Adapt or die: How utilities will cope with technology change | RenewEconomy

Adapt or die: How utilities will cope with technology change

As technology evolves, energy companies will need to evolve, or face extinction. The more they block emerging competitors, the more they encourage new solutions.

share

WE are part of a vicious technology war on many fronts, as entrenched interests struggle to defend their turf. The fundamental shifts are from traditional physical, centralised technology solutions to a rapidly evolving mix of virtual, decentralised, modular, retail- focused solutions.

In media, we see online versus hard copy battling. In transport, virtual transport via communications and electronic devices compete with physical transport and service provision. In water, traditional large water and sewage networks with large dams and treatment plants confront efficiency, local solutions and even waterless solutions.

In energy, the battle is between traditional centralised energy systems and the combination of virtual solutions, smart management systems, high efficiency and distributed generation. Commentator Giles Parkinson has described the crisis facing the electricity industry as its “Kodak moment’: Kodak was an early leader in digital photography, but couldn’t bring itself to cannibalise its core film business by promoting its new approach. So others did it.

All existing communication, energy, water, and goods and services retailers are desperately trying to develop new business models and undermine, out-compete or absorb competition from agile, mass-produced, consumer-focused alternatives.

A recent paper from energy company AGL (Economic Policy Working Paper 31) revived the 1980s term ‘death spiral’ as it discussed the future of conventional energy companies. Their cost structure is dominated by capital costs and assets that take a long time to build and last a long time. If energy consumption stops growing (or declines) while peak demand keeps rising, they have to spread increasing fixed costs across lower than expected sales.

So they must increase prices and fixed charges to balance their books— but this makes competing options more attractive, which makes the situation even worse: the death spiral.

Policy makers are struggling to understand the emerging reality. For example, they still treat electricity networks as ‘natural monopolies’ and look at emerging technologies in terms of their impacts on the existing electricity industry.

As I pointed out to the Victorian Competition and Consumer Commission, mobile phone businesses are not paid based on how much they save landline networks. So why are emerging energy solutions such as PV paid based on how much they save incumbent electricity companies?

The existing electricity industry faces a fundamental problem: the harder they work to block emerging competitors, the more they encourage new solutions and the greater the risk of pent-up demand for alternatives exploding uncontrollably when costs fall enough and technology works well enough.

PV is a great example: denying PV owners a fair feed-in tariff encourages a shift to including storage and even going off-grid. Major appliance manufacturers such as Samsung are moving into these markets with enormous economies of scale and sophisticated retail marketing capability.

As the AGL paper points out, these developments create potentially serious challenges for social justice policy. Wealthier people are better placed to invest in PV, energy efficiency and storage to manage their costs. AGL points out that, while families with children at home comprise only 16% of their customer base, they are 24% of customers at risk of disconnection. Yet many are not eligible for welfare support. These families are paying the price for succumbing to building industry marketing and government incentives to buy big, inefficient houses on the urban fringe with poor access to public transport and services. So their problems go far beyond their difficulties with electricity bills.

If we focus on reducing peak demand as well as total consumption, the ‘death spiral’ can be managed. As US energy expert Amory Lovins pointed out many years ago, the electricity sector depreciates the value of its assets each year, gaining tax benefits. So as long as they don’t have to build more capacity, they can hold energy prices stable while consumption continues to decline.

As part of our attack on peak demand, we will face a choice between higher fixed charges and time of use (TOU) pricing. TOU is the lesser of two evils, as high fixed charges are regressive and disempowering.

We need to use TOU as part of management of demand, to send signals and manage costs, but we need much more sophisticated and equitable approaches. Victoria’s approach illustrates the problem: consumers pay a high price from 7 am to 11 pm on weekdays. Low income households can’t work around that structure. Alternatives with lower prices from 10 to 2 would allow them to cook a main lunch meal and run appliances. The peak does seem to pass by 7.30 pm, so prices could drop then.

Maybe options with a voluntary limit on peak demand in certain time blocks could also work. In Italy, most households have a 3 kilowatt demand limit—and they think this is pretty normal and reasonable. The Bushlight remote power scheme for Indigenous communities includes negotiated load shedding hierarchies. Their approach shows it’s possible to work with consumers to set priorities to limit peak electricity demand.

As sustainable energy costs decline, there is an increasing financial case for government to deliver social welfare by providing energy efficient equipment and PV systems instead of or as well as traditional energy price reductions. Housing financiers should allow extra funds for higher building efficiency, efficient equipment and PV in their mortgages, and encourage people to consider smaller, more adaptable housing.

This article was first published in ReNew magazine. Reproduced with permission from the author.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 Comments
  1. Gillian 8 years ago

    2016 will be an interesting year in NSW. That’s when the 60c FIT for a large batch of PV installed in 2010 will end.

    I for one, will be very interested to see how the numbers stack up for adding more panels and batteries. Be dammed if I’ll stay aboard a grid that has been so badly managed that I keep paying large electricity bills despite investing in PV.

    At the very least, I expect to see the following:

    > TOU meters rolled out in NSW
    > Net metering for rooftop PV
    > Annual program of investment by NSW govt in utility scale renewables

    If they want me to stay on-grid, they have to show they understand that the future lies with greater efficiency, demand management and renewables.

    You put your finger on it when you said:

    “The existing electricity industry faces a fundamental problem: the harder they work to block emerging competitors, the more they encourage new solutions and the greater the risk of pent-up demand for alternatives exploding uncontrollably when costs fall enough and technology works well enough.”

    It’s not just the industry that needs to understand this problem, the government has to keep it front and centre. I’ve got my eye on 2016, and so have 1,000s of other NSW households with rooftop PV.

  2. Steve 8 years ago

    Another insightful article from Alan Pears, and some excellent suggestions.

    It again shows that there is no serious energy future plan and probably only a token commitment to making that energy future clean.

    Maybe this whole clean energy thing is just a passing fad. But it makes one wonder why others bother…

    California:
    Adapting Electric Utility Business Models
    http://www.rmi.org/rmi_pge_adapting_utility_business_models

    Germany:
    Power-to-Gas: Storing renewable energy in the natural gas grid
    http://www.solar-fuel.net/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationen/Wind2SNG_ZSW_IWES_SolarFuel_FVEE.pdf

  3. Thomas Edison III 8 years ago

    Another great article from you guys.

    I think the answer is quite clear.

    Seperate out generation and distribution. The rate payers have paid for the grid to be build over the years so they should have the right to use it for a price. We should be able to buy generation directly from solar projects which are based outside the city and simply pay a tolling price for the right to move the electrons to our place of consumption.

  4. Samad Khan 8 years ago

    The next revolution is coming soon, whereby our daily use appliances will have enough inbuilt energy storage capacities to run for a few hours with the stored solar energy and with even less grid power.

Comments are closed.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.