Smart grid good for big wind, solar: regulator

California Wildfire Power Shut-Offs escalate as PG&E imposes blackouts amid high winds, Getty and Kincade fires, mass evacuations, Sonoma County threats, and a state of emergency, drawing regulatory scrutiny over grid safety and outage scope.

Key Points

Planned utility outages to curb wildfire risk during extreme winds, prompting evacuations and regulatory scrutiny.

✅ PG&E preemptive blackouts under regulator inquiry

✅ Getty and Kincade fires drive mass evacuations

✅ Sonoma County under threat amid high winds

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) already faces an investigation by regulators after cutting supplies to 970,000 homes and businesses amid California blackouts that raised concerns.

It announced that another 650,000 properties would face precautionary shut-offs.

Wildfires fanned by the strong winds are raging in two parts of the state.

Thousands of residents near the wealthy Brentwood neighbourhood of Los Angeles have been told to evacuate because of a wildfire that began early on Monday.

Further north in Sonoma County, a larger fire has forced 180,000 people from their homes.

California's governor has declared a state-wide emergency.

What about the power cuts?

On Monday regulators announced a formal inquiry into whether energy utilities broke rules by pre-emptively cutting power to an estimated 2.5 million people, amid a blackouts policy debate that intensified, as wildfire risks soared.

They did not name any utilities but analysts said PG&E was responsible for the bulk of the "public safety power shut-offs", and later faced a Camp Fire guilty plea that underscored its liabilities.

The company filed for bankruptcy in January after facing hundreds of lawsuits from victims of wildfires in 2017 and 2018.

Of the 970,000 properties hit by the most recent cuts, under half had their services back by Monday, and some sought help through wildfire assistance programs, the Associated Press reported.

Despite criticism that the precautionary blackouts were too widespread and too disruptive, PG&E said more would come on Tuesday and Wednesday because further strong winds were expected.

The company said it had logged more than 20 preliminary reports of damage to its network from the most recent windstorm.

In a video posted to Twitter on Saturday, Governor Gavin Newsom said the power cuts were "infuriating everyone, and rightfully so".

Where are the fires now?

In Los Angeles, the Getty Fire has burned over 600 acres (242 ha) and about 10,000 buildings are in the mandatory evacuation zone.

At least eight homes have been destroyed and five others damaged.

"If you are in an evacuation zone, don't screw around," Mr Schwarzenegger tweeted. "Get out."

LA fire chief Ralph Terrazas said fire crews had been "overwhelmed" by the scale of the fires.

"They had to make some tough decisions on which houses they were able to protect," he said.

"Many times it depends on where the ember lands. I saw homes that were adjacent to homes that were totally destroyed, without any damage."

In northern California, schools remain closed in Sonoma County, where tens of thousands of homes and businesses are under threat.

Sonoma has been ravaged by the Kincade Fire, which started on Wednesday and has burned through 50,000 acres of land, fanned by the winds.

The Kincade Fire began seven minutes after a nearby power line was damaged, and power lines may have started fires according to reports, but PG&E has not yet confirmed if the power glitch started the blaze.

About 180,000 people have been ordered to evacuate, with roads around Santa Rosa north of San Francisco packed with cars as people tried to flee.

There are fears the flames could cross the 101 highway and enter areas that have not seen wildfires since the 1940s.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Global Energy Investment Decline risks future oil and electricity supply, says the IEA, as spending on upstream, coal plants, and grids falls while renewables, storage, and flexible generation lag in the energy transition.

Key Points

Multi-year cuts to oil, power, and grid spending that increase risks of future supply shortages and market tightness.

✅ IEA warns underinvestment risks oil supply squeeze

✅ China and India slow coal plant additions; renewables rise

✅ Batteries aid flexibility but cannot replace seasonal storage

An almost 20 per cent fall in global energy investment over the past three years could lead to oil and electricity shortages, as surging electricity demand persists, and there are concerns about whether current business models will encourage sufficient levels of spending in the future, according a new report.

The International Energy Agency’s second annual IEA benchmark analysis of energy investment found that while the world spent $US1.7 trillion ($2.2 trillion) on fossil-fuel exploration, new power plants and upgrades to electricity grids last year, with electricity investment surpassing oil and gas even as global energy investment was down 12 per cent from a year earlier and 17 per cent lower than 2014.

While the IEA said continued oversupply of oil and electricity globally would prevent any imminent shock, falling investment “points to a risk of market tightness and undercapacity at some point down the line’’.

The low crude oil price drove a 44 per cent drop in oil and gas investment between 2014 and 2016. It fell 26 per cent last year. It was due to falls in upstream activity and a slowdown in the sanctioning of conventional oilfields to the lowest level in more than 70 years.

“Given the depletion of existing fields, the pace of investment in conventional fields will need to rise to avoid a supply squeeze, even on optimistic assumptions about technology and the impact of climate policies on oil demand,’’ the IEA warned in its report released yesterday evening. “The energy transition has barely begun in several key sectors, such as transport and industry, which will continue to rely heavily on oil, gas and coal for the foreseeable future.’’

The fall in global energy spending also reflected declining investment in power generation, particularly from coal plants.

While 21 per cent of global ­energy investment was made by China in 2016, the world’s fastest growing economy had a 25 per cent decline in the commissioning of new coal-fired power plants, due largely to air pollution issues and investment in renewables.

Investment in new coal-fired plants also fell in India.

“India and China have slammed the brakes on coal-fired generation. That is the big change we have seen globally,’’ said ­Bruce Mountain a director at CME Australia.

“What it confirms is the ­pressures and the changes we are seeing in Australia, the restructuring of our energy supply, is just part of a global trend. We are facing the pressures more sharply in Australia because our power prices are very high. But that same shift in energy source in Australia are being mirrored internationally.’’ The IEA — a Paris-based adviser to the OECD on energy policy — also highlighted Australia’s reduced power reserves in its report and called for regulatory change to encourage greater use of renewables.

“Australia has one of the highest proportions of households with PV systems on their roof of any country in the world, and its ­electricity use in its National ­Electricity Market is spread out over a huge and weakly connected network,’’ the report said.

“It appears that a series of accompanying investments and regulatory changes are needed, including a plan to avoid supply threats, to use Australia’s abundant wind and solar potential: changing system operation methods and reliability procedures as well as investment into network capacity, flexible generation and storage.’’ The report found that in Australia there had been an increase in grid-scale installations mostly associated with large-scale solar PV plants.

Last month the Turnbull ­government revealed it was prepared to back the construction of new coal-fired power stations to prevent further shortfalls in electricity supplies, while the PM ruled out taxpayer-funded plants and declared it was open to using “clean coal” technology to replace existing generators.

He also pledged “immediate” ­action to boost the supply of gas by forcing exporters to divert ­production into the domestic ­market.

Since then technology billionaire Elon Musk has promised to solve South Australia’s energy ­issues by building the world’s largest lithium-ion battery in the state.

But the IEA report said batteries were unlikely to become a “one size fits all” single solution to ­electricity security and flexibility provision.

“While batteries are well-suited to frequency control and shifting hourly load, they cannot provide seasonal storage or substitute the full range of technical services that conventional plants provide to stabilise the system,’’ the report said.

“In the absence of a major technological breakthrough, it is most likely that batteries will complement rather than substitute ­conventional means of providing system flexibility. While conventional plants continue to provide essential system services, their business model is increasingly being called into question in ­unbundled systems.’’

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Goreway Power Station Overbilling exposed by Ontario Energy Board shows IESO oversight failures, GCG gaming, and $100M in inappropriate payments at the Brampton natural gas plant, penalized with fines and repayments impacting Ontario ratepayers.

Key Points

Goreway exploited IESO GCG flaws, causing about $100M in improper payouts and fines.

✅ OEB probe flagged $89M in ineligible start-up O&M charges

✅ IESO fined Goreway $10M; majority of excess costs recovered

✅ Audit found $200M in overbilling across nine generators

Hydro customers shelled out about $100 million in "inappropriate" payments to a natural gas plant that exploited flaws in how Ontario manages its private electricity generators, according to the Ontario Energy Board.

The company operating the Goreway Power Station in Brampton "gamed" the system for at least three years, according to an investigation by the provincial energy regulator. 

The investigation also delivers stinging criticism of the provincial government's Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), slamming it for a lack of oversight. The probe by the Ontario Energy Board's market surveillance panel was completed nearly a year ago, but was only made public in November because it was buried on its website without a news release. CBC News is the first media outlet to report on the investigation.  

The excess payments to Goreway Power Station included:

• $89 million in ineligible expenses billed as the costs of firing up power production. 
• $5.6 million paid in three months from a flaw in how IESO calculated top-ups for the company committing to generate power a day in advance.   
• Of $11.2 million paid to compensate the company for IESO ordering it to start or stop generating power, the investigation concluded "a substantial portion ... was the result of gaming."  

Most privately-owned natural gas-fired plants in the province do not generate electricity constantly, but start and stop production in response to fluctuating market demand, even as the energy minister has requested an halt to natural gas generation across the grid.  IESO pays them a premium for the costs of firing up production, through what it calls "generation cost guarantee" programs. 

But the investigation found IESO did little checking into the details of Goreway Power Station's billings. 

Goreway Power Station, located near Highway 407 in Brampton, Ont., is an 875 megawatt natural gas power plant. (Goreway)

"Conservatively, at least $89 million of Goreway's submissions were clearly ineligible by any reasonable measure," concludes the report.

"Goreway routinely submitted what were obviously inappropriate expenses to be reimbursed by the IESO, and ultimately borne by Ontario ratepayers,"

The investigation panel found an "extraordinary pattern" to these billings by Goreway Power Station, suggesting the IESO should have caught on sooner. The company submitted more than $100 million in start-up operating and maintenance costs during the three-year period investigated — more than all other gas-fired generators in the province combined. The company's costs per start-up were more than double the next most expensive power generator. 

"Goreway repeatedly exploited defects in the GCG (generation cost guarantee) program, and in doing so received at least $89 million in gamed GCG payments." 

Company fined $10M

The investigation covered a three-year period from when Goreway Power Station began generating power in June 2009. Investigators said that delays in releasing documents slowed down their probe, and they only obtained all the records they needed in April 2016.

The investigating panel does not have the power to impose penalties on companies it found broke the rules. 

The IESO fined Goreway Power Station $10 million. The company has also repaid IESO "a substantial portion" of the excess payments it received during its first six years of operating, but the exact figure is blacked out in the investigation report that was made public. 

The control room from which the provincial government's Independent Electricity System Operator manages Ontario's power supply. The agency is also responsible for managing contracts with private power producers.(IESO)

"Goreway does not agree with many of the draft report's findings and conclusions, including any suggestion that Goreway engaged in gaming or that it deliberately misled the IESO," writes lawyer George Vegh on behalf of the company in a response to the investigation report, dated Aug. 1.

"Goreway has implemented initiatives designed to ensure that compliance is a chief operating principle."     

The power station, located near Highway 407 in Brampton, is a joint venture between Toyota Tsusho Corp. and JERA Co. Inc. During the period under scrutiny, the project was run by Toyota Tsusho and Chubu Electric Power Inc., both headquartered in Japan. 

Investigators fear 'same situation' exists today

The report blames the provincially-controlled IESO for creating a system with defects that allowed the over-billing. 

"Goreway was able to — and repeatedly did — exploit these defects," says the investigation report. It goes on to explain the flaws "have created opportunities for exploitation, to the serious financial disadvantage of Ontario's ratepayers," even as greening Ontario's grid could entail massive costs.

The investigation suggests IESO hasn't made adequate changes to ensure it won't happen again, at a time when an analysis of a dirtier grid is raising concerns.   

"Goreway stands as a clear example of how generators are able to exploit the generation costs guarantee regime," says the report.

"The Panel is concerned that the same situation remains in place today." 

PC energy critic Todd Smith raised CBC News' report on the Goreway Power Station in Tuesday's question period. (Ontario Legislature)

After CBC News broke the story Tuesday, the provincial government was forced to respond in question period, amid a broader push for new gas plants to boost electricity production. 

"Here we have yet another gas plant scandal in Peel region that's costing electricity customers over $100 million," said PC energy critic Todd Smith. He slammed "the incompetence of a government that once again failed to look out for electricity customers." 

Economic Development Minister Brad Duguid said: "There is no excuse for any company in this province to ever game the system."

Nine companies overbilled $200M: audit 

The IESO found out about the overbilling "some time ago," said Duguid.

"They fully investigated, they've recovered most of the cost, they delivered a $10 million fine — the biggest fine on record."

The program that Goreway exploited became the subject of an audit that the IESO launched in 2011. The agency uncovered $200 million in ineligible billings by nine power producers, wrote the IESO vice president for policy Terry Young in an email to CBC News.

The IESO has recovered up to 85 per cent of those ineligible costs, Young noted.

Reforms to the design of the the program have removed the potential for overpayments and made it more efficient, he said, even as Ontario weighs embracing clean power more broadly. Last year, its total annual costs dropped to $23 million, down from $61 million in 2014.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Wall Street Fossil Fuel Pivot signals banks reassessing ESG, net-zero, and decarbonization goals, reviving oil, gas, and coal financing while recalibrating clean energy exposure amid policy shifts, regulatory rollbacks, and investment risk realignment.

Key Points

A shift as major U.S. banks ease ESG limits to fund oil, gas, coal while rebalancing alongside renewables.

✅ Banks revisit lending to oil, gas, and coal after policy shifts.

✅ ESG and net-zero commitments face reassessment amid returns.

✅ Renewables compete for capital as risk models are updated.

The global energy finance sector, worth a staggering $1.4 trillion, is undergoing a significant transformation, largely due to former President Donald Trump's renewed support for the oil, gas, and coal industries. Wall Street, which had previously aligned itself with global climate initiatives and the energy transition and net-zero goals, is now reassessing its strategy and pivoting toward a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance.

This shift represents a major change from the earlier stance, where many of the largest U.S. banks and financial institutions took a firm stance on decarbonization push, including limiting their exposure to fossil-fuel projects. Just a few years ago, these institutions were vocal supporters of the global push for a sustainable future, with many committing to support clean energy solutions and abandon investments in high-carbon energy sources.

However, with the change in administration and the resurgence of support for traditional energy sectors under Trump’s policies, these same banks are now rethinking their strategies. Financial institutions are increasingly discussing the possibility of lifting long-standing restrictions that limited their investments in controversial fossil-fuel projects, including coal mining, where emissions drop as coal declines, and offshore drilling. The change reflects a broader realignment within the energy finance sector, with Wall Street reexamining its role in shaping the future of energy.

One of the most significant developments is the Biden administration’s policy reversal, which emphasized reducing the U.S. carbon footprint in favor of carbon-free electricity strategies. Under Trump, however, there has been a renewed focus on supporting the traditional energy sectors. His administration has pushed to reduce regulatory burdens on fossil-fuel companies, particularly oil and gas, while simultaneously reintroducing favorable tax incentives for the coal and gas industries. This is a stark contrast to the Biden administration's efforts to incentivize the transition toward renewable energy and zero-emissions goals.

Trump's policies have, in effect, sent a strong signal to financial markets that the fossil-fuel industry could see a resurgence. U.S. banks, which had previously distanced themselves from financing oil and gas ventures due to the pressure from environmental activists and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investors, as seen in investor pressure on Duke Energy, are now reconsidering their positions. Major players like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are reportedly having internal discussions about revisiting financing for energy projects that involve high carbon emissions, including controversial oil extraction and gas drilling initiatives.

The implications of this shift are far-reaching. In the past, a growing number of institutional investors had embraced ESG principles, with the goal of supporting the transition to renewable energy sources. However, Trump’s pro-fossil fuel stance appears to be emboldening Wall Street’s biggest players to rethink their commitment to green investing. Some are now advocating for a “balanced approach” that would allow for continued investment in traditional energy sectors, while also acknowledging the growing importance of renewable energy investments, a trend echoed by European oil majors going electric in recent years.

This reversal has led to confusion among investors and analysts, who are now grappling with how to navigate a rapidly changing landscape. Wall Street's newfound support for the fossil-fuel industry comes amid a backdrop of global concerns about climate change. Many investors, who had previously embraced policies aimed at curbing the effects of global warming, are now finding it harder to reconcile their environmental commitments with the shift toward fossil-fuel-heavy portfolios. The reemergence of fossil-fuel-friendly policies is forcing institutional investors to rethink their long-term strategies.

The consequences of this policy shift are also being felt by renewable energy companies, which now face increased competition for investment dollars from traditional energy sectors. The shift towards oil and gas projects has made it more challenging for renewable energy companies to attract the same level of financial backing, even as demand for clean energy continues to rise and as doubling electricity investment becomes a key policy call. This could result in a deceleration of renewable energy projects, potentially delaying the progress needed to meet the world’s climate targets.

Despite this, some analysts remain optimistic that the long-term shift toward green energy is inevitable, even if fossil-fuel investments gain a temporary boost. As the world continues to grapple with the effects of climate change, and as technological advancements in clean energy continue to reduce costs, the transition to renewables is likely to persist, regardless of the political climate.

The shift in Wall Street’s approach to energy investments, spurred by Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies, is reshaping the $1.4 trillion global energy finance market. While the pivot towards fossil fuels may offer short-term gains, the long-term trajectory for energy markets remains firmly in the direction of renewables. The next few years will be crucial in determining whether financial institutions can balance the demand for short-term profitability with their long-term environmental responsibilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Community Solar for Low-Income Homes expands energy equity by delivering renewable energy access, predictable bill savings, and tax credit benefits to renters and energy-insecure households, accelerating distributed generation and storage adoption nationwide.

Key Points

A program model enabling renters and LMI households to subscribe to off-site solar and save on utility bills.

✅ Earn bill credits from shared solar generation.

✅ Expands access for renters and LMI subscribers.

✅ Often paired with storage and IRA tax credit adders.

On a square-foot basis, the issue of inequality is made worse by higher costs for energy usage in the nation. Efforts like community solar programs such as Maryland community solar are underway to boost low-income participation in the cost benefits of renewable energy.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that households that are considered energy insecure, or those that have the inability to adequately meet basic household energy costs, are paying more for electricity than their wealthier counterparts. 

On average in the United States in 2020, households were billed about $1.04 per square foot for all energy sources. For homes that did not report energy insecurity, that average was $0.98 per square foot, while homes with energy insecurity issues paid an average of $1.24 per square foot for energy. This means that U.S. residents that need the most support on their energy bills are stuck with costs 27% higher than their neighbors on square-foot-basis.

EIA said energy-insecure households have reduced or forgone basic necessities to pay energy bills, kept their houses at unsafe temperatures because of energy cost concerns, or been unable to repair heating or cooling equipment because of cost.

In 2020, households with income less than $10,000 a year were billed an average of $1.31 per square foot for energy, while households making $100,000 or more were billed an average of $0.96 per square foot, said EIA. Renters paid considerably more ($1.28 per square foot) than owners ($0.98 per square foot). There were also considerable differences between regions, with New England solar growth sparking grid upgrade debates, ethnic groups and races, and insulation levels, as seen below.

The energy transition toward renewables like solar has offered price stability, amid record solar and storage growth nationwide, but thus far energy-insecure communities have relatively been left behind. A recent Berkeley Lab report, Residential Solar-Adopter Income and Demographic Trends, indicates that even though the rate of solar adoption among low-income residents is increasing (from 5% in 2010 to 11% in 2021), that segment of energy consumers remains under-represented among solar adopters, relative to its share of the population.

Community solar efforts

As such, the United States is targeting communities most impacted by energy costs that have not benefitted from the transition, highlighting “Energy Communities” that are eligible for an additional 10% tax credit through funds made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act.

Additionally, a push for community solar development is taking place nationwide to extend access to affordable solar energy to renters and other residents that aren’t able to leverage finances to invest in predictable, low-cost residential solar systems. The Biden Administration set a goal this year to sign up 5 million community solar households, achieving $1 billion in bill savings by 2025. The community solar model only represents about 8% of the total distributed solar capacity in the nation. This target would entail a jump from 3 GW installed capacity to 20 GW by the target year. The Department of Energy estimates community solar subscribers save an average of 20% on their bills.

California this year passed AB 2316, the Community Renewable Energy Act takes aim at four acute problems in the state’s power market: reliability amid rising outage risks, rates, climate and equity. The law creates a community renewable energy program, including community solar-plus-storage, supported by cheaper batteries, to overcome access barriers for nearly half of Californians who rent or have low incomes. Community solar typically involves customers subscribing to an off-site solar facility, receiving a utility bill credit for the power it generates.

“Community renewable energy is a proven powerful tool to help close California’s clean energy gap, bringing much needed relief to millions struggling with high housing costs and utility debt,” said Alexis Sutterman, energy equity program manager at the California Environmental Justice Alliance.

The program has energy equity baked into its structure, working to make sure Californians of all income levels participate in the benefits of the energy transition. Not only does it open solar access to renters, the law ensures that at least 51% of subscribers are low-income customers, which is expected to make projects eligible for a 10% tax credit adder under the IRA.

“The money’s on the table now,” said Jeff Cramer, president and chief executive of the Coalition for Community Solar Access. “While there are groups pushing for solar access for all, and states with strong legislation, there are other pockets of interest in surprising places in the United States. For example, Louisiana has no policy for community solar or support for low-income residents going solar but the city of New Orleans has its own utility commission with a community solar program. In Nebraska, forward-looking co-operatives have created community solar projects.

Community solar markets are active in 22 states, with more expected to come online in the future as states pursue 100% clean energy targets across the country. However, the market is expected to require strong community outreach efforts to foster trust and gain subscribers.

“There is a distrust of community solar initially in LMI communities as many have been burned before by retail energy false promises,” said Eric LaMora, executive director, community solar, Nautilus Solar on a panel at the Solar Energy Industries Association Finance, Tax, and Buyers seminar. “People are suspicious but there really are no hooks with community solar.”

LMI residents are leery to provide tax records or much documents at all in order to sign up for community solar, LaMora said. “We were surprised to see less of a default rate with LMI residents. We attribute this to the fact that they see significant savings on their electric bill, making it easier to pay each month,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News