Nick Rosen

To say that the United States electrical grid is outdated would be an understatement. Built largely during the first half of the 20th century, the grid has struggled to keep up with the explosion of electrical demand and technological advancements. It’s a patchwork system, plagued by inefficiencies, that was not designed for the diverse energy needs of the 21st century.

The electrical grid’s limitations aren’t just a theoretical problem; they have real-world implications. Extreme weather events, which are increasing in frequency due to climate change, pose significant risks. The recent Texas energy crisis, where a winter storm left millions without power, is a glaring example. Natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires also highlight how easily large sections of the grid can be knocked out, leaving communities without essential services for days or even weeks.

The centralized nature of the U.S. grid further compounds these issues. The existing structure often creates monopolistic scenarios where a single provider controls a regional grid, limiting competition and innovation. This affects not just pricing but also the motivation to transition to cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy. The end result is an inertia that is hard to overcome.

Off-Grid: A Viable Alternative

One promising way to address these myriad issues is through the adoption of off-grid energy solutions. Off-grid systems, often based on renewable energy sources like solar and wind, are modular by design, meaning they can be scaled up or down as needed. This provides a unique flexibility that the traditional grid simply cannot offer.

Local Energy Production

One of the most significant advantages of going off-grid is the potential for local energy production. Communities can produce their own electricity, thereby reducing the distance that electricity has to travel. This not only minimizes transmission losses but also reduces the vulnerability to centralized grid failures.

Decentralization and Competition

By encouraging off-grid solutions, we move towards a more decentralized energy model. This fosters competition and allows communities to tailor their energy systems to their specific needs, whether that be cost-efficiency, sustainability, or resilience.

Environmental Benefits

Incorporating off-grid energy solutions like solar panels and wind turbines can also significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By shifting away from fossil fuel-based electricity, off-grid systems offer an environmentally friendly alternative that aligns with global sustainability goals.

Legislative Reform: The Case for a New Category of “Local Energy Producer”

Given the clear advantages of off-grid systems, there’s an urgent need for legislative action. One such change could be modeled on the UK’s Electricity Act of 1989. A new category, “Local Energy Producer,” should be introduced, granting off-grid solutions a formal standing within the regulatory framework. This could involve tax incentives, grants, or subsidized loans to encourage local communities to invest in off-grid energy solutions.

The limitations and vulnerabilities of the U.S. electrical grid are not insurmountable problems; they are challenges that present an opportunity for transformative change. Off-grid energy is not …

Calculations by Off-Grid.net show the EU total liability under the new Cop27 agreement announced in Egypt today, is $11.36 trillion.

Assets of the Loss & Damage fund are currently standing at zero, but countries will be under pressure to contribute quickly. The speed at which this should be paid is open to debate and clearly depends on what each country can afford, but the total EU bill is relatively easy to calculate.

About $2 trillion of the $11.4 trillion is directly attributable to the EU itself, rather than being owed by its 27 member countries, because the basic tenets that the European Commission has promoted since it was first founded in 1952, encouraged, indeed coerced, its member states to burn fossil fuels.

Loss and damage refers to the most severe impacts of extreme weather on the physical and social infrastructure of poor countries, and the financial assistance needed to rescue and rebuild them.

It was the most contentious issue at the COP27 conference, and has been a long-running demand by developing countries since 1992. For nearly two weeks, the EU and the US refused demands from poor countries for a new fund to address loss and damage, arguing that existing funds should be redirected for the purpose. Early on Friday morning, the EU made a U-turn, to agree to a fund on condition that big economies and big emitters still classed as developing countries under the UNFCCC rules, which date back to 1992, should be included as potential donors, and excluded as recipients.

From its very first moment, the EU was all about burning energy – it had been brought into being to foster the burning of coal, the production of power, and the regulation of giant corporate interests.

It launched in 1952, called the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). In 2002 Romano Prodi said: “The ECSC was a courageous and hugely significant leap forward for Europe. It was Europe’s first step in pooling a part of each country’s sovereignty for the greater good of all who took part. It was the ECSC which first established shared, supranational institutions for Europe – the basis of the EU as we know it today and a milestone in political history. History will record the founding of the ECSC as a defining moment.”

The stated aim of the ECSC was “economic expansion, employment and better living standards.” They achieved all three – but at what cost?

The Coal and Steel Group had a High Authority to:

• supervise the market;
• monitor compliance with competition rules; and
• ensure price transparency

The aim of the 1952 treaty, as stated in its Article 2, was to contribute, through the common market for coal and steel, to economic expansion, employment and better living standards. Thus, the institutions had to ensure an orderly supply of coal and steel to the common market by ensuring equal …