Ontario, Quebec cosy up to one another

Florida Hurricane Irma Power Outages strain the grid as utilities plan rebuilds; FPL and Duke Energy deploy crews to restore transmission lines, substations, and service amid flooding, storm surge, and widespread disruptions statewide.

Key Points

Large-scale post-storm power losses in Florida requiring grid rebuilds, thousands of crews, and phased restoration.

✅ Utilities prioritize plants, transmission, substations, then critical facilities

✅ 50,000-60,000 workers mobilized; bucket trucks wait for safe winds

✅ Remote rerouting and hardening aid faster restoration amid flooding

Parts of Florida could be without electricity for more than a week, as damage from Hurricane Irma will require a complete rebuild of portions of the electricity grid, utility executives said on Monday.

Irma has knocked out power to 6.5 million Florida electricity customers, or nearly two-thirds of the state, since making landfall this weekend. In major areas such as Miami-Dade, 74 percent of the county was without power, according to Florida's division of emergency management.

Getting that power back online may require the help of 50,000 to 60,000 workers from all over the United States and Canadian power crews as well, according to Southern Company CEO and Chairman Thomas Fanning. He is also co-chair of the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council, which coordinates the utility industry and government response to disasters and cyberthreats.

While it is not uncommon for severe storms to down power lines and damage utility poles, Irma's heavy winds and rain batted some of the state's infrastructure to the ground, Fanning said.

"'Restore' may not capture the full sense of where we are. For the very hard impacted areas, I think you're in a 'rebuild' area," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."

"That's a big deal. People need to understand this is going to take perhaps weeks, not days, in some areas," Fanning said.

Parts of northern Florida, including Jacksonville, experienced heavy flooding, which will temporarily prevent crews from accessing some areas.

Duke Energy, which serves 1.8 million customers in parts of central and northwestern Florida, is trying to restore service to 1.2 million residences and businesses.

Florida Power & Light Company, which provides power to an estimated 4.9 million accounts across the state, had about 3.5 million customers without electricity as of Monday afternoon, said Rob Gould, vice president and chief communications officer at FPL.

The initial damage assessments suggest power can be restored to parts of the state's east coast in just days, but some of the west coast will require rebuilding that could stretch out for weeks, Gould told CNBC's "Power Lunch."

"This is not a typical restoration that you're going to see. We actually for the first time in our company history have our entire 27,000-square-mile, 35-county territory under assault by Irma," he said.

FPL said it would first repair any damage to power plants, transmission lines and substations as part of its massive response to Irma, then prioritize critical facilities such as hospitals and water treatment plants. The electricity company would then turn its attention to areas that are home to supermarkets, gas stations and other community services.

Florida utilities invested billions into their systems after devastating hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005 in order to make them more resilient and easier to restore after a storm. Irma, which ranked among the most powerful storms in the Atlantic, has nevertheless tested those systems.

The upgrades have allowed FPL to automatically reroute power and address about 1.5 million outages, Gould said. The company strategically placed 19,500 restoration workers before the storm hit, but it cannot use bucket trucks to fix power lines until winds die down, he said.

Some parts of Florida's distribution system — the lines that deliver electricity from power plants to businesses and residences — run underground. However, the state's long coastline and the associated danger of storm surge and seawater incursion make it impractical to run lines beneath the surface in some areas.

Duke Energy has equipped 28 percent of its system with smart grid technology to reroute power remotely, according to Harry Sideris, Duke's state president for Florida. He said the company would continue to build out that capability in the future.

Duke deployed more than 9,000 linesmen and support crew members to Irma-struck areas, but cannot yet say how long some customers will be without power.

Separately, Gulf Power crews reported restoring service to more than 32,000 customers.

"At this time we do not know the exact restoration times. However, we're looking at a week or longer from the first look at the widespread damage that we had," Sideris told CNBC's "Closing Bell."

FPL said on Monday it was doing final checks before bringing back nuclear reactors that were powered down as Hurricane Irma hit Florida.

"We are in the process now of doing final checks on a few of them; we will be bringing those up," FPL President and CEO Eric Silagy told reporters.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

ERCOT Ancillary Services Clawback and VOLL Pricing summarize PUCT and IMM actions on load shed, real-time pricing adders, clawbacks, and settlement corrections after the 2021 winter storm in the Texas power grid market.

Key Points

Policies addressing clawbacks for unprovided AS and correcting VOLL-based price adders after load shed ended in ERCOT.

✅ PUCT ordered clawbacks for ancillary services not delivered.

✅ IMM urged price correction after firm load shed ceased.

✅ ERCOT's VOLL adder raised costs by $16B during 32 hours.

Potomac Economics, the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), filed a report with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) that certain payments were made by ERCOT for Ancillary Services (AS) that were not provided, even as ERCOT later issued a winter reliability RFP to procure capacity during subsequent seasons.

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

There were a number of instances during the operating days outlined above in which AS was not provided in real time because of forced outages or derations. For market participants that are not able to meet their AS responsibility, typically the ERCOT operator marks the short amount in the software. This causes the AS responsibility to be effectively removed and the day-ahead AS payment to be clawed back in settlement. However, the ERCOT operators did not complete this task during the winter event, echoing issues like the Ontario IESO phantom demand that cost customers millions, and therefore the "failure to provide" settlements were not invoked in real time.

Removing the operator intervention step and automating the "failure to provide" settlement was contemplated in NPRR947: Clarification to Ancillary Service Supply Responsibility Definition and Improvements to Determining and Charging for Ancillary Service Failed Quantities; however, the NPRR was withdrawn in August 2020 amid ongoing market reform discussions because of the system cost, some complexities related to AS trades, and the implementation of real-time co-optimization.

Invoking the "failure to provide" settlement for all AS that market participants failed to provide during the operating days outlined above will produce market outcomes and settlements consistent with underlying market principles. In this case, the principle is that market participants should not be paid for services that they do not provide, even as a separate ruling found power plants exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under Texas law, underscoring the distinction between obligations and settlements. Whether ERCOT marked the short amount in real-time or not should not affect the settlement of these ancillary services.

On March 3, 2021, the PUCT ordered (a related press release is here) that:

ERCOT shall claw back all payments for ancillary service that were made to an entity that did not provide its required ancillary service during real time on ERCOT operating days starting February 14, 2021 and ending on February 19,2021.

On March 4, 2021, the IMM filed another report and recommended that:

the [PUCT] direct ERCOT to correct the real-time prices from 0:00 February 18,2021, to 09:00 February 19, 2021, to remove the inappropriate pricing intervention that occurred during that time period.

The IMM approvingly noted the PUCT's February 15, 2021 order, which mandated that real-time energy prices reflect firm load shed by setting prices at the value of lost load (VOLL).1

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

This is essential in an energy-only market, like ERCOT's, where the Texas power grid faces recurring crisis risks, because it provides efficient economic signals to increase the electric generation needed to restore the load and service it reliably over the long term.

Conversely, it is equally important that prices not reflect VOLL when the system is not in shortage and load is being served, and experiences in capacity markets show auction payouts can fall sharply under different conditions. The Commission recognized this principle in its Order, expressly stating it is only ERCOT's out-of-market shedding firm load that is required to be reflected in prices. Unfortunately, ERCOT exceeded the mandate of the Commission by continuing to set process at VOLL long after it ceased the firm load shed.

ERCOT recalled the last of the firm load shed instructions at 23:55 on February 17, 2021. Therefore, in order to comply with the Commission Order, the pricing intervention that raised prices to VOLL should have ended immediately at that time. However, ERCOT continued to hold prices at VOLL by inflating the Real-Time On-Line Reliability Deployment Price Adder for an additional 32 hours through the morning of February 19. This decision resulted in $16 billion in additional costs to ERCOT's market, prompting legislative bailout proposals in Austin, of which roughly $1.5 billion was uplifted to load-serving entities to provide make-whole payments to generators for energy that was not needed or produced.

However, at its March 5, 2021, open meeting (related discussion begins around minute 20), although the PUCT acknowledged the "good points" raised by the IMM, the PUCT was not willing to retrospectively adjust its real-time pricing for this period out of concerns that some related transactions (ICE futures and others) may have already settled and for unintended consequences of such retroactive adjustments.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas power grid highlights ERCOT reliability strains from extreme heat, climate change, and low wind, as natural gas and renewables balance tight capacity amid EV charging growth, heat pumps, and blackout risk across the U.S.

Key Points

Texas power grid is ERCOT-run and isolated, balancing natural gas and wind amid extreme weather and electrification.

✅ Isolated from other U.S. grids, limited import support

✅ Vulnerable to extreme heat, winter storms, low wind

✅ Demand growth from EVs and heat pumps stresses capacity

Texas has a unique state-run power grid facing a Texas grid crisis that has raised concerns, but its issues with extreme weather, and balancing natural gas and wind, hold lessons for an entire U.S. at risk for power outages from climate change.

Grid operator the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which has drawn criticism from Elon Musk recently, called on consumers to voluntarily reduce power use on Monday when dangerous heat gripped America’s second-most populous state.

The action paid off as the Texas grid avoided blackouts — and a repeat of its winter crisis — despite record or near-record temperatures that depleted electric supplies amid a broader supply-chain crisis affecting utilities this summer, and risked lost power to more than 26 million customers. ERCOT later on Monday lifted the call for conservation.

For sure, it’s a unique situation, as the state-run power grid system runs outside the main U.S. grids. Still, all Americans can learn from Texas about the fragility of a national power grid that is expected to be challenged more frequently by hot and cold weather extremes brought on by climate change, including potential reliability improvements policymakers are weighing.

The grid will also be tested by increased demand to power electric vehicles (EVs) and conversions to electric heat pumps — all as part of a transition to a “greener” future.

Why is Texas different?
ERCOT, the main, but not only, Texas grid, is unique in its state-run, and not regional, format used by the rest of the country. Because it’s an energy-rich state, Texas has been able to set power prices below those seen in other parts of the country, and its independence gives it more pricing authority, while lawmakers consider market reforms to avoid blackouts. But during unusual strain on the system, such as more people blasting their air conditioners longer to combat a record heat wave, it also has no where else to turn.

A lethal winter power shortage in February 2021, during a Texas winter storm that left many without power and water, notoriously put the state and its independent utility in the spotlight when ERCOT failed to keep residents warm and pipes from bursting. Texas’s 2021 outage left more than 200 people dead and rang up $20 billion in damage. Fossil-fuel CL00, 0.80% backers pointed to the rising use of intermittent wind power, which generates 23% of Texas’s electricity. Others said natural-gas equipment was frozen under the extreme conditions.

This week, ERCOT is asking for voluntary conservation between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. local time daily due to record high electricity demand from the projected heat wave, and also because of low wind. ERCOT said current projections show wind generation coming in at less than 10% of capacity. ERCOT stressed that no systemwide outages are expected, and Gov. Greg Abbott has touted grid readiness heading into fall, but it was acting preemptively.

A report late last year from the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) said the Texas system without upgrades could see a power shortfall of 37% in extreme winter conditions. NERC’s outlook suggested the state and ERCOT isn’t prepared for a repeat of weather extremes.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Municipal Renewable Energy Procurement surged as cities contracted 3.7 GW of solar and wind, leveraging green tariffs, community solar, and utility partnerships across the Southeast, led by Houston, RMI, and WRI data.

Key Points

The process by which cities contract solar and wind via utilities or green tariffs to meet climate goals.

✅ 3.7 GW procured in 2020, nearly 25% year-over-year growth

✅ Houston runs city ops on 500 MW solar, a record purchase

✅ Southeast cities use green tariffs and community solar

Cities around the country bought more renewable energy last year than ever before, reflecting how renewables may soon provide one-fourth of U.S. electricity across the grid, with some of the most remarkable projects in the Southeast, according to new data unveiled Thursday.

Even amid the pandemic, about eight dozen municipalities contracted to buy nearly 3.7 gigawatts of mostly solar and wind energy — enough to power more than 800,000 homes. The figure is almost a quarter higher than the year before.

Half of the cites listed as “most noteworthy” in Thursday’s release —  from research groups Rocky Mountain Institute and World Resources Institute — are in the region that stretches from Texas to Washington, D.C. 

Houston stands out for the sheer enormity of its purchase: In July, it began powering city operations entirely from nearly 500 megawatts of solar power — the largest municipal purchase of renewable energy ever in the United States, as renewable electricity surpassed coal nationwide.

The groups also feature smaller deals in North Carolina and Tennessee, achieved through a utility partnership called a green tariff.

“We wanted to recognize that Nashville and Charlotte were really blazing a new trail,” said Stephen Abbott, principal at the Rocky Mountain Institute.

And the nation’s capital shows how renewable energy can be a source of revenue: It’s leasing out its public transit station rooftops for 10 megawatts of community solar.

All of these strategies will be necessary for scores of U.S. cities to meet their ambitious climate goals, researchers believe. An interactive clean energy targets tracker shows all 95 clean energy procurements from the year in detail.

Tracker 
Even before former President Donald Trump promised to remove the United States from the Paris Climate Accord, a lack of federal action on climate left a void that some cities and counties were beginning to fill, as renewables hit a record 28% in a recent month. In 2015, the first year tracked by researchers at the Rocky Mountain Institute and the World Resources Institute, municipalities contracted to buy more than 1 gigawatt of wind, solar and other forms of clean energy. 

But when Trump officially set in motion the withdrawal from the climate agreement, the ranks of municipalities dedicated to 100% clean energy multiplied. Today there are nearly 200 of them. The growth in activity last year reflects, in part, that surge of new pledges.

“It takes a while to get city staff up to speed and understand the options, and create the roadmap and then start executing,” Abbott said. “There is a bit of a lag, but we’re starting to see the impact.”

Even in Houston — one of the earliest to begin procuring renewable energy — there has been a steep learning curve as market forces change and prices drop, including cheaper solar batteries shaping procurement strategies, said Lara Cottingham, Houston’s chief of staff and chief sustainability officer.

No matter how well resourced and educated their staff, cities have to clear a thicket of structural, political and economic challenges to procure renewable energy. Most don’t own their own sources of power. Nearly all face budget constraints. Few have enough land or government rooftops to meet their goals within city limits.

“Cities face a situation where it’s a square peg in a round hole,” Cottingham said.

The hurdles are especially steep in much of the Southeast, where only publicly regulated utilities can sell electricity to retail customers, even large ones such as major cities. That’s where a green tariff regime comes in: Cities can purchase clean energy from a third party, such as a solar company, using the utility as a go-between.

Early last year, Charlotte became the largest city to use such a program, partnering with Duke Energy and two North Carolina solar developers to build a solar farm 50 miles north in Iredell County. At first, the city will pay a premium for the energy, but in the latter half of the 20-year contract, as gas prices rise, it will save money compared to business as usual.

“Over the course of 20 years, it’s projected we would save about $2 million,” Katie Riddle, sustainability analyst with Charlotte, told the Energy News Network last year.

The growing size of projects, innovative partnerships like green tariff programs, and the improving economics all give Abbott hope that renewable energy investments from cities will only grow — even with the Trump presidency over and the country back in the Paris agreement.

And when cities meet their goals for procuring renewable energy for their own operations, they must then turn to an even bigger task: reducing the carbon footprint of every person in their jurisdiction with broader decarbonization strategies and community engagement.

“The city needs to do its part for sure,” said Houston’s Cottingham. “Then we have this challenge of how do we get everyone else to.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Virtual Power Plants orchestrate distributed energy resources like rooftop solar, home batteries, and EVs to deliver grid services, demand response, peak shaving, and resilience, lowering costs while enhancing reliability across wholesale markets and local networks.

Key Points

Virtual Power Plants aggregate solar and batteries to provide grid services, cut peak costs, and boost reliability.

✅ Aggregates DERs via cloud to bid into wholesale markets

✅ Reduces peak demand, defers costly grid upgrades

✅ Enhances resilience vs outages, cyber risks, and wildfires

If “virtual” meetings can allow companies to gather without anyone being in the office, then remotely distributed solar panels and batteries can harness energy and act as “virtual power plants.” It is simply the orchestration of millions of dispersed assets within a smarter electricity infrastructure to manage the supply of electricity — power that can be redirected back to the grid and distributed to homes and businesses. 

The ultimate goal is to revamp the energy landscape, making it cleaner and more reliable. By using onsite generation such as rooftop solar and smart solar inverters in combination with battery storage, those services can reduce the network’s overall cost by deferring expensive infrastructure upgrades and by reducing the need to purchase cost-prohibitive peak power. 

“We expect virtual power plants, including aggregated home solar and batteries, to become more common and more impactful for energy consumers throughout the country in the coming years,” says Michael Sachdev, chief product officer for Sunrun Inc., a rooftop solar company, in an interview. “The growth of home solar and batteries will be most apparent in places where households have an immediate need for backup power, as they do in California, where grid reliability pressures have led utilities to turn off the electricity to reduce wildfire risk.”

Most Popular In: Energy

How Extremophile Bacteria Living In Nuclear Reactors Might Help Us Make Vaccines
Apple, Ford, McDonald’s, Microsoft Among This Summer’s Climate Leaders
What’s Next For Oil And Gas?
Home battery adoption, such as Tesla Powerwall systems, is becoming commonplace in Hawaii and in New England, he adds, because those distributed assets are improving the efficiency of the electrical network. It is a trend that is reshaping the country’s energy generation and delivery system by relying more on clean onsite generation and less on fossil fuels.

Sunrun has recently formed a business partnership with AutoGrid, which will manage Sunrun’s fleet of rechargeable batteries. It is a cloud-based system that allows Sunrun to work with utilities to dispatch its “storage fleet” to optimize the economic results. AutoGrid compiles the data and makes AI-driven forecasts that enable it to pinpoint potential trouble spots. 

But a distributed energy system, or a virtual power plant, would have 200,000 subsystems. Or, 200,000 5 kilowatt batteries would be the equivalent of one power plant that has a capacity of 1,000 megawatts. 

“A virtual power plant acts as a generator,” says Amit Narayan, chief executive officer of AutoGrid, in an interview. “It is one of the top five innovations of the decade. If you look at Sunrun, 60% of every solar system it sells in the Bay Area is getting attached to a battery. The value proposition comes when you can aggregate these batteries and market them as a generation unit. The pool of individual assets may improve over time. But when you add these up, it is better than a large-scale plant. It is like going from mainframe computers to laptops.”

The AutoGrid executive goes on to say that centralized systems are less reliable than distributed resources. While one battery could falter, 200,000 of them that operate from remote locations will prove to be more durable — able to withstand cyber attacks and wildfires. Sunrun’s Sachdev adds that the ability to store energy in batteries, as seen in California’s expanding grid-scale battery use supporting reliability, and to move it to the grid on demand creates value not just for homes and businesses but also for the network as a whole.

The good news is that the trend worldwide is to make it easier for smaller distributed assets, including energy storage for microgrids that support local resilience, to get the same regulatory treatment as power plants. System operators have been obligated to call up those power supplies that are the most cost-effective and that can be easily dispatched. But now regulators are giving virtual power plants comprised of solar and batteries the same treatment. 

In the United States, for example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order in 2018 that allows storage resources to participate in wholesale markets — where electricity is bought directly from generators before selling that power to homes and businesses. Under the ruling, virtual power plants are paid the same as traditional power suppliers. A federal appeals court this month upheld the commission’s order, saying that it had the right to ensure “technological advances in energy storage are fully realized in the marketplace.” 

“In the past, we have used back-up generators,” notes AutoGrid’s Narayan. “As we move toward more automation, we are opening up the market to small assets such as battery storage and electric vehicles. As we deploy more of these assets, there will be increasing opportunities for virtual power plants.” 

Virtual power plants have the potential to change the energy horizon by harnessing locally-produced solar power and redistributing that to where it is most needed — all facilitated by cloud-based software that has a full panoramic view. At the same time, those smaller distributed assets can add more reliability and give consumers greater peace-of-mind — a dynamic that does, indeed, beef-up America’s generation and delivery network.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News