Between the Poles

Testing and certifying smart grid interoperability

An important milestone for defining testing and certification for  smart grid interoperability is the publication of a new standard, the Smart Grid Interoperability Process Reference Manual (IPRM).  This new standard is a joint effort by the NEMA Distribution Automation Technical Committee and Smart Grid Interoperability Panel’s (SGIP) Smart Grid Testing and Certification Committee (SGTCC). 

Geospatial technology is becoming a foundation technology for the smart grid.  Most smart grid data includes location whether it is the location of a transformer, a smart meter, or other equipment, an outage, or a weather map used for forecasting output from distributed generation facilities (solar and wind). As defined in the NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 3.0 ,  SGIP standards rely on the Geographic Markup Language (GML) standard from the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) for location information.  OGC and SGIP have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to work together on integrating geospatial with smart grid standards in the electric power sector.

SGTCC was one of the first standing committees established by SGIP. The committee is responsible for constructing an operational framework for the testing and certification process that will enable smart grid interoperability.

“This standard [IPRM] defines requirements and recommendations for general test policies, test suite specifications, test profiles, interoperability testing and certification authority technical programs, governance, laboratory qualifications, and process improvements. It also describes an implementation approach."

The IPRM standard defines a process by which industry stakeholders may procure, test, and assert interoperability between different vendors of smart grid products. The IPRM process defines requirements and recommendations for general test policies, test suite specifications, test profiles, interoperability testing and certification authority technical programs, governance, laboratory qualifications, and process improvements.

MGM Resorts agrees to pay over $80 million to leave the grid

MGM Resorts is planning to leave the NV Energy grid in October even if it has to pay $86.9 million in exit fees to do so.  Wynn is also planning to leave the NV Energy Grid late this year, but is challenging the legality of the calculation of exit fees.  The casinos plans to leave NV Energy under a law passed in 2001 law that allows corporate customers to leave the power grid. MGM's plan to exit still requires Public Utility Commission (PUC) approval.  Another casino Las Vegas Sands Corp has dropped plans to leave the grid, presumably deterred by the large exit fee.

Reportedly a number of states in the U.S. have legislation allowing large corporate customers to leave the grid. In about 18 of these like Texas and Georgia there are no exit fees.  In others such as Nevada there are exit fees though the legality of large exit fees is being challenged.

NV Energy has a green tariff program, called Green Energy Choice in northern Nevada, that offers customers the choice of using 100 percent or 50 percent renewable energy but they have to pay an additional amount on their monthly bill for using renewables. But MGM Resorts has signed 20 year power purchase agreements (PPAs) with independent power suppliers who can supply renewable power much cheaper than NV Energy can.  So much cheaper that MGM is willing to pay over $80 million to leave the grid.

Automating the process of comparing digital models to reality

At the Spar 3D Expo and Conference in Houston I had the opportunity to chat with Nicolas Arnold, VP of Product Development at SKUR.  SKUR is a young software company that has just released its first product, which automates comparing a 3D digital model to reality as represented by a point cloud from terrestrial scanning technologies (typically LiDAR).  The scan can be of an existing structure or a new structure in construction. The variances are prioritized and can be inspected in an industry standard 3D visualization application.

Nicolas, SKUR provides technology that finds the differences between digital models and point clouds from scans.  What are some of the applications of this technology ?

We are in the business of comparing 3D building models with point clouds that are registered to the building model. We do this for two very specific use cases.

The first use case is what I refer to as construction QC.  Let's say you have a design model and during construction you capture a point cloud by laser scanning or some other technology.  What you are interested in is comparing the design model to what was actually built out in the field. To do this you simply upload the design file and the point cloud, specify three tolerances that are used to prioritize the differences between the model and point cloud, and then run our cloud-based application.  The application outputs colour-coded deviations, which you can visualize in Navisworks.

The second use case is what I refer to as model QC where you have the reverse situation.  Let's say there is an existing structure, a building or almost anything.  But there is no digital model and you need a model for a renovation or retrofit.  You can use a scan-to-BIM process to scan the building and generate a point cloud from which a model can be created.  The model creation could be done by your own people, by a third party provider, or by an automated process such as Clearedge.  In this use case what you are interested in is how  well the model fits with reality. You follow the same process, uploading the model and the point cloud, to compare the model to the point cloud to see where there might be modeling errors and other types of deviations.

These are the two use cases that SKUR serves. We target the sophisticated construction contractor (GC).  One application of the technology for a GC is to perform construction QC on their projects to look for problems.  Another application is pre-construction, when the GC is considering bidding on a renovation or retrofit project and wants to provide a digital model to the architect.  The GC wants to be confident that the model represents the structure accurately so he can tell the architect that the model is a reliable representation of reality. These are the folks that we are targeting for these two use cases.

Does SKUR provide data capture services ?

No, we are a software company.  If you are interested in this technology, you can create an account, it's up to you to capture the point cloud data however you want to do it, upload it onto our web-based system together with a digital model and then run our application.   You then download the variances and visualize them using an industry standard tool. We don't do any consulting.

I'm interested in how SKUR would be used during construction. What if the construction is only 10 % or 20 % complete, do I have to specify which part of the incomplete structure I have scanned ?

We have very smart algorithms that figure out which part of the structure to look at.  For example, if you bring us a point cloud of just the corner of a building and the model of the entire structure, we only focus on that corner of the building.  Another example is a building that is 12 stories high, but I only have a scan of the basement. Our software is smart enough to figure out the part of the model that relates to the scan.

What about the opposite case where during a scan-to-BIM process for an existing building, I have not finished the model so I only have a model for part of the building ?

It's basically the same algorithm. The software is smart enough to figure out which part of the scan relates to the partial model.  When you run our software, you simply upload the model and the point cloud and specify the tolerances.  The process is the same for construction QC or for model QC. From the perspective of the software, it's really the same thing.

Where does your software run, on a desktop or in the cloud ?

We are completely web-based, that is to say, cloud-based. Our software require heavy-duty processing that would not have been possible 5 years ago. It is all in the cloud and it's high performance multi-core computing.   We bring in the largest computers that are available on the Amazon cloud for these problems and they can generate the variances in a few hours.

What types of digital models do you support, 3D CAD, Revit, Bentley BIM, or IFC models ?

We are a young company, and we've just started.  Our first release supports 3D DWG models. But I think Revit models are the next logical step. And then we also plan to support the Bentley world.  The 3D DWG model really can be anything, with any level of complexity. I have had people asking me about things other than construction, like planes, such as an Airbus. I talked to a gentleman yesterday, who wants to use our software for a golf course.  As long as you have a DWG model and a point cloud that's registered to the DWG, we can find the variances between the two.  The registration between the two is critical. It has to be done accurately.

How difficult is it to choose the tolerances ?

It's very easy.  You choose three values corresponding to different degrees of variance which are colour coded, green, yellow, and red in the output.

How do you visualize the variances, I imagine for a large project there could be thousands of these ?

SKUR output is a visual representation and report of the detected locations where there are discrepancies showing the precise variance from design and, very importantly, the direction of the variance.  We colour code the discrepancies so you can spot the problem areas very rapidly. For example, in the graphic red and yellow coloring indicates degree of variance. Arrows show the direction of issue. In our experience most of the variances are green, so you can filter these out and just look at the ones colour-coded red, which are the big discrepancies.  This allows you to focus just on those important areas.  We're like an insurance company.  Most of the time it's fine, but when it's not you need to know.

Where did the algorithms come from  and where was the implementation done ?

We've invented everything from scratch in Oakland, California

I can imagine this technology being of tremendous value in many different sectors of the construction industry as well as in non-construction sectors.  Which sectors and geographies are you targeting as the market for your technology ?

The sector we have targeted so far are construction contractors (GCs). But going toward we will be increasingly focussing on owners.  We think that our software provides a view into the construction process that enables them to see during construction how well the designs by the architects and engineers compare to what is actually being built.

We are focussing on North America, but we also have clients in Europe. Europe is definitely high on our list, but as a young company we are focusing on close to home first.

If people want to try your software, how do they engage with you?

It's very simple. They sign up and create an account.  Then they can upload a model and a point clouds and hit the magic button. We do handholding in the beginning to help new customers.  But we don't do any data capture and or any data preparation. We simply provide a web-based software service.

Clinton and Trump on energy policy

Electric Choice has created a compilation of Clinton and Trump's announced positions on energy and related policies.  Some of the highlights:

Hillary Clinton

Nuclear Power: Clinton is an advocate for advanced nuclear power and the expansion of successful initiatives such as, ARPA-e.

Renewable Energy: Become a leader in the fight against climate change via installation of solar panels and the production of enough clean energy to power every home in the United States (within 10 years).  Her clean energy plan is focused on generating new economic investment opportunities that will help to create paying jobs nationwide.

Energy Waste: Reduce energy waste by a third to make manufacturing in the United States cleaner and more efficient.  Specifically mentions

• Improving building codes and standards
• Energy transparency
• Continued support of appliance energy standards and labels

Energy Infrastructure: Upgrade the United States energy infrastructure by modernizing the pipeline system, increasing rail safety and enhancing grid security.  Create a new Presidential Threat Assessment and Response Team to help state, local officials, and the energy industry to handle cyber security threats using new improved technologies.

Donald Trump

Coal: Trump plans to revive the coal mining industry by helping to get coal miners back to work.

Oil & Gas: Has previously stated his support for fracking as a way to end America’s dependence on imported oil.

Nuclear Power: Strongly in favor of nuclear energy, but the United States needs to put the proper procedures in place to ensure its continued safety.

Energy Infrastructure: Plans to rebuild America’s infrastructure on time and on budget, but has not yet defined a plan for how this will improve the United States energy industry infrastructure.

Geo Business 2016: Geo-enabling BIM - Call to action

At this year's Geo Business 2016 event in London two sessions were held focussing on geo-enabling building information modeling (BIM).  Sponsored by Survey4BIM, an initiative supported by the UK Government BIM Task Group, the meetings were intended to encourage the geospatial community to become involved in defining standards for survey, collection, management, processing and delivery of geospatial information within a BIM context.

Since accurate 3D geospatial data underpins the ability to define level of detail (LoD), generalization, and preservation of designs through to construction and operation and maintenance in the real world, it needs to be defined and standardized in the context of construction.  Surveyors understand accuracy and precision and that it can be quantified and needs to be controlled in a process.  New technology such as laser-scanning is increasingly being used within the construction process and this is changing processes such as as-builting. 

The objectives of the geoenabling BIM initiative are to define best standard for consistent accuracy unit and work with Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) to establish common approach to accuracy meta-data and attribution.  It also intends to look at available standards from industry and  professional organizations and BIM software vendors on how they currently support generalization.   Another area of focus is 3D data.  The groups intends to identify and engage with 3D specialists outside of the direct construction community who specialize in generalizing data for visualization and other areas where 3D  data is used.

Survey4BIM is a cross-industry group open to all organisations involved in the survey, collection, management, processing and delivery of geospatial information within a BIM context.  The group's make up is reflective of the sector, involving clients, contractors, consultants, suppliers, sub-contractors, institutions and other organizations.

The mission is to provide a forum for survey organizations and industry professionals to collaborate and share their journey putting “BIM into practice”, and to provide best practice guidance documents on survey matters relating to BIM.  To achieve this the groups has identified several goals;

• Provide leadership in establishing how surveyors provide a critical role in the BIM process
• Increase awareness of the importance of geospatial information in the BIM process
• Share knowledge and learning
• Establish collaborative links to academia
• Produce and publish best practice guidance to organizations, clients and industry professionals on geospatial matters
• Coordinate the Survey4BIM related activities undertaken by geospatial organizations
• Promote survey related case studies, which demonstrate best practices
• Promote the integrated management of geospatial information across all stages of the asset lifecycle.
• Represent the geospatial industry in wider discussions on BIM
• Act as a partner to the Cabinet Office BIM Task Group.

You can register to participate in the Geo-enabling BIM initiative here.

Geo Business 2016: Advance in ground penetrating radar improves mapping of subsurface utilities

A number of return on investment (ROI) studies have identified the significant benefits of knowing where underground utilities are located.  For example, a Pennsylvania State University study commissioned by the Pennsylvania DoT found a return on investment of US$21.00 saved for every US$1.00 spent for SUE when elevating the quality level of subsurface utility information using SUE.  A study in Lombardy, Italy found a return on investment of €16 for every € invested 

The most interesting and differentiating technology at this year's Geo Business 2016 event in London was ground penetrating radar (GPR).  There were at least five or six presentations on GPR technology from different companies at the conference.

The technology that attracted the most attention is a new radar array from IDS (Ingegneria dei Sistemi) in Italy. (I've blogged previously about subsurface mapping of utility infrastructure in Italy.) It's called the IDS Stream EM. It's a modular device with a massive array of high sensitivity radar antennas capable of detecting objects as small as 5 cm down to 5 meters (depending on the soil type). There are about 25 of these devices worldwide including in North America - it is FCC certified.  Hexagon AB has reached on an agreement to acquire the GeoRadar division of IDS.  At the conference two companies, Technics Group and GPR Pro talked about the technology and how they use it to geolocate underground utilities.

Kevin Bank of GPR Pro described the relative advantages of GPR and electromagnetic locators (EML).  There are two situations where GPR is decidely better; when you are looking for non-metallic objects and when you don't have access to a manhole.  GPR Pro offers a dedicated PAS128 compliant GPR data post processing and interpretation service that allows multiple scans to be analyzed at the same time.

Technics demonstrated a towable Pegasus: Stream array that combines above and below surface multi-sensor scanning. It includes a Leica Pegasus: Two scanner for above ground features and a Stream EM array for below ground objects. Technics told me that the combined multi-sensor scanner can be towed at up to 12.5 miles an hour (about 15 km/hour), though 5-10 miles an hour is more typical. Technics was a major supporter of the development of the PAS128 standard and offers a PAS128 interpretation service.

According to Technics, GPR has more uses than just mapping utilities.  It can be used for  pavement/bridge/roadway inspection, void detection, concrete slab analysis, rebar mapping, verifying as-built information of concrete walls and floors.  In general GPR is a superior tool for mapping underground features because unlike traditional EML it can pick up non-metallic objects and can detect utilities without access to a manhole. This makes the use of GPR almost mandatory in an industry that is increasing its use of plastic piping.  Kevin Bank pointed out that GPR is not particularly good at detecting the plastic pipe itself - it detects the contents of the pipe such as water.  However, GPR does have drawbacks.  It requires a trained surveyor to interpret the scans.  It is unable to accurately identify utility type and in some soil types such as aggregate and clay it does not perform well.  Therefore, Technics combines GPR, EML, visual inspection and records to produce its subsurface mapping information.

New York PSC takes major step toward transactive energy with REV

Gartner has predicted that by 2020 the largest electric power company will be an Uber-like behemoth that will not own assets but will simply manage energy suppliers and energy consumers in an open market.  This business model requires transactive energy, where energy flows are determined by market forces.

The New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC) has taken a major step toward a future of transactive energy.  New York's "Reforming the Energy Vision" (REV) is moving the New York state electric utility industry toward a radical redefinition of utilities as we have known them over the past hundred years since Tesla and Edison created the electric power industry.  In the future in New York State the utility industry will be comprised of distributed system platform (DSP) providers, basically providing the grid but not directly selling energy, and a competitive energy market with consumers and many energy providers including bulk power generators and distributed energy generators including you and me with rooftop solar panels.  This model has similarities with the UK model which is disrupting the traditional energy market in the UK..  The development of the REV model is being closely watched by many utilities who see the writing on the wall and hear the death knell of the utility business model we have known for the past 100 years.

In 2014, Governor Cuomo announced REV with the intention to develop an integrated energy network able to combine a central grid and distributed power generation.

May 19, 2016 the New York State Public Service Commission (NYPSC) adopted Order Adopting a Ratemaking and Utility Revenue Model Policy Framework (Download New York REV Ratemaking May 2016 NYPUC {D6EC8F0B-6141-4A82-A857-B79CF0A71BF0}), an order that outlines ratesetting for a multi-year regulatory-driven process to reform the electric power utility business model in New York State.  The NYPSC has made it clear that this process has to occur much more rapidly than regulators and utilities are accustomed to. The order states that the historic pace of regulatory change is inadequate, because recent developments in this and other industries demonstrate that slow and deliberate progress is not always an option and may no longer be acceptable.   The NYPSC intends to establish a regulatory environment that encourages faster adoption of business model change that it sees as necessary.

For the electric utility industry which is facing large infrastructure needs, decreasing system efficiency, environmental demands, weather and customer driven resilience requirements, customers who want more choice, and technology that is decentralizing the grid, the current utility and regulatory model could lead to grid defection, stranded investments and increasing financial challenges.  The NYPSC has recognized that the structure of competitive markets outside of the utility industry has changed dramatically and the utility sector, which has been insulated from the opportunities and the competitive pressures of the modern information economy, is now going to have to change rapidly.  Technology in a competitive market reduces excess inventory, increases asset utilization, and makes possible innovative marketing strategies.  As a result, the traditional utility’s role has evolved to a platform service that enables transactive energy in the form of a multi-sided market in which buyers and sellers interact. 

In February 2015 the NYPSC adopted a regulatory policy framework Regulatory Policy Framework and Implementation Plan ( Download New York REV Framework NYPUC {0B599D87-445B-4197-9815-24C27623A6A0}) for REV which defined the framework for changing regulatory rules for ratemaking.   The key elements of the framework are

• The reformed electric system will be driven by consumers and non-utility providers, and it will be enabled by utilities acting as Distributed System Platform (DSP) providers. Utilities are responsible for reliability, and the functions needed to enable distributed markets are integrally bound to the functions needed to ensure reliability.
• It is our conclusion that requiring the utilities to serve as DSPs under our regulatory authority and supervision is in the best interests of New York consumers.
• By expanding the role of the utilities to include DSP functions, utilities will have the regulatory obligation, operational capability, and economic incentive to optimize the use of DER (distributed energy generation).
• As the platform provider, utilities will not participate as owners of DER where a market participant can and will provide these services. Thus, with the few exceptions discussed, DER will remain a non-utility service provided by the competitive market.
• In order for distributed generation to compete on an equal footing, interconnection with the grid must be enabled through technical rules and processes that are not only safe but also efficient and expeditious.
• Each utility will serve as the platform for interface among its customers, aggregators, and the distribution system. Utilities will respond to new trends by adding value, thereby retaining customer base and the ability to raise capital on reasonable terms. Simultaneously the utility will serve as a seamless interface between aggregated customers and the NYISO (The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) operates competitive wholesale electric power markets).

Reforming ratemaking

The NYPSC cites three principles of the Framework Order as particularly relevant to the reform of ratemaking.

1. The unidirectional grid must evolve into a diversified distributed model engaging customers and third parties.
2. Ensuring universal, reliable, resilient, and secure delivery service at just and reasonable prices remains a function of regulated utilities.
3. The overall efficiency of the system and consumer value and choice must be improved by achieving a more productive mix of utility and third-party investment.

The NYPSC states that utilities will remain regulated, but will have new ways of generating revenue and creating investor value:

1. traditional cost-of-service earnings
2. earnings tied to achievement of alternatives that reduce utility capital spending and provide consumer benefit
3. earnings from market-facing platform activities
4. transitional outcome-based performance measures.

The new ways of generating revenue are intended to create a regulatory environment where utilities can create shareholder value, comparable to or superior to conventional investments, by integrating third-party solutions and capital that improve the efficiency, resiliency and flexibility of the physical networks, reduce consumer total costs and achieve the State’s policy objectives.

Specifics

The specific measures that the NYPSC intends to mandate for the utility sector in New York State includes

• Platform service revenues - new forms of utility revenues associated with the operation and facilitation of distribution-level markets.
• Earning Adjustment Mechanisms- there are temporary, short-term measures that are intended to bridge the transition form the current business model to the new model.
  • System efficiency: Each utility will propose a peak reduction target and a load factor improvement target.
  • Energy efficiency: The Clean Energy Advisory Council will develop targets for energy efficiency.
  • Customer engagement:  Utilities will be able to propose positive opportunities based on customer uptake in innovative engagement programs.
  • Interconnection: A positive earning opportunity will be developed based on satisfaction surveys of DER providers regarding utilities’ progress in timely and cost-effective interconnection approvals.
  • Affordability: To assist low-income conumers, affordability metrics will be established as scorecards, and financial incentives will be established in rate cases as appropriate.
• Greenhouse Gas reductions: The NYPSC is considering a Clean Energy Standard to achieve the State’s target of 50% renewable generation by 2030.
• Competitive market-based earnings: Unregulated utility subsidiaries are authorized to engage in competitive value-added services.
• Data access. The conditions under which utilities may charge for individual customer usage data are established. Standard reporting of aggregate customer data is provided for. Certain basic levels of information will be free of charge, while utilities may charge a fee for provision of more refined data or analysis.
• Opt-in rate design: Voluntary participation in advanced rate design will be encouraged by financial incentives and scorecard metrics
• Mass-market rate design:  An analytic approach will be used to examine bill impacts, for different types of consumers, Programs will be targeted toward different categories of consumers
  • Traditional consumers — customers who don't actively manage their energy consumption
  • Active consumers — customers who use DER with the purpose of reducing their bills
  • Prosumers — those customers who install solar PV generation or other technologies that allow them to sell energy to the grid

It was also recommended that a method be developed for valuing the contributions of distributed energy generation (DER).  This is intended to be used in valuing DER such as solar PV.  It would be used to reform net energy metering (NEM).  Net metering allows solar users to receive credit for excess power back to the grid at retail rates. In the immediate future it is recommended that the current NEM policy should be continued for small rooftop installations.  (A partnership of solar providers and utilities has just filed a proposal for maintaining NEM with the NYPSC)

Nevada PUC transitions residential customers to cost-based net metering over 12 years

The Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) has announced new net metering rules and rates for residential customers. The order implements a structured transition to cost based rates for net metering customers over twelve years.

Customers will be required to pay a fixed basic service charge plus a charge per kWh of power they consume. If they generate power with rooftop solar PV panels, NV Energy will provide a credit per kWh that the customer delivers. 

The rates that the PUCN sets for services provided by NV Energy, as well as the value of the credit for excess energy delivered by net metering customers, will be reset by the PUCN periodically. The  forecast for these rates in Southern Nevada are listed below.

Date	Basic service charge	Cost/kWh (cents)	Credit/kWh (cents)
Prior rate	$12.75	11.3
Jan 1, 2016	$17.90	11.1	9.2
Jan 1, 2019	$23.05	10.6	7.4
Jan 1, 2022	$28.21	10.6	5.7
Jan 1, 2025	$33.36	10.4	4.2
Jan 1, 2028	$38.51	10.2	2.6

Residential electricity consumption in Nevada averages 935 kWh/month. 

The above scenario projects that the average monthly bill (for customers without rooftop PV) would rise from $118/month in 2015 to $134/month in 2028, which is about 1% per year, likely less than inflation, so that represents a small decrease in the monthly bill. 

If the customer generated, say, half of his/her own power with solar PV, the bill would increase from $26.63/month in 2016 to $73.71/month in 2028, which is an increase of nearly 10% per year for the same amount of grid delivered power.  Of course if the customer took advantage of time-of-use pricing and other programs, this would be different, but the most important factor is the difference between what the customer pays for power and what NV Energy pays for customer generated power.

For comparison, Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD) currently charges $18/month as a  flat infrastructure fee, but has calculated it needs to increase that to $28/month to cover the cost of maintaining the grid.  SMUD either pays for net-surplus electricity generated by the customer at SMUD's average cost of generation, which may be below the retail rate, or alternatively SMUD will provide credits at the retail rate.

Future of Utilities: Competition is disrupting the U.K. energy retail market

The U.K. electricity industry has been through privatization and changing regulation. From privatization to consolidation to expansion the market has seen cyclical consolidation and expansion. The structure of the industry that has evolved has become a model for many others including North American regulators and utilities.

There are many companies in the electricity generation sector, from large multinationals to small, family-owned businesses running a single site.  Transmission in the U.K. is operated by three regulated monopolies. Fourteen distribution companies are responsible for the distribution infrastructure.  There are 39 energy suppliers who compete with each other to supply energy to customers.  Full competition was introduced into Britain’s retail energy markets for large customers in 1990, in 1994 for medium sized entities and in 1998 for domestic customers.

At the Future of Canada's Utilities Summit in Toronto, Lawrence Slade, CEO of Energy UK, gave a fascinating overview of the evolution of the U.K. energy retail market from a market that was perceived as broken, noncompetitive and inefficient, to its present disruptive (to incumbents) state with new entrants into the market almost every week.

Energy UK is the trade association for the UK energy industry representing over 80 suppliers and generators of electricity and gas for domestic and business consumers. 

The energy regulator in the U.K. is Ofgem.  In 2002 Ofgem abolished price caps across the market based on the concept that "competition could deliver more benefits for customers than regulation."  But there was a widespread perception that the market was not competitive.  In 2008 Ofgem announces a probe into energy supply markets.  In 2014 Ofgem referred the energy market to the Competition and Markets Authority.

However, in the last few years, the number of customers switching their energy supplier has increased dramatically.  The number of new energy suppliers has gone up dramatically and the public has shown with its feet that it prefers the new entrants to the incumbents.  More than a million customers are leaving the incumbents for the new entrants every year.  The market share the new entrants has achieved is remarkable, 15% in a couple of years and it continues to rise.

There are price comparison web sites.  Collective switching where customers join together to get a better price from a supplier is commonplace.  This together with government ads has achieved a record level of customers switching, 4 million in 2015 and over 1.1 million in the first quarter of 2016.

The biggest hurdle that had to be overcome and continues to be a challenge is engaging with customers.  When the market was first opened up, many customers didn't understand how the market functions.  Many assumed that all energy companies are the same and it wouldn't be worth switching.  The reality is that customers can save hundreds of pounds a year by switching.  An Ofgem survey in 2014 found that the amount of money that the average customer would have to save to encourage them to switch was £94.  It turns out this is just about the amount that customers save per annum by switching.

But it is not just about price. The new entrants have done a better job of engaging with the customer, by providing green energy, better customer service, a free heater or broadband and energy packages.  The incumbents have realized that they are rapidly losing a major part of their customer base and are starting to fight back.

The future

In the future it is expected that customers will be able to switch in 24 hours rather than the current two weeks.  There will be additional trials to try to engage with late adopters, the customers who still have not seen the value of switching in a competitive market.  The rollout of smart meters will make it easier for innovators to use customer power usage patterns to demonstrate the advantage of smart devices, batteries and load shifting.  It is expected that energy suppliers will get more involved in managing devices on the other side of the meter. 

There is the threat of intermediaries coming between the customer and the energy supplier leading to  disconnect of the relationship between a supplier and their customers.  The continued drop in cost and efficiency improvements from solar PV and batteries may lead to customers going off the grid. This creates a regulatory headache of how to recover costs for stranded network assets that may only carry a small proportion of their design capacity.  On the plus side electric vehicles and the possible decarbonization of heat could potentially reverse the demand decline.

One third of U.S. electricity generation in 2015 from non-emitting sources

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) since 2005 renewables have risen from 8% of total electricity generation in the U.S. to 13% in 2015.  In 2015 non-emitting sources, renewables and nuclear, provided a record 33% of overall U.S. electricity production. Roughly another third was generated by natural gas and a third by coal.

In March 2015, the United States submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) for GHG emissions reduction to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change targetting emissions reduction of 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025.  Electricity generation is the largest source of emissions in the U.S.  In 2015 according to the EIA carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from electricity generation totaled 1,925 million tonnes, 21% below their 2005 level so the INDC goals appear achievable, at least for electric power.

The reduction in emissions is due to two factors, increased non-emitting energy sources with most of the increase attributable to wind and solar, and the replacement of coal with natural gas. 

There are two reasons why energy produced with natural gas is less carbon intensive than coal.  Coal plants consume more energy than a combined-cycle natural gas plant to produce the same amount of electricity.  Secondly, coal's carbon content per unit of energy is nearly twice that of natural gas. The bottom line is that to generate the same amount of electricity,  natural gas emits 40% of the carbon dioxide that would be emitted from a coal-fired unit.