TVA looks to expand base of power production

Texas PUC Electricity Market Reforms aim to boost grid reliability, support ERCOT resilience, pay standby generators, require capacity procurement, and mitigate blackout risk, though analysts warn higher consumer bills and winter reserve margin deficits.

Key Points

PUC proposals to bolster ERCOT reliability via standby capacity, capacity procurement, and measures to reduce blackout risk.

✅ Pays generators for standby capacity during grid stress

✅ Requires capacity procurement to meet forecast demand

✅ Could raise consumer bills despite reliability gains

The Public Utility Commission of Texas is discussing major reforms to the state’s electricity market with the purpose to avoid a repeat of the power failures and blackouts during the February 2021 winter storm, which led to the death of more than 100 people and left over 11 million residents without electricity for days.

The regulator is discussing at a meeting on Thursday around a dozen proposals to make the grid more stable and reliable in case of emergencies. Proposals include paying power generators that are on standby when the grid needs backup, and requiring companies to pre-emptively buy capacity to meet future demand.

It is not clear yet how many and which of the proposals for electricity market reforms PUC will endorse today, while Texans vote on funding to modernize electricity generation later this year.

Analysts and consumer protection bodies warn that the measures will raise the energy bills for consumers, as some electricity market bailout ideas shift costs to ratepayers as well.

“Customers will be paying for more, but will they be getting more reliability?” Michael Jewell, an attorney with Jewell & Associates PLLC who represents clients at PUC proceedings, told Bloomberg.

“This is going to take us further down a path that’s going to increase cost to consumers, we better be darn sure these are the right choices,” Tim Morstad, Associate State Director, AARP Texas, told FOX 4 NEWS.

Last month, a report by the North American Electric Reliability Corp warned that the Texas power grid remained vulnerable to blackouts in case of a repeat of this year’s February Freeze.

Beyond Texas, electricity blackout risks have been identified across the U.S., underscoring the stakes for grid planning.

According to the 2021-2022 Winter Reliability Assessment report, Texas risks a 37-percent reserve margin deficit in case of a harsh winter, with ERCOT moving to procure capacity to address winter concerns, NERC said.

A reserve margin is the reserve of power generation capacity comparative to demand. The expected reserve margin for Texas for this winter, according to NERC, is 41.9 percent. Yet if another cold spell hits the state, it would affect this spare capacity, pushing the margin deeply into negative territory.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Manitoba Hydro capacity constraints challenge clean energy growth as industrial demand, hydrogen projects, EV batteries, and electrification strain the grid; limited surplus, renewables, storage, and transmission bottlenecks hinder new high-load connections.

Key Points

Limited surplus power blocks new energy-intensive loads until added generation and transmission expand Manitoba's grid.

✅ No firm commitments for new energy-intensive industrial customers

✅ Single large load could consume remaining surplus capacity

✅ New renewables need transmission; gas, nuclear face trade-offs

Manitoba Hydro lacks the capacity to provide electricity to any new "energy intensive" industrial customers, the Crown corporation warns in a confidential briefing note that undercuts the idea this province can lure large businesses with an ample supply of clean, green energy, as the need for new power generation looms for the utility.

On July 28, provincial economic development officials unveiled an "energy roadmap" that said Manitoba Hydro must double or triple its generating capacity, as electrical demand could double over the next two decades in order to meet industrial and consumer demand for electricity produced without burning fossil fuels.

Those officials said 18 potential new customers with high energy needs were looking at setting up operations in Manitoba — and warned the province must be careful to choose businesses that provide the greatest economic benefit as well as the lowest environmental impact.

In a briefing note dated Sept. 13, obtained by CBC News, Manitoba Hydro warns it doesn't have enough excess power to hook up any of these new heavy electricity-using customers to the provincial power grid.

There are actually 57 proposals to use large volumes of electricity, Hydro says in the note, including eight projects already in the detailed study phase and nine where the proponents are working on construction agreements.

"Manitoba Hydro is unable to offer firm commitments to prospective customers that may align with Manitoba's energy roadmap and/or provincial economic development objectives," Hydro warns in the note, explaining it is legally obliged to serve all existing customers who need more electricity.

"As such, Manitoba Hydro cannot reserve electric supply for particular projects."

Hydro says in the note its "near-term surplus electricity supply" is so limited amid a Western Canada drought that "a single energy-intensive connection may consume all remaining electrical capacity."

Adding more electrical generating capacity won't be easy, even with new turbine investments underway, and will not happen in time to meet demands from customers looking to set up shop in the province, Hydro warns.

The Crown corporation goes on to say it's grappling with numerous requests from existing and prospective energy-intensive customers, mainly for producing hydrogen, manufacturing electric vehicle batteries and switching from fossil fuels to electricity, such as to use electricity for heat in buildings.

In a statement, Hydro said it wants to ensure Manitobans know the corporation is not running out of power — just the ability to meet the needs of large new customers, and continues to provide clean energy to neighboring provinces today.

"The size of loads looking to come to Manitoba are significantly larger than we typically see, and until additional supply is available, that limits our ability to connect them," Hydro spokesperson Bruce Owen said in a statement.

Adding wind power or battery storage, for example, would require the construction of more transmission lines, and deals such as SaskPower's purchase depend on that interprovincial infrastructure as well.

Natural gas plants are relatively inexpensive to build but do not align with efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear power plants require at least a decade of lead time to build, and tend to generate local opposition.

Hydro has also ruled out building another hydroelectric dam on the Nelson River, where the Conawapa project was put on hold in 2014.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada Net-Zero Electricity Buildout will double or triple power capacity, scaling clean energy, renewables, nuclear, hydro, and grid transmission, with faster permitting, Indigenous consultation, and trillions in investment to meet 2035 non-emitting regulations.

Key Points

A national plan to rapidly expand clean, non-emitting power and grid capacity to enable a net-zero economy by 2050.

✅ Double to triple generation; all sources non-emitting by 2035

✅ Accelerate permitting, transmission, and Indigenous partnerships

✅ Trillions in investment; cross-jurisdictional coordination

Canada must build more electricity generation in the next 25 years than it has over the last century in order to support a net-zero emissions economy by 2050, says a new report from the Public Policy Forum.

Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and shifting to emissions-free electricity, as provinces such as Ontario pursue new wind and solar to ease a supply crunch, to propel our cars, heat our homes and run our factories will require doubling — possibly tripling — the amount of power we make now, the federal government estimates.

"Imagine every dam, turbine, nuclear plant and solar panel across Canada and then picture a couple more next to them," said the report, which will be published Wednesday.

It's going to cost a lot, and in Ontario, greening the grid could cost $400 billion according to one report. Most estimates are in the trillions.

It's also going to require the kind of cross-jurisdictional co-operation, with lessons from Europe's power crisis underscoring the stakes, Indigenous consultation and swift decision-making and construction that Canada just isn't very good at, the report said.

"We have a date with destiny," said Edward Greenspon, president of the Public Policy Forum. "We need to build, build, build. We're way behind where we need to be and we don't have a lot of a lot of time remaining."

Later this summer, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault will publish new regulations to require that all power be generated from non-emitting sources by 2035 clean electricity goals, as proposed.

Greenspon said that means there are two major challenges ahead: massively expanding how much power we make and making all of it clean, even though some natural gas generation will be permitted under federal rules.

On average, it takes more than four years just to get a new electricity generating project approved by Ottawa, and more than three years for new transmission lines.

That's before a single shovel touches any dirt.

Building these facilities is another thing, and provinces such as Ontario face looming electricity shortfalls as projects drag on. The Site C dam in British Columbia won't come on line until 2025 and has been under construction since 2015. A new transmission line from northern Manitoba to the south took more than 11 years from the first proposal to operation.

"We need to move very quickly, and probably with a different approach ... no hurdles, no timeouts," Greenspon said.

There are significant unanswered questions about the new power mix, and the pace at which Canada moves away from fossil fuel power is one of the biggest political issues facing the country, with debates over whether scrapping coal-fired electricity is cost-effective still unresolved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California income-based utility charges face bipartisan pushback as the PUC weighs fixed fees for PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison, reshaping rate design, electricity affordability, energy equity, and privacy amid proposed per-kWh reductions.

Key Points

PUC-approved fixed fees tied to household income for PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, offset by lower per-kWh rates.

✅ Proposed fixed fees: $51 SCE, $73.31 SDG&E, $50.92 PG&E

✅ Critics warn admin, privacy, legal risks and higher bills for savers

✅ Backers say lower-income pay less; kWh rates cut ~33% in PG&E area

Efforts are being made across California's political landscape to derail a legislative initiative that introduced income-based utility charges for customers of Southern California Edison and other major utilities.

Legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties have proposed bills aimed at nullifying the 2022 legislation that established a sliding scale for utility charges based on customer income, a decision made in a late-hour session and subsequently endorsed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

The plan, pending final approval from the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) — all of whose current members were appointed by Governor Newsom — would enable utilities like Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and PG&E to apply new income-based charges as early as this July.

Among the state legislators pushing back against the income-based charge scheme are Democrats Jacqui Irwin and Marc Berman, along with Republicans Janet Nguyen, Kelly Seyarto, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Scott Wilk, Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, and Roger Niello.

A cadre of specialists, including economist Ahmad Faruqui who has advised all three utilities implicated in the fee proposal, have outlined several concerns regarding the PUC's pending decision.

Faruqui and his colleagues argue that the proposed charges are excessively high in comparison to national standards, reflecting soaring electricity prices across the state, potentially leading to administrative challenges, legal disputes, and negative unintended outcomes, such as penalizing energy-conservative consumers.

Advocates for the income-based fee model, including The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the National Resources Defense Council, argue it would result in higher charges for wealthier consumers and reduced fees for those with lower incomes. They also believe that the utilities plan to decrease per kilowatt-hour rates as part of a broader rate structure review to balance out the new fees.

However, even supporters like TURN and the Natural Resources Defense Council acknowledge that the income-based fee model is not a comprehensive solution to making soaring electricity bills more affordable.

If implemented, California would have the highest income-based utility fees in the country, with averages far surpassing the national average of $11.15, as reported by EQ Research:

• Southern California Edison would charge $51.
• San Diego Gas & Electric would levy $73.31.
• PG&E would set fees at $50.92.

The proposal has raised concerns among state legislators about the additional financial burden on Californians already struggling with high electricity costs.

Critics highlight several practical challenges, including the PUC's task of assessing customers' income levels, a process fraught with privacy concerns, potential errors, and constitutional questions regarding access to tax information.

Economists have pointed out further complications, such as the difficulty in accurately assessing incomes for out-of-state property owners and the variability of customers' incomes over time.

The proposed income-based charges would differ by income bracket within the PG&E service area, for example, with lower-income households facing lower fixed charges and higher-income households facing higher charges, alongside a proposed 33% reduction in electricity rates to help mitigate the fixed charge impact.

Yet, the economists warn that most customers, particularly low-usage customers, could end up paying more, essentially rewarding higher consumption and penalizing efficiency.

This legislative approach, they caution, could inadvertently increase costs for moderate users across all income brackets, a sign of major changes to electric bills that could emerge, challenging the very goals it aims to achieve by promoting energy inefficiency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

COVID-19 Impact on Electricity Demand, per IEA data, shows 15% global load drop from lockdowns, with residential use up, industrial and service sectors down; fossil fuel generation fell as renewables and photovoltaics gained share.

Key Points

An overview of how lockdowns cut global power demand, boosted residential use, and increased the renewable share.

✅ IEA review shows at least 15% dip in daily global electricity load

✅ Lockdowns cut commercial and industrial demand; homes used more

✅ Fossil fuels fell as renewables and PV generation gained share

The daily demand for electricity dipped at least 15 per cent across the globe, according to Global Energy Review 2020: The impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on global energy demand and CO2 emissions, a report published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in April 2020, even as global power demand surged above pre-pandemic levels.

The report collated data from 30 countries, including India and China, that showed partial and full lockdown measures adopted by them were responsible for this decrease.

Full lockdowns in countries — including France, Italy, India, Spain, the United Kingdom where daily demand fell about 10% and the midwest region of the United States (US) — reduced this demand for electricity.

Reduction in electricity demand after lockdown measures (weather corrected)

Source: Global Energy Review 2020: The impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on global energy demand and CO2 emissions, IEA

Drivers of the fall

There was, however, a spike in residential demand for electricity as a result of people staying and working from home. This increase in residential demand, though, was not enough to compensate for reduced demand from industrial and commercial operations.

The extent of reduction depended not only on the duration and stringency of the lockdown, but also on the nature of the economy of the countries — predominantly service- or industry-based — the IEA report said.

A higher decline in electricity demand was noted in countries where the service sector — including retail, hospitality, education, tourism — was dominant, compared to countries that had industrial economies.

The US, for example — where industry forms only 20 per cent of the economy — saw larger reductions in electricity demand, compared to China, where power demand dropped as the industry accounts for more than 60 per cent of the economy.

Italy — the worst-affected country from COVID-19 — saw a decline greater than 25 per cent when compared to figures from last year, even as power demand held firm in parts of Europe during later lockdowns.

The report said the shutting down of the hospitality and tourism sectors in the country — major components of the Italian economy — were said to have had a higher impact, than any other factor, for this fall.

Reduced fossil fuel dependency

Almost all of the reduction in demand was reportedly because of the shutting down of fossil fuel-based power generation, according to the report. Instead, the share of electricity supply from renewables in the entire portfolio of energy sources, increased during the pandemic, reflecting low-carbon electricity lessons observed during COVID-19.

This was due to a natural increase in wind and photovoltaic power generation compared to 2019 along with a drop in overall electricity demand that forced electricity producers from non-renewable sources to decrease their supplies, before surging electricity demand began to strain power systems worldwide.

The Power System Operation Corporation of India also reported that electricity production from coal — India’s primary source of electricity — fell by 32.2 per cent to 1.91 billion units (kilowatt-hours) per day, in line with India's electricity demand decline reported during the pandemic, compared to the 2019 levels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Oil and Gas Profitability Decline reflects shale-driven oversupply, OPEC-Russia dynamics, LNG exports, renewables growth, and weak demand, signaling compressed margins for producers, stressed petrodollar budgets, and shifting energy markets post-Covid.

Key Points

A sustained squeeze on hydrocarbon margins from agile shale supply, weaker OPEC leverage, and expanding renewables.

✅ Shale responsiveness caps prices and erodes industry rents

✅ OPEC-Russia cuts face limited impact versus US supply

✅ Renewables and EVs slow long-term oil and gas demand

The oil-price crash of March 2020 will probably not last long. As in 2014, when the oil price dropped below $50 from $110 in a few weeks, this one will trigger a temporary collapse of the US shale industry. Unless the coronavirus outbreak causes Armageddon, cheap oil will also support policymakers’ efforts to help the global economy.

But there will be at least one important and lasting difference this time round — and it has major market and geopolitical implications.

The oil price crash is a foretaste of where the whole energy sector was going anyway — and that is down.

It may not look that way at first. Saudi Arabia will soon realise, as it did in 2015, that its lethal decision to pump more oil is not only killing US shale but its public finances as well. Riyadh will soon knock on Moscow’s door again. Once American shale supplies collapse, Russia will resume co-operation with Saudi Arabia.

With the world economy recovering from the Covid-19 crisis by then, and with electricity demand during COVID-19 shifting, moderate supply cuts by both countries will accelerate oil market recovery. In time, US shale producers will return too.

Yet this inevitable bounceback should not distract from two fundamental factors that were already remaking oil and gas markets. First, the shale revolution has fundamentally eroded industry profitability. Second, the renewables’ revolution will continue to depress growth in demand.

The combined result has put the profitability of the entire global hydrocarbon industry under pressure. That means fewer petrodollars to support oil-producing countries’ national budgets, including Canada's oil sector exposures. It also means less profitable oil companies, which traditionally make up a large segment of stock markets, an important component of so many western pension funds.

Start with the first factor to see why this is so. Historically, the geological advantages that made oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia so cheap to produce were unique. Because oil and gas were produced at costs far below the market price, the excess profits, or “rent”, enjoyed by the industry were very large.

Furthermore, collusion among low-cost producers has been a winning strategy. The loss of market share through output cuts was more than compensated by immediately higher prices. It was the raison d’être of Opec.

The US shale revolution changed all this, exposing the limits of U.S. energy dominance narratives. A large oil-producing region emerged with a remarkable ability to respond quickly to price changes and shrink its costs over time. Cutting back cheap Opec oil now only increases US supplies, with little effect on world prices.

That is why Russia refused to cut production this month. Even if its cuts did boost world prices — doubtful given the coronavirus outbreak’s huge shock to demand — that would slow the shrinkage of US shale that Moscow wants.

Shale has affected the natural gas industry even more. Exports of US liquefied natural gas now put an effective ceiling on global prices, and debates over a clean electricity push have intensified when gas prices spike.

On top of all this, there is also the renewables’ revolution, though a green revolution has not been guaranteed in the near term. Around the world, wind and solar have become ever-cheaper options to generate electricity. Storage costs have also dropped and network management improved. Even in the US, renewables are displacing coal and gas. Electrification of vehicle fleets will damp demand further, as U.S. electricity, gas, and EVs face evolving pressures.

Eliminating fossil fuel consumption completely would require sustained and costly government intervention, and reliability challenges such as coal and nuclear disruptions add to the complexity. That is far from certain. Meanwhile, though, market forces are depressing the sector’s usual profitability.

The end of oil and gas is not immediately around the corner. Still, the end of hydrocarbons as a lucrative industry is a distinct possibility. We are seeing that in dramatic form in the current oil price crash. But this collapse is merely a message from the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News