With the caveats of 1) I work for an electric utility and 2) my opinions here and elsewhere on hubski are mine and may not reflect those of my employer:
Change. The new paradigm, same as the old paradigm.
Change is nothing new for utilities. In the '90s it was de-regulation and open access. No longer could utilities deny access to independent generators to connect to their systems. If an IPP (independent power producer) had a lower priced product, state commissions would order regulated utilities to buy their power.
I have some criticisms of the article, mostly in tone, but there is one major truth here:
3% annual growth used to be the norm. Today, everything I hear across the board is less than 1%. Some local areas might see more, some will see less or even negative growth (likely due to large industrial customers shutting down). But it averages out to positive but less than 1%.
I think this paragraph misses something very important: failing to address a future need might mean that future need goes unmet. A little more bluntly, that might mean grandma's air conditioner in Nashville doesn't run when it's hot because there's no generation or no power lines to supply her and all her neighbors from what generation is available. Big power lines easily take ten years to build from inception to carrying power. Utilities have to be conservative because the alternative can have significant impacts to health, wellbeing, and the economy.
As I scroll through the article again, I want to note my general agreement. This:
is totally right.
The tone stuff I don't agree with is this:
How does the author reconcile calling utilities frantic or surprised with TVA's constantly changing conclusions and their decision to start their integrated resource plan early? Guessing the future of energy is like trying to guess the future of the stock market. He might as well call stock traders surprised and frantic about the unprecedented market growth. He could be just as smug, and his conclusion would be just as pointless.