SMUD opens solar-powered fueling station

Alberta Electricity Price Hikes spotlight grid reliability, renewable transition, coal phase-out, and energy poverty, as policy shifts and investor reports warn of rate increases, biomass trade-offs, and sustainability challenges impacting households and businesses.

Key Points

Projected power bill hikes from market reforms, renewables, coal phase-out, and reliability costs in Alberta.

✅ Investor report projects 3x-7x bills and $50B market transition costs

✅ Policy missteps cited in Ontario, Germany, Australia price spikes

✅ Debate: retain coal vs. speed renewables, storage, and grid upgrades

Since when did electricity become a scarce resource?

I thought all the talk about greening the grid was about having renewable, sustainable, less polluting options to fulfill our growing need for power. Yet, increasingly, we are faced with news stories that indicate using power is bad in and of itself, even as flat electricity demand worries utilities.

The implication, I guess, is that we should be using less of it. But, I don’t want to use less electricity. I want to be able to watch TV, turn my lights on when the sun sets at 4 p.m. in the winter, keep my food cold and power my devices.

We once had a consensus that a reliable supply of power was essential to a growing economy and a high quality of life, a point underscored by brownout risks in U.S. markets.

I’m beginning to wonder if we still have that consensus.

And more importantly, if our decision makers have determined electricity is a vice as opposed to an essential of life – as debates over Alberta electricity policy suggest – you know what is going to happen next. Prices are going to rise, forcing all of us to use less.

How much would it hurt your bottom line if your electricity bill went up three-fold? How about seven-fold? That is the grim picture that Todd Beasley painted for us on Tuesday’s show.

Last week, he launched a campaign on behalf of Albertans for Sustainable Electricity, called Stop the Shock. He shared the results of an internal investor report that concluded Alberta’s power market overhaul would cost an estimated $50 billion to implement and could result in a three to seven-fold increase in electricity bills.

Now, my typical power bill averages $70 a month. That would be like having it grow to $210 a month, or just over $2,500 a year. If it’s a seven-fold increase that would be more like $5,000 a year. That may be manageable for some families, but I can think of a lot of things I’d rather do with $5,000 than pay more to keep my fridge running so my food doesn’t spoil.

For low-income families that would be a real hardship.

Beasley said Ontario’s inept handling of its electricity market and the phase-out of coal power resulted in price spikes that left more than 70,000 individuals facing energy poverty.

Germany and Australia realized they made the same mistake and are returning some electricity to coal.

Beasley shared a long list of Canadian firms – including our own Canadian Pension Plan – that are investing in coal development around the world. Meanwhile, Canadian governments remain in a mad rush to phase it out here. That’s not the only hypocrisy.

Rupert Darwall, author of Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex, revealed in a recent column what he calls “the scandal at the heart of the EU’s renewable policies.”

Turns out most of their expansion in renewable energy has come from biomass in the form of wood. Not only does burning wood produce more CO2, it also eliminates carbon sinks.

To meet the EU’s 2030 target would require cutting down trees equivalent to the combined harvest in Canada and the United States. As he puts it, “Whichever way you look at it, burning the world’s carbon sinks to meet the EU’s arbitrary renewable energy targets is environmentally insane.”

Beasley’s group is trying to bring some sanity back to the discussion. The goal should be to move to a greener grid while maintaining abundant, reliable and cheap power, and examples like Texas grid improvements show practical steps. He thinks to achieve all these goals, coal should remain part of the mix. What do you think?

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas After-Labor Day School Start could ease ERCOT's power grid strain by shifting peak demand, lowering air-conditioning loads in schools, improving grid reliability, reducing electricity costs, and curbing emissions during extreme heat the summer months.

Key Points

A proposed calendar shift to start school after Labor Day to lower ERCOT peak demand, costs, and grid risk.

✅ Cuts school HVAC loads during peak summer heat

✅ Lowers costly peaker plant use and electricity rates

✅ Requires calendar changes, testing and activities shifts

As Texas faces increasing demands on its power grid, a new proposal is gaining traction: starting the school year after Labor Day. This idea, reported by the Dallas News, suggests that delaying the start of the academic year could help alleviate some of the pressure on the state’s electricity grid during the peak summer months, potentially leading to both grid stability and financial savings. Here’s an in-depth look at how this proposed change could impact Texas’s energy landscape and education system.

The Context of Power Grid Strain

Texas's power grid, operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), has faced significant challenges in recent years. Extreme weather events, record-breaking temperatures, and high energy demand have strained the grid, and some analyses argue that climate change, not demand is the biggest challenge today, leading to concerns about reliability and stability. The summer months are particularly taxing, as the demand for air conditioning surges, often pushing the grid to its limits.

In this context, the idea of adjusting the school calendar to start after Labor Day has been proposed as a potential strategy to help manage electricity demand. By delaying the start of school, proponents argue that it could reduce the load on the power grid during peak usage periods, thereby easing some of the stress on energy resources.

Potential Benefits for the Power Grid

The concept of delaying the school year is rooted in the potential benefits for the power grid. During the hottest months of summer, the demand for electricity often spikes as families use air conditioning to stay cool, and utilities warn to prepare for blackouts as summer takes hold. School buildings, typically large and energy-intensive facilities, contribute significantly to this demand when they are in operation.

Starting school later could help reduce this peak demand, as schools would be closed during the hottest months when the grid is under the most pressure. This reduction in demand could help prevent grid overloads and reduce the risk of power outages, at a time when longer, more frequent outages are afflicting the U.S. power grid, ultimately contributing to a more stable and reliable electricity supply.

Additionally, a decrease in peak demand could help lower electricity costs. Power plants, particularly those that are less efficient and more expensive to operate, are often brought online during periods of high demand. By reducing the peak load, the state could potentially minimize the need for these costly power sources, leading to lower overall energy costs.

Financial and Environmental Considerations

The financial implications of starting school after Labor Day extend beyond just the power grid. By reducing energy consumption during peak periods, the state could see significant savings on electricity costs. This, in turn, could lead to lower utility bills for schools, businesses, and residents alike, a meaningful relief as millions risk electricity shut-offs during summer heat.

Moreover, reducing the demand for electricity from fossil fuel sources can have positive environmental impacts. Lower peak demand may reduce the reliance on less environmentally friendly energy sources, and aligns with calls to invest in a smarter electricity infrastructure nationwide, thereby decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to overall environmental sustainability.

Challenges and Trade-offs

While the proposal offers potential benefits, it also comes with challenges and trade-offs. Adjusting the school calendar would require significant changes to the academic schedule, potentially affecting extracurricular activities, summer programs, and family plans, and comparisons to California's reliability challenges underscore the complexity. Additionally, there could be resistance from various stakeholders, including parents, educators, and students, who are accustomed to the current school calendar.

There are also logistical considerations to address, such as how a delayed start might impact standardized testing schedules and the academic calendar for higher education institutions. These factors would need to be carefully evaluated to ensure that the proposed changes do not adversely affect educational outcomes or create unintended consequences.

Looking Ahead

The idea of starting Texas schools after Labor Day represents an innovative approach to addressing the challenges facing the state’s power grid. By potentially reducing peak demand and lowering energy costs, and alongside efforts to connect Texas's grid to the rest of the nation, this proposal could contribute to greater grid stability and financial savings. However, careful consideration and planning will be essential to navigate the complexities of altering the school calendar and to ensure that the benefits outweigh the challenges.

As Texas continues to explore solutions for managing its power grid and energy resources, the proposal to shift the school year schedule provides an intriguing possibility. It reflects a broader trend of seeking creative and multifaceted approaches to balancing energy demand, environmental sustainability, and public needs.

In conclusion, starting schools after Labor Day could offer tangible benefits for Texas’s power grid and financial well-being. As discussions on this proposal advance, it will be important to weigh all factors and engage stakeholders to ensure a successful and equitable implementation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Germany Nuclear Power Extension debated as Olaf Scholz weighs energy crisis, gas shortages from Russia, slow grid expansion in Bavaria, and renewables delays; stress test results may guide policy alongside coal plant reactivations.

Key Points

A proposal to delay Germany's nuclear phaseout to stabilize power supply amid gas cuts and slow grid upgrades.

✅ Driven by Russia gas cuts and Nord Stream 1 curtailment

✅ Targets Bavaria grid bottlenecks; renewables deployment delays

✅ Decision awaits grid stress test; coalition parties remain split

The German chancellor on Wednesday said it might make sense to extend the lifetime of Germany's three remaining nuclear power plants.

Germany famously decided to stop using atomic energy in 2011, and the last remaining plants were set to close at the end of this year.

However, an increasing number of politicians have been arguing for the postponement of the closures amid energy concerns arising from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The issue divides members of Scholz's ruling traffic-light coalition.

What did the chancellor say?
Visiting a factory in western Germany, where a vital gas turbine is being stored, Chancellor Olaf Scholz was responding to a question about extending the lifetime of the power stations.

He said the nuclear power plants in question were only relevant for a small proportion of electricity production. "Nevertheless, that can make sense," he said.

The German government has previously said that renewable energy alternatives are the key to solving the country's energy problems.

However, Scholz said this was not happening quickly enough in some parts of Germany, such as Bavaria.

"The expansion of power line capacities, of the transmission grid in the south, has not progressed as quickly as was planned," the chancellor said.

"We will act for the whole of Germany, we will support all regions of Germany in the best possible way so that the energy supply for all citizens and all companies can be guaranteed as best as possible."

The phaseout has been planned for a long time. Germany's Social Democrat government, under Merkel's predecessor Gerhard Schröder, had announced that Germany would stop using nuclear power by 2022 as planned.

Schröder's successor Angela Merkel — herself a former physicist — had initially sought to extend to life of existing nuclear plants to as late as 2037. She viewed nuclear power as a bridging technology to sustain the country until new alternatives could be found.

However, Merkel decided to ditch atomic energy in 2011, after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, setting Germany on a path to become the first major economy to phase out coal and nuclear in tandem.

Nuclear power accounted for 13.3% of German electricity supply in 2021. This was generated by six power plants, of which three were switched off at the end of 2021. The remaining three — Emsland, Isar and Neckarwestheim — were due to shut down at the end of 2022. 

Germany's energy mix 1st half of 2022
The need to fill an energy gap has emerged after Russia dramatically reduced gas deliveries to Germany through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, though nuclear power would do little to solve the gas issue according to some officials. Officials in Berlin say the Kremlin is seeking to punish the country — which is heavily reliant on Moscow's gas — for its support of Ukraine and sanctions on Russia.

Germany has already said it will temporarily fire up mothballed coal and oil power plants in a bid to solve the looming power crisis.

Social Democrat Scholz and Germany's energy minister, Robert Habeck, from the Green Party, a junior partner in the three-way coalition government, had previously ruled out any postponement of the nuclear phasout, despite debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy among some lawmakers. The third member of Scholz's coalition, the neoliberal Free Democrats, has voiced support for the extension, as has the opposition conservative CDU-CSU bloc.

Berlin has said it will await the outcome of a new "stress test" of Germany's electric grid before deciding on the phaseout.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

100% Clean Energy Targets drive renewable electricity, decarbonization, and cost savings through state policies, CCAs, RECs, and mandates, with timelines and interim goals that boost jobs, resilience, and public health across cities, counties, and utilities.

Key Points

Policies for cities and states to reach 100% clean power by set dates, using mandates, RECs, and interim goals.

✅ Define eligible clean vs renewable resources

✅ Mandate vs goal framework with enforcement

✅ Timelines with interim targets and escape clauses

“An enormous amount of authority still rests with the states for determining your energy future. So we can build these policies that will become a postcard from the future for the rest of the country,” said David Hochschild, chair of the California Energy Commission, speaking last week at a UCLA summit on state and local progress toward 100 percent clean energy.

According to a new report from the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, 13 states, districts and territories, as well as more than 200 cities and counties, with standout clean energy purchases by Southeast cities helping drive momentum, have committed to a 100 percent clean electricity target — and dozens of cities have already hit it.

This means that one of every three Americans, or roughly 111 million U.S. residents representing 34 percent of the population, live in a community that has committed to or has already achieved 100 percent clean electricity, including communities like Frisco, Colorado that have set ambitious targets.

“We’re going to look back on this moment as the moment when local action and state commitments began to push the entire nation toward this goal,” said J.R. DeShazo, director of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation.

Not all 100 percent targets are alike, however. The report notes that these targets vary based on 1) what resources are eligible, 2) how binding the 100 percent target is, and 3) how and when the target will be achieved.

These distinctions will carry a lot of weight as the policy discussion shifts from setting goals to actually meeting targets. They also have implications for communities in terms of health benefits, cost savings and employment opportunities.

100% targets come in different forms

One key attribute is whether a target is based on "renewable" or "clean" energy resources. Some 100 percent targets, like Hawaii’s and Rhode Island’s 2030 plan, are focused exclusively on renewable energy, or sources that cannot be depleted, such as wind, solar and geothermal. But most jurisdictions use the broader term “clean energy,” which can also include resources like large hydroelectric generation and nuclear power.

States also vary in their treatment of renewable energy certificates, used to track and assign ownership to renewable energy generation and use. Unbundled RECs allow for the environmental attributes of the renewable energy resource to be purchased separately from the physical electricity delivery.

The binding nature of these targets is also noteworthy. Seven states, as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, have passed 100 percent clean energy transition laws. Of the jurisdictions that have passed 100 percent legislation, all but one specifies that the target is a “mandate,” according to the report. Nevada is the only state to call the target a “goal.”

Governors in four other states have signed executive orders with 100 percent clean energy goals.

Target timelines also vary. Washington, D.C. has set the most ambitious target date, with a mandate to achieve 100 percent renewable electricity by 2032. Other states and cities have set deadline years between 2040 and 2050. All "100 percent" state laws, and some city and county policies, also include interim targets to keep clean energy deployment on track.

In addition, some locations have included some form of escape clause. For instance, Salt Lake City, which last month passed a resolution establishing a goal of powering the county with 100 percent clean electricity by 2030, included “exit strategies” in its policy in order to encourage stakeholder buy-in, said Mayor Jackie Biskupski, speaking last week at the UCLA summit.

“We don’t think they’ll get used, but they’re there,” she said.

Other locales, meanwhile, have decided to go well beyond 100 percent clean electricity. The State of California and 44 cities have set even more challenging targets to also transition their entire transportation, heating and cooling sectors to 100 percent clean energy sources, and proposals like requiring solar panels on new buildings underscore how policy can accelerate progress across sectors.

Businesses are simultaneously electing to adopt more clean and renewable energy. Six utilities across the United States have set their own 100 percent clean or carbon-free electricity targets. UCLA researchers did not include populations served by these utilities in their analysis of locations with state and city 100 percent clean commitments.

“We cannot wait”

All state and local policies that require a certain share of electricity to come from renewable energy resources have contributed to more efficient project development and financing mechanisms, which have supported continued technology cost declines and contributed to a near doubling of renewable energy generation since 2008.

Many communities are switching to clean energy in order to save money, now that the cost calculation is increasingly in favor of renewables over fossil fuels, as more jurisdictions get on the road to 100% renewables worldwide. Additional benefits include local job creation, cleaner air and electricity system resilience due to greater reliance on local energy resources.

Another major motivator is climate change. The electricity sector is responsible for 28 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, second only to transportation. Decarbonizing the grid also helps to clean up the transportation sector as more vehicles move to electricity as their fuel source.

“The now-constant threat of wildfires, droughts, severe storms and habitat loss driven by climate change signals a crisis we can no longer ignore,” said Carla Peterman, senior vice president of regulatory affairs at investor-owned utility Southern California Edison. “We cannot wait and we should not wait when there are viable solutions to pursue now.”

Prior to joining SCE on October 1, Peterman served as a member of the California Public Utilities Commission, which implements and administers renewable portfolio standard (RPS) compliance rules for California’s retail sellers of electricity. California’s target requires 60 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy resources by 2030, and all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.  

How CCAs are driving renewable energy deployment

One way California communities are working to meet the state’s ambitious targets is through community-choice aggregation, especially after California's near-100% renewable milestone underscored what's possible, via which cities and counties can take control of their energy procurement decisions to suit their preferences. Investor-owned utilities no longer purchase energy for these jurisdictions, but they continue to operate the transmission and distribution grid for all electricity users.                           

A second paper released by the Luskin Center for Innovation in recent days examines how community-choice aggregators are affecting levels of renewable energy deployment in California and contributing to the state’s 100 percent target.

The paper finds that 19 CCAs have launched in California since 2010, growing to include more than 160 towns, cities and counties. Of those communities, 64 have a 100 percent renewable or clean energy policy as their default energy program.

Because of these policies, the UCLA paper finds that “CCAs have had both direct and indirect effects that have led to increases in the clean energy sold in excess of the state’s RPS.”

From 2011 to 2018, CCAs directly procured 24 terawatt-hours of RPS-eligible electricity, 11 TWh of which have been voluntary or in excess of RPS compliance, according to the paper.

The formation of CCAs has also had an indirect effect on investor-owned utilities. As customers have left investor-owned utilities to join CCAs, the utilities have been left holding contracts for more renewable energy than they need to comply with California’s clean energy targets, amid rising solar and wind curtailments that complicate procurement decisions. UCLA researchers estimate that this indirect effect of CCA formation has left IOUs holding 13 terawatt-hours in excess of RPS requirements.

The paper concludes that CCAs have helped to accelerate California’s ability to meet state renewable energy targets over the past decade. However, the future contributions of CCAs to the RPS are more uncertain as communities make new power-purchasing decisions and utilities seek to reduce their excess renewable energy contracts.

“CCAs offer a way for communities to put their desire for clean energy into action. They're growing fast in California, one of only eight states where this kind of mechanism is allowed," said UCLA's Kelly Trumbull, an author of the report. "State and federal policies could be reformed to better enable communities to meet local demand for renewable energy.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Site C 500 kV transmission lines strengthen the BC Hydro grid, linking the new substation and Peace Canyon via a 75 kilometre right-of-way to deliver clean energy, with 400 towers built and both circuits energized.

Key Points

High-voltage lines connecting Site C substation to the BC Hydro grid, delivering clean energy via Peace Canyon.

✅ Two 75 km circuits between Site C and Peace Canyon

✅ Connect new 500 kV substation to BC Hydro grid

✅ Over 400 towers built along existing right-of-way

The second and final 500 kilovolt, 75 kilometre transmission line on the Site C project, which has faced stability questions in recent years, has been completed and energized.

With this milestone, the work to connect the new Site C substation to the BC Hydro grid, amid treaty rights litigation that has at times shaped schedules, is complete. Once the Site C project begins generating electricity, much like when the Maritime Link first power flowed between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, the transmission lines will help deliver clean energy to the rest of the province.

The two 75 kilometre transmission lines run along an existing right-of-way between Site C and the Peace Canyon generating station, a route that has seen community concerns from some northerners. The project’s first 500 kilovolt, 75 kilometre transmission line – along with the Site C substation – were both completed and energized in the fall of 2020.

BC Hydro awarded the Site C transmission line construction contract to Allteck Line Contractors Inc. (now Allteck Limited Partnership) in 2018. Since construction started on this part of the project in summer 2018, crews have built more than 400 towers and strung lines, even as other interties like the Manitoba-Minnesota line have faced scheduling uncertainty, over a total of 150 kilometres.

The two transmission lines are a major component of the Site C project, comparable to initiatives such as the New England Clean Power Link in scale, which also consists of the new 500 kilovolt substation and expanding the existing Peace Canyon 500 kilovolt gas-insulated switchgear to incorporate the two new 500 kilovolt transmission line terminals.

Work to complete three other 500 kilovolt transmission lines that will span one kilometre between the Site C generating station and Site C substation, similar to milestones on the Maritime Link project, is still underway. This work is expected to be complete in 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Nunavut electricity rate increase sees QEC raise domestic electricity rates 6.6% over two years, affecting customer rates, base rates, subsidies, and kWh overage charges across communities, with public housing exempt and territory-wide pricing denied.

Key Points

A 6.6% QEC hike over 2018-2019, affecting customer rates, subsidies, and kWh overage; public housing remains exempt.

✅ 3.3% on May 1, 2018; 3.3% on Apr 1, 2019

✅ Subsidy caps: 1,000 kWh Oct-Mar; 700 kWh Apr-Sep

✅ Territory-wide base rate denied; public housing exempt

Ahead of the Nunavut government's approval of the general rate increase for the Qulliq Energy Corporation, many Nunavummiut wondered how the change would impact their electricity bills.

QEC's request for a 6.6-per-cent increase was approved by the government last week. The increase will be spread out over two years, a pattern similar to BC Hydro's two-year rate plan, with the first increase (3.3 per cent) effective May 1, 2018. The remaining 3.3 per cent will be applied on April 1, 2019.

Public housing units, however, are exempt from the government's increase altogether.

The power corporation also asked for a territory-wide rate, so every community would pay the same base rate (we'll go over specific terms in a minute if you're not familiar with them). But that request was denied, even as Manitoba Hydro scaled back increases next year, and QEC will now take the next two years reassessing each community's base rate.

#google#

So, what does this mean for your home's power bill? Well, there's a few things you need to know, which we'll get to in a second.

But in essence, as long as you don't go over the government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit, you're paying an extra 3.61 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh).

To be clear, we're talking about non-government domestic rates — basically, private homeowners — and those living in a government-owned unit but pay for their own power.

The basics

First, some quick terminology. The "base rate" term we're going to use (and used above) in this story refers to the community rate. As in, what QEC charges customers in every community. The "customer rate" is the rate customers actually pay, after the government's subsidy.

The first thing you need to know is everyone in Nunavut starts off by paying the same customer rate, unlike jurisdictions using a price cap to limit spikes.

That's because the government subsidizes electricity costs, and that subsidy is different in every community, because the base rate is different.

For example, Iqaluit's new base rate after the 3.3 per cent increase (remember, the 6.6 per cent is being applied over two years) is 56.69 cents per kWh, while Kugaaruk's base rate rose to 112.34 cents per kWh. Those, by the way, are the territory's lowest and highest respective base rates.

However, customers in both Iqaluit and Kugaaruk will each now pay 28.35 cents per kWh because, remember, the government subsidizes the base rates in every community.

Now, remember earlier we mentioned a "government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit?" That's where customers in various communities start to pay different amounts.

As simply as we can explain it, the government will only cover so much electricity usage in a month, in every household.

Between October and March, the government will subsidize the first 1,000 kilowatt hours, and only 700 kilowatt hours from April to September. QEC says the average Nunavut home will use about 500 kilowatt hours every month over the course of a year.

But if your household goes over that limit, you're at the mercy of your community's base rate for any extra electricity you use. Homes in Kugaaruk in December, for instance, will have to pay that 122.34 cents for every extra kilowatt hour it uses, while homes in Iqaluit only have to pay 56.69 cents per kWh for its extra electricity.

That's where many Nunavummiut have criticized the current rate structure, because smaller communities are paying more for their extra costs than larger communities.

QEC had hoped — as it had asked for — to change the structure so every community pays the same base rate. So regardless of if people go over their electricity usage limits for the government subsidy, everyone would pay the same overage rates.

But the government denied that request.

New rate is actually lower

The one thing we should highlight, however, is the new rate after the increase is actually lower than what customers were paying in 2014.

For the past seven months, customers have been getting power from QEC at a discount, whereas Newfoundland customers began paying for Muskrat Falls during the same period, to different effect.

That's because when QEC sets its rates, it does so based on global oil price forecasts. Since 2014, the price of oil worldwide has slumped, and so QEC was able to purchase it at less than it had anticipated.

When that happens, and QEC makes more than $1 million within a six month period thanks to the lower oil prices, it refunds the excess profits back to customers through a discount on electricity base rates — a mechanism similar to a lump-sum credit used elsewhere — the government subsidy, however, doesn't change so the savings are passed on directly to customers.

Now, the 6.6 per cent increase to electricity rates, is actually being applied to the discounted base rate from the last seven months.

So again, while customers are paying more than they have been for the last seven months, it's lower than what they were paying in 2014.

Lastly, to be clear, all the figures used in this story are only for domestic non-government rates. Commercial rates and changes have not been explored in this story, given the differences in subsidy and rate application.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News