Massachusetts stirs controversy with solar demand charge, TOU pricing cut

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

Russian cyberattacks on U.S. power grid exposed DHS warnings: Dragonfly/Energetic Bear breached control rooms, ICS networks, and could trigger blackouts via switch manipulation, phishing, and malware, threatening critical infrastructure and utility operations nationwide.

Key Points

State-backed breaches of utility ICS and control rooms enabled potential switch manipulation and blackouts.

✅ DHS: Dragonfly/Energetic Bear breached utility networks

✅ Access reached control rooms and ICS for switch control

✅ Ongoing campaign via phishing, malware, lateral movement

Russian hackers for a state-sponsored organization invaded hundreds of control rooms of U.S. electric utilities that could have led to blackouts, a new report says.

The group, known as Dragonfly or Energetic Bear, infiltrated networks of U.S. utilities as part of an effort that is likely ongoing, Department of Homeland Security officials told the Wall Street Journal.

Jonathan Home, chief of industrial-control-system analysis for DHS, said the hackers “got to the point where they could have thrown switches” and upset power flows.

Although the agency did not disclose which companies were impacted, the officials at a briefing Monday said that there were “hundreds of victims” including breaches at power plants across the U.S., and that some companies may not be aware that hackers infiltrated their networks yet.

According to experts, Russia has been preparing for such attacks for some time now, prompting a renewed focus on protecting the grid among utilities and policymakers.

“They’ve been intruding into our networks and are positioning themselves for a limited or widespread attack,” said former Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Michael Carpenter, now senior director at the Penn Biden Center at the University of Pennsylvania, per the Wall Street Journal. “They are waging a covert war on the West.”

Earlier this year, the Trump administration claimed Russia had staged a power grid hacking campaign against the U.S. energy grid and other U.S. infrastructure.

The report comes after President Trump told reporters last week during a joint press conference in Helsinki alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin that he had no reason not to believe the Russian leader's assurances to him that the Kremlin was not to blame for interference in the election.

Trump later admitted that he misspoke when he said he didn’t “see any reason why” Russia would have meddled in the 2016 election, and said he believes the U.S. intelligence community assessment that found that the Russian government did interfere in the electoral process.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Hedges future carbon tax and emissions limits

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

✅ Reduces stranded asset risk and builds renewables capacity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic modeling with uncertainty

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

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

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

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

More investments in clean generation make economic sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeing beyond one president

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Maine Climate Council Act targets 80% renewable power by 2030 and 100% by 2050, slashing greenhouse gas emissions via clean electricity, grid procurement, long-term contracts, wind and hydro integration, resilience planning, and carbon sequestration.

Key Points

A Maine policy forming a Climate Council to reach 80% renewables in 2030 100% in 2050 and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

✅ 80% renewable electricity by 2030; 100% by 2050.

✅ 45% GHG cut by 2030; 80% by 2050.

✅ Utility procurement authority for clean capacity and energy.

The winds of change have shifted and are blowing Northward, as Maine’s Governor, Janet T. Mills, has put forth an act establishing a Climate Council to guide the state’s consumption to 80% renewable electricity in 2030 and 100% by 2050, echoing New York's Green New Deal ambitions underway.

The act, LR 2478 (pdf), also sets a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45% in 2030 and 80% by 2050. The document will be submitted to the state Legislature for consideration.

The commission would have the authority to direct investor owned transmission and distribution utilities to run competitive procurement processes, and enter into long-term contracts for capacity resources, energy resources, renewable energy credit contracts, and participate in regional programs, as these all lead toward the clean electricity and emissions-reducing goals that mirror California's 100% mandate debates today.

The Climate Council would convene industry working groups, including Scientific and Technical, Transportation, Coastal and Marine, Energy, and Building & Infrastructure working groups, plus others as needed, where examples like New Zealand's electricity transition could inform discussions.

Membership within the council would include two members of the State Senate, two members of the House, a tribal representative, many department commissioners (Education, Defense, Transportation, etc.), multiple directors, business representatives, environmental non-profit members, and climate science and resilience representatives as well.

The council would update the Maine State Climate Plan every four years, and solicit input from the public and report out progress on its goals every two years, similar to planning underway in Minnesota's carbon-free plan framework. The first Climate Action Plan would be submitted to the legislature by December 1, 2020.

Specifically, the responsibilities of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee were laid out. The group would be scheduled to meet at least every six months, beginning no later than October 1, 2019. The group would be tasked with reviewing existing scientific literature, including net-zero electricity pathways research, to use it as guidance, recognizing gaps in the state’s knowledge, and guiding outside experts to ascertain this knowledge.  The group would consider ocean acidification, and climate change effects on the state’s species; establish science-based sea-level rise projections for the state’s coastal regions by December 1, 2020; create a climate risk map for flooding and extreme weather events; and consider carbon sequestration via biomass growth.

The state’s largest power plants (above image), generate about 31% from gas, 28% from wood and 41% from hydro+wind. Already, the state has a very clean electricity profile, much like efforts to decarbonize Canada's power sector continue apace. Below, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) notes that 51% of electricity generation within the state comes from mostly wind+hydro, with a small touch from solar power. The state also gets 24% from wood and other biomass, which would lead some to argue that the state is already at 75% “renewable electricity”. The Governor’s document does reference wind power specifically as a renewable, however, no other specific electricity source. And there is much reference to forestry, agriculture, and logging – specifically noting carbon sequestration – but nothing regarding electricity.

The state’s final 25% of electricity mostly comes from natural gas, even as renewable electricity momentum builds across North America, with this author choosing to put “other” under the fossil percentage noted above.

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

EV Charging Infrastructure Incentives are expanding as utilities fund public chargers, Level 2 networks, DC fast charging, grid-managed off-peak programs, and equitable access across Ohio, New Jersey, and Florida to accelerate clean transportation.

Key Points

Utility-backed programs funding Level 2 and DC fast chargers, managing grid demand, and expanding EV equity.

✅ Incentives for Level 2 and DC fast public charging stations.

✅ Grid-friendly off-peak charging to balance demand.

✅ Equity targets place chargers in low-income communities.

Electric providers in Florida, Ohio and New Jersey recently announced plans to expand electric vehicle charging networks and infrastructure through various incentive programs that could add thousands of new public chargers in the next several years.

Elsewhere, utilities are advancing similar efforts, with Michigan EV programs proposing more than $20 million for charging infrastructure to accelerate adoption.

American Electric Power in Ohio will offer nearly $10 million in incentives toward the build out of 375 EV charging stations throughout the company's service territory, which largely includes Columbus.

Meanwhile, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), an electric utility provider in New Jersey, has proposed a six-year plan to support the development of nearly 40,000 electric vehicle chargers across a wide range of customers and sectors, said Francis Sullivan, a spokesperson for PSE&G.

And Duke Energy in Florida is installing up to 530 EV charging stations across its service area, as part of its Park and Plug pilot program, which will be making the charging ports available in multifamily housing complexes, workplaces and other high traffic areas.

"We are bringing cleaner energy to Florida through 700 megawatts of new universal solar, and we are helping our customers to bring clean transportation to the state as well," Catherine Stempien, Duke Energy Florida president, said in a statement. "We are committed to providing smarter, cleaner energy alternatives for all our customers."

The project in Ohio is making incentive funding available to government organizations, multifamily housing developments and workplaces, covering from 50 percent to all of the costs. The plan, to be rolled out in the next four years, aims to incentivize the development of 300 level-two chargers and 75 "fast chargers" capable of charging a car's battery in minutes rather than hours.

"I think what's interesting about what we're seeing now in the industry is that electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging are expanding beyond California, and like other Pacific Coast states," said Scott Fisher, vice president of marketing at Greenlots, maker of car chargers and software. Greenlots has been selected as one of the companies to provide the chargers for the AEP project.

California has occupied the lion's share of the electric vehicle market, making up about 5 percent of the cars on the state's highways. The U.S. market sits at about 1.5 percent. However, indications show the EV boom may be set to take off as more models are being rolled out, and prices are making the electric cars more competitive with their gas-powered counterparts. The group Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) announced the one-millionth electric vehicle is on course to be sold in the United States this month.

In a statement, Ben Prochazka, vice president of the Electrification Coalition, an EV advocacy group, called this "a major milestone and brings us one step closer to reducing our transportation system's dependence on oil. This is a direct result of the tireless efforts by communities and advocates throughout the 'EV ecosystem.'"

In New Jersey, PSE&G's efforts -- which are part of the company's proposed Clean Energy Future program -- will not only focus on building out the charging infrastructure, but structure car recharging to control charging and encourage residents to charge their cars during off-peak times.

"For now, with a modest number of charging stations in the market, it's not a huge problem. But over time, as you're putting in many thousands of these stations, what you want to make sure is that those stations are operating in sync with state power grids, where you don't have people all charging at the same time at like 5 p.m. on a hot summer day," said Fisher.

PSE&G also plans to offer incentives to encourage the development of level-two chargers and DC fast-chargers, as well as "provide grants and incentives for 100 electric school buses and EV charging infrastructure at school districts in PSE&G's service territory," said Sullivan.

"PSE&G will also help fund electrification projects at customer locations such as ports, airports and transit facilities," Sullivan added, via email.

Utilities and transportation planners are also keeping the concept of equity in mind -- to ensure EVs are adopted by more than just the Tesla owner -- and will also focus on placing infrastructure in low-income areas.

"Ten percent of the stations will be in low income areas, defined by census blocks," said Scott Blake, a communications consultant at AEP in Columbus.

Duke Energy also announced 10 percent of the chargers it is installing in Florida will be in "income-qualified communities," according to a company press release.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News