Atomic Energy chair steps down

Remote Work Energy Costs are rising as home offices and telecommuting boost electricity bills; utilities, broadband usage, and COVID-19-driven stay-at-home policies affect productivity, consumption patterns, and household budgets across the U.K. and Europe.

Key Points

Remote Work Energy Costs are increased household electricity and utility expenses from telecommuting and home office use.

✅ WFH shifts energy load from offices to households.

✅ Higher device, lighting, and heating/cooling usage drives bills.

✅ Broadband access gaps limit remote work equity.

Household electricity bills are set to soar, with rising residential electricity use tied to the millions of people now working at home to avoid catching the coronavirus.

Running laptops and other home appliances will cost consumers an extra 52 million pounds ($60 million) each week in the U.K., according to a study from Uswitch, a website that helps consumers compare the energy prices that utilities charge.

For each home-bound household, the pain to the pocketbook may be about 195 pounds per year extra, even as some utilities pursue pandemic cost-cutting to manage financial pressures.

The rise in price for households comes even as overall demand is falling rapidly in Europe, with wide swaths of the economy shut down to keep workers from gathering in one place, and the U.S. grid overseer issuing warnings about potential pandemic impacts on operations.

People stuck at home will plug in computers, lights and appliances when they’d normally be at the office, increasing their consumption.

With the Canadian government declaring a state of emergency due to the coronavirus, companies are enabling work-from-home structures to keep business running and help employees follow social distancing guidelines, and some utilities have even considered housing critical staff on site to maintain operations. However, working remotely has been on the rise for a while.

“The coronavirus is going to be a tipping point. We plodded along at about 10% growth a year for the last 10 years, but I foresee that this is going to really accelerate the trend,” Kate Lister, president of Global Workplace Analytics.

Gallup’s State of the Workplace 2017 study found that 43% of employees work remotely with some frequency. Research indicates that in a five-day workweek, working remotely for two to three days is the most productive. That gives the employee two to three days of meetings, collaboration and interaction, with the opportunity to just focus on the work for the other half of the week.

Remote work seems like a logical precaution for many companies that employ people in the digital economy, even as some federal agencies sparked debate with an EPA telework policy during the pandemic. However, not all Americans have access to the internet at home, and many work in industries that require in-person work.

According to the Pew Research Center, roughly three-quarters of American adults have broadband internet service at home. However, the study found that racial minorities, older adults, rural residents and people with lower levels of education and income are less likely to have broadband service at home. In addition, 1 in 5 American adults access the internet only through their smartphone and do not have traditional broadband access. 

Full-time employees are four times more likely to have remote work options than part-time employees. A typical remote worker is college-educated, at least 45 years old and earns an annual salary of $58,000 while working for a company with more than 100 employees, according to Global Workplace Analytics, and in Canada there is growing interest in electricity-sector careers among younger workers. 

New York, California and other states have enacted strict policies for people to remain at home during the coronavirus pandemic, which could change the future of work, and Canadian provinces such as Saskatchewan have documented how the crisis has reshaped local economies across sectors.

“I don’t think we’ll go back to the same way we used to operate,” Jennifer Christie, chief HR officer at Twitter, told CNBC. “I really don’t.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety 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

Offshore wind power accelerates low-carbon electrification, leveraging floating turbines, high capacity factors, HVDC transmission, and hydrogen production to decarbonize grids, cut CO2, and deliver competitive, reliable renewable energy near demand centers.

Key Points

Offshore wind power uses offshore turbines to deliver low-carbon electricity with high capacity factors and falling costs.

✅ Sea-based wind farms with 40-50% capacity factors

✅ Floating turbines unlock deep-water, far-shore resources

✅ Enables hydrogen production and strengthens grid reliability

The need for affordable low-carbon technologies is greater than ever

Global energy-related CO2 emissions reached a historic high in 2018, driven by an increase in coal use in the power sector. Despite impressive gains for renewables, fossil fuels still account for nearly two-thirds of electricity generation, the same share as 20 years ago. There are signs of a shift, with increasing pledges to decarbonise economies and tackle air pollution, and with World Bank support helping developing countries scale wind, but action needs to accelerate to meet sustainable energy goals. As electrification of the global energy system continues, the need for clean and affordable low-carbon technologies to produce this electricity is more pressing than ever. This World Energy Outlook special report offers a deep dive on a technology that today has a total capacity of 23 GW (80% of it in Europe) and accounts for only 0.3% of global electricity generation, but has the potential to become a mainstay of the world's power supply. The report provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of the global outlook for offshore wind, its contributions to electricity systems and its role in clean energy transitions.

The offshore wind market has been gaining momentum

The global offshore wind market grew nearly 30% per year between 2010 and 2018, benefitting from rapid technology improvements. Over the next five years, about 150 new offshore wind projects are scheduled to be completed around the world, pointing to an increasing role for offshore wind in power supplies. Europe has fostered the technology's development, led by the UK offshore wind sector alongside Germany and Denmark. The United Kingdom and Germany currently have the largest offshore wind capacity in operation, while Denmark produced 15% of its electricity from offshore wind in 2018. China added more capacity than any other country in 2018.

The untapped potential of offshore wind is vast

The best offshore wind sites could supply more than the total amount of electricity consumed worldwide today. And that would involve tapping only the sites close to shores. The IEA initiated a new geospatial analysis for this report to assess offshore wind technical potential country by country. The analysis was based on the latest global weather data on wind speed and quality while factoring in the newest turbine designs. Offshore wind's technical potential is 36 000 TWh per year for installations in water less than 60 metres deep and within 60 km from shore. Global electricity demand is currently 23 000 TWh. Moving further from shore and into deeper waters, floating turbines could unlock enough potential to meet the world's total electricity demand 11 times over in 2040. Our new geospatial analysis indicates that offshore wind alone could meet several times electricity demand in a number of countries, including in Europe, the United States and Japan. The industry is adapting various floating foundation technologies that have already been proven in the oil and gas sector. The first projects are under development and look to prove the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of floating offshore wind technologies.

Offshore wind's attributes are very promising for power systems

New offshore wind projects have capacity factors of 40-50%, as larger turbines and other technology improvements are helping to make the most of available wind resources. At these levels, offshore wind matches the capacity factors of gas- and coal-fired power plants in some regions – though offshore wind is not available at all times. Its capacity factors exceed those of onshore wind and are about double those of solar PV. Offshore wind output varies according to the strength of the wind, but its hourly variability is lower than that of solar PV. Offshore wind typically fluctuates within a narrower band, up to 20% from hour to hour, than solar PV, which varies up to 40%.

Offshore wind's high capacity factors and lower variability make its system value comparable to baseload technologies, placing it in a category of its own – a variable baseload technology. Offshore wind can generate electricity during all hours of the day and tends to produce more electricity in winter months in Europe, the United States and China, as well as during the monsoon season in India. These characteristics mean that offshore wind's system value is generally higher than that of its onshore counterpart and more stable over time than that of solar PV. Offshore wind also contributes to electricity security, with its high availability and seasonality patterns it is able to make a stronger contribution to system needs than other variable renewables. In doing so, offshore wind contributes to reducing CO2 and air pollutant emissions while also lowering the need for investment in dispatchable power plants. Offshore wind also has the advantage of avoiding many land use and social acceptance issues that other variable renewables are facing.

Offshore wind is on track to be a competitive source of electricity

Offshore wind is set to be competitive with fossil fuels within the next decade, as well as with other renewables including solar PV. The cost of offshore wind is declining and is set to fall further. Financing costs account for 35% to 50% of overall generation cost, and supportive policy frameworks are now enabling projects to secure low cost financing in Europe, with zero-subsidy tenders being awarded. Technology costs are also falling. The levelised cost of electricity produced by offshore wind is projected to decline by nearly 60% by 2040. Combined with its relatively high value to the system, this will make offshore wind one of the most competitive sources of electricity. In Europe, recent auctions indicate that offshore wind will soon beat new natural gas-fired capacity on cost and be on a par with solar PV and onshore wind. In China, offshore wind is set to become competitive with new coal-fired capacity around 2030 and be on par with solar PV and onshore wind. In the United States, recent project proposals indicate that offshore wind will soon be an affordable option, even as the 1 GW timeline continues to evolve, with potential to serve demand centres along the country's east coast.

Innovation is delivering deep cost reductions in offshore wind, and transmission costs will become increasingly important. The average upfront cost to build a 1 gigawatt offshore wind project, including transmission, was over $4 billion in 2018, but the cost is set to drop by more than 40% over the next decade. This overall decline is driven by a 60% reduction in the costs of turbines, foundations and their installation. Transmission accounts for around one-quarter of total offshore wind costs today, but its share in total costs is set to increase to about one-half as new projects move further from shore. Innovation in transmission, for example through work to expand the limits of direct current technologies, will be essential to support new projects without raising their overall costs.

Offshore wind is set to become a $1 trillion business

Offshore wind power capacity is set to increase by at least 15-fold worldwide by 2040, becoming a $1 trillion business. Under current investment plans and policies, the global offshore wind market is set to expand by 13% per year, reflecting its growth despite Covid-19 in recent years, passing 20 GW of additions per year by 2030. This will require capital spending of $840 billion over the next two decades, almost matching that for natural gas-fired or coal-fired capacity. Achieving global climate and sustainability goals would require faster growth: capacity additions would need to approach 40 GW per year in the 2030s, pushing cumulative investment to over $1.2 trillion. 

The promising outlook for offshore wind is underpinned by policy support in an increasing number of regions. Several European North Seas countries – including the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark – have policy targets supporting offshore wind. Although a relative newcomer to the technology, China is quickly building up its offshore wind industry, aiming to develop a project pipeline of 10 GW by 2020. In the United States, state-level targets and federal incentives are set to kick-start the U.S. offshore wind surge in the coming years. Additionally, policy targets are in place and projects under development in Korea, Japan, Chinese Taipei and Viet Nam.

 The synergies between offshore wind and offshore oil and gas activities provide new market opportunities. Since offshore energy operations share technologies and elements of their supply chains, oil and gas companies started investing in offshore wind projects many years ago. We estimate that about 40% of the full lifetime costs of an offshore wind project, including construction and maintenance, have significant synergies with the offshore oil and gas sector. That translates into a market opportunity of $400 billion or more in Europe and China over the next two decades. The construction of foundations and subsea structures offers potential crossover business, as do practices related to the maintenance and inspection of platforms. In addition to these opportunities, offshore oil and gas platforms require electricity that is often supplied by gas turbines or diesel engines, but that could be provided by nearby wind farms, thereby reducing CO2 emissions, air pollutants and costs.

Offshore wind can accelerate clean energy transitions

Offshore wind can help drive energy transitions by decarbonising electricity and by producing low-carbon fuels. Over the next two decades, its expansion could avoid between 5 billion and 7 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from the power sector globally, while also reducing air pollution and enhancing energy security by reducing reliance on imported fuels. The European Union is poised to continue leading the wind energy at sea in Europe industry in support of its climate goals: its offshore wind capacity is set to increase by at least fourfold by 2030. This growth puts offshore wind on track to become the European Union's largest source of electricity in the 2040s. Beyond electricity, offshore wind's high capacity factors and falling costs makes it a good match to produce low-carbon hydrogen, a versatile product that could help decarbonise the buildings sector and some of the hardest to abate activities in industry and transport. For example, a 1 gigawatt offshore wind project could produce enough low-carbon hydrogen to heat about 250 000 homes. Rising demand for low-carbon hydrogen could also dramatically increase the market potential for offshore wind. Europe is looking to develop offshore "hubs" for producing electricity and clean hydrogen from offshore wind.

It's not all smooth sailing

Offshore wind faces several challenges that could slow its growth in established and emerging markets, but policy makers and regulators can clear the path ahead. Developing efficient supply chains is crucial for the offshore wind industry to deliver low-cost projects. Doing so is likely to call for multibillion-dollar investments in ever-larger support vessels and construction equipment. Such investment is especially difficult in the face of uncertainty. Governments can facilitate investment of this kind by establishing a long-term vision for offshore wind and by drawing on U.K. policy lessons to define the measures to be taken to help make that vision a reality. Long-term clarity would also enable effective system integration of offshore wind, including system planning to ensure reliability during periods of low wind availability.

The success of offshore wind depends on developing onshore grid infrastructure. Whether the responsibility for developing offshore transmission lies with project developers or transmission system operators, regulations should encourage efficient planning and design practices that support the long-term vision for offshore wind. Those regulations should recognise that the development of onshore grid infrastructure is essential to the efficient integration of power production from offshore wind. Without appropriate grid reinforcements and expansion, there is a risk of large amounts of offshore wind power going unused, and opportunities for further expansion could be stifled. Development could also be slowed by marine planning practices, regulations for awarding development rights and public acceptance issues.

The future of offshore wind looks bright but hinges on the right policies

The outlook for offshore wind is very positive as efforts to decarbonise and reduce local pollution accelerate. While offshore wind provides just 0.3% of global electricity supply today, it has vast potential around the world and an important role to play in the broader energy system. Offshore wind can drive down CO2 emissions and air pollutants from electricity generation. It can also do so in other sectors through the production of clean hydrogen and related fuels. The high system value of offshore wind offers advantages that make a strong case for its role alongside other renewables and low-carbon technologies. Government policies will continue to play a critical role in the future of offshore wind and  the overall pace of clean energy transitions around the world.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out reflects a decisive energy policy shift, retiring reactors as firms shun new builds amid high costs, radioactive waste challenges, climate goals, insurance gaps, and debate over small modular reactors and subsidies.

Key Points

Germany's policy to end nuclear plants and block new builds, emphasizing safety, waste, climate goals, and viability.

✅ Driven by safety risks, waste storage limits, and insurance gaps

✅ High capital costs and subsidies make new reactors uneconomic

✅ Political debate persists; SMRs raise cost and proliferation concerns

A year has passed since Germany deactivated its last three nuclear power plants, marking a significant shift in its energy policy.

Nuclear fission once heralded as the future of energy in Germany during the 1960s, was initially embraced with minimal concern for the potential risks of nuclear accidents. As Heinz Smital from Greenpeace recalls, the early optimism was partly driven by national interest in nuclear weapon technology rather than energy companies' initiatives.

Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Ministry of Development, reflects on that era, noting Germany's strong, almost naive, belief in technology. Germany, particularly the Ruhr region, grappled with smog-filled skies at that time due to heavy industrialization and coal-fired power plants. Nuclear energy presented a "clean" alternative at the time.

This sentiment was also prevalent in East Germany, where the first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1961. In total, 37 nuclear reactors were activated across Germany, reflecting a widespread confidence in nuclear technology.

However, the 1970s saw a shift in attitudes. Environmental activists protested the construction of new power plants, symbolizing a generational rift. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the US, followed by the catastrophic Chornobyl disaster in 1986, further eroded public trust in nuclear energy.

The Chornobyl accident, in particular, significantly dampened Germany's nuclear ambitions, according to Smital. Post-Chernobyl, plans for additional nuclear power plants in Germany, once numbering 60, drastically declined.

The emergence of the Green Party in 1980, rooted in anti-nuclear sentiment, and its subsequent rise to political prominence further influenced Germany's energy policy. The Greens, joining forces with the Social Democrats in 1998, initiated a move away from nuclear energy, facing opposition from the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).

However, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted a policy reversal from CDU and CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to Germany's eventual nuclear phase-out in March 2023, after briefly extending nuclear power amid the energy crisis.

Recently, the CDU and CSU have revised their stance once more, signaling a potential U-turn on the nuclear phaseout, advocating for new nuclear reactors and the reactivation of the last shut-down plants, citing climate protection and rising fossil fuel costs. CDU leader Friedrich Merz has lamented the shutdown as a "black day for Germany." However, these suggestions have garnered little enthusiasm from German energy companies.

Steffi Lemke, the Federal Environment Minister, isn't surprised by the companies' reluctance, noting their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, which she argues would do little to solve the gas issue in Germany, due to its high-risk nature and the long-term challenge of radioactive waste management.

Globally, 412 reactors are operational across 32 countries, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during an energy crunch, with the total number remaining relatively stable over the years. While countries like China, France, and the UK plan new constructions, there's a growing interest in small, modern reactors, which Smital of Greenpeace views with skepticism, noting their potential military applications.

In Germany, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste storage looms large. With temporary storage facilities near power plants proving inadequate for long-term needs, the search for permanent sites faces resistance from local communities and poses financial and logistical challenges.

Environment Minister Lemke underscores the economic impracticality of nuclear energy in Germany, citing prohibitive costs and the necessity of substantial subsidies and insurance exemptions.

As things stand, the resurgence of nuclear power in Germany appears unlikely, with economic factors playing a decisive role in its future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Consumers Energy Wind Expansion gains MPSC approval in Michigan, adding up to 525 MW of wind power, including Gratiot Farms, while solar capacity requests face delays over cost projections under the renewable portfolio standard targets.

Key Points

A regulatory-approved plan enabling Consumers Energy to add 525 MW of wind while solar additions await cost review.

✅ MPSC approves up to 525 MW in new wind projects

✅ Gratiot Farms purchase allowed before May 1

✅ Solar request delayed over high cost projections

Consumers Energy Co.’s efforts to expand its renewable offerings gained some traction this week when the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) approved a request for additional wind generation capacity.

Consumers had argued that both more wind and solar facilities are needed to meet the state’s renewable portfolio standard, which was expanded in 2016 to encompass 12.5 percent of the retail power of each Michigan electric provider. Those figures will continue to rise under the law through 2021 when the figure reaches 15 percent, alongside ongoing electricity market reforms discussions. However, Consumers’ request for additional solar facilities was delayed at this time due to what the Commission labeled unrealistically high-cost projections.

Consumers will be able to add as much as 525 megawatts of new wind projects amid a shifting wind market, including two proposed 175-megawatt wind projects slated to begin operation this year and next. Consumers has also been allowed to purchase the Gratiot Farms Wind Project before May 1.

The MPSC said a final determination would be made on Consumers’ solar requests during a decision in April. Consumers had sought an additional 100 megawatts of solar facilities, hoping to get them online sometime in 2024 and 2025.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Alberta Electricity Market faces energy-only vs capacity debate as transmission, distribution, and administration fees surge; rural rates rise amid a regulated duopoly of investor-owned utilities, prompting calls for competition, innovation, and lower bills.

Key Points

Alberta's electricity market is an energy-only system with rising delivery charges and limited rural competition.

✅ Energy-only design; capacity market scrapped

✅ Delivery charges outpace energy on monthly bills

✅ Rural duopoly limits competition and raises rates

Last week, Alberta’s new Energy Minister Sonya Savage announced the government, through its new electricity rules, would be scrapping plans to shift Alberta’s electricity to a capacity market and would instead be “restoring certainty in the electricity system.”

The proposed transition from energy only to a capacity market is a contentious subject as a market reshuffle unfolds across the province that many Albertans probably don’t know much about. Our electricity market is not a particularly glamorous subject. It’s complicated and confusing and what matters most to ordinary Albertans is how it affects their monthly bills.

What they may not realize is that the cost of their actual electricity used is often just a small fraction of their bill amid rising electricity prices across the province. The majority on an average electricity bill is actually the cost of delivering that electricity from the generator to your house. Charges for transmission, distribution and franchise and administration fees are quickly pushing many Alberta households to the limit with soaring bills.

According to data from Alberta’s Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA), and alongside policy changes, in 2004 the average monthly transmission costs for residential regulated-rate customers was below $2. In 2018 that cost was averaging nearly $27 a month. The increase is equally dramatic in distribution rates which have more than doubled across the province and range wildly, averaging from as low as $10 a month in 2004 to over $80 a month for some residential regulated-rate customers in 2018.

Where you live determines who delivers your electricity. In Alberta’s biggest cities and a handful of others the distribution systems are municipally owned and operated. Outside those select municipalities most of Alberta’s electricity is delivered by two private companies which operate as a regulated duopoly. In fact, two investor-owned utilities deliver power to over 95 per cent of rural Alberta and they continue to increase their share by purchasing the few rural electricity co-ops that remained their only competition in the market. The cost of buying out their competition is then passed on to the customers, driving rates even higher.

As the CEO of Alberta’s largest remaining electricity co-op, I know very well that as the price of materials, equipment and skilled labour increase, the cost of operating follows. If it costs more to build and maintain an electricity distribution system there will inevitably be a cost increase passed on to the consumer. The question Albertans should be asking is how much is too much and where is all that money going with these private- investor-owned utilities, as the sector faces profound change under provincial leadership?

The reforms to Alberta’s electricity system brought in by Premier Klein in the late 1900s and early 2000s contributed to a surge in investment in the sector and led to an explosion of competition in both electricity generation and retail. 

More players entered the field which put downward pressure on electricity rates, encouraged innovation and gave consumers a competitive choice, even as a Calgary electricity retailer urged the government to scrap the overhaul. But the legislation and regulations that govern rural electricity distribution in Alberta continue to facilitate and even encourage the concentration of ownership among two players which is certainly not in the interests of rural Albertans.

It is also not in the spirit of the United Conservative Party platform commitment to a “market-based” system. A market-based system suggests more competition. Instead, what we have is something approaching a monopoly for many Albertans. The UCP promised a review of the transition to a capacity market that would determine which market would be best for Alberta, and through proposed electricity market changes has decided that we will remain an energy-only market.
Consumers in rural Alberta need electricity to produce the goods that power our biggest industries. Instead of regulating and approving continued rate increases from private multinational corporations, we need to drive competition and innovation that can push rates down and encourage growth and investment in rural-based industries and communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News