Alberta Seeks Evidence It Was Targeted by Enron

Alberta Electricity Market Reforms aim to boost grid reliability and efficiency through a day-ahead market, transmission policy changes, clearer pricing signals, AESO oversight, and smarter siting near existing infrastructure to lower consumer costs.

Key Points

Policies add a day-ahead market and transmission fees to modernize the grid and improve reliability.

✅ Day-ahead market for clearer pricing and scheduling

✅ Up-front, non-refundable transmission payments by generators

✅ AESO to draft new rules by end of 2025

The Alberta government is implementing significant electricity policy changes to its electricity market to enhance system reliability and efficiency. These reforms aim to modernize the grid, accommodate growing energy demands, and align with best practices observed in other jurisdictions.

Proposed Market Reforms

The government has outlined several key initiatives:

• Day-Ahead Market Implementation: Introducing a day-ahead market is intended to provide clearer pricing signals and improve the scheduling of electricity generation. This approach allows market participants to plan and commit to energy production in advance, enhancing grid stability.

• Transmission Policy Revisions: The government proposes reforms to transmission policies, including the introduction of up-front and non-refundable transmission payments from new power generators. These payments would vary based on the proximity of new generators to existing transmission lines with available capacity. As part of a broader market overhaul, this strategy encourages the development of power plants in areas where existing infrastructure can be utilized, potentially reducing costs for consumers and businesses.

Government's Objectives

Minister of Affordability and Utilities, Nathan Neudorf, emphasized that these changes are necessary to meet growing energy demands and modernize Alberta’s electricity system. The government's goal is to create a more reliable and efficient electrical system that benefits both consumers and the broader economy.

Industry Reactions

The proposed reforms have elicited mixed reactions from industry stakeholders amid profound sector change across Alberta:

• Renewable Energy Sector Concerns: The Canadian Renewable Energy Association (CanREA) has expressed concerns about the potential for punitive market and transmission changes, and some retailers have similarly urged caution. They advocate for policies that support the integration of renewable energy sources and ensure fair treatment within the market.

• Regulatory Oversight: The Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) is tasked with preparing restructured energy market rules by the end of 2025. This timeline reflects the government's commitment to a thorough and consultative approach to market reform.

Implications for Consumers

The Alberta government's proposed market changes aim to enhance the reliability and efficiency of the electricity system by considering measures such as a Rate of Last Resort to provide additional stability. By encouraging the development of power plants in areas with existing infrastructure, the reforms seek to reduce costs for consumers and businesses. However, the success of these initiatives will depend on careful implementation and ongoing engagement with all stakeholders to balance the diverse interests involved.

Alberta's proposed electricity market reforms represent a significant step toward modernizing the province's energy infrastructure. By introducing a day-ahead market and revising transmission policies, the government aims to create a more reliable and efficient electrical system and promote market competition more effectively. While these changes have generated diverse reactions, they underscore the government's commitment to addressing the evolving energy needs of Alberta's residents and businesses.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Russian Utility Grid Cyberattacks reveal DHS findings on Dragonfly/Energetic Bear breaching control rooms and ICS/SCADA via vendor supply-chain spear-phishing, threatening blackouts and critical infrastructure across U.S. power utilities through stolen credentials and reconnaissance.

Key Points

State-backed ops breaching utilities via vendors to reach ICS/SCADA, risking grid disruption and control-room access.

✅ Spear-phishing and watering-hole attacks on vendor networks

✅ Stolen credentials used to reach isolated ICS/SCADA

✅ Potential to trigger localized blackouts and service disruptions

Hackers working for Russia were able to gain access to the control rooms of US electric utilities last year, allowing them to cause blackouts, federal officials tell the Wall Street Journal.

The hackers -- working for a state-sponsored group previously identified as Dragonfly or Energetic Bear -- broke into utilities' isolated networks by hacking networks belonging to third-party vendors that had relationships with the power companies, the Department of Homeland Security said in a press briefing on Monday.

Officials said the campaign had claimed hundreds of victims and is likely continuing, the Journal reported.

"They got to the point where they could have thrown switches" to disrupt the flow power, Jonathan Homer, chief of industrial-control-system analysis for DHS, told the Journal.

"While hundreds of energy and non-energy companies were targeted, the incident where they gained access to the industrial control system was a very small generation asset that would not have had any impact on the larger grid if taken offline," the DHS said in a statement Tuesday. "Over the course of the past year as we continued to investigate the activity, we learned additional information which would be helpful to industry in defending against this threat."

Organizations running the nation's energy, nuclear and other critical infrastructure have become frequent targets for cyberattacks in recent years due to their ability to cause immediate chaos, whether it's starting a blackout or blocking traffic signals. These systems are often vulnerable because of antiquated software and the high costs of upgrading infrastructure.

The report comes amid heightened tension between Russia and the US over cybersecurity, alongside US condemnation of power grid hacking in recent months. Earlier this month, US special counsel Robert Mueller filed charges against 12 Russian hackers tied to cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee.

Hackers compromised US power utility companies' corporate networks with conventional approaches, such as spear-phishing emails and watering-hole attacks as seen in breaches at power plants across the US that target a specific group of users by infecting websites they're known to visit, the newspaper reported. After gaining access to vendor networks, hackers turned their attention to stealing credentials for access to the utility networks and familiarizing themselves with facility operations, officials said, according to the Journal.

Homeland Security didn't identify the victims, the newspaper reports, adding that some companies may not know they had been compromised because the attacks used legitimate credentials to gain access to the networks.

Cyberattacks on electrical systems aren't an academic matter. In 2016, Ukraine's grid was disrupted by cyberattacks attributed to Russia, which is engaged in territorial disputes with the country over eastern Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula. Russia has denied any involvement in targeting critical infrastructure.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in May designed to bolster the United States' cybersecurity by protecting federal networks, critical infrastructure and the public online. One section of the order focuses on protecting the grid like electricity and water, as well as financial, health care and telecommunications systems.

The Department of Homeland Security didn't respond to a request for comment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

SDG&E Mitsubishi Power Energy Storage adds a 10 MW/60 MWh BESS in Pala, boosting grid reliability, renewable integration, and flexibility with EMS and SCADA controls, LFP safety chemistry, NERC CIP compliance, UL 9540 standards.

Key Points

A 10 MW/60 MWh BESS for SDG&E in Pala that enhances grid reliability, renewables usage, and operational flexibility.

✅ Emerald EMS/SCADA meets NERC CIP, IEC/ISA 62443, NIST 800-53

✅ LFP chemistry with UL 9540 and UL 9540A safety compliance

✅ Adds capacity, energy, and ancillary services to CA grid

San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), a regulated public utility that provides energy service to 3.7 million people, has awarded Mitsubishi Power an order for a 10 megawatt (MW) / 60 megawatt-hour (MWh) energy storage solution for its Pala-Gomez Creek Energy Storage Project in Pala, California. The battery energy storage system (BESS) will add capacity to help meet high energy demand, support grid reliability and operational flexibility, underscoring the broader benefits of energy storage now recognized by utilities, maximize use of renewable energy, and help prevent outages during peak demand.

The BESS project is Mitsubishi Power’s eighth in California, bringing total capacity to 280 MW / 1,140 MWh of storage to help meet California’s clean energy goals with reliable power to complement renewables, alongside emerging solutions like a California green hydrogen microgrid for added resilience.

Mitsubishi Power’s Emerald storage solution for SDG&E includes full turnkey design, engineering, procurement, and construction, as well as a 10-year long-term service agreement, aligning with CEC long-duration storage funding initiatives underway. It is scheduled to be online in early 2023.

The project will repower an existing energy storage site. It will employ Mitsubishi Power’s Emerald Integrated Plant Controller, which is an Energy Management System (EMS) and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system with real-time BESS operation and a monitoring/supervisory control platform. Mitsubishi Power leverages its decades of technology monitoring and diagnostics to turn data into actionable insights to maximize reliability, a priority as regions like Ontario increasingly rely on battery storage to meet rising demand. The Mitsubishi Power Emerald Integrated Plant Controller complies with North American Electric Reliability Corporation critical infrastructure protection (NERC CIP) standards and meets the highest security certification in the energy storage industry (IEC/ISA 62443, NIST 800-53) for maximum protection from cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities.

For added physical safety, Mitsubishi Power’s solution employs lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery chemistry, aligning with BESS adoption in New York where safety and performance are critical. Compared with other chemistries, LFP provides longer life and superior thermal stability and chemical stability, while meeting UL 9540 and UL 9540A safety standards.

Fernando Valero, Director, Advanced Clean Technology, SDG&E, said, “SDG&E is committed to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. We are increasing our portfolio of energy storage assets, including virtual power plant models, to reach this goal. These assets enhance grid reliability and operational flexibility while maximizing our use of abundant renewable energy sources in California.”

Tom Cornell, Senior Vice President, Energy Storage Solutions, Mitsubishi Power Americas, said, “As more and more renewables come online during the energy transition, BESS solutions are essential to support a reliable and stable grid. We look forward to providing SDG&E with our BESS solution to add capacity, energy, and ancillary services to California’s grid. Mitsubishi Power’s Emerald storage solutions are enabling a smarter and more resilient energy future for our customers in California and around the globe, with projects like an energy storage demonstration in India underscoring this momentum.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

EU Gas Price Cap Strategies aim to curb inflation during an energy crisis by capping wholesale gas and electricity generation costs, balancing supply and demand, mitigating subsidies, and safeguarding supply security amid Russia-Ukraine shocks.

Key Points

Temporary EU measures to cap gas and power prices, curb inflation, manage demand, and protect supply security.

✅ Flexible temporary price limits to secure gas supplies

✅ Framework cap on gas for electricity generation with demand checks

✅ Risk: subsidies, higher demand, and market distortions

The European Commission has outlined possible strategies to cap gas prices as the bloc faces a looming energy crisis this winter. 

Member states are divided over the emergency measures designed to pull down soaring inflation amid Russia's war in Ukraine. 

One proposal is a temporary "flexible" limit on gas prices to ensure that Europe can continue to secure enough gas, EU energy commissioner Kadri Simson said on Tuesday. 

Another option could be an EU-wide "framework" for a price cap on gas used to generate electricity, which would be combined with measures to ensure gas demand does not rise as a result, she said.

EU leaders are meeting on Friday to debate gas price cap strategies amid warnings that Europe's energy nightmare could worsen this winter.

Last week, France, Italy, Poland and 12 other EU countries urged the Commission to propose a broader price cap targeting all wholesale gas trade. 

But Germany -- Europe's biggest gas buyer -- and the Netherlands are among those opposing electricity market reforms within the bloc.

Russia has slashed gas deliveries to Europe since its February invasion of Ukraine, with Moscow blaming the cuts on Western sanctions imposed in response to the invasion, as the EU advances a plan to dump Russian energy across the bloc.

Since then, the EU has agreed on emergency laws to fill gas storage and windfall profit levies to raise money to help consumers with bills. 

Price cap critics
One energy analyst told Euronews that an energy price cap was an "unchartered territory" for the European Union. 

The EU's energy sector is largely liberalised and operates under the fundamental rules of supply and demand, making rolling back electricity prices complex in practice.

"My impression is that member states are looking at prices and quantities in isolation and that's difficult because of economics," said Elisabetta Cornago, a senior energy researcher at the Centre for European Reform.

"It's hard to picture such a level of market intervention This is uncharted territory."

The energy price cap would "quickly start costing billions" because it would force governments to continually subsidise the difference between the real market price and the artificially capped price, another expert said. 

"If you are successful and prices are low and you still get gas, consumers will increase their demand: low price means high demand. Especially now that winter is coming," said Bram Claeys, a senior advisor at the Regulatory Assistance Project. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Offshore Wind Cost Competitiveness is rising as larger turbines boost megawatt output, cut LCOE, and trim maintenance and installation time, enabling projects in New England to rival natural gas pricing while scaling reliably.

Key Points

It describes how larger offshore turbines lower LCOE and O&M, making U.S. projects price competitive with natural gas.

✅ Larger turbines boost MW output and reduce LCOE.

✅ Lower O&M and faster installation cut lifecycle costs.

✅ Competes with gas in New England bids, per BNEF.

Massive offshore wind turbines keep getting bigger, as projects like the biggest UK offshore wind farm come online, and that’s helping make the power cheaper — to the point where developers say new projects in U.S. waters can compete with natural gas.

The price “is going to be a real eye-opener,” said Bryan Martin, chairman of Deepwater Wind LLC, which won an auction in May to build a 400-megawatt wind farm southeast of Rhode Island.

Deepwater built the only U.S. offshore wind farm, a 30-megawatt project that was completed south of Block Island in 2016. The company’s bid was selected by Rhode Island the same day that Massachusetts picked Vineyard Wind to build an 800-megawatt wind farm in the same area, while international investors such as Japanese utilities in UK projects signal growing confidence.

#google#

Bigger turbines that make more electricity have cut the cost per megawatt by about half, a trend aided by higher-than-expected wind potential in many markets, said Tom Harries, a wind analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That also reduces maintenance expenses and installation time. All of this is helping offshore wind vie with conventional power plants.

“You could not build a thermal gas plant in New England for the price of the wind bids in Massachusetts and Rhode Island,” Martin said Friday at the U.S. Offshore Wind Conference in Boston. “It’s very cost-effective for consumers.”

The Massachusetts project could be about $100 to $120 a megawatt hour, according to a February estimate from Harries, though recent UK price spikes during low wind highlight volatility. The actual prices there and in Rhode Island weren’t disclosed.

For comparison, a new U.S. combine-cycle gas turbine ranges from $40 to $60 a megawatt-hour, and a new coal plant is $67 to $113, according to BNEF data.

A new power plant in land-constrained New England would probably be higher than that, and during winter peaks the region has seen record oil-fired generation in New England that underscores reliability concerns. More importantly, gas plants get a significant portion of their revenue from being able to guarantee that power is always available, something wind farms can’t do, said William Nelson, a New York-based analyst with BNEF. Looking only at the price at which offshore turbines can deliver electricity is a “narrow mindset,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas Electric Cooperatives outperformed during Winter Storm Uri, with higher customer satisfaction, equitable rolling blackouts, and stronger grid reliability compared to deregulated markets, according to ERCOT-area survey data of regulated utilities and commercial providers.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities in Texas delivering power, noted for reliability and fair outages during Winter Storm Uri.

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

Winter Storm Uri began to hit parts of Texas on February 13, 2021 and its onslaught left close to 4.5 million Texas homes and businesses without power, and many faced power and water disruptions at its peak. By some accounts, the preliminary number of deaths attributed to the storm is nearly 200, and the economic toll for the Lone Star State is estimated to be as high as $295 billion. 

The more than two-thirds of Texans who lost power during this devastating storm were notably more negative than positive in their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, mirrored by a rise in electricity complaints statewide, with one exception. That exception are the members of the more than 60 electric cooperatives operating within the Texas Interconnection electrical grid, which, in sharp contrast to the customers of the commercial utilities that provide power to the majority of Texans, gave their local utility a positive evaluation related to its performance during the storm.

In order to study Winter Storm Uri’s impact on Texas, the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston conducted an online survey during the first half of March of residents 18 and older who live in the 213 counties (91.5% of the state population) served by the Texas power grid, which is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 

Three-quarters of the survey population (75%) live in areas with a deregulated utility market, where a specified transmission and delivery utility by region is responsible for delivering the electricity (purchased from one of a myriad of private companies by the consumer) to homes and businesses. The four main utility providers are Oncor, CenterPoint CNP -2.2%, American Electric Power (AEP) North, and American Electric Power (AEP) Central. 

The other 25% of the survey population live in areas with regulated markets, where a single company is responsible for both delivering the electricity to homes and businesses and serves as the only source from which electricity is purchased. Municipal-owned and operated utilities (e.g., Austin Energy, Bryan Texas Utilities, Burnet Electric Department, Denton Municipal Electric, New Braunfels Utilities, San Antonio’s CPS Energy CMS -2.1%) serve 73% of the regulated market. Electric cooperatives (e.g., Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Central Texas Electric Cooperative, Guadalupe Valley Cooperative, Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Pedernales Electricity Cooperative, Wood County Electric Cooperative) serve one-fifth of this market (21%), with private companies accounting for 6% of the regulated market.

The overall distribution of the survey population by electric utility providers is: Oncor (38%), CenterPoint (21%), municipal-owned utilities (18%), AEP Central & AEP North combined (12%), electric cooperatives (6%), other providers in the deregulated market (4%) and other providers in the regulated market (1%). 

There were no noteworthy differences among the 31% of Texans who did not lose power during the winter storm in regard to their evaluations of their local electricity provider or their belief that the power cuts in their locale were carried out in an equitable manner.  

However, among the 69% of Texans who lost power, those served by electric cooperatives in the regulated market and those served by private electric utilities in the deregulated market differed notably regarding their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, both in regard to their management of the rolling blackouts, amid debates over market reforms to avoid blackouts, and to their overall performance during the winter storm. Those Texans who lost power and are served by electric cooperatives in a regulated market had a significantly more positive evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility than did those Texans who lost power and are served by a private company in a deregulated electricity market. 

For example, only 24% of Texans served by electric cooperatives had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s overall performance during the winter storm, compared to 55%, 56% and 61% of those served by AEP, Oncor and CenterPoint respectively. A slightly smaller proportion of Texans served by electric cooperatives (22%) had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s performance managing the rolling blackouts during the winter storm, compared to 58%, 61% and 71% of Texans served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint, respectively.

Texans served by electric cooperatives in regulated markets were more likely to agree that the power cuts in their local area were carried out in an equitable manner compared to Texans served by commercial electricity utilities in deregulated markets. More than half (52%) of those served by an electric cooperative agreed that power cuts during the winter storm in their area were carried out in an equitable manner, compared to only 26%, 23% and 23% of those served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint respectively

The survey data did not allow us to provide a conclusive explanation as to why the performance during the winter storm by electric cooperatives (and to a much lesser extent municipal utilities) in the regulated markets was viewed more favorably by their customers than was the performance of the private companies in the deregulated markets viewed by their customers. Yet here are three, far from exhaustive, possible explanations.

First, electric cooperatives might have performed better (based on objective empirical metrics) during the winter storm, perhaps because they are more committed to their customers, who are effectively their bosses. .  

Second, members of electric cooperatives may believe their electric utility prioritizes their interests more than do customers of commercial electric utilities and therefore, even if equal empirical performance were the case, are more likely to rate their electric utility in a positive manner than are customers of commercial utilities.  

Third, regulated electric utilities where a single entity is responsible for the commercialization, transmission and distribution of electricity might be better able to respond to the type of challenges presented by the February 2021 winter storm than are deregulated electric utilities where one entity is responsible for commercialization and another is responsible for transmission and distribution, aligning with calls to improve electricity reliability across Texas.

Other explanations for these findings may exist, which in addition to the three posited above, await future empirical verification via new and more comprehensive studies designed specifically to study electric cooperatives, large commercial utilities, and the incentives that these entities face under the regulatory system governing production, commercialization and distribution of electricity, including rulings that some plants are exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under state law. 

Still, opinion about electricity providers during Winter Storm Uri is clear: Texans served by regulated electricity markets, especially by electric cooperatives, were much more satisfied with their providers’ performance than were those in deregulated markets. Throughout its history, Texas has staunchly supported the free market. Could Winter Storm Uri change this propensity, or will attempts to regulate electricity lessen as the memories of the storm’s havoc fades? With a hotter summer predicted to be on the horizon in 2021 and growing awareness of severe heat blackout risks, we may soon get an answer.   

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News