Back
From the suburbs to the barrier islands, the state’s local cooperatives are using aggregated battery systems to weather outages and protect consumers’ wallets.
In July 2022, a fierce summer storm rocked Wake Electric, a North Carolina cooperative serving nearly 60,000 households and other customers from the dense suburbs of Raleigh, the state capital, to rural areas along the Virginia border and in the coastal plain. Wind downed lines and knocked out power for thousands for over seven hours.
“It was one of these very difficult outages where we had a line laying across a road,” said Don Bowman, the co-op’s senior vice president and assistant general manager. “We had to coordinate a lot of activities, and it took us a while to get this power back on.”
But Eagle Chase, a small housing community equipped with a propane-fueled generator and a 1-megawatt Tesla battery pack, was almost completely unscathed. The devices form a microgrid that can function without the co-op’s larger distribution system of poles and wires.
“The success story,” Bowman said, “is the Eagle Chase development saw an outage of less than about 58 milliseconds.”
The Eagle Chase battery is among three storage systems in Wake Electric’s territory. The second, in Wake Forest, is a 1-megawatt-hour battery paired with a 500-kilowatt solar farm; its purpose is to dispatch solar electrons when the sun doesn’t shine. The third, a 5-megawatt battery located at the co-op’s main substation, stores power that can be discharged when supplies are constrained and electricity prices are high.
The systems illustrate three key advantages of battery storage, Bowman said: providing resiliency, increasing the reliability of renewable energy, and responding to periods of high demand.
“We have three systems, and I think that we check all three of those boxes differently with each of the projects,” he said.
Wake Electric isn’t alone. As of April 2025, rural co-ops across North Carolina had 43 battery projects operating or in development, according to the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Co-ops here were spearheading more grid batteries than those in any other state; Alaska was a distant second with 13 projects.
The co-ops say they aren’t trying to win any national contests. They’re just trying to do right by the members they serve.
“Community support is one of the pillars we drive toward,” said Erik Hall, a director at the North Carolina Electric Membership Corp., a statewide entity that owns the battery assets and provides generation and transmission for 25 rural cooperatives. “What can we do to support the membership?”
The battery investments are partly a response to challenges now sweeping the country: Skyrocketing demand from data centers and other factors are constraining supplies and triggering expensive grid upgrades, driving up the costs of electricity.
Storing electrons for use when demand is at its peak and prices are high is a huge money saver for these customer-owned nonprofits — especially as the costs of batteries are falling and federal tax credits for the resources are still available.
“What these battery systems have been able to do is really save folks money while increasing resilience, and helping with reliability sort of across the footprint,” said Rob Greskowiak, chief commercial officer for Lightshift Energy, a storage developer that has worked with several co-ops outside North Carolina, including in neighboring Virginia. “It’s really an economic story.”
Money isn’t the only motivator. Co-ops often serve far-flung corners of the state, where an investor-owned utility like Duke Energy would earn a meager profit. Many of these areas — from rugged mountains to fragile barrier islands — are also prone to outages from extreme weather.
That’s why almost a decade ago, Tideland Electric Member Corp. set up the state’s first cooperative-run microgrid on Ocracoke Island — complete with 62 solar panels, a battery pack, and a diesel generator. The system kept the power on for island residents in the summer of 2017, after a construction crew accidentally severed a transmission line to the mainland.
“The solar worked,” Heidi Smith, a Tideland co-op manager, said back then. “The Tesla batteries were able to add power to the system.”
North Carolina’s co-ops also have set a target of zeroing out their carbon emissions by midcentury, though, unlike Duke, they’re not required to by law.
“It’s in our mission statement to constantly be moving toward cleaner energy solutions,” Bowman of Wake Electric co-op explained.
The benefits and costs of the individual battery systems can be spread out among the co-ops and their millions of customers, since all these storage devices are managed by the North Carolina Electric Membership Corp.
“Having all of these assets is wonderful,” the corporation’s Hall said. “But if you can’t aggregate them and utilize them when they’re needed, then you’re not really bringing to bear the value of them.”
That means calling on the storage assets when high demand sends electricity prices soaring or dispatching them during extreme weather events to enhance reliability.
“I sound like I’m tooting our horn, and I am,” Hall said. “We’ve built one of the most innovative and capable [distributed energy resource management] systems in the country.”
“I don’t call it a virtual power plant, because it sounds very financial, economic,” he added. “Our systems are grounded in reliability.”
Still, not every move made by the state’s co-ops has been in lockstep with the clean energy transition. North Carolina Electric Membership Corp. is pursuing a large new gas-generation plant in Person County in conjunction with Duke and already owns two single-cycle, peaking gas plants outright. It’s also made a long-shot bid to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that, if successful, could upend how transmission upgrades are paid for and stall new solar from coming onto the grid.
The split screen just reinforces that batteries are not, for many adopters, first and foremost about curbing carbon emissions.
“North Carolina can be viewed as a leader in this space, but I think it’s important to reiterate that it’s not because of sustainability goals or clean energy goals,” Greskowiak said. “The economic case for battery storage is only going to grow. The rest of the country is catching up.”
The startup is turning on a 200-battery project in South Dakota — and pioneering an electric utility rate that could help boost thermal energy storage more widely.
A giant energy-storage project in South Dakota will soon turn cheap wind energy into clean industrial steam for a neighboring biofuels facility.
The startup Antora Energy said it recently began booting up a 5-gigawatt-hour thermal energy storage system at Poet’s ethanol-production plant near Big Stone City, close to the Minnesota border. With a fleet of more than 200 batteries, Antora’s project is expected to become the largest of its kind worldwide when it’s fully operating later this year.
San Jose, California–based Antora has likened its setup to an enormous toaster. Clean electricity runs through a large resistance heater to warm big blocks of solid carbon to extremely high temperatures for days on end. That heat can then be used to generate steam for industrial processes — which typically rely on fossil fuels — or to produce electricity on demand, including for power-hungry data centers.
Yet Antora’s project is notable for more than just its technology. The startup is also pioneering an electricity tariff, developed with the utility Otter Tail Power, that is designed to improve the bottom line of thermal energy systems and to ensure they benefit everyone on the grid. Experts say the new energy rate could be a model for the fledgling sector.
The installation itself “adds another proof point to the technology being used to help decarbonize industry,” said Melissa Hulting, director for industrial decarbonization at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). “But the distinguishing factor is the tariff.”
Antora is one of dozens of thermal energy startups that are using a variety of materials — such as crushed rocks, firebricks, and molten salt — to store renewable electricity and deliver low-carbon heat to factories that make fuels, chemicals, construction materials, and even beer. In the United States, industrial heat use accounts for roughly 12% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Thermal batteries by firms like Antora, Brenmiller Energy, Electrified Thermal Solutions, and Rondo Energy can already support temperatures at or above 750 degrees Celsius (1,380 degrees Fahrenheit) — hot enough to meet nearly 75% of all industrial heat demand in the United States, according to a 2023 report by The Brattle Group for C2ES and the Renewable Thermal Collaborative. Antora, for its part, says it can store heat up to around 2,400℃.
But many projects are still in the pilot and demonstration stages. Of the few large-scale commercial systems operating today, most are in Europe, where companies can more easily access wholesale electricity markets that “can help projects pencil out,” Hulting said.
In the U.S., by contrast, utility rates for large industrial customers are among the biggest barriers to reaching widespread deployment of thermal batteries. Antora’s flagship project offers a real-world solution that other utilities and companies could replicate across the country.
“There’s a really big potential here if we can get those rate structures right in the U.S.,” Hulting added.
Antora’s Big Stone City project will be roughly 1,000 times larger than its 5-megawatt-hour pilot system near Fresno, California.
It launched the smaller project in late 2023 at a Wellhead Electric facility. Months later, Antora raised $150 million from corporate and venture investors to ramp up thermal-battery production at its San Jose factory, which the company just expanded into a three-building manufacturing campus.
Justin Briggs, Antora’s chief operating officer and co-founder, said the sprawling South Dakota system took less than a year to build on an empty lot beside Poet’s facility. He declined to discuss costs for the 5-GWh system, but he noted that the Australian investment fund Grok Ventures provided the financing needed to bring the installation to life.
“We really wanted to show how fast this technology could be deployed at scale,” Briggs said.
Antora and Grok Ventures jointly own the system and will sell heat to Poet under a long-term offtake agreement. The batteries will pipe steam over the fence to the bioprocessing plant, which uses copious amounts of low-temperature heat to turn corn into ethanol. Right now, at least some of that steam comes from boilers inside the 475-MW coal power plant that Otter Tail operates next door.
The novel electricity rate is key to allowing Antora to deliver competitively priced clean heat.
Noah Long, Antora’s director of state and regulatory affairs, said the problem with traditional retail utility rates is that they’re like peanut butter: They spread the average costs of generating and distributing power across all customers, regardless of whether they use power during the busiest, costliest times of day or during off-peak hours.
But thermal energy systems are designed to be highly flexible. If a wind or solar farm is producing more electricity than the grid needs, the batteries can absorb electrons that might otherwise go to waste. In that way, they curb their reliance on the grid when electricity supplies are limited, which in turn limits strain on the system and avoids the need for expensive grid upgrades.
Existing rate structures don’t always reflect such nuances, so project developers don’t see savings from using cheap, clean power and can’t capitalize on their ability to help balance the grid. That can make it harder for the technology to compete with inexpensive steam from boilers fired by natural gas or coal.
To solve this, Antora and Otter Tail developed a voluntary “thermal market energy pricing rider,” which pairs the timing and volume of Antora’s electricity draw with periods of surplus local renewables production. Technically, the batteries are plugged into the regional energy system and can use grid power at any time. But the tariff disincentives this approach, including by applying penalties if customers go beyond their agreed-on service baseline, and by charging regular market pricing for any power drawn above and beyond that baseline, said Francesco Aimone, an industrial electrification senior fellow at C2ES.
Utility regulators have approved the tariff in the three states where Otter Tail operates: Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Farther west, in California, policymakers are considering a Senate bill that would likewise update electricity rates to help manufacturers switch to using electricity for industrial heat.
“This is a win-win, because the customer can save money, and the electricity that might otherwise have gone unused is now being used,” Stephanie Hoff, Otter Tail’s director of communications, said of the utility’s tariff. “It also enables a new technology that reduces the carbon-intensity of industrial processes that rely on steam or heat.”
Under the new arrangement, the two companies will actively exchange data about how much electricity Antora needs to recharge its batteries for the following day as well as Otter Tail’s estimated pricing, similar to how day-ahead trading works in wholesale electricity markets.
“It’s a kind of dance that they’re going to continue to do day in and day out to try to get a good outcome for everyone,” Aimone said. Antora is “taking the risk on market pricing to make sure that they can deliver heat to their customer at a certain rate.”
Hoff noted that if Otter Tail does need to upgrade its electric system to serve a large-load customer, the tariff requires that customer to pay those costs directly in order to avoid raising rates for other grid users. Antora, for example, said it worked with the utility to build a 34.5-kilovolt transmission line to connect the thermal storage system to the grid.
Aimone said the tariff’s emphasis on using existing grid assets and intermittent energy sources is particularly important. As the country moves (ever so slightly) toward electrifying industrial heat and other manufacturing processes, it’s crucial that the shift avoids overburdening the grid or making electricity even more expensive for everyone else.
“One thing we want to make sure as we’re talking about industrial electrification or load growth … is, What does it mean for affordability?” Aimone said. “Flexible loads are really important for making that happen.”
A total of 112 gigawatts of batteries were deployed around the world in 2025 — 10 times the amount added just four years prior.
See more from Canary Media’s “Chart of the Week” column.
First came the solar. Now, the batteries have arrived.
Installations of grid batteries, which can store solar and other energy for later use, surged by 48% in 2025 from the year prior, per new data from BloombergNEF. A total of 112 gigawatts of battery storage capacity was installed worldwide in 2025 — a record high that represents a tenfold increase over the amount constructed in 2021.
So, where are all of these batteries sprouting up? The short answer: mostly in China and the United States.
China alone installed more than half of the world’s grid battery capacity last year. The U.S., meanwhile, accounted for 16%.
Other places are seeing rapid uptake, too. Sun-soaked Australia grew its battery installations by a factor of nearly six last year, albeit from a pretty small base of just 827 megawatts in 2024. The U.K., which shuttered its last coal plant in 2024, saw installations nearly double between 2024 and 2025, to 2.6 GW. Meanwhile, across the broader sub-Saharan Africa region, installations roughly quintupled to 4.3 GW.
Battery installations are now starting to catch up to solar installations, BNEF says. A decade ago, the world was installing 56 MW of solar for every 1 MW of storage. Last year, that ratio was 6-to-1. This year, BNEF expects it to drop to 4-to-1.
The key driver of this growth is the ever-decreasing cost of energy storage, with lithium-ion battery prices dropping by more than 90% over the last 15 years.
The case for batteries is also strengthening as the world builds an incredible amount of wind and solar, since the technology can stockpile wind and solar power when it’s abundant to dispatch later when the grid needs it.
BNEF expects the storage boom to continue as data centers surge onto the grid — especially in the U.S. — and as power demand rises because of the electrification of vehicles and buildings.
The firm forecasts that the world will install a total of 158 GW of batteries in 2026, resulting in 41% year-over-year growth. Although the pace tapers off a bit from there through 2030, BNEF projects that by the end of the decade, annual additions will top 200 GW — more than double the record-setting amount seen last year.
A bill advancing through California’s legislature would create pathways for virtual power plants to compete with fossil-fueled peaker plants — a move that could help the state curb its fast-rising utility rates.
Virtual power plants are aggregations of small-scale batteries, electric vehicles, smart thermostats, and other customer-owned devices that can be called upon to provide cheap capacity to the grid. VPP programs already exist in California, but the state’s utility and grid regulatory structures don’t offer a clear way for VPPs to replace peaker plants.
Senate Bill 913, introduced by state Sen. Josh Becker, a Democrat, would allow VPPs to “compete on a level playing field with traditional power sources to provide grid reliability at the lowest cost.” The bill, which lays out a slew of policy changes, passed out of the California Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee earlier this month, a first step on the way to a potential vote before the full state Senate and Assembly.
Gas-fired peaker plants are a major driver of California’s rising electricity bills. Most of the state’s aging peaker plants are used only during a handful of hours each year when electricity demand is particularly high, but utility customers are required to pay for them to be available year-round in case of emergency.
VPPs can accomplish this job at a much lower cost, their advocates say, because customers have already paid to install these devices in their homes and businesses. The potential is vast: Millions of homes across California have devices that can turn down power use, and hundreds of thousands have batteries that can inject power onto the grid — all of which can be used to reduce the need for those “peaker” power plants.
Still, SB 913 may face an uphill climb, even in California’s Democratic-controlled government.
Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric, the state’s major utilities, haven’t openly opposed the legislation. But VPP advocates say the utilities have quietly pushed back against programs that might undermine their ability to invest in — and earn guaranteed profits on — grid infrastructure to serve peak electricity demand.
The California Public Utilities Commission, whose five members have all been appointed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, has taken a number of actions in recent years that have reduced the ability of customer-owned resources to serve grid needs. Newsom also vetoed a slate of pro-VPP legislation last year.
But Becker and SB 913’s supporters are hopeful that mounting concerns about energy affordability could push the VPP legislation over the finish line this year. The bill is backed by clean energy companies, environmental groups, and consumer advocates.
“This is part of a nationwide effort that you’re starting to see, which is all about making better use of the clean energy resources that people already have in their homes to both lower cost and to improve reliability and to reduce pollution,” Becker, who’s authored several utility cost-containment and VPP bills in the past few years, told Canary Media. “I’m hopeful that now that more and more folks are focused on these things, we can move the ball forward.”
At its core, SB 913 is aimed at answering a fundamental question: How can VPPs reduce our reliance on gas-fired power plants that rarely ever run?
In California, the state’s aging peaker plants are paid to be available through a program called resource adequacy. In recent years, resource adequacy has become an increasingly larger part of customers’ bills, according to the community energy providers that are having to pay higher and higher prices to secure it.
The state’s growing fleet of utility-scale batteries is starting to become available for resource adequacy, but storage can’t meet these requirements on its own. For now, aging gas power plants remain the primary last resort for this critical service, which is meant to prevent blackouts.
Becker estimated that Californians are spending about $1 billion per year to “keep expensive peaker plants available for short-term demand,” both through resource adequacy payments and via state emergency funding to extend the lifespan of three coastal power plants, which were slated to close years ago to reduce their harmful impact on marine life.
“At the same time, we have underutilized assets like home batteries and EVs and smart thermostats,” he said.
SB 913 would order the California Public Utilities Commission to design clearer pathways for those assets to count toward resource adequacy.
That could allow VPPs to help displace gas peaker plants. Overall, VPPs could provide more than 15% of the state’s peak grid demand by 2035 and deliver $550 million in annual utility customer savings, according to a 2024 analysis conducted by the energy consultancy The Brattle Group for GridLab. About $417 million of those savings would come from deferring the need for generation capacity, the report found — a category of costs that includes resource adequacy.
Home batteries have already proved that they’re ready and able to meet these peak grid needs, Becker said. In particular, the Demand Side Grid Support program, one of California’s most successful VPP programs to date, has grown to more than a gigawatt of capacity as of last year.
DSGS has shown that its fleet of home batteries can be relied on much like a traditional power plant. In a test of the program over two consecutive hours during a late afternoon in July 2025, roughly 100,000 home batteries delivered about 476 megawatts of energy — enough power to match the output of a typical gas peaker plant.
Despite this performance, the DSGS program has been severely underfunded over the past two years and is now facing the threat of being disbanded entirely. VPP proponents are pushing legislators and the Newsom administration to keep it alive.
SB 913 largely uses the DSGS program as a model for how the California Public Utilities Commission should order the state’s three major utilities to design broader VPP programs.
“DSGS has been a very successful program, and it’s the thoughtful design elements that have made it that way,” said Erik Lyon, an energy regulatory manager at Renew Home. “That’s the key thing to understand about SB 913. The latest version of the bill actually names DSGS as a model.”
Renew Home manages millions of Google Nest thermostats that control air conditioners and home heating systems to reduce energy use and relieve grid peaks across the country, including in California. But to date, California’s demand-response programs have severely limited the role of such assets in addressing resource adequacy.
There are a lot of reasons for these limitations. Most of the demand-response programs in California require customers and the VPP companies that are enlisting them to undergo complicated and time-consuming enrollment processes, Lyon said. They also impose problematic compensation structures that can penalize participants on the basis of what VPP companies say are inaccurate measurements of how much relief they’ve actually provided to the grid.
The design elements that SB 913 adopts from DSGS, by contrast, offer a lot more flexibility for participants, according to Lyon. The bill instructs the CPUC to “streamline the enrollment process to eliminate these common and well-documented problems” that have been cumbersome for customers participating in traditional demand response programs, he said. And it calls for pathways to allow customers to enroll individual batteries, EV chargers, smart thermostats, or other devices that are actively reducing energy use, he said.
SB 913 also instructs the CPUC to use “weather normalized” approaches to measuring customers’ contributions to grid relief, Lyon said. That could help solve a measurement problem often associated with weather-sensitive devices like thermostats, ensuring that household contributions are emphasized during peak days when they are using more air conditioning or heat but not penalized for low load reductions on mild days, he said.
The California Public Utilities Commission has been leery of relying on demand- response programs in the past. But VPP backers say that perspective is based on its analysis of traditional programs, with all their flaws and gaps in accurate measurement.
Renew Home has been working with other utilities in other states and the companies that manage their home thermostat programs to test and verify more modern approaches to measuring the impact of lots of home thermostats turning down their air-conditioning use in response to utility signals, Lyon pointed out.
This should give the CPUC more confidence that it’s getting the grid relief promised, he said. “You can have statisticians dig around in that data and show how it works in ways that are really hard to fake.”
SB 913 also takes on a key problem for households that are increasingly installing batteries alongside rooftop solar: getting compensation for the power they can feed back to the grid.
Today, almost none of the state’s VPP programs allow that, said Jonathan Hart, policy director at the trade group California Solar and Storage Association.
Instead, those programs only allow homes to reduce their grid consumption to zero, he said — which means “utilities are not really accounting for what could be tapped into.”
State regulators have created some rare exceptions to this “no export” rule — including for the DSGS program. Under those exceptions, companies are allowed to measure the power flowing from batteries to the grid using the battery inverters themselves, rather than the utility-owned smart meters.
What’s missing right now is a way to account for that flow of electrons to the grid for resource adequacy, he said.
SB 913 would explicitly order the CPUC to develop a methodology that will give credit for energy exported to the grid in consultation with the California Energy Commission, which currently manages the DSGS program, and the California Independent System Operator, which manages the state’s transmission grid and energy markets.
That won’t be a simple task. CAISO has traditionally required that any power exported from home batteries must be measured via special stand-alone meters, as is required for utility-scale energy resources.
But these rules designed for utility infrastructure don’t work for programs that need to be cost-effective for homes and businesses, said Kurt Johnson, community energy resilience director at The Climate Center, a nonprofit group that supports SB 913.
The “revenue-grade meters” that CAISO requires battery-equipped homes to install would add an extra $800 to $1,000 per home, Johnson said. “If you require that, you’re going to crush the economics” of VPPs. Modern home-battery inverters and smart thermostats can meter themselves at a fraction of that cost, he said.
Hart noted that CAISO is working on rule changes that could allow distributed energy resources like home batteries to be integrated into its markets.
The grid operator hasn’t yet accepted the idea that VPPs should be able to earn resource adequacy value for battery power that’s exported to the grid, Hart said. But recent proposals that might allow individual batteries to be credited for their exported power indicate that there’s room for compromise on that front, he noted.
Sunrun and Tesla Energy, which collectively manage by far the largest share of rooftop solar–charged home batteries enrolled in DSGS, agree that California is missing out under its current regulatory regime.
“Building on this success means creating long-term pathways for DERs to enter the resource adequacy and CAISO wholesale energy markets,” said Lauren Nevitt, Sunrun’s senior director of policy. “SB 913 endeavors to do just that.”
Colby Hastings, senior director of residential energy at Tesla, said that the company has roughly 3 gigawatts of distributed battery capacity deployed in the state. “Enabling these resources to provide grid value will put downward pressure on rates, but we are not seeing urgency on using them,” she said. “We need faster action.”
Could California’s major utilities control their rapidly rising electricity rates by using their power grids more efficiently? State lawmakers want to find out.
A set of bills introduced this year would order Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric to measure and improve how they’re utilizing the hundreds of thousands of miles of power lines that carry electricity to customers.
At issue is how those utilities handle peaks in electricity demand that happen only a handful of hours per year — typically by upgrading and expanding expensive grid infrastructure. Identifying exactly where on the grid that utilities have taken, or plan to take, this approach and where extra capacity could be freed up is key.
Armed with that knowledge, regulators could set metrics and create incentives for utilities to use technologies like advanced grid controls and distributed solar with batteries to smooth out those peaks — and thus, reduce one of the biggest drivers of soaring electricity costs.
Assembly Bill 1975, introduced by Assembly Member Nick Schultz, a Democrat, would require utilities to measure grid utilization and find ways to improve it over time.
Senate Bill 905, a wide-ranging utility cost-containment package, includes a provision that would mandate “additional reporting on how effectively utilities are using existing distribution grid capacity, particularly during off-peak periods,” when grids have more headroom to deliver power.
“At a time when cost is an issue, making better use of the grid we already have — and have already paid for — is paramount,” state Senator Josh Becker, the Democrat who introduced SB 905, told Canary Media. “That doesn’t mean we won’t keep building new transmission for clean energy. But let’s make sure we’re using our existing grid well.”
One way to do that would be through load flexibility programs, which help relieve temporary grid constraints by paying customers to reduce the amount of power they use via smart thermostats and other devices, or to share the electricity they’ve stored in plugged-in electric vehicles and home batteries charged with rooftop solar.
Making better use of the existing grid could save a lot of money over the long run, Becker said. California’s three big utilities are spending more than other utilities around the country on their distribution grids, according to data from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and The Brattle Group. The costs of those grid investments must be recovered through the rates they charge their customers — who are now paying roughly twice the national average for electricity.
Much of that grid spending is meant to reduce the risk of sparking deadly wildfires. But a sizable chunk goes toward expanding substations, transformers, and power lines to serve EVs, heat pumps, data centers, and broader economic growth.
As the state pushes to meet targets to electrify vehicles and buildings, those costs could grow even further. A 2023 study commissioned by the California Public Utilities Commission found the state’s three major utilities could need to invest up to $50 billion by 2035 to meet growing power demand.
But if utilities can successfully get EV chargers, heat pumps, and other devices to use electricity when the existing grid has more capacity, it would minimize the need for expensive upgrades while also increasing sales of electricity to cover new and existing grid costs.
And such devices are eminently capable of orchestrating their load-shifting capacity as “virtual power plants,” which could flip them from driving up grid costs to lowering expenses for utility customers at large. This “load shift” approach could cut costs passed on to California customers by up to $13.7 billion through 2030, according to a 2025 analysis prepared for think tank GridLab by grid analytics startup Kevala.
Utilities don’t have a clear incentive to constrain excess grid spending, however. In fact, under traditional cost-of-service regulation, they earn guaranteed profits based on how much money they invest in infrastructure. That’s why elected officials who are facing voter anger over high utility bills in states across the country are looking to measures like those that have been proposed in California.
Deploy Action, a nonprofit formed to promote distributed energy as a solution to rising electricity costs, is pushing these kinds of grid utilization bills in California and several other states.
“We all know what’s driving up utility rates and bills,” said Phil Ting, the organization’s co-founder and a former California Assembly member from 2012 to 2024. “Every time PG&E is building something, they’re getting their rate of return. That adds to our rate base — the rates go up — and that’s what they’re financially motivated to do.”
Last month, Deploy Action won its first victory on this front in Virginia, with the passage of a law that would set grid utilization requirements for Appalachian Power and Dominion Energy, the state’s two major investor-owned utilities. The law was supported by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who campaigned on containing rising electricity costs.
Virginia’s law requires utilities to gather and report detailed data on their grid utilization, and orders regulators to use that data to establish targets and timelines for utilities to optimize grid usage, with special consideration to “non-wires alternatives” like batteries and advanced grid controls.
“A goal would be for California to follow in Virginia’s footsteps,” said Arnab Pal, Deploy Action’s executive director and a former adviser in the Biden-era Department of Energy. “Then, we can do some procurement reforms around the technologies that increase utilization.”
This work wouldn’t happen overnight. Under AB 1975 and SB 905, the California Public Utilities Commission would order utilities to collect and share core grid-utilization data. Though the bills differ slightly in their approach, both stipulate that the CPUC set rules for the utilities to improve their grid utilization starting in 2028.
Simply getting the data is the first step, Becker said. Today, regulators lack insight into “how well we’re using the existing infrastructure,” he said. “There’s data we just don’t have.”
Grid utilization can be measured in lots of ways. Some are holistic in nature, such as determining “load factor,” which is a ratio of average load compared with peak load over a year. While this data isn’t disclosed in a consistent way, Becker and Pal both noted that comments in regulatory proceedings indicate that California’s utilities are experiencing load factors of about 45% to 50% in recent years, meaning that roughly half their grid capacity is underutilized much of the year.
That’s down from roughly 60% to 65% in previous decades, when the state had more steady electricity demand from factories and other big customers and fewer “peaky” loads like air conditioners and EV chargers. Similar dynamics have been reducing load factors for utilities in other states, Pal said.
Knowing your average load factor only gets you so far, though. Finding out which parts of the grid that utilities should target for peak demand reduction, or where excess grid capacity can better serve new loads, takes more fine-tuned data, Ting said.
Luckily, California has had mandates in place for more than a decade that have ordered utilities to collect data on grid hosting capacity — a measure of how much room is available on grid circuits and substations to add new generation sources like solar panels — and publish that data on maps, which have gotten incrementally more accurate and useful over time.
A bill authored by Becker and passed in 2023 instructed California utilities to find ways to overcome grid bottlenecks preventing new customers from getting connected. Since then, California utilities have made progress on using locational grid data to support flexible interconnection of solar and battery projects, as well as flexible energization of big electricity users like EV charging hubs — and could potentially do the same with new data centers.
Utilities have also launched pilot projects to figure out how to use distributed energy resources — like rooftop solar–charged batteries, grid-responsive smart thermostats, and EV chargers — to relieve grid pressures. Other pilots are asking customers who want to add EV chargers, heat pumps, and other new loads on stressed circuits to promise to limit their draw on the grid during times of peak demand.
What’s missing from all these efforts so far is a regulatory structure that rewards utilities for planning their grid investments around these new ways to smooth out peak demand, Pal said. To address this, AB 1975 and SB 905 include provisions that would require the CPUC to design and implement penalties for utilities that fail to improve grid utilization, as well as incentives for achieving better performance over time.
“The way to do this is, give them the ability to use more of their grid, give them a set of metrics, give them the tools to actually plan for that — that is, require it of them,” Pal said.
That may involve incentives for utilities that expand options for customers to enlist their batteries, EV chargers, and remote-controllable appliances in virtual power plant programs, he said. But it could also mean giving utilities the opportunity to earn a regulated profit on technologies they deploy.
For example, utility-controlled batteries could be used to relieve peak loads on substations, a scenario that Minnesota regulators recently approved for utility Xcel Energy. Other options include so-called grid-enhancing technologies, which help utilities identify and optimize underused portions of their grid; and advanced conductors, which carry more power than traditional power lines do.
Deploy Action is supporting another bill in the California legislature, SB 1295, that would create a pathway for utilities to identify and propose projects that could meet those needs. “When it comes to distributed batteries and advanced conductors and other things that help with efficiency, we want to make sure there’s a procurement function available,” Pal said.
One way to achieve that would be for utilities “not necessarily to own the technology behind it, but perhaps rate-base some of it, so they’re able to make some of the right decisions,” he said. “We’re comfortable with that.”
These kinds of concessions to utilities raise red flags for Matthew Freedman, staff attorney for The Utility Reform Network. The consumer advocacy group supports legislative directives to the CPUC to set metrics and establish targets for improving utilities’ grid utilization, he said.
But TURN is leery of moving too quickly to create financial incentives that would reward utilities for doing things that might not directly reduce rates for customers, Freedman said. “If we say to the utility, ‘We’ll reward you based on the utilization of the system,’ but we don’t have another metric to track total spending, utilities could maximize that incentive by spending through the roof, or diverting money from other programs,” he said.
That’s why TURN has asked California lawmakers to amend AB 1975 to avoid giving the CPUC authority to set utility incentives right away, he said. “Let’s give it a number of years to play out. And at that point, we’ll have more confidence on which targets and metrics are worth putting our money on.”
Pal said that Deploy Action understands such concerns. “We’re going to want to see an incentive structure for utilization,” he said. “But we want to make sure … the ultimate goal is cost reduction.”
The Middle East crisis is straining global supplies of aluminum — a metal that’s key to making everything from fighter jets and soda cans to clean-energy technologies like solar panels and electric vehicles. Iran’s strikes on two Gulf aluminum smelters and the monthslong blockade of the Strait of Hormuz have disrupted production and pushed up prices, fueling fears of a coming aluminum crisis.
(Emirates Global Aluminium)
The United States has plans for a massive new smelter that would help to somewhat insulate the country from future global disruptions. But how quickly the $4 billion facility moves ahead depends largely on when it secures a long-term power contract — something its developers have been trying to do for almost a year.
In May 2025, Emirates Global Aluminium announced that it was building a new smelter in Oklahoma, a state with abundant natural gas and wind and solar energy resources. Earlier this year, Chicago-based Century Aluminum said it was partnering with EGA to build the plant, slated to produce up to 750,000 metric tons annually, through a joint venture named Oklahoma Primary Aluminum.
The energy-hungry facility will be America’s first new smelter since 1980, and it will more than double the nation’s capacity for making primary aluminum. The companies say they expect to start construction in late 2026 and begin producing metal by the end of the decade.
“Finalizing the power agreement is the next critical step,” Ryan Plotkin, an Oklahoma-based manufacturing executive who helped lure the smelter to the state, wrote in a Tulsa World opinion piece this week. “Oklahoma was chosen because of our resources and reliability. Now we must follow through.”
The smelter could require over 11 terawatt-hours of power to convert raw materials into shiny aluminum — enough electricity to power the city of Boston or Nashville annually, according to an Aluminum Association report.
To secure its electricity supply, Oklahoma Primary Aluminum has been pushing for a competitive deal with Public Service Company of Oklahoma, which is a subsidiary of utility giant AEP. The aluminum company is slated to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives from the state of Oklahoma, including power discounts, along with a $500 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy.
“Negotiations are ongoing and remain aligned with our original timeline,” Ziad Fares, project director for Oklahoma Primary Aluminum, told Canary Media.
“The project will source power from the grid, and its energy mix will evolve based on decarbonization goals, market conditions, and demand for low-carbon aluminum,” he said, adding that decisions about expanding electricity capacity to meet the smelter’s demand — whether through gas, wind, or solar — will be made by the utility.
A spokesperson for Public Service Company of Oklahoma didn’t directly address the contract talks but said that the utility “works closely with large prospective customers early in the planning process to ensure safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric service.”
Aluminum production has always been closely yoked to electricity prices.
America’s fleet of smelters has shrunk in recent decades as industrial electricity rates steadily climbed, from 33 facilities in 1980 to just four operating plants. Today’s producers still face the same challenge of securing affordable, yearslong contracts. Only now, smelters are increasingly competing with data centers and electrified cars and buildings for a slice of the nation’s limited power supply.
“There’s a future in which American manufacturing in general will have more competition from other sectors for the energy that we need to be successful,” Charles Johnson, president and CEO of the Aluminum Association, said on an April 23 press call. The industry group represents companies that make about 70% of all aluminum and aluminum products shipped in North America.
As it happens, Century Aluminum recently sold an idled Kentucky smelter to a data center company, which will use the site’s existing grid capacity. The manufacturer Alcoa is in talks to sell a shuttered smelter in New York to a bitcoin mining firm as part of its larger plan to offload 10 closed or curtailed sites to the tech industry.
In the last year, the Trump administration has attempted to reverse America’s aluminum decline by slapping steep tariffs on imported metals. But while tariffs can boost the bottom line for some domestic primary producers, Johnson said the measures don’t contend with the underlying energy issues that smelters must first overcome. (In fact, Trump administration policies have made it harder to deploy the fastest and most cost-effective resources for expanding grid capacity: utility-scale wind and solar projects.)
For now, the Aluminum Association’s members have been able to adapt to the rising commodity prices and supply chain disruptions since the U.S. and Israel waged war on Iran in late February. Iran subsequently bombed the two biggest smelters in the Middle East: EGA’s Al Taweelah site in Abu Dhabi and Aluminium Bahrain’s smelter. The Gulf region accounts for about a fifth of primary and alloyed aluminum imports to the U.S.
Still, Johnson said, “We do think that as the conflict drags on and the strait stays closed, that the impacts on our supply chains could be more profound.”
The Oklahoma smelter, despite its massive size, will cover only a fraction of America’s demand for primary aluminum, which totals around 5 million metric tons a year — or nearly four times the combined capacity of the new and existing smelters. To reduce its reliance on imported aluminum, the U.S. will need to build multiple new smelters. That likely won’t happen without federal policies that usher more affordable, reliable electricity onto the grid, said Joe Quinn of SAFE, which advocates for policies to enhance U.S. energy security.
“The aluminum problem will be solved with an energy solution,” he said.
In the face of soaring energy demand and electric rates, battery developers across the U.S. are stepping in with massive, multihundred-megawatt systems that can cheaply dispatch power when it’s needed most.
Lightshift Energy is constructing a second battery project for the city of Danville, Virginia. (Sanjay Suchak)
In the face of soaring energy demand and electric rates, battery developers across the U.S. are stepping in with massive, multihundred-megawatt systems that can cheaply dispatch power when it’s needed most.
Virginia — the world’s data center capital — is starting to catch on to the big-battery trend. But a new project by local electric providers in the state underscores that much smaller storage projects have value, too: They’re designed to fill specific community needs and — due to their size — relatively quick and low-cost to build.
The Blue Ridge Power Agency, which serves a string of nonprofit utilities in central and western Virginia, is set to go live this summer with a collection of five batteries of about 5 megawatts each. The systems will help two rural electric co-ops and the city of Salem’s utility save money by storing power when it is cheap and abundant. They can then rely on that saved-up power when high demand on the grid spikes prices.
All in all, the projects are predicted to save the member utilities $100 million over the batteries’ 20-year lifespan, addressing long-held local concerns over rising costs.
Lightshift Energy, the storage developer building the five batteries, has formed a bit of a niche working with small, member-owned utilities, said Rob Greskowiak, the company’s chief commercial officer.
These nonprofit utilities are rooted in their communities and intimately familiar with their customers and grids, Greskowiak explained. “These municipalities are like, ‘Listen, I know the 50,000 people that live here, and I know that this distribution circuit is not reliable and that our energy costs are going up,’” he said. At Lightshift, “we can find a very acute problem and solve it with 5- to 30-megawatt-sized batteries.”
Small cooperatives’ investment in storage extends well beyond Virginia. As of the first quarter of 2025, 136 battery storage projects sponsored by co-ops were underway or operational in 27 states, according to an analysis by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. It predicts that storage deployed by co-ops will more than triple, from 439 megawatts of capacity to 1.5 gigawatts, in the next three years.
The smaller batteries these co-ops tend to favor are cost-competitive because they avoid the need for expensive network upgrades, don’t require expensive long-lead equipment, and are sited on very small footprints, Greskowiak said.
Their minimal impact means they’re often quicker to permit and gain community acceptance than larger versions, he added. “If you’re putting in a battery that isn’t that big in a spot that already has that infrastructure, people aren’t really batting an eye on that.” The company can typically go from initial discussions with a utility to operations in 18 to 24 months, he said, significantly faster than transmission-scale assets.
The rapid setup is particularly meaningful in Virginia as data center plans flood the state and send power-demand forecasts ballooning, said Nikhil Kumar, program director at GridLab, a nonprofit that provides technical support on the clean energy transition in a range of settings. “Speed to power,” he said, “it’s in the zeitgeist right now.”
While reining in power prices is the main motivation behind the Blue Ridge Power Agency’s midsize-battery buildout, Greskowiak emphasized other advantages as well. “Battery storage is best when it acts like the Swiss army knife that everybody talks about,” he said.
A key benefit includes storing electrons from solar and wind and dispatching them when the sun fades or the breeze dies down, enabling even more renewable energy deployment. “Local homeowners, local businesses, local community solar gardens can add to that grid more sustainable energy,” he said, “because we’ve released and unlocked more capability at those substations to host more solar.”
Batteries are also getting cheaper and cheaper, with the average price of a lithium-ion battery pack dropping by nearly 80% over the last decade. And even though President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans slashed incentives for wind and solar last year, they retained the 30% credit for storage well into the next decade. “That’s another big advantage,” Kumar said.
Lightshift Energy’s Danville II project (Sanjay Suchak)
The Blue Ridge Power Agency project is just the latest example of a small Virginia utility quickly deploying batteries. Lightshift has partnered with the city of Danville on two systems that total over 20 megawatts and are expected to save customers $70 million; the first went online in 2022, and the second is under construction. Last year, developers announced two similar-sized projects for a co-op on the state’s Eastern Shore.
Co-ops’ increased interest in storage comes as the state directs its two investor-owned utilities to ramp up investments, too: A law recently enacted by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, requires Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power to build nearly 17 gigawatts of battery storage by 2045; their former target was 3 gigawatts by 2035.
All these planned storage investments will be necessary to ease grid strain and bring down costs, Kumar said. “Especially in Virginia, with the large loads and the data center growth, we’ll need a lot of these projects to help the grid.”
A narrow complaint to a federal energy commission could have wide implications for the solar industry and the electric grid — both in North Carolina, where it originated, as well as nationwide.
At issue is a unique planning scheme that’s been years in the making. Duke Energy, the state’s predominant utility, is moving to proactively upgrade poles and wires to create room for prospective solar farms. Rather than making improvements pegged to specific projects and then charging solar developers for the full cost, as it did in the past, the company is now building in anticipation of future grid needs and spreading the costs among all customers.
In recent years, state regulators have pushed Duke to take this approach to alleviate grid congestion. The company is thought to be the first utility in the country to address local transmission needs in this way, even though it is far from the only one with a long backlog of projects waiting to plug into the grid.
But one set of Duke customers isn’t happy. North Carolina’s electric member cooperatives, which buy most of their power wholesale from the utility, filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in February over four grid projects. They argue that the cost of the upgrades — $57 million, in this case — should not be distributed evenly among all customers. Instead, they want solar developers to pay half the total cost.
Many observers believe the protest is on shaky legal ground. Yet FERC is chaired by an appointee of President Donald Trump, who is known to attack renewable energy regardless of the law. The commission is expected to make a decision by the fall, and if it rules in the co-ops’ favor, experts say the ripple effects could be dire.
For one, the solar projects banking on the four grid upgrades could falter if they are forced to bear millions of dollars in new expenses. A ruling for the plaintiffs could also send Duke back to its old transmission planning method — a strategy criticized as costly, ineffective, and hostile to new solar.
“It would be hugely disruptive to the solar industry, but also to the development of the transmission system in the Carolinas more generally,” said Ben Snowden of Fox Rothschild LLP, an attorney for solar developers who isn’t directly involved in the case. “It would be a huge mess.”
What’s more, a decision for the co-ops could set the stage for federal meddling in local grid planning.
“Better-planned transmission will save ratepayers money while providing a more reliable grid,” said Chris Carmody, executive director of the Carolinas Clean Energy Business Association. “This complaint could establish precedent for expensive slowdowns and federal interference in state decision-making.”
Duke’s current approach to network upgrades arose because the old one was failing.
As North Carolina policymakers passed laws to speed the clean energy transition in the 2000s and 2010s, Duke was flooded with requests from developers looking to bring large-scale solar arrays online.
To accommodate these projects, the utility sometimes had to replace lines, poles, and other infrastructure. Whenever that was the case, Duke sought to charge 100% of those costs directly to solar developers. Some paid up and connected to the grid, but others balked and withdrew or were delayed indefinitely.
“Every project was studied, one after the other, and the first project to trigger an upgrade was assigned the entire cost of that upgrade,” Snowden said, even if the improvement made way for lots of other projects to interconnect, too.
“The part of Duke’s system that was most conducive to solar got to the point where it was — in Duke’s view — pretty much at capacity,” he said. Any new generator — solar or otherwise — that sought to interconnect in that area would be tagged with tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of upgrades. “The queue got clogged, and it was stuck for a couple of years.”
Over time, the logjam contributed to a slowdown in renewables. New large-scale solar installations plummeted in 2022, according to data from the Solar Energy Industries Association, falling to about 200 megawatts from a peak in 2017 of nearly 1.2 gigawatts.
The most congested areas on the grid became known collectively as the “Red Zone.” Duke, developers, and other parties deemed over a dozen projects — to upgrade lines, replace poles, and make other improvements — necessary. But the disrepair endured because no one could pay for them.
Then, in 2022, the North Carolina Utilities Commission began to turn the ship. The commission ruled that Red Zone upgrades were “appropriate” and “reasonable.” The projects would enable over 3.7 gigawatts of solar to connect to the grid, commissioners said, while providing “operation and resiliency benefits.”
Crucially, regulators also laid the groundwork for upgrade costs to be shared by all customers, instead of paid for by developers alone. Finally, the commission noted flaws in Duke’s transmission planning strategy and urged the company to “engage with stakeholders” to improve its process.
The company did just that, workshopping the Red Zone projects with interested parties and setting up a scheme to identify future grid needs that would provide multiple benefits.
“Duke — pulled kicking and screaming — has made pretty big strides on modernizing its transmission planning,” said Nick Guidi, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “Kudos to Duke for adopting that process.”
Duke didn’t respond to a request for comment for this story. But the company told FERC that the four contested upgrades were on the original Red Zone list and had been extensively vetted by a range of parties — including the state’s member cooperatives.
The Red Zone projects, Duke wrote, “were identified through years of collaborative local transmission planning … and selected because they provide broad, system‑wide reliability, resiliency, and economic benefits that far exceed their costs.”
The company also noted the projects will “help reduce overall power costs for all users” and even facilitate new gas generation in which the co-ops have partial ownership.
A spokesperson for the North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation, the association of 25 rural co-ops bringing the challenge against Duke, declined to speak to Canary Media for this story.
The co-ops’ complaint doesn’t make clear why they chose to object to the four improvement projects in question — two in Erwin, halfway between Raleigh and Fayetteville; one in Sanford, in the state’s dead center; and one in Camden, just west of the Outer Banks.
But their protest repeatedly states that the improvements are “proactive solar upgrades” that primarily help solar companies. A follow-up filing dismisses systemwide reliability and other benefits asserted by Duke as a “barrel of red herrings.”
The $57 million that Duke has assigned to customers for the four upgrades is a “simple unfairness,” the complaint says. Customers should bear only half those costs, and the co-ops’ share should be reduced from $802,000 per year to $401,000. The rest, they argue, should be borne by solar developers, the projects’ “primary beneficiaries.”
“That’s a really faulty premise,” Snowden said. “That’s like saying that the water pipes that run down my street are for the benefit of the people who sell me water.”
What’s more, clean energy and consumer advocates say, the proactive nature of the Red Zone projects is a good thing — unlike Duke’s old “Whac-A-Mole” approach — and their price tag is appropriately rolled into the transmission fees the utility charges its customers.
“You have to spread the costs out across the broader grid,” said Guidi of the Southern Environmental Law Center, “because they provide benefits to the broader grid.”
Perhaps the $401,000 in savings would trickle down to the co-ops’ 1 million metered customers, representing 2.8 million North Carolinians. But, Guidi said, “It would be a drop in the bucket.”
The impact could be more acute for solar companies, which tend to operate on thin margins. The extra costs could conceivably cause developers relying on the four upgrades to withdraw, Snowden said. However, he added, “I think the bigger danger is: Do you undermine Duke’s willingness to continue with proactive transmission planning?”
The complaint is the first of its kind, making its outlook murky.
“It’s a very big swing from a legal standpoint,” Snowden said. “There are some very serious questions about the relief that they’re seeking, including whether FERC has the jurisdiction to provide this relief at all.”
The five-member commission still contains three appointees from former President Joe Biden, and Trump’s choice for chair is generally considered qualified and conventional.
But when disputes over renewable energy reach a body even remotely touched by the president, all bets are off.
“They’re trying to identify these four lines as solar lines,” Guidi said. “Whether that’s their belief, or whether they are trying to play to a federal administration generally not friendly to solar, that is seen throughout their complaint.”
Furthermore, the petition clearly signals that more challenges could be on the way to Red Zone improvements, as it calls the four upgrade projects “the tip of an iceberg.”
“This is just the start,” Guidi said. “I don’t think they expect it to end here.”
For decades, utilities have used smart thermostats to reduce strain on the grid when electricity consumption is super-high. Paying customers to let utilities turn down air conditioning on hot summer afternoons or electric heating on cold winter mornings is called demand response, and it’s delivering gigawatts of valuable grid relief today.
Phoenix’s Ahwatukee Foothills neighborhood is served by the utility Salt River Project, an early mover in tapping smart thermostats to reduce pressure on the grid. (Hunter Trick [Trick Hunter], CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons)
But millions more of these smart thermostats are shifting households’ temperatures on a daily basis — and not on behalf of utilities. Instead, the owners of these devices have agreed to let smart thermostat companies modify their temperature settings to avoid costly peak power rates, or to use more clean energy and less dirty energy.
While this energy shifting has largely been invisible to them, some utilities are now gathering data on how these under-the-radar systems could be leveraged to avoid costly infrastructure upgrades or to burn less fossil fuels. Put simply, the more smart thermostats that utilities can recruit to lower peak demand, the less they have to run dirty power plants and the fewer wires and poles they need to transport electrons.
Big Arizona utility Salt River Project is one early mover on this front. Last year, it worked with smart thermostat firm Renew Home to see how thousands of the company’s thermostat-equipped customers in and around the Phoenix area could reduce strain on the grid. Those thermostats belonged to households that opted into Renew Home’s Energy Shift program, which lets the company automatically adjust their temperature settings throughout the day. Nationwide, about 5 million customers representing 4 gigawatts of capacity have signed on to that initiative.
The tracking effort revealed that customers enrolled in Energy Shift are easing peak grid pressures nearly as effectively as those enrolled in the utility’s smart thermostat demand-response program.
Over the course of six test events last August and September, about 28,500 Energy Shift–enabled homes each delivered about 1.1 kilowatts of peak load reduction on average, for a total of about 27 megawatts, Josh Logan, Salt River Project’s senior product manager, said during a March webinar.
That’s not quite as much energy reduction as the average 1.3 kilowatts per thermostat that Salt River Project gets from the roughly 75,000 customers enrolled in its standard demand-response program, he said. But an additional 27 megawatts of peak relief happening more or less automatically is nothing to sneeze at, he added.
It’s worth pausing to note the trickiness of comparing customer load-reduction programs like Energy Shift to typical utility demand-response initiatives. Utilities and regulators have always thought of demand response as something that happens during emergencies to directly alter how customers would have otherwise used energy. Utilities want to see a direct reduction in energy demand from some typical baseline.
Energy Shift’s frequent tweaks to millions of household thermostats upend those benchmark expectations, said Will Baker, Renew Home’s senior director of market integration. To measure the impact of its test events in Arizona and elsewhere, the company uses randomized control trials that pull data from a broad range of customers to determine a baseline, he said.
The company’s results are prompting Salt River Project to examine the idea of offering Energy Shift customers incentives for expanding how often or deeply they’re willing to shift their energy use. While the utility isn’t disclosing what financial arrangements it might be working out to more reliably tap into those smart thermostats in the future, Logan expected the results would be “extremely cost-effective” for the utility.
Renew Home worked with the company EnergyHub to reveal this particular data to Salt River Project, free of charge. The utility already uses EnergyHub’s online platform to manage its existing demand-response programs, and the smart thermostat data from Renew Home was rolled into the tool to allow an easy viewing experience.
Arizona isn’t the only place where EnergyHub and Renew Home are collaborating to surface the value of what they call “background virtual power plants” — networks of distributed energy resources that operate with no utility management.
During Winter Storm Fern in January, for example, the two companies found that Energy Shift customers reduced load for an unnamed Southeast U.S. utility by 50 megawatts, said Megan Nyquist, EnergyHub’s senior product market manager. That’s about twice as much winter peak reduction as that utility has enrolled in its official smart thermostat demand-response program, she said.
“Utility programs will continue to be a huge part of how [virtual power plants] grow and scale. But they’re not the only source of flexible capacity out there,” Nyquist added.
Last summer, Renew Home reported that it was able to provide 380 megawatts of load reduction over two hours on a hot July afternoon in the territory of PJM Interconnection. PJM faces a cost crisis in meeting its peak demands for the grid it manages for more than 67 million people in 13 states and Washington, D.C.
Tyson Brown, Renew Home’s head of utility partnerships, noted during the March webinar that this achievement came from “only a fraction of the available fleet. If we actually dispatched the entire Energy Shift–enabled fleet in PJM, the impact would have been closer to 800 megawatts.”
One important advantage of Energy Shift’s day-to-day adjustments is that they are generally less disruptive to household comfort than traditional demand-response programs, Brown said. Utilities that ask customers to shiver through the coldest mornings or swelter through the hottest afternoons struggle to keep households enrolled.
“The goal here is for it to really be imperceptible, such that the end user feels as if the thermostat is doing the things that it’s already been doing for them,” he said, noting that customers are always free to cancel their participation if they want to.
Paying consumers to use less energy during times of peak demand can help save all utility customers money in the long run, Baker noted. That’s because utilities pass on the costs of building and operating power plants and grid infrastructure to meet peak loads on to all customers as a portion of their utility rates. Anything that utilities can do to reduce those costs can eventually lead to lower rates across the board.
Renew Home is a member of the Utilize Coalition, a group of companies promoting virtual power plants as a means of reducing rising utility bills. Baker declined to name other utilities that might be considering methods to pay Energy Shift customers for committing to reduce peak energy use. But he did say, “We’re going into our preseason planning with our utilities — and there’s not a single utility we’re not talking with about this.”
Enormous new batteries keep appearing on the grid, making it devilishly tricky to keep track of which is the biggest in a given region. That’s certainly the case in New England, where acute power needs and robust state climate goals are fueling a buildout of big batteries that keep breaking capacity records.
Canary Media recently covered the inauguration of the 175-megawatt Cross Town battery in Gorham, Maine, which was the largest in New England when it began operating in late November. But that trophy has already passed to a 250-megawatt facility in Medway, Massachusetts, southwest of Boston and about 10 miles from the Patriots’ Gillette Stadium.
The Medway battery came online fully Feb. 25, according to developer VC Renewables, a subsidiary of global energy trader Vitol.
“To be fair, I don’t expect Medway to hold that title for very long, either,” said Tom Bitting, managing director at Advantage Capital, which supported the project with a $158 million tax equity deal. “There are other batteries being developed in New England that are bigger, but I think it is all just a sign that we need all of it, and there’s huge demand for it.”
For instance, Jupiter Power, a heavyweight in Texas’ booming grid storage market, is developing the 700-megawatt/2.8-gigawatt-hour Trimount battery plant at a former oil-storage site in Everett, Massachusetts, just north of Boston. Jupiter aims to finish the project in 2028 or 2029. Trimount is slated to be among the largest stand-alone batteries in the whole country — Vistra’s battery in Moss Landing, California, set that record with 750 megawatts/3 gigawatt-hours, before much of that capacity burned up in a disastrous fire.
The wave of battery megaprojects marks a new chapter for the region, which until recently was focused on building small-scale batteries. Massachusetts encouraged this by requiring energy storage alongside many distributed solar projects that received payments through the state’s main solar incentive; this rule led to a buildout of systems in the range of 1 to 5 megawatts.
Bigger batteries started taking off in the late 2010s out West: in California, Arizona, and Nevada, where developers can sign long-term contracts to deliver grid capacity; and in Texas, where they can bid into a uniquely competitive market.
The first three big batteries in New England — Plus Power’s Cranberry Point and Cross Town, as well as Medway, which was previously developed by Eolian — won seven-year contracts in 2021 to provide capacity for the New England grid, but the grid operator subsequently shortened that kind of contract to one year. After that change, developers have struggled with the lack of long-term capacity revenue; they can still charge up when prices are low and sell when they’re high, but that’s an unpredictable revenue stream that financiers might not want to underwrite.
Massachusetts has succeeded in building a robust fleet of small-scale solar — on recent sunny spring days, it has generated close to 50% of the region’s demand. But leaders knew they needed batteries to keep cleaning up the grid in the hours when solar doesn’t produce. So they created a new policy driver for storage investment called the Clean Peak Standard, which officially took effect in 2020.
The rule orders utilities to serve a percentage of their peak-demand hours with clean electricity, and the target grows with each passing year. Companies that use batteries to save solar energy for the evening — when electricity consumption rises as people get home from work and school — earn credits that they can sell to utilities, providing some revenue certainty outside the wholesale market.
The administration of Gov. Maura Healey, a Democrat, views storage as a key lever to improve energy affordability, Undersecretary of Energy Michael Judge said, because it makes better use of existing grid infrastructure to meet peak demand.
“Store all that solar energy that we’re producing in the middle of the day and bring down the cost of operating the system for everyone,” he said. “You don’t have to run these peakers, and you get all the emissions benefits and integration of clean energy benefits, too.”
It took several years for the rule to actually spur batteries in the multihundred-megawatt range, but now that era has begun. Advantage Capital, for example, factored in revenues from the Clean Peak Standard when it analyzed and underwrote the investment in the Medway project, Bitting noted. A total of 725 megawatts of battery storage had qualified for the Clean Peak Standard as of early March, according to state data.
Stand-alone grid battery projects are also bolstered by a federal tax credit that can cut investment costs by 30%, an incentive that the Trump administration preserved in last summer’s budget law even as it slashed support for wind, solar, and electric vehicles.
Clean Peak cash alone doesn’t pay the bills; battery developers still need to make money in the marketplace. Though New England lacks long-term capacity contracts, storage companies in the region have at least two factors working in their favor: some of the nation’s highest electricity prices and growing demand for power.
“It’s very difficult to get additional generation online in an area with high population density, because regardless of what type of power generation you’re building, it requires a lot of space,” Bitting said. Batteries, though, can fit a lot of power into a relatively small footprint, without the smokestacks or pollution that make it hard to build new fossil-fueled plants in populous areas.
Batteries compete directly with gas power plants to serve the peak hours of demand, when prices are highest. That’s especially valuable in New England, where gas supplies are stretched thin between power generation and home heating on the coldest days of the year.
“When it’s cold, the households are going to continue to demand it,” Bitting said. “But if we can ease some of the peak on the utility side, that will provide a relief valve to supply.”
Jupiter Power’s colossal Trimount project will continue New England’s foray into large batteries, with the ability to discharge enough power for roughly 500,000 homes, per the developer. Trimount was the largest of four battery projects selected in December from Massachusetts’ statewide solicitation to bring on more Clean Peak power. Previously, battery owners could sell off their Clean Peak credits on a quarterly or annual basis. The new solicitation was designed to produce “cost-effective” long-term contracts for storage, giving developers more stable revenue to plan around. Furthermore, Healey doubled down on grid storage in a March 16 executive order that calls for another 5 gigawatts installed by 2035.
“That kind of policy signal, combined with the state’s grid reliability challenges and its decarbonization commitments, creates the conditions for investment at scale,” Hans Detweiler, senior director for development at Jupiter, said in an email.
Massachusetts officials also hope to speed development with new permitting rules, which run large battery applications through a state-level body instead of piecemeal local processes. Community members still get to weigh in, but the program has a clear 15-month timeline and allows just a single appeal to the state Supreme Court, to ensure a more timely resolution of conflicts in the permitting process.
The true test of all these policies will be whether the recent megabatteries kick off a trend, or remain bold outliers in the region’s energy system.
.svg)
