RSS

Why the Microgrid Could Be the Answer to Our Energy Crisis

By: Anya KamenetzWed Jul 1, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Why small-scale, local power -- the microgrid -- could be the answer to our energy crisis. And why the big utilities are fighting it with all they've got.

Enlarge137-beyond-the-grid2

In Massachusetts, Jonah Decola teaches locals to build home power systems, like Sue Butler's 5.5-Kilowatt setup. | Photograph by Bob O'Connor


It's a similar story in North Carolina. "Because of its rate structure, Duke Energy has acted as the greatest impediment in the state to the rapid adoption of energy efficiency and renewables," says Ivan Urlaub, the executive director of the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, who has worked closely with the state utility commission and with Duke to draft policy. "They've explained to us that net metering puts them at higher risk of losing revenue."

Jim Rogers, Duke Energy's CEO, told Fast Company he's a fan of putting solar panels on his customers' homes and businesses -- he just thinks Duke should own them. "I believe at the end of the day, we'll be able to do it cheaper and better than everybody else." But Urlaub says, "We know that's not true," pointing out that Duke recently submitted a public bid for a utility-owned 20-megawatt rooftop-solar program and came in higher than several independent, nonutility solar companies.

Nowhere is the conflict between the utilities' business-as-usual and a swift transition to clean energy more stark than in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is the biggest city-owned utility in the country. You may remember it as the shadowy villain of 1974's Oscar-winner for Best Picture, Chinatown, which dramatized the true 1930s tale of how water was siphoned from California's farmlands into private hands. The hard-bitten private eye played by Jack Nicholson asks the Machiavellian executive played by John Huston what he could possibly need to buy with all his money, and Huston responds, "The future, Mr. Gittes! The future!"

The LADWP has been fighting the green future for at least 10 years. (It declined to comment for this article.) In 1999, when the first green-energy incentives were passed in the city, the LADWP quietly cut a deal with the city's top 30 users of electricity, offering them 5% discounts for 10 years in exchange for not building on-site generation or installing solar power. This includes L.A.'s public school system, the biggest energy customer in the city, which was then launching what would become a $20 billion renovation -- building 100 new schools that by now could have had solar. At the same time, the utility assessed an extra fee to other customers, like the Los Angeles Community College District, which did choose to generate its own power.

Sunny L.A. currently employs just 1% solar energy, but pressure has been mounting to raise that figure; Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's goal is 20% renewables by next year. So last fall, the LADWP introduced Measure B, a ballot proposal calling for 400 megawatts of rooftop solar on large commercial, industrial, and government-owned buildings. So far, so good. The catch was that all of it had to be installed, owned, and maintained by the LADWP on private property, at a cost of $3.5 billion -- underwritten by ratepayers via an estimated 2% to 4% increase in utility bills. There was no benefit to the property owners themselves. And an independent consulting firm hired by the city questioned the LADWP's ability to handle the logistics of such a project at all.

Enter Ron Kaye. Kaye arrived in L.A. as part of the entourage of an Indian guru in 1980, and for 23 years was the editor of the Los Angeles Daily News, the second-biggest paper in the city. Last year, after he was put out to pasture by the paper's new owners, he reinvented himself as a blogger and full-time rabble-rouser. He appears on an amateur video on his Web site, sitting by his pool, flanked by pink bougainvillea, rattling off tales of city council malfeasance like a civic-minded Walter Matthau. The way Measure B was rushed onto the ballot raised red flags for Kaye, and he put together an ad hoc coalition to oppose it. Measure B supporters sued him and his coalition, but the case was thrown out of court; Kaye's side finally defeated the measure by less than 1%, spending $75,000 to the LADWP's $1.6 million.

Despite the vote, the LADWP remains publicly determined to retain control of any renewables built in the city. "Every day of this has been a learning experience," says Kaye. "This whole thing explains why L.A. has the most coal-burning power plants in the country, why it's reliant on fossil fuels and lagging behind other utilities in getting renewables." The problem, he says, is "LADWP's need to monopolize resources."

Electric monopolies were supposed to have been busted a decade ago, but thanks to the Enron debacle, deregulation is a half-finished experiment. Almost no one wants to get rid of the utilities entirely, but it may be time for them to go the way of their rough contemporaries, the railways. In the late 19th century, railroad companies were the biggest, baddest, most dynamic and capital-intensive industries in the country; their owners and financiers -- the Astors, Vanderbilts, and Cunards -- amassed piles of Monopoly money as they laid track from coast to coast. Today, the rail network is still crucial for freight and commuters alike, but it's only one component of a far more diverse, faster, more flexible transportation system.

From Issue 137 | July 2009

Sign in or register to comment.
or

Recent Comments | 17 Total

July 5, 2009 at 2:52pm by rick winrod

How is this even possible?
"He calculates the payback on Butler's $60,000 system at four-and-a-half years or less."
The homeowner would need to sell back to the utility at about 40 cents per kwh to make those numbers work. And that takes into account the $25K grant.

July 6, 2009 at 5:29pm by Dan Miller

Yes I too cringe every time I see big government jumping in to save us from ourselves. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we just encouraged the natural entrepreneurship process in moving us forward?

July 15, 2009 at 3:00pm by J. C. Scott

Great article!!! Couple the microgrid, local-generation concept with regionalization of the economy and you've got a terrific new socio-economic model for a better world.

This is not a big government versus free economy issue. That too is an old paradigm that has to morph. Entrepreneurial spirit also drives the big companies, whose lobbyists torque government policy to their self-preservation. Get with it guys, it's time for getting technology plus a lot of open-minded creative local businesses to push the old utilities into the history books like the harness business was.

July 15, 2009 at 3:00pm by J. C. Scott

Great article!!! Couple the microgrid, local-generation concept with regionalization of the economy and you've got a terrific new socio-economic model for a better world.

This is not a big government versus free economy issue. That too is an old paradigm that has to morph. Entrepreneurial spirit also drives the big companies, whose lobbyists torque government policy to their self-preservation. Get with it guys, it's time for getting technology plus a lot of open-minded creative local businesses to push the old utilities into the history books like the harness business was.

July 15, 2009 at 4:46pm by Jeremy Rifkin

The work that I just completed in San Antonio deals with many, if not all, of the issues that were mentioned in this article. I’m eager to discuss with you on a personal level how the Third Industrial Revolution has taken into account the points you've mentioned.

I’ve been trying to relay the Third Industrial Revolution message to the public by providing a space online where information and ideas can be passed, discussed, and suggested. It would be great to hear your personal thoughts, http://thirdindustrialrevolution.ning.com/

July 23, 2009 at 5:01pm by Jay Turner

If we set it up right, power generation would literally become a "mom and pop" business, where homeowners could invest in energy generation (and energy savings) which would generate a little extra income as well as add to the value of their property. What I have now is a 2.5Kw photovoltaic system that with net metering and time-of-use pricing brings my electric bill down to just the connection fee. Unfortunately, there's no incentive to expand my system or to conserve more because the utility gets to keep any excess credit at the end of the year. If the homeowner could get an annual check, then there would be an incentive for me to conserve more aggressively and to add more generation capacity. Imagine what it would be like if the market favored small providers? Imagine what it would be like if new construction and renovations had to include energy conservation and or generation capabilities?

July 23, 2009 at 5:40pm by Jay Turner

In response to Rick Winrod: The payback calculation might be subtracting the resale value that the generation system adds to the home. The payback point is where the value returned from the power system + the residual resale value of that system adds up to the purchase price. The return on investment is all the value returned after that point, less any further depreciation of the power system as an asset.

July 24, 2009 at 5:33pm by Brooke Williams

Seems as if the big obstacle is upfront costs. What if instead of building a massive wind or solar or god-forbid, a nuke, along with the miles of transmission lines, a power company 'loaned' at interest, each homeowner the money to outfit their house, who would then for say 8 years, pay for it with the same money they would otherwise paying their utility bill. It seems like this could work by tweeking the number of years to full ownership.

July 31, 2009 at 12:49am by Andrew Ehrnstein

The article did not mention the Federal Solar Investment Tax Credit (if 2009 tax year) of 30%. That's a significant reduction of the real cost. Also, since she bought batteries, too (not necessary for grid-tied) and has that time-of-use meter, she can easily sell back at peak times, and 40 cents is not unrealistic. Customers in California on tiered billing are paying 55 cents a kWh WITHOUT time-of-use, just based on overconsumption per meter. Her cost after the tax credit being lower, she could hit payback with a less-than-40 cent rate in that timeframe.

August 1, 2009 at 9:55pm by Russell Turnage

Microgrids already exist along the tracks of DC powered urban trasit trains running at 800-900 Volts Direct Current. Now if the solar cells on your house could pay your monthly fare on the transit system maybe more would ride. Or maybe the transit system needs to start ferrying your whole vehicle from one side of town to the other. How can electric companies straining and complaining to keep up with the load now, possibly have enough fight left to stop solar power from keeping them in business? That three phase stuff they put out is better for industry than home use anyways. We should make home voltages above the UL listed safety limit of 50volts a thing of the past anyhow in this super safe organic society, at least around children, lot's of responsible electrical professionals think so. Probably half that, about 24volts would be so much safer for the Alzheimer's suffering public. Urban rail systems now ought to be upgraded to battery backup to keep from stranding people during outages as well. With solar cells becoming a printing process more and more, like silicon chips; the power wasted in transmission may be better suited to rotating machinery anyhow. They have to get the large factories to cut back during high useage times now, when they'd much rather keep every one running at full blast all the time. They build variable frequency drives that allow you to connect the DC power from your solar cells into the DC bus of the VFD input and output and run your air conditioner mostly off the DC from your cells when the sun's shining on you the hotest, trainig air conditioning guys is the difficult part. If the electric company can make money transmitting your power to someone else they'll probably figure out how to make money off that faster than we can rant about it.

August 4, 2009 at 3:48pm by Charles Fisher

I like the article, it has lots of good info and positioning, and the microgrid is the way to go. For the sake of us all, though it would be much better if you would do the math before publishing claims. The description of a 6 kWh system covering three houses, and $60,000 for 6 kWh paying out in 4.5 years just doesn't add up. I'm in Ohio and use Gas to heat, but still use 40-70kWh per day, so at 12 hours a day, this system would cover my house at it's peak, and a little extra, and you won't get 12 hours a day of sun and wind in Boston (or Ohio). Also, you offset your average charge rate with net metering, and I pay average $0.11 per kWh, but if you make extra, you sell it back at a producer rate of less than that, say $0.04 per kWh, by offsetting usage I can make up to $7.70 per day or a little more. If I save it all up and sell it at peak rate, that's still only about $0.28per kWh and might get you to the 4.5 years payout, but won't happen. Then, how does the $25,000 subsidy get paid out? That is actual money that you and I pay as taxes, so treating it as free in the equation is not credible. If I put this system in based on an expectation to pay out in 4.5 years, I'd be angry at the installer.

August 4, 2009 at 3:49pm by Charles Fisher

I like the article, it has lots of good info and positioning, and the microgrid is the way to go. For the sake of us all, though it would be much better if you would do the math before publishing claims. The description of a 6 kWh system covering three houses, and $60,000 for 6 kWh paying out in 4.5 years just doesn't add up. I'm in Ohio and use Gas to heat, but still use 40-70kWh per day, so at 12 hours a day, this system would cover my house at it's peak, and a little extra, and you won't get 12 hours a day of sun and wind in Boston (or Ohio). Also, you offset your average charge rate with net metering, and I pay average $0.11 per kWh, but if you make extra, you sell it back at a producer rate of less than that, say $0.04 per kWh, by offsetting usage I can make up to $7.70 per day or a little more. If I save it all up and sell it at peak rate, that's still only about $0.28per kWh and might get you to the 4.5 years payout, but won't happen. Then, how does the $25,000 subsidy get paid out? That is actual money that you and I pay as taxes, so treating it as free in the equation is not credible. If I put this system in based on an expectation to pay out in 4.5 years, I'd be angry at the installer.

August 5, 2009 at 9:21am by Thomas Robertson

The electricity infrastructure is in place because the utility companies are able to spread the cost to do so. I wonder what their reaction will be to carrying this cost in the scenario presented. The article discusses big utilities fighting this concept. I can imagine a knee-jerk reaction that would cause some level of fear in these companies, but ultimately this will help solve their renewable energy mandates. However, it should be considered that at some level of widespread adoption a "tipping point" is reached where the cost per KH drops due to the reduction in overall fossil fuel cost. When this occurs the payback will change. This would encourage early adoption - "get your system paid off while rates are high". Of course the cost of solar should continue to drop dramatically over that time.

August 6, 2009 at 6:41am by Riki Taiaroa

The more you fight the Utilities the more irrational and protective they will became. The mirocgrid has to be pitched in a way that the Utility providers think its a good thing, for them and their shareholders. They have installed networks and power plants. Without the network there is nothing for the Microgrid to sell into, and if everyone is on the microgrid, who is buying the power? Flip the whole thing... The Utilities broker power produced by individuals to Industry. Instead of investing in power plants (often built for big users like Smelters, who get subsidised power because of their huge usage) the Utility subsidises communities to join the grid (creating more individual power suppliers) and use Micrgrid generated power to supply big industry. They act as the broker and transmission provider of power to industry, with the existing power plants there as backup for guarenteed uninterrupted supply. The Utilities need to reinvent themselves, and the Microgrid movement might need to help them do this rather than fighting them head on.

August 10, 2009 at 12:29am by Adam Levitt

Check out my Blog at http://blog.proenergymd.com and my site at, http://www.proenergymd.com

November 4, 2009 at 1:48pm by Vasiliu Geronbyet

Next vital problem that girls russian american dating can run into by travelling abroad is certainly - relationship with their appointed spouses. According to the data Hot Russian girls big amount of the men, willing to tie a knot with Russian women are over forty years and nevertheless incapable to buy a

November 21, 2009 at 6:33am by Anisa Cikal

great post, thanks a lot for that.


Oes Tsetnoc Introduction - Spirit Kerja Keras Adalah Energi Kita - Oes Tsetnoc Faq