Energy Exchange: Electricity pricing

By Diane Regas

As rapid changes in energy technology – both in renewable and fossil fuel sources – transforms the way we power our lives, we have a chance to leave our children a prosperous world and reduce the effects of climate change. But, to scale fast enough, we need smart policies – at all levels of government.

National policies are essential to raise our level of ambition, put a price on carbon, limit emissions from key sectors, and spur innovation. For example, the Clean Power Plan would accelerate the adoption of clean energy technologies. But, many states are taking strides to promote innovative technologies and paving the way for national policy.

1. Dynamic Pricing

For 20 years, the Nobel prize-winning theory of dynamic pricing has benefitted a range of industries from hotel bookings on Orbitz and Amazon’s popular item pricing to surge fares on Uber and many more. Dynamic pricing is a key tool to maximize the market opportunity for a range of clean technologies, but most state public utility commissions have been slow to take advantage of this tool. 

EDF is advocating for dynamic pricing in target states around the country. One example is California, where, by 2019, nearly nine million residential customers will have “time-of-use” as their default pricing. Studies show this type of dynamic pricing scheme alone could shave peak residential power demand by about 10 percent. And, in addition to other policies we’ve championed, it convinced state leaders that it is feasible to raise California’s renewable energy goal to 50 percent. We estimate that these victories will cut the state’s overall greenhouse gas footprint by about seven percent.

1. Access to Big Data

The grid of the future envisions home appliances, electric vehicles, rooftop solar, and smart thermostats operating seamlessly with the power grid. And, today, over 50 million smart meters connect American homes and businesses to the grid. Unfortunately, many electric companies don’t make it easy for customers to see their own data or to share it with energy management services that can help reduce costs and pollution.

3 Policies Driving Innovation in the Electricity Sector
Click To Tweet

In Illinois, EDF worked with a customer-advocacy group called Citizens Utility Board to develop our Open Data Access Framework that’s now been adopted by state regulators and local utilities. Energy entrepreneurs like Nest and Google plan to use this data transparency to help customers save energy and money. And EDF is working to replicate the framework in other key states.

1. Incentives for Efficiency

You get what you pay for. So if states want to reduce the air pollution that comes from generating electricity, shouldn’t they make it possible for electric utilities to earn more by polluting less? That seems like a no-brainer, but many of today’s incentives point exactly the wrong way. If utilities help promote energy efficiency, for example, they sell less electricity and earn less.

We do not have to choose between cleaner air, a thriving economy, or shared prosperity; we can have it all.

EDF and its partners worked with the state of Illinois to link a major electric utility’s compensation to its environmental performance, and developed a unique new metric for linking greenhouse gas reductions to clean energy. It’s the first time this has been done, but it won’t be the last, because EDF is now pursuing this pay-for-performance approach with other states, too, including New York and California, and we’re aspiring to make it the standard nationwide.

We do not have to choose between cleaner air, a thriving economy, or shared prosperity; we can have it all. We just need smart policies to help drive innovations and technologies that can make the clean energy future a reality.

To learn more about policies driving innovation in the electricity sector, please join Diane at the Brainstorm E conference today (5/17/16), where she’ll be speaking on the panel, Living with Fossil Fuels in a Carbon Constrained World at 12:25 PT.

By Sarah Ryan

Last year solar power saw unprecedented growth and it doesn’t seem to be slowing down. So where is much of this growth happening? In one word: cities.

In a new report from Environment America Research & Policy Center and Frontier Group, Shining Cities 2016 identifies the urban centers fostering growth in solar energy, and the policies and programs that can maximize solar potential. The cities that topped the list were, not surprisingly, primarily from the sunshine-abundant Pacific region, followed by an equal amount of cities from the Mountain, South Central and South Atlantic regions. These centers of connectivity and growth are major electricity consumers, and therefore important movers in the transition to a clean energy economy.

But there are still vast amounts of untapped solar potential in the U.S. – specifically 1,118 GW, which equates to 39 percent of total national electricity sales (enough to power over 782 million homes a year) – according to a study on “rooftop solar power generating capacity potential” by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The same study stated that Los Angeles, the city currently with the most solar capacity, could host up to 42 times its current solar capacity, providing up to 60 percent of the city’s electricity. This staggering amount of renewable energy is possible in other cities across the U.S. as well – even in unlikely states, such as Texas.

Leading solar cities in Texas

San Antonio, despite being in one of the most conservative states, came in 7th place in the Shining Cities report for “Total Installed Solar PV Capacity,” following behind Los Angeles, San Diego, and Phoenix to name a few. The innovative approach CPS Energy – San Antonio’s municipally owned utility and the largest of its kind in the U.S. – has taken to provide clean electricity to its residents seems to be paying off.

CPS used to compensate rooftop solar owners for their excess electricity through a traditional net metering model. However, structural and financial barriers prompted the utility to launch a solar leasing program called SolarHost, in which homeowners receive a credit on their monthly electricity bills of 3 cents per kilowatt-hour for simply hosting solar panels on their roofs. In the first three days after the announcement of this program, more than two thousand people applied – as many people as had installed rooftop solar in the past seven years. The Alamo City currently has 108 MW of installed solar PV, but has the potential to accommodate more than 6,000 MW on city rooftops. With this new and innovative alternative to net metering, reaching that potential seems highly likely.

Texas Cities Lead on Solar, But Tapping The State’s Potential Has Just Begun
Click To Tweet

Austin fell shortly behind San Antonio in the Shining Cities report, in 13th place with 33 MW of solar PV installed within the city limits. However, this number does not account for the solar power generated by the 35-MW Webberville Solar Farm just outside the city’s limits, which supplies solar energy to Austin through a PPA with Austin Energy. This solar farm generates enough electricity to power 5,000 homes a year.

Austin is on track to become even more of a solar leader and meet its goal of generating 55 percent of its energy from renewables by 2025 with 450 MW of additional operating solar capacity in the development pipeline. This is in part due to Austin Energy’s Value of Solar (VOS) tariff, another policy alternative to net energy metering wherein the customer purchases energy at the utility’s retail rate and is compensated for solar PV generation at a separate VOS rate of 10.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. This separation of electricity generated by the consumer and the electricity consumed allows Austin Energy to better understand customer volume, timing, and load, which in turn provides the customer with more accurate, area-specific compensation. Market interest and discussion of VOS tariffs are increasing, especially as Austin Energy continues to prove this alternative works.

Policy paves the way

By adopting smart policy – like attractive financing options, easy and streamlined installations, fair compensation for homeowners supplying energy to the grid, and a strong commitment to support solar energy development – more Texas cities have the potential to shine.

Texas has some of the most solar potential in the U.S., due in large part to the fact that it offers customers the lowest average cost for solar on a per-watt basis. The average gross cost difference for a solar energy system is significant: $3.21 per watt compared to the national average of $3.69 per watt. But this potential is hindered, not only due to low natural gas prices, but also the lack of utility rate options for solar in the deregulated market.

San Antonio and Austin have designated themselves as solar leaders by adopting policies and rate structures that strive to maximize the benefits of solar energy to consumers. Instead of resisting the spread of rooftop solar like some cities in Texas, these municipal utilities have found a way to promote distributed solar in their service area without losing any customers and even expanding their customer base to people at all income levels.

Houston, Dallas, and Ft. Worth – Texas’ other big urban centers – may never compete with Los Angeles or sunny San Diego when it comes to solar capacity. But by adopting smart policy – like attractive financing options, easy and streamlined installations, fair compensation for homeowners supplying energy to the grid, and a strong commitment to support solar energy development – these cities, too, have the potential to shine.

Photo credit: Larry D. Moore 

This post originally appeared on our Texas Clean Air Matters blog.

By Ferit Ucar

The price we all pay for electricity generally does not reflect the “true costs” of producing it. As described in a recent blog post, generating electricity creates harmful pollution, damaging the environment and public health. This comes with a cost, but it is not necessarily paid for by those generating the pollution or purchasing the electricity. These types of costs are known as “external costs.”

For example, a coal-fired power plant releases pollution into the atmosphere, which adversely affects the health of residents in nearby communities. This pollution is an example of an external cost because it causes health problems that neither the plant owners nor the electric users pay for (unless they live near the plant and pay the cost through their health bills).

From coal mining and energy production, to distributing and using that energy, to disposing of waste products, electricity has many external costs. By examining them, we can better understand the true cost of electricity and how it varies depending on the technology or fuel used to generate it.

Upstream operations
Upstream operations take place before electricity is generated. For fossil-fuel and nuclear generators, the largest upstream external costs are associated with producing, processing, and transporting fuel. For solar and wind, the main upstream impacts are associated with manufacturing and transporting materials required for the solar panels and wind turbines.

The external costs associated with upstream operations can be significant. Natural gas, for example, burns cleaner than other fossil fuels such as coal. However, methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a very potent greenhouse gas – up to 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in the first 20 years it is released into the atmosphere. Leaks and intentional releases of this damaging pollutant during the production, delivery, and use of natural gas, if not addressed, have the potential to negate the environmental benefits of natural gas over coal.

The True Cost of Electricity: What we’re not paying for through our utility bills
Click To Tweet

The potential dangers of methane from natural gas operations can be most starkly seen in the recent, massive methane leak at a natural gas storage facility in Aliso Canyon, California. After a well in the facility failed, it leaked a total of 97,000 metric tons of methane before the gas company was able to plug the leak. This is the short term climate equivalent of burning almost a billion gallons of gasoline.

Downstream operations
Downstream operations take place during the generation of electricity and its subsequent transmission and distribution to customers.

Health Impacts
Pollution from fossil-fuel power plants makes up a significant portion of the downstream external costs associated with electricity generation. The U.S. Clean Air Act regulates and limits the amount of common pollutants power plants can release, including particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Emissions of SO2 and NOx are also regulated under various cap-and-trade programs. While these programs have substantially reduced SO2 and NOx pollution, the remaining emissions from fossil-fuel generators still have adverse health impacts, including premature death and asthma.

A National Research Council study in 2005, for example, found that these health-impacting pollutants from coal- and gas-fired power plants, respectively, cost society 3.2 cents and 0.16 cents per unit of generated electricity (kilowatt-hour). With an average household in the United States using about 11,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity each year, the health cost associated with that electricity consumption would be about $350 per year if it all came from a coal plant.

Health-impacting pollutants from coal- and gas-fired power plants, respectively, cost society 3.2 cents and 0.16 cents per unit of generated electricity (kilowatt-hour).

Climate Impacts
In addition to the types of pollution described above, fossil-fuel power plants also release greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – the main culprit of climate change. The carbon intensity of electricity generation varies significantly by fuel and technology, with coal and oil generation producing the most carbon and certain renewable energy, like solar and wind, producing none. However, as mentioned earlier, these renewables do produce carbon in upstream operations. The graph shows the total lifecycle carbon emissions for each technology, including upstream and downstream emissions.

A coal-fired plant emits about one ton of carbon for each 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity it generates over its lifecycle. In 2013, the U.S. government updated its estimate of the cost to society of each ton of carbon emitted (also known as the “social cost of carbon”) and valued it at approximately $40 per ton. Based on that estimate, the climate-related damages from coal plants equal 4 cents per kilowatt-hour on average. However, $40 per ton is an underestimate because not all climate damages are considered in this figure.

Overall, the electric power sector contributes significantly to the nation’s carbon emissions – equaling almost 40 percent of total U.S. emissions in 2015. Based on the social cost of carbon, climate-related damages from the power sector were nearly $80 billion in a single year. That cost is mostly borne by current and future generations through increased frequency of extreme weather events like flooding, drought, storms, and so on.

Water Impacts
Certain power plants need large amounts of water to operate, reducing water quality and intensifying drought in some areas. For example, these plants occasionally release chemical pollutants into nearby lakes or rivers. Even when these instances are limited and regulated, there are still occasional, accidental releases like the 2014 Dan River coal ash spill in North Carolina. Importantly, solar and wind require no water to produce electricity, making them a less costly choice in terms of water impacts.

So what should we do with these external costs now that we know more about them? Incorporating the health and environmental costs of electricity into the price we pay for it is one solution for which Environmental Defense Fund is advocating. Doing so will help reduce pollution and ensure a level playing field for clean energy in our electricity markets, creating a cleaner system for everyone.

This blog post is part two in a four-part series that takes a deep dive into the economics of our electric system and the role pricing can play in accelerating the clean energy economy.

By Jamie Fine

On vacation and awake in my too-soft bed at 5 AM while my family snored, I was regretting my misaligned sleep schedule. But then I realized time was on my side, so I tiptoed out in solitude for sunrise at the south rim of the Grand Canyon. Thanks to my very clever smart phone that is also a camera, my amateur photos (sort of) reveal the majesty of this national landmark. When we realize the schedule of Nature’s wonders is both beautiful and indefatigable, and humble ourselves with simple acts of realignment, harmony can be found amidst the springs and cliffs of our lives.

Just as timing helped me take advantage of something I would have otherwise missed and my smart phone aided in capturing the moment, similar lessons can be learned in how we use energy. My phone, when linked to a smart thermostat, can help align my electricity use with cheap, clean energy resources like solar and wind. Soon residential customers of California’s “big three” utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SoCal Ed), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), will be able to take full advantage of this option. 

TOU Pricing in California

Under the direction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), these utilities are studying time-of-use (TOU) electricity rates, which reward customers who voluntarily shift some of their electricity use to times when renewable energy is abundant and away from times when there is a lot of stress on the electric grid. This model better reflects the true cost of electricity, which ebbs and flows with fluctuations in demand. All customers will be billed this way beginning in 2019, with an option to opt-out if they prefer the old rate structure.

A good grid is like a good vacation: balanced and well-timed
Click To Tweet

TOU pricing is an empowering electricity pricing method that, when paired with other clean energy resources can bridge the clean energy divide and transition to an electric system that is smarter, cleaner, and more reliable. What’s more, with new data showing how often people think about their energy bills, there is a huge opportunity to meaningfully engage customers in the process.

Education and outreach is a critical route

Recent evidence indicates that these new opportunities are on the minds of energy users like you and me. A recent report by E Source explores time spent “thinking about and studying issues regarding your home’s energy use.” They found the average amount of time was 5.5 hours per year, and over half of the survey respondents said they spend at least four hours thinking about their energy bills each year. This is an enormous opportunity for education and action.

If people are already spending time thinking about their energy use, the more they learn about how and when they use electricity, the more likely they are to take steps that can help them control costs – like responding to TOU pricing. Ultimately, this can save people money and prevent harmful pollution by shifting energy demand, thus avoiding the need to fire up dirtier power plants.

Over half of the survey respondents said they spend at least four hours thinking about their energy bills each year. This is an enormous opportunity for education and action.

Still work to be done

But dawn has not yet arrived, and a massive chasm of customer awareness and actionable opportunities still persists. Fortunately, not unlike the cleaver and stout folks who braved the Grand Canyon’s edge and the icy waters of the Colorado River, brave and resilient innovators have begun to cross the great energy expanse. Even if it is scary to stand at the edge of a clean energy landscape that, depending on your position, appears as a steep cliff to climb or fall down, this change is happening. What’s more, entrepreneurs like those at Ohm Connect and Solar City are constantly and reliably making it easier for people to use clean energy with smart thermostats, better access to energy usage data, and self-generation like rooftop solar.

As the E Source study suggests, we have people’s attention. In California, and increasingly around the world, customers have options for TOU electricity pricing – a key currency to reward customer action. These two developments, paired with other clean energy solutions like energy storage and electric vehicles, make for exciting times during which timing will mean everything. I’m glad to be awake for it.

By Jamie Fine

California has a nice problem: It’s producing so much clean solar energy that the state’s electric grid is at capacity, and sometimes beyond.

As Vox’s David Roberts reports in his excellent piece about California’s grid headache, it makes good sense to expand the system by interconnecting state-run energy markets.

But he also notes, at the end of his story, some other and complementary strategies California can use to increase its grid bandwidth – while accommodating rapidly growing, but variable, renewable energy sources.

Connected grids, alone, are not a long-term fix.

One such strategy is time-of-use pricing, which encourages customers to shift some of their energy use to predictable and convenient times of day when clean energy sources are plentiful, and electricity cheaper. This innovative program, soon to be piloted in California, is expected to lower peak demand for energy over time.

Along with increased energy efficiency, energy storage and distributed power solutions such as rooftop and community solar initiatives, time-of-use pricing will help California stretch the capacity of its grid. Not to mention the fact that customers who sign up for it can pay less for electricity.

It helps us empower people, and to become smarter about how we produce and use energy.

As we continue to ramp up renewable energy sources and move from dirty fuels to clean power, we need solutions that help the system transition seamlessly, efficiently and affordably.

Connecting our patchwork of grids is something we’ll be hearing more about in California and beyond. But let’s not forget the other clean energy solutions we need in tandem to create the clean energy economy of the future.

This blog post originally appeared on EDF Voices.

Photo credit: Oran Viriyincy

By EDF Blogs

By: Beia Spiller and Kristina Mohlin

Electricity markets around the world are transforming from a model where electricity flows one way (from electricity-generating power plants to the customer) to one where customers actively participate as providers of electric services. But to speed this transformation and maximize its environmental and cost benefits, we need to understand how customer actions affect the three distinct parts of our electric system: generation, transmission, and distribution.

Generation

Generators – or power plants – convert an energy source such as natural gas, coal, wind, or sunshine into electricity that flows across wires and into your building, allowing you to turn on lights and use appliances. Although the electricity is no different whether it is generated by solar or coal, the environmental and economic costs associated with different energy sources vary significantly.

Not all generators are created equal in terms of efficiency, pollution, and how much they cost to build and run. Some generators produce electricity very cheaply and with fewer carbon emissions, but are expensive to build and maintain. Other generators are more polluting than clean energy alternatives and cost more per unit (or kilowatt-hour) of electricity generated, but can be turned on when demand for electricity skyrockets (for example, during heat waves). As demand increases, a variety of generators are used to provide the needed electricity – relying first on the cheapest generators (such as wind and solar) in order to keep costs low, and only turning on expensive and inefficient “peaker” generators (such as natural gas-fired power plants) during periods of high demand.

Because higher demand for electricity from power plants drives up cost and pollution, reducing demand for power plant-generated electricity can reduce both the overall cost of the system and harmful environmental impacts.

Transforming the electric system to reduce costs and pollution
Click To Tweet

Transmission

Electricity is transported from power plants to local communities via transmission lines. In addition to exporting energy from traditional power plants, transmission lines also allow communities to “import” clean and cheap energy from distant areas. But long transmission lines are expensive, and as more electricity flows through them, power is lost through heat, requiring greater amounts of electricity to be produced. Thus, different areas in the same state can face different prices for electricity depending on that area’s overall demand and distance from the generation sources.

Again, reducing demand and increasing local sources of generation helps control these transmission costs. The less electricity needed from large, distant power plants, the less electricity needs to be moved.

Distribution

Finally, local utility companies distribute electricity via the traditional electric wires we’re used to seeing on city streets. Some utility costs, such as billing and metering, are not affected by customers’ usage of electricity. However, very expensive grid infrastructure – including substations, transformers, wires and poles – is significantly affected by how much electricity customers demand.  Local utilities must also conduct costly maintenance and operations on this infrastructure to avoid blackouts and meet safety requirements. Importantly, as local demand peaks, the system needs to expand accordingly, causing distribution costs to increase even further. For example, New York City’s local utility (Consolidated Edison) foresees a billion-dollar investment in a new substation to accommodate increased demand in the Brooklyn-Queens area.

Reducing demand for utility-provided electricity helps each part of the system

Consider how residential rooftop solar affects the entire system. Each home equipped with solar panels requires less electricity from its local utility. Thanks to this reduction in demand and its related costs, the utility can use funding it would have needed for new transformers or substations to invest in improving energy efficiency or incentivizing more customers to generate their own electricity. Consolidated Edison is currently pursuing this type of effort in the Brooklyn-Queens area by identifying multiple alternatives to try to avoid the billion dollar substation investment. Other utilities are also experimenting with home energy batteries, which can store excess solar energy during daylight hours for use at night, further reducing each customer’s daily electricity use and impact on the distribution system. And because solar reduces demand for utility-provided electricity, less electricity has to be generated at power plants and transmitted from distant regions, reducing generation, transmission, and environmental costs. Many initiatives across the country are attempting to capture the opportunities offered by these technologies to change the fundamental way we interact with the electric grid.

Reducing the amount of electricity that needs to be generated by traditional power plants, transmitted long distances, and distributed locally, reduces the overall cost and environmental impact of our energy system.

For example, the Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) initiative in New York and the Public Utilities Commission-mandated Distribution Resource Plans in California require utilities to consider alternatives to traditional infrastructure investments to deal with peak demand. These initiatives encourage customers to install rooftop solar or adopt energy efficiency, storage, and demand response to reduce their use of grid-supplied electricity at peak times.

And, in Texas, the Distributed Resource Energy and Ancillaries Market Task Force (DREAM TF) is working to guarantee that customers who generate electricity are able to actively participate in the Texas electricity market. This will ensure distributed energy resources are paid appropriately for the benefits they provide to the system.

These efforts in New York, California, and Texas are on the right track. Reducing the amount of electricity that needs to be generated by traditional power plants, transmitted long distances, and distributed locally, reduces the overall cost and environmental impact of our energy system. That’s not just clean, it’s smart.

This blog post is part one in a four-part series that takes a deep dive into economics of the electric system and the role pricing can play in accelerating the clean energy economy.

By John Finnigan

AEP Ohio has been busy. On the one hand, it has been trying to keep its outdated, uneconomic coal plants afloat at a hefty cost to Ohioans. And as of last week, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) approved AEP’s requested subsidies to continue spewing pollution from dirty generators. This bailout is bad news for business, customers, and the environment – and the PUCO should have rejected it. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) will continue to object to the income-guarantees at the state and federal level.

On the other hand, and in a separate regulatory case, AEP has been working with multiple parties – including EDF – to build a cleaner, smarter grid. Its recent grid modernization agreement is a step toward more efficient, reliable electricity that will help people reduce their energy usage, lower their electric bills, and breathe cleaner air.

These two concurrent cases show AEP needs to decide whether it will change for the future, or stay stuck in the past. And while EDF has been clear in our opposition to the subsidies, today we want to acknowledge AEP’s innovative, forward-looking grid modernization efforts.

New agreement results in a long list of benefits

Like many utilities in the U.S., AEP has operated its grid in the same way for the past hundred years. The grid was designed for power flows in one direction: from centralized power plants, to homes or businesses along a network of transmission and distribution lines. The system lacked monitoring and communication equipment, which provide significant opportunity for greater efficiency.

AEP has now committed to bringing its grid into the 21st century, with a slew of improvements:

• Voltage optimization: Since AEP couldn’t determine the voltage of electricity at various points along the grid, it was overpowering homes and businesses with more voltage than was needed, resulting in higher electricity bills. Grid modernization will allow AEP to use sensors to measure voltage and supply electricity at lower, right-sized voltage, resulting in less electricity use and lower customer bills, as well as fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
• Greater reliability: Until now, AEP could only determine the condition of its equipment through costly physical inspections (i.e. sending someone out to visually inspect whether everything was working properly). That made it difficult to spot problems and anticipate outages. After an electrical outage had occurred, AEP would then replace the faulty part, interrupting service to customers. Now AEP will be able to monitor its grid remotely, relying less on frequent physical inspections. AEP also will be able to detect problems before failures occur, preventing future power outages.
• Faster response times: When outages occurred, AEP had to manually inspect miles of transmission and distribution lines to find the cause. With the updates, AEP will be able to pinpoint the outage location immediately, leading to a quicker fix.
• Efficient operations: AEP will be able to read its meters remotely, instead of sending meter readers to manually read each meter every month. This will lower operating costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by eliminating all the monthly “truck rolls” to read meters.
• Data access: AEP will work with regulators and stakeholders to provide timely access to energy usage data for customers, energy suppliers, and third parties. Real-time access to information allows people to track their use through cellphone apps or in-home energy monitors, empowering customers to make smart choices that lower their bills. That’s because data opens the door for AEP to offer new, time-based rate plans, where the cost of electricity is higher during peak-use periods (when demand is highest) and lower during off-peak periods. AEP’s real-time data will also enable other energy suppliers to access that information, with permission, and offer time-variant pricing to their customers. Finally, data access opens the market to third-party companies that can offer energy efficiency programs directly to customers, enhancing competition and overall efficiency. Studies show that granting people access to their data, combined with time-variant pricing and data-enabled third-party programs, can save up to 15 percent on electricity, without negatively affecting convenience or comfort.
• Environmental metrics: AEP will measure the greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved through grid modernization. Defining and measuring performance is key to creating a new system that rewards utilities for delivering clean energy services, such as on-site renewable energy and home energy management, instead of simply delivering more electricity.

All of these elements mean AEP will run a significantly more efficient grid, with less wasted energy and less pollution.

With opponents to the recent bailout decision taking the battle to federal regulators, AEP’s place in the clean energy economy is still unclear. Trying to subsidize dirty coal plants signals a utility clinging to the past, but – at the same time – AEP is employing forward-looking efforts to modernize its grid. And there’s a lot more it could do to create a smarter, more efficient system, especially in terms of customer access to data. AEP will need to decide its path from here: utility dinosaur or purveyor of the clean energy future?

By Rory Christian

Do you remember where were you were and what you were doing the day the first iPhone was released? What about the moment when Senator Obama became a real contender for the White House? It is rare to experience a pivotal moment in history, and appreciate its significance in real time.

Last week, the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) approved a plan by New York’s largest utility, Consolidated Edison (ConEd), to distribute advanced meters (also known as “smart meters”) to more than 3.2 million electric and 1.2 million gas customers in New York City. Advanced meters, a key component of the smart grid, can unlock the many benefits of clean energy while empowering customers to take charge of their energy use. For me, this move by the PSC was a pivotal moment in New York City’s history.

With this single order, the PSC is doing more than just “talk” about environmental progress; it’s making good on the goals put forward over last two years in Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) – the landmark proceeding to transform New York’s electric grid into a resilient, efficient, smart, clean system. This shows New York State’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emission by 40 percent and generate half of its electricity from renewable sources, targets it has declared under the State Energy Plan.

The deployment of advanced meters is a cornerstone that sets the foundation for a future envisioned by REV.

Unparalleled benefits 

New York currently lags the nation in the use of advanced metering technology. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), less than one percent of electric meters in New York State are advanced, which puts New York far behind states like California (83 percent) and Texas (67 percent). This order will increase the number of advanced meters in New York City by over 40 percent by 2022, a number which will likely escalate as other utilities are poised to follow suit.

An Historic Moment: Advanced Meters Make their Way to New York City
Click To Tweet

Advanced meters are a key component of the smart grid and come with a long list of benefits to utilities and customers. They help utilities operate more efficiently through increased automation, which helps detect power outages faster and reduce operation costs, among other things. Customers benefit from lower electric bills, better access to their own electricity use data, and more choice – like the option to use time-variant-pricing, which incentivizes people to use less electricity during certain periods of peak energy demand. Combined, these efficiencies help reduce electricity use and harmful pollution.

These benefits rest heavily on the ability to record electricity use in short time intervals, and in a manner that is both transparent and accessible to customers and third-parties in the private sector, who provide services. They are essential factors in the development and provision of time-variant-pricing and other electricity pricing options that save energy and money.

Long-term potential

As more and more customers use advanced metering technology and enroll in time-variant-pricing, benefits to people, the system, and the environment will increase. Understanding these reasons, the Commission’s order pointed out that “A lesson learned from other jurisdictions is that the failure to deliver clear and apparent customer benefits is a cause of the criticism that surrounds many deployments of [Advanced Metering Infrastructure].” In doing so, it highlighted the benefits of using advanced meters, and emphasized the importance of bringing them to market as quickly as possible.

The order also places a cap on total expenses and provides an option for ConEd to receive incentives if the program is successful and comes in under budget. With this in mind, ConEd is to further expand on its plans to distribute advanced meters through a customer engagement program due later in the year that will include:

1. Innovative pricing proposals (including one or more pilot programs developed in consultation with stakeholders)
2. A plan to accommodate third-party web platforms and smart phone apps that could, for example, send people recommendations via smart phone about how they can more effectively reduce their energy use and electricity bills
3. A proposal to leverage advanced meters to cut customers’ costs for complying with New York City’s benchmarking law (which requires owners of large buildings to annually measure their energy and water use to help with energy efficiency planning)
4. A proposal for engaging customers in multifamily residential buildings

Fundamentally, this is a major win for New York. This order unleashes unprecedented opportunities. The use of advanced meters will give customers more control over their electricity use, lead to much needed environmental outcomes, and help facilitate the clean energy transformation New Yorkers so deserve.

By Beia Spiller

New York is on the path to transforming its electric industry. Since the Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) proceedings kicked off with the goal of creating a more robust and efficient electric grid, the State is now a step closer in the quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels. And, thanks to the New York Public Service Commission (PSC), the road is looking a lot smoother.

Last month, the PSC rolled out the Benefit Cost Analysis Order, a methodology for how electric utilities should weigh the costs and benefits of proposed investments that affect the grid. With this new order, utilities will be required to calculate the net benefits associated with portfolios of distributed energy investments, such as rooftop solar and energy storage, and compare them with traditional utility investments, like substations, power lines, and poles.

This decision is crucial for New York’s clean energy future because utilities must now value the environmental benefits of distributed energy sources, and quantify how these different alternatives can work together to create a cost-effective, resilient grid. For example, in the face of severe congestion on the grid, utilities could expand the electric system to meet growing demand. Alternatively, they could incentivize a number of different distributed resources to help bring demand down by, for instance, encouraging customers to install solar panels, participate in demand response programs, or invest in energy efficiency to avoid a grid expansion.

Although a future with lots of distributed energy is a valuable goal, it is important that these resources be clean. Not all distributed energy is the same. Diesel generators, for example, may in fact be dirtier than centralized electricity because they produce harmful local pollutants, including particulate matter (PM), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), and Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), as well as globally polluting carbon emissions. By ensuring New York invests in clean distributed energy sources, we can help displace dirtier, centralized generation, which relies on coal and other fossil fuels, while also protecting the health of local communities.

Overall, the Benefit Cost Analysis Order ensures that the environment will be taken into account when assessing new investment options by mandating that utilities:

1. Value carbon emissions: The PSC determined that the best way to value avoided carbon emissions is by using the Social Cost of Carbon, which measures the overall cost to society from each ton of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emitted, and as of 2015, it costs society about $40 per ton. Using the Social Cost of Carbon implies that the future net benefits of clean distributed energy resources will be valued higher relative to dirty ones.

1. Consider a portfolio of distributed energy resources: The PSC’s order states that utilities must conduct a benefit-cost analysis on portfolios of distributed energy resources, rather than individually for each alternative solution. This is very important because many clean, distributed energy resources work better when combined with other sources, providing greater benefits than individual projects. For example, a battery storage investment may not be cost-beneficial if evaluated alone, but when looked at jointly with a solar installation, it could provide significant savings and benefits for the electricity system and the environment.

1. Apply the benefit-cost analysis to renewable energy “tariffs”: The order states that the benefit-cost analysis must be used as guidance for constructing payments to customers who generate their own electricity, whether from clean or dirty distributed energy sources. Essentially, utilities will have to determine pricing based on the benefits and costs associated with customers’ contributions to the grid, including the environmental impacts these distributed generation sources impose or avoid. This will lead to more efficient tariffs that correctly price carbon emissions, and result in more clean, distributed generation investments.

New York Moves to Properly Value Clean, Distributed Energy
Click To Tweet

These are important steps to ensure the future of the New York electric grid will be cleaner and more efficient. Unfortunately, there is one significant part of the order that will cause dirty, distributed energy options to look more financially attractive than clean ones.

EDF will continue to advocate for utilities to properly value clean energy resources, so that projects are implemented in a way that can benefit customers and the environment in the long run.

As it stands, the order specifies that utilities are required to use a high discount rate: the “weighted average cost of capital,” which reflects how much it costs the utility to borrow money to invest. A high discount rate values all current costs and benefits more than future costs and benefits. This is problematic for clean energy investments because of how the benefits and costs of clean and dirty technologies are incurred over time. Clean technologies generally have large upfront costs with significant environmental benefits in the long run, whereas dirty technologies are usually cheaper to install but will have harmful environmental costs in the future. So, with a high discount rate, a diesel generator could look relatively more valuable than a solar panel, as the upfront costs are lower for the former. If lower discount rates were applied instead, clean energy sources would look a lot more attractive and lead utilities to increasingly encourage the adoption of these types of investments.

The PSC’s order is a model for utilities and public utility commissions across the country to follow, so that non-traditional investments in the grid can be accurately valued. EDF will continue to advocate for utilities to properly value clean energy resources, so that projects are implemented in a way that can benefit customers and the environment in the long run.

By Jim Marston

If you want a good example how bad government can kill good jobs and clean energy innovation, take a look at what’s happening in Nevada, where a decision by Governor Brian Sandoval’s appointees, pushed by NV Energy Inc., essentially killed the thriving local solar energy industry.

In December 2015, Gov. Sandoval’s Public Utilities Commission (PUCN) approved a new net metering rule for people with rooftop solar systems that significantly increases monthly fees they pay their utility and significantly decreases the value of unused energy they sell back to the grid. Under the new rule, rooftop solar owners do not receive payments for the benefits they provide the electric grid and it will simply take too long to recoup a solar investment so that, for most, solar will no longer be a smart financial move. Solar companies are already running for the border.

And if killing jobs wasn’t enough, PUCN’s new rule is retroactive, essentially pulling the economic rug out from under the 17,000 Nevadans who have already invested in solar systems based on existing rules. In some cases, people who have invested tens of thousands of dollars are immediately underwater; it may take them decades to see a financial return on their investment. That is, unless Nevada decides to grandfather all existing solar customers for 20 years (a vote by the PUCN is scheduled for tomorrow).

So, who will benefit from the new rule? Legacy electric utilities, which for more than 100 years have built their profit models on selling as much energy as possible. In Nevada, the resident legacy utility is NV Energy Inc., which continues to be the largest private utility in the state. Owned by a subsidiary of Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, NV Energy sells electricity to 1.3 million people across the state at the highest rates in the Mountain region. NV Energy was a loud critic of the former net metering policy and a supporter of the decision to cut support for solar power.

Despite the flowery commitment to renewable energy NV Energy lists on its website, the company’s generation fleet is overwhelmingly fossil-fueled. Of the 6,400 megawatts of generation it lists online, the company’s website shows that 99 percent comes from natural gas or coal plants. Its renewable energy sources are a mathematical asterisk.

Solar energy, meanwhile, is booming across the country, partly due to net metering policies the Nevada rule reversed. There’s more than 22,000 megawatts of installed solar in the U.S., and more than 20,000 additional megawatts are expected to be installed in the next two years. The cost of installing solar has dropped 73 percent since 2006, customer demand is still high, and solar companies are adding workers nearly 12 times faster than the overall economy. In the last six years, the U.S. solar job market has grown 123 percent.

Good Policy Gone Bad: How Nevada Killed Jobs and Clean Energy Competition
Click To Tweet

Solar demand has been so strong in Nevada that SolarCity, one of the largest solar companies in the world, announced in 2013 it would make Las Vegas a regional corporate hub. And the state’s solar potential has barely been tapped – a U.S. Department of Interior study estimated that there is more than 6,500 megawatts of solar potential in Southern Nevada alone. For reference, that’s as much electricity as all of NV Energy’s company-owned generation combined. Solar is so hot in Nevada that the iconic “Welcome to Las Vegas” sign is now powered by the sun.

The PUCN’s rule killed that momentum and potential in favor of a private monopoly with a 100-year old business model. While one advocacy group called Nevadans for Affordable, Clean Energy Choices filed a proposed constitutional amendment last week to break up NV Energy’s monopoly in the state, it seems the damage has already been done. SolarCity has already eliminated 550 Nevada jobs and won’t sell any more systems in Nevada. Sunrun and Vivent are also pulling out of the state. Local contractors and installers will feel the pinch, too, as potential customers simply won’t be able to make the math work.

A recent analysis found that Nevada ranks first in the country for solar jobs per capita. Now these jobs are at risk – and could move to other states, where elected officials, regulators, and business owners are more interested in building a new economy than protecting an outdated one.

Nevada’s rule is a poignant example of what is happening across the country. The solar boom is making utility monopolies face some difficult questions: How do utilities compete with new technology when all they know how to do is sell more energy and increase rates? How do they incorporate new energy sources, like solar, that they don’t sell? How can utilities recoup the billions of dollars some of them unwisely spent on outdated coal plants?

These are hard questions. Yet they’re inevitable for any business. Technology does not stand still. Some utilities are getting creative by experimenting with new business models that treat energy as a service, not a commodity, so they can thrive without punishing solar customers.

But in markets across the country, many utilities are using their political clout to protect their economic power and fight the future. Nevada is simply the latest and most egregious example. With one rule, Gov. Sandoval’s political appointees have killed NV Energy’s competition – customers and citizens be damned. As SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive said, “This is not how government is supposed to work.”

Photo source: Wikimedia/Famartin

By Jamie Fine

California’s “big three” utilities, at the behest of state regulators, are in the process of examining and improving how they price electricity, including something called time-of-use (TOU) electricity pricing. This option – which rewards people who shift some of their electricity use to times of day when clean energy is abundant and electricity is cheaper – can help California families create safer communities while saving money on their utility bills. Mom’s Clean Air Force California mom Linda Hutchins-Knowles agrees, and recently wrote this opinion piece in the San Jose Mercury News encouraging others to adopt TOU.

Linda, like many moms, wears multiple hats. As a mother, she wants to help leave her children a safer, more sustainable word. As an advocate, she supports increasing our use of clean energy over dirty fossil fuels to help clean our air and environment as a whole. Finally, as a consumer, she wants to do these things without breaking the bank.

Moms Know What’s Best: How Time-of-Use Electricity Pricing can Benefit California Families
Click To Tweet

This is where TOU electricity pricing comes in. As Linda notes, Californians will soon have the opportunity to adopt TOU when Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric transition all residential customer to this program in 2019 – with the option to opt-out for those who prefer tiered rates (the option currently in place for these customers). This will improve the resiliency of the electric grid and optimize the use of California’s growing clean energy resources. To illustrate how, she uses the example of California’s ample and growing solar power resources. The state currently produces so much solar energy, sometimes it produces more than it can use. Under TOU, electricity will cost less when this resources is abundant, incentivizing people to use energy during that time.

To get the most out of this tool, Linda rightly illuminates that just as California families and residents are diverse, their electricity pricing options should reflect their different needs. This is why she calls for utilities to create options that fit for tech-savvy Bay Area and Silicon Valley customers and people who already use tools to manage their energy use like smart thermostats.

These options, paired with effort from the utilities to empower all of their customers – including elderly and low-income Californians – by studying how their bills may be impacted, will ensure this program is successful for everyone. Environmental Defense Fund will also be busy in the coming months advocating for a menu of varied pricing options. Ensuring the utilities inspire the use of new technologies and empower those who already use energy management technologies (like smart thermostats) to shift their use will also be part of our strategy.

In the meantime, if you live in California, why not listen to a mom and consider jumping on the TOU train now? Simply contact Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric today to sign up.

This post originally appeared on our California Dream 2.0 blog.

By Ronny Sandoval

The GridWise Alliance, a leading business forum for the development of a smart, clean, modern electric grid, just released its 3rd Annual Grid Modernization Index – a ranking of states’ progress towards a more sustainable energy system. The Index goes beyond tracking investments that modernize the electric system; it explores the policies these investments can support, such as increasing efficiency and reducing emissions. The report also delves into the valuable services customers can expect from smart technology investments in the grid.

Grid modernization isn’t simply about replacing aging infrastructure – it’s about managing energy in new ways, namely through sensors and digital communication. Greater visibility and control as a result of these investments can create a dynamic electric system that is more efficient, better manages costs, improves customer service, and protects our limited resources.

In addition to possibly giving your home state something to brag about, the results of this Index offer plenty of useful information on how states have modernized the grid and charted their own course toward making smarter energy choices.

States are leading the charge

California, Illinois, and Texas rank first, second, and third in the new Index. They continue to lead the pack, as in previous years.

Feeling Gridlocked? New Report Grades State Power Systems and Inspires Modernization
Click To Tweet

California has long been recognized as a pioneer in driving efficient and clean investments in the electric system, but ambitious time-of-use rate designs – which reward people who shift some of their electricity use to times of the day when renewable energy is plentiful and electricity is cheaper – have contributed to California’s continued leadership. New requirements that demand response – a voluntary conservation tool that relies on people and technology, not power plants to manage peak energy demand – be considered as a potential tool in meeting future system needs also contributed to California’s top ranking this year. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has advocated for these and other sustainable policies in the state for some time.

In Illinois, where EDF is also very active, utilities have agreed to report on environmental performance metrics, conducted studies showing voltage optimization is a great investment, and invested billions of dollars in smart meters that underpin smarter energy choices. Leading utility ComEd also recently embraced the Open Data Access Framework, an industry-recognized model framework that EDF helped create and made possible by Illinois’ investment in smart meters. Open Data Access is designed to help utilities unlock smart grid benefits by granting people easy access to energy data.

Texas, another one of EDF’s priority states, rounds out the top three leaders in this year’s Grid Modernization Index. The state’s policies in encouraging retail competition have facilitated the creation of products and services with a unique customer focus. Texas’s exploration into making the best use of distributed energy resources (like rooftop solar and energy storage) and providing value to the system further demonstrates its leadership in modernizing the electric grid. And, with three new grants from the Department of Energy’s SunShot Initiative, Texas may be well on its way to reclaim the number one spot in grid modernization.

Key takeaways

Aside from details about what is happening in leading states, the Index also offers some interesting key takeaways. We recommend you review them all, but three stand out:

1. There is a significant gap between the front runners and laggards. However, the findings are not just about shining a light on the leaders. If your state is behind in modernizing its grid, it can consider the approach of other states and focus on realizing the benefits that matter most first.
2. Demand response is a key ingredient for highly ranked states. This is not surprising, considering demand response is a proven clean energy tool for managing peak demand, lowering electricity bills, and reducing harmful pollution.
3. A modern grid can facilitate a number of your state’s energy, economic, and environmental priorities. However, collaboration among all stakeholders is essential to ensure the transition to a more modern energy system is sustainable.

What’s next for your state?

EDF is a member of the GridWise Alliance and is very proud of our involvement in bringing an environmental perspective to the project team and contributing as a strategic advisor on this report. The Index shows that the policies EDF promotes have impact – especially in some of the higher-ranking states. We envision that utilities and regulators will continue to be guided by the smart, clean energy strategies captured in this document. Regardless of ranking, all states can use the Index to make more informed decisions in creating a modern and more sustainable energy system.

By Jamie Fine

California’s big three utilities – San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE) – serve over 80 percent of the state’s population, which is why their recent move to update the state’s antiquated electricity pricing could be a game-changer for helping the state achieve its climate and clean energy goals.

In late December, while most people were on holiday, the utilities submitted plans to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to assess electricity prices that vary with the season and time of day. These plans detail the next two years of piloting time-of-use (TOU) pricing for most residential customers, and will help California reduce pollution and increase renewable energy production.

TOU electricity rates reward customers who shift energy use to times of the day when clean energy – like wind and solar – is plentiful, and electricity is cheaper. Already in use by commercial and industrial customers, starting in 2019, California households served by the big 3 utilities will also be able to benefit from TOU pricing. By shifting their energy use to times of the day when electricity is cleaner and cheaper, customers will be empowered to lower their monthly electricity bills and use more of California’s abundant, renewable energy resources.

Meanwhile, the utilities will have the next three years to fine tune their TOU strategy by analyzing these pilots, with the goal of achieving customer understanding and satisfaction through outreach, education, and new technology.

These plans are a great start, but there is still an opportunity to refine them. Doing so will ensure Californians are well-positioned to successfully transition to TOU pricing in 2019.

What the plans get right

Each utility will evaluate three different electricity rate designs across a broad sampling of customers, setting the stage for scientifically rigorous pilots.

• The first rate, roughly speaking, is most similar to the TOU rates currently offered by the big three utilities.
• The second rate’s peak, or highest, price window is shorter and rewards customers who increase their energy use when solar power is plentiful (usually between 11 AM and 3 PM).
• The third rate is intended to provide the sharpest incentive for customers to use electricity from clean, renewable sources. This rate has the highest peak price, but customers benefit the most with this option from shifting or lowering energy use – by using strategies and enabling technologies such as home batteries, energy efficiency, and smart thermostats.
• Finally, each utility proposes to test how customers interact with technologies. SCE and SDG&E will examine how customers use smart thermostats and PG&E will test a smart phone app.

3 Ways to Improve California’s Time-Of-Use Electricity Pilots
Click To Tweet

SDG&E's third rate has many attributes Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) endorses, including hourly price changes to reflect the near-real-time cost of electricity. Furthermore, this rate will provide a bill credit when electricity from solar plants, for example, is so plentiful that the cost of electricity goes down. The bill credit is yet another way to incentivize people to use electricity when there is ample clean energy available, making it easier for the state to rely more and more on these renewable sources. EDF submitted letters to the CPUC encouraging PG&E and SCE to adopt a third rate in their pilots reflecting what SDG&E is piloting because we believe it best matches the type of pricing system California needs to green the electric grid.

The evaluation plans laid out by SDG&E and SCE clearly list what objectives will be met in the next two years of pilots, and what will be done in the 2018 pilot when utilities can explore a process for automatically transitioning customers to TOU pricing. Their plans correctly emphasize studying how customers change their energy use when switched to TOU pricing and how these changes translate into utility bill changes and satisfaction. However, EDF sees additional opportunities for the utilities to make these plans stronger and more ambitious.

How the plans can be stronger

The state’s TOU objectives include offering Californian’s a broad menu of quality options. Here are three ways the pilots can better achieve this goal:

• Testing clear customer options. Not all of the electricity rates proposed by SCE and PG&E provide significant electricity price differences between times of day. The pilots should look at a greater diversity of TOU rates, as different combinations will work better for different people. If all of the rates offered are too similar, people won’t be able to distinguish between them. This confusion will likely result in customers not shifting their energy use to align with times when renewable energy is available – one of the main benefits of TOU electricity pricing.
• Inspiring use of new technologies. The pilots should determine how to inspire people to adopt technologies that can shift electricity use automatically when the electric grid is stressed, or turn on routinely during times when clean energy is abundant. By studying this focus group, the utilities could gain insights into how they might motivate others to adopt similar tools. SCE and PG&E could be more ambitious in this moment of testing. Comparatively, SDG&E has the right ambition and focus in their third pilot rate, but proposes a $40 per month fixed charge that may undercut the financial benefits customers can receive with TOU electricity pricing. EDF recommends SDG&E test a demand charge, which instead of adding a fixed amount to the utility bill each month, adds a fee based on the customer’s peak electricity use. While the demand charge may seem at first to have the same effect as a fixed charge, it can be avoided. Practices and technologies, such as automated demand response that, for example, dims lights and slows fans in coordination rather than incur peak demand charges, can make this option more beneficial to customers.
• Taking advantage of technology. PG&E’s plan in particular misses another critical opening to unlock the full potential of technologies like smart thermostats and home batteries. Instead of testing how people buy and use technologies and, in turn, how this impacts their utility bills and satisfaction when paired with TOU electricity pricing, PG&E is choosing to focus only on qualitative aspects of smart thermostat use. Furthermore, all three utilities could synch their technology treatments with concurrent efforts at the CPUC such as the Distribution Resources Plan proceeding and Vehicle Grid Integration

Setting the stage for success

As I’ve written elsewhere, TOU electricity rates provide numerous benefits, one of which is putting all of our clean energy to use.

EDF and others are working to ensure the TOU pilots are designed to provide utilities and Californians with the information necessary for the program’s eventual success. Namely, to establish the electricity rates we need to help California build a clean, affordable, and reliable energy system.

This post originally appeared on our California Dream 2.0 blog.

By Michael Panfil

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued an important decision in support of a vital clean energy resource: demand response. The case, FERC v. EPSA, revolves around demand response, a resource that helps keep prices low and the lights on, all while being environmentally friendly.

It’s a significant victory for anyone in favor of a cleaner, cheaper, accessible, and more reliable grid. That describes a diverse group — consumer advocates, environmentalists, economists, states, grid operators, and leading legal scholars all filed in support of a critically important and well-designed policy creating access for demand response in wholesale energy markets.

How Demand Response Works

The incredible support for demand response exists because of how the resource works. Demand response reduces energy demand when power is needed most, rather than increasing supply from costly, carbon–emitting fuels. It relies on people and technology, not power plants, to affordably meet our country’s rising electricity needs. Think of it like crowd-sourced energy reductions, helping to reduce costs for everyone by taking the place of very expensive generation.

#SCOTUS rules in favor of a critical #CleanEnergy resource: #DemandResponse
Click To Tweet

The Supreme Court Case

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the federal agency responsible for keeping our electricity rates “just and reasonable” (that is, fairly priced). FERC created Order 745 to further that goal, with the Order giving demand response access and equal footing in wholesale energy markets, where electricity is bought and sold. It levels the playing field between demand response and traditional sources of electricity, letting the resource compete alongside others.

And demand response has done more than compete – it’s reduced our use of unneeded, costly electricity – the exact type of electricity that should be limited if one wants “just and reasonable” rates.

In a strong, 6-2 decision written by Justice Kagan and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of FERC, stating that “[w]e will not read [FERC’s authority], against its clear terms, to halt a practice that so evidently enables the Commission to fulfill its statutory duties of holding down prices and enhancing reliability in the wholesale energy market.”

Continuing Demand Response Benefits

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that demand response will keep providing important benefits — and these benefits are numerous. For example, demand response saved customers $11.8 billion in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States in 2013 alone. It likewise helped avoid blackouts during the polar vortex in 2014. And it gives customers the choice and opportunity to save money – for the grid and themselves – by taking part in demand response programs. All this, while being environmentally friendly and carbon reducing.

By Jim Marston

Back in September when the New York Times declared 2015 “the year humans got serious about climate change,” we knew they were on to something. But as we near the end of 2015, it’s hard to believe we’ve accomplished as much as we have in just 12 months.

This momentum culminated in representatives of 195 nations agreeing in Paris to act together on world knowledge of climate change. This historic agreement will aim to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, report transparently, and review and strengthen standards every five years. EDF President Fred Krupp stated, “It sends a powerful, immediate signal to global markets that the clean energy future is open for business.”

Though history proves “hindsight is 20/20,” historians just might look back at 2015 as the year everything changed for clean energy. Here’s a look at some of the top trends that fueled climate action by governments, investors, corporations, individuals, cities, utilities, market analysts, real estate professionals, and cleantech leaders in 2015. [Click through the following slideshow to see the trends.]

• 1. Governments make way for clean energy
  In addition to the global climate accord in Paris, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized the Clean Power Plan in August, setting the first-ever national limits on carbon pollution from power plants. While some states are challenging these rules in court, EDF reported that even a state like Texas – known for its oil-rich energy resources – could achieve nearly 90 percent of its 2030 Clean Power Plan goals under business-as-usual.
  
  State action on renewables found political room to grow when California passed SB 350, raising the state’s renewable energy mix to 50 percent and doubling the efficiency of existing buildings. And in North Carolina, tax credits and a modest renewable energy portfolio standard created more clean energy opportunities.
  
  Photo source: Yann Caradec CC BY 2.0
• 2. Investors double down on clean energy
  Citibank predicted in 2015 that it would be cheaper to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy than to follow a business-as-usual route to meeting our world’s growing energy needs. By transitioning to a clean energy economy we will, in fact, save an estimated $1.8 trillion by 2040.
  
  Today’s momentum, researchers noted, is driven in no small part by investors who are turning away from fossil fuel assets to instead focus on new and promising opportunities in clean energy. This trend came to a head in late November when Mission Innovation and the Breakthrough Energy Coalition launched simultaneously to dramatically accelerate public and private investment in clean energy innovation.
  
  Photo source: Michael Rivera CC BY 3.0
• 3. Corporations greenlight clean energy
  In corporate boardrooms, climate awareness and clean energy business opportunities merged. One example, 81 companies signed the White House’s American Business Act on Climate Pledge in October.
  
  This outpouring of corporate support shows that climate action has finally gone mainstream. And it’s no wonder. With Americans acknowledging the reality of climate change by increasing margins, and supporting action to cut fossil fuel pollution by a clear majority, the signal to business leaders is unequivocal. And because getting ahead of climate change can unlock new business models, energy savings, and lesser risk, the business case is a stool with many solid legs.
  
  Photo source: Joe Ravi CC BY 3.0
• 4. Renewables get even cheaper.
  2015 was a big year for renewable energy. Rooftop solar is becoming a middle-class commodity, with most installations landing in neighborhoods with a median household income of $40,000 to $90,000. American wind energy achieved a new milestone (70 GW nationwide in 2015!), and utility-scale solar is reaching “grid parity” (i.e., cost equivalency) with traditional generation in more areas across the country. Both resources received a major boost when Congress recently extended the federal tax incentives – which, according to Greentech Media Research, will help spur nearly 100 cumulative gigawatts of solar installations by 2020, resulting in $130 billion in total investment. Similar gains are also expected for wind.
  
  Photo source: McConnell Photography
• 5. Utility business models are changing
  While the price of renewable energy hit record lows in 2015, the proliferation of distributed energy resources – like rooftop solar, energy storage, and microgrids – hit a record high. More people are producing their own energy, and as a result, utilities are being forced to rethink how they recoup grid investments. Some utilities are choosing to adapt, while others are fighting change. Under the moniker Reforming the Energy Vision, New York is pioneering “utility 2.0” – or, a future in which electric vehicles, rooftop solar, and other types of homegrown energy are commonplace. In Ohio, however, utility bad boy FirstEnergy spent most of 2015 fighting the clean energy revolution via a $3 billon, ratepayer-funded bailout request.
  
  Photo source: Tim Connor
• 6. Electricity rate design becomes a hot-button issue
  One way utilities are dealing with the changing energy landscape is by rethinking how they charge customers for electricity and other grid services. Unfortunately, some utilities are intentionally trying to curb customers’ incentives to install solar mainly because this homegrown energy resource reduces shareholder profits and revenue for utilities. “Fixed charges” seemed to be the silver-bullet solution for these utilities in 2015.
  
  At least 35 investor-owned utilities in 18 states have requested fixed rate increases since 2014, with battles playing out in Kansas, Philadelphia, and many other regions. Time-of-use electricity pricing – which reflects the true cost of electricity throughout the day – is one alternative approach that California regulators approved this summer.
  
  Photo source: Brendan Wood CC BY 2.0
• 7. Clean energy becomes a moral issue
  In his 2015 encyclical, Laudato Si’ (“Praised Be to You”), Pope Francis called attention to the societal benefits of clean energy. In July, the Pope shrewdly convened the first meeting specifically for local government officials at the Vatican. Why? Because, like many, the Pope believes cities, unencumbered by state mechanisms, can get things done when it comes to clean energy.
  
  Photo source: Alfredo Borba CC BY 4.0
• 8. Real estate leaders embrace energy management
  Buildings use nearly 40 percent of all energy in the U.S. and account for a third of our greenhouse gases. A growing number of commercial real estate professionals began looking for opportunities in 2015 to upgrade what they’ve already got – and financing these upgrades is getting easier with EDF’s Investor Confidence Project (ICP). By standardizing how energy efficiency projects are developed and brought to market, similar to what was developed years ago for car loans and mortgages, ICP is clearing away barriers to energy efficiency financing. This year, New Jersey became the first state to pilot an ICP state incentive program.
  
  Photo source: Arthur Paxton – Rutgers University CC BY 3.0
• 9. Energy storage emerges as a megatrend
  This was the year breakthroughs in energy storage became inevitable. Tesla ushered in a new clean energy era when it unveiled its “Powerwall,” a home energy storage unit meant for backup during blackouts, with potential for future “solar plus storage” capabilities. Meanwhile, forward-thinking California utility, San Diego Gas and Electric began developing a “BYOB,” or Bring Your Own Battery, model in 2015 (with hopes of a pilot in 2016) that would allow the utility to “crowdsource” its customers’ batteries (like electric vehicles and Tesla’s Powerwall) to meet energy demand. And in Illinois, one of Chicago’s most iconic landmarks unveiled a battery storage unit that will help balance the electric grid and save money.
  
  Photo source: Tesla Motors – Tesla Energy CC By 4.0
• 10. Utilities get a grip on data
  Data may be the most promising and powerful tool to advance energy efficiency, but we’ve barely begun to scratch the surface of its potential. For example, in Pennsylvania, EDF and Mission:data — a national coalition of technology companies that advance the use of energy data — encouraged the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) to adopt the Open Access Data Framework. By clarifying the type of electricity usage data customers and authorized third-parties have access to and how the data should be provided, this framework could allow technologies, such as smart thermostats, and third parties to transform meter data into actionable steps that increase efficiency, save money, and cut pollution.
  
  Photo source: Space-Time Insight

var metaslider_11913 = function($) { $('#metaslider_11913').responsiveSlides({ timeout:3000, pager:true, nav:true, pause:true, speed:600, prevText:"<", nextText:">", auto:false }); }; var timer_metaslider_11913 = function() { var slider = !window.jQuery ? window.setTimeout(timer_metaslider_11913, 100) : !jQuery.isReady ? window.setTimeout(timer_metaslider_11913, 1) : metaslider_11913(window.jQuery); }; timer_metaslider_11913();

By Larissa Koehler

As any child of the ’80s knows, October 21, 2015 is “Back to the Future Day” – the day that the film’s protagonist, Marty McFly, travels to the future in his DeLorean. Though it would no doubt be useful to have access to flying cars (think of the traffic one could avoid), Californians are seeing increased access to something more practical: electric vehicles (EVs).

In order to meet the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals, emissions from transportation – the sector most responsible for harmful pollution – need to be addressed. Enter Governor Brown’s zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate, which aims to build enough infrastructure statewide to support one million clean vehicles by 2020, and put 1.5 million ZEVs on the road by 2025. With this executive order, we have a much better chance of ensuring a low-carbon future and effectively combatting climate change in California.

If we build it, they will come

To have a decent shot at meeting the governor’s goals, the state needs to start with charging infrastructure. Despite evolving battery technology, range anxiety is still one of the top deterrents for would-be EV buyers. So, putting more charging stations where drivers are likely to need them will help grow the market for these clean vehicles.

Thankfully, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued two proposed decisions on Dec. 15 and Dec. 23, giving Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) the opportunity to move forward with plans to increase charging infrastructure in their respective service territories. These decisions include modifications to the utilities’ original proposals – and SDG&E must still decide whether or not to accept the Commission’s modifications – but they nevertheless represent an important step in the journey to getting more EVs on the road.

In CA, #ElectricVehicles are the new DeLorean in 'Back to the Future'
Click To Tweet

Importantly, under these programs, SDG&E and SCE propose to grow the electric vehicles market in an intelligent way, by focusing on the following areas:

• Charging stations at multi-unit dwellings and workplaces. Currently underserved in terms of charging infrastructure, it makes good sense for the utilities to focus on these areas. In addition, making workplaces a focal point helps to ensure EVs are charging at times when there is an abundance of solar on the electric grid (typically between the hours of 11 AM – 3 PM, when solar panels are most productive).
• EVs as grid-balancing resources. Both SDG&E and SCE offer provisions in their programs that endeavor to discourage EV owners from charging at times of “peak,” or high energy demand, instead encouraging them to charge when renewable energy is plentiful. Of particular note, SDG&E includes a dynamic electricity tariff that, with the addition of a smartphone app, gives drivers an easy way to identify the cheapest – and most grid-beneficial – times to charge.
• Disadvantaged communities. Both SDG&E and SCE specifically set aside a percentage of charging stations for disadvantaged communities. In doing so, they are including a key demographic that is all too often overlooked. By helping increase the reach of EVs in communities that consistently suffer disproportionate impacts from pollution, the utilities can ensure the benefits of EVs have a much broader reach than they otherwise might.

More EVs mean more benefits for California

More charging infrastructure will lead to a bigger EV market, which will in turn lead to cleaner transportation for many Californians. More specifically, broader EV adoption can do the following, if these vehicles are deployed properly:

• Cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Because EVs, unlike their fossil-fueled counterparts, do not produce combustion emissions, they can significantly cut down on harmful pollution. That being said, it is also critical to know how the electricity powering these cars is produced. Charging at times when there is an abundance of solar or wind available means EVs are powered by clean energy resources, and not by fossil fuel power plants.
• Store renewable energy. Cars that charge in the middle of the day or late at night can store renewable energy. Therefore, even if people don’t use this clean power immediately, they can draw on it when the sun sets or the wind isn’t blowing. In this way, Californians avoid the need to rely on natural gas power plants that are often deployed at peak times – namely, in the early evening hours.
• Enhance electric grid reliability. In order for the electrical grid to be stable, supply has to roughly equal demand. However, there are times when there is an over-generation of solar, which leads to a surplus of supply relative to demand. This creates the potential for reliability concerns, as well as the possibility of fossil fuel power plants to quickly ramp up electricity production. By acting as a storage device in times of renewable over-generation, EVs can soak up excess renewable energy and head off these concerns.

EDF is excited that the Commission has left the door open for SDG&E and SCE to move forward with modified versions of these critical and well-thought-out programs. This green light will go a long way towards building a more sustainable and cleaner California. Now if only Tesla would help fulfill the fantasy of Millennials everywhere and come out with that flying car.

Photo source: Flickr/Birmingham News Room

By Dick Munson

Just in time for the holidays, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) quietly gave the gift of more affordable electricity to millions of Pennsylvanians.

PECO Energy Company, a leading Pennsylvania utility, had requested a significant distribution rate increase – meaning higher bills for its approximately 1.6 million electric customers. After months of discussion, last week the PUC approved a settlement with a lower rate increase and a directive for PECO to hold a series of collaborative meetings with all interested parties on revenue decoupling, or separating a utility's profits from its sales. Decoupling suggests a system in which utilities are rewarded based on the overall service they provide, rather than the amount of electricity they sell.

The PUC’s decision represents a win for grid modernization and distributed energy resources like energy efficiency, energy storage, and rooftop solar in the Keystone State.

PECO settlement encouraging for clean energy

The U.S. electricity system is currently undergoing a major transformation in which more and more people are using less energy or generating their own power. As a result, utilities across the country have been trying to obtain fixed charges – or a set amount all customers must pay each month – to recoup investment and grid maintenance costs.

Higher fixed charges discourage the use of distributed energy resources, because people have to pay a high fee regardless of whether they are conserving or producing their own energy. That’s why the settlement – which reduces PECO’s rate increase request by 33 percent – is good news for small-scale clean energy resources.

[Tweet "Pennsylvania continues moving toward a smarter, cleaner #moderngrid]

Numerous diverse parties support the settlement, including:

• Keystone Energy Efficiency Alliance,
• the Clean Air Council,
• Natural Resources Defense Council,
• the City of Philadelphia,
• Environmental Defense Fund, and
• many more.

Furthermore, the addition of the decoupling collaborative gatherings reflects a greater trend among Pennsylvania regulators toward building a smarter grid. For example, Commissioner Robert F. Powelson indicated the collaborative is part of a broader discussion, saying, “The time has come to better align rate structures in a way that equally benefits all stakeholders, including ratepayers, utilities and the environmental community.” And Commissioner Andrew G. Place emphasized finding better ways to incorporate distributed energy resources and create a more efficient, reliable grid. Plus, the ruling follows a PUC move earlier this year toward more fairly valuing two key clean energy resources: energy efficiency and demand response.

The PECO decision demonstrates the Pennsylvania PUC is looking forward and creating pathways for a clean energy future – a fine way to ring in the New Year.

By John Finnigan

A recent study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) concludes that the way a utility charges customers can greatly influence whether they will install solar panels. It is a timely analysis because utilities across the country are redesigning their rate structures to accommodate our changing electricity system, which is becoming cleaner and more efficient than ever before.

What’s unfortunate is that some utilities are intentionally trying to destroy customers’ incentive to install solar panels. Why? Because rooftop solar reduces shareholder profits and revenue for utilities.

Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA), a solar industry trade group, reports that in 2014, residential customers installed solar panels at an astounding 36 percent growth rate compared to 2013. But the LBNL study says the rate design changes now being proposed by utilities across the country could slash solar panel growth up to 60 percent. Clearly, poorly designed rate changes could devastate the potential for solar panels to help transform the electricity sector. Regulators should not let this happen.

Utilities have the opportunity to change their rate design to provide incentives for more solar adoption while also recouping investments and properly balancing their books.

Rate design 101

Rate design sounds like a complex topic, but it’s really quite simple. The term refers to how the utility arranges or “designs” the monthly bill for using electricity. At one extreme, a utility could charge a flat amount, or “fixed charge,” for customers to use an unlimited amount of electricity during the month.

At the other extreme, the utility could charge a rate for each unit of electricity used, known as a “variable charge.” In this scenario, the cost per-unit doesn’t change each month, but the amount of electricity consumed can vary greatly – and so can the utility bill.

In reality, utilities don’t use either one of these extremes. Instead, they use a combination of a monthly fixed charge and a variable charge. In theory, the fixed charge is supposed to cover some portion of the utility’s fixed costs for serving the customer, like building transmission lines and maintaining other elements of the grid’s infrastructure. Although the variable charge doesn’t change very often, the amount of electricity we use each month can change dramatically – with the highest usage occurring when we crank up our air conditioning and heater to stay comfortable.

Today, utilities recover most of their costs through the variable charge. The utilities’ playbook for halting loss of revenue from the growth of solar is to switch to fixed charges. It’s easy to see how this would harm solar panel customers. 

If the bill is based almost entirely on a variable charge, then a customer can install solar panels to reduce the amount of electricity needed from the utility – greatly reducing the customer’s monthly electricity bill. But if the bill is entirely based on a fixed charge, then solar panels wouldn’t change the bill at all. Customers would pay the same monthly fixed charge regardless of how much electricity they saved by installing solar panels.

Utilities' rate designs can help or harm solar adoption
Click To Tweet

The bottom line on rate design

Admittedly, the answer to a well-designed electricity rate requires more than simply looking at how much of the bill is recovered through a fixed charge versus a variable charge. Regulators should consider whether the utility offers net metering, which allows solar customers to get paid for providing excess electricity to the grid, and time-variant pricing, a rate structure that reflects the true price of electricity, which varies by time of day and year. Regulators are also experimenting with demand charges for residential customers – where the customer would pay a fee based on how much their usage contributes to the utility’s peak usage. One thing is clear: regulators need to reject the utilities’ knee-jerk approach of just raising the monthly fixed charge.

Instead, regulators must consider other rate design factors and develop a balanced solution that gives the utility a fair opportunity to recover its costs, while also providing both solar and non-solar customers a way to pay their fair share of using the electric grid. Utilities should not be allowed to discriminate against solar customers by including demand charges that other residential customers are not required to pay.

Regulatory officials must stop utilities from adopting rate designs that harm customers who own solar panels. This is the right path for transforming into a fair, modern, low-cost, clean electricity system.

Photo source: Wikimedia Commons/Gray Watson

Graph source: The Chippewa Herald/Power Shift: Utilities, Regulators Changing How Customers Pay for Power 

By Jamie Fine

Electricity regulators, clean energy innovators, and rappers have all lamented poor communication. And some have pushed for cleaner, cheaper, more reliable solutions for meeting our energy needs. This is particularly so with the much anticipated emergence of a new kind of non-event based, price-responsive demand response (DR), or flexible DR.

Whereas traditional DR signals customers to voluntarily and temporarily reduce their energy use at times when the electric grid is stressed, this type of DR does that and more. The big difference? It signals customers, their appliances, and their electric vehicles to increase their energy use when electricity is clean, plentiful, and cheap.

For example, electric vehicles can be programmed to charge at mid-day when the sun is bright and solar energy is at its peak, and provide electricity back to the grid when the sun sets. Better yet, many of our cars, homes, and appliances can be programmed to monitor grid conditions in real time, via the Internet, and respond accordingly by charging or defecting. Also known as a “set-it-and-forget-it” feature, this function enables the seamless integration of flexible DR while also supporting the full potential of energy efficiency measures and distributed energy resources (DERs), like rooftop solar and energy storage.

The seamless and stealth nature of this type of DR, which can be largely automated by tools and service providers, is something neither the customer nor the utility have to think about. It’s like a secret agent, operating behind walls and wires to find the greatest energy (and cost) saving-potential. Regulators need to unleash this “secret agent DR” by rewarding it fairly and efficiently in the energy marketplace, giving it a “license to thrill” in households and businesses across California.

Flexible demand response delivers serious benefits

The good news is, this innovative form of DR aligns with times of the day when electricity is cheap and demand is high. That is, solar and wind will be plentiful at times when customers generally desire to use energy. This element of flexible DR brings some serious benefits to California’s electric grid, environment, and people, including its ability to:

• Decarbonize California’s electric grid. By helping to shift demand to times of day when clean energy is plentiful, California can rely more on low-carbon resources and less on dirty ones. This is increasingly important as California adds more electric vehicles to its roads, and thus more demand to the electric grid.

• Provide a new form of flexible resource. The successful growth of wind and solar energy means grid reliability management is expanding from a focus on periods of “peak,” or high demand, to flexible demand. Flexibility refers to the need to better align electricity usage with renewable energy, while avoiding increases in energy demand when those resources are not available. This new iteration of DR constitutes an innovative form of flexible resource that is still new to grid planners, but has great promise for complementing other clean energy solutions, like utility-scale renewable resources. A recent study by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) finds that, “residential use of a smart thermostat and a water heater timer for flexiwatt consumption is calculated to save U.S. utilities 8 percent of their heat-oriented generation, worth about $13.3 billion per year.”

• Empower people to be more comfortable. One example of a new kind of technology which is able to perform this kind of DR is the Nest thermostat. A recent study of Nest users across 41 states found people save about 10-12 percent in heating and about 15 percent in cooling with most participants, “feeling more comfortable after the Nest Learning Thermostat was installed.” This shows this is also a strategy that will empower energy users to be more comfortable.

Putting this exciting approach to work

In addition to recognizing its many benefits, we need to figure out how best to implement this flexible DR.

One way is for the managers of the electric grid to start planning for it. They can do this by including it in their forecasts of energy demand. This includes representing flexible DR in the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) Integrated Energy Policy Report, an annual report of trends and issues related to energy that the CEC presents to the governor and the California State Legislature. Based on this report, the legislature should enact policy to realize its potential. As the saying goes, “If we don’t plan on where we’re going, we’re likely to end up someplace else.”

When combined with other things like new electricity pricing mechanisms in California, this people-powered solution will become routine and commonplace. It will help the state get the best possible value from solar and wind while avoiding additional stress on the electric grid during times of peak demand or other grid constraints. As California aims to achieve ambitious renewable energy targets, this will be yet another powerful tool to build the state’s clean energy future.

To learn more about non-event based, price-responsive demand response (DR), or flexible DR, Jamie Fine will be describing this great opportunity in more detail during a presentation at the DR World Forum in Costa Mesa, October 6-7. 

By John Finnigan

In a long-awaited hearing which began last week, Ohio’s largest utility is seeking approval for a rate hike of $3 billion. FirstEnegy is asking the Public Utilities Commission (PUCO) to force customers to pay for its old, dirty, uneconomic coal plants and a nearly-expired nuclear plant.

Although there are many reasons to oppose the bailout proposal, one key objection is that FirstEnergy’s sister company – FirstEnergy Solutions – owns these power plants. Rather than undertaking a competitive bid to find the best deal and most affordable prices available, FirstEnergy agreed to buy the power from FirstEnergy Solutions. Imagine if the owner of your company forced you and every employee to buy expensive health insurance from their cousin, even though you could easily get a better price if you shopped around.

If this sounds bad, it gets worse – this isn’t the first time FirstEnergy has tried this tactic. The utility did the same thing in 2013, and the PUCO slammed FirstEnergy for doing so. This is just a case of déjà vu all over again, and FirstEnergy should expect the same result.

In the 2013 case, FirstEnergy needed to buy renewable energy credits (RECs) because Ohio law required utilities to get a certain portion of their energy supply in the form of renewable energy. Other Ohio utilities shopped around for RECs and used competitive bidding to find the lowest available prices. Since all utilities pass these costs through to customers via their electricity rates, competitive bidding means lower prices for the utility’s customers.

FirstEnergy did not use competitive bidding to get its RECs – instead, it bought them directly from its sister company.   The PUCO investigated the deal and concluded that FirstEnergy overpaid for these RECs by $43 million, which it ordered FirstEnergy to refund to customers. The PUCO’s order had this to say:

“[t]he actual purchase price was not the result of a competitive bid but a negotiated purchase price (with its affiliated company). That negotiated purchase price was unsupported by any testimony in the record.”

Basically, FirstEnergy didn’t try to find the best price, instead settling on a high price that benefited its sister company. The PUCO determined this was highly unfair to FirstEnergy’s customers.

The PUCO’s rejection of a no-bid, self-dealing contract in 2013 should have taught FirstEnergy a lesson – especially since this lesson had a steep cost of $43 million. Hopefully, the PUCO will do the right thing once again and complete the déjà vu by rejecting this deal.

Sadly, FirstEnergy always seems to do the wrong thing. If you’d like to give your opinion to the PUCO and to state lawmakers about this new case, please click here.