Navigant Research Blog

The Future of Energy: Open or Closed?

— January 20, 2015

Among technology giants, two predominant business models dictate the way in which consumers connect (and interact) with the broader Internet and the way in which innovation unfolds: open and closed.  This tug-of-war between open versus closed has been going on ever since the Internet first started to hit the mainstream.  As described by GigaOM, “It’s a battle that has been at the heart of the technology industry for most of its modern history.”

Open models seek to facilitate universal access and maximize creativity, but potentially breed chaos, error, and design catered to the lowest common denominator.  Closed systems limit the number of participants and exert more control over the flow of information, but can make it easier to roll out dynamic products while minimizing the potential for error.  In more specific terms, it’s a battle between the Google, Android, and Adobe business models and those of Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft.  Each carries with it specific advantages and disadvantages.

Advent of the Cloud

Although still in its infancy, in the emerging Energy Cloud, the battleground is divided similarly, with advocates of open and closed models both beginning to stake claims.

The Energy Cloud – the end result of an evolutionary shift away from a financial and engineering model that relies on large centralized power plants owned by utilities to one that is more diverse, in terms of sources of generation and ownership of assets, and enables the integration of new, distributed energy resources in addition to traditional generation – provides a rich ecosystem for breeding innovation as energy becomes increasingly democratized.  As depicted in the graphic below, the hallmark of the Energy Cloud is a shift away from one-way power flows to bidirectional flows in which consumers become both consumers and producers of power:

The Energy Cloud

(Source: Navigant Research)

Lessons from the Revolution

There are many lessons from the Internet revolution that can be applied to the Energy Cloud.  Open and closed Energy Cloud models alike must balance the need for access, reliability, safety, and ultimately, innovation.

The question comes down to this: will the Energy Cloud take the form of a walled garden, as CompuServe and America Online attempted in the early days of the Internet and Facebook is doing today, or will it remain an open landscape?  Or, perhaps of more relevance to stakeholders, which model best serves the goal of fostering a thriving, ubiquitous Energy Cloud?

Likely, both open and closed models will play key roles, as the Energy Cloud will serve multiple objectives simultaneously.  According to an essay on the topic from PricewaterhouseCoopers, innovation is almost never an either/or choice.  As most companies have discovered, their innovation goals involve a complex mix of closed and open models that is uniquely tailored to their specific innovation objectives.

Customers and Providers

For the incumbent utility, for example, objectives remain focused on preserving market share and maintaining safety and reliability while also growing profitability.  For the consumer, access to inexpensive and reliable power around the clock and choice in how and by whom their energy is produced remain key objectives.  Some stakeholders will seek to maximize either one of these positions, while others will seek to bridge the two.

In either case, the emergence of the Energy Cloud will require a rethinking of standards, protocols, and relationships among stakeholders.  With a slew of innovative technologies gaining market share – solar PV, distributed storage, home energy management systems – the integration of these assets into an efficient and resilient system remains among the greatest challenges ahead for all Energy Cloud stakeholders, and will likely be where the greatest emphasis on innovation will occur.

 

In Review: Energy Metatrends

— January 14, 2015

In Navigant Research’s 2013 white paper, Smart Energy: Five Metatrends to Watch in 2013 and Beyond, we discussed key shifts in the energy landscape.  In this post, I’ll review those trends and discuss which have come to pass and which have yet to materialize or have fizzled out.

The white paper covered the following metatrends:

  • Energy is becoming increasingly democratized
  • The role of government innovation funds is changing
  • Technologies are converging
  • The Southern African Power Pool is becoming the new BRIC
  • The role of utilities is changing

Energy Democratization

Distributed generation (DG), which lies at the heart of the energy democratization shift, has gained significant traction in recent years.  The growth of DG – spurred in part by greater consumer awareness, cost reductions for technologies like solar PV, and improved financing models, among other things – is one of the most dynamic factors driving the evolution of the traditional utility business model.  In Navigant Research’s report, Global Distributed Generation Deployment Forecast, we state that between 2014 and 2023, DG is expected to displace the need for at least 321 GW of new large-scale power plants, valued at more than $1 trillion in power plant construction revenue.  Annual DG capacity additions are expected to outpace centralized generation capacity additions by 2018, underscoring the importance of this metatrend going forward.

Government Innovation Funds

The white paper argued that quasi-governmental funds would step in to fill the void left by private equity and venture capital exiting the energy sector.  The role of government funds would expand to drive innovative technologies from R&D to commercialization.  While this has proven to be partly true, significant capital has exited the energy space, leaving many fledgling companies (and technologies) exposed to market realities.  Spectacular flameouts have rocked the cleantech financing landscape.  That said, governments remain key sources of funding across the innovation lifecycle, so the jury is still out with respect to this metatrend.

Technologies Converging

As discussed in our recent webinar on January 13, Energy Storage for Renewables Integration, storage reigns supreme within this metatrend, allowing for greater flexibility in managing electrons across both space and time.  Whether in an electric vehicle battery or advanced batteries deployed as peaking plants on the grid, energy storage has proven to be a linchpin technology unlocking the potential of distributed wind, solar PV, and microgrids.  For example, hybrid solar and storage deployments create exciting opportunities for energy consumers at the edge of the grid.  This is certainly a trend that has begun to emerge in a significant way.

Southern African Power Pool = the New BRIC

This metatrend is among the more difficult to measure, as specific goals remain longer term.  Economic growth appears to be gaining momentum across the region, but developments in Brazil, India, and China continue to overshadow the emergence of dynamic energy economies in Africa.  There is a general sense that investment to date in emerging energy technologies and infrastructure throughout emerging BRIC markets is just the tip of the iceberg.

Utility Role Changing

The changing role of the utility remains the most dynamic metatrend overall.  While predictions of a “utility death spiral” may prove to be overly dire, most acknowledge that utility business models will need to adapt to changing electrical grid realities.  In most cases, this will entail more complex partnerships with customers as utilities move toward more integrated service offerings.  In other cases, utilities may narrow their focus on one or two aspects of the grid, essentially becoming ”poles and wire” companies.

Summarizing, three out of five of these metatrends have materialized in significant ways.  While it is still too early to tell with the others, heading into 2015, we can expect a sustained global shift toward localized power generation and increased pressure on utilities to adopt (or at least explore) alternative business models.

For more on these dynamic changes and others, please see Navigant Research’s free white paper, Smart Grid: 10 Trends to Watch in 2015 and Beyond.

 

California Sets an Ambitious Energy Agenda

— January 9, 2015

Living in California, it’s easy to forget that the rest of the world doesn’t always see things in the same way.  Given the ambitious energy and climate change goals outlined in Governor Brown’s inaugural address on January 5, this divergence may only grow.

What exactly did the governor propose?  Here’s a snapshot summary of targets he set for the state by 2030:

  • Increase from one-third to one-half the portion of the state’s electricity derived from renewable sources
  • Reduce today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50%
  • Double the efficiency of energy use in existing buildings while also making building heating fuels cleaner

The Center of Innovation

For investors in and developers of clean energy technology, Brown’s targets mean that California will continue to lead the United States in terms of R&D and commercialization of renewable energy, electric vehicles, and smart building automation products.

Perhaps the biggest surprise for skeptics of Left Coast policy aspirations is that data suggests California is likely to meet its AB 32 goal of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to 431 million tons by 2020.  While the rest of the world continues to heat up and multilateral emissions reductions efforts by the United Nations in Lima, Peru late last year once again faltered, the only U.S. state to pass climate legislation with concrete objectives appears to be on its way to actually reaching those targets, despite a long list of hiccups and controversies.

Changing the Game

Will California meet Brown’s new goals?  That’s impossible to predict, but the real questions now lie in the details.  I, for one, was delighted to see the governor mention microgrids, since apparently he agrees that distributed renewables (such as rooftop solar PV) will be game changers.  The best way to transform such distributed energy resources from problems for the grid into solutions for climate change – including resilient communities that can keep the lights on during extreme weather events – is through the islanding capabilities of microgrids.

When I first started covering wind power in the ‘80s for the national trade press, I often dealt with skeptical East Coast editors.  “Do those wind turbines really work?” they would ask.  “Isn’t that just one of those California things?”  This was, of course, during Brown’s original tenure as governor, when he was dubbed Governor Moonbeam by the national press.  From a handful of wind farms jump-started by flawed but effective tax credits, a global industry was spawned that now generates an accumulated 321,559 MW of electrical capacity, or just under 3% of the world’s total electricity, according to Navigant Research’s most recent World Market Update report on the wind industry.  That’s up from less than 1% of California’s total electricity in 1985, 30 years ago.

Sometimes, the only way to leap forward is to go out on a limb on the policy front, and then see if entrepreneurs and capital markets are up to the task.  Only time will tell which is the wiser course – the prudent go-slow pace of national politics or the risk-taking adventure being drawn up in Sacramento.  I know where I’m placing my bets.

 

Net Metering Fight Comes to New Mexico

— January 8, 2015

The fight over solar interconnection and net metering – a topic I’ve covered previously in several blogs (here, here and here) – has come to my home state.  In a rate case filed in December, Public Service of New Mexico (PNM) asked that customers with their own solar generation capacity solar customers be charged $6 per kilowatt (kW) of capacity, per month, beginning in 2016.  It also proposed that “banking” of excess power sold back to the utility be discontinued; this means that rather than selling back excess kilowatt-hours (kWh) generated in March for top dollar in July, solar customers will receive the net value of the energy in the same month that it’s generated.

Girding for a Fight

Solar industry advocates suggest that the plan will severely dampen demand.  New Mexico has abundant sunshine, but a relatively poor economic base, and solar adoption in the Land of Enchantment has been lower than one might expect.  According to IREC, New Mexico ranked 9th nationwide in total PV installations, with 257 megawatts (MW), at the end of 2013.  With accelerating economic recovery and the expiration of federal tax credits just 2 years away, New Mexico is poised for strong growth in 2015-16.

And that’s why PNM is making this move now.  Its argument that non-solar customers are increasingly subsidizing solar customers has merit, and growth in installations is only going to cost PNM more as it not only loses revenue from solar customers, but also must invest in its grid to support increased two-way electricity flow and changing load profiles.

Hitting Home

I’ve studied the proposal with more than just professional interest.  I recently got a quote for a solar array on my own home, in southern New Mexico, and while PNM isn’t my utility, El Paso Electric, my local provider, will surely be watching the proceedings closely.  Here’s my take on the situation, both as an analyst and as a potential solar customer.

First, $6/kW is fairly substantial, from a solar customer’s point of view.  PNM says that the average New Mexico system in its territory is 3-5 kW, but solar installers suggest that recent installations average 6 or 7 kW.  In order to serve my 2,800 square foot home, a 10kW system was proposed.

So while PNM says its fee would average $18-$30/month, my own system would cost $60/month under the PNM proposal.  That would extend the payback period for my system from 8 years to 11 years.  But, unless I sell my house in the next 10 years, it’s still a good investment.

The solar industry, however, doesn’t agree.  A recent article in the Albuquerque Journal offered detailed numbers to illustrate how PNM’s fees will change the solar equation to the point where consumers are better off sticking with the utility.

Payback Period

There are some flaws with this analysis, however.  First, solar panel prices have been falling dramatically, and should continue to do so for many more years.  So the math outlined in the Journal, based on current prices, will likely become moot in another year or two.  Second, the article fails to ascribe value to the fact that once the system is paid for, the homeowner pays only the connection fee to the utility.

In my case, the average monthly bill would fall from $223 (today) to $60.  Call it a $200 per month saving to account for rate increases.  Even with PNM’s proposed connection fee, the system will easily last long enough to support the investment –.

New Mexico’s installed base of solar systems is likely to double or triple over the next decade.  It’s not reasonable to expect utilities to interconnect these customers for free, pay them peak prices for non-peak production, and spread those and other costs over the shrinking base of rate payers.  But I do think it’s reasonable to question the $6/kW figure and ask PNM to justify it—especially since Arizona’s compromise plan last year came in at a far lower level.

 

Blog Articles

Most Recent

By Date

Tags

Clean Transportation, Electric Vehicles, Policy & Regulation, Renewable Energy, Smart Energy Practice, Smart Energy Program, Smart Grid Practice, Smart Transportation Practice, Smart Transportation Program, Utility Innovations

By Author


{"userID":"","pageName":"Renewable Energy","path":"\/tag\/renewable-energy","date":"1\/25\/2015"}