Consumers in Power Markets Will Soon Change the Industry

Cooperative Energy bond rating upgrade signals lower debt costs as Fitch lifts GO Zone Bonds to A, reflecting Kemper exit, shift to owned generation, natural gas, and renewable energy for co-op members and borrowing rates.

Key Points

Fitch raised Cooperative Energy's GO Zone Bonds to A, cutting debt costs after Kemper exit and shift to natural gas.

✅ Fitch upgrades 2009A GO Zone Bonds from A- to A.

✅ Kemper divestment reduced risk and exposure to coal.

✅ Shift to owned generation, natural gas, renewables lowers costs.

Cooperative Energy and its 11 co-op members will see lower debt costs on $35.4 million bond; similar to regional utilities offering one-time bill decreases for customers recently.

Bailing out of its 15 percent ownership stake in Mississippi Power’s Kemper gasification plant, amid debates over coal and nuclear subsidies in federal policy, has helped Hattiesburg-based Cooperative Energy gain a ratings upgrade on a $35.4 million bond issue.

The electric power co-op, which changed its name to Cooperative Energy from South Mississippi Electric Power Association in November, received a ratings upgrade from A- to A for its 2009 2009A Mississippi Business Finance Corporation Gulf Opportunity Zone Bonds, even as other utilities announced bill reductions for customers during 2020.

“This rating upgrade reflects the success of our strategy to move from purchased power to owned generation resources, and from coal to natural gas and renewable energy as clean energy priorities gain traction,” said Cooperative Energy President/CEO Jim Compton in a press release.  “The result for our members is lower borrowing costs and more favorable rates.”

An “A” rating from Fitch designates the bond issue as “near premium quality,” a status noted as utilities adapted to pandemic-era electricity demand trends nationwide.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Calculated using imports and exports to serve ISO demand

✅ Occur during high solar output, low weekend load

✅ Coincide with curtailment and record renewable penetration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

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

Key Points

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

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

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

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

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

The Context of Rising Energy Costs

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

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

Industry Perspectives

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

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

Renewable Energy and Sustainability

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

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

Government's Role

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

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

Future Implications

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

ICT Electricity Demand is surging as data centers, 5G, IoT, and server farms expand, straining grids, boosting carbon emissions, and challenging climate targets unless efficiency, renewable energy, and smarter cooling dramatically improve.

Key Points

ICT electricity demand is power used by networks, devices, and data centers across the global communications sector.

✅ Projected to reach up to 20 percent of global electricity by 2025

✅ Driven by data centers, 5G traffic, IoT, and high-res streaming

✅ Mitigation: efficiency, renewable PPAs, advanced cooling, workload shifts

The communications industry could use 20% of all the world’s electricity by 2025, hampering attempts to meet climate change targets, even as countries like New Zealand's electrification plans seek broader decarbonization, and straining grids as demand by power-hungry server farms storing digital data from billions of smartphones, tablets and internet-connected devices grows exponentially.

The industry has long argued that it can considerably reduce carbon emissions by increasing efficiency and reducing waste, but academics are challenging industry assumptions. A new paper, due to be published by US researchers later this month, will forecast that information and communications technology could create up to 3.5% of global emissions by 2020 – surpassing aviation and shipping – and up to 14% 2040, around the same proportion as the US today.

Global computing power demand from internet-connected devices, high resolution video streaming, emails, surveillance cameras and a new generation of smart TVs is increasing 20% a year, consuming roughly 3-5% of the world’s electricity in 2015, says Swedish researcher Anders Andrae.

In an update o a 2016 peer-reviewed study, Andrae found that without dramatic increases in efficiency, the ICT industry could use 20% of all electricity and emit up to 5.5% of the world’s carbon emissions by 2025. This would be more than any country, except China, India and the USA, where China's data center electricity use is drawing scrutiny.

He expects industry power demand to increase from 200-300 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity a year now, to 1,200 or even 3,000TWh by 2025. Data centres on their own could produce 1.9 gigatonnes (Gt) (or 3.2% of the global total) of carbon emissions, he says.

“The situation is alarming,” said Andrae, who works for the Chinese communications technology firm Huawei. “We have a tsunami of data approaching. Everything which can be is being digitalised. It is a perfect storm. 5G [the fifth generation of mobile technology] is coming, IP [internet protocol] traffic is much higher than estimated, and all cars and machines, robots and artificial intelligence are being digitalised, producing huge amounts of data which is stored in data centres.”

US researchers expect power consumption to triple in the next five years as one billion more people come online in developing countries, and the “internet of things” (IoT), driverless cars, robots, video surveillance and artificial intelligence grows exponentially in rich countries.

The industry has encouraged the idea that the digital transformation of economies and large-scale energy efficiencies will slash global emissions by 20% or more, but the scale and speed of the revolution has been a surprise.

Global internet traffic will increase nearly threefold in the next five years says the latest Cisco Visual Networking Index, a leading industry tracker of internet use.

“More than one billion new internet users are expected, growing from three billion in 2015 to 4.1bn by 2020. Over the next five years global IP networks will support up to 10bn new devices and connections, increasing from 16.3bn in 2015 to 26bn by 2020,” says Cisco.

A 2016 Berkeley laboratory report for the US government estimated the country’s data centres, which held about 350m terabytes of data in 2015, could together need over 100TWh of electricity a year by 2020. This is the equivalent of about 10 large nuclear power stations.

Data centre capacity is also rocketing in Europe, where the EU's plan to double electricity use by 2050 could compound demand, and Asia with London, Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam expected to add nearly 200MW of consumption in 2017, or the power equivalent of a medium size power station.

“We are seeing massive growth of data centres in all regions. Trends that started in the US are now standard in Europe. Asia is taking off massively,” says Mitual Patel, head of EMEA data centre research at global investment firm CBRE.

“The volume of data being handled by such centres is growing at unprecedented rates. They are seen as a key element in the next stage of growth for the ICT industry”, says Peter Corcoran, a researcher at the university of Ireland, Galway.

Using renewable energy sounds good but no one else benefits from what will be generated, and it skews national attempts to reduce emissions

Ireland, which with Denmark is becoming a data base for the world’s biggest tech companies, has 350MW connected to data centres but this is expected to triple to over 1,000MW, or the equivalent of a nuclear power station size plant, in the next five years.

Permission has been given for a further 550MW to be connected and 750MW more is in the pipeline, says Eirgrid, the country’s main grid operator.

“If all enquiries connect, the data centre load could account for 20% of Ireland’s peak demand,” says Eirgrid in its All-Island Generation Capacity Statement 2017-2026  report.

The data will be stored in vast new one million square feet or larger “hyper-scale” server farms, which companies are now building. The scale of these farms is huge; a single $1bn Apple data centre planned for Athenry in Co Galway, expects to eventually use 300MW of electricity, or over 8% of the national capacity and more than the daily entire usage of Dublin. It will require 144 large diesel generators as back up for when the wind does not blow.

 Facebook’s Lulea data centre in Sweden, located on the edge of the Arctic circle, uses outside air for cooling rather than air conditioning and runs on hydroelectic power generated on the nearby Lule River. Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian

Pressed by Greenpeace and other environment groups, large tech companies with a public face , including Google, Facebook, Apple, Intel and Amazon, have promised to use renewable energy to power data centres. In most cases they are buying it off grid but some are planning to build solar and wind farms close to their centres.

Greenpeace IT analyst Gary Cook says only about 20% of the electricity used in the world’s data centres is so far renewable, with 80% of the power still coming from fossil fuels.

“The good news is that some companies have certainly embraced their responsibility, and are moving quite aggressively to meet their rapid growth with renewable energy. Others are just growing aggressively,” he says.

Architect David Hughes, who has challenged Apple’s new centre in Ireland, says the government should not be taken in by the promises.

“Using renewable energy sounds good but no one else benefits from what will be generated, and it skews national attempts to reduce emissions. Data centres … have eaten into any progress we made to achieving Ireland’s 40% carbon emissions reduction target. They are just adding to demand and reducing our percentage. They are getting a free ride at the Irish citizens’ expense,” says Hughes.

Eirgrid estimates indicate that by 2025, one in every 3kWh generated in Ireland could be going to a data centre, he added. “We have sleepwalked our way into a 10% increase in electricity consumption.”

Fossil fuel plants may have to be kept open longer to power other parts of the country, and manage issues like SF6 use in electrical equipment, and the costs will fall on the consumer, he says. “We will have to upgrade our grid and build more power generation both wind and backup generation for when the wind isn’t there and this all goes onto people’s bills.”

Under a best case scenario, says Andrae, there will be massive continuous improvements of power saving, as the global energy transition gathers pace, renewable energy will become the norm and the explosive growth in demand for data will slow.

But equally, he says, demand could continue to rise dramatically if the industry keeps growing at 20% a year, driverless cars each with dozens of embedded sensors, and cypto-currencies like Bitcoin which need vast amounts of computer power become mainstream.

“There is a real risk that it all gets out of control. Policy makers need to keep a close eye on this,” says Andrae.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

U.S. power grid cyberattacks expose critical infrastructure to Russian hackers, DHS warns, targeting SCADA, smart grid sensors, and utilities; NERC CIP defenses, microgrids, and resilience planning aim to mitigate outages and supply chain disruptions.

Key Points

U.S. power grid cyberattacks target utility control systems, risking outages, disruption, requiring stronger defenses.

✅ Russian access to utilities and SCADA raises outage risk

✅ NERC CIP, DHS, and utilities expand cyber defenses

✅ Microgrids and renewables enhance resilience, islanding capability

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has revealed that Russian government hackers accessed control rooms at hundreds of U.S. electrical utility companies, gaining far more access to the operations of many more companies than previously disclosed by federal officials.

Securing the electrical grid, upon which is built almost the entirety of modern society, is a monumental challenge. Several experts have explained aspects of the task, potential solutions and the risks of failure for The Conversation:

1. What’s at stake?

The scale of disruption would depend, in part, on how much damage the attackers wanted to do. But a major cyberattack on the electricity grid could send surges through the grid, much as solar storms have done.

Those events, explains Rochester Institute of Technology space weather scholar Roger Dube, cause power surges, damaging transmission equipment. One solar storm in March 1989, he writes, left “6 million people without power for nine hours … [and] destroyed a large transformer at a New Jersey nuclear plant. Even though a spare transformer was nearby, it still took six months to remove and replace the melted unit.”

More serious attacks, like larger solar storms, could knock out manufacturing plants that build replacement electrical equipment, gas pumps to fuel trucks to deliver the material and even “the machinery that extracts oil from the ground and refines it into usable fuel. … Even systems that seem non-technological, like public water supplies, would shut down: Their pumps and purification systems need electricity.”

In the most severe cases, with fuel-starved transportation stalled and other basic infrastructure not working, “[p]eople in developed countries would find themselves with no running water, no sewage systems, no refrigerated food, and no way to get any food or other necessities transported from far away. People in places with more basic economies would also be without needed supplies from afar.”

2. It wouldn’t be the first time

Russia has penetrated other countries’ electricity grids in the past, and used its access to do real damage. In the middle of winter 2015, for instance, a Russian cyberattack shut off the power to Ukraine’s capital in the middle of winter 2015.

Power grid scholar Michael McElfresh at Santa Clara University discusses what happened to cause hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to lose power for several hours, and notes that U.S. utilities use software similar to their Ukrainian counterparts – and therefore share the same vulnerabilities.

3. Security work is ongoing

These threats aren’t new, write grid security experts Manimaran Govindarasu from Iowa State and Adam Hahn from Washington State University. There are a lot of people planning defenses, including the U.S. government, as substation attacks are growing across the country. And the “North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which oversees the grid in the U.S. and Canada, has rules … for how electric companies must protect the power grid both physically and electronically.” The group holds training exercises in which utility companies practice responding to attacks.

4. There are more vulnerabilities now

Grid researcher McElfresh also explains that the grid is increasingly complex, with with thousands of companies responsible for different aspects of generating, transmission, and delivery to customers. In addition, new technologies have led companies to incorporate more sensors and other “smart grid” technologies. He describes how that, as a recent power grid report card underscores, “has created many more access points for penetrating into the grid computer systems.”

5. It’s time to ramp up efforts

The depth of access and potential control over electrical systems means there has never been a better time than right now to step up grid security amid a renewed focus on protecting the grid among policymakers and utilities, writes public-utility researcher Theodore Kury at the University of Florida. He notes that many of those efforts may also help protect the grid from storm damage and other disasters.

6. A possible solution could be smaller grids

One protective effort was identified by electrical engineer Joshua Pearce at Michigan Technological University, who has studied ways to protect electricity supplies to U.S. military bases both within the country and abroad. He found that the Pentagon has already begun testing systems, as the military ramps up preparation for major grid hacks, that combine solar-panel arrays with large-capacity batteries. “The equipment is connected together – and to buildings it serves – in what is called a ‘microgrid,’ which is normally connected to the regular commercial power grid but can be disconnected and become self-sustaining when disaster strikes.”

He found that microgrid systems could make military bases more resilient in the face of cyberattacks, criminals or terrorists and natural disasters – and even help the military “generate all of its electricity from distributed renewable sources by 2025 … which would provide energy reliability and decrease costs, [and] largely eliminate a major group of very real threats to national security.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News