Back
Back in the summer of 2024, Minnesota utility Xcel Energy proposed a novel approach to building virtual power plants, the networks of rooftop solar systems, home batteries, and other energy equipment that can operate in tandem to reduce strain on the electric grid.
Instead of working with other companies to cobble together solar arrays and batteries at homes and businesses — the traditional model for VPPs — Xcel wanted to install, own, and control those devices itself, using its grid expertise to deliver a better bargain for its customers at large.
Now, a year and a half later, the plan is in — and clean energy advocates, solar industry groups, and state agencies say it doesn’t live up to Xcel’s promises.
In filings with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, these groups say Xcel’s Capacity*Connect (C*C) plan, unveiled in October, is likely to be slower, more costly, and less impactful in relieving grid stresses and energy costs than the customer-centered VPP programs already in place or being rolled out — including one by Xcel in Colorado.
As Minnesota’s Office of the Attorney General wrote in its initial comments, “Although Xcel suggests that C*C is uniquely innovative, it may simply be a uniquely expensive way to accomplish the same thing other states have accomplished for less ratepayer money.”
Xcel is asking for permission to spend at least $152 million to deploy 50 megawatts of batteries, and up to $430 million for 200 megawatts, through 2028. Those costs will be borne by its customers. And as capital expenditures, they will offer the utility a guaranteed profit on every dollar spent — a perk Xcel wouldn’t get if it relied on the traditional VPP model.
In its petition to regulators, Xcel says the plan is a first step in learning how to best integrate distributed energy resources across its grid, as called for by state utility policy for the past decade. It also argued that “non-utility-owned resources could deliver, at best, a portion of the anticipated system and customer benefits.”
Backers of this utility-led approach include Jigar Shah, a Biden administration Department of Energy official who has long championed the value of using batteries and other distributed energy resources — DERs in the jargon — as an alternative to big, costly, and hard-to-build power plants and transmission lines.
“For the first time in my professional career, we have a utility company formally agreeing with the fact that distributed power plants are essential to maintaining reliability and meeting load growth,” Shah wrote in a December LinkedIn post. “This is a huge win for our entire industry, and efforts by industry groups to torpedo this proposal can’t see the forest for the trees.”
But John Farrell, co-director of the nonprofit consumer advocacy group Institute for Local Self-Reliance and a longtime utility critic, argues that Xcel Energy is trying to monopolize the grid value of solar and battery systems, which customers are already willing to pay for to save money and provide backup power.
Utility ownership might be an acceptable alternative if it could be done faster and cheaper than the VPPs being put together by solar and battery installers like Sunrun, Tesla, and a host of other companies, Farrell said. But “if utilities are supposed to be so good at this, why is the cost-benefit analysis underwater?” he asked. “And why is it so slow?”
Logan O’Grady, executive director of the Minnesota Solar Energy Industries Association, doesn’t want to be too critical of Xcel’s plan. After all, his group and other solar advocates have spent years pushing utilities to rely more on rooftop solar, backup batteries, and other DERs. It hasn’t been easy. Utilities have long been leery of the reliability of these technologies, and instead prefer tried-and-true grid upgrades and utility-controlled equipment.
“This has been a tricky one, because for 10 years, people on our side have been saying to the commission and utilities, there’s value in the distribution system — you should invest there,” he said.
That argument is backed by an analysis from the DOE, promoted by Shah during his tenure, that found rooftop solar systems, backup batteries, electric vehicles, smart thermostats, and grid-responsive water heaters could provide 80 to 160 gigawatts of VPP capacity by 2030 in the U.S. That would be enough to meet 10% to 20% of the nation’s peak grid needs and save utility customers roughly $10 billion in annual grid costs.
“So when [Xcel’s] proposal first came out, in one sense it was like, ‘They’re finally listening to us,’” O’Grady said. “But in another sense it was, ‘They’re going too far by proposing only utility ownership.’”
That’s a significant departure from the status quo, the Minnesota Solar Energy Industries Association, Coalition for Community Solar Access, and Solar Energy Industries Association trade groups wrote in comments to the Minnesota PUC. “Traditional VPPs are technology-agnostic portfolios of customer-sited and third-party-owned resources,” they wrote. “Participation is open, competitive, and decentralized.”
By contrast, Xcel’s C*C plan would rely completely on utility-owned batteries of between 1 and 3 megawatts, the kind that usually come in shipping containers. Xcel plans to pay an undisclosed amount to businesses or nonprofits willing to host those batteries on their properties. But rather than connecting the equipment in those customers’ buildings, the utility would instead connect the batteries directly to its grid, preventing them from providing emergency backup power to participating customers.
To secure customers willing to host those batteries, Xcel Energy has proposed hiring Sparkfund, a company founded in 2013 that has promoted the “distributed capacity procurement” concept that forms the basis of the C*C plan. Xcel’s plan marks its first stab at implementing distributed capacity procurement.
But deploying utility-owned batteries via a single commercial partner is “unprecedented in VPP programs and raises significant competitive-market concerns,” the solar trade groups wrote.
Chris Villarreal, president of consultancy Plugged In Strategies and former director of policy at the Minnesota PUC, shares those concerns. In comments filed on behalf of the R Street Institute, a free market–oriented think tank where he serves as an associate fellow, Villarreal recommended that regulators reject the plan or, at a minimum, “ensure Xcel does not exercise monopoly power at the expense of other competitive and potentially lower-cost alternatives.”
“There are a couple of things that annoy me about this from a practical perspective,” Villarreal told Canary Media. “One is the exercise of monopoly power over competitors.” Xcel is proposing to give Sparkfund access to grid and customer data that “no competitor would be able to get” without signing nondisclosure agreements, he said. “Meanwhile, we have community solar gardens, solar developers, storage developers, that want to do the same thing.”
This lack of grid transparency is troubling, O’Grady said, given Xcel’s track record of making it difficult for customers and third-party developers to add batteries and community and rooftop solar to its grid. “Minnesota has a grid-congestion problem, and lack of utility investment to solve that problem,” he said.
At the very least, Xcel should subject its battery systems to the same process third-party developers and customers must go through to connect to the grid, O’Grady said. Under the C*C plan, “they circumvent that entire waitlist to interconnect — and that doesn’t seem fair.”
State regulators anticipated these concerns. The Minnesota PUC’s 2024 order allowing Xcel Energy to pursue the C*C plan required the utility to compare the costs and benefits with those of “alternative models” using customer and third-party-owned resources.
But Xcel Energy appears to have short-shrifted that requirement, said Erica McConnell, a staff attorney at the nonprofit Environmental Law & Policy Center. Instead of offering a cost comparison, Xcel asserted in its petition that “anything less than full operational control and visibility of these assets — which will operate functionally as part of our system — could present safety risks for our employees and the public and could create cybersecurity risks for our system.”
These statements appear to ignore the experience of other utilities managing VPP programs, McConnell said. In essence, she said, the utility dismissed the prospect of alternative approaches by saying, “‘It’s dangerous if we let other parties do it.’ That’s disappointing to us. We need alternative pathways.”
Xcel Energy disputes that it ignored regulators’ instructions. The utility lacks “quantitative information” on those alternatives, and “would need to speculate on these costs and benefits, which would inevitably lead to unresolvable disputes,” it wrote in reply comments.
Xcel also highlighted that it’s offering customers and third-party developers other pathways to add solar and batteries to its grid, including its long-running community solar program and incentives for backup batteries. Nearly all of the more than 1.3 gigawatts of distributed solar and storage on Xcel’s system in Minnesota is owned by third parties, it noted.
But the C*C program is focused on solving a much broader range of challenges on its grid, which requires greater precision than Xcel can achieve from customer-owned batteries, the utility said. It argues that it needs such rigorous control over the systems to cut costs and improve overall grid reliability for customers at large, in what it called a “marked shift in distributed energy policy.”
Critics have their doubts, however, about whether the benefits of Xcel’s plan will outweigh the costs.
The Minnesota Office of Attorney General wrote in its comments that it supports efforts to meet the state’s carbon-cutting goals while keeping rising energy and grid costs in check. But it also asked regulators to put a “hard cap” on Xcel’s spending, noting that it “stands to be a quite expensive program.”
Xcel’s C*C budget calls for spending up to $430 million for deploying 200 megawatts of batteries, it wrote, which equates to $2,150 per kilowatt of battery installed — well above typical costs for grid batteries.
It’s also more expensive than what Xcel Energy intends to spend on a gas-fired “peaker” power plant it’s planning to build in Lyon County, Minnesota, the office noted. That’s despite data from DOE’s VPP report indicating that typical VPP capacity can be more than 40% cheaper than that of conventional peaker plants, which run only at times of extremely high demand.
And Xcel’s proposed budget is well above what the Public Service Co. of Colorado, Xcel Energy’s utility in that state, intends to spend on its proposed Aggregator Virtual Power Plant pilot program. That program will pay third-party aggregators that equip customers with resources — including batteries, smart thermostats, smart water heaters, smart heat pumps, and EV chargers — that can inject electricity onto the grid or reduce power use. It is targeting 125 megawatts of capacity for a five-year budget of $78.5 million, or roughly $625 per kilowatt.
Xcel says these comparisons don’t tell the whole story. The Colorado program covers only five years of payments to aggregators, while the Minnesota program is modeled to cover the cost of assets for 20 years, Xcel spokesperson Theo Keith told Canary Media in an email. “When you model both programs over 20 years, their costs are similar.”
“Capacity*Connect will be more complex to operate and coordinate than the Colorado [program],” Keith added, because it’s designed to do more than simply reduce peak electricity demands across the entire grid.
Instead, C*C is meant to target particular points on the utility’s distribution grid that might otherwise need costly upgrades. This is the portion of the system that, unlike giant transmission lines that cover long distances, brings power directly to homes and businesses. Costs related to the distribution grid are the single biggest driver of rising utility bills in the U.S.
“Through the deployment of distributed batteries, we (and thus our customers) will save more money by avoiding more expensive grid upgrades than the payments made to program participants,” Keith wrote.
But Xcel’s plan will take years to use its batteries for this kind of deferral. Its initial phase will limit them to reducing systemwide energy and capacity costs — the same kind of task that demand-response programs have been doing for decades. Not until “Phase 3” of its plan, set for between 2028 and 2031, will Xcel “seek opportunities to stack additional distribution value streams,” like finding ways for batteries to defer costly grid upgrades.
Delaying that work doesn’t sit well with nonprofit groups such as the Environmental Law and Policy Center, Vote Solar, Solar United Neighbors, and Farrell’s Institute for Local Self-Reliance. In their comments, they asked the Minnesota PUC to require Xcel to set a mid-2027 deadline to “take concrete steps to advance distribution value” — and to set up a way for third-party and customer-owned technologies to participate.
The Minnesota Department of Commerce concurred. In its comments to regulators, it laid out a series of changes that it and clean energy advocacy groups agreed Xcel should make to its plan to more quickly take on the advanced grid services it’s currently proposing to delay for years to come.
For one, the department recommended that regulators require Xcel to target its batteries to fix known reliability issues or “defer specific, budgeted infrastructure investments” on the distribution grid — something that utilities in California, Massachusetts, and other states are doing in pilot projects.
Another recommendation for Xcel that’s being done by other utilities is to use its batteries to make room on congested parts of the grid for more customer-owned or community solar to come online. That could help solve the long-standing interconnection bottlenecks that rooftop and community solar providers have been complaining about.
Shannon Anderson, a policy director at the nonprofit Solar United Neighbors, which helps households organize to secure cheaper rooftop solar, highlighted one big difference between the approaches taken by Xcel in Minnesota and in Colorado. In Colorado, the utility’s VPP approach is guided by a law passed by the state legislature in 2024. Minnesota lacks such a policy; a VPP bill failed to pass last year, although its sponsors plan to reintroduce the legislation this year.
“The Minnesota story is part of a national trend,” said Anderson, who is leading Solar United Neighbors’ work with a coalition sponsoring VPP legislation in multiple states. “The more legislative direction can give them guidance and political support, the better.”
.svg)
