All UK homes could be wind powered by 2020

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

Key Points

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

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric Buses reduce urban emissions and noise, but require charging infrastructure, grid upgrades, and depot redesigns; they offer lower operating costs and simpler maintenance, with range limits influencing routes, schedules, and on-route fast charging.

Key Points

Battery-electric buses cut emissions and noise while lowering operating and maintenance costs for transit agencies.

✅ Lower emissions, noise; improved rider experience

✅ Requires charging, grid upgrades, depot redesigns

✅ Range limits affect routes; on-route fast charging helps

In lots of ways, the electric bus feels like a technology whose time has come. Transportation is responsible for about a quarter of global emissions, and those emissions are growing faster than in any other sector. While buses are just a small slice of the worldwide vehicle fleet, they have an outsize effect on the environment. That’s partly because they’re so dirty—one Bogotá bus fleet made up just 5 percent of the city’s total vehicles, but a quarter of its CO2, 40 percent of nitrogen oxide, and more than half of all its particulate matter vehicle emissions. And because buses operate exactly where the people are concentrated, we feel the effects that much more acutely.

Enter the electric bus. Depending on the “cleanliness” of the electric grid into which they’re plugged, e-buses are much better for the environment. They’re also just straight up nicer to be around: less vibration, less noise, zero exhaust. Plus, in the long term, e-buses have lower operating costs, and related efforts like US school bus electrification are gathering pace too.

So it makes sense that global e-bus sales increased by 32 percent last year, according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, as the age of electric cars accelerates across markets worldwide. “You look across the electrification of cars, trucks—it’s buses that are leading this revolution,” says David Warren, the director of sustainable transportation at bus manufacturer New Flyer.

Today, about 17 percent of the world’s buses are electric—425,000 in total. But 99 percent of them are in China, where a national mandate promotes all sorts of electric vehicles. In North America, a few cities have bought a few electric buses, or at least run limited pilots, to test the concept out, and early deployments like Edmonton's first e-bus offer useful lessons as systems ramp up. California has even mandated that by 2029 all buses purchased by its mass transit agencies be zero-emission.

But given all the benefits of e-buses, why aren’t there more? And why aren’t they everywhere?

“We want to be responsive, we want to be innovative, we want to pilot new technologies and we’re committed to doing so as an agency,” says Becky Collins, the manager of corporate initiative at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which is currently on its second e-bus pilot program. “But if the diesel bus was a first-generation car phone, we’re verging on smartphone territory right now. It’s not as simple as just flipping a switch.”

One reason is trepidation about the actual electric vehicle. Some of the major bus manufacturers are still getting over their skis, production-wise. During early tests in places like Belo Horizonte, Brazil, e-buses had trouble getting over steep hills with full passenger loads. Albuquerque, New Mexico, canceled a 15-bus deal with the Chinese manufacturer BYD after finding equipment problems during testing. (The city also sued). Today’s buses get around 225 miles per charge, depending on topography and weather conditions, which means they have to re-up about once a day on a shorter route in a dense city. That’s an issue in a lot of places.

If you want to buy an electric bus, you need to buy into an entire electric bus system. The vehicle is just the start.

The number one thing people seem to forget about electric buses is that they need to get charged, and emerging projects such as a bus depot charging hub illustrate how infrastructure can scale. “We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles,” says Camron Gorguinpour, the global senior manager for the electric vehicles at the World Resources Institute, a research organization, which last month released twin reports on electric bus adoption. “The actual charging stations get lost in the mix.”

But charging stations are expensive—about $50,000 for your standard depot-based one. On-route charging stations, an appealing option for longer bus routes, can be two or three times that. And that’s not even counting construction costs. Or the cost of new land: In densely packed urban centers, movements inside bus depots can be tightly orchestrated to accommodate parking and fueling. New electric bus infrastructure means rethinking limited space, and operators can look to Toronto's TTC e-bus fleet for practical lessons on depot design. And it’s a particular pain when agencies are transitioning between diesel and electric buses. “The big issue is just maintaining two sets of fueling infrastructure,” says Hanjiro Ambrose, a doctoral student at UC Davis who studies transportation technology and policy.

“We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles. The actual charging stations get lost in the mix as the American EV boom gathers pace across sectors.”

Then agencies also have to get the actual electricity to their charging stations. This involves lengthy conversations with utilities about grid upgrades, rethinking how systems are wired, occasionally building new substations, and, sometimes, cutting deals on electric output, since electric truck fleets will also strain power systems in parallel. Because an entirely electrified bus fleet? It’s a lot to charge. Warren, the New Flyer executive, estimates it could take 150 megawatt-hours of electricity to keep a 300-bus depot charged up throughout the day. Your typical American household, by contrast, consumes 7 percent of that—per year. “That’s a lot of work by the utility company,” says Warren.

For cities outside of China—many of them still testing out electric buses and figuring out how they fit into their larger fleets—learning about what it takes to run one is part of the process. This, of course, takes money. It also takes time. Optimists say e-buses are more of a question of when than if. Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects that just under 60 percent of all fleet buses will be electric by 2040, compared to under 40 percent of commercial vans and 30 percent of passenger vehicles.

Which means, of course, that the work has just started. “With new technology, it always feels great when it shows up,” says Ambrose. “You really hope that first mile is beautiful, because the shine will come off. That’s always true.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Rosatom-RAS Cooperation drives joint R&D in nuclear energy, nuclear medicine, fusion, particle accelerators, laser technologies, fuel cycle safety, radioactive waste management, and supercomputing, aligning strategic planning and standards to accelerate innovation across Russia's nuclear sector.

Key Points

A pact uniting Rosatom and RAS on nuclear R&D, fusion, and medicine to advance nuclear technologies across Russia.

✅ Joint R&D in fusion, accelerators, lasers, and new materials

✅ Focus on fuel cycle closure, safety, and waste management

✅ Shared strategic planning, standards, and expert evaluation

Russian state atomic energy corporation Rosatom and the Russian State Academy of Sciences are to cooperate on joint scientific, technical and innovative activities in areas including nuclear energy, nuclear medicine and other areas of the electricity sector under an agreement signed in Moscow on 7 February.

The cooperation agreement was signed by Rosatom Director General Alexei Likhachov and President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Sergeev during a joint meeting to mark Russian Science Day. Under its terms, the partners will cooperate in organising research and development activities aimed at providing technological advantages in various sectors of the domestic industry, as well as creating and developing interdisciplinary scientific and technological centres and organisations supporting energy sector training and innovation. They will also jointly develop strategic planning documents, improve the technical and scientific regulatory and legal framework, and carry out expert evaluations of scientific and technical projects and scientific consultations.

Rosatom said the main areas of cooperation in the agreement are: the development of laser technologies and particle accelerators; the creation of modern diagnostic equipment, nuclear medicine and radiation therapy; controlled thermonuclear fusion; nuclear energy of the future; new materials; the nuclear fuel cycle and its closure; safety of nuclear energy and power sector pandemic response preparedness; environmental aspects of radioactive waste management; modern supercomputers, databases, application packages, and import-substituting codes; and also X-ray astronomy and nuclear planetology.

Likhachov said joint activities between Rosatom and the Academy would strengthen the Russian nuclear industry's "leadership" in the world and allow the creation of new technologies that would shape the future image of the nuclear industry in Russia. "Within the framework of the Agreement, we intend to expand work on the entire spectrum of advanced scientific research. The most important direction of our cooperation will be the integration of fundamental, exploratory and applied scientific research, including in the interests of the development of the nuclear industry. We will work together to form the nuclear energy industry of the future, and enhance grid resilience, to create new materials, new radiation technologies,” he said.

Sergeyev noted the "rich history" of cooperation between the Academy of Sciences and the nuclear industry, including modern safety practices such as arc flash training that support operations. “All major projects in the field of military and peaceful nuclear energy were carried out jointly by scientists and specialists of our organisations, which largely ensured their timeliness and success," he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Australian Electric Vehicle Sales tripled in 2019 amid expanding charging infrastructure and more models, but market share remains low, constrained by limited government policy, weak incentives, and absent emissions standards despite growing ultra-fast chargers.

Key Points

EV units sold in Australia; in 2019 they tripled to 6,718, but market share was just 0.6%.

✅ Sales rose from 2,216 (2018) to 6,718 (2019); ~80% were BEVs.

✅ Public charging sites reached 2,307; fast chargers up 40% year-on-year.

✅ Policy gaps and absent standards limit model supply and EV uptake.

Sales of electric vehicles in Australia tripled in 2019 despite a lack of government support, according to the industry’s peak body.

The country’s network of EV charging stations was also growing, the Electric Vehicle Council’s annual report found, including a rise in the number of faster charging stations that let drivers recharge a car in about 15 minutes.

But the report, released on Wednesday, found the market share for electric vehicles was still only 0.6% of new vehicle sales – well behind the 2.5% to 5% in other developed countries.

The chief executive of the council, Behyad Jafari, said the rise in sales was down to more models becoming available. There are now 28 electric models on sale, with eight priced below $65,000.

Six more were due to arrive before the end of 2021, including two priced below $50,000, the council’s report said.

“We have repeatedly heard from car companies that they were planning to bring vehicles here, but Australia doesn’t have that policy support.”

The Morrison government promised a national electric vehicle strategy would be finalised by the middle of this year, but the policy has been delayed. The prime minister, Scott Morrison, last year accused Labor of wanting to “end the weekend” and force people out of four-wheel drives after the opposition set a target of 50% of new car sales being electric by 2030.

Jafari cited the Kia e-Niro – an award-winning electric SUV that was being prepared for an Australian launch, but is now reportedly on hold because the manufacturer favoured shipping to countries with emissions standards.

The council’s members include BMW, Nissan, Hyundai and Harley Davidson, as well as energy, technology and charging infrastructure companies.

Sales of electric vehicles – which include plug-in hybrids – went from 2,216 in 2018 to 6,718 in 2019, the report said. Jafari said about 80% of those sales were all-electric vehicles.

There have been 3,226 electric vehicles sold in 2020, the report said, despite an overall drop of 20% in vehicle sales due to the Covid-19 pandemic, while U.S. EV sales have surged into 2024.

Jafari said: “Our report is showing that Australian consumers want these cars.

“There is no controversy that the future of the industry is electric, but at the moment the industry is looking at different markets. We want policies that show [Australia] is going on this journey.”

Government agency data has forecast that half the new cars sold will be electric by 2035, underscoring that the age of electric cars is arriving even if there is no policy to support their uptake.

Manufacturers currently selling electric cars in Australia are Nissan, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Tesla, Volvo, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar and Renault, the report said.

Jafari said most G20 countries had emissions standards in place for vehicles sold and incentives in place to support electric vehicles, such as rebates or exemptions from charges. This hadn’t happened in Australia, he said.

The report said: “Globally, carmakers are rolling out more electric vehicle models as the electric car market expands, but so far production cannot keep up with demand. This means that without policy signals, Australians will continue to be denied access to the full global range of electric vehicles.”

On Tuesday, one Australian charging provider, Evie Networks, opened an ultra-fast station at a rest stop at Campbell Town in Tasmania – between Launceston and Hobart.

The company said the station would connect EV owners in the state’s north and south and the two 350kW chargers could recharge a vehicle in 15 minutes, highlighting whether grids have the power to charge EVs at scale. Two more sites were planned for Tasmania, the company said.

A Tasmanian government grant to support electric vehicle charging had helped finance the site. Evie was also supported with a $15m grant from the federal government’s Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

According to the council report, Australia now has 2,307 public charging stations, including 357 fast chargers – a rise of 40% in the past year.

A survey of 2,900 people in New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and South Australia, carried out by NRMA, RACV and RAA on behalf of the council, found the main barriers to buying an electric vehicle were concerns over access to charging points, higher prices and uncertainty over driving range.

Consumers favoured electric vehicles because of their environmental footprint, lower maintenance costs and vehicle performance.

The report said the average battery range of electric vehicles available in Australia was 400km, but almost 80% of people thought the average was less.

According to the survey, 56% of Australians would consider an electric car when they next bought a vehicle, and in the UK, EV inquiries soared during a fuel supply crisis.

“We are far behind, but it is surmountable,” Jafari said.

The council report also rated state and territories on the policies that supported its industry and found the ACT was leading, followed by NSW and Queensland.

A review of commercial electric vehicle use found public electric bus trials were planned or under way in Queensland, NSW, WA, Victoria and ACT. There are now more than 400,000 electric buses in use around the globe.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Pennsylvania Electric Rate Increases hit Peco, PPL, and Pike County, driven by natural gas costs and wholesale power markets; default rate changes, price to compare shifts, and time-of-use plans affect residential bills.

Key Points

Electric default rates are rising across Pennsylvania as natural gas costs climb, affecting Peco, PPL, and Pike customers.

✅ PPL, Peco, and Pike raising default rates Dec. 1

✅ Natural gas costs driving wholesale power prices

✅ Consider standard offer, TOU rates, and efficiency

Energy costs for electric customers are going up by as much as 50% across Pennsylvania next week, the latest manifestation of US electricity price increases impacting gasoline, heating oil, propane, and natural gas.

Eight Pennsylvania electric utilities are set to increase their energy prices on Dec. 1, reflecting the higher cost to produce electricity. Peco Energy, which serves Philadelphia and its suburbs, will boost its energy charge by 6.4% on Dec. 1, from 6.6 cents per kilowatt hour to about 7 cents per kWh. Energy charges account for about half of a residential bill.

PPL Electric Utilities, the Allentown company that serves a large swath of Pennsylvania including parts of Bucks, Montgomery, and Chester Counties, will impose a 26% increase on residential energy costs on Dec. 1, from about 7.5 cents per kWh to 9.5 cents per kWh. That’s an increase of $40 a month for an electric heating customer who uses 2,000 kWh a month.

Pike County Light & Power, which serves about 4,800 customers in Northeast Pennsylvania, will increase energy charges by 50%, according to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

“All electric distribution companies face the same market forces as PPL Electric Utilities,” PPL said in a statement. Each Pennsylvania utility follows a different PUC-regulated plan for procuring energy from power generators, and those forces can include rising nuclear power costs in some regions, which explains why some customers are absorbing the hit sooner rather than later, it said.

There are ways customers can mitigate the impact. Utilities offer a host of programs and grants to support low-income customers, and some states are exploring income-based fixed charges to address affordability, and they encourage anyone struggling to pay their bills to call the utility for help. Customers can also control their costs by conserving energy. It may be time to put on a sweater and weatherize the house.

Peco recently introduced time-of-use rates — as seen when Ontario ended fixed pricing — that include steep discounts for customers who can shift electric usage to late night hours — that’s you, electric vehicle owners.

There’s also a clever opportunity available for many Pennsylvania customers called the “standard offer” that might save you some real money, but you need to act before the new charges take effect on Dec. 1 to lock in the best rates.

Why are the price hikes happening?
But first, how did we get here?

Energy charges are rising for a simple reason: Fuel prices for power generators are increasing, and that’s driven mostly by natural gas. It’s pushing up electricity prices in wholesale power markets and has lifted typical residential bills in recent years.

“It’s all market forces right now,” said Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, PUC spokesperson. Energy charges are strictly a pass-through cost for utilities. Utilities aren’t allowed to mark them up.

The increase in utility energy charges does not affect customers who buy their energy from competitive power suppliers in deregulated electricity markets. About 27% of Pennsylvania’s 5.9 million electric customers who shop for electricity from third-party suppliers either pay fixed rates, whose price remains stable, or are on a variable-rate plan tied to market prices. The variable-rate electric bills have probably already increased to reflect the higher cost of generating power.

Most New Jersey electric customers are shielded for now from rising energy costs. New Jersey sets annual energy prices for customers who don’t shop for power. Those rates go into effect on June 1 and stay in place for 12 months. The current energy market fluctuations will be reflected in new rates that take effect next summer, said Lauren Ugorji, a spokesperson for Public Service Electric & Gas Co., New Jersey’s largest utility.

For each utility, its own plan
Pennsylvania has a different system for setting utility energy charges, which are also known as the “default rate,” because that’s the price a customer gets by default if they don’t shop for power. The default rate is also the same thing as the “price to compare,” a term the PUC has adopted so consumers can make an apples-to-apples comparison between a utility’s energy charge and the price offered by a competitive supplier.

Each of the state’s 11 PUC-regulated electric utilities prepares its own “default service plan,” that governs the method by which they procure power on wholesale markets. Electric distribution companies like Peco are required to buy the lowest priced power. They typically buy power in blind auctions conducted by independent agents, so that there’s no favoritism for affiliated power generators

Some utilities adjust charges quarterly, and others do it semi-annually. “This means that each [utility’s] resulting price to compare will vary as the market changes, some taking longer to reflect price changes, both up and down,” PPL said in a statement. PPL conducted its semi-annual auction in October, when energy prices were rising sharply.

Most utilities buy power from suppliers under contracts of varying durations, both long-term and short-term. The contracts are staggered so market price fluctuations are smoothed out. One utility, Pike County Power & Light, buys all its power on the spot market, which explains why its energy charge will surge by 50% on Dec. 1. Pike County’s energy charge will also be quicker to decline when wholesale prices subside, as they are expected to next year.

Peco adjusts its energy charge quarterly, but it conducts power auctions semi-annually. It buys about 40% of its power in one-year contracts, and 60% in two-year contracts, and does not buy any power on spot markets, said Richard G. Webster Jr., Peco’s vice president of regulatory policy and strategy.

“At any given time, we’re replacing about a third of our supplied portfolio,” he said.

The utility’s energy charge affects only part of the monthly bill. For a Peco residential electric customer who uses 700 kWh per month, the Dec. 1 energy charge increase will boost monthly bills by $2.94 per month, or 2.9%. For an electric heating customer who uses about 2,000 kWh per month, the change will boost bills $8.40 a month, or about 3.5%, said Greg Smore, a Peco spokesperson.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

ERCOT Ancillary Services Clawback and VOLL Pricing summarize PUCT and IMM actions on load shed, real-time pricing adders, clawbacks, and settlement corrections after the 2021 winter storm in the Texas power grid market.

Key Points

Policies addressing clawbacks for unprovided AS and correcting VOLL-based price adders after load shed ended in ERCOT.

✅ PUCT ordered clawbacks for ancillary services not delivered.

✅ IMM urged price correction after firm load shed ceased.

✅ ERCOT's VOLL adder raised costs by $16B during 32 hours.

Potomac Economics, the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), filed a report with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) that certain payments were made by ERCOT for Ancillary Services (AS) that were not provided, even as ERCOT later issued a winter reliability RFP to procure capacity during subsequent seasons.

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

There were a number of instances during the operating days outlined above in which AS was not provided in real time because of forced outages or derations. For market participants that are not able to meet their AS responsibility, typically the ERCOT operator marks the short amount in the software. This causes the AS responsibility to be effectively removed and the day-ahead AS payment to be clawed back in settlement. However, the ERCOT operators did not complete this task during the winter event, echoing issues like the Ontario IESO phantom demand that cost customers millions, and therefore the "failure to provide" settlements were not invoked in real time.

Removing the operator intervention step and automating the "failure to provide" settlement was contemplated in NPRR947: Clarification to Ancillary Service Supply Responsibility Definition and Improvements to Determining and Charging for Ancillary Service Failed Quantities; however, the NPRR was withdrawn in August 2020 amid ongoing market reform discussions because of the system cost, some complexities related to AS trades, and the implementation of real-time co-optimization.

Invoking the "failure to provide" settlement for all AS that market participants failed to provide during the operating days outlined above will produce market outcomes and settlements consistent with underlying market principles. In this case, the principle is that market participants should not be paid for services that they do not provide, even as a separate ruling found power plants exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under Texas law, underscoring the distinction between obligations and settlements. Whether ERCOT marked the short amount in real-time or not should not affect the settlement of these ancillary services.

On March 3, 2021, the PUCT ordered (a related press release is here) that:

ERCOT shall claw back all payments for ancillary service that were made to an entity that did not provide its required ancillary service during real time on ERCOT operating days starting February 14, 2021 and ending on February 19,2021.

On March 4, 2021, the IMM filed another report and recommended that:

the [PUCT] direct ERCOT to correct the real-time prices from 0:00 February 18,2021, to 09:00 February 19, 2021, to remove the inappropriate pricing intervention that occurred during that time period.

The IMM approvingly noted the PUCT's February 15, 2021 order, which mandated that real-time energy prices reflect firm load shed by setting prices at the value of lost load (VOLL).1

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

This is essential in an energy-only market, like ERCOT's, where the Texas power grid faces recurring crisis risks, because it provides efficient economic signals to increase the electric generation needed to restore the load and service it reliably over the long term.

Conversely, it is equally important that prices not reflect VOLL when the system is not in shortage and load is being served, and experiences in capacity markets show auction payouts can fall sharply under different conditions. The Commission recognized this principle in its Order, expressly stating it is only ERCOT's out-of-market shedding firm load that is required to be reflected in prices. Unfortunately, ERCOT exceeded the mandate of the Commission by continuing to set process at VOLL long after it ceased the firm load shed.

ERCOT recalled the last of the firm load shed instructions at 23:55 on February 17, 2021. Therefore, in order to comply with the Commission Order, the pricing intervention that raised prices to VOLL should have ended immediately at that time. However, ERCOT continued to hold prices at VOLL by inflating the Real-Time On-Line Reliability Deployment Price Adder for an additional 32 hours through the morning of February 19. This decision resulted in $16 billion in additional costs to ERCOT's market, prompting legislative bailout proposals in Austin, of which roughly $1.5 billion was uplifted to load-serving entities to provide make-whole payments to generators for energy that was not needed or produced.

However, at its March 5, 2021, open meeting (related discussion begins around minute 20), although the PUCT acknowledged the "good points" raised by the IMM, the PUCT was not willing to retrospectively adjust its real-time pricing for this period out of concerns that some related transactions (ICE futures and others) may have already settled and for unintended consequences of such retroactive adjustments.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News