Public Power week: October 5-11 | Let's think more broadly about utility issues
This week is Public Power Week, calling attention to public power producers (federal dams) and local utilities in electricity (and sometimes gas) that are owned by the local government. The webpage calls these "community owned utilities."
The American Public Power Association doesn't represent public water utilities (although some local governments are exploring the possibility of harnessing energy from temperature-controlled water streams).
October is also National Energy Awareness Month ("October is National Energy Awareness Month," 2021).
.jpg)
Since outside of center cities it was rural, some public power utilities exist on the outskirts of cities, like the Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative in Suburban Maryland.
The ones, like SMEC, that buy electricity from traditional sources just like "investor owned" utilities, don't have a lot of pricing discount compared to those based on hydroelectric power sources.
Community power boards. Interestingly, with the TVA, many of the communities have community owned utilities, called Electric Power Boards, although TVA like other federal dams, sell power to both for profit and non profit utilities.
Some, like the EPB in Chattanooga, sell cable and Internet services--they did this because they needed an Internet backbone to run their system of smart meters, and made it more robust and a separate service for their customers. It's an economic development tool ("Chattanooga, Tenn., Makes Economic Case for Municipal Broadband," Government Technology, "The Infrastructure Success Story in Chattanooga," American Prospect) as well.
Local governments want to buy out investor owned utilities. Some municipalities like Ann Arbor ("Ann Arbor residents plan ballot initiative to dump DTE and begin shifting city toward public power," Michigan Advance), or previously Montgomery County explore(d) taking over electricity services but the cost of buying out the utility is too high.
Already in Ann Arbor, the city "sustainable energy utility"--other cities have them too, like DC, is working to build a parallel system to DTE ("Ann Arbor’s sustainable energy utility aims to build the electric power grid of the future − alongside the old one," The Conversation).
The city, with voters’ strong support, is launching its own sustainable energy utility. This new utility won’t replace DTE Energy, the local investor-owned power company, or even use DTE’s wires.
Instead, Ann Arbor will slowly build out a whole new modern power system, starting with installing rooftop solar and battery storage and reducing energy usage in individual homes and businesses whose owners opt in. The city then plans to expand by connecting homes and neighborhoods into microgrids and by using community solar and networked geothermal to allow broader access to clean energy.
When their multi-state utility went bankrupt, the City of Portland tried to buy the city electric utility infrastructure but were denied by the Bankruptcy Court.
LA has a municipal power authority, while San Diego has the capability to do it, but keeps selling franchise rights to San Diego Gas & Electric. While not cheap either, LA's electricity costs are significantly less than SDGE.
Should California buy PGE. Because of the wildfire issue, it's even been suggested that the State of California should buy and operate Pacific Gas & Electric, to get them focused on service, and hardening, not just generating profits ("Let’s end the devastation by making PG&E public," San Francisco Chronicle). Regardless, the Wall Street Journal, "Here are 5 fixes for PG&E," suggests fixes:
- Stop running equipment til it breaks [and only then replacing it].
- Use predictive tools to assess risk.
- Regulate utility safety separate from rates.
- Manage forests more aggressively.
- Threaten PG&E's monopoly franchise.
Utility costs are rising. While not directly a part of the Public Power Week promotion, it should be part of National Energy Awareness Month and provides an interesting opportunity to think about that state of utility costs--electricity and gas--in the US. Because most markets are profit driven and prices are based on international and national pricing systems, prices are going up.
Over the past 15 years, many companies switched from coal to natural gas because prices were cheaper. This has combined with increased solar and wind energy to keep prices down, until recently.
But now that international systems for selling and delivering natural gas have been developed, US electricity costs are trending higher, because utilities have many more competitors ("Fracking didn't drive down PA energy bills. What happened?," Spotlight PA).
The Trump Administration is addicted to fossil fuels. One reason is because the Trump Administration is deliberately de-supporting cheaper forms of electricity generated by solar and wind power ("Trump’s hatred for renewables means the US is falling behind the rest of the world," Guardian, "Puerto Rico’s rooftop solar boom is strengthening grid resilience — why is a federal board trying to stop it?," UtilityDive, "New Report Examines Fossil Fuel Ties of Dozens of Trump Administration Hires," Inside Climate News, "The Trump administration's war on wind & renewable energy," KALW/NPR).
It's also de-funding a wide range of clean energy programs ("US green energy forecast cut by half under Trump despite global surge in solar and win" Financial Times). From the article:
The IEA said a major factor in the US downgrade was President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which has sped up the end of tax credits for green developments. Permits for wind and solar projects on federal land or waters have also been suspended.
“With the pushing forward of deadlines, renewable capacity additions are now projected to peak in 2027, then decline in 2028 and remain stable through 2030,” the IEA said.
Doubling back on "conservative fuels/a conservative economy" [I read about this idea recently but I can't find the citation--that for example fossil fuels are conservative and renewable energy sources progressive) reduces US economic competitiveness and resiliency.
Focusing on coal, to some extent oil, and the revived interest in nuclear power ("The New Nuclear Age: Why the World Is Rethinking Atomic Power," Goldman Sachs, "Trump dreams of nuclear as he axes grid projects," Politico) will only increase rates.
Conservative state action against "progressive power" is an increasing problem as well ("Blaming the Wind for the Mess in Texas Is Painfully Absurd," New Yorker, "With Federal Support for Wind and Solar Waning, States Are Trying to Push Policy Through on Their Own," Inside Climate News
Other issues are:
- strengthening the transmission grid for more resilience in the face of more violent weather ("Building a more climate resistant grid," NRDC, "Three Ways to Prevent Our Next Massive Power Failure," Mother Jones).
- the increased demand for electricity from electric vehicles, although there is the counter-argument that EVs can serve as "batteries" to provide back up power ("The Truth About Electric Vehicles and the Grid: Strengthening—Not Straining—Our Energy Future," NRDC).
- the increased demand for electricity from data centers and AI ("Data centers," 2025),
- that regulatory cost systems for electricity infrastructure push a lot of the cost of servicing data centers on residences ("AI Data Centers Are Sending Power Bills Soaring," Bloomberg, "Big Tech’s A.I. Data Centers Are Driving Up Electricity Bills for Everyone," New York Times).
- continued public opposition to large scale renewable energy projects "in their backyard" ("Nearly all 50 states face local opposition to renewable projects, report finds," Factor This).
- weatherization and electrification household improvement programs to reduce energy demand ("Local neighborhood stabilization programs: Part 5 | Adding energy conservation programs, with the PUSH Buffalo Green Development Zone as a model," 2021).
Labels: energy, energy efficiency, energy policy, green-environment-urban, provision of public services, regulation/regulatory policy, remunicipalization, sustainable energy sources, utility infrastructure, utility regulation
posted by Richard Layman @ 5:43 PM&Permanent Link
10 Comments:
tribe in Arizona planned to connect 600 homes to electricity. Then the funding was cut
https://www.npr.org/2025/10/07/nx-s1-5453913/trump-hopi-tribes-native-americans-clean-energy
Renewables overtake coal as world's biggest source of electricity
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2rz08en2po
Coal Is Unreliable, Expensive and Dirty. Trump Is Going All In
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/07/opinion/coal-electricity-solar-batteries.html
“Clean, beautiful coal” has become a mantra for the Trump administration. But it is neither clean nor beautiful. More to the point, it is neither economical nor reliable — central concerns for utilities and power producers across the country. In contrast, wind and solar energy and battery storage, which the administration actively opposes, are less expensive, more reliable and far better for the climate.
Most of the coal mined in the United States today fuels aging electric power plants such as Cumberland that are costly to maintain and increasingly unsound. It’s why America gets just one-third as much electricity from coal as it did in 2007, when power production from coal peaked. Since then, large coal-fired plants have been steadily replaced by cheaper, cleaner and more efficient alternatives. In 2025 alone, 23 units are scheduled to close or be converted to gas by utilities and other power producers. From 2026 to 2030, 109 more units are expected to stop burning coal, according to research by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, where we work.
The Trump administration is betting that forcing coal plants to stay open, offering $625 million to upgrade plants, giving away coal on federal land, cutting pollution limits and opening more land to coal mining will spark a turnaround for coal-fired power generation. But while these measures could prolong the operating lives of some coal plants for a short period, they will not reverse the decline of an industry hurtling into economic and technological obsolescence.
Coal-fired power plants are essentially steam engines, a technology the railroads abandoned in the 1950s and ’60s. They are practically identical to the first coal-fired plant, built in 1882 by Thomas Edison to produce electricity in New York City.
But power technology and grid operations have evolved significantly over the past two decades, first by the rise of generation that has no fuel cost (wind and solar) and more recently by battery storage, which can send power to the grid as needed. Batteries in Texas now store power when demand is low and solar generation is high (think 10 a.m.) and then send that power back into the system when demand is high (around 7 p.m.).
This capability, which didn’t exist in the grid until recently, is sharply lowering spikes in power prices and reducing consumer costs. It’s also enabling even more low-cost renewables to be built and reducing the old approach of building expensive fossil-fueled plants dedicated to meeting periods of peak demand.
https://www.mrt.com/business/article/texas-leads-energy-use-21087300.php
Texas led the nation in energy consumption in 2023, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The EIA reported Texas' total energy consumption was twice as much as California's, the second-highest energy-consuming state, and more than three times as much as third-place Florida. The EIA's State Energy Data System finds U.S. total energy use peaked in 2007. Between 2007 and 2023, Texas energy consumption rose 21% while U.S. energy use decreased 5%.
According to the SEDS, consumption in Texas was higher for every sector — commercial, residential, transportation and industrial. Texas also consumed more coal, natural gas and petroleum than any other state. It ranked second only to California in renewable energy consumption.
Natural gas prices are low, but your monthly gas bill is up. Here's why
https://www.npr.org/2025/10/13/nx-s1-5558384/gas-utility-prices-home-climate
The local utility, PECO (formerly the Philadelphia Electric Company), says it is spending about $1.8 billion over five years to upgrade its gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Because it's a monopoly utility, regulators will pass those costs on to ratepayers.
This construction and Lordi's higher bill are part of a trend across the United States. Even though natural gas prices are relatively low now, residential gas utility rates are nearing record highs. That's because customers are paying more for infrastructure, construction, utility costs and taxes than they are for the actual fuel.
Gas companies usually don't make a profit on gas itself — they pass along the wholesale price to customers. Instead, utilities make their money by building new infrastructure, such as pipelines, and replacing outdated infrastructure. Regulators then allow companies to recover those costs, plus profits, in customer bills.
"That has driven up rates substantially," says Abe Scarr, energy and utilities program director at Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), a consumer advocacy organization. "Doubling here in Chicago, the delivery rates. Tripling in BGE — Baltimore Gas and Electric — territory in Maryland."
Pipeline replacement programs have contributed to a change in customer bills over the past 40 years. In 1984, about two-thirds of gas utility bills paid for the gas, and one-third covered infrastructure, utility costs and taxes, according to the Energy Information Administration. Now that has flipped. In 2024, less than a third of customer bills went to gas, and about two-thirds went to the other costs.
You’re Putting Too Much Solar on Your Roof
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-10-13/you-re-putting-too-much-solar-on-your-roof
How many solar panels should you be putting up on your roof? The question is surprisingly complicated.
The roughly 95% decline in the cost of solar cells over the past 15 years has been so precipitous that the modules themselves are a barely significant share of what you spend.
Almost every component is more expensive these days than the sheets of polysilicon that actually generate your power — from the inverter that converts electricity into the alternating current in your plug sockets, to the racking that attaches panels to your shingles, to scaffolding, labor and your installer’s marketing expenditure.
As a result, solar retailers in many countries will tell you to upsize far in excess of your needs. A colleague was recently quoted A$13,390 ($8,800) for a 22-kilowatt system on her roof in the northern suburbs of Sydney.
On paper, such a huge array makes no sense. She typically uses about 50 kilowatt-hours a day1. In sunny Australia, the proposed system would produce almost twice that amount — a bit more in summer, a bit less in winter. Even if she were to buy an electric car and charge it from her roof, she’d only be consuming an extra 5 kWh to 10 kWh a day, at typical mileages.
Less than 7% of your solar system cost goes on producing the panels
Before you fulminate about unscrupulous tradespeople pushing the cost of building work through the roof, it’s worth considering the reasonable case for such excess. The extra expense my colleague will incur to put up 22 KW, rather than the 13 KW needed to cover her own usage, is fairly marginal — probably about A$1,600 for the panels, at current wholesale prices.
Meanwhile, her utility will pay her for the electrons she exports to the grid, which could earn about A$400 a year, on one of the better tariffs of 4 Australian cents (2.6 cents). That additional money could drastically shorten the amount of time it takes for the installation to pay itself off.
Since the start of July, people in my home state of New South Wales exporting more than about 6.8 kWh a day to the grid during the midday solar peak are having to pay for the privilege. On a back-of-the-envelope calculation, my colleague could be paying A$130 a year for her exports, cutting the promised A$400 of revenue by almost a third2. That solar tax is only likely to get steeper as home generation keeps growing and the excess deepens.
There are ways to avoid this penalty. Adding a home battery allows you to shift your exports to the evening peak, when the sun sets and prices spike back into positive territory. Better still, buy an electric vehicle and connect it to a two-way charger that allows it to feed the grid — its battery is far better value than the stand-alone version, and you get a car as part of the bargain.
WA sues EPA over canceled $7 billion solar program
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/wa-sues-epa-over-canceled-7-billion-solar-program
Washington is among the states suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for ending a $7 billion program intended to help low-income and disadvantaged households install solar power.
The program was created in 2022 as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and Washington state was awarded $156 million in April 2024. However, after President Donald Trump took office the grants were thrust into limbo and the program was terminated in August.
According to a news release from the Washington’s Office of the Attorney General, the state Department of Commerce had already invested more than 5,000 employee hours into developing the “Solar for All” programming and was hoping to launch late this year or early next year.
The state Department of Commerce had applied for the grant proposing several programs for single-family homeowners, community solar projects, multifamily affordable housing properties and tribal nations. The grants were estimated to provide 900,000 households with access to solar energy and save more than $350 million in electricity costs annually.
https://www.startribune.com/how-one-minneapolis-neighborhood-reduced-its-carbon-emissions-by-1600-metric-tons/601484780
How one Minneapolis neighborhood reduced its carbon emissions by 1,600 metric tons
Prospect Park residents burned 29% less natural gas from 2019 to 2024, in part thanks to a campaign to improve home energy efficiency.
She insulated her attic, replaced her gas water heater with an electric one and made other energy efficiency upgrades to slash the amount of natural gas she burned to heat her home. She also began sharing information about the upgrades with fellow Prospect Park neighborhood residents and pointed them to the local and federal rebates available to save money on the work.
The effort paid off. Residents of Prospect Park used 29% less natural gas between 2019 and the end of 2024, according to CenterPoint Energy, while citywide gas use fell by 20% during that period. That means Prospect Park cut its annual carbon emissions by about 1,620 metric tons, roughly the output of 378 gasoline cars in a year.
Nan Kari, who lives down the street from Britton, said the work she’s done to reduce the carbon emissions of her home have been cathartic for her. After coming across Britton’s campaign, she said, she replaced 11 windows and a door. She also replaced her old HVAC system with a heat pump and a backup furnace.
“That’s what it takes, citizen action … for a larger public good,” Kari said, adding that she believes local action is especially important “in the absence of federal leadership — or corporate leadership, for that matter.”
John Wike, another Prospect Park resident, said he came across Britton’s campaign in the neighborhood email. It persuaded him to install insulation in his walls and attic last year. He also insulated part of his roof this month, he said, and will soon install an electric water heater.
The improvements weren’t cheap. Both Kari and Wike each spent tens of thousands of dollars for the work, even with the local and federal rebates. But the incentives were a big help, they said, saving them each about $11,000 total. Wike said he expects the federal credits alone to save him $2,400.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/pnw-could-face-energy-shortage-during-extreme-conditions-report-says/
PNW could face energy shortage during extreme conditions, report says
Does the Pacific Northwest have the energy it needs to prevent rolling blackouts? A new report commissioned by the region’s largest utilities has raised concerns.
Starting next year, the Northwest could face a power shortage that would challenge the reliability of the grid during extreme conditions, according to the report.
The report analyzed the region’s energy plans against potential weather and hydropower conditions across Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho and parts of Utah and Wyoming. It found the highest chance of a rolling blackout during a dry hydropower year, combined with a dayslong cold snap.
To be sure, these are statistical projections, and a blackout is unlikely in the next five years. But they come at a time of unprecedented growth in energy demand, the shutdown of coal power plants and a lack of replacement resources. The report notes lots of new wind and solar power has been added to the grid in the past few years, but most has been outside of Washington and Oregon, and it has not been enough to replace the reliability of fossil fuels.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/11/21/opinion/energy-costs-small-business
Small businesses are drowning in hidden energy costs
In addition to the cost of purchasing and delivering electricity, Tropical Foods’ bill contains five charges related to advancing the Commonwealth’s electrification and climate goals.
Consuming more than 100,000 kilowatt-hour of electricity in an average month, Tropical Foods faces an annual electricity bill topping $300,000. A closer look reveals what is driving its high electric bills — and what the governor could do to help businesses like Tropical Foods.
In addition to the cost of purchasing and delivering electricity, Tropical Foods’ bill contains a number of charges — five separately listed — related to advancing the Commonwealth’s electrification and climate goals. Two charges listed subsidize solar energy, another supports electric vehicle charging, and two more pay for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Collectively these add nearly $3,000 to the business’s bill every month.
Other charges not itemized include costs for its electricity supplier to comply with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to reduce carbon emissions and to subsidize the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires a percentage of electric power to be derived from certain renewable sources. Together, these add an additional $4,000 per month. By next year, hidden and opaque charges on Tropical Foods’ bill could total more than $80,000 per year — more than 20 percent of its total bill.
These charges — totaling billions of dollars annually for ratepayers — are a big reason Massachusetts electricity costs have nearly doubled over the past decade, far exceeding inflation.
That’s why RAM supports Healey’s increasing focus on affordability and her “all-of-the-above” approach to energy as a hopeful sign for small businesses like Tropical Foods. These include her recent openness to increasing our supply of natural gas and nuclear power and recent request to the Department of Public Utilities for cost transparency and examining charges on customers’ bills.
Post a Comment
<< Home