New York Regulators Open Formal Review of Retail Energy Markets

Germany Energy Demand Decline reflects economic stagnation, IEA forecasts, and the Energiewende, as industrial output slips and efficiency gains, renewables growth, and cost-cutting reduce fossil fuel use while reshaping sustainability and energy security.

Key Points

A projected 7% drop in German energy use driven by industrial slowdown, efficiency gains, and renewables expansion.

✅ IEA projects up to 7% demand drop in the next year

✅ Industrial slowdown and efficiency programs cut consumption

✅ Energiewende shifts mix to wind, solar, and less fossil fuel

Germany is on the verge of experiencing a significant decline in energy demand, with forecasts suggesting that usage could hit a record low as the country grapples with economic stagnation. This shift highlights not only the immediate impacts of sluggish economic growth but also broader trends in energy consumption, Europe's electricity markets, sustainability, and the transition to renewable resources.

Recent data indicate that Germany's economy is facing substantial challenges, including high inflation and reduced industrial output. As companies struggle to maintain profitability amid nearly doubled power prices and rising costs, many have begun to cut back on energy consumption. This retrenchment is particularly pronounced in energy-intensive sectors such as manufacturing and chemical production, which are crucial to Germany's export-driven economy.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has projected that German energy demand could decline by as much as 7% in the coming year, a stark contrast to the trends seen in previous decades. This decline is primarily driven by a combination of factors, including reduced industrial activity, increased energy efficiency measures, and a shift toward alternative energy sources, as well as mounting pressures on local utilities to stay solvent. The current economic landscape has led businesses to prioritize cost-cutting measures, including energy efficiency initiatives aimed at reducing consumption.

In the context of these developments, Germany’s energy transition—known as the "Energiewende"—is becoming increasingly significant. The country has made substantial investments in renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass in recent years. As energy efficiency improves and the share of renewables in the energy mix rises, traditional fossil fuel consumption has begun to wane. This transition is seen as both a response to climate change and a strategy for energy independence, particularly in light of geopolitical tensions and Europe's wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels across the continent.

However, the current stagnation presents a paradox for the German energy sector. While lower energy demand may ease some pressures on supply and prices, it also raises concerns about the long-term viability of investments in renewable energy infrastructure, even as debates continue over electricity subsidies for industry to support competitiveness. The economic slowdown has the potential to derail progress made in reducing carbon emissions and achieving energy targets, particularly if it leads to decreased investment in green technologies.

Another layer to this issue is the potential impact on employment within the energy sector. As energy demand decreases, there may be a ripple effect on jobs tied to traditional energy production and even in renewable energy sectors if investment slows. Policymakers are now tasked with balancing the immediate need for economic recovery, illustrated by the 200 billion-euro energy price shield, with the longer-term goal of achieving sustainability and energy security.

The effects of the stagnation are also being felt in the residential sector. As households face increased living costs and rising heating and electricity costs, many are becoming more conscious of their energy consumption. Initiatives to improve home energy efficiency, such as better insulation and energy-efficient appliances, are gaining traction among consumers looking to reduce their utility bills. This shift toward energy conservation aligns with broader national goals of reducing overall energy consumption and carbon emissions.

Despite the challenges, there is a silver lining. The current situation offers an opportunity for Germany to reassess its energy strategies and invest in technologies that promote sustainability while also addressing economic concerns. This could include increasing support for research and development in green technologies, enhancing energy efficiency programs, and incentivizing businesses to adopt cleaner energy practices.

Furthermore, Germany’s experience may serve as a case study for other nations grappling with similar issues. As economies around the world face the dual pressures of recovery and sustainability, the lessons learned from Germany’s current energy landscape could inform strategies for balancing these often conflicting priorities.

In conclusion, Germany is poised to witness a historic decline in energy demand as economic stagnation takes hold. While this trend poses challenges for the energy sector and economic growth, it also highlights the importance of sustainability and energy efficiency in shaping the future. As the nation navigates this complex landscape, the focus will need to be on fostering innovation and investment that aligns with both immediate economic needs and long-term environmental goals. The path forward will require a careful balancing act, but with the right strategies, Germany can emerge as a leader in sustainable energy practices even in challenging times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Electricity Sales Decline amid population growth and GDP gains, as DOE links reduced per capita consumption to energy efficiency, warmer winters, appliances, and bulbs, while hotter summers and rising AC demand may offset savings.

Key Points

US electricity sales fell 3% since 2010 despite population and GDP growth, driven by efficiency gains and warmer winters.

✅ DOE links drops to efficiency and warmer winters

✅ Per capita residential use fell about 7% since 2010

✅ Rising AC demand may offset winter heating savings

Since 2010, the United States has grown by 17 million people, and the gross domestic product (GDP) has increased by $3.6 trillion. Yet in that same time span, electricity sales in the United States actually declined by 3%, according to data released by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), even as electricity prices rose at a 41-year pace nationwide.

The U.S. decline in electricity sales is remarkable given that the U.S. population increased by 5.8% in that same time span. This means that per capita electricity use fell even more than that; indeed, the Department of Energy pegs residential electricity sales per capita as having declined by 7%, even as inflation-adjusted residential bills rose 5% in 2022 nationwide.

There are likely multiple reasons for this decline in electricity sales. Department of Energy analysts suggest that, at least in part, it is due to increased adoption of energy-efficient appliances and bulbs, like compact fluorescents. Indeed, the DOE notes that there is a correlation between consumer spending on “energy efficiency” and a reduction in per capita electricity sales, while utilities invest more in delivery infrastructure to modernize the grid.

Yet the DOE also notes that states with a greater increase in warm weather days had a corresponding decrease in electricity sales, as milder weather can reduce power demand across years. In southern states, the effect was most dramatic: for instance, from 2010 to 2016, Florida had a 56% decrease in cold weather days that would require heating and as a result, saw a 9% decrease in per capita electricity sales.

The moral is that warm winters save on electricity. But if global temperatures continue to rise, and summers become hotter, too, this decrease in winter heating spending may be offset by the increased need to run air conditioning in the summer, and given how electricity and natural gas prices interact, overall energy costs could shift. Indeed, it takes far more energy to cool a room than it does to heat it, for reasons related to the basic laws of thermodynamics. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CAA Quebec Electric Mobility spotlights EV adoption, charging infrastructure, consumer education, and sustainability, highlighting policy collaboration, model showcases, and greener transport solutions from the Quebec Electric Vehicle Show to accelerate climate goals and practical ownership.

Key Points

CAA Quebec's program advancing EV education, charging network advocacy, and collaboration for sustainable transport.

✅ Consumer education demystifying EV range and charging

✅ Hands-on showcases of new EV models and safety tech

✅ Advocacy for faster, wider public charging networks

The Quebec Electric Vehicle Show has emerged as a significant event for the automotive industry, drawing attention from enthusiasts, industry experts, and consumers alike, similar to events like Everything Electric in Vancouver that amplify public interest. This year, CAA Quebec took center stage, showcasing its commitment to promoting electric vehicles (EVs) and sustainable transportation solutions.

A Strong Commitment to Electric Mobility

CAA Quebec’s participation in the show underscores its dedication to facilitating the transition to electric mobility. With the rising concerns over climate change and the increasing popularity of electric vehicles, as Canada pursues ambitious EV targets nationwide, organizations like CAA are pivotal in educating the public about the benefits and practicality of EV ownership. At the show, CAA Quebec offered valuable insights into the latest trends in electric mobility, including advancements in technology, charging infrastructure, and the overall impact on the environment.

Educational Initiatives

One of the highlights of CAA Quebec's presentation was its focus on education. The organization hosted informative sessions aimed at demystifying electric vehicles for the average consumer. Many potential buyers are still apprehensive about making the switch from traditional gasoline-powered cars. CAA Quebec addressed common misconceptions about EVs, such as range anxiety and charging challenges, providing attendees with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions.

The sessions included expert panels discussing the future of electric vehicles, with insights from automotive industry leaders and environmental experts, and addressing debates such as experts questioning Quebec's EV push that shape policy discussions.

Showcasing Innovative EVs

CAA Quebec also showcased a variety of electric vehicles from different manufacturers, giving attendees the chance to see and experience the latest models firsthand, similar to a popular EV event in Regina that drew strong community interest. This hands-on approach allowed potential buyers to explore the features of EVs, from performance metrics to safety technologies. By allowing consumers to interact with the vehicles, CAA Quebec helped to bridge the gap between interest and action, encouraging more people to consider an electric vehicle as their next purchase.

Addressing Infrastructure Challenges

A significant barrier to the widespread adoption of electric vehicles remains the availability of charging infrastructure. CAA Quebec took the opportunity to address this critical issue during the show. The organization has been actively involved in advocating for improved charging networks across Quebec, emphasizing the need for more public charging stations and faster charging options, where examples like BC's Electric Highway illustrate how corridor charging can ease long-distance travel concerns.

Collaboration with Government and Industry

CAA Quebec’s efforts are bolstered by collaboration with both government and industry stakeholders. The organization is working closely with provincial authorities to develop policies that support the growth of electric vehicle infrastructure. Additionally, partnerships with automotive manufacturers are paving the way for more sustainable practices in vehicle production and distribution, and utilities exploring vehicle-to-grid pilots in Nova Scotia to enhance grid resilience.

A Bright Future for Electric Vehicles

The Quebec Electric Vehicle Show highlighted not only the current state of electric mobility but also its promising future, reflected in growing interest in EVs in southern Alberta and other provinces. With the support of organizations like CAA Quebec, consumers are becoming more aware of the benefits of electric vehicles. This awareness is crucial as Quebec aims to achieve its ambitious climate goals, including a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

CAA Quebec's presence at the Quebec Electric Vehicle Show exemplifies its leadership in promoting electric vehicles and sustainable transportation. By focusing on education, showcasing innovative models, and advocating for improved infrastructure, CAA Quebec is helping to pave the way for a greener future. As the automotive landscape continues to evolve, the insights and initiatives presented at the show will play a vital role in guiding consumers towards embracing electric mobility. The future is electric, and with organizations like CAA Quebec at the helm, that future looks promising.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Hong Kong Electricity Tariff Increase reflects a projected 1-2% rise as HK Electric and CLP Power shift to cleaner fuel and natural gas, expand gas-fired units and LNG terminals, and adjust the fuel clause charge.

Key Points

An expected 1-2% 2018 rise from cleaner fuel, natural gas projects, asset growth, and shrinking fuel cost surpluses.

✅ Expected 1-2% rise amid cleaner fuel and gas shift

✅ Fuel clause charge and asset expansion pressure prices

✅ HK Electric and CLP Power urged to use surpluses prudently

Hong Kong customers have been asked to expect higher electricity bills next year, as seen with BC Hydro rate increases in Canada, with a member of a government panel on energy policy anticipating an increase in tariffs of one or two per cent.

The environment minister, Wong Kam-sing, also hinted they should be prepared to dig deeper into their pockets for electricity, as debates over California electric bills illustrate, in the wake of power companies needing to use more expensive but cleaner fuel to generate power in the future.

HK Electric supplies power to Hong Kong Island, Lamma Island and Ap Lei Chau. Photo: David Wong

The city’s two power companies, HK Electric and CLP Power, are to brief lawmakers on their respective annual tariff adjustments for 2018, amid Ontario electricity price pressures drawing international attention, at a Legislative Council economic development panel meeting on Tuesday.

HK Electric supplies electricity to Hong Kong Island and neighbouring Lamma Island and Ap Lei Chau, while CLP Power serves Kowloon and the New Territories, including Lantau Island.

Wong said on Monday: “We have to appreciate that when we use cleaner fuel, there is a need for electricity tariffs to keep pace. I believe it is the hope of mainstream society to see a low-carbon and healthier environment.”

Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing believes most people desire a low-carbon environment. Photo: Sam Tsang

But he declined to comment on how much the tariffs might rise.

World Green Organisation chief executive William Yu Yuen-ping, also a member of the Energy Advisory Committee, urged the companies to better use their “overflowing” surpluses in their fuel cost recovery accounts.

Tariffs are comprised of two components: a basic amount reflecting a company’s operating costs and investments, and the fuel clause charge, which is based on what the company projects it will pay for fuel for the year.

William Yu of World Green Organisation says the companies should use their surpluses more carefully. Photo: May Tse

Critics have claimed the local power suppliers routinely overestimate their fuel costs and amass huge surpluses.

In recent years, the two managed to freeze or cut their tariffs thanks to savings from lower fuel costs. Last year, HK Electric offered special rebates to its customers, which saw its tariff drop by 17.2 per cent. CLP Power froze its own charge for 2017.

Yu said the two companies should use the surpluses “more carefully” to stabilise tariffs.

Rise after fall in Hong Kong electricity use linked to subsidies

“We estimate a big share of the surplus has been used up and so the honeymoon period is over.”

Based on his group’s research, Yu believed the tariffs would increase by one or two per cent.

Economist and fellow committee member Billy Mak Sui-choi said the expansion of the power companies’ fixed asset bases, such as building new gas-fired units and offshore liquefied natural gas terminals, a pattern reflected in Nova Scotia's 14% rate hike recently approved by regulators, would also cause tariffs to rise.

To fight climate change and improve air quality, the government has pledged to cut carbon intensity by between 50 and 60 per cent by 2020. Officials set a target of boosting the use of natural gas for electricity generation to half the total fuel mix from 2020.

Both power companies are privately owned and monitored by the government through a mutually agreed scheme of control agreements, akin to oversight seen under the UK energy price cap in other jurisdictions. These require the firms to seek government approval for their development plans, including their projected basic tariff levels.

At present, the permitted rate of return on their net fixed assets is 9.99 per cent. The deals are due to expire late next year.

Earlier this year, officials reached a deal with the two companies on the post-2018 scheme, settling on a 15-year term. The new agreements slash their permitted rate of return to 8 per cent.

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

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

Key Points

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

✅ Flat sales pressure IOU profits and legacy baseload investments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Falling demand has TVA moving up its planning process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The utility business model is headed for a reckoning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flat or declining demand is going to force the issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News