Massachusetts stirs controversy with solar demand charge, TOU pricing cut

Noncarbon Electricity Investment Strategy helps utilities hedge policy uncertainty, carbon tax risks, and emissions limits by scaling wind, solar, and CCS, avoiding stranded assets while balancing costs, reliability, and climate policy over decades.

Key Points

A strategy for utilities to invest 20-30 percent of capacity in low carbon sources to hedge emissions and carbon risks.

✅ Hedges future carbon tax and emissions limits

✅ Targets 20-30 percent of new generation from clean sources

✅ Reduces stranded asset risk and builds renewables capacity

When utility executives make decisions about building new power plants, a lot rides on their choices. Depending on their size and type, new generating facilities cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. They typically will run for 40 or more years — 10 U.S. presidential terms. Much can change during that time.

Today one of the biggest dilemmas that regulators and electricity industry planners face is predicting how strict future limits on greenhouse gas emissions will be. Future policies will affect the profitability of today’s investments. For example, if the United States adopts a carbon tax 10 years from now, it could make power plants that burn fossil fuels less profitable, or even insolvent.

These investment choices also affect consumers. In South Carolina, utilities were allowed to charge their customers higher rates to cover construction costs for two new nuclear reactors, which have now been abandoned because of construction delays and weak electricity demand. Looking forward, if utilities are reliant on coal plants instead of solar and wind, it will be much harder and more expensive for them to meet future emissions targets, even as New Zealand's electrification push accelerates abroad. They will pass the costs of complying with these targets on to customers in the form of higher electricity prices.

With so much uncertainty about future policy, how much should we be investing in noncarbon electricity generation in the next decade? In a recent study, we proposed optimal near-term electricity investment strategies to hedge against risks and manage inherent uncertainties about the future.

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, 20 to 30 percent of new generation in the coming decade should be from noncarbon sources such as wind and solar energy across markets. For most U.S. electricity providers, this strategy would mean increasing their investments in noncarbon power sources, regardless of the current administration’s position on climate change.

Many noncarbon electricity sources — including wind, solar, nuclear power and coal or natural gas with carbon capture and storage — are more expensive than conventional coal and natural gas plants. Even wind power, which is often mentioned as competitive, is actually more costly when accounting for costs such as backup generation and energy storage to ensure that power is available when wind output is low.

Over the past decade, federal tax incentives and state policies designed to promote clean electricity sources spurred many utilities to invest in noncarbon sources. Now the Trump administration is shifting federal policy back toward promoting fossil fuels. But it can still make economic sense for power companies to invest in more expensive noncarbon technologies if we consider the potential impact of future policies.

How much should companies invest to hedge against the possibility of future greenhouse gas limits? On one hand, if they invest too much in noncarbon generation and the federal government adopts only weak climate policies throughout the investment period, utilities will overspend on expensive energy sources.

On the other hand, if they invest too little in noncarbon generation and future administrations adopt stringent emissions targets, utilities will have to replace high-carbon energy sources with cleaner substitutes, which could be extremely costly.

Economic modeling with uncertainty

We conducted a quantitative analysis to determine how to balance these two concerns and find an optimal investment strategy given uncertainty about future emissions limits. This is a core choice that power companies have to make when they decide what kinds of plants to build.

First we developed a computational model that represents the sectors of the U.S. economy, including electric power. Then we embedded it within a computer program that evaluates decisions in the electric power sector under policy uncertainty.

The model explores different electric power investment decisions under a wide range of future emissions limits with different probabilities of being implemented. For each decision/policy combination, it computes and compares economy-wide costs over two investment periods extending from 2015 to 2030.

We looked at costs across the economy because emissions policies impose costs on consumers and producers as well as power companies. For example, they may lead to higher electricity, fuel or product prices. By seeking to minimize economy-wide costs, our model identifies the investment decision that produces the greatest overall benefits to society.

More investments in clean generation make economic sense

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, the optimal investment strategy for the coming decade is for 20 to 30 percent of new generation to be from noncarbon sources. Our model identified this as the best level because it best positions the United States to meet a wide range of possible future policies at a low cost to the economy.

From 2005-2015, we calculated that about 19 percent of the new generation that came online was from noncarbon sources. Our findings indicate that power companies should put a larger share of their money into noncarbon investments in the coming decade.

While increasing noncarbon investments from a 19 percent share to a 20 to 30 percent share of new generation may seem like a modest change, it actually requires a considerable increase in noncarbon investment dollars. This is especially true since power companies will need to replace dozens of aging coal-fired power plants that are expected to be retired.

In general, society will bear greater costs if power companies underinvest in noncarbon technologies than if they overinvest. If utilities build too much noncarbon generation but end up not needing it to meet emissions limits, they can and will still use it fully. Sunshine and wind are free, so generators can produce electricity from these sources with low operating costs.

In contrast, if the United States adopts strict emissions limits within a decade or two, they could prevent carbon-intensive generation built today from being used. Those plants would become “stranded assets” — investments that are obsolete far earlier than expected, and are a drain on the economy.

Investing early in noncarbon technologies has another benefit: It helps develop the capacity and infrastructure needed to quickly expand noncarbon generation. This would allow energy companies to comply with future emissions policies at lower costs.

Seeing beyond one president

The Trump administration is working to roll back Obama-era climate policies such as the Clean Power Plan, and to implement policies that favor fossil generation. But these initiatives should alter the optimal strategy that we have proposed for power companies only if corporate leaders expect Trump’s policies to persist over the 40 years or more that these new generating plants can be expected to run.

Energy executives would need to be extremely confident that, despite investor pressure from shareholders, the United States will adopt only weak climate policies, or none at all, into future decades in order to see cutting investments in noncarbon generation as an optimal near-term strategy. Instead, they may well expect that the United States will eventually rejoin worldwide efforts to slow the pace of climate change and adopt strict emissions limits.

In that case, they should allocate their investments so that at least 20 to 30 percent of new generation over the next decade comes from noncarbon sources. Sustaining and increasing noncarbon investments in the coming decade is not just good for the environment — it’s also a smart business strategy that is good for the economy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Australian Rooftop Solar Grid Constraints are driving debates over voltage rise, export limits, inverter curtailment, DER integration, and network reliability, amid concerns about localized blackouts, infrastructure protection, tariff reform, and battery storage adoption.

Key Points

Limits on solar exports to curb voltage rise, protect equipment, and keep the distribution grid reliable.

✅ Voltage rise triggers transformer protection and local outages.

✅ Export limits and smart inverter curtailment manage midday backfeed.

✅ Tariff reform and DER orchestration defer costly network upgrades.

With almost 1.8 million Australian homes and businesses relying on power from rooftop solar panels, there is a fight brewing over the impact of solar energy on the national electricity grid.

Electricity distributors are warning that as solar uptake continues to increase, there is a risk excess solar power could flow into the network, elevating power outage risks, causing blackouts and damaging infrastructure.

But is it the network businesses that are actually at risk, as customers turn away from centrally produced electricity?

This is what three different parties have to say:

Andrew Dillon of the network industry peak body, Energy Networks Australia (ENA), told 7.30 the way customers are charged for electricity has to change, or expensive grid upgrades to poles and wires will be needed to keep solar customers on the grid.

"The engineering reality is once we get too much solar in a certain space it does start to cause technical issues," he said.

"If there is too much energy coming back up the system in the middle of the day, it can cause frequency voltage disturbances in the system, which can lead to transformers tripping off to protect themselves from being damaged and that will cause localised blackouts.

"There are pockets of the grid already where we have significant penetration and we are starting to see technical issues."

However, he acknowledges that excess solar power has yet to cause any blackouts, or damage electricity infrastructure.

"I don't buy that at all," he said.

"It can be that in some suburbs or parts of suburbs a high penetration of solar on the point of use can raise voltage, these issues generally can be dealt with quickly.

"The critical issue is think where you are getting that perspective from. It is from an industry whose underlying market is threatened by customers doing it for themselves through peer-to-peer energy models. So, think with some critical insight to these claims."

He said when too many people rely on solar it threatens the very business model of the companies that own Australia's poles and wires.

"When the customers use the network less to buy centrally produced electricity, they ship less product," he said.

"When they ship less product, their underlying business is undermined, they need to charge more to the customers left and that leads to what has been called a death spiral.

"We are seeing rapid reductions in consumption at the point of use per household."

But Mr Dillon denies the distributors are acting out of self-interest.

"I absolutely reject that claim," he said.

"[What] we, as networks, have an interest in is running a safe network, running a reliable network, enabling the transition to a low carbon future and doing all that while keeping costs down as much as possible."

Solar installers say the networks are holding back business

Around Australia the poles and wires companies can decide which solar systems can connect to the grid.

Small systems can connect automatically, but in some areas, those wanting a larger system can find themselves caught up in red tape.

The vice-president of the Australian Solar Council, Glen Morris, said these limitations were holding back solar installation businesses and preventing the take-up of new battery storage technology.

"If you've already got a five kilowatt system, your house is full as far as the network is concerned," Mr Morris said.

"You go to add a battery, that's another five kilowatts and so they say no you're already full … so you can't add storage to your solar system."

The powers that be are stumbling in the dark to prevent a looming energy crisis, as the grid seeks to balance renewables' hidden challenges and competing demands.

Mr Morris also said the networks had the capacity to solve the problem of any excess solar flows into the grid, and infrastructure upgrades were not necessary.

"They already have the capability to turn off your solar invertor whenever they feel like it," he said.

"If they choose to connect that functionality, it's there in the inverter. The customer already has it."

ENA has acknowledged there is frustration with rooftop system size limits in the solar industry.

"What we are seeing is solar installers and others slightly frustrated at different requirements for different networks and sometimes they are unclear on the reasons for that," Mr Dillon said.

"Limitations are in place across the country to keep the lights on and make sure the network stays safe and we don't have sudden rushes of people connecting to the grid that causes outage issues."

But Mr Mountain is unconvinced, calling the limitations "somewhat spurious".

"The published, documented, critically reviewed analyses are few and far between, so it is very easy for engineers to make these arguments and those in policy circles only have so much tolerance for the detail," he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Philippines Renewable Energy Mini-Grids address rising electricity demand, rolling blackouts, off-grid electrification, and decentralized power in an archipelago, leveraging solar, wind, and hybrid systems to close the generation capacity gap and expand household access.

Key Points

Decentralized solar, wind, and hybrid systems powering off-grid areas to relieve shortages and expand access.

✅ Targets 2.3M unelectrified homes with reliable clean power

✅ Mitigates rolling blackouts via modular mini-grid deployments

✅ Supports energy access, resilience, and grid decentralization

The reason why IRENA made its study in the Philippines is because of the country’s demand for electricity is on a steady rise while the generating capacity lags behind. To provide households the electricity, the government is constrained to implement rolling blackouts in some regions. By 2030, the demand for electricity is projected to reach 30 million kilowatts as compared to 17 million kilowatts which is its current generating capacity.

One of the country’s biggest conglomerations, San Miguel Corporation is accountable for almost 20% of power output. It has power plants that has a 900,000-kW generation capacity. Another corporation in the energy sector, Aboitiz Power, has augmented its facilities as well to keep up with the demand. As a matter fact, even foreign players such as Tokyo Electric Power and Marubeni, as a result of the gradual privatization of the power industry which started in 2001, have built power plants in the country, a challenge mirrored in other regions where electricity for all demands greater investment, yet the power supply remains short.

And so, the IRENA came up with the study entitled “Accelerating the Deployment of Renewable Energy Mini-Grids for Off-Grid Electrification – A Study on the Philippines” to provide a clearer picture of what the current state of the crisis is and lay out possible solutions. It showed that as of 2016, a record year for renewables worldwide, the Philippines has approximately 2.3 million households without electricity. With only 89.6 percent of household electrification, that leaves about 2.36 million homes either with limited power of four to six hours each day or totally without electricity.

By the end of 2017, the Philippine government will have provided 90% of Philippine households with electricity. It is worth mentioning that in 2014, the National Capital Region together with two other regions had received 90 percent electrification. However, some areas are still unable to access power that’s within or above the national average. IRENA’s study has become a source of valuable information and analysis to the Philippines’ power systems and identified ways on how to surmount the challenges involving power systems decentralization, with renewable energy funding supporting those mini-grids which are either powered in parts or in full by renewable energy resources. This, however, does not discount the fact that providing electricity in every household still is an on-going struggle. Considering that the Philippines is an archipelago, providing enough, dependable, and clean modern energy to the entire country, including the remote and isolated islands is difficult. The onset of renewable energy is a viable and cost-effective option to support the implementation of mini-grids, as shown by Ireland's green electricity targets rising rapidly.

 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Canada Clean Electricity Exports leverage hydroelectric power, energy storage, and transmission interconnections to meet rising IEA-forecast demand, support electrification, decarbonize grids, and attract green finance with stable policy and advanced technology.

Key Points

Canada's cross-border power sales from hydro and renewables, enabled by storage, transmission, and supportive policy.

✅ Hydro leads generation; expand transmission interties to the US

✅ Deploy storage to balance wind and solar variability

✅ Streamline regulation and green finance to scale exports

As global electricity demand continues to surge, Canada finds itself uniquely positioned to capitalize on this expanding market by choosing an electric, connected and clean pathway that scales with demand. With its vast natural resources, advanced technology, and stable political environment, Canada can play a crucial role in meeting the world’s energy needs while also advancing its own economic interests.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has projected that global electricity demand will grow significantly over the next decade, driven by factors such as population growth, urbanization, and the increasing electrification of various sectors, including transportation and industry. This presents a golden opportunity for Canada to bolster its energy security as it boasts an abundance of renewable energy sources, particularly hydroelectric power. Currently, hydroelectricity accounts for about 60% of Canada’s total electricity generation, making it one of the largest producers of this clean energy source in the world.

The growing emphasis on renewable energy aligns perfectly with Canada’s strengths, with the Prairie Provinces emerging as leaders in new wind and solar capacity across the country. As countries worldwide strive to reduce their carbon footprints and transition to greener energy solutions, Canada’s clean energy resources can be harnessed not only to meet domestic needs but also to export electricity to neighboring countries and beyond. The U.S., for instance, is already a significant market for Canadian electricity, with interconnections facilitating the flow of power across borders. Expanding these connections and investing in infrastructure could further increase Canada’s electricity exports.

Moreover, advancements in energy storage technology present another avenue for Canada to enhance its role in the global electricity market. With the rise of intermittent energy sources like wind and solar, the ability to store excess electricity generated during peak production times becomes essential. Canada’s expertise in technology and innovation positions it well to develop and deploy energy storage solutions that can stabilize the grid through grid modernization projects and ensure a reliable supply of electricity.

Additionally, Canada’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change aligns with the global shift towards sustainable energy. By investing in renewable energy projects and supporting research and development, Canada can not only meet its climate targets, including zero-emissions electricity by 2035, but also attract international investment. Green financing initiatives are becoming increasingly popular, and Canada can leverage its reputation as a leader in environmental stewardship to tap into this growing market.

However, to fully realize these opportunities, Canada must address some key challenges. Regulatory hurdles, infrastructure limitations, and the need for a coordinated national energy strategy are critical issues that must be navigated. Streamlining regulations and fostering collaboration between federal and provincial governments will be essential in creating a conducive environment for investment in renewable energy projects.

Furthermore, public acceptance and community engagement are vital components of developing new energy projects, especially where solar power adoption lags and outreach is needed. Ensuring that local communities benefit from these initiatives—whether through job creation, economic investment, or shared revenues—will help garner support and facilitate smoother project implementation.

In addition to domestic efforts, Canada should also position itself as a global leader in energy diplomacy. By collaborating with other nations to share best practices, technologies, and resources, Canada can strengthen its influence in international energy discussions. Engaging in multilateral initiatives aimed at addressing energy poverty and promoting sustainable development will not only enhance Canada’s standing on the world stage but also open doors for Canadian companies to expand their reach.

In conclusion, as the global demand for electricity rises, Canada stands at a crossroads, with a tremendous opportunity to lead in the clean energy sector. By leveraging its natural resources, investing in technology, and fostering international partnerships, Canada can not only meet its energy needs but also pursue zero-emission electricity by 2035 while positioning itself as a key player in the global electricity market. The path forward will require strategic planning, investment, and collaboration, but the potential rewards are significant—both for Canada and the planet.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Crouching Yeti APT targets energy infrastructure with watering-hole attacks, compromising servers to steal credentials and stage intrusions; Kaspersky Lab links the Energetic Bear group to ICS threats across Russia, US, Europe, and Turkey.

Key Points

Crouching Yeti APT, aka Energetic Bear, is a threat group that targets energy firms using watering-hole attacks.

✅ Targets energy infrastructure via watering-hole compromises

✅ Uses open-source tools and backdoored sshd for persistence

✅ Scans global servers to stage intrusions and steal credentials

A hacker collective known for attacking industrial companies around the world have had some of their infrastructure identified by Russian security specialists.

Kaspersky Lab said that it has discovered a number of servers compromised by the group, belonging to different organisations based in Russia, the US, and Turkey, as well as European countries.

The Russian-speaking hackers, known as Crouching Yeti or Energetic Bear, mostly focus on energy facilities, as seen in reports of infiltration of the U.S. power grid targeting critical infrastructure, for the main purpose of stealing valuable data from victim systems.

Hacked servers

Crouching Yeti is described as an advanced persistent threat (APT) group that Kaspersky Lab has been tracking since 2010.

#google#

Kaspersky Lab said that the servers it has compromised are not just limited to industrial companies. The servers were hit in 2016 and 2017 with different intentions. Some were compromised to gain access to other resources or to be used as intermediaries to conduct attacks on other resources.

Others, including those hosting Russian websites, were used as watering holes.

It is a common tactic for Crouching Yeti to utilise watering hole attacks where the attackers inject websites with a link redirecting visitors to a malicious server.

“In the process of analysing infected servers, researchers identified numerous websites and servers used by organisations in Russia, US, Europe, Asia and Latin America that the attackers had scanned with various tools, possibly to find a server that could be used to establish a foothold for hosting the attackers’ tools and to subsequently develop an attack,” said the security specialists in a blog posting.

“The range of websites and servers that captured the attention of the intruders is extensive,” the firm said. “Kaspersky Lab researchers found that the attackers had scanned numerous websites of different types, including online stores and services, public organisations, NGOs, manufacturing, etc.

Kaspersky Lab said that the hackers used publicly available malicious tools, designed for analysing servers, and for seeking out and collecting information. The researchers also found a modified sshd file with a preinstalled backdoor. This was used to replace the original file and could be authorised with a ‘master password’.

“Crouching Yeti is a notorious Russian-speaking group that has been active for many years and is still successfully targeting industrial organisations through watering hole attacks, among other techniques,” explained Vladimir Dashchenko, head of vulnerability research group at Kaspersky Lab ICS CERT.

Russian government?

“Our findings show that the group compromised servers not only for establishing watering holes, but also for further scanning, and they actively used open-sourced tools that made it much harder to identify them afterwards,” he said.

“The group’s activities, such as initial data collection, the theft of authentication data, and the scanning of resources, are used to launch further attacks,” said Dashchenko. “The diversity of infected servers and scanned resources suggests the group may operate in the interests of the third parties.”

This may well tie into a similar conclusion from a rival security vendor.

In 2014 CrowdStrike claimed that the ‘Energetic Bear’ group was also tracked in Symantec's Dragonfly research and had been hacking foreign companies on behalf of the Russian state.

The security vendor had said the group had been carrying out attacks on foreign companies since 2012, with reports of breaches at U.S. power plants that underscored the campaign, and there was evidence that these operations were sanctioned by the Russian government.

Last month the United States for the first time publicly accused Russia in a condemnation of Russian grid hacking of attacks against the American power grid.

Symantec meanwhile warned last year of a resurgence in cyber attacks on European and US energy companies, including reports of access to U.S. utility control rooms that could result in widespread power outages.

And last July the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) acknowledged it was investigating a broad wave of attacks on companies in the British energy and manufacturing sectors.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

UK Free Electricity Debate weighs soaring energy prices against market regulation, renewables, and social equity, examining price caps, funding via windfall taxes, grid investment, and consumer protection in the UK's evolving energy policy landscape.

Key Points

A policy dispute over free power, balancing consumer relief with market stability, renewables, and investment.

✅ Pros: relief for households; boosts efficiency and green adoption.

✅ Cons: risks to market signals, quality, and grid investment.

✅ Policy options: price caps, windfall taxes, targeted subsidies.

In recent months, the debate over free electricity in the UK has intensified, revealing a divide within the energy sector. With soaring energy prices and economic pressures impacting consumers, the discussion around providing free electricity has gained traction. However, the idea has sparked significant controversy among industry stakeholders, each with their own perspectives on the feasibility and implications of such a move.

The Context of Rising Energy Costs

The push for free electricity is rooted in the UK’s ongoing energy crisis, exacerbated by geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions, and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. As energy prices reached unprecedented levels, households faced the harsh reality of skyrocketing bills, prompting calls for government intervention to alleviate financial burdens.

Supporters of free electricity argue that it could serve as a vital lifeline for struggling families and businesses. The proposal suggests that by providing a certain amount of electricity for free, the government could help mitigate the effects of rising costs while encouraging energy conservation and efficiency.

Industry Perspectives

However, the notion of free electricity has not been universally embraced within the energy sector. Some industry leaders express concerns about the financial viability of such a scheme. They argue that providing free electricity could undermine the market dynamics that incentivize investment in infrastructure and renewable energy, in a market already exposed to natural gas price volatility today. Critics warn that if energy companies are forced to absorb costs, it could lead to diminished service quality and investment in necessary advancements.

Additionally, there are worries about how free electricity could be funded. Proponents suggest that a tax on energy companies could generate the necessary revenue, but opponents question whether this would stifle innovation and competition. The fear is that placing additional financial burdens on energy providers could ultimately lead to higher prices in the long run.

Renewable Energy and Sustainability

Another aspect of the debate centers around the UK’s commitment to transitioning to renewable energy sources. Supporters of free electricity emphasize that such a policy could encourage more widespread adoption of green technologies by making energy more accessible. They argue that by removing the financial barriers associated with energy costs, households would be more inclined to invest in solar panels, heat pumps, and other sustainable solutions.

On the other hand, skeptics contend that the focus should remain on ensuring a stable and reliable energy supply as the UK moves toward its climate goals. They caution against implementing policies that might disrupt the balance of the energy market, potentially hindering the necessary investments in renewable infrastructure.

Government's Role

As discussions unfold, the government’s role in this debate is crucial. Policymakers must navigate the complex landscape of energy regulation, market dynamics, and consumer needs. The government has already introduced measures aimed at assisting vulnerable households, such as energy price caps and direct financial support. However, the question remains whether these initiatives go far enough in addressing the root causes of the energy crisis.

In this context, the government faces pressure from both consumers demanding relief and industry leaders advocating for market stability, including proposals to end the link between gas and electricity prices to curb price volatility. The challenge lies in finding a middle ground that balances immediate support for households with long-term sustainability and investment in the energy sector.

Future Implications

The ongoing debate about free electricity in the UK underscores broader themes related to energy policy, market regulation, and social equity, with rising electricity prices abroad offering context for comparison. As the country navigates its energy transition, the decisions made today will have far-reaching implications for both consumers and the industry.

If the government chooses to pursue a model that includes free electricity, it will need to carefully consider how to implement such a system without jeopardizing the market. Transparency, stakeholder engagement, and thorough impact assessments will be essential to ensure that any new policies are sustainable and equitable.

Conversely, if the concept of free electricity is ultimately rejected, the focus will likely shift back to addressing energy costs through other means, such as enhancing energy efficiency programs or increasing support for vulnerable populations.

The divide within the UK’s energy industry regarding free electricity highlights the complexities of balancing consumer needs with market stability. As the energy crisis continues to unfold, the conversations surrounding this issue will remain at the forefront of public discourse. Ultimately, finding a solution that addresses the immediate challenges while promoting a sustainable energy future will be key to navigating this critical juncture in the UK’s energy landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News