Given the space we work in, we often hear and read about folks that are wanting to go “off grid”. The ATA’s “off the grid” special edition newsletter is one recent example, as are the many stories that emerged in the aftermath of the recent SA blackouts, such as how some people with battery storage didn’t even know a blackout was happening until they read it on their social media pages on devices (charging from their stored energy, of course).
When we speak to customers about what they think about going off grid, we often find there’s an underlying sentiment driven by distrust of energy companies, of disaffection with increasing network charges (for limited perceived value), and the impending changes to feed-in tariffs. This all builds on the already significant “trust gap” that has grown between customers and their electricity providers (Australia has one of the highest churn rates in the world).
For many, what started as an interest in improving returns for excess household solar generation has morphed into a sense of wanting to “stick it to the electricity company” (and/or the Government)—to the point where people are willing to invest in storage technologies even though the economic case doesn’t stack up.
It’s an understandable—and strongly felt—sentiment, one that some players in the distributed energy sector are capitalising on. What impact, though, does this have on our communities, when it comes to access to affordable energy?
As people go off grid, the cost to maintain the grid increases for those that remain connected. This is especially true when energy plans rely on usage charges to recoup network costs—a significant reduction in usage therefore has ramifications for energy equity, as those least able to afford solar panels or other renewable energy are the ones that bear the brunt of increased grid costs. Darius recently posted about the experience of a village in Myanmar that demonstrates what can occur if a significant proportion of people go off grid. While the example he cites is a bit of a microcosm of the effect in a larger, more mature energy market, it starkly illuminates the effects on the broader community.
Here at Nexergy we are keen to not let “stick it to the energy company” translate into “stick it to our community.” We don’t want to see the uptake of distributed, sustainable energy sources in conflict with energy equity. But this is a strong potential outcome, especially as battery prices continue to fall, making the case for going off grid more compelling.
This is (just one of the reasons) why we’re passionate about local energy trading. It’s a tool that rewards those that want to invest in small scale clean energy resources, but in a way that retains value in remaining connected to the grid, balancing individual and community benefit in a distributed, two-way energy future.
In the rush to “disintermediate” and “disrupt” let’s not forget that the grid does have value — not (only) as an asset to the companies responsible for them, but (more importantly) for the community, and the environment. In amongst the (sometimes emotional) response to energy company actions and government policy, it’s worth reflecting on how our individual choices can have a significant collective impact — both positive and negative. If we’re to shape a new energy future, let’s make sure it’s inclusive and equitable, and not leaving some people behind.
^GY
