Navigant Research Blog

Take Control of Your Future, Part VI: Regionalization of Energy Resources

— June 6, 2016

Tablet Device with StatisticsIn my initial blog in this series, I discussed seven megatrends that are changing how we produce and use power. Here, I discuss how the regionalization of energy resources is fundamentally changing the energy industry.

What Is Happening?

To get access to energy supply and resources, more regions, states, energy markets, and utilities are looking beyond the traditional borders of their energy business and territory. The main drivers playing out right now are:

  • An accelerated shift of generation resources to cheaper gas and low-cost renewables.
  • An increase in carbon reduction policies and targets.

Accelerated Shift of Generation Resources

In part IV of this series, I discussed the accelerated shift in power generation to natural gas and renewables. First, as a result of cheap natural gas—which will be the case for the foreseeable future—investments in combined-cycle natural gas generation plants have increased. Major investments in gas pipelines by utilities have also increased (including from Florida Power & Light [FPL], National Grid, Spectra, and others), mostly supported by states and regions like Massachusetts, New York, and Texas. Some utilities (including FPL) have been investing in the exploration and production of natural gas.

These infrastructure investments still face challenges in getting the required approvals and expected returns. FPL initially received approval from the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) to recover the costs related to its investment in upstream development in Oklahoma’s Woodford Shale through rates as part of its fuel expenses. However, 2 weeks ago, Florida’s highest court overturned this decision and concluded that the PSC did not have the authority under state law to approve cost recovery for the joint venture as part of FPL’s rates. We will see how this plays out as utilities continue to look to secure access to natural gas and increase shareholder value.

Second, investments in renewables continue to increase. The Navigant Energy Market Outlook projects that in 2016, 19.3 GW of wind and solar generation capacity will be added in the United States, which is about 75% of total new generation additions in 2016. Besides the complexity of the duck curve, regions, states, energy markets, and utilities are also looking at how to get this renewable power (in places where sun and wind are favorable) to places where this power gets consumed. The transmission impacts are significant. Combined with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 1000, these impacts will drive new investments in transmission. This has been evidenced already in the Northeast, Texas, Massachusetts, and the western United States, among other places.

Increased Carbon Reduction Policies and Targets

Part III of this series explored the rising number of carbon emissions reduction policies and regulations. Even though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Power Plan (CPP) is on hold, many individual states, cities, and utilities are moving toward the CPP goals to reduce carbon emissions, plan for an advanced energy economy, and meet cleaner generation goals. Policymakers are setting clear targets to increase renewable generation in the Northeast. Recently, in order to meet the state’s 50×30 goal, the New York Department of Public Service (NYDPS) described a path forward in its Clean Energy Standard (CES) white paper. The paper outlines the principal policy objectives of the CES, which include increasing renewable electricity supply to achieve the ambitious goal of renewable energy meeting 50% of New York’s electricity needs by 2030 and promoting the progress of Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) market objectives. Regions, energy markets, states, and utilities are looking for access to cleaner energy resources—mainly gas and renewables—either by building these generation assets and securing access to cheap natural gas or by bringing cleaner power into their territory through interconnection.

How Does All This Play Out?

There are many examples now of regional approaches for solving the challenges discussed above. One example is the creation of the western Energy Imbalance Market (EIM) by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which is pursuing shared benefits for the participants. CAISO reported recently that the cost benefits of the EIM were $18.9 million during the first 3 months of 2016. The western EIM also saved 48,342 metric tons of carbon emissions during the first 3 months of the year by using 112,948 MWh of surplus renewable energy across the participants to meet demand. “The EIM is now firmly established and is providing considerable economic and environmental benefits,” said CAISO’s President and CEO Steve Berberich. “These successes are the result of the vision and hard work of many across the West.” Oregon-based PacifiCorp, which serves customers in six western states, was the first EIM participant, followed by NV Energy. Other utilities that have announced plans to join the EIM include Puget Sound Energy and Arizona Public Service in October 2016, Portland General Electric in October 2017, and Idaho Power in April 2018.

A second example is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which was used by the EPA as an example of a flexible and multi-state carbon reduction program. Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont are members of the RGGI, which is a cap-and-trade program to curb CO2 emissions. To comply with the EPA’s final targets for carbon reductions from existing fossil fuel power plants, states may attempt to join the RGGI or establish similar programs that can then trade into and out of the RGGI.

Beyond the United States: Europe a Good Example?

Europe created the Energy Union, which is designed to help deliver Europe’s 2030 climate and energy targets and make sure that the European Union (EU) becomes the world leader in renewable energy. Achieving these goals will require a transformation of Europe’s electricity system, including the redesign of the European electricity market, in order to meet consumers’ expectations, deliver benefits from new technology, facilitate investments in renewables and low carbon generation, and recognize the interdependence of EU member states when it comes to energy security. A critical part of this initiative is connecting isolated electricity systems to secure supply and helping to achieve a truly integrated EU-wide energy market—a key enabler for the region. The EU has set an initial minimum interconnectivity level of 10% to be achieved by all member states by 2020. Depending on the geographical position of a country and its energy mix (e.g., the weight of renewables in a given country), achieving the required 10% minimum may not be enough. The EU is therefore looking into raising the target to 15% by 2030.

These are the underlying objectives as defined by the Energy Union:

  • Electricity systems will become more reliable, with lower risk of blackouts.
  • Money will be saved by reducing the need to build new power stations.
  • Consumers’ increased choice will put downward pressure on household bills.
  • Electricity grids will be able to better manage increasing levels of renewables, particularly variable renewables like wind and solar.

You could argue that these objectives would be very important for the United States, as well. Should we take a much more national, inter-regional approach like Europe?

So What Does This Mean?

First, regions, states, energy markets, and utilities have to adapt their long-term resource plans and incorporate regional scenarios for power supply, while at the same time build in a rapidly changing mix in fuel resources toward renewables and natural gas. Second, they must think out of the box with regard to securing fuel security or access to renewables well beyond their traditional territory borders. Third, to effectively develop system plans, the planning processes need to take into account the entire regional transmission system. Regional entities should find a way to bring together players such as federal agencies, municipalities, and cooperatives so that their needs are also addressed and more holistic solutions are presented. Finally, to facilitate and enhance emerging market offerings such as the EIM, the planning toolkit needs to be expanded to better address the challenges of very large-scale renewables integration across multiple regions.

This post is the sixth in a series in which I discuss each of the power industry megatrends and the impacts (“so what?”) in more detail. My next blog will be about merging industries and new entrants. Stay tuned.

Learn more about our clients, projects, solution offerings, and team at
Navigant Energy Practice Overview.

 

Take Control of Your Future, Part V: Delivering Shareholder Value through M&A

— May 27, 2016

Energy CloudIn my first blog in this series, I discussed seven megatrends that are fundamentally changing how we produce and use power. As discussed widely across the industry, the pace of transformational change in the utilities industry is accelerating. Low demand growth, increased carbon reduction policies and regulations, changing customer demands, the growth of distributed energy resources (DER), and other developments are shifting the value proposition for incumbent and new players alike.

It is no surprise that with so much change, mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are on the rise, with fascinating implications for the broader industry. We hear mostly about large acquisitions—Exelon’s acquisition of Pepco, Emera’s acquisition of TECO, Southern Company acquiring AGL Resources, and Duke Energy acquiring Piedmont Natural Gas Co, Inc.—but there is much more happening under the surface and on the periphery, underscoring the tectonic shifts reshaping the energy industry.

With the emergence of the Energy Cloud, which is driving broad and pervasive digitalization of the industry, utilities, manufacturers, technology companies, and other stakeholders are pursuing proactive initiatives such as M&A deals to retain customers, increase revenue, and improve market position. Recent activity points to three different flavors of M&A deals occurring with more frequency than others:

  1. Utilities acquiring other utility companies or assets
  2. Utilities acquiring energy technology companies
  3. Manufacturers or energy technology companies acquiring other manufacturers and energy technology companies

 Utilities Acquiring Other Utility Companies or Assets

The table below shows that the value of utility deals has more than quadrupled in 2014 and 2015 compared to 2012. In the first quarter of 2016 alone, 22 deals valued at more than $40 billion have already closed.

Utility M&A Deals (>USD $5M): 2012-2016 (Q1)

Jan Blog table

(Sources: S&P Capital IQ, Thomas Reuters)

The main driver for this increased level of M&A activity is a renewed search for growth, shareholder value, and diversification to offset some of the challenges facing the industry. Additionally, utilities are increasingly hedging against uncertainty and risk, as seen with Duke Energy and Southern Company acquiring natural gas companies as they pivot away from coal. As Southern Company stated after the acquisition was announced, “The addition of AGL Resources’ network of natural gas assets and businesses will provide a broader, more robust platform for long-term success and increase opportunities to invest in future infrastructure and energy solutions.”

Some utility analysts see these high-cost, high-debt acquisitions as unsustainable. Although the acquisitions are in regulated, low-risk businesses, utilities have had to pay a premium for these acquisitions and utilize debt financing, which could potentially put pressure on their credit ratings.

Utilities Buying Energy Technology Companies

We have seen an even greater uptick in the acquisition of technology companies by utilities. In particular, acquisitions targeting renewables, storage, and DER are on the rise.

A couple noteworthy transactions include Engie (formerly GDF Suez) taking a majority stake in Green Charge Networks, a provider of C&I energy storage solutions, and Southern Company acquiring PowerSecure. According to a press release, PowerSecure, a provider of distributed energy, utility infrastructure, and efficiency solutions, gives Southern Company the capability to help meet commercial & industrial (C&I) customers’ energy needs in the areas of individual reliability, energy efficiency, and green objectives.

Additionally, many utilities are acquiring and investing in companies offering IT/OT and data analytics solutions. The latest example is a $20 million investment in AutoGrid Systems from Energy Impact Partners (EIP), a utility group that includes Southern Company, Xcel Energy, Oncor, and National Grid, and Envision Ventures. According to Michael Donnelly of EIP, “Big data analytics and automated control of grid operations will allow utilities to adapt to the increasingly complex distributed energy environment.”

The rationale behind this wave of energy technology acquisitions by utilities reflects their willingness to play both offense and defense as the Energy Cloud takes shape. It also shows a willingness to protect their core business against new entrants looking to provide new products and services to their customers. At the same time, it suggests a willingness to look beyond their current customer base and target customers with a full suite of energy management solutions within the country and internationally.

In a recent announcement, Ted Craver, chairman and CEO of Edison International stated that, “[within] the New Energy Future … large energy users increasingly need a strategic partner to help them navigate through the diverse energy marketplace. Edison Energy will provide the expertise that will enable large commercial and industrial energy users to explore the many options available to them and to select the best portfolio of alternatives to power their operations.”

Duke Energy’s recent acquisition of Phoenix, a provider of energy management systems and services for commercial customers, offers a similar view. In the announcement press release, Greg Wolf, president of Duke Energy’s Commercial Portfolio, stated: “Duke Energy will continue to expand its offering of on-site, advanced energy solutions for commercial customers as the company finds opportunities in this rapidly growing market.”

These are just a couple of examples, and we expect similar acquisitions to accelerate going forward.

Manufacturers or Energy Technology Companies Acquiring Other Manufacturers and Energy Technology Companies

Of the three categories described in this post, this is perhaps the most active. We have seen solar companies buying other solar companies, solar companies buying storage companies, and technology companies buying other technology companies—the list goes on. From Google buying Nest to Oracle buying Opower and many more, everybody wants to get into the game and is looking for unique, differentiating technologies and capabilities to stay ahead of the competition with a focus on technology synergies and customers.

Additionally, there’s a significant rise in the number of new companies entering the energy space, selling new and innovative energy technology products and services. We don’t expect this trend to slow anytime soon. On the contrary, with the scale of investment pouring into newer, greener ways of producing, managing, and using power, we are at the beginning of a greentech tsunami.

So What Does This All Mean?

My advice to all these players: Be alert and think out of the box. Your clients today can become your competitors tomorrow—consider IKEA as one example. Technology companies have the potential to become network orchestrators and provide utility products and services. The risk for utilities is they end up with stranded, worthless assets.

Balancing today’s business with tomorrow’s opportunities is key. Thinking through strategy and future-case scenarios will help you understand the opportunities and threats as technology and customer choice drive new products, services, and business models. Stay close to your customers and innovate; partner where it makes sense and stay in the game. This is Energy Strategy 2.0 for the Energy Cloud 2.0.

This is the fifth in a series of posts in which I discuss each of the power industry megatrends and the impacts (“so what?”) in more detail. My next blog will cover the regionalization of energy. Stay tuned.

Learn more about our clients, projects, solution offerings. and team at
Navigant Energy Practice Overview.

 

Take Control of Your Future, Part IV: Power Generation Shift

— May 20, 2016

Oil and Gas ProductionDale Probasco and Rob Patrylak also contributed to this post.

In the initial blog of this series, I discussed seven megatrends that are fundamentally changing how we produce and use power. Here, I discuss how the shift in the power generation fuel mix is changing our industry.

Generation Fuel Mix Shift Is Accelerating

The electric grid in the United States has relied heavily on nuclear and coal-fired plants to serve as baseload generation for the overall system. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. electric generating facilities expect to add 26.1 GW of utility-scale generating capacity in 2016. Most of these additions come from three resources: natural gas (8 GW), solar (9.5 GW), and wind (6.8 GW), which together make up almost 93% of total planned additions.

The Navigant Energy Market Outlook has projected this level of expansion in natural gas and renewable assets for several years. For 2016, Navigant expects higher natural gas (16.3 GW) and solar (13.2 GW) expansions than EIA is projecting. Navigant forecasts wind expansion will be lower at 6.1 GW, suffering a bit from extremely low natural gas prices and the ongoing decreases in installed costs for solar (decreasing faster than the installed cost of wind).

This shift toward natural gas and renewables will continue as many different factors affect generation fuel strategies, resource plans, and decision-making. Among these factors are sustained low natural gas prices (see Navigant’s natural gas price forecast), state and federal renewable incentives, the implementation of environmental regulations such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, and the threat of new carbon legislation such as the Clean Power Plan (see also my earlier blog in this series on this topic). Today, this shift is accelerating even more because of increased interest from customers in renewable power (customer choice) and the rapidly declining installed costs, which are making renewables more competitive with traditional fuel sources (including coal and nuclear).

What Does This Mean to Generators?

As a result, the economics have changed and some of the existing (coal and nuclear) assets are experiencing eroded profit margins. These margins, in turn, are resulting in challenging economics and, in some cases, significant devaluation. Increasingly more generation assets are at risk of becoming stranded investments, as the fuel mix is shifting more quickly than anybody envisioned. Coal-to-gas switching has caused coal plants to consider retirements and, with low gas prices and the impact of renewables off peak, there is more pressure to decommission nuclear assets. There have been several early shutdowns, confirmed announcements, and threatened early shutdowns in recent years, including the recommendation from Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) management last week to discontinue operations at its Fort Calhoun nuclear station. Generators are reevaluating the role of each of their plants, as well as how and if the plants should fit into their portfolio, leading us to the following observations:

  1. Coal and nuclear plants operate at reduced revenue while still required to maintain system reliability/stability as long as their required economics are met.
  2. Coal plants (designed as baseload) are required to operate more as cycling units. This requirement drives up cost and reduces efficiencies, which may mitigate some of the environmental gains made as a result of more off-design operations.
  3. These economic pressures are driving numerous coal plants out of the market and increasing the possibility of stranded assets.
  4. Nuclear assets have been hurt as well and are requesting market assistance and incentives to keep operating. Savings measures such as Capacity Resource Adequacy payments and even state legislatures have been looking at approaches that can improve the economics for both nuclear and coal in order to maintain fuel diversity and keep these baseload plants running.
  5. Efficient gas plants are operating more in areas of ample gas supply and infrastructure.
  6. All generating plants are seeking ways to reduce operations and maintenance (O&M) costs while maintaining reliability.

As evidenced by Navigant’s Generation Knowledge Service (GKS), the average capacity factor of coal plants has declined by 20%-30%, which translates to a 20%-30% drop in gross revenue opportunity. Very few companies can easily adapt to this type of drop in gross revenue. At the same time, driven largely by increasing amounts of variable renewable generation, these coal plants have been asked to perform more as cycling plants, which drives up overall operating costs and reduces efficiency. To deal with the combination of lower realized revenue and higher operating costs, companies are evaluating their plants to determine if they can survive in the new world or if they should be repowered or retired. They are actively seeking new ways to reduce costs through fewer planned outages and higher operating efficiencies while maintaining high reliability to support the increased use of variable generation.

And to Make Things Worse: The Move from Big to Small Power

Additionally, with the rapid growth of distributed generation (DG), all central generation (coal, gas, nuclear, and wind) will face more changes in their role on the grid. DG installations are expected to reach 19 GW in 2016; thus, DG is growing faster than central station generation (26.1 GW additions, minus 7.9 GW retirements, using the referenced EIA forecast). On a 5-year basis (2015-2019), DG in the United States, with some variance by region, will grow almost twice as fast as central generation (98.4 GW vs. 57 GW).

Path Forward

As a path forward, generators must clearly define the mission of each generating unit to understand their new role and how to survive economically. To succeed, companies must do the following:

  1. Conduct a strategic review of generating assets and determine what, if any, changes need to be made in generation portfolio and/or in how these assets are managed under several regulatory and commodity pricing scenarios.
  2. Find ways to reduce O&M costs while maintaining the reliability required by the independent system operators during target operating periods (for plants that will continue to run in the near term).
  3. Have a strategy to manage significant reductions in staffing levels and loss of critical experience across the board, including dealing with the impacts on funding pensions and local economies when plants are retired.
  4. Plan for a changing workforce that will need to include deeper knowledge of digital technology and an understanding of how to optimize operations in a more variable power market.
  5. Aim to operate fossil assets globally, as companies that do so may find it easier to survive than generators focused solely on North America or Western Europe.
  6. Seek new sources of revenue to replace the capital-intensive position for large generating plants by considering investments in renewables and distributed energy resources.

An understanding of the above data points and how they affect your company and the rest of the industry is crucial to shaping our energy future. Navigant can help you develop and use this information to influence the key decision makers, regional transmission organizations, and state agencies that are shaping the future of the industry. If you’re not sitting at the dinner table shaping a future that works best for your company and your customers, then you just might be the entrée.

This post is the fourth in a series in which I will discuss each of the megatrends and the impacts (“so what?”) in more detail. My next blog will be about delivering shareholder value through mergers and acquisitions. Stay tuned.

Learn more about our clients, projects, solution offerings, and team at Navigant Energy Practice Overview.

 

Take Control of Your Future, Part III: Rising Number of Carbon Emissions Reduction Policies and Regulations

— May 16, 2016

Energy CloudMaggie Shober and Rob Neumann also contributed to this post.

My recent blog discussed seven megatrends that are fundamentally changing how we produce and use power. In the second part of the series, I focused on the power of customer choice and changing demands. Here, we will discuss the rising number of carbon emissions reduction policies and how this trend is fundamentally changing the power industry.

What’s Happening with Carbon Emissions Policies Globally?

The long-term impact of the Paris Climate Agreement will be significant. This agreement will focus on limiting global warming to well below 2°C (3.6°F) by the year 2100. Each nation sets its own target for reducing emissions and updates that mark each year. A record number of countries (175) signed the agreement on the first available day. Governments must now ratify and approve the agreement, which could take months or years. The agreement goes into effect once 55 countries representing at least 55% of global emissions formally join. It’s clear that the tone and tenor of the Paris Climate Agreement is providing a guiding light for nations to reduce emissions.

The biggest news was the full commitment of China. The country, together with United States, was one of the first to sign the final Paris Climate Agreement. The United States and China account for nearly 40% of global carbon emissions. It does appear that China is serious about reducing emissions, since the country has made significant investments in renewables, electric vehicles, green cities, and more. Already the world leader in wind power, China is set to overtake Germany this year in solar power (see chart below).

Renewable Energy Growth in Major Economies

Jan Blog 3

(Source: World Resources Institute)

We see that other countries are not waiting. This week, Germany announced a €17 billion ($19.2 billion) campaign—that’s right, billions—to boost energy efficiency. The ultimate goal is to cut the country’s energy consumption in half by 2050. This is part of meeting domestic and Paris Climate Agreement emissions reduction targets. The campaign could prove bearish for European Union (EU) carbon prices if it reduces demand for power and heating in Germany, the top economy (and emitter) of all the EU’s 28 member states.

Many other initiatives at the regional, country, state, and local levels are currently being designed and implemented in support of carbon emissions reductions, accelerated by the agreement. Importantly, the EU is seeking swift approval and implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement at the United Nation’s Bonn Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany this week.

U.S. Carbon Regulation

And then we have the Clean Power Plan (CPP). The CPP has been stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court until a final resolution of the case passes through the federal courts. Litigation may not be resolved until 2018, although it’s possible a resolution could be reached sooner. There has been a great deal of discussion on compliance with the CPP. Our analysis continues to show that cost-effective compliance includes a variety of options that are tailored to regional characteristics. A recent deep dive by Navigant into a southeastern state with modest renewable resources showed that trading with other states and developing energy efficiency programs and portfolios are key strategies for reducing overall compliance costs. Compliance strategies depend on existing resources; older coal resources on the margin for retirement are able to get a large bang for their buck on the emissions balancing sheet through replacement with gas, renewables, and energy efficiency.

Navigant also investigated the effects of deploying additional energy efficiency resources in order to decrease CO2 emissions in two regions: California and PJM. We found that additional energy efficiency reduces CO2 emissions, overall cost of compliance, and system congestion. The cost to serve load is reduced by 3%-5% in California and PJM. System congestion relief is also likely to occur, which further reduces the cost to serve load. This last point is important, since large, urban utilities are focused on reducing congestion points—and energy efficiency can be used as a solution.

Other Ongoing Developments

Even though the CPP is on hold, many individual states, cities, and utilities continue to move toward the CPP goals to reduce carbon emissions, plan for an advanced energy economy, and meet cleaner generation goals. The CPP parameters are being used as a guide for emissions reductions:

  • Last month, Maryland lawmakers approved the Clean Energy Jobs Act of 2016 (SB 921) by large majorities in both houses, increasing the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 25% by 2020.
  • As part of the New York Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) proceedings, the New York Public Service Commission introduced an order that requires placing a value on carbon emissions, focusing on distributed generation portfolios, and compensating customers for their distributed electricity generation.
  • Over the past year, six states led by Tennessee (plus Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, and Pennsylvania), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and a few other national organizations have been developing a National Energy Efficiency Registry (NEER) to allow states to track and trade energy efficiency emissions credits for CPP and emissions compliance purposes.
  • Last week, San Diego announced its pledge to get 100% of its energy from clean and renewable power with a Climate Action Plan that sets the boldest citywide clean energy law in the United States. With this announcement, San Diego is the largest U.S. city to join the growing trend of cities choosing clean energy. Already, at least 12 other U.S. cities, including San Francisco, San Jose, Burlington (Vermont), and Aspen, have committed to 100% clean energy. Globally, numerous cities have committed to 100% clean energy, including Copenhagen, Denmark; Munich, Germany; and the Isle of Wight, England.
  • Meanwhile, many utilities are decommissioning or converting their existing coal plants and investing in utility-scale renewables, as well as distributed energy resources. As example, AEP is in the process of decommissioning 11 coal plants, representing approximately 6,500 MW of coal-fired generating capacity as part of its plan to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The company is simultaneously making significant investments in renewables, with a total capacity of close to 4,000 MW by mid-2016.

What Does This All Mean?

The sustainability objectives of government, policymakers, utilities, and their customers are more closely aligned than ever before. In my last blog, I discussed how customer choice and changing customer demands are shifting toward supporting sustainability. States and regulators will continue to discuss how sustainable targets can be met without affecting jobs and the access to safe, reliable, and affordable power. And utilities will continue to evolve to support cleaner, more distributed, and more intelligent energy generation, distribution, and consumption.

Recommended action items for states and utilities include:

  • Understand the possibilities, costs, and full impacts of low-carbon generation and distributed energy resources (energy efficiency, demand response, and others).
  • Implement a workable framework and develop an integrated plan to move toward lower emissions goals, since it’s likely that decreased emission requirements will be in place in the near future.
  • Leverage existing state and neighboring utility designs and efforts to develop joint plans, policies, and goals.
  • Implement (pilot) initiatives that include renewable energy and other low-carbon generation into a reduced emissions framework while also incorporating energy efficiency and distributed generation as resources into the decreased emissions planning process.

This post is the third in a series in which I will discuss each of the megatrends and the impacts (“so what?”) in more detail. My next blog will cover shifting power-generating sources. Stay tuned.

Learn more about our clients, projects, solution offerings, and team at Navigant Energy Practice Overview.

 

Blog Articles

Most Recent

By Date

Tags

Clean Transportation, Digital Utility Strategies, Electric Vehicles, Energy Technologies, Policy & Regulation, Renewable Energy, Smart Energy Practice, Smart Energy Program, Transportation Efficiencies, Utility Transformations

By Author


{"userID":"","pageName":"Jan Vrins","path":"\/author\/janvrins?page=2","date":"2\/25\/2018"}