LARGE-SCALE ENERGY PROJECTS UNDERWAY IN NY

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

US Electricity Demand Stagnation reflects decoupling from GDP as TVA's IRP revises outlook, with energy efficiency, distributed generation, renewables, and cheap natural gas undercutting coal, reshaping utility business models and accelerating grid modernization.

Key Points

US electricity demand stagnation is flat load growth driven by efficiency, DG, and decoupling from GDP.

✅ Flat sales pressure IOU profits and legacy baseload investments.

✅ Efficiency and rooftop solar reduce load growth and capacity needs.

✅ Utilities must pivot to services, DER orchestration, and grid software.

The US electricity sector is in a period of unprecedented change and turmoil, with emerging utility trends reshaping strategies across the industry today. Renewable energy prices are falling like crazy. Natural gas production continues its extraordinary surge. Coal, the golden child of the current administration, is headed down the tubes.

In all that bedlam, it’s easy to lose sight of an equally important (if less sexy) trend: Demand for electricity is stagnant.

Thanks to a combination of greater energy efficiency, outsourcing of heavy industry, and customers generating their own power on site, demand for utility power has been flat for 10 years, with COVID-19 electricity demand underscoring recent variability and long-run stagnation, and most forecasts expect it to stay that way. The die was cast around 1998, when GDP growth and electricity demand growth became “decoupled”:

This historic shift has wreaked havoc in the utility industry in ways large and small, visible and obscure. Some of that havoc is high-profile and headline-making, as in the recent requests from utilities (and attempts by the Trump administration) to bail out large coal and nuclear plants amid coal and nuclear industry disruptions affecting power markets and reliability.

Some of it, however, is unfolding in more obscure quarters. A great example recently popped up in Tennessee, where one utility is finding its 20-year forecasts rendered archaic almost as soon as they are released.

Falling demand has TVA moving up its planning process

Every five years, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) — the federally owned regional planning agency that, among other things, supplies electricity to Tennessee and parts of surrounding states — develops an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) meant to assess what it requires to meet customer needs for the next 20 years.

The last IRP, completed in 2015, anticipated that there would be no need for major new investment in baseload (coal, nuclear, and hydro) power plants; it foresaw that energy efficiency and distributed (customer-owned) energy generation would hold down demand.

Even so, TVA underestimated. Just three years later, the Times Free Press reports, “TVA now expects to sell 13 percent less power in 2027 than it did two decades earlier — the first sustained reversal in the growth of electricity usage in the 85-year history of TVA.”

TVA will sell less electricity in 10 years than it did 10 years ago. That is bonkers.

This startling shift in prospects has prompted the company to accelerate its schedule. It will now develop its next IRP a year early, in 2019.

Think for a moment about why a big utility like TVA (serving 9 million customers in seven states, with more than $11 billion in revenue) sets out to plan 20 years ahead. It is investing in extremely large and capital-intensive infrastructure like power plants and transmission lines, which cost billions of dollars and last for decades. These are not decisions to make lightly; the utility wants to be sure that they will still be needed, and will still pay off, for many years to come.

Now think for a moment about what it means for the electricity sector to be changing so fast that TVA’s projections are out of date three years after its last IRP, so much so that it needs to plunge back into the multimillion-dollar, year-long process of developing a new plan.

TVA wanted a plan for 20 years; the plan lasted three.

The utility business model is headed for a reckoning

TVA, as a government-owned, fully regulated utility, has only the goals of “low cost, informed risk, environmental responsibility, reliability, diversity of power and flexibility to meet changing market conditions,” as its planning manager told the Times Free Press. (Yes, that’s already a lot of goals!)

But investor-owned utilities (IOUs), which administer electricity for well over half of Americans, face another imperative: to make money for investors. They can’t make money selling electricity; monopoly regulations forbid it, raising questions about utility revenue models as marginal energy costs fall. Instead, they make money by earning a rate of return on investments in electrical power plants and infrastructure.

The problem is, with demand stagnant, there’s not much need for new hardware. And a drop in investment means a drop in profit. Unable to continue the steady growth that their investors have always counted on, IOUs are treading water, watching as revenues dry up

Utilities have been frantically adjusting to this new normal. The generation utilities that sell into wholesale electricity markets (also under pressure from falling power prices; thanks to natural gas and renewables, wholesale power prices are down 70 percent from 2007) have reacted by cutting costs and merging. The regulated utilities that administer local distribution grids have responded by increasing investments in those grids, including efforts to improve electricity reliability and resilience at lower cost.

But these are temporary, limited responses, not enough to stay in business in the face of long-term decline in demand. Ultimately, deeper reforms will be necessary.

As I have explained at length, the US utility sector was built around the presumption of perpetual growth. Utilities were envisioned as entities that would build the electricity infrastructure to safely and affordably meet ever-rising demand, which was seen as a fixed, external factor, outside utility control.

But demand is no longer rising. What the US needs now are utilities that can manage and accelerate that decline in demand, increasing efficiency as they shift to cleaner generation. The new electricity paradigm is to match flexible, diverse, low-carbon supply with (increasingly controllable) demand, through sophisticated real-time sensing and software.

That’s simply a different model than current utilities are designed for. To adapt, the utility business model must change. Utilities need newly defined responsibilities and new ways to make money, through services rather than new hardware. That kind of reform will require regulators, politicians, and risky experiments. Very few states — New York, California, Massachusetts, a few others — have consciously set off down that path.

Flat or declining demand is going to force the issue

Even if natural gas and renewables weren’t roiling the sector, the end of demand growth would eventually force utility reform.

To be clear: For both economic and environmental reasons, it is good that US power demand has decoupled from GDP growth. As long as we’re getting the energy services we need, we want overall demand to decline. It saves money, reduces pollution, and avoids the need for expensive infrastructure.

But the way we’ve set up utilities, they must fight that trend. Every time they are forced to invest in energy efficiency or make some allowance for distributed generation (and they must always be forced), demand for their product declines, and with it their justification to make new investments.

Only when the utility model fundamentally changes — when utilities begin to see themselves primarily as architects and managers of high-efficiency, low-emissions, multidirectional electricity systems rather than just investors in infrastructure growth — can utilities turn in earnest to the kind planning they need to be doing.

In a climate-aligned world, utilities would view the decoupling of power demand from GDP growth as cause for celebration, a sign of success. They would throw themselves into accelerating the trend.

Instead, utilities find themselves constantly surprised, caught flat-footed again and again by a trend they desperately want to believe is temporary. Unless we can collectively reorient utilities to pursue rather than fear current trends in electricity, they are headed for a grim reckoning.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Sault Ste. Marie Smart Grid Investment upgrades PUC Distribution infrastructure with federal funding, clean energy tech, outage reduction, customer insights, and reliability gains, creating 140 jobs and attracting industry to a resilient, efficient grid.

Key Points

A federally funded PUC Distribution project to modernize the citywide grid, cut outages, boost efficiency, and create jobs.

✅ $11.8M federal funding to PUC Distribution

✅ Citywide smart grid cuts outages and energy loss

✅ 140 jobs; attracts clean tech and industry

PUC Distribution Inc. in Sault Ste. Marie is receiving $11.8 million from the federal government to invest in infrastructure, as utilities nationwide have faced pandemic-related losses that underscore the need for resilient systems.

The MP for the riding, Terry Sheehan, made the announcement on Monday.

The money will go to the utility's smart grid project, where technologies like a centralized SCADA system can enhance situational awareness and control.

"This smart grid project offers a glimpse into our clean energy future and represents a new wave of economic activity for the region," Sheehan said.

"Along with job creation, new industries will be attracted to a modern grid, supported by stable electricity pricing that helps competitiveness, all while helping the environment."

His office says the investment will allow the utility to reduce outages, provide more information to customers to help make smarter electricity use choices, aligned with Ontario's energy-efficiency programs that encourage conservation, and offer more services.

"This is an innovative project that makes Sault Ste. Marie a leader," mayor Christian Provenzano said.

"We will be the first city in our country to implement a community-wide smart grid. Once it is complete, the smart grid will make our energy infrastructure more reliable, reduce energy loss and lead to a more innovative economy for our community."

The project will also create 140 new jobs.

"As a community-focused utility, we are always looking for innovative ways to help our customers save money amid concerns about hydro disconnections during winter, and reduce their carbon footprint," Rob Brewster, president and CEO of PUC Distribution said.

"The investment the government has made in our community will not only help modernize our city's electrical distribution system [as] once the project is complete, Sault Ste. Marie will have access to an electricity grid that can handle the growing demands of a city in the 21st century."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

French Antitrust Fines for Electrical Cartel expose price fixing by Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar, after a Competition Authority probe into electrical distribution, collusion, and compliance breaches impacting market competition and customers.

Key Points

Penalties on Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar for electrical price fixing, upholding competition law.

✅ Competition Authority fined four major suppliers.

✅ Collusion raised prices across construction and industry.

✅ Firms bolster compliance programs and training.

In a significant crackdown on corporate malfeasance, French authorities have imposed hefty fines on four major electrical equipment companies—Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar—after concluding a price-fixing investigation. The total fines amount to approximately €500 million, underscoring the seriousness with which regulators are addressing anti-competitive practices in the electrical distribution sector, even as France advances a new electricity pricing scheme to address EU concerns.

Background of the Investigation

The probe, initiated by France’s Competition Authority, sought to uncover collusion among these leading firms regarding the pricing of electrical equipment and services between 2005 and 2012. This investigation is part of a broader initiative to promote fair competition within the market, as Europe prepares to revamp its electricity market to bolster transparency, ensuring that consumers and businesses alike benefit from competitive pricing and innovative products.

The inquiry revealed that these companies had engaged in illicit agreements to fix prices and coordinate their market strategies, limiting competition in a sector critical to both the economy and infrastructure. The findings indicated that the collusion not only stifled competition but also led to inflated prices for customers, illustrating why rolling back electricity prices is often more complex than it appears for customers across various sectors, from construction to manufacturing.

The Fines Imposed

Following the conclusion of the investigation, the fines levied against the companies were substantial. Schneider Electric faced the largest penalty, receiving a fine of €220 million, while Legrand was fined €150 million. Rexel and Sonepar were each fined €70 million and €50 million, respectively. These financial penalties serve as a deterrent to other companies that might consider engaging in similar practices, reinforcing the message that anti-competitive behavior will not be tolerated.

The fines are particularly significant given the size and influence of these companies within the electrical equipment market. Their combined revenues amount to billions of euros annually, making the repercussions of their actions far-reaching. As major players in the industry, their pricing strategies have a direct impact on numerous sectors, from residential construction to large-scale industrial projects.

Industry Reactions

The response from the affected companies has varied. Schneider Electric expressed its commitment to compliance and transparency, acknowledging the importance of adhering to competition laws, amid ongoing EU electricity reform debates that influence market expectations.

Legrand also emphasized its commitment to fair competition, noting that it has taken steps to enhance its compliance framework in response to the investigation. Rexel and Sonepar similarly reaffirmed their dedication to ethical business practices and their intention to cooperate with regulators in the future.

Industry experts have pointed out that these fines, while significant, may not be enough to deter large corporations from engaging in similar behavior unless accompanied by a broader cultural shift within the industry. There is a growing call for enhanced oversight and stricter penalties to ensure that companies prioritize ethical conduct over short-term profits.

Implications for the Market

The fines imposed on Schneider, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar could have broader implications for the electrical equipment market and beyond. They signal to other companies within the sector that regulatory bodies are vigilant, even as nine EU countries oppose electricity market reforms proposed as fixes for price spikes, and willing to take decisive action against anti-competitive practices. This could foster a more competitive environment, ultimately benefiting consumers through better prices and enhanced product offerings.

Moreover, the case highlights the importance of regulatory bodies in maintaining fair market conditions. As industries evolve, ongoing vigilance from competition authorities will be necessary to prevent similar instances of collusion and ensure that markets remain competitive and innovative, as seen when New York opened a formal review of retail energy markets.

The recent fines imposed on Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar mark a significant moment in France's ongoing battle against corporate price-fixing and anti-competitive practices, occurring as the government and EDF reached a deal on electricity prices to balance market pressures. With total penalties exceeding €500 million, the investigation underscores the commitment of French authorities to uphold market integrity and protect consumer interests.

As the industry reflects on these developments, it remains crucial for companies to prioritize compliance and ethical business practices. The ultimate goal is to create an environment where competition thrives, innovation flourishes, and consumers benefit from fair pricing. This case serves as a reminder that transparency and accountability are vital in maintaining the health of any market, particularly one as essential as the electrical equipment sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Massachusetts Solar Net Metering faces new demand charges and elimination of residential time-of-use rates under an MDPU order, as Eversource cites grid cost fairness while clean energy advocates warn of impacts on distributed solar growth.

Key Points

Policy letting solar customers net out usage with exports; MDPU now adds demand charges and ends TOU rates.

✅ New residential solar demand charges start Dec 31, 2018.

✅ Optional residential TOU rates eliminated by MDPU order.

✅ Eversource cites grid cost fairness; advocates warn slower solar.

A recent Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities' rate case order changes the way solar net metering works and eliminates optional residential time-of-use rates, stirring controversy between clean energy advocates and utility Eversource and potential consumer backlash over rate design.

"There is a lot of room to talk about what net-energy metering should look like, but a demand charge is an unfair way to charge customers," Mark LeBel, staff attorney at non-profit clean energy advocacy organization Acadia Center, said in a Tuesday phone call. Acadia Center is an intervenor in the rate case and opposed the changes.

The Friday MDPU order implements demand charges for new residential solar projects starting on December 31, 2018. Such charges are based on the highest peak hourly consumption over the course of a month, regardless of what time the power is consumed.

Eversource contends the demand charge will more fairly distribute the costs of maintaining the local power grid, echoing minimum charge proposals aimed at low-usage customers. Net metering is often criticized for not evenly distributing those costs, which are effectively subsidized by non-net-metered customers.

"What the demand charge will do is eliminate, to the extent possible, the unfair cross subsidization by non-net-metered customers that currently exists with rates that only have kilowatt-hour charges and no kilowatt demand, Mike Durand, Eversource spokesman, said in a Tuesday email. 

"For net metered facilities that use little kilowatt-hours, a demand charge is a way to charge them for their fair share of the cost of the significant maintenance and upgrade work we do on the local grid every day," Durand said. "Currently, their neighbors are paying more than their share of those costs."

It will not affect existing facilities, Durand said, only those installed after December 31, 2018.

Solar advocates are not enthusiastic about the change and see it slowing the growth of solar power, particularly residential rooftop solar, in the state.

"This is a terrible outcome for the future of solar in Massachusetts," Nathan Phelps, program manager of distributed generation and regulatory policy at solar power advocacy group Vote Solar, said in a Tuesday phone call.

"It's very inconsistent with DPU precedent and numerous pieces of legislation passed in the last 10 years," Phelps said. "The commonwealth has passed several pieces of legislation that are supportive of renewable energy and solar power. I don't know what the DPU was thinking."

 

TIME-OF-USE PRICING ELIMINATED

It does not matter when during the month peak demand occurs -- which could be during the week in the evening -- customers will be charged the same as they would on a hot summer day, LeBel said. Because an individual customer's peak usage does not necessarily correspond to peak demand across the utility's system, consumers are not being provided incentives to reduce energy usage in a way that could benefit the power system, Acadia Center said in a Tuesday statement.

However, Eversource maintains that residential customer distribution peaks based on customer load profiles do not align with basic service peak periods, which are based on Independent System Operator New England's peaks that reflect market-based pricing, even as a Connecticut market overhaul advances in the region, according to the MDPU order.

"The residential Time of Use rates we're eliminating are obsolete, having been designed decades ago when we were responsible for both the generation and the delivery of electricity," Eversource's Durand said.

"We are no longer in the generation business, having divested of our generation assets in Massachusetts in compliance with the law that restructured of our industry back in the late 1990s. Time Varying pricing is best used with generation rates, where the price for electricity changes based on time of day and electricity demand and can significantly alter electric bills for households," he said.

Additionally, only 0.02% of residential customers take service on Eversource's TOU rates and it would be difficult for residential customers to avoid peak period rates because they do not have the ability to shift or reduce load, according to the order.

"The Department allowed the Companies' proposal to eliminate their optional residential TOU rates in order to consolidate and align their residential rates and tariffs to better achieve the rate structure goal of simplicity," the MDPU said in the order.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News