Show Notes
Most POWER readers are probably familiar with levelized cost of energy (LCOE) and levelized value of energy (LVOE) as metrics used to help evaluate potential power plant investment options. LCOE measures the average net present cost of electricity generation over a facility’s lifetime. It includes capital costs, fuel costs, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, financing costs, expected capacity factor, and project lifetime. Meanwhile, LVOE goes beyond LCOE by considering the actual value the power provides to the grid, including time of generation (peak vs. off-peak), location value, grid integration costs and benefits, contributions to system reliability, environmental attributes, and capacity value. Some of the key differences stem from the perspective and market context each provides. LCOE, for example, focuses on pure cost comparison between technologies, while LVOE evaluates actual worth to the power system. Notably, LCOE ignores when and where power is generated; whereas, LVOE accounts for temporal and locational value variations. Concerning system integration, LCOE treats all generation as equally valuable, while LVOE considers grid integration costs and system needs. “Things like levelized cost of energy or capacity factors are probably the wrong measure to use in many of these markets,” Karl Meeusen, director of Markets, Legislative, and Regulatory Policy with Wärtsilä North America, said as a guest on The POWER Podcast. “Instead, I think one of the better metrics to start looking at and using more deeply is what we call the levelized value of energy, and that’s really looking at what the prices at the location where you’re trying to build that resource are going to be.” Wärtsilä is a company headquartered in Finland that provides innovative technologies and lifecycle solutions for the marine and energy markets. Among its main offerings are reciprocating engines that can operate on a variety of fuels for use in electric power generating plants. Wärtsilä has modeled different power systems in almost 200 markets around the world. It says the data consistently shows that a small number of grid-balancing gas engines in a system can provide the balancing and flexibility to enable renewables to flourish—all while maintaining reliable, resilient, and affordable electricity. Meeusen noted that a lot of the models find engines offer greater value than other technologies on the system because of their flexibility, even though they may operate at lower capacity factors. Having the ability to turn on and off allows owners to capture high price intervals, where prices spike because of scarcity or ramp shortages, while avoiding negative prices by turning off as prices start to dip and drop lower. “That levelized value is one of the things that we think is really important going forward,” he said. “I think what a lot of models and planning scenarios miss when they look at something like LCOE—and they’re looking at a single resource added into the system—is how it fits within the system, and what does it do to the value of the rest of their portfolio?” Meeusen explained. “I call this: thinking about the cannibalistic costs. If I look at an LCOE with a capacity factor for a combined cycle resource, and don’t consider how that might impact or increase the curtailment of renewable energy—no cost renewable energy—I don’t really necessarily see the true cost of some of those larger, inflexible generators on the system. And, so, when we think about that, we really want to make sure that what we’re covering and capturing is the true value that a generator has in a portfolio, not just as a standalone resource.”
More from The POWER Podcast
In this episode of The POWER Podcast, Sandeep Kumar Gupta, sales director with Siemens Energy Gas Services, and Naira Elsayed, a senior project manager with Elsewedy Electric Power Systems Projects (PSP), discuss the Rabigh Reinforcement Combined Cycle Power Plant, a finalist for a 2026 POWER Top Plant Award.
Utilities and independent power producers have spent years adding sensors to their generating fleets and creating dashboards to view what they relay. But visibility into how a plant is operating isn’t the same as knowing what to do about it—and that gap is where Siemens Energy’s Omnivise Energy Management System is increasingly shedding light, explained two of the company’s experts as guests on The POWER Podcast. “Monitoring is just telling you what’s happening,” said Sarah Dietrich-Smith, Siemens Energy’s commercialization manager for Omnivise Energy Market and Fleet Management Solutions, “and Energy Management is telling you what should happen next, and it helps you to execute that decision,” she explained. The distinction, she said, is the real difference between tracking a plant’s condition and actually optimizing it—moving “from just this visibility to true optimization that you can actually take action on, and optimization that’s based and tied to measurable business outcomes.” From Single Assets to Whole Fleets Katie Hanley, head of Siemens Energy’s Omnivise Energy Market and Fleet Management Solutions team, framed Energy Management as fundamentally a question of business outcomes. Given a plant’s generation commitments, gas hedging position, and access to additional electricity markets, “What are the optimized economics for running your plant or your fleet?” she asked. “Historically, assets were managed individually. They really only cared about the question, ‘How can we get the single asset to perform better?’ ” Dietrich-Smith said. “We want to move into a fleet optimization mindset.” One plant might be constrained while another has more flexibility—sometimes for regional reasons, such as differing prices or curtailment risk in different markets. “This fleet-level approach is what’s going to help operators allocate flexibility, manage this risk, and ultimately optimize the commercial performance across the full portfolio,” she said, “instead of just making that isolated asset or site-level decision.” Dietrich-Smith also pushed back on a common assumption about where the value comes from. “I think the most common misconception is that the only value we’re bringing is efficiency improvement,” she said. Customers also see fewer penalties, more effective participation in electricity markets, and faster response to changing conditions—benefits she summed up simply: “Time is money.” Renewables Complicate the Math A growing share of that fleet-level complexity traces back to renewables, Hanley said, whether a customer operates a hybrid portfolio directly or simply competes in a market where renewable penetration is rising. She described thinking in terms of dispatchable versus non-dispatchable generation: as more renewables come online, dispatchable options become scarcer, making it harder to maintain grid stability—and more important to predict when instability might occur. That prediction problem pulls in weather and market data alike, from cloud cover and wind speeds at different altitudes to real-time electricity prices. For a hybrid site with battery storage, the same data informs decisions about when to charge from onsite generation versus the grid, and when to discharge—sometimes purely to arbitrage low prices rather than to support the site’s own generation. “These batteries are creating dispatchable flexibility when normally we would only be able to do that with some of our large gas assets,” Hanley said, adding that customers are increasingly weighing a battery discharge against ramping up a plant or duct burning, based on which is the better economic call in the moment. Hanley closed the conversation on a practical note for listeners still weighing where to start. “Everything is only getting more complex, so give us a call,” she said.
Public power utilities have long promised lower bills, reliable service, and decisions made close to home—and the data still backs that up. But holding that ground is getting harder. In this episode of The POWER Podcast, Scott Corwin, president and CEO of the American Public Power Association (APPA), talks about the forces now testing the community-owned utility model. Corwin explains why resource adequacy, reliability, and affordability have converged into the defining challenge for APPA's roughly 2,000 member systems—a concern that once affected only certain regions but now stretches across nearly the entire membership. He breaks down the tools public power uses to keep rates down, including tax-exempt financing and elective pay credits, and why local control itself acts as a check on spending. The conversation also digs into the issues reshaping the sector: how smaller utilities are evaluating massive data center interconnection requests while protecting ratepayers; why Corwin describes public power's generation strategy as "any of the above" rather than "all of the above"; and the structural headwinds—permitting delays, an aging workforce, supply chain strain, and cybersecurity—that determine what utilities can build and how fast. Corwin closes with what he most wants policymakers to understand about community-owned utilities, and the value of 2,000 diverse communities speaking with one voice on affordability and reliability. Listen to the full conversation to hear how public power is navigating one of the most dynamic periods the industry has faced in years.
A perfect storm is brewing across the U.S. power generation fleet. Between 600 and 700 GE 7FA gas turbines installed during the bubble of 2000–2004—plus roughly 900 7EA units worldwide—are simultaneously approaching the OEM's 144,000-hour, 5,000-start end-of-life threshold. Superalloy forgings carry multi-year lead times. Only a handful of shops worldwide can service these machines. And the data center boom is pushing utilization higher than anyone planned for.
Duke Energy operates 11 nuclear units across six sites in the Carolinas — a fleet that produces more than half of the region's electricity year in and year out. In 2025, that fleet posted its best capacity factor on record, north of 97%.