Burning wood debris for generation

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

We Energies rate increase driven by nuclear energy costs at Point Beach, Wisconsin PSC filings, and rising utility rates, affecting electricity prices for residential, commercial, and industrial customers while supporting WEC carbon reduction goals.

Key Points

A 2021 utility rate hike to recover Point Beach nuclear costs, modestly raising Wisconsin electricity bills.

✅ Residential bills rise about $0.73 per month

✅ Driven by $55.82/MWh Point Beach contract price

✅ PSC review and consumer advocates assessing alternatives

Wisconsin's largest utility company is again asking regulators to raise rates to pay for the rising cost of nuclear energy.

We Energies says it needs to collect an additional $26.5 million next year, an increase of about 3.4%.

For residential customers, that would translate to about 73 cents more per month, or an increase of about 0.7%, while some nearby states face steeper winter rate hikes according to regulators. Commercial and industrial customers would see an increase of 1% to 1.5%, according to documents filed with the Public Service Commission.

If approved, it would be the second rate increase in as many years for about 1.1 million We Energies customers, who saw a roughly 0.7% increase in 2020 after four years of no change, while Manitoba Hydro rate increase has been scaled back for next year, highlighting regional contrasts.

We Energies' sister utility, Wisconsin Public Service Corp., has requested a 0.13% increase, which would add about 8 cents to the average monthly residential bill, which went up 1.6% this year.

We Energies said a rate increase is needed to cover the cost of electricity purchased from the Point Beach nuclear power plant, which according to filings with the Securities Exchange Commission will be $55.82 per megawatt-hour next year.

So far this year, the average wholesale price of electricity in the Midwestern market was a little more than $25.50 per megawatt-hour, and recent capacity market payouts on the largest U.S. grid have fallen sharply, reflecting broader market conditions.

Owned and operated by NextEra Energy Resources, the 1,200-megawatt Point Beach Nuclear Plant is Wisconsin's last operational reactor. We Energies sold the plant for $924 million in 2007 and entered into a contract to purchase its output for the next two decades.

Brendan Conway, a spokesman for WEC Energy Group, said customers have benefited from the sale of the plant, which will supply more than a third of We Energies' demand and is a key component in WEC's strategy to cut 80% of its carbon emissions by 2050, amid broader electrification trends nationwide.

"Without the Point Beach plant, carbon emissions in Wisconsin would be significantly higher," Conway said.

As part of negotiations on its last rate case, WEC agreed to work with consumer advocates and the PSC to review alternatives to the contracted price increases, which were structured to begin rising steeply in 2018.

Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, said the contract will be an issue for We Energies customers into the next decade

"It's a significant source (of energy) for the entire state," Content said. "But nuclear is not cheap."

WEC filed the rate requests Monday, one week after the withdrawing similar applications. Conway said the largely unchanged filings had "undergone additional review by senior management."

WEC last week raised its second quarter profit forecast to 67 to 69 cents per share, up from the previous range of 58 to 62 cents per share.

The company credited better than expected sales in April and May along with operational cost savings and higher authorized profit margin for American Transmission Company, of which WEC is the majority owner.

Wisconsin's other investor-owned utilities have reported lower than expected fuel costs for 2020 and 2021, even as emergency fuel stock programs in New England are expected to cost millions this year.

Alliant Energy has proposed using about $31 million in fuel savings to help freeze rates in 2021, aligning with its carbon-neutral electricity plans as it rolls out long-term strategy, while Xcel Energy is proposing to lower its rates by 0.8% next year and refund its customers about $9.7 million in fuel costs for this year.

Madison Gas and Electric is negotiating a two-year rate structure with consumer groups who are optimistic that fuel savings can help prevent or offset rate increases, though some utilities are exploring higher minimum charges for low-usage customers to recover fixed costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Infrastructure Security Algorithm prioritizes cyber defense for power grids and critical infrastructure, mitigating ransomware, blackout risks, and cascading failures by guiding utilities, regulators, and cyber insurers on optimal security investment allocation.

Key Points

An algorithm that optimizes security spending to cut ransomware and blackout risks across critical infrastructure.

✅ Guides utilities on optimal security allocation

✅ Uses incentives to correct human risk biases

✅ Prioritizes assets to prevent cascading outages

Millions of people could suddenly lose electricity if a ransomware attack just slightly tweaked energy flow onto the U.S. power grid, as past US utility intrusions have shown.

No single power utility company has enough resources to protect the entire grid, but maybe all 3,000 of the grid's utilities could fill in the most crucial security gaps if there were a map showing where to prioritize their security investments.

Purdue University researchers have developed an algorithm to create that map. Using this tool, regulatory authorities or cyber insurance companies could establish a framework for protecting the U.S. power grid that guides the security investments of power utility companies to parts of the grid at greatest risk of causing a blackout if hacked.

Power grids are a type of critical infrastructure, which is any network - whether physical like water systems or virtual like health care record keeping - considered essential to a country's function and safety. The biggest ransomware attacks in history have happened in the past year, affecting most sectors of critical infrastructure in the U.S. such as grain distribution systems in the food and agriculture sector and the Colonial Pipeline, which carries fuel throughout the East Coast, prompting increased military preparation for grid hacks in the U.S.

With this trend in mind, Purdue researchers evaluated the algorithm in the context of various types of critical infrastructure in addition to the power sector, including electricity-sector IoT devices that interface with grid operations. The goal is that the algorithm would help secure any large and complex infrastructure system against cyberattacks.

"Multiple companies own different parts of infrastructure. When ransomware hits, it affects lots of different pieces of technology owned by different providers, so that's what makes ransomware a problem at the state, national and even global level," said Saurabh Bagchi, a professor in the Elmore Family School of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security at Purdue. "When you are investing security money on large-scale infrastructures, bad investment decisions can mean your power grid goes out, or your telecommunications network goes out for a few days."

Protecting infrastructure from hacks by improving security investment decisions

The researchers tested the algorithm in simulations of previously reported hacks to four infrastructure systems: a smart grid, industrial control system, e-commerce platform and web-based telecommunications network. They found that use of this algorithm results in the most optimal allocation of security investments for reducing the impact of a cyberattack.

The team's findings appear in a paper presented at this year's IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, the premier conference in the area of computer security. The team comprises Purdue professors Shreyas Sundaram and Timothy Cason and former PhD students Mustafa Abdallah and Daniel Woods.

"No one has an infinite security budget. You must decide how much to invest in each of your assets so that you gain a bump in the security of the overall system," Bagchi said.

The power grid, for example, is so interconnected that the security decisions of one power utility company can greatly impact the operations of other electrical plants. If the computers controlling one area's generators don't have adequate security protection, as seen when Russian hackers accessed control rooms at U.S. utilities, then a hack to those computers would disrupt energy flow to another area's generators, forcing them to shut down.

Since not all of the grid's utilities have the same security budget, it can be hard to ensure that critical points of entry to the grid's controls get the most investment in security protection.

The algorithm that Purdue researchers developed would incentivize each security decision maker to allocate security investments in a way that limits the cumulative damage a ransomware attack could cause. An attack on a single generator, for instance, would have less impact than an attack on the controls for a network of generators, which sophisticated grid-disruption malware can target at scale, rather than for the protection of a single generator.

Building an algorithm that considers the effects of human behavior

Bagchi's research shows how to increase cybersecurity in ways that address the interconnected nature of critical infrastructure but don't require an overhaul of the entire infrastructure system to be implemented.

As director of Purdue's Center for Resilient Infrastructures, Systems, and Processes, Bagchi has worked with the U.S. Department of Defense, Northrop Grumman Corp., Intel Corp., Adobe Inc., Google LLC and IBM Corp. on adopting solutions from his research. Bagchi's work has revealed the advantages of establishing an automatic response to attacks, and analyses like Symantec's Dragonfly report highlight energy-sector risks, leading to key innovations against ransomware threats, such as more effective ways to make decisions about backing up data.

There's a compelling reason why incentivizing good security decisions would work, Bagchi said. He and his team designed the algorithm based on findings from the field of behavioral economics, which studies how people make decisions with money.

"Before our work, not much computer security research had been done on how behaviors and biases affect the best defense mechanisms in a system. That's partly because humans are terrible at evaluating risk and an algorithm doesn't have any human biases," Bagchi said. "But for any system of reasonable complexity, decisions about security investments are almost always made with humans in the loop. For our algorithm, we explicitly consider the fact that different participants in an infrastructure system have different biases."

To develop the algorithm, Bagchi's team started by playing a game. They ran a series of experiments analyzing how groups of students chose to protect fake assets with fake investments. As in past studies in behavioral economics, they found that most study participants guessed poorly which assets were the most valuable and should be protected from security attacks. Most study participants also tended to spread out their investments instead of allocating them to one asset even when they were told which asset is the most vulnerable to an attack.

Using these findings, the researchers designed an algorithm that could work two ways: Either security decision makers pay a tax or fine when they make decisions that are less than optimal for the overall security of the system, or security decision makers receive a payment for investing in the most optimal manner.

"Right now, fines are levied as a reactive measure if there is a security incident. Fines or taxes don't have any relationship to the security investments or data of the different operators in critical infrastructure," Bagchi said.

In the researchers' simulations of real-world infrastructure systems, the algorithm successfully minimized the likelihood of losing assets to an attack that would decrease the overall security of the infrastructure system.

Bagchi's research group is working to make the algorithm more scalable and able to adapt to an attacker who may make multiple attempts to hack into a system. The researchers' work on the algorithm is funded by the National Science Foundation, the Wabash Heartland Innovation Network and the Army Research Lab.

Cybersecurity is an area of focus through Purdue's Next Moves, a set of initiatives that works to address some of the greatest technology challenges facing the U.S. Purdue's cybersecurity experts offer insights and assistance to improve the protection of power plants, electrical grids and other critical infrastructure.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Ontario Peak Perks Program boosts energy efficiency with smart thermostats, demand response, and incentives, reducing peak demand, electricity costs, and emissions while supporting grid reliability and Save on Energy initiatives across Ontario businesses and homes.

Key Points

A demand response initiative offering incentives via smart thermostats to cut peak electricity use and lower costs

✅ $75 sign-up, $20 yearly enrollment incentive

✅ Up to 10 summer temperature events; opt-out anytime

✅ Expanded retrofits, greenhouse support, grid savings

The Ontario government is launching the new Peak Perks program to help families save money by conserving energy, building on bill support during COVID-19 initiatives as part of the government’s $342 million expansion of Ontario’s energy-efficiency programs that will reduce demands on the provincial grid. The government is also launching three new and enhanced programs for businesses, municipalities, and other institutions, including targeted support for greenhouse growers in Southwest Ontario.

“Our government is giving families more ways to lower their energy bills with new energy-efficiency programs like Peak Perks and ultra-low overnight rates available to consumers, which will provide families a $75 financial incentive this year in exchange for lowering their energy use at peak times during the summer,” said Todd Smith, Minister of Energy. “The new programs launched today will also help meet the province’s emerging electricity system needs by providing annual electricity savings equivalent to powering approximately 130,000 homes every year and, alongside electricity cost allocation discussions, reduce costs for consumers by over $650 million by 2025.”

The new Peak Perks program provides a financial incentive for residential customers who are willing to conserve energy and reduce their air conditioning at peak times and have an eligible smart thermostat connected to a central air conditioning system or heat pump unit. Participants will receive $75 for enrolling this year, as well as $20 for each year they stay enrolled in the program starting in 2024.

Residential customers can participate in Peak Perks by enrolling and giving their thermostat manufacturer secure access to their thermostat. Participants will be notified when one of the maximum 10 annual temperature change events occurs directly by their thermostat manufacturer on their mobile app and on their thermostat. Peak Perks has been designed to ensure participants are always in control and customers can opt-out of any temperature change event without impacting their incentive.

The Peak Perks program will be available starting in June. Interested customers can visit SaveOnEnergy.ca/PeakPerks today to sign-up for the program waitlist and receive an email notice with information on how to enroll.

In addition to the financial incentive provided by Peak Perks, reducing electricity use during peak demand hours in the summer months helps customers to lower their monthly electricity bills, and measures such as a temporary off-peak rate freeze have complemented these efforts, as these periods tend to be associated with the highest costs for power. Lowering demand during peak periods also allows the province to reduce electricity sector emissions, by reducing the need for electricity generation facilities that only run at times of peak demand such as natural gas.

Ontario has also launched three new and enhanced programs, including an expanded custom Retrofit program for business, municipalities and other institutions, and industrial electricity rate relief initiatives, targeted support for greenhouse growers in Southwest Ontario, as well enhancements to the existing Local Initiatives Program. The expanded Retrofit program alone will feature over $200 million in dedicated funding to support the new custom energy-efficiency retrofit project stream, that will cover up to 50 percent of the cost of approved projects.

These new and expanded energy-efficiency programs are expected to have a strong impact in Southwest Ontario, with regional peak demand savings of 225 megawatts (MW). This, together with the Ontario-Quebec energy swap agreement, will provide additional capacity for the region and support growing economic development. The overall savings from this energy-efficiency programming will result in an estimated three million tonnes of greenhouse gas emission reductions over its lifetime - the equivalent to taking more than 600,000 vehicles off the road for one year.

“Thanks to energy efficiency efforts over the past 15 years, demand for electricity is today about 12 per cent lower than it otherwise would be,” said Lesley Gallinger, President and CEO, of the Independent Electricity System Operator, Ontario’s grid operator and provider of Save on Energy programs to home and business consumers. “Conservation is a valuable and cost-effective resource that supports system reliability and helps drive economic development as we strive towards compliance with clean electricity regulations for a decarbonized electricity grid.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

DTEK Rotterdam+ price-fixing case scrutinizes alleged collusion over coal-based electricity tariffs in Ukraine, with NABU probing NERC regulators, market manipulation, consumer overpayment, and wholesale pricing tied to imported coal benchmarks.

Key Points

NABU probes alleged DTEK-NERC collusion to inflate coal power tariffs via Rotterdam+; all suspects deny wrongdoing.

✅ NABU alleges tariff manipulation tied to coal import benchmarks.

✅ Four DTEK execs and four NERC officials reportedly charged.

✅ Probe centers on 2016-2017 overpayments; defendants contest.

Two more executives of DTEK, Ukraine’s largest private power and coal producer and recently in energy talks with Octopus Energy, have been charged in a criminal case on August 14 involving an alleged conspiracy to fix electricity prices with the state energy regulator, Interfax reported.

They are Ivan Helyukh, the CEO of subsidiary DTEK Grid, which operates as Ukraine modernizes its network alongside global moves toward a smart electricity grid, and Borys Lisoviy, a top manager of power generation company Skhidenergo, according to Kyiv-based Concorde Capital investment bank.

Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) alleges that now four DTEK managers “pressured” and colluded with four regulators at the National Energy and Utilities Regulatory Commission to manipulate tariffs on electricity generated from coal that forced consumers to overpay, reflecting debates about unjustified profits in the UK, $747 million in 2016-2017.

DTEK allegedly benefited $560 million in the scheme.

All eight suspects are charged with “abuse of office” and deny wrongdoing, similar to findings in a B.C. Hydro regulator report published in Canada.

There is “no legitimate basis for suspicions set out in the investigation,” DTEK said in an August 8 statement.

Suspect Dmytro Vovk, the former head of NERC, dismissed the investigation as a “wild goose chase” on Facebook.

In separate statements over the past week, DTEK said the managers who are charged have prematurely returned from vacation to “fully cooperate” with authorities in order to “help establish the truth.”

A Kyiv court on August 14 set bail at $400,000 for one DTEK manager who wasn’t named, as enforcement actions like the NT Power penalty highlight regulatory consequences.

The so-called Rotterdam+ pricing formula that NABU has been investigating since March 2017, similar to federal scrutiny of TVA rates, was in place from April 2016 until July of this year.

It based the wholesale price of electricity by Ukrainian thermal power plants on coal prices set in the Rotterdam port plus delivery costs to Ukraine.

NABU alleges that at certain times it has not seen documented proof that the purchased coal originated in Rotterdam, insisting that there was no justification for the price hikes, echoing issues around paying for electricity in India in some markets.

Ukraine started facing thermal-coal shortages after fighting between government forces and Russia-backed separatists in the eastern part of the country erupted in April 2014. A vast majority of the anthracite-coal mines on which many Ukrainian plants rely are located on territory controlled by the separatists.

Overnight, Ukraine went from being a net exporter of coal to a net importer and started purchasing coal from as far away as South Africa and Australia.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One-Avista acquisition sparks Idaho regulatory scrutiny over foreign ownership, utility merger impacts, rate credits, and public interest, as FERC and FCC approvals advance and consumers question governance, service reliability, and long-term rate stability.

Key Points

A cross-border utility merger proposal with Idaho oversight, weighing foreign ownership, rates, and reliability.

✅ Idaho PUC review centers on public interest and rate impacts.

✅ FERC and FCC approvals granted; state decisions pending.

✅ Avista to retain name and Spokane HQ post-transaction.

“Please don’t sell us to Canada.” That refrain, or versions of it, is on full display at the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, which admittedly isn’t everyone’s go-to entertainment site. But it is vitally important for this reason: the first big test of the expansionist dreams of the politically tempest-tossed Hydro One, facing political risk as it navigates markets, rests with its successful acquisition of Avista Corp., provider of electric generation, transmission and distribution to retail customers spread from Oregon to Washington to Montana and Idaho and up into Alaska.

The proposed deal — announced last summer, but not yet consummated — marks the first time the publicly traded Hydro One has embarked upon the acquisition of a U.S. utility. And if Idahoans spread from Boise to Coeur d’Alene to Hayden are any indication, they are not at all happy with the idea of foreign ownership. Here’s Lisa McCumber, resident of Hayden: “I am stating my objection to this outrageous merger/takeover. Hydro One charges excessive fees to the people it provides for, this is a monopoly beyond even what we are used to. I, in no way, support or as a customer, agree with the merger of this multi-billion-dollar, foreign, company.”

#google#

Or here’s Debra Bentley from Coeur d’Alene: “Fewer things have more control over a nation than its power source. In an age where we are desperately trying to bring American companies back home and ‘Buy American’ is somewhat of a battle cry, how is it even possible that it would or could be allowed for this vital necessity … to be controlled by a foreign entity?”

Or here’s Spencer Hutchings from Sagle: “This is an incredibly bad idea.”

There are legion of similar emails from concerned consumers, and the Maine transmission line debate offers a parallel in public opposition.

The rationale for the deal? Last fall Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt testified before the Idaho commission, which regulates all gas, water and electricity providers in the state. “Hydro One is a pure-play transmission and distribution utility located solely within Ontario,” Schmidt told commissioners. “It seeks diversification both in terms of jurisdictions and service areas. The proposed Transaction with Avista achieves both goals by expanding Hydro One into the U.S. Pacific Northwest and expanding its operations to natural gas distribution and electric generation. The proposed Transaction with Avista will deliver the increased scale and benefits that come from being a larger player in the utility industry.”

Translation: now that it is a publicly traded entity, Hydro needs to demonstrate a growth curve to the investment community. The value to you and me? Arguable. This is a transaction framed as a benefit to shareholders, one that won’t cause harm to customers. Premier Kathleen Wynne is feeling the pain of selling off control of an essential asset. In his testimony to the commission, Schmidt noted that the Avista acquisition would take the province’s Hydro ownership to under 45 per cent. (The Electricity Act technically prevents the sale of shares that would take the government’s ownership position below 40 per cent, though acquisitions appear to allow further dilution. )

Stratospheric compensation, bench-marked against other chief executives who enjoy similarly outsized rewards, is part of this game. I have written about Schmidt’s unconscionable compensation before, but that was when he was making a relatively modest $4 million. Relative, that is, to his $6.2 million in 2017 compensation ($3.5 million of that is in the form of share based awards).

Should the acquisition of Avista be approved, amendments to the CIC, or change in control agreements, for certain named Avista executive officers will allow them to voluntarily terminate their employment without “good reason.” That includes Scott Morris, the company’s CEO, who will exit with severance of $6.9 million (U.S.) and additional benefits taking the total to a potential $15.7 million.

Back to the deal: cost savings over time could be achieved, Schmidt continued in his testimony, though he was unable to quantify those. The integration between the two companies, he promised, will be “seamless.” Retail customers in Idaho, Washington and Oregon would benefit from proposed “Rate Credits” equalling an estimated $15.8 million across five years, even as Hydro One seeks to redesign its bills in Ontario. Idahoans would see a one per cent rate decrease through that period.

While Avista would become a wholly owned Hydro subsidiary, it would retain its name, and its headquarters in Spokane, Wash. In the case of Idaho specifically, a proposed settlement in April, subject to final approval by the commission, stipulates agreements on everything from staffing to governance to community contributions.

Will that meet the test? It’s up to the commission to determine whether the proposed transaction will keep a lid on rates and is “consistent with the public interest.” Hydro One is hoping for a decision from regulatory agencies in all the named states by mid-August and a closing date by the end of September, though U.S. regulators can ultimately determine the fate of such deals. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted its approval in January, followed last week by the Federal Communications Commission. Washington and Alaska have reached settlement agreements. These too are pending final state approvals.

The $5.3-billion deal (or $6.7 billion Canadian) is subject to ongoing hearings in Idaho, and elsewhere rate hikes face opposition as hearings begin. Members of the public are encouraged to have their say. The public comment deadline is June 27.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News