How Synchrophasors are Bringing the Grid into the 21st Century

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

Manitoba Hydro rate hikes face public hearings over electricity rates, utility bills, and debt, with impacts on low-income households, Indigenous communities, and Winnipeg services amid credit rating pressure and rising energy costs.

Key Points

Manitoba Hydro seeks 7.9% annual increases to stabilize finances and debt, impacting electricity costs for households.

✅ Proposed hikes: 7.9% yearly through 2023/24

✅ Driven by debt, credit rating declines, rising interest

✅ Disproportionate impact on low-income and Indigenous communities

Hearings began Monday into Manitoba Hydro’s request for consecutive annual rate hikes of 7.9 per cent.  The crown corporation is asking for the steep hikes to commence April 1, 2018.

The increases would continue through 2023/2024, under a multi-year rate plan before dropping to what Hydro calls “sustainable” levels.

Patti Ramage, legal counsel for Hydro, said while she understands no one welcomes the “exceptional” rate increases, the company is dealing with exceptional circumstances.

It’s the largest rate increase Hydro has ever asked for, though a scaled-back increase was discussed later, saying rising debt and declining credit ratings are affecting its financial stability.

President and CEO Kelvin Shepherd said Hydro is borrowing money to fund its interest payments, and acknowledged that isn’t an effective business model.

Hydro’s application states that it will be spending up to 63 per cent of its revenue on paying financial expenses if the current request for rate hikes is not approved.

If it does get the increase it wants, that number could shrink to 45 per cent – which Ramage says is still quite high, but preferable to the alternative.

She cited the need to take immediate action to fix Hydro’s finances instead of simply hoping for the best.

“The worst thing we can do is defer action… that’s why we need to get this right,” Ramage said.

A number of intervenors presented varying responses to Hydro’s push for increased rates, with many focusing on how the hikes would affect Manitobans with lower incomes.

Senwung Luk spoke on behalf of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, and said the proposed rates would hit First Nations reserves particularly hard.

He noted that 44.2 per cent of housing on reserves in the province needs significant improvement, which means electricity use tends to be higher to compensate for the lower quality of infrastructure.

Luk says this problem is compounded by the higher rates of poverty in Indigenous populations, with 76 per cent of children on reserves in Manitoba living below the poverty line.

If the increase goes forward, he said the AMC hopes to see a reduced rate for those living on reserves, despite a recent appeal court ruling on such pricing.

Byron Williams, speaking on behalf of the Consumers Coalition, said the 7.9 per cent increase unreasonably favours the interests of Hydro, and is unjustly biased against virtually everyone else.

In Saskatchewan, the NDP criticized an SaskPower 8 per cent rate hike as unfair to customers, highlighting regional concerns.

Williams said customers using electric space heating would be more heavily targeted by the rate increase, facing an extra $13.14 a month as opposed to the $6.88 that would be tacked onto the bills of those not using electric space heating.

Williams also called Hydro’s financial forecasts unreliable, bringing the 7.9 per cent figure into question.

Lawyer George Orle, speaking for the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, said the proposed rate hikes would “make a mockery” of the sacrifices made by First Nations across the province, given that so much of Hydro’s infrastructure is on Indigenous land.

The city of Winnipeg also spoke out against the jump, saying property taxes could rise or services could be cut if the hikes go ahead to compensate for increased, unsustainable electricity costs.

In British Columbia, a BC Hydro 3 per cent increase also moved forward, drawing attention to affordability.

A common theme at the hearing was that Hydro’s request was not backed by facts, and that it was heading towards fear-mongering.

Manitoba Hydro’s CEO begged to differ as he plead his case during the first hearing of a process that is expected to take 10 weeks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Australian Rooftop Solar Grid Constraints are driving debates over voltage rise, export limits, inverter curtailment, DER integration, and network reliability, amid concerns about localized blackouts, infrastructure protection, tariff reform, and battery storage adoption.

Key Points

Limits on solar exports to curb voltage rise, protect equipment, and keep the distribution grid reliable.

✅ Voltage rise triggers transformer protection and local outages.

✅ Export limits and smart inverter curtailment manage midday backfeed.

✅ Tariff reform and DER orchestration defer costly network upgrades.

With almost 1.8 million Australian homes and businesses relying on power from rooftop solar panels, there is a fight brewing over the impact of solar energy on the national electricity grid.

Electricity distributors are warning that as solar uptake continues to increase, there is a risk excess solar power could flow into the network, elevating power outage risks, causing blackouts and damaging infrastructure.

But is it the network businesses that are actually at risk, as customers turn away from centrally produced electricity?

This is what three different parties have to say:

Andrew Dillon of the network industry peak body, Energy Networks Australia (ENA), told 7.30 the way customers are charged for electricity has to change, or expensive grid upgrades to poles and wires will be needed to keep solar customers on the grid.

"The engineering reality is once we get too much solar in a certain space it does start to cause technical issues," he said.

"If there is too much energy coming back up the system in the middle of the day, it can cause frequency voltage disturbances in the system, which can lead to transformers tripping off to protect themselves from being damaged and that will cause localised blackouts.

"There are pockets of the grid already where we have significant penetration and we are starting to see technical issues."

However, he acknowledges that excess solar power has yet to cause any blackouts, or damage electricity infrastructure.

"I don't buy that at all," he said.

"It can be that in some suburbs or parts of suburbs a high penetration of solar on the point of use can raise voltage, these issues generally can be dealt with quickly.

"The critical issue is think where you are getting that perspective from. It is from an industry whose underlying market is threatened by customers doing it for themselves through peer-to-peer energy models. So, think with some critical insight to these claims."

He said when too many people rely on solar it threatens the very business model of the companies that own Australia's poles and wires.

"When the customers use the network less to buy centrally produced electricity, they ship less product," he said.

"When they ship less product, their underlying business is undermined, they need to charge more to the customers left and that leads to what has been called a death spiral.

"We are seeing rapid reductions in consumption at the point of use per household."

But Mr Dillon denies the distributors are acting out of self-interest.

"I absolutely reject that claim," he said.

"[What] we, as networks, have an interest in is running a safe network, running a reliable network, enabling the transition to a low carbon future and doing all that while keeping costs down as much as possible."

Solar installers say the networks are holding back business

Around Australia the poles and wires companies can decide which solar systems can connect to the grid.

Small systems can connect automatically, but in some areas, those wanting a larger system can find themselves caught up in red tape.

The vice-president of the Australian Solar Council, Glen Morris, said these limitations were holding back solar installation businesses and preventing the take-up of new battery storage technology.

"If you've already got a five kilowatt system, your house is full as far as the network is concerned," Mr Morris said.

"You go to add a battery, that's another five kilowatts and so they say no you're already full … so you can't add storage to your solar system."

The powers that be are stumbling in the dark to prevent a looming energy crisis, as the grid seeks to balance renewables' hidden challenges and competing demands.

Mr Morris also said the networks had the capacity to solve the problem of any excess solar flows into the grid, and infrastructure upgrades were not necessary.

"They already have the capability to turn off your solar invertor whenever they feel like it," he said.

"If they choose to connect that functionality, it's there in the inverter. The customer already has it."

ENA has acknowledged there is frustration with rooftop system size limits in the solar industry.

"What we are seeing is solar installers and others slightly frustrated at different requirements for different networks and sometimes they are unclear on the reasons for that," Mr Dillon said.

"Limitations are in place across the country to keep the lights on and make sure the network stays safe and we don't have sudden rushes of people connecting to the grid that causes outage issues."

But Mr Mountain is unconvinced, calling the limitations "somewhat spurious".

"The published, documented, critically reviewed analyses are few and far between, so it is very easy for engineers to make these arguments and those in policy circles only have so much tolerance for the detail," he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

US Electricity 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

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

Puerto Rico Microgrid Regulations outline renewable energy, CHP, and storage standards, enabling islanded systems, PREPA interconnection, excess energy sales, and IRP alignment to boost resilience, distributed resources, and community power across the recovering grid.

Key Points

Rules defining microgrids, requiring 75 percent renewables or CHP, and setting interconnection and PREPA fee frameworks.

✅ 75 percent renewables or CHP; hybrids allowed

✅ Registration, engineer inspection, and annual generation reports

✅ PREPA interconnection fees; excess energy sales permitted

The Puerto Rico Energy Commission unveiled 29 pages of proposed regulations last week for future microgrid installations on the island.

The regulations, which are now open for 30 days of public comment, synthesized pages of responses received after a November 10 call for recommendations. Commission chair José Román Morales said it’s the most interest the not-yet four-year-old commission has received during a public rulemaking process.

The goal was to sketch a clearer outline for a tricky-to-define concept -- the term "microgrid" can refer to many types of generation islanded from the central grid -- as climate pressures on the U.S. grid mount and more developers eye installations on the recovering island.

“There’s not a standard definition of what a microgrid is, not even on the mainland,” said Román Morales.

According to the commission's regulation, “a microgrid shall consist, at a minimum, of generation assets, loads and distribution infrastructure. Microgrids shall include sufficient generation, storage assets and advanced distribution technologies, including advanced inverters, to serve load under normal operating and usage conditions.”

All microgrids must be renewable (with at least 75 percent of power from clean energy), combined heat and power (CHP) or hybrid CHP-and-renewable systems. The regulation applies to microgrids controlled and owned by individuals, customer cooperatives, nonprofit and for-profit companies, and cities, but not those owned by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA). Owners must submit a registration application for approval, including a certification of inspection from a licensed electric engineer, and an annual fuel, generation and sales report that details generation and fuel source, as well as any change in the number of customers served.

Microgrids, like the SDG&E microgrid in Ramona in California, can interconnect with the PREPA system, but if a microgrid will use PREPA infrastructure, owners will incur a monthly fee. That amounts to $25 per customer up to a cap of $250 per month for small cooperative microgrids. The cost for larger systems is calculated using a separate, more complex equation. Operators can also sell excess energy back to PREPA.

Big goals for the island's future grid

In total, 53 groups and companies, including Sunnova, AES, the Puerto Rico Solar Energy Industries Association (PR-SEIA), the Advanced Energy Management Alliance (AEMA), and the New York Smart Grid Consortium, submitted their thoughts about microgrids or, in many cases, broader goals for the island’s future energy system. It was a quick turnaround: The Puerto Rico Energy Commission offered a window of just 10 days to submit advice, although the commission continued to accept comments after the deadline.

“PREC wanted the input as fast as possible because of the urgency,” said AES CEO Chris Shelton.

AES’ plan includes a network of “mini-grids” that could range in size from several megawatts to one large enough to service the entire city of San Juan.

“The idea is, you connect those to each other with transmission so they can have a co-optimized portfolio effect and lower the overall cost,” said Shelton. “But they would be largely autonomous in a situation where the tie-lines between them were broken.”

According to estimates provided in AES’ filing, utility-scale solar installations over 50 megawatts on the island could cost between $40 and $50 per megawatt-hour. Those prices make solar located near load centers an economic alternative to the island’s fossil-fuel generating plants. The utility’s analysis showed that a 10,000-megawatt solar system could replace 12,000 gigawatt-hours of fossil generation, with 25 gigawatt-hours of battery storage leveling out load throughout the day. Puerto Rico’s peak load is 3,000 megawatts.

In other filings, PR-SEIA urged a restructuring of FEMA funds so they’re available for microgrid development. GridWise Alliance wrote that plans should consider cybersecurity, and AEMA recommended the commission develop an integrated resource plan (IRP) that includes distributed energy resources, microgrids and non-wires alternatives.

An air of optimism, though 1.5 million are still without power

After the commission completes the microgrid rulemaking, a new IRP is next on the commission’s to-do list. PREPA must file that plan in July, and regulators are working furiously to make sure it incorporates the recent flood of rebuilding recommendations from the energy industry.

Though the commission has the final say when it comes to approval of the plan, PREPA will lead the IRP process. The utility’s newly formed Transformation Advisory Council (TAC), a group of 11 energy experts, will contribute.

With that group, along with New York’s Resiliency Working Group, lessons from California's grid transition, the Energy Commission, the utility itself, and the dozens of other clean energy experts and entrepreneurs who want to offer their two cents, the energy planning process has a lot of moving parts. But according to Julia Hamm, CEO of the Smart Electric Power Alliance and a member of both the Energy Resiliency Working Group and the TAC, those working to establish standards for Puerto Rico’s future are hitting their stride.

“Certainly over the past three months, it has been a bit of a challenge to ensure that everybody has been coordinating efforts. Just over the past couple of weeks, we’ve seen some good progress on that front. We’re starting to see a lot more communication,” she said, adding that an air of optimism has settled on the process. “The key stakeholders all have a very common vision for Puerto Rico when it comes to the power sector.”

Nisha Desai, a PREPA board member who is liaising with the TAC, affirmed that collaborators are on the same page. “Everyone is violently in agreement that the future of Puerto Rico involves renewables, microgrids and distributed generation,” she said.

The TAC will hold its first in-person meeting in mid-January, and has already consulted with the utility on its formal fiscal plan submission, due January 10.

Though many taking part in the process feel the once-harried recovery is beginning to adopt a more organized approach, Desai acknowledges that “there are a lot of people in Puerto Rico who feel forgotten.”

Puerto Rico’s current generation sits at just 72.6 percent, in a nation facing longer, more frequent outages due to extreme weather. The government recently offered its first estimate that about half the island, 1.5 million residents, remains without power.

In late December and into January, 1,500 more crewmembers from 18 utilities in states as far flung as Minnesota, Missouri and Arizona will land on the island to aid further restoration through mutual aid agreements.

“The system is getting up to speed, getting to 100 percent, but there’s still some instability,” said Román Morales. “Right now it’s a matter of time.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News