’s decision was long overdue but not enough. “Nearly all of the entities and individuals who were sanctioned today were either previously under sanction during the Obama Administration, or had already been charged with federal crimes by the Special Counsel,” Warner said.

Warning: The Russians Are Coming

In an updated warning to utility companies, DHS/FBI officials included a screenshot taken by Russian operatives that proved they could now gain access to their victims’ critical controls, prompting a renewed focus on protecting the U.S. power grid among operators.

American officials and security firms, including Symantec and CrowdStrike, believe that Russian attacks on the Ukrainian power grid in 2015 and 2016 that left more than 200,000 citizens there in the dark are an ominous sign of what the Russian cyberstrikes may portend in the United States and Europe in the event of escalating hostilities.

Private security firms have tracked the Russian government assaults on Western power and energy operators — conducted alternately by groups under the names Dragonfly campaigns alongside Energetic Bear and Berserk Bear — since 2011, when they first started targeting defense and aviation companies in the United States and Canada.

By 2013, researchers had tied the Russian hackers to hundreds of attacks on the U.S. power grid and oil and gas pipeline operators in the United States and Europe. Initially, the strikes appeared to be motivated by industrial espionage — a natural conclusion at the time, researchers said, given the importance of Russia’s oil and gas industry.

But by December 2015, the Russian hacks had taken an aggressive turn. The attacks were no longer aimed at intelligence gathering, but at potentially sabotaging or shutting down plant operations.

At Symantec, researchers discovered that Russian hackers had begun taking screenshots of the machinery used in energy and nuclear plants, and stealing detailed descriptions of how they operated — suggesting they were conducting reconnaissance for a future attack.

Eventhough the US government enacted sanctions, cybersecurity experts are still questioning where the Russian attacks could lead, given that the United States was sure to respond in kind.

“Russia certainly has the technical capability to do damage, as it demonstrated in the Ukraine,” said Eric Cornelius, a cybersecurity expert at Cylance, a private security firm, who previously assessed critical infrastructure threats for the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration.

“It is unclear what their perceived benefit would be from causing damage on U.S. soil, especially given the retaliation it would provoke,” Mr. Cornelius said.

Though a major step toward deterrence, publicly naming countries accused of cyberattacks still is unlikely to shame them into stopping. The United States is struggling to come up with proportionate responses to the wide variety of cyberespionage, vandalism and outright attacks.

Lt. Gen. Paul Nakasone, who has been nominated as director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command, the military’s cyberunit, said during his recent Senate confirmation hearing, that countries attacking the United States so far have little to worry about.

“I would say right now they do not think much will happen to them,” General Nakasone said. He later added, “They don’t fear us.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

CAISO Net Negative Emissions signal moments when greenhouse gas intensity of serving ISO demand drops below zero, driven by high renewable generation, low load, strong solar exports, and imports accounting in the California grid.

Key Points

Moments when CAISO's CO2 to serve demand is below zero, driven by renewables, exports, and import accounting.

✅ Calculated using imports and exports to serve ISO demand

✅ Occur during high solar output, low weekend load

✅ Coincide with curtailment and record renewable penetration

We’re a long way from the land of milk and honey, but on Easter Sunday – for about an hour – we got a taste.

On Sunday, at 1:55 PM Pacific Time the California Independent Systems Operator (CAISO) reported that greenhouse gas emissions necessary to serve its demand (~80% of California’s electricity demand on an annual basis), was measured at a rate -16 metric tons of CO2 per hour. Five minutes later, the value was -2 mTCO2/h, before it crept back up to 40 mTCO2/h at 2:05 PM PST. At 2:10 PST though it fell back to -86 mTCO2/h and stayed negative until 3:05 PM PST, even as global CO2 emissions flatlined in 2019 according to the IEA.

This information was brought to the attention of pv magazine via tweet from eagle eye Jon Pa after CAISO’s site first noted the negative values:

The region was still generating CO2 though, as natural gas, biogas, biomass, geothermal and even coal plants were running and pumping out emissions, even as potent greenhouse gases declined in the US under control efforts. CAISO’s Greenhouse Gas Emission Tracking Methodology, December 28, 2016 (pdf) notes the below calculations to create the value what it terms, “Total GHG emissions to serve ISO demand”:

Of importance to note is that to get to the net negative value, CAISO considered all electricity imports and exports, a reminder that climate policy shapes grid operations across North America. And as can be noted in the image below the CO2 intensity of imports during the day rapidly declined as the sun came up, first going negative around 9:05 AM PST, and mostly staying so until just before 6 PM PST.

During this same weekend, other records were noted (reiterating that we’re in record setting season and as the state pursues its 100% carbon-free mandate now in law) such as a new electricity export record of greater than 2 GW and total renewable electricity as part of total demand at greater than 70%.

At the peak negative moment of 2:15 PM PST, -112 mTCO2/h seen below, the total amount of clean instantaneous generation being used in the power grid region was 17 GW, a far cry from heat-driven reliability strains like rolling blackout warnings that arise during extreme demand, with renewables giving 76% of the total, hydro 14%, nuclear 13% and imports of -12% countering the CO2 coming from just over 1.4 GW of gas generation.

Also of importance are a few layers of nuance in the electricity demand charts. First off we’re in the shoulder seasons  of California – nice cool weather before the warmth of summer drives air conditioning demand. Additional the weekend electricity demand is always lower, as well, Easter Sunday might have had an affect, whereas in colder regions Calgary’s electricity use can soar during frigid snaps.

Lastly to note was the amount of electricity from solar and wind generation being curtailed. And while the Sunday numbers weren’t available yet, the below image noted Saturday with 10 GWh in total being curtailed (pdf) – peaking at over 3.2 GW of instantaneous mostly solar power even as solar is now the cheapest electricity according to the IEA, in the hours of 2 and 3 PM PST. On an annualized basis, less than 2% of total potential solar electricity was curtailed in 2018.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Maryland Community Solar Program enables renters and condo residents to subscribe to offsite solar, earn utility bill discounts, and support projects across BGE, Pepco, Delmarva, and Potomac Edison territories, with low to moderate income participation.

Key Points

A pilot allowing residents to subscribe to offsite solar and get bill credits and savings, regardless of home ownership.

✅ 5-10 percent discounts on standard utility rates

✅ Available in BGE, Pepco, Delmarva, Potomac Edison areas

✅ Includes low and moderate income subscriber carve-outs

Maryland has launched a pilot program that will allow anyone to power their home with solar panels — even if they are renters or condo-dwellers, or live in the shade of trees.

Solar developers are looking for hundreds of residents to subscribe to six power projects planned across the state, including recently announced sites in Owings Mills and Westminster. Their offers include discounts on standard electric rates.

The developers need a critical mass of customers who are willing to buy the projects’ electricity before they can move forward with plans to install solar panels on about 80 acres. Under state rules, the customer base must include low- and moderate-income residents, many of whom face energy insecurity challenges.

The idea of the community solar program is to tap into the pool of residential customers who don’t want to get their energy from fossil fuels but currently have no way to switch to a cleaner alternative.

That could significantly expand demand for solar projects, said Gary Skulnik, a longtime Maryland solar entrepreneur.

Skulnik is now CEO of Neighborhood Sun, a company recruiting customers for the six projects.

“You’re signing up for a project that won’t exist unless we get enough subscribers,” Skulnik said. “You’re actually getting a new project built.”

It could also stoke simmering conflicts over what sort of land is appropriate for solar development.

The General Assembly authorized the community solar pilot program in 2015. But not-in-my-backyard opposition and concerns about the loss of agricultural land have slowed progress.

Community solar could force more communities to confront those sorts of clashes — and to consider more carefully where solar farms belong.

“We are going to see a lot more solar development in the state,” said Megan Billingsley, assistant director of the Valleys Planning Council in Baltimore County. “One of the things we haven’t seen is any direction or thoughtful planning on where we want to see solar development.”

The General Assembly authorized about 200 megawatts in community solar projects — enough to power about 40,000 households — over three years.

Customers can sign up for projects built within the territory of their electric utility. About half of that solar energy load has been allotted for the region served by Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.

By subscribing to a community solar project, customers won’t actually be getting their electricity from its photovoltaic panels. But their payments will help finance it and, in some cases, complementary battery storage solutions as well.

The Public Service Commission has approved six projects so far: Two in BGE territory, in Owings Mills and near Westminster; one in Pepco territory, in Prince George’s County; two in Delmarva Power and Light territory, in Caroline and Worcester counties; and one in Potomac Edison territory, in Washington County where planning officials have developed proposed recommendations.

More projects are expected to win approval in the next two years.

But none of them can be built unless they catch on with electricity customers. The developers are looking for 2,600 customers statewide.

Skulnik would not say how many customers an individual project needs to get the green light. But he said that the Prince George’s proposal, a 25-acre array atop a Fort Washington landfill is the closest, with about 100 subscribers so far.

The terms of subscription vary by project, but discounts range from 5 percent to 10 percent off utility rates. Customers are asked to commit to the projects for as long as 25 years. (They can break the contracts with advance notice, or if they move to a different utility service area.)

Maryland joins more than a dozen states in advancing community solar projects, as scientists work to improve solar and wind power technology.

Corey Ramsden is an executive for Solar United Neighbors, a nonprofit that promotes the solar industry in eight states and the District of Columbia.

He said potential customers are often confused by the mechanics of subscribing to community solar, or hesitant to commit for years or even decades. The industry is working to answer questions and get people more comfortable with the idea, he said.

But it has been a challenge across the country, including debates over New England grid upgrades, and in Maryland. Advocates for solar say there is broad support for renewable energy generation. The state has set goals to increase green energy use and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Still, many Marylanders don’t welcome the reality when a project attempts to move in.

Rural land is often the most desirable for solar developers, because it requires the least effort to prepare for an array of panels. But community groups in those areas have asked whether land historically used for farming is right for a more industrial use.

“People are very much in favor of going for a lot more renewables, for whatever reason,” said Dru Schmidt-Perkins, the former president of the land conservation group 1,000 Friends of Maryland. “That support comes to a screeching halt when land that is perceived to be valuable for other things, whether a historic view­shed or farming, suddenly becomes a target of a location for this new project.”

Such concerns have at least temporarily stalled the momentum for solar across the state. Anne Arundel County had at least five small community solar projects in the pipeline in December when officials decided to pause development for eight months. Baltimore County officials imposed a four-month moratorium on solar development before passing an ordinance last year to limit the size and number of solar farms.

Billingsley said the Valley Plannings Council, which advocates for historic and rural areas in western Baltimore County, is frustrated that there hasn’t been more discussion about which areas the county should target for solar development — and which it shouldn’t.

She said she fears that pressure to expand solar farms across rural lands is only going to grow as community solar projects launch, and as lawmakers in Annapolis talk about more policies to promote investment in renewable energy.

Schmidt-Perkins called community solar “an amazing program” for those who would install solar panels on their roofs if they could. But she said its launch heightens the importance of discussions about a broader solar strategy.

“Most communities are caught a little flat-footed on this and are somewhat at the mercy of an industry that’s chomping at the bit,” she said. “It’s time for Maryland to say, ‘Okay, let’s come up with our plan so that we know how much solar can we really generate in this state on lands that are not conflict-based.’”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

FPL Hurricane Surcharge explained: restoration costs, Florida PSC review, rate impacts, grid resilience, and transparency after Hurricanes Debby and Helene as FPL funds infrastructure hardening and rapid storm recovery across Florida.

Key Points

A fee by Florida Power & Light to recoup hurricane restoration costs, under Florida PSC review for consumer fairness.

✅ Funds Debby and Helene restoration, materials, and crews

✅ Reviewed by Florida PSC for consumer protection and fairness

✅ Raises questions on grid resilience, transparency, and renewables

In the aftermath of recent hurricanes, Florida Power & Light (FPL) is under scrutiny as it implements a rate surcharge, alongside proposed rate hikes that span multiple years, to help cover the costs of restoration and recovery efforts. The surcharges, attributed to Hurricanes Debby and Helene, have stirred significant debate among consumers and state regulators, highlighting the ongoing challenges of hurricane preparedness and response in the Sunshine State.

Hurricanes are a regular threat in Florida, and FPL, as the state's largest utility provider, plays a critical role in restoring power and services after such events. However, the financial implications of these natural disasters often leave residents questioning the fairness and necessity of additional charges on their monthly bills. The newly proposed surcharge, which is expected to affect millions of customers, has ignited discussions about the adequacy of the company’s infrastructure investments and its responsibility in disaster recovery.

FPL’s decision to implement a surcharge comes as the company faces rising operational costs due to extensive damage caused by the hurricanes. Restoration efforts are not only labor-intensive but also require significant investment in materials and equipment to restore power swiftly and efficiently. With the added pressures of increased demand for electricity during peak hurricane seasons, utilities like FPL must navigate complex financial landscapes, similar to Snohomish PUD's weather-related rate hikes seen in other regions, while ensuring reliable service.

Consumer advocacy groups have raised concerns over the timing and justification for the surcharge. Many argue that frequent rate increases following natural disasters can strain already financially burdened households, echoing pandemic-related shutoff concerns raised during COVID that heightened energy insecurity. Florida residents are already facing inflationary pressures and rising living costs, making additional surcharges particularly difficult for many to absorb. Critics assert that utility companies should prioritize transparency and accountability, especially when it comes to costs incurred during emergencies.

The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC), which regulates utility rates and services, even as California regulators face calls for action amid soaring bills elsewhere, is tasked with reviewing the surcharge proposal. The commission’s role is crucial in determining whether the surcharge is justified and in line with the interests of consumers. As part of this process, stakeholders—including FPL, consumer advocacy groups, and the general public—will have the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns. This input is essential in ensuring that the commission makes an informed decision that balances the utility’s financial needs with consumer protection.

In recent years, FPL has invested heavily in strengthening its infrastructure to better withstand hurricane impacts. These investments include hardening power lines, enhancing grid resilience, and implementing advanced technologies for quicker recovery, with public outage prevention tips also promoted to enhance preparedness. However, as storms become increasingly severe due to climate change, the question arises: are these measures sufficient? Critics argue that more proactive measures are needed to mitigate the impacts of future storms and reduce the reliance on post-disaster rate increases.

Additionally, the conversation around climate resilience is becoming increasingly prominent in discussions about energy policy in Florida. As extreme weather events grow more common, utilities are under pressure to innovate and adapt their systems. Some experts suggest that FPL and other utilities should explore alternative strategies, such as investing in decentralized energy resources like solar and battery storage, even as Florida declined federal solar incentives that could accelerate adoption, which could provide more reliable service during outages and reduce the overall strain on the grid.

The issue of rate surcharges also highlights a broader conversation about the energy landscape in Florida. With a growing emphasis on renewable energy and sustainability, consumers are becoming more aware of the environmental impacts of their energy choices, and some recall a one-time Gulf Power bill decrease as an example of short-term relief. This shift in consumer awareness may push utilities like FPL to reevaluate their business models and explore more sustainable practices that align with the public’s evolving expectations.

As FPL navigates the complexities of hurricane recovery and financial sustainability, the impending surcharge serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by utility providers in a climate-volatile world. While the need for recovery funding is undeniable, the manner in which it is implemented and communicated will be crucial in maintaining public trust and ensuring fair treatment of consumers. As discussions unfold in the coming weeks, all eyes will be on the PSC’s decision and FPL’s approach to balancing recovery efforts with consumer affordability.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News