Amid a surge in utility shutoffs, and in the face of a groundbreaking study finding racial disparities in those outcomes, Minnesota’s largest utility is taking a closer look at the issue.

In a November agreement with consumer groups and the state’s Public Utilities Commission, Xcel Energy has outlined a series of steps to provide more information to customers and make it easier for them to restore service.

Xcel also agreed to hire an outside consultant to conduct a one-year study of disparity issues related to disconnections and outages and, separately, do its own analysis of outages. The move came in response to a University of Minnesota study released earlier this year that found that people of color were more likely than White households to have their service disconnected for falling behind on bills, even when controlling for income and home ownership status. 

The agreement falls short of a demand from the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office for Xcel to institute a temporary moratorium on shutoffs until racial disparities are addressed, based on a recommendation from Fresh Energy and a coalition formed by Cooperative Energy Futures, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Sierra Club, and Vote Solar. 

Erica McConnell, staff attorney for the Environmental Law & Policy Center, represented the clean energy organizations advocating for grid equity. She supported the agreement but believes it will do little to help reduce disparities in shutoffs. 

“These are very important improvements that don’t really address — and the commission didn’t discuss — the disparate impacts and the racial disparity (of disconnections) and how to address that specifically,” she said.

A temporary moratorium on disconnections would have allowed for time to study disparities and find ways to address them.  

“The commission didn’t talk about that,” McConnell said. “They didn’t address it at all, so that was disappointing. I understand it’s uncomfortable and it’s a tough issue, but it’s disappointing they shied away taking it head on.”

Shutoffs soaring

Beyond the challenge of disparities, Xcel’s number of service disconnections has skyrocketed. More than 45,000 Xcel customers saw their power shut off this year, a number that has grown significantly over the last two decades. 

Xcel agreed to many proposals from the Citizens Utility Board of Minnesota, the Energy CENTS Coalition, clean energy organizations and the Public Utilities Commission to create more consumer protection against shutoffs.

Xcel Energy’s involuntary disconnection notices began rising significantly in 2023 before skyrocketing in 2024, when shutoffs doubled the prior year’s total for May through July. Despite Minnesota’s cold weather protection rules that limit disconnections during the winter through April 30, shutoffs even grew during the winter months.

Clean energy and consumer organizations point to Xcel’s ability to remotely disconnect customers who have smart meters as a major reason for the shutoffs, along with inflation, escalating rate increases and challenging repayment requirements. Xcel had demanded customers pay 50% of what they owe to reconnect, which may have violated Minnesota law, according to the Citizens Utility Board. 

Xcel’s pact with the Citizens Utility Board and Energy CENTS “is going to make payment agreements more affordable and hopefully help households that are behind on their bills avoid getting shut off and get caught back up,” said Annie Levenson-Falk, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board of Minnesota.

The utility board and Energy CENTS Coalition forged the agreement with Xcel under the purview of the Public Utilities Commission, which will issue a final order later. The agreement requires the following:

• Customers will pay 10% of what they owe to have the power turned back on, instead of 50%.
• The amount due will have to be at least $180 before Xcel can send a disconnect notice.
• Xcel cannot shut off power until a customer reaches a $300 past due balance. Xcel’s data from this year showed disconnected customers were $441 in arrears on average in October and much higher in other months.
• The utility must wait at least 10 days after a shutoff notice has been sent to disconnect, up from five days.
• Xcel must post clear disconnection and payment policies on its website, along with information about customers’ right to develop an affordable repayment plan. Any changes Xcel makes to shutoff policies and repayments have to be reported to the commission, and it must collect data on repayments and customer agreements.
• A variance allowing remote disconnections without field visits from Xcel remains, but the utility must contact customers via voicemail and use at least one other form of electronic communication.

Xcel spokesperson Kevin Coss said the utility believes “this agreement is a great step toward reducing disconnections for some of our customers who continue to struggle economically.”

Options for customers

George Shardlow, Energy CENTS executive director, said he thought a clearer explanation of the disconnection process on Xcel’s website brings a transparency that had been lacking.

“I don’t think the average person even knows that they have a right to negotiate when they’re struggling to pay their bills,” he said. “It’s all sort of opaque. We’re excited to see better documentation of people’s rights on Xcel’s website.”

Minnesota law says utility customers are “entitled” to a payment plan they can afford, Shardlow said. Customers who cannot afford the 10% down payment can still negotiate for a settlement that fits their budget, he added.

Shutoffs have been growing. This year Xcel sent disconnection notices to 51,000 customers in January and 71,000 in July. But not all notices result in shutoffs. The highest month for disconnections, May, saw more than 10,000 shutoffs. By August, slightly more than 8,400 customers had been disconnected.

Coss said Xcel works with customers to avoid disconnection by starting a nine-week process of contacting them through multiple channels to “point them to available options for energy assistance — both through the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and our own affordability programs — and offer flexible payment plans tailored to their circumstances.”

Minnesota also has cold weather protections that greatly reduce utilities’ ability to disconnect customers in winter months. But people who fail to pay their bills in winter see their balances grow, leading to higher disconnections in summer when they fail to catch up.

Xcel agreed to monitor progress and collect more data on racial disparities involving customers involuntarily shut off. The utility has already hired a third party evaluator, as the agreement requires, to study its shutoff policies and hold stakeholder engagement meetings during the year-long process.

Coss said disparities result in inequities throughout society and Xcel has been doing its part to address them. The utility has worked with the study’s authors and advocacy groups to identify actions to reduce disparities, he said.   

Earlier this year, the commission also approved a proposal by Xcel for a pilot program that will provide bill credits to select census tracts with high levels of disconnections. Coss said Xcel will provide $500 bill credits to customers in low-income census areas who have a greater than $2,000 past-due balance, using money available from a quality of service program.

Minnesota Public Utilities Commissioner Joe Sullivan said he believed the agreement negotiated among the nonprofits and utility would reduce the financial strain on households facing disconnections and assist Xcel in recovering debt.

“I thought that in that docket people came together and were constructive,” he said. “I feel like I’m hopeful that the order will make some progress.”

PUC Chair Katie Sieben said the commission is “always looking at affordability, and especially as it pertains to low-income customers, I think we have a great track record on working with stakeholders and with utilities to provide robust low-income assistance to customers.”

She mentioned the commission’s role in approving an Xcel pilot to decrease payments for low-income, low-usage customers and a September decision that used a penalty for the utility’s service quality underperformance to provide bill credits to around 1,000 customers with the oldest outstanding balances in low-income census tracts.

‘Still more work to do’

The agreement does not solve the problem of low-income customers struggling to pay utility bills. Shardlow said Energy CENTS and the Citizens Utility Board lobbied the state legislature to allow households to apply for energy assistance funding the entire year instead of the current policy of having a deadline of May 31. Only 20% of eligible Minnesota households participate in the program, he said.

Levenson-Falk wants Xcel to consider eliminating the 1.5% late fee it charges customers on their balance, or consider donating the money to affordability programs.

The Citizens Utility Board also wants Xcel to develop a plan to reconnect customers quickly on days of high heat or poor air quality. Coss said Xcel will evaluate reconnecting customers disconnected during days of air quality alerts.

Levenson-Falk said the agreement at least makes progress. “I think we resolved everything that we had discussed with Xcel but that’s not to say that we think this is going to solve the problem, because, of course, there are still going to be continuing shutoffs, and those are still very concerning,” she said. “There’s still more work to do.”

This story was updated to include a statement from Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Chair Katie Sieben.

Fresh Energy staff, board members and funders do not have access to or oversight of the Energy News Network’s editorial process. More about our relationship with Fresh Energy can be found in our code of ethics.

As utility shutoffs soar in Minnesota, Xcel Energy agrees to consumer protections and racial disparities study is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

A new contract between Kalamazoo, Michigan, and utility Consumers Energy signals a change in direction for the city’s clean energy strategy as it seeks to become carbon neutral by 2040. 

Solar was seen as a pillar of the city’s plans when it declared a climate emergency in 2019 and set a goal of zeroing out carbon emissions by 2040. After spending years exploring its options, though, the Michigan city is tempering a vision for rooftop solar in favor of large, more distant solar projects built and owned by the utility. It’s not alone either, with Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, Muskegon and other cities taking a similar approach.

“Folks want to see solar panels on parking lots and buildings, but there’s no way as a city we can accomplish our net-zero buildings just putting solar panels on a roof,” said Justin Gish, Kalamazoo’s sustainability planner. “Working with the utility seemed to make the most sense.” 

Initially there was skepticism, Gish said — “environmentalists tend to not trust utilities and large corporate entities” — but the math just didn’t work out for going it alone with rooftop solar.

The city’s largest power user, the wastewater treatment station, has a pumping house with a roof of only 225 square feet. Kalamazoo’s largest city-owned roof, at the public service station, is 26,000 square feet. Spending an estimated $750,000 to cover that with solar would only provide 14% of the power that building uses annually — a financial “non-starter,” he said.

So the city decided to partner with Consumers Energy, joining a solar subscription program wherein Kalamazoo will tell Consumers how much solar energy it wants, starting in 2028, and the utility will use funds from its subscription fee to construct new solar farms, like a 250 MW project Consumers is building in Muskegon. 

Under the 20-year contract, Kalamazoo will pay a set rate of 15.8 cents per kWh — 6.4 cents more than what it currently pays — for 43 million kWh of solar power per year. If electricity market rates rise, the city will save money, and Kalamazoo receives Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to help meet its energy goals. 

The subscription is expected to eliminate about 80% of Kalamazoo’s emissions from electricity, Gish said. The electricity used to power streetlights and traffic signals couldn’t be covered since it is not metered. As the city acquires more electric vehicles — it currently has two — electricity demand may increase, but city leaders hope to offset any increases by improving energy efficiency of city buildings.  

Consumers Energy spokesperson Matt Johnson said the company relies “in part” on funds from customers specifically to build solar, and considers it a better deal for cities than building it themselves, “which would be more costly for them, and they have to do their own maintenance.”  

“We can do it in a more cost-effective way, we maintain it, they’re helping us fund it and do it in the right way, and those benefits get passed on to arguably everybody,” Johnson said. 

Grand Rapids, Michigan, joined the subscription program at the same time as Kalamazoo. Corporate customers including 7-Eleven, Walmart and General Motors are part of the same Consumers Energy solar subscription program, as is the state of Michigan.

Costs and benefits

“There’s a growing movement of cities trying to figure out solar — ‘Yes we want to do this, it could save us money over time, but the cost is prohibitive,’” said John Farrell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. 

Until the Inflation Reduction Act, cities couldn’t directly access federal tax credits. The direct-pay incentives under the IRA have simplified financing, Farrell said, but cities still face other financial and logistical barriers, such as whether they have sufficient rooftop space.  

Advocates acknowledge deals with utilities may be the most practical way for budget-strapped cities to move the needle on clean energy, but they emphasize that cities should also strive to develop their own solar, and question whether utilities should charge more for clean power that is increasingly a cheaper option than fossil fuels.

“Our position is rooftop and distributed generation is best — it’s best for the customers, in this case the cities; it’s best for the grid, because you’re putting those resources directly on the grid where it’s needed most; and it’s best for the planet because it can deploy a lot faster,” said John Delurey, Midwest deputy director of the advocacy group Vote Solar. “I believe customers in general and perhaps cities in particular should exhaust all resources and opportunities for distributed generation before they start to explore utility-scale resources. It’s the lowest hanging fruit and very likely to provide the most bang for their buck.”

Utility-scale solar is more cost-effective per kilowatt, but Delurey notes that when a public building is large enough for solar, “you are putting that generation directly on load, you’re consuming onsite. Anything that is concurrent consumption or paired with a battery, you are getting the full retail value of that energy. That is a feature you can’t really beat no matter how good the contract is with some utility-scale projects that are farther away.”

Delurey also noted that Michigan law mandates all energy be from clean sources by 2040; and 50% by 2030. That means Consumers needs to be building or buying renewable power, whether or not customers pay extra for it. 

“So there are diminishing returns [to a subscription deal] at that point,” Delurey said. “You better be getting a price benefit, because the power on their grid would be clean anyways.” 

“Some folks are asking ‘Why do anything now? Just wait until Consumers cleans up the grid,’” Gish acknowledged. “But our purchase shows we have skin in the game.” 

A complement to rooftop

In 2009, Milwaukee adopted a goal of powering 25% of city operations — excluding waterworks — with solar by 2025. The city’s Climate and Equity Plan adopted in 2023 also enshrined that goal. 

For a decade, Milwaukee has been battling We Energies over the city’s plan to install rooftop solar on City Hall and other buildings through a third-party owner, Eagle Point Solar. The city sought the arrangement — common in many states — to tap federal tax incentives that a nonprofit public entity couldn’t reap. But We Energies argued that third party ownership would mean Eagle Point would be acting as a utility and infringing on We Energies’ territory. A lawsuit over Milwaukee’s plans with Eagle Point is still pending.

In 2018, We Energies launched a pilot solar program in Milwaukee known by critics as “rent a roof,” in which the utility leased rooftop space for its own solar arrays. Advocates and Milwaukee officials opposed the program, arguing that it encouraged the utility to suppress the private market or publicly-owned solar. In 2023, the state Public Service Commission denied the utility’s request to expand the program.

Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board opposed the rent-a-roof arrangement since it passed costs they viewed as unfair on to ratepayers. But Wisconsin CUB executive director Tom Content said the city’s current partnership with We Energies is different, since it is just the city, not ratepayers, footing the cost for solar that helps the city meet its goals.

Milwaukee is paying about $84,000 extra per year for We Energies to build solar farms on a city landfill near the airport and outside the city limits in the town of Caledonia. The deal includes a requirement that We Energies hire underemployed or unemployed Milwaukee residents.

The Caledonia project is nearly complete, and will provide over 11 million kWh of energy annually, “enough to make 57 municipal police stations, fire stations, and health clinics 100% renewable electricity,” said Milwaukee Environmental Collaboration Office director Erick Shambarger. 

The landfill project is slated to break ground in 2025. The two arrays will total 11 MW and provide enough power for 83 city buildings, including City Hall – where Milwaukee had hoped to do the rooftop array with Eagle Point. 

Meanwhile Milwaukee is building its own rooftop solar on the Martin Luther King Jr. library and later other public buildings, and Shambarger said they will apply for direct pay tax credits made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act — basically eliminating the need for a third-party agreement.

“Utility-scale is the complement to rooftop,” said Shambarger. “They own it and maintain it, we get the RECs. It worked out pretty well. If you think about it from a big picture standpoint, to now have the utility offer a big customer like the city an option to source their power from renewable energy — that didn’t exist five years ago. If you were a big customer in Wisconsin five years ago, you really had no option except for buying RECs from who knows where. We worked hard with them to make sure we could see our renewable energy being built.”

We Energies already owns a smaller 2.25 MW solar farm on the same landfill, under a similar arrangement. Building solar on the landfill is less efficient than other types of land, since special mounting is needed to avoid puncturing the landfill’s clay cap, and the panels can’t turn to follow the sun. But Shambarger said the sacrifice is worth it to have solar within the city limits, on land useful for little else.

“We do think it’s important to have some of this where people can see it and understand it,” he said. “We also have the workforce requirements, it’s nice to have it close to home for our local workers.”

Madison is also pursuing a mix of city-owned distributed solar and utility-scale partnerships. 

On Earth Day 2024, Madison announced it has installed 2 MW of solar on 38 city rooftops. But a utility-scale solar partnership with utility MGE is also crucial to the goal of 100% clean energy for city operations by 2030. Through MGE’s Renewable Energy Rider program, Madison helped pay for the 8 MW Hermsdorf Solar Fields on a city landfill, with 5 MW devoted to city operations and 3 MW devoted to the school district. The 53-acre project went online in 2022.

Farrell said such “all of the above” approaches are ideal.

“The lesson we’ve seen generally is the more any entity can directly own the solar project, the more financial benefit you’ll get,” he said. “Ownership comes with privileges, and with risks. 

“Energy is in addition to a lot of other challenging issues that cities have to work on. The gold standard is solar on a couple public buildings with battery storage, so these are resiliency places if the grid goes down.”

Correction: Covering Kalamazoo’s public service station roof with solar panels would provide an estimated 14% of power used by that building. An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the number.

In Michigan and Wisconsin, cities are finding rooftops alone may not achieve solar energy goals  is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Election Day yielded few bright spots for the transition to clean energy, but there was one in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The city of nearly 120,000 voted 79 percent in favor of a measure to create a ​“sustainable energy utility” (SEU) that will supplement the existing grid and help residents shift to cleaner, more reliable energy.

With that overwhelming approval, city officials will now figure out the governance, staffing, and leadership of the new local utility. They have already begun outreach to residents interested in participating; 600 customers had registered by Tuesday afternoon. The plan is to assemble an initial tranche of 20 megawatts worth of demand, at which point Ann Arbor will finance the purchase and installation of solar panels, batteries, and energy-efficiency upgrades to serve those customers.

Installations — on homes, sheds, schools, libraries — could happen in the next 18 to 24 months, Mayor Christopher Taylor told Canary Media. Longer term, the utility hopes to construct a district-level geothermal network to heat and cool buildings without fossil fuels.

“I’m incredibly gratified by the support that voters of Ann Arbor have given to the SEU,” Taylor said. ​“The SEU is going to be both great for our carbon future and great for the pocketbook.”

The effort to fast-track local clean energy installations serves Ann Arbor’s ambitious climate goals. But it’s also a response to an uptick in power outages as extreme weather collides with for-profit utility DTE’s aging distribution-grid infrastructure. Monopoly utilities, for the most part, have shown little interest in seizing the opportunities of decentralized energy, but that’s core to the new Ann Arbor utility’s mission.

The measure’s success marks the latest episode in a sporadic national trend of communities trying to break free from the century-old model of for-profit, monopoly utilities controlling local energy systems.

Such efforts typically provoke a scorched-earth response from the incumbent utility. Utilities elsewhere have waged lengthy legal battles and spent millions of dollars on political campaigns to stop these escape attempts. When localities win their energy autonomy, they often have to pay hefty exit fees as a reimbursement for grid infrastructure built on their behalf. Communities that make it through that ringer then have to shoulder the laborious task of operating and maintaining decades-old infrastructure while trying to push ahead with new technologies.

In a bracing and punchily worded 2021 report, Ann Arbor’s sustainability office made clear that it would take a different route.

“Every dollar we don’t spend in litigation or to buy the [investor owned utility]’s old, failing infrastructure is money we can spend on new infrastructure here in Ann Arbor to generate power, distribute power, and store power — dollars we can use to immediately provide reliable, clean, and affordable public power to everyone,” the city wrote.

In short, it’s a distributed energy wish list coming to life. Ann Arbor has created a clear pathway to building more clean, local, resilient, and publicly owned infrastructure. If the city can make electricity cheaper on top of that, it will demonstrate that a better electricity system is possible even without completely overhauling the existing utility industry.

Local action for local needs

In 2019, Ann Arbor set a 2030 deadline to deliver equitable, community-wide carbon neutrality. Meeting that target requires sourcing clean electricity, driving out fossil-fuel combustion in buildings, and cleaning up transportation.

But the city’s built environment poses some challenges. Ann Arbor spans about 49,000 households, 52 percent of which are rentals. Overall housing stock averages 48 years old. That necessitates a lot of retrofits to turn these buildings into efficient systems running on clean electricity.

The SEU thus prioritizes energy-efficiency upgrades for customers. Unlike a for-profit utility, the municipally owned nonprofit has no incentive to let customers keep wasting energy. Ann Arbor aims to make efficiency more accessible with tools like on-bill financing, ​“structured to match or be lower than the monthly utility bill savings, resulting in a positive cash-flow for the customer immediately,” per the 2021 report.

The utility can buy equipment like solar panels and batteries in bulk and finance these upgrades with its AAA municipal credit rating, accessing far cheaper capital than a bunch of lone homeowners negotiating separately with private lenders. And the on-bill charge stays with the house — if someone moves out, the new resident takes over paying for the improvements that will lower their bill.

Climate goals weren’t the only factor motivating the change. The area’s aging grid has suffered a number of outages lately.

“Ann Arbor is currently served by an investor-owned utility that has a history of reliability challenges in our area,” Taylor noted. ​“We expect the SEU to provide far more reliable service.”

The SEU plans to install and own solar panels on customers’ rooftops and batteries in their sheds and garages, selling those customers the power at cost, without a markup. That lets residents access solar power and backup power without dropping a load of cash up front for it or taking on debt. This kind of subscription is available from companies like Sunrun, but they do it to make money, not to sell at cost.

The most radical dimension of the plan is to use the city’s utility franchise rights to build wires between properties, so that they can share excess solar power locally. Most everywhere in the country, customer-led upgrades have to stay on the customer side of the utility meter; crossing that boundary to sell power to a neighbor violates the utility’s legally enforced monopoly. This stands in the way of visions for interconnected neighborhoods generating and selling power with each other based on who needs it at a given moment.

But Ann Arbor officials tracked down a century-old precedent that makes sharing power possible: ​“The Michigan Constitution preserves the rights of cities and villages to form their own utility or to supplement an existing utility,” Missy Stults, the city’s sustainability and innovation director, told me.

Thus, the SEU will link up different properties if the people living there want it. If a home generates more solar than it can use, it could run a line to a neighboring house that’s shaded by trees, allowing it to buy surplus power.

“We’ll be able to connect homes with each other, schools with homes, schools with each other,” Taylor said. ​“We’re going to do this in a way that is cost-effective and fully opt-in.”

This plan assumes people will be happy to offer up their roof space for panels that the SEU will own and use for broader community benefit. But doing so will let that household buy cheaper, cleaner power for itself. The battery controls present some additional complications: Will the host customer get first dibs on backup power, or will that be split among the locally connected homes as well? This is new territory for distributed energy in the U.S.

That said, the strong show of support at the ballot box demonstrates the local community is fully on board with the general direction of the SEU. It’s no accident that this idea is coming to fruition in a college town like Ann Arbor, said Liesl Clark, a former state climate leader who now serves as director of climate action engagement at the University of Michigan.

“There are a lot of people who are innovative and also are interested in having agency,” she said. ​“It is a community that was ripe for a solution like this.”

Furthermore, the city structured the plan in a way to minimize any downside for residents who don’t want to jump on the decentralized power opportunity.

“You haven’t asked me how much it’s going to cost the taxpayer,” Taylor told me as I was about to wrap up our phone call. He answered the rhetorical question: ​“Nothing!”

That pledge veers into too-good-to-be-true territory, but the SEU structure makes it possible. The city won’t levy any new taxes because it’s not buying out DTE’s assets. Instead, it’s installing new equipment based on voluntary customer commitments, and those customers pay their way, while saving themselves money.

Breaking free from utilities without all the hassle

The outcome of this effort remains far from certain. But so far, Ann Arbor has managed to pursue a low-drama, low-conflict way to break up with a monopoly utility, in contrast to high-profile recent attempts elsewhere.

The city of Boulder, Colorado, famously fought for a decade to peel off from Xcel Energy, and ultimately gave up. In 2010, California mega-utility PG&E spent $46 million to make it harder for communities to source their own electricity, though even that gargantuan sum failed to stop the rise of community choice aggregators.

Maine has grappled for years with its deeply unpopular monopoly utilities. Last year, voters nonetheless soundly rejected a ballot referendum to seize utility assets under a new public power entity. The utilities spent $40 million to fight it, and independent experts raised concerns about how the public entity would deliver on promises of a cheaper, more efficient grid after saddling itself with billions of dollars of debt.

Activists in Ann Arbor have also pushed for full municipalization — a city-level version of what Maine considered and rejected. The city is working on a second study to dig into the details of what purchasing the grid infrastructure would entail. That conversation will continue as the SEU implementation moves forward, Taylor noted.

For its part, Michigan utility DTE hasn’t declared war on Ann Arbor. Following the vote, the company stated that it will continue to invest in making the city’s grid more resilient and clean — a recent Michigan climate law requires ramping to 60 percent renewable power by 2035 and 100 percent clean electricity by 2040.

The public interest in full municipalization may explain the muted response from the utility: The SEU allows DTE to go on with business as usual, and its distribution grid will continue to play a crucial role even if kilowatt-hour sales decline from the new local solar generation.

Instead of fighting the utility colossus head on, Ann Arbor is taking a live-and-let-live approach. It’s a case where avoiding head-on conflict could make it possible to deliver the benefits of clean, local energy far more quickly.

Voters in Ann Arbor, Michigan, create a local clean energy utility is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

This article was originally published by the Idaho Capital Sun.

The Boise Airport became powered by 100% renewable energy this fall after Boise opted to be the first city to sign on to an optional new renewable energy program through Idaho Power.

The city of Boise is purchasing enough solar energy to power both the Boise Airport and the Lander Street wastewater treatment facility through 100% renewable energy, Steve Hubble, climate action manager for the city of Boise, said in an interview Thursday.

The Boise Airport is likely the first municipally-owned major airport in Idaho to become 100% solar energy powered. Hubble said he isn’t familiar enough with municipalities in North Idaho or eastern Idaho, which work with different utility companies, to know what their energy mix is.

“We’re the first municipality in Idaho to enter one of these Clean Energy Your Way contracts, so that’s pretty exciting in and of itself,” Hubble said. “And then from a quantitative perspective, I’m always going to link that back to what the city’s goals are.”

The move to powering its facilities by renewable energy represents Boise moving forward on climate policies at a time when the Idaho Legislature is actively pushing back against environmental and climate programs. While the Idaho Legislature has not established formal climate goals, the city of Boise has specific goals it bases climate policies around.

• Power city government by 100% renewable energy by 2030.
• City government operations become carbon neutral by 2035.
• Power the entire community by 100% clean electricity by 2035.
• The community becomes carbon neutral by 2050.

Making the Boise Airport and Lander Street wastewater treatment plant 100% renewable-powered brings the city to 25% of its 2030 renewable energy goal for city government.

“So in other words, if you look at all the city’s electricity usage right now, about a quarter of it is being powered by renewable electricity, because the airport and Lander Street are two of our three biggest electricity-using facilities,” Hubble said. 

How did Boise make its airport and a water treatment plant renewable energy powered?

Boise had been powering the airport and Lander Street facility with the standard energy it received from Idaho Power, which includes an energy portfolio of renewable energy like hydro as well as nonrenewable energy sources, like coal. To go 100% renewable, the city bought enough renewable solar energy to cover 100% of the energy those two facilities use.

The project is part of Idaho Power’s Clean Energy Your Way program, which is optional and does not change the energy mix that regular Idaho Power customers receive or the rates they pay, Idaho Power Director of Economic Development and Innovation Megan Ronk said in an interview.

Idaho Power’s largest source of energy today is renewable hydro power, Ronk said. For 2022, 24% of Idaho Powers energy generation capacity was coal, Idaho Power reported. Idaho Power has a goal to have 100% clean energy by 2045.

For customers who want to go renewable sooner, Idaho Power created Clean Energy Your Way, Ronk said.

“Clean Energy Your Way is really intended to provide a menu of options to meet customers where they are at in meeting their respective renewable and clean energy goals,” Ronk said in a phone interview.

The Boise City Council approved participating in the Clean Energy Your Way program in October 2023. 

“This is possible because Boiseans have been so clear that they expect our city to lead in protecting our environment for the future,” Boise Mayor Lauren McLean said in a written statement after the Boise City Council vote. “It is important that we are resilient and because we want our kids, and their kids, to be healthy and to have a place where they can live and thrive into the future.”

After the Boise City Council approved participating in the program, Idaho Power and the city applied for approval from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, which regulates utility companies in Idaho.

Under the application for the project, Boise sought approval to buy up to 10 megawatts of power from Black Mesa Energy solar project in Elmore County. In addition to the normal Schedule 19 rate Boise pays for energy not from the solar project, Boise will pay a fixed cost charge for each kilowatt hour of energy received from the Black Mesa Energy solar project. Excess energy generated but not used will be credited to the city. 

The Idaho Public Utilities Commission approved the application in August, which allowed the city to begin purchasing the solar energy Sept. 1.

The city’s contract is for 20 years. Hubble told the Sun he expects the city to pay slightly more for energy during the first 18 months of the project. Then, for the duration of the first 10 years, Hubble expects the city to either realize a savings or be paying no more than it would have regularly, without going renewable.

“We’re pretty excited about that savings opportunity, because basically this contract allows us to kind of lock in the rate for a portion of our power cost, and power costs do change, so that’s something we’re really excited about,” Hubble said. “It’s kind of cool, not only the renewable attribute of this, but that economic attribute of this is pretty exciting.”

Boise has a 25% share of the solar energy from the Black Mesa Energy project, while the remaining 75% is being used by Micron for renewable energy projects, Hubble said. 

Other cities, residents and businesses can participate

Idaho Power offers different types of Clean Energy Your Way programs for residential customers, businesses and large municipal customers like the city of Boise. The largest energy-using customers, like the city of Boise, are able to participate in the Clean Energy Your Way Construction agreement that powered the Boise Airport and Lander Street facility. Hubble thinks Boise’s project could set an example for other large Idaho Power municipal or industrial customers who want to go with renewable energy. 

But there are other options for other types of Idaho Power customers too. Residential customers can cover all or part of their energy use with renewable wind and solar energy at a cost of 1 additional cent per kilowatt hour, with the ability to cancel any time. Business customers can purchase renewable energy certificates, with options to buy on a month-to-month basis or for a three-year commitment. 

Boise Airport now powered by 100% renewable energy through Idaho Power program is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Nearly a year after Massachusetts regulators laid out a vision for the state’s evolution from natural gas distribution to clean energy use, lawmakers are coalescing around legislation that would start converting principles into policy. 

The wide-ranging climate bill includes several provisions that would allow utilities to explore alternatives to gas and empower regulators to place more limits on the expansion and continuation of natural gas infrastructure, changes that supporters say are critical to a successful transition away from fossil fuels. 

“This bill is a major first step in empowering [regulators] to do something rather than just rubber stamping the utilities’ plans,” said Lisa Cunningham, co-founder of ZeroCarbonMA.

Natural gas is currently the primary heating source for half the homes in Massachusetts, a number that needs to drop if the state is going to meet its ambitious climate goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, advocates and state leaders say. In 2020, the state department of public utilities opened an investigation into the role natural gas utilities would play in the transition to cleaner energy. In December 2023, the department issued a lengthy order concluding that the state must move “beyond gas” and outlining a broad framework for making the shift. 

Lawmakers attempted to start turning these general ideas into binding law earlier this year, but the legislative session closed at the end of July before the Senate and House reconciled the differences between their versions of a climate bill. Legislators returned to work this fall and hammered out an agreement, and the Senate passed the resulting bill last month. The House speaker has said the body will vote when it returns to formal session later this year. The bill is generally expected to pass and be signed into law. 

“A lot of people were skeptical we’d get a bill at all, but I’m happy with where this bill ended up,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director for climate nonprofit Acadia Center. “It shows a step toward that needed urgency.”

At the heart of the bill’s energy transition provisions is a change to the definition of a natural gas utility that allows the companies to also provide geothermal power. Networked geothermal — systems that draw heat from the earth and deliver it to a group of buildings — is widely seen as a promising alternative to natural gas, and both National Grid and Eversource have pilot projects in the works. However, current law prevents the utilities from pursuing such projects without specific authorization from regulators. The climate bill would remove this barrier, making it easier for gas companies to explore new approaches to business.

“The gas utilities deeply need a new business model that can help them step into the future,” said Audrey Schulman, founder of climate solutions incubator HEETlabs. “That allows them to potentially evolve.”

This definition change supports other provisions aimed at slowing the expansion of natural gas use in the state. The bill would end the requirement that natural gas utilities provide service to any customer in their service area who requests it, with few exceptions. Under the new law, utilities could decline these requests when other alternatives are available. 

The bill would also allow regulators to consider the impact of emissions when deciding whether to approve requests to expand natural gas service into new communities. In 2023, the state approved a request to bring gas service to the central Massachusetts town of Douglas. Regulators at the time noted that the decision works against the state’s goal of phasing out natural gas, but said the law gave them no choice but to approve the plan. Provisions in the climate bill would untie regulators’ hands in such cases in the future.

“The [Department of Public Utilities] can consider the public interest, including climate, it doesn’t have to say yes to more gas service,” said Amy Boyd Rabin, vice president of policy at the Environmental League of Massachusetts. And the inclusion of geothermal in gas utilities’ definition means “now there’s also something else to offer the customers.” 

Another major element of the bill would reform the state’s Gas System Enhancement Plans program, which encourages utilities to repair or replace pipes in the state’s aging and leak-prone natural gas distribution system. Clean energy advocates have often argued that these plans are problematic, investing billions of ratepayer dollars into shoring up a system that is increasingly obsolete. The climate bill would allow utilities to choose to retire segments of pipe rather than fixing them. 

“For the first time ever they are able to look at a pipe and say, ‘You know what, this is not worth the cost,’” Murray said. “We don’t want ratepayers shouldering the burden for a lot of stuff that’s not going to be useful in five to 10 years.”

Environmental advocates praised the bill’s gas provisions, and are already focusing on what more there is to be done. Several would have liked to see a more aggressive phasing out of Gas System Enhancement Plans, with a specific end date. Others champion an expansion of a pilot program that allows cities and towns to ban fossil fuel use in new construction and major renovations. 

“There is no reason why communities that want to enact this via home rule petition should be restricted from enacting the will of their constituents,” Cunningham said. 

In the meantime, advocates are ready to see the climate bill turning into reality. 

“There’s a lot of good stuff in there that will do a lot of good for the commonwealth,” Boyd Rabin says.

Massachusetts legislation looks to remove barriers to the state’s shift from natural gas is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The presidential election may well decide the future of the United States’ ambitious new clean energy agenda, but a handful of smaller, less-discussed races will have a more immediate and direct impact on the energy transition in several different states.

Public utility commissions regulate the monopoly utilities that operate in each state, voting on such matters as what power plants utilities can build and how much money they can charge their captive customers. Each state’s PUC contains three to five commissioners, making the officials some of the most powerful people in the U.S. energy transition. In most states, governors appoint these leaders — but in 10 states, voters elect them.

This November, eight of those states have active races for at least one PUC commissioner: Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Georgia canceled its 2024 PUC elections because the state’s bizarre hybrid structure for PUC elections has resulted in a lawsuit claiming voter discrimination: PUC commissioners each represent one of five districts, but they are elected statewide, so the members of each district don’t get to decide who represents them.

Utilities recognize the importance of supporting candidates who share their interests, and spend money accordingly. But most regular people often feel little personal connection to the races or the arcane bureaucracy that unfolds at the commissions, and it can be hard to focus on these details against the raucous political backdrop of a general election.

“These PUC commissioners have the power to determine people’s utility bills, the quality of their utility service, and how their utilities are making investments in different forms of energy,” PUC advocate Charles Hua told Canary Media. ​“Yet, few people can name their state’s PUC commissioners or explain what they do.”

After stints at the Department of Energy and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Hua launched a nonprofit called PowerLines this fall to promote greater public awareness of the pivotal roles PUCs play in the clean energy transition. As a nonpartisan entity, PowerLines can’t endorse candidates, but Hua sees plenty of value in simply increasing participation in PUC elections.

That information gap around PUCs leads to ​“down-ballot dropoff,” in which voters select candidates in the better-known races but leave the PUC section blank, Hua said. That means voters miss out on ​“a democratic vehicle to engage with the public officials that are meant to serve the public interest through effective utility regulation.”

The implications for good utility regulation are especially high this year for anyone interested in the transition to cleaner energy, not to mention equity and affordability.

Commissioners control how much electric and gas utilities can charge customers, at a time of soaring energy bills. They’re also uniquely positioned to help get the U.S. grid on track to meet climate goals, at least on a state-by-state level, by approving more cheap, clean energy instead of letting utilities continue to expand fossil-fueled infrastructure. And PUCs can direct utilities to rebuild their grids in a more resilient way following destructive extreme weather like hurricanes Helene and Milton.

PUC commissioners wade through the technocratic morass of utility regulation and make choices that affect Americans’ pocketbooks. That’s why Hua says it’s so important for those who have the opportunity to vote in PUC races to do so, and to keep an eye on what their commission does the rest of the time.

With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at Arizona and Louisiana, two states where the stakes for the clean energy transition are particularly high this year.

Arizona could return to ambitious clean energy policy

Three of five seats are up for the Grand Canyon State’s PUC, which is called the Arizona Corporation Commission. Anna Tovar, the lone Democrat on the commission, is not running for reelection, nor is Republican James O’Connor. Republican Lea Márquez Peterson is running for another four-year term.

Arizonans get to vote statewide for the slate of PUC commissioners, and the top three vote-getters each win a seat. There are three Democrats and three Republicans running, and Arizona’s closely contested recent election cycles mean anything could happen — the commission could swing in a more pro–clean energy direction, or toward more fossil-friendly regulation.

That’s significant, because the ACC’s recent past illustrates the power of elected PUCs more clearly than perhaps in any other state. In 2018, the all-Republican commission boldly rebuked the planning proposal from the state’s largest utility, Arizona Public Service. Then the commissioners went further, imposing a moratorium on new gas plant construction, based on conservative principles: With the energy sector changing so quickly, they wouldn’t let utilities charge their customers for a bunch of expensive gas plants when other quickly maturing options could prove more cost-effective.

Those commissioners later developed their own clean energy standard, and nearly approved it, which would have been a rare instance of a proactive clean energy target coming from a PUC instead of a legislature. But the commission’s debate dragged on as state politics became increasingly contentious, and the proposal was ultimately voted down 3-2 in January 2022. Early this year, the commission voted to end the meager renewable energy standard that had been on the books for 15 years.

In AZ Central’s survey of PUC candidate views, Democrats Ylenia Aguilar, Jonathon Hill, and Joshua Polacheck each affirmed that they want Arizona to tap into more of its renewable power potential. If elected, they could push to revive the clean electricity standard, although that would be a long shot. They could also push to strengthen policies for energy efficiency and distributed energy.

That’s not to say the Republicans oppose clean energy — they just equate binding clean energy targets with adding costs for customers, which they oppose.

For instance, Márquez Peterson says she ​“supports the voluntary commitments made by our utilities for 100 percent clean and affordable energy by 2050 for Arizona.” She also wants to ​“avoid costly mandates and corporate subsidies.” Republican Rachel Walden told AZ Central that ​“forced energy investments and climate goals put the ratepayer last and thwart free market principles.”

This line of argument leaves it to utilities to pursue their own corporate targets. As it happens, solar power in dry, sunny Arizona is ridiculously cheap, and the utilities have jumped on the trend. But the lack of a long-term roadmap for the state leaves room for more gas construction in the meantime, and complicates the kind of long-term planning needed to achieve a carbon-free grid in the coming decades.

Whoever wins, the commission is sure to face capacious gas-plant proposals from utilities to meet soaring demand for data centers and new chip factories (plus some lithium-ion battery manufacturing) in the Phoenix area.

Louisiana to replace swing vote on energy issues

Louisiana’s PUC just did something the state government never accomplished: pass a modern energy-efficiency program to save households money. Now one of the architects of that program is retiring, and voters can pick his replacement.

Advocates had pushed for such a program for years, but it finally passed thanks to two commissioners with seemingly dissimilar perspectives: progressive Democrat Davante Lewis, who campaigned on climate justice; and Republican Craig Greene, a former LSU football player and orthopedic surgeon who supports market-based reforms. They both found common ground in the desire to push the state’s monopoly utility to invest in measures to reduce wasteful energy consumption and thereby save customers money. The commissioners recently selected a third-party administrator to run this program.

“Commissioner Greene has been an important champion for things like energy efficiency, and has even taken steps to move renewable energy forward in the state,” said Logan Burke, executive director of the Louisiana consumer advocacy nonprofit Alliance for Affordable Energy. ​“The seat he is in has historically been considered a ​‘swing’ vote between the two red and two blue districts.”

But Greene decided not to seek reelection as a commissioner, which in Louisiana is a part-time role. That means his seat in District 2 is up for grabs: If Greene’s successor doesn’t share his support for the efficiency measures, it could jeopardize the fledgling, long-awaited program. And this swing vote could prove decisive in decisions on new power-plant construction to meet an expected surge in electricity demand.

Democrat Nick Laborde is competing with Republicans Jean-Paul Coussan and Julie Quinn for the seat. Some 70 percent of voters in this district picked Donald Trump for president in 2020, according to the local outlet Louisiana Illuminator.

Laborde has business experience running a consulting firm and serving as product manager at NOLA Crawfish Bread, an unusually delicious experience for a prospective utility regulator. He has said he supports more renewables and wants to ​“make utilities pay more instead of raising your bill.”

Coussan’s campaign website doesn’t say much about his views on the energy system, but he does promise to regulate as ​“a true conservative watchdog, and someone who understands the importance of the role that affordable and reliable energy plays in bringing jobs to our state.” That assertion could mean Coussan would stand up to utility attempts to raise rates on customers; then again, utilities in Louisiana and elsewhere have used an emphasis on ​“reliability” to push for expensive gas-plant construction in circumstances of dubious value.

Quinn promises to ​“rein in unnecessary utility company spending that results in rising utility rates,” and to ​“oppose liberal-thinking Green New Deal initiatives that are unrealistic and costly.” But one target of Biden administration clean energy funding has piqued her interest: Quinn would like to ​“explore micro-nuclear facilities to lower utility rates.” No commercial microreactor has been built on the U.S. grid, much less lowered anyone’s rates, despite years of trying.

The Alliance for Affordable Energy does not endorse candidates, per the rules governing 501(c)(3) nonprofits. Instead, the group focuses on get-out-the-vote efforts and education about the commission, Burke told Canary Media. She’s also keeping an eye on what candidates say about transmission planning and expansion, which could open up vast new supplies of clean energy for the state.

“If we don’t get the transmission planning we need, we’ll just get 40 more years of new gas plants,” Burke said. ​“That won’t help anyone but Entergy,” the state’s largest monopoly utility.

Clean energy is on the ballot in these utility regulator races is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

More Minnesota cities are turning to utility customers to fund climate and sustainability projects.

The Twin Cities suburb of Eagan is among the latest municipalities to begin collecting what’s known as a “franchise fee” from gas and electric companies in exchange for allowing pipelines, power lines and other infrastructure in public rights-of-way. The charges are typically passed on to customers in the form of a small monthly line item on their utility bills.

As is the case with a growing number of cities, Eagan leaders last year decided to dedicate funds from its franchise fees toward its climate and sustainability efforts. It hired its first sustainability coordinator and is drafting a climate action plan that will be implemented in part with the expected $1.5 million in annual franchise fee revenue.

“It’s hard to launch a sustainability initiative without a way to sustain it,” said Gillian Catano, the city’s sustainability coordinator. “This helps us with long-term planning and allows us to work on projects supporting our operations and to support projects in the community.”

Use of franchise fees growing

Cities have collected franchise fees from public utilities for decades, but today the charges are emerging as a potentially important revenue source to help budget-strapped local governments make progress toward climate targets. In the Twin Cities, Minneapolis has long used the fees to fund sustainability work, and St. Paul is considering a plan to do the same. Other examples include the suburbs of Edina and Hopkins.

“We’ve seen a growing number of cities, across Minnesota and nationally, leveraging utility franchise fees as a tool to fund climate action and sustainability efforts,” said Julia Eagles, associate director of utility and regulatory strategy for the Institute for Market Transformation, a national nonprofit that promotes public policy to reduce building emissions. “It reflects a broader shift towards cities seeking stable, locally controlled funding sources for urgent climate priorities.”

A National Renewable Energy Laboratory research paper in 2021 found over 3,600 municipalities collect franchise fees from their utilities and 13% use part of that money for clean energy-related projects. The work being funded by franchise fees include energy efficiency programs, municipal fleet electrification, solar panel installations, and other clean energy-related investments. 

Abby Finis, a consultant who works with local governments on climate action, said in the past, many cities added the fees into the general fund to pay for various city services. What’s different now, she said, is that more communities are tying them to sustainability staff and projects.

“The franchise fee is something that’s already set up, and you can increase it a little bit without hurting people’s wallets too much,” Finis said.

However, Finis cautioned that the money doesn’t “get anywhere near the amount needed to reach our goals.”

Sometimes cities are maximizing those dollars by using them to leverage additional funds, such as through the federal Inflation Reduction Act or Minnesota’s ECO (Energy Conservation and Optimization) Act, she said.

How other cities are using funds

Minneapolis uses its franchise fees to fund a unique partnership between the city and utilities Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s research highlighted the partnership, which was intended to accelerate progress toward the city’s climate goals but has faced questions about its effectiveness. The city increased its franchise fee in 2023, a per-household increase of about $12 per year, according to Patrick Hanlon, the city’s deputy coordinator for sustainability. 

“It was a pretty minimal increase for residential customers,” Hanlon said. Projects funded partly by franchise fees have saved city residents more than $150 million annually in energy costs and helped weatherize more than 5,000 low-income units, he added. 

Hanlon is also mayor of the nearby suburb of Hopkins, which recently started using its franchise fees to pay for solar, e-bike and electric vehicle charging initiatives.

St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter recently proposed charging residential franchise fees to fund weatherization, tree planting, and pay the salary of a new climate action coordinator.

In the past, St. Paul’s climate action budget has come from general funds and grants. 

“This would be the first uniquely dedicated funding for the city’s broad portfolio of climate work,” said Russ Stark, the city’s chief resilience officer.

Edina began using franchise fees for clean energy projects in 2015. Today, according to sustainability manager Marisa Bayer, the suburb commits about $950,000 annually from franchise fees for its sustainability programs, most of which is invested in city operations to improve efficiency, add renewable energy, and electrify municipal buildings and transportation. The money also funds a sustainable building ordinance and other policy measures.

“The great thing is that because we have this dedicated funding source, we can move forward with projects, either identified in our capital improvement plans or supported by our community,” Bayer said. “We don’t have to go to council every year or rely solely on grants to help fund this work.”

Correction: Edina commits $950,000 annually from its franchise fees for sustainability programs. An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the number.

Minnesota cities tap utility fees to help fund local clean energy and climate action is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Residents with heat pumps in four Massachusetts towns will soon pay hundreds of dollars less for their electricity over the winter, thanks to a new pricing approach advocates hope will become a model for utilities across the state. 

State regulators in June approved a plan by utility Unitil to lower the distribution portion of the electric rate from November to April for customers who use heat pumps, the first time this pricing structure will be used in the state. It’s a shift the company hopes will make it more financially feasible for residents of its service area to choose the higher-efficiency, lower-emissions heat source. 

“We asked, is there a way we can structure the rates that would be fair and help customers adopt a heat pump?” said Unitil spokesman Alec O‘Meara. “We recognize that energy affordability is very important to our customers.”

A balancing act

Electric heat pumps are a major part of Massachusetts’ strategy for reaching its goal of going carbon-neutral by 2050. Today, nearly 80% of homes in the state use natural gas, oil, or another fossil fuel for space heating. Looking to upend that ratio, the state has set a target of having heat pumps in 500,000 homes by 2030. 

One of the major obstacles to this goal is cost. To address part of this barrier, Massachusetts offers rebates of up to $16,000 for income-qualified homeowners and $10,000 for higher-income residents for heat pump equipment. 

The cost of powering these systems though, can be its own problem. Natural gas prices have been trending precipitously downward for the past two years and Massachusetts has long had some of the highest electricity prices in the country. This disparity can be particularly stark in the winter, when consumers using natural gas for heating get priority, requiring the grid to lean more heavily on dirtier, more expensive oil- and coal-fueled power plants, said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director for climate and energy nonprofit Acadia Center.

So switching from natural gas to an electric heat source — even a more efficient one like a heat pump — doesn’t always mean savings for a consumer, especially those with lower incomes. 

“Electric rates are disproportionately higher than gas rates in the region,” Murray said. 

Unitil’s new winter pricing structure is an attempt to rebalance that equation. In New England, electric load on the grid is generally much lower in the winter, when people turn off their air conditioners and switch over to gas or oil heating. That means that the grid, built to accommodate summer’s peak demand, has plenty of capacity for the added load of new heat pumps coming online — no new infrastructure needs to be built to handle this demand (for now, at least). 

“The marginal cost of adding demand is lower,” said Mark Kresowik, senior policy director at American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, which supports heat pump-specific rates. 

Unitil, which provides electricity to 108,500 households, decided to let customers share in that lower marginal cost. The company estimates customers will save about six cents per kilowatt-hour, which would work out to a monthly savings of more than $100 for a home using about 2,000 kilowatt-hours per month. The new rate should go into effect in early 2025, O’Meara said. 

Statewide solutions?

As Unitil is preparing to deploy its heat pump rate, environmental advocates and other stakeholders are pushing for adoption of this strategy beyond Unitil’s relatively limited territory.

Public utilities regulators are in the middle of considering a rate case filed by National Grid, which serves some 1.3 million customers in Massachusetts. National Grid has proposed what it calls a technology-neutral “electrification rate,” which would provide discounts to certain high-volume energy users, which would include heat pump users. 

However, several advocates for low-income households and clean energy — including Acadia Center, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Low-Income Energy Affordability Network — as well as the state energy department and Attorney General Andrea Campbell argue that this approach is inadequate. They’ve submitted comments urging regulators to require National Grid to offer a heat pump rate similar to Unitil’s plan, but modified to work within National Grid’s pricing model. 

“Every intervenor in the docket who commented on the electrification proposal in any capacity was negative on it,” Murray said. “And the [department of public utilities] in its questioning seemed fairly skeptical as well.”

National Grid declined to comment on the pending rate case. 

The electrification rate, opponents argue, would lower costs not just for households with heat pumps, but also for those with inefficient electric resistance heating and even heated pools, effectively running counter to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“The ‘electrification’ proposal would apply to all electricity consumption, whether or not consistent with the Commonwealth’s climate policy of reducing greenhouse gases,” said Jerrold Oppenheim, a lawyer for the Low-Income Weatherization and Fuel Assistance Program Network and the Low-Income Energy Affordability Network. 

It would also do nothing to encourage heat pump adoption among low- and moderate-income households, they say: Some 48% of low-income customers interested in switching to a heat pump would actually see bill increases of up to 33%, according to a brief filed by Oppenheim for the network.

Beyond the National Grid rate case, other stakeholders are also pushing for seasonal heat pump rates. The state has convened an Interagency Rates Working Group to study and make recommendations on the challenges of changing how electric rates are designed to encourage electrification of home heating and adoption of electric vehicles. In August the group released an analysis that found seasonal rates created significant savings for homes with heat pumps. 

“They came to the same conclusion, that this is the right approach,” Kresowik said.

Eventually, the introduction of advanced metering technology will simplify the process of applying lower rates to desired uses, like heat pumps and electric vehicles. But the full deployment of these systems is still several years in the future, and action to ease adoption of heat pumps must be taken much sooner, advocates argue. 

In the meantime, many have expressed some optimism that regulators will require National Grid to make its electrification proposal more responsive to the state’s climate and equity priorities. 

“I would be surprised if the electrification pricing proposal exists as is in the final [regulatory] order,” Murray said.

Advocates hope utility’s winter heat pump rate discount becomes model for Massachusetts utilities is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

A bill introduced in the California legislature proposes to slash hundreds of millions of dollars from programs that help schools replace worn-out HVAC systems, low-income households install batteries, and affordable housing projects deploy solar panels — all for what would amount to a one-time rebate of no more than $50 for customers of the state’s three major utilities.

Lawmakers and Governor Gavin Newsom’s office have crafted the legislation, which they are calling the ​“affordability project,” in response to fast-rising utility rates at the state’s three large investor-owned utilities: Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric.

But community groups, environmental advocates, and clean energy industry groups say the cuts will cause immediate and severe harms to those relying on them while doing next to nothing to fulfill their purported goal of reining in the state’s sky-high electricity rates.

“It’s not a way to solve the problem, and you’re hurting programs that are working,” said 

Merrian Borgeson, policy director for California climate and energy at the nonprofit environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, told Canary Media in an interview.

AB 3121 emerged late Wednesday evening after weeks of backroom negotiations over how best to control rate increases for customers. But the reforms proposed by the bill do little to address the primary drivers of those increases, which come down to the investments utilities are making in their power grids to meet rapidly rising electricity demand, and also to harden them against the risk of sparking deadly wildfires.

Another bill introduced late Wednesday, SB 1003, would call on state agencies to increase oversight over utilities’ wildfire-mitigation spending, which could lead to cost reductions. And another bill, AB 3264, would require the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to assess and analyze total annual energy costs for residential customers, with the goal of finding ways to shift some costs from ratepayers.

“California’s high electricity prices are a decade in the making,” Borgeson said in a Thursday statement. ​“We need an overhaul that targets the root causes of this surge: wildfire spending, capacity constraints, insufficient regulatory oversight, and the need for funding sources beyond consumer-paid utility rates to address the climate crisis. This policy proposal will move the needle on some of these challenges, but it also includes damaging cuts to important programs that benefit vulnerable communities.”

NRDC has estimated that the cuts being proposed would yield only about a $50 one-time rebate for the average residential customer of the state’s three major investor-owned utilities. A report from Politico this week cited an unnamed California lawmaker who estimated the cuts would provide customers as little as $30 each in one-time rebates.

A Wednesday letter signed by NRDC and more than two dozen other groups warned Newsom, California Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire, and Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas against cuts to ​“critical programs that advance energy affordability, reliability, and climate resilience for vulnerable communities.”

“Focusing on short-term tactics will not resolve California’s affordability crisis,” the groups wrote. ​“Instead, it will exacerbate it, making our energy system more expensive, polluted, and dangerous — especially for our most vulnerable communities.”

The pushback comes as lawmakers are scrambling to address unfinished business before this year’s legislative session ends at midnight on Saturday — including a June pledge from California Assembly Utilities and Energy Chair Cottie Petrie-Norris, sponsor of AB 3121, to cut the bills of customers of the state’s three big utilities by $10 per month. (Petrie-Norris’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.)

The high cost of electricity has become a pressing problem for low-income Californians struggling to pay their utility bills, and is threatening to derail the state’s broader electrification efforts by dramatically increasing the costs to consumers of switching from fossil fuels to electricity to power their cars and provide household heating.

In the past 10 years, average electrical rates have risen by 110 percent for residential customers of PG&E, 90 percent for those served by Southern California Edison, and 82 percent for customers of SDG&E, according to data compiled by state regulators. The past three years alone have seen average residential rates jump by 51 percent for PG&E and SCE and 20 percent for SDG&E.

And more rate hikes are looming at PG&E, the state’s biggest utility, which serves about 16 million people in Northern and Central California. In November, the California Public Utilities Commission approved a rate case adding about $32.50 per month to customers’ bills, followed by a further rate hike in March of about $5 to $6 per month starting this spring.

In a July report, the CPUC forecasted average annual electric rate increases of 10.8 percent for PG&E, 6.8 percent for SCE, and 5.6 percent for SDG&E, compared with an assumed inflation rate of 2.6 percent.

This chart from the CPUC’s July report breaks out the proportion of the state’s three big utilities’ ​“revenue requirement,” or how much money they must bring in from ratepayers to cover their costs. The biggest increases are coming from distribution-grid investments, primarily driven by PG&E’s program aimed at burying power lines, clearing vegetation, and installing technology to reduce wildfire risks.

According to reporting from The Sacramento Bee citing anonymous sources familiar with the negotiations, earlier versions of the affordability package included proposals to reduce broader grid expansion costs via ​“securitization” — financing some portion of utility spending through debt, rather than by passing them on to ratepayers.

But those components, which could reduce the profits that utilities earn for investments in their capital infrastructure, were dropped from the bill, the Bee reported last week.

With the potential savings from the wildfire-mitigation cost controls and broader energy cost analysis as yet unclear, the only immediate savings from the legislative package would come from cuts to programs that serve ​“people who don’t have political power,” said Beckie Menten, senior regulatory and policy specialist at the nonprofit Building Decarbonization Coalition.

“We’re really supportive of solutions that address affordability,” she said. But ​“what we’re seeing on the table for the most part are pretty reactive and not very comprehensive of our systemic solutions.”

On the chopping block: School HVAC retrofits and solar and batteries for low-income residents 

AB 3121 proposes to provide utility customers with rebates by clawing back unspent and ​“unencumbered” funds from three programs: California Schools Healthy Air, Plumbing, and Efficiency (CalSHAPE); the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP); and Solar on Multifamily Affordable Housing (SOMAH).

The CalSHAPE program, administered by the California Energy Commission, was created by a law passed during the Covid pandemic to help schools repair HVAC systems to improve health, and it has disbursed 646 grants totaling $421 million in funding for the ventilation upgrades.

Roughly $250 million remains in the program, and many schools were in the process of applying for funding, said Stephanie Seidmon, program director of nonprofit advocacy group Undaunted K12. But AB 3121 would retroactively set the deadline for those applications at July 1, 2024, and return any funds not disbursed to utility ratepayers.

But the one-time rebates per customer that would result aren’t worth the loss of funding for schools that need the money to improve air-conditioning and ventilation systems, Seidmon contended. ​“It’s really important for low-income schools that can’t raise a bond measure to upgrade their HVAC systems, or schools facing these wildfire and heat risks,” she said.

Much of CalSHAPE’s remaining $250 million in funding ​“is for schools that are replacing their HVAC as we’re going to be facing wildfires this fall,” said NRDC’s Bergeson. ​“It’s crazy to me we’d be taking away that money, especially when many of these schools are in disadvantaged communities and were depending on this.”

The SGIP program provides incentives for low-income customers to purchase batteries to provide backup power during power outages. In a March decision, the CPUC allocated $280 million to the program’s current grant cycle, and lawmakers pledged in a 2022 budget and climate law, AB 209, to provide $350 million to the program over the next several years.

Returning unspent portions of those funds to utilities would provide a minimal one-off rebate to individual customers at the cost of undermining a program that ​“helps both rural and disadvantaged communities” obtain batteries that are increasingly valuable in a state experiencing heat- and wildfire-driven grid emergencies, said Edson Perez, California policy lead for clean energy industry trade group Advanced Energy United.

The batteries installed through the program also help store solar power for use in evenings, when grid power tends to be dirtier and more expensive, which ​“helps the grid as a whole,” he said. A May report to the CPUC found that batteries installed through SGIP have reduced utility costs by roughly $27 million, primarily during a September 2022 heat wave that threatened to overwhelm California’s grid.

The SOMAH program has a budget of $100 million and a legislatively mandated goal of installing 300 megawatts of solar by 2032, and is ​“California’s landmark program for multifamily affordable housing access to affordable solar and affordable storage,” said Steve Campbell, western regulatory director for nonprofit Vote Solar.

AB 3121 doesn’t call for reclaiming the entirety of that funding stream. But it would require the CPUC to credit ​“no more than 1/2 of the program funds that are unencumbered as of January 1, 2025,” back to utilities to return to customers as rebates.

SOMAH was created in 2019 and saw a significant slowdown during the Covid pandemic, Campbell said. In the past year, however, applications and projects have picked up steam. 

“When a low-income program starts to work again is the worst time to pull the rug out from underneath it,” he said. 

California electric bill relief plan would gut low-income energy programs is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

North Carolina regulators have approved a controversial green tariff proposal from Duke Energy, rejecting protests from critics who argue it won’t bolster the company’s transition to zero-carbon electricity. 

Originally designed as a way for large electric customers to chip in extra for renewable energy projects Duke is already mandated to build, an amended tariff offered in April could allow some customers to speed up construction of new solar farms by about two years.

The revision appeared to help sway the Utilities Commission. The change, the panel said in its Jul. 31 order, is an “improvement” because the change “adds additional accelerated capacity” of renewable energy. 

The revised tariff, called Green Source Advantage Choice, has backing from the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates, an association of some of Duke’s largest customers. The utility says it plans to formalize the program soon in the wake of the regulators’ order. 

“The [commission] didn’t give us a deadline but asked that we do so when reasonably feasible,” spokesperson Logan Stewart said over email, “so it will be in the coming weeks. In conjunction, we will be working on updating the Green Source Advantage public webpage to include the new program details.” 

A question of ‘regulatory surplus’ 

For large customers with 100% clean energy commitments, a green tariff is a necessity in North Carolina, where Duke has a monopoly and cities, data centers and the like can’t buy clean energy directly from solar farms.  

In theory, a green tariff allows a company such as Google or Amazon to spur a new supply of clean energy equal to their electric demand, with Duke acting as an administrative go-between. An earlier iteration of Green Source Advantage more or less did just that. 

But the accounting got more complicated in 2021, when a bipartisan state law required Duke to cut its carbon pollution at least 95% by 2050. If the company is legally required to build scores of solar farms anyway, can a large customer legitimately claim its sponsorship of one project makes a difference? 

This question of “regulatory surplus” sparked a flurry of arguments and counter-arguments before the commission for some 18 months. Duke initially claimed such “additionality” was neither feasible nor necessary, and some businesses said chipping in to support the clean energy transition was good enough for them. More than a dozen local chambers of commerce and potential customers wrote regulators in support of the original program.  

But Google, the U.S. Department of Defense, and other large customers joined clean energy advocates to flag the problem of regulatory surplus, as did the Center for Resource Solutions, the nonprofit that certifies voluntary renewable energy purchase programs. Duke University, which has no connection to the utility, said it wouldn’t participate in the tariff.  

‘A small step in the right direction’ 

The debate, along with prodding from commissioners, prompted Duke to add a “resource acceleration option” to its proposal. The alternative allows large customers to advance about 150 megawatts of solar energy each year by sponsoring projects not selected in the company’s annual competitive bidding process. Every two years, Duke gets retroactive credit for this “extra” solar as part of its compliance with the 2021 law.

Clean energy advocates believe the new option is a “small step in the right direction.” But they note it accounts for 1 gigawatt of clean energy over ten years, a fifth of the entire program. Customers who lay claim to the remaining 4 gigawatts would not be impacting the state’s transition to clean electricity, they say. 

“If you’re the customer of a business who claims to support our state’s clean energy transition by participating in the program, you’re going to expect that business to be making a difference – not just subsidizing what Duke was going to do anyway,” said Nick Jimenez, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. 

The Carolinas Clean Energy Business Alliance, a group of clean energy suppliers, also criticized the acceleration option. And though the Carolina Utility Customers Association, another group of large industrial customers, didn’t oppose the amended proposed tariff, it registered skepticism. 

“[Our] members have little interest in the Resource Acceleration Option,” the group said in a letter to regulators, “which would deliver electricity at a premium cost without providing the benefit of regulatory surplus-based environmental attributes that would be useful in meeting corporate environmental, social, and governance goals.” 

Cause for hope? 

While advocates see little good in the commission’s approval of the Green Source Advantage Choice program, they still have some faint cause for hope. 

One is the so-called Clean Transition Tariff, which Duke could propose later this year. An outgrowth of a May agreement between the utility and Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Nucor, that program could allow participating customers to spur new projects, such as solar-battery storage combos or small nuclear energy, that provide carbon-free electricity around the clock. 

“This is not within the order,” said Jimenez, but the May memorandum of understanding, “is the big opportunity for something better.” 

Duke says the Clean Transition Tariff would be another voluntary option for customers, not a replacement for the one just greenlighted. “We see the approval of Green Source Advantage Choice as a first step,” the company’s Stewart said, “enabling us to move forward with new tariffs like the Clean Transition Tariff.” 

Maggie Shober, research director at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, agrees the memorandum of understanding is cause for some optimism. But she also notes that it’s only “an agreement to talk about something. It could be an opportunity,” she said, “or it could be a missed opportunity. “ 

And no matter what, the Clean Transition Tariff won’t cater to municipalities and other midsize customers with climate commitments. If these customers decline to pursue Green Source Advantage Choice, their only option is to wait for Duke to adjust.  

Commissioner Jeff Hughes pointed to that possibility in a concurring opinion. 

“Once the program offerings are launched, it will quickly become clear whether the program is as attractive as Duke asserts,” Hughes wrote. “If concerns continue and interest is modest from the outset, it is my hope that Duke will work quickly on new programs that will have a greater impact.”

N.C. regulators approve controversial Duke Energy plan that lets large customers chip in for solar projects is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Snaking under city streets, behind residential drywall and into furnaces, ovens and other appliances, natural gas pipelines are a ubiquitous presence in U.S. buildings. The question of what to do with them as the planet warms has become a serious debate — dozens of U.S. cities and states have crafted plans to reduce reliance on natural gas, and more than 20 other states have passed laws to preempt that type of regulation.

Now, utilities around the nation have begun testing a controversial idea aimed at reducing the carbon footprint of gas lines, while keeping them in place. Nearly 20 utilities have laid out plans to inject lines with a blend of gas and hydrogen, the latter of which emits no carbon dioxide (CO2) — a major greenhouse gas — when combusted. Testing such blends, these companies say, is an essential step towards understanding the practice, which they argue will help reduce emissions and fight climate change.

Deploying more hydrogen is also a federal priority — the Inflation Reduction Act created a tax credit for hydrogen production, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law set aside $9.5 billion to support hydrogen development.

But a federal hydrogen strategy released last year suggests blending hydrogen into gas infrastructure should focus on industrial applications. Many environmental and customer advocates agree; they argue that the use of hydrogen blends in buildings — rather than to power industries that are hard to electrify — makes little sense.

“Every dollar you’re reinvesting into the gas system could be a dollar you’re using to electrify the system,” said Nat Skinner, program manager of the safety branch of the California Public Advocates Office, an independent state office that advocates for consumers in utility regulation. “Finding the right uses for hydrogen is appropriate. But I think being really careful and thoughtful about how we’re doing that is equally important.”

Nearly 30 projects focused on blending hydrogen into gas lines that serve homes and businesses have been proposed or are in operation in more than a dozen states, Floodlight found, and many more utilities have hinted at future proposals. If all are approved, the projects as proposed would cost at least $280 million — and many utilities are asking that customers pay for them.

As regulators consider the proposals, advocates are calling for them to weigh the prudence of the investment. In California — where electric rates have climbed steeply in recent years — the Sierra Club has argued that the projects are “an inappropriate use of ratepayer funds” and “wasteful experiments.”

Blending brings, risks, rewards

Hydrogen blending can be undertaken in a section of pipeline isolated from the rest of the gas network or in a larger “open” system that serves homes. Utilities can inject it in large transmission lines, which ferry gas from processing and storage locations to compressor stations, or into distribution lines, the smaller pipes that bring gas to buildings.

Because hydrogen releases only water vapor and heat when it’s burned, it’s considered a clean fuel. And unlike traditional wind and solar energy, it can produce enough heat to run industrial furnaces. Utilities have framed the fuel as a clear way to slash the emissions associated with their operations.

“These demonstration projects are an important step for us to adopt hydrogen blending statewide, which has the potential to be an effective way to replace fossil fuels,” said Neil Navin, the chief clean fuels officer at Southern California Gas (SoCalGas), in a March statement on its application for hydrogen blending pilots.

Burning hydrogen, particularly in homes, also presents certain risks. Hydrogen burns hotter than natural gas, which can increase emissions of nitrous oxide (NOx), a harmful air pollutant that can react with other elements in the air to produce damaging pollutants including small particulates and ozone.

Hydrogen is a smaller molecule than methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, and can leak more readily out of pipelines. Hydrogen is also flammable. And when certain metals absorb hydrogen atoms, they can become brittle over time, creating risks of pipeline cracks, depending on the materials the pipelines are made of.

There are also outstanding questions about how much hydrogen blending actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Of the utilities that have offered details about the hydrogen source they plan to use for their pilot, roughly half plan to use “green hydrogen,” which is produced using clean electricity generated by renewable sources such as wind and solar. Today, fossil fuels power more than 90% of global hydrogen production, producing “gray hydrogen.”

Most utility blending pilots are targeting blends of up to 20% hydrogen. At those levels, research has shown that hydrogen would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by less than 10%, even when using hydrogen produced with clean manufacturing processes.

Some utilities have estimated the emissions impacts of their pilots. A CenterPoint Energy pilot in Minneapolis using blends of up to 5% green hydrogen was estimated to reduce carbon emissions by 1,200 metric tons per year, which is the approximate energy use of 156 homes. A project in New Jersey testing blends of 1% green hydrogen was estimated to reduce emissions enough to offset the energy use of roughly 24 homes.

Blending gray hydrogen may show no carbon benefit at all, according to some research. That’s in part because hydrogen produces one-third less energy by volume than natural gas, meaning three times the amount of hydrogen is needed to make up for the same unit of natural gas.

And hydrogen requires more energy to manufacture than it will later produce when it’s burned. For these reasons, some environmental groups say hydrogen is an inefficient way to decarbonize homes and businesses; some analysts have called the process “a crime against thermodynamics.”

“There are much better, readily available, more affordable ways to decarbonize buildings in the form of electrification and energy efficiency,” said Jim Dennison, a staff attorney at the Sierra Club.

Advocates including Dennison also worry that investing more in the natural gas system will delay electrification and allow utilities to keep their core pipeline businesses running. “I can see why that’s attractive to those utilities,” he said. “That doesn’t mean it makes sense for customers or the climate.”

‘We’re not sure’ of right mix

While the climate benefits are debated, some research and active projects indicate that burning blended fuel at certain levels can be safe. For decades, Hawaii Gas has used synthetic natural gas that contains 10-12% hydrogen. Countries including Chile, Australia, Portugal and Canada have also run hydrogen blending pilots.

And although pipelines can weather when carrying hydrogen, that’s less likely for distribution lines that reach homes because those pipes are often plastic, said Bri-Mathias Hodge, an associate professor in energy engineering at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

Hodge helped author a 2022 review of technical and regulatory limits on hydrogen and gas blending. With blends below 5%, Hodge said customers are unlikely to face risks or notice a difference in how their appliances or furnaces function.

More uncertainty exists around higher blends. “I think we’re not sure if below 20% or say, from 5 to 20% is safe,” said Ali Mosleh, an engineer at the University of California-Los Angeles who is spearheading hydrogen blend pilot testing with 44 partners, including utilities, to address knowledge gaps in the state.

Although Hodge at UC-Boulder thinks electrification is the more efficient choice for homes, he said the pilots can help utilities get comfortable with blending, which may eventually be applied elsewhere. “It’s not going to really move the needle in terms of decarbonization long term, but it’s a step in the right direction,” he said.

Steven Schueneman, the hydrogen development manager at utility Puget Sound Energy, which serves about 1.2 million electric and 900,000 gas customers in Washington, said incremental approaches like utility blending pilots will signal that hydrogen is a “real industry.” That could help the fuel gain a foothold in other areas, like industrial heat and aviation.

But Schueneman also acknowledges there remains uncertainty around whether hydrogen is the most cost-effective way to decarbonize buildings.

“It’s not clear that blending hydrogen is going to be a prudent decision at the end of the day,” he said.

Puget Sound Energy has conducted two small-scale blending pilots at a test facility. In the future, the utility plans to focus its hydrogen efforts on how blends may function in power plants, rather than in buildings. The nearly 30 blending pilots Floodlight tracked include only projects focused on use in buildings, but other utilities have proposed blending hydrogen at natural gas power plants, where the blend will be burned for electricity.

‘Cost is an essential consideration’

Blending pilots focused on buildings have been spearheaded by some of the largest utilities in the nation as well as smaller-scale gas providers, and are being considered from coast-to-coast.

Dominion Energy, which serves 4.5 million customers in 13 states, has laid out plans for three blending pilots, in Utah, South Carolina and Ohio. National Grid, which has 20 million customers, is pursuing a project in New York. And multiple large California utilities have proposed pilot programs.

Some utilities, such as Dominion and Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, did not reply to several requests for clarification on hydrogen blending plans, or replied to only some queries about their plans. But plans from certain utilities have been detailed in regulatory filings with state utility commissions.

The pilots for which cost data are available range in price from roughly $33,000 for Puget Sound Energy’s small-scale testing (which ratepayers did not fund) up to an estimated $63.5 million for a decade-long pilot proposed by California utility Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), which would focus on blending 5% at the start ranging up to 20% hydrogen in transmission gas lines.

If approved, customers would pay up to $94.2 million for PG&E’s pilot, because of the rate of return utilities are able to collect from customers. California utilities are aiming to recover more than $200 million in total from customers for their proposed pilots.

California regulators have rejected some previous blending proposals from utilities, saying companies should use “every reasonable attempt to use existing and other funds before requesting new funds.” Advocates including the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) have argued that the projects are not in the public interest, particularly amid the state’s spiking utility bills.

“Cost is an essential consideration,” said Erin Murphy, a senior attorney at EDF. “When you’re passing on costs to ratepayers, you have to demonstrate that that is a prudent investment.”

Pilots have gotten pushback in other states, including Colorado and Oregon, where projects were recently dropped or delayed, and opposition has been fierce in California, which has the most pilots proposed to date. The mayor of Truckee, California, which could host a project, submitted a comment to regulators explaining the town does not support it. And following protests at two California universities that planned to collaborate on projects, utilities downsized the plans.

After student opposition at University of California-Irvine, SoCalGas reduced the scope of the project and proposed an additional pilot in Orange Cove, a small agricultural community of about 9,500 people. Ninety-six percent of Orange Cove’s population identifies as Hispanic or Latino, and roughly 47% of residents live below the federal poverty line, according to the U.S. Census.

Some Orange Cove residents also are concerned about blending, which SoCalGas hopes to test at up to 5% hydrogen levels. Genoveva Islas, who grew up there and is the executive director of Cultiva la Salud, a public health nonprofit based in nearby Fresno, said the local approval process lacked transparency and public input.

The project is slated to sit steps away from the Orange Cove football field, near the town’s high school, middle school and community center. “In short, I would just say it is concerning,” Islas said.

In an email, the utility told Floodlight that the city “proactively asked SoCalGas to undertake this project in its community” and said it was “expected to bring socioeconomic benefits to Orange Cove.” The utility also said it hosted a community engagement meeting about the project in Spanish and English and has provided fact sheets to the community in both languages.

In Colorado, where Xcel Energy had planned to blend hydrogen in an isolated neighborhood, some residents learned of the pilot from a journalist reporting on the project.

That has made some feel like unwilling test subjects in an experiment that others, like the Sierra Club’s Dennison, say are unnecessary. “The community’s immediate reaction is that they don’t want to be guinea pigs,” Islas said. “They do not understand how this decision was made without their involvement or their consent.”

The great majority of the projects, including the one in Orange Cove, are still under review by regulators. Meanwhile, researchers are undertaking more studies to understand the technical limits of blending.

“There are a lot of unknowns,” said Mosleh from UCLA. “Some fundamental research needs to be done.”

Utilities are trying hydrogen-blended fuels. There are a lot of unknowns. is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Minnesota solar developers frustrated with the process of connecting projects to the electric grid will soon have a new place to turn to answer questions and resolve disputes.

State lawmakers recently passed legislation calling on the state Public Utilities Commission to hire an interconnection ombudsperson to provide clean energy companies with information, guidance, and mediation on connecting projects of 10 megawatts and less to the grid.

The legislation follows years of complaints by solar companies about disputes with utilities, Xcel Energy in particular, that have contributed to years-long delays for some projects to connect.

“We hope that we can create a role dedicated to understanding the entire interconnection process and help manage those disagreements when they arise,” said Logan O’Grady, executive director of the Minnesota Solar Energy Industries Association.

The legislation says the ombudsperson will track disputes and serve as a mediator between customers and investor-owned utilities. They will be expected to review policies, convene stakeholder groups, and assess ways to reduce conflicts.

O’Grady said customers, installers, and developers could contact the ombudsperson for assistance on issues involving rooftop, commercial, or community solar projects. 

The ombudsperson would not eliminate the state’s existing dispute process for interconnection issues, which can take over a month and require mediation if unresolved issues remain.

O’Grady said he hopes having an interconnection ombudsperson will more efficiently resolve some disputes and provide a new option for developers that haven’t wanted to deal with the time and attention required to file a formal complaint.  

Solar developers’ complaints have varied, but some involve inaccurate information leading to “weeks of back and forth to get clarity on a simple misunderstanding,” O’Grady said. The hope is that an ombudsperson with experience in the industry could more efficiently answer those questions or know who to contact in utilities to provide guidance. 

State Rep. Patty Acomb, a suburban Democrat and chair of Climate and Energy Finance and Policy committee, said the ombudsperson’s work is less likely to draw skepticism because it comes from an independent source.

Solar company leaders support the new position. Bobby King, Minnesota program director for Solar United Neighbors, said the ombudsperson could “centralize” information, advocate for interconnection, create solutions to improve the process and avoid litigation. “I think it’s a positive step in the right direction,” King said.

Michael Allen, CEO of All Energy Solar, said the ombudsperson would provide “unbiased information” to the Commerce Department, the Public Utilities Commission, installers, and utilities. He also believes an ombudsperson could reduce the number of disputes that reach the Public Utilities Commission.

Marty Morud, CEO and owner of TruNorth Solar, said he’d had few issues with Xcel but sees an ombudsperson as a source for helping move utilities to respond if installer emails and phone calls go unanswered.

More than a dozen states already have positions similar to interconnection ombudspersons, including California, Massachusetts and New York. Sky Stanfield, a lawyer who works with the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, said states approach the ombudsperson differently, not all requiring them to have the technical skills Minnesota seeks.

She said that having someone see all the disputes and detect patterns could also help the Public Utilities Commission target rulemaking in problem areas. 

“I do think having a person whose job is to stay up to date on what is happening seems to me like a positive step,” Stanfield said.

To be effective, the ombudsperson must be “empowered” by the Public Utilities Commission and accepted as an objective mediator by utilities and clean energy developers, she said.    

The Legislature created an initial $150,000 budget. The ombudsperson position, which has not been posted, is expected to be filled later this year.

Minnesota lawmakers hope ombudsperson can help defuse solar interconnection disputes is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.