Powering Towards Net Zero: The UK Grid's Transformation Challenge

Solar Plus Storage is accelerating across utilities and microgrids, pairing rooftop solar with lithium-ion batteries to enhance grid resilience, reduce peak costs, prevent blackouts, and leverage tax credits amid falling prices and decarbonization goals.

Key Points

Solar Plus Storage combines solar generation with batteries to shift load, boost reliability, and cut energy costs.

✅ Cuts peak demand charges and enhances blackout resilience

✅ Falling battery and solar costs drive nationwide utility adoption

✅ Enables microgrids and grid services like frequency regulation

Todd Karin was prepared when California’s largest utility shut off power to millions of people to avoid the risk of wildfires last month. He’s got rooftop solar panels connected to a single Tesla Powerwall in his rural home near Fairfield, California. “We had backup power the whole time,” Karin says. “We ran the fridge and watched movies.”

Californians worried about an insecure energy future are increasingly looking to this kind of solution. Karin, a 31-year-old postdoctoral fellow at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, spent just under $4,000 for his battery by taking advantage of tax credits. He's also saving money by discharging the battery on weekday evenings, when energy is more expensive during peak demand periods. He expects to save around $1,500 over the 10 years the battery is under warranty.

The economics don’t yet work for every household, but the green-power combo of solar panels plus batteries is popping up on a much bigger scale in some unexpected places. Owners of a rice processing plant in Arkansas are building a system to generate 26 megawatts of solar power and store another 40 MW. The plant will cut its power bill by a third, and owners say they will pass the savings to local rice growers. New York’s JFK Airport is installing solar plus storage to reduce its power load by 10 percent, while Pittsburgh International Airport is building a 20-MW solar and natural gas microgrid to keep it independent from the local utility. Officials at both airports are worried about recent power shutdowns due to weather and overload-related blackouts.

And residents of the tiny northern Missouri town of Green City (pop. 608) are getting 2.5 MW of solar plus four hours of battery storage from the state’s public utility next year. The solar power won’t go directly to townspeople, but instead will back up the town’s substation, reducing the risk of a potential shutdown. It’s part of a $68 million project to improve the reliability of remote substations far from electric generating stations.

“It’s a pretty big deal for us,” says Chad Raley, who manages technology and renewables at Ameren, a Missouri utility that is building three rural solar-plus-storage projects to better manage the flow of electricity across the local grid. “It gives us so much flexibility with renewable generation. We can’t control the sun or clouds or wind, but we can have battery storage.”

The first solar-plus-storage installations started about a decade ago on a small scale in sunny states like California, Hawaii, and Arizona. Now they’re spreading across the country, driven by falling prices of both solar panels and lithium-ion batteries the size of a shipping container imported from both China and South Korea, with wind, solar, and batteries making up most of the utility-scale pipeline nationwide. These countries have ramped up production efficiencies and lowered labor costs, leaving many US manufacturers in the dust. In fact, the price of building a comparable solar-plus-storage generating facility is now cheaper than operating a coal-fired power plant, industry officials say. In certain circumstances, the cost is equal to some natural gas plants.

“This is not just a California, New York, Massachusetts thing,” says Kelly Speakes-Backman, CEO of the Energy Storage Association, an industry group in Washington. She says more than 30 states have renewable storage on the grid. Utilities have proposed and states have approved 7 gigawatts to be installed by 2030, and most new storage will be paired with solar across the US.

Speakes-Backman estimates the unit cost of electricity produced from a solar-plus-storage system will drop 10 to 15 percent each year through 2024, supporting record growth in solar and storage investments. “If you have the option of putting out a polluting or non-polluting generating source at the same price, what are you going to pick?” says Speakes-Backman.

She notes that PJM, a large Mid-Atlantic wholesale grid operator, announced it will deploy battery storage to help smooth out fluctuating power from two wind farms it operates. “When the grid fluctuates, storage can react to it quickly and can level out the supply,” she says. In the Midwest, grid-level battery storage is also being used to absorb extra wind power. Batteries hold onto the wind and put it back onto the grid when people need it.

While the solar-plus-storage trend isn’t yet putting a huge dent in our fossil fuel use, according to Paul Denholm, an energy analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, it is a good beginning and has the side effect of cutting air pollution. By 2021, solar and other renewable energy sources will overtake coal as a source of energy, and the US is moving toward 30% electricity from wind and solar, according to a new report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a nonprofit think tank based in Cleveland.

That’s a glimmer of hope in a somewhat dreary week of news on carbon emissions. A new United Nations report released this week finds that the planet is on track to warm by 3.9 degrees Celsius (7 Fahrenheit) by 2100 unless drastic cuts are made by phasing out gas-powered cars, eliminating new coal-fired power plants, and changing how we grow and manage land, and scientists are working to improve solar and wind power to limit climate change as well.

Energy-related greenhouse gas emissions in the US rose 2.7 percent in 2018 after several years of decline. The Trump administration has rolled back climate policies from the Obama years, including withdrawing from the Paris climate accords.

There may be hope from green power initiatives outside the Beltway, though, and from federal proposals like a tenfold increase in US solar that could remake the electricity system. Arizona plans to boost solar-plus-storage from today’s 6 MW to a whopping 850 MW by 2025, more than the entire capacity of large-scale batteries in the US today. And some folks might be cheering the closing of the West’s biggest coal-fired power plant, the 2.25-gigawatt Navajo Generating Station, in Arizona, which had spewed soot and carbon dioxide over the region for 45 years until last week. The closure might help the planet and clear the hazy smog over the Grand Canyon.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

India Nuclear Generation Shortfall highlights missed five-year plan targets due to uranium fuel scarcity, commissioning delays at Kudankulam, PFBR slippage, and PHWR equipment bottlenecks under IAEA safeguards and domestic supply constraints.

Key Points

A gap between planned and actual nuclear output due to fuel shortages, reactor delays, and first-of-a-kind hurdles.

✅ Fuel scarcity pre-2009-10 constrained unsafeguarded reactors.

✅ Kudankulam delays from protests, litigation, and remobilisation.

✅ FOAK PHWR equipment bottlenecks and PFBR slippage.

A lack of available domestically produced nuclear fuel and delays in constructing and commissioning nuclear power plants, including first-of-a-kind plants and the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR), meant that India failed to meet its nuclear generation targets under the governmental plans over the decade to 2017, even as global project milestones were being recorded elsewhere.

India's nuclear generation target under its 11th five-year plan, covering the period 2007-2012, was 163,395 million units (MUs) and the 12th five-year Plan (2012-17) was 241,748 MUs, Minister of state for the Department of Atomic Energy and the Prime Minister's Office Jitendra Singh told parliament on 6 February. Actual nuclear generation in those periods was 109,642 MUs and 183,488 MUs respectively, Singh said in a written answer to questions in the Lok Sabah.

Singh attributed the shortfall in generation to a lack of availability of the necessary quantities of domestically produced fuel during the three years before 2009-2010; delays to the commissioning of two 1000 MWe nuclear power plants at Kudankulam due to local protests and legal challenges; and delays in the completion of two indigenously designed pressurised heavy water reactors and the PFBR.

Kudankulam 1 and 2 are VVER-1000 pressurised water reactors (PWRs) supplied by Russia's Atomstroyexport under a Russian-financed contract. The units were built by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) and were commissioned and are operated by NPCIL under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, with supervision from Russian specialists, while China's nuclear program advanced on a steady development track in the same period. Construction of the units - the first PWRs to enter operation in India - began in 2002.

Singh said local protests resulted in the halt of commissioning work at Kudankulam for nine months from September 2011 to March 2012, when he said project commissioning had been at its peak. As a consequence, additional time was needed to remobilise the workforce and contractors, he said. Litigation by anti-nuclear groups, and compliance with supreme court directives, impacted commissioning in 2013, he said. Unit 1 entered commercial operation in December 2014 and unit 2 in April 2017.

Delays in the manufacture and supply by domestic industry of critical equipment for first-of-a-kind 700 MWe pressurised heavy water reactors -  Kakrapar units 3 and 4, and Rajasthan units 7 and 8 - has led to delays in the completion of those units, the minister said, as well as noting the delay in completion of the PFBR, which is being built at Kalpakkam by Bhavini. In answer to a separate question, Singh said the PFBR is in an "advance stage of integrated commissioning" and is "expected to approach first criticality by the year 2020."

Eight of India's operating nuclear power plants are not under IAEA safeguards and can therefore only use indigenously-sourced uranium. The other 14 units operate under IAEA safeguards and can use imported uranium. The Indian government has taken several measures to secure fuel supplies for reactors in operation and under construction, amid coal supply rationing pressures elsewhere in the power sector, concluding fuel supply contracts with several countries for existing and future reactors under IAEA Safeguards and by "augmentation" of fuel supplies from domestic sources, Singh said.

Kakrapar 3 and 4, with Kakrapar 3 criticality already reported, and Rajasthan 7 and 8 are all currently expected to enter service in 2022, according to World Nuclear Association information.

Joint venture discussions

In February 2016 the government amended the Atomic Energy Act to allow NPCIL to form joint venture companies with other public sector undertakings (PSUs) for involvement in nuclear power generation and possibly other aspects of the fuel cycle, reflecting green industrial strategies shaping future reactor waves globally. In answer to another question, Singh confirmed that NPCIL has entered into joint ventures with NTPC Limited (National Thermal Power Corporation, India's largest power company) and Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Two joint venture companies - Anushakti Vidhyut Nigam Limited and NPCIL-Indian Oil Nuclear Energy Corporation Limited - have been incorporated, and discussions on possible projects to be set up by the joint venture companies are in progress.

An exploratory discussion had also been held with Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, Singh said. Indian Railways - which has in the past been identified as a potential joint venture partner for NPCIL - had "conveyed that they were not contemplating entering into an MoU for setting up of nuclear power plants," Singh said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US Control of Ukraine Nuclear Plants sparks debate over ZNPP, Zaporizhzhia, sovereignty, safety, ownership, and international cooperation, as Washington touts utility expertise, investment, and modernization to protect critical energy infrastructure amid conflict.

Key Points

US management proposal for Ukraine's nuclear assets, notably ZNPP, balancing sovereignty, safety, and investment.

✅ Ukraine retains ownership; any transfer requires parliament approval.

✅ ZNPP safety risks persist amid occupation near active conflict.

✅ International reactions split: sovereignty vs. cooperation and investment.

In a recent phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, U.S. President Donald Trump proposed that the United States take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), which has been under Russian occupation since early in the war and where Russia is reportedly building power lines to reactivate the plant amid ongoing tensions. Trump suggested that American ownership of these plants could be the best protection for their infrastructure, a proposal that has sparked controversy in policy circles, and that the U.S. could assist in running them with its electricity and utility expertise.

Ukrainian Response

President Zelenskyy promptly addressed Trump's proposal, stating that while the conversation focused on the ZNPP, the issue of ownership was not discussed. He emphasized that all of Ukraine's nuclear power plants belong to the Ukrainian people and that any transfer of ownership would require parliamentary approval . Zelenskyy clarified that while the U.S. could invest in and help modernize the ZNPP, ownership would remain with Ukraine.

Security Concerns

The ZNPP, Europe's largest nuclear facility, has been non-operational since its occupation by Russian forces in 2022. The plant's location near active conflict zones raises significant safety risks that the IAEA has warned of in connection with attacks on Ukraine's power grids, and its future remains uncertain. Ukrainian officials have expressed concerns about potential Russian provocations, such as explosions, especially after UN inspectors reported mines at the Zaporizhzhia plant near key facilities, if and when Ukraine attempts to regain control of the plant.

International Reactions

The proposal has elicited mixed reactions both within Ukraine and internationally. Some Ukrainian officials view it as an opportunistic move by the U.S. to gain control over critical infrastructure, while others see it as a potential avenue for modernization and investment, alongside expanding wind power that is harder to destroy in wartime. The international community remains divided on the issue, with some supporting Ukraine's sovereignty over its nuclear assets and others advocating for a possible agreement on power plant attacks to ensure the plant's safety and future operation.

President Trump's proposal to have the U.S. take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has sparked significant controversy. While the U.S. offers expertise and investment, Ukraine maintains that ownership of its nuclear assets is a matter of national sovereignty, even as it has resumed electricity exports to bolster its economy. The situation underscores the complex interplay between security, sovereignty, and international cooperation in conflict zones.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Adams Nielson Solar Array, a 28 MW DC utility-scale project in Lind, WA, spans 200 acres with 81,700 panels, powering about 4,000 homes, supporting Avista’s Solar Select program and renewable energy, sustainability, and carbon reduction.

Key Points

Adams Nielson Solar Array is a 28 MW DC facility in Lind, WA, powering ~4,000 homes via Avista’s Solar Select.

✅ 81,700 panels across 200 acres in Eastern Washington

✅ Offsets emissions equal to removing 7,300 cars annually

✅ Collaboration by Avista, Strata Solar, WUTC, WSU Energy

Official commissioning of the Adams Nielson solar array located in Lind, WA occurred today. The 28 Megawatt DC array is comprised of 81,700 panels that span 200 acres and generates enough electricity to supply the equivalent of approximately 4,000 homes annually, similar to a new co-op solar project serving South Metro members.

“Avista’s interest in the development of Solar Select, a voluntary commercial solar program reflecting broader corporate adoption such as a corporate solar power plant commissioned by Arvato, is consistent with the Company’s ongoing commitment to provide customers with renewable energy choices at reasonable cost,” said Dennis Vermillion, president, Avista Corporation. “In recent years, an increasing number of Avista customers have expressed their expectations and challenges in acquiring renewable energy. Avista is pleased to lead this effort and develop renewable energy products that meet our customers’ needs today and into the future.” This interest is being generated by a mix of local and national customers across a variety of industries, including Huckleberry’s, Gonzaga University, Community Colleges of Spokane, Hotstart, Central Pre-Mix Concrete, a CRH Co., independently owned McDonald's franchise locations, Spokane City, Main Market and Community Building and VA Medical Center.

Jim Simon, director of sustainability at Gonzaga University said, “The Solar Select program helps Gonzaga University move even closer to achieving its goal of climate neutrality by 2050 by continuing to prioritize renewables in our energy portfolio, as other communities add projects like a municipal solar project to boost local supply. We are grateful for Avista’s leadership in this project and look forward to other opportunities to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.”

Spokane Mayor David Condon said, “The City of Spokane is pleased to partner with Avista through the Solar Select Program, as we continue to seek out opportunities that are both environmentally and financially responsible. The City already is a net producer of energy, generating more clean, green energy than our use of electricity, natural gas, and fuel, a milestone also seen with North Carolina's first wind farm now fully operational. We are excited to add even more clean energy to power City Hall.”

The Solar Select program created a cost-effective structure to bring solar energy to large business customers in Eastern Washington, allowing them to advance their desired sustainability goals and benefiting from industry service innovations led by companies like Omnidian expanding their global reach. The array is projected to deliver the environmental benefit equivalent of more than 7,300 cars removed from the road each year. This renewable energy program was made possible through a collaboration of Avista, Strata Solar, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and the WSU Energy Program. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Duke Energy Smart Meters enable remote meter reading, daily energy usage data, and two-way outage detection via AMI, with encrypted data, faster restoration, and remote connect/disconnect for Indiana customers in Howard County.

Key Points

Advanced meters that support remote readings, daily usage insights, two-way outage detection, and secure, encrypted data.

✅ Daily energy usage available online the next day

✅ Two-way communications speed outage detection and restoration

✅ Remote connect/disconnect; manual reads optional with opt-out fee

Say goodbye to your neighborhood meter reader. Say hello to your new smart meter.

Over the next three months, Duke Energy will install nearly 43,000 new high-tech electric meters for Howard County customers that will allow the utility company to remotely access meters via the digital grid instead of sending out employees to a homeowner's property for walk-by readings.

That means there's no need to estimate bills when meters can't be easily accessed, such as during severe weather or winter storms.

Other counties serviced by Duke Energy slated to receive the meters include Miami, Tipton, Cass and Carroll counties.

Angeline Protogere, Duke Energy's lead communication consultant, said besides saving the company money and manpower, the new smart meters come with a host of benefits for customers enabled by smart grid solutions today.

The meters are capable of capturing daily energy usage data, which is available online the next day. Having this information available on a daily basis can help customers make smarter energy decisions and support customer analytics that avoid billing surprises at the end of the month, she said.

"The real advantage is for the consumer, because they can track their energy usage and adjust their usage before the bills come," Protogere said.

When it comes to power outages, the meters are capable of two-way communications. That allows the company to know more about an outage through synchrophasor monitoring, which can help speed up restoration. However, customers will still need to notify Duke Energy if their power goes out.

If a customer is moving, they don't have to wait for a Duke Energy representative to come to the premises to connect or disconnect the energy service because requests can be performed remotely.

Protogere said when it comes to installing the meters, the changeover takes less than 5 minutes to complete. Customers should receive advance notices from the company, but the technician also will knock on the door to let the customer know they are there.

If no one is available and the meter is safely accessible, the technician will go ahead and change out the meter, Protogere said. There will be a momentary outage between the time the old meter is removed and the new meter is installed.

Kokomo and the surrounding areas are one of the last parts of the state to receive Duke Energy's new, high-tech meters, which are commonly used by other utility companies and in smart city initiatives across the U.S.

Protogere said statewide, the company started installing smart meters in August 2016 as utilities deploy digital transformer stations to modernize the grid. To date, they have installed 694,000 of the 854,000 they have planned for the state.

The company says the information stored and transmitted on the smart meters is safe, protected and confidential. Duke Energy said on its website that it does not share data with anyone without customers' authorization. The information coming from the meters is encrypted and protected from the moment it is collected until the moment it is purged, the company said.

Digital smart meter technology uses radio frequency bands that have been used for many years in devices such as baby monitors and medical monitors. The radio signals are far below the levels emitted by common household appliances and electronics, including cellphones and microwave ovens.

According to the World Health Organization, FCC, U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Electric Power Research Institute, no adverse health effects have been shown to occur from the radio frequency signals produced by smart meters or other such wireless networks.

However, customers can still opt-out of getting a smart meter and continue to have their meter manually read.

Those who choose not to get a smart meter must pay a $75 initial opt-out fee and an additional $17.50 monthly meter reading charge per account.

If smart meters have not yet been installed, Duke Energy will waive the $75 initial opt-out fee if customers notify the company they want to opt out within 21 days of receiving the installation postcard notice.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News