Utility wants public to pay for smart meters

Thailand Covid-19 Electricity Bill Relief offers energy subsidies, tariff cuts, and free power for small meters, helping work-from-home users as authorities waive charges and discount kWh rates via EGAT, MEA, PEA for three months.

Key Points

Program waiving or cutting household electricity bills for 22 million homes in March-May, easing work-from-home costs.

? Free power for meters <= 5 amps; up to 10M homes

? Up to 800 kWh: pay February rate; above, 50% discount

? >3,000 kWh: 30% discount; program valid March-May

The Thailand cabinet has formally approved energy authorities' decision to either waive or cut electricity charges, similar to B.C. electricity relief measures, for 22 million households where people are working at home because of the coronavirus disease.

Energy Minister Sontirat Sontijirawong said after the cabinet meeting on Tuesday that the ministers acknowledged the step taken by from the Energy Regulatory Commission, the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, the Metropolitan Electricity Authority and the Provincial Electricity Authority and noted parallels with Ontario's COVID-19 hydro plan rolled out to support ratepayers.

The measure would be valid for three months, from March to May, and cover 22 million households. It would cost the state 23.68 billion baht in lost revenue, he said, a pattern also seen with Ontario rate reductions affecting provincial revenues.

"The measure reduces the electricity charges burden on households. It is the cost of living of the people who are working from home to support the government's control of Covid-19," Mr Sontirat said.

The business sector also wants similar assistance, echoing sentiments from Ontario manufacturers during recent price reduction efforts. He said their requests were being considered.

Free electricity is extended to households with a power meter of no more than 5 amps. Up to 10 million households are expected to benefit, although issues like electricity payment challenges in India highlight different market contexts.

For households with a power meter over 5 amps, if their consumption does not exceed 800 units (kilowat hours), they will pay as much as they did in their February bill. The amount over 800 units will be subject to a 50 per cent discount, while elsewhere B.C. commercial consumption has fallen sharply.

Large houses that consume more than 3,000 units will get a 30 per cent discount, at a time when BC Hydro demand is down 10%.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Climate Change Consensus and Disinformation highlights the 97% peer-reviewed agreement on human-caused warming, IPCC warnings, and how fossil fuel lobbying, misinformation, and astroturf tactics echo tobacco denial to mislead media and voters.

Key Points

Explains the 97% scientific consensus and the disinformation that obscures IPCC findings and misleads the public.

✅ 97% peer-reviewed consensus on human-caused climate change

✅ Fossil fuel funding drives denial and media misinformation

✅ IPCC and major scientific bodies confirm severe impacts

Orson Johnson says there is no scientific consensus on climate change. He’s wrong. A 2015 study by Drexel University’s Robert Brulle found that nearly $1 billion per year is being spent to support climate change denial. Electric utilities, fossil fuel and transportation sectors outspent environmental and renewable energy sectors by more than 10-to-1, undermining efforts to achieve net-zero electricity emissions globally. It is virtually the same strategy that tobacco companies used to deny the dangers of tobacco smoke, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to delay recognition of harm from tobacco smoke for decades, and today Trump's oil policies can similarly influence Wall Street's energy strategy. These are the same debunked sources Johnson quotes in his commentary.

The authors of six independent peer-reviewed papers on the consensus for human-caused climate change examined “the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies,” according to an abstract in Environmental Research Letters, and public support for action is strong, with most Americans willing to contribute financially to climate solutions. Of the 30,000 scientists (people with a bachelor’s degree or higher in science) Johnson cites, only 39 specialized in climate science.

A new study by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change draws on momentum from the Katowice climate summit to warn that “The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe.”

California’s Office of Planning and Research says: “Every major scientific organization in the United States with relevant expertise has confirmed the IPCC’s conclusion, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The list of international scientific organizations affirming the worldwide consensus on climate change is even longer.”

Former President Obama argued that decarbonization is irreversible as the clean-energy transition accelerates.

This issue is a symptom of an even larger problem. Recently, Facebook announced it would continue to allow political ads that contain obvious lies. America’s corporate news media has been following the same policy for years. Printing stories and commentary with information that is clearly not true or where data has been cherry-picked to strongly imply a lie, such as claims that Ottawa is making electricity more expensive for Albertans, sets up a false equivalence fallacy in which two incompatible arguments appear to be logically equivalent when, in fact, they are not.

Conservatives focus exclusively on progressive income taxes to argue that rich people pay a disproportionate share of taxes while ignoring that they take a disproportionate share of income, and federal income taxes account for less than half of taxes collected, with almost all of the other taxes being heavily regressive. Critics of single-payer healthcare disregard that almost every other developed country on earth has been using single-payer for decades to provide better care with universal coverage at roughly half the cost. Other examples abound, including recent policy milestones like the historic U.S. climate deal that nevertheless become targets of misinformation. We live in a society where truth is no longer truth, reality is supplanted by alternative facts and where crippling polarization is driven by the inability to agree on basic facts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

U.S. Residential Electricity Bills rose on stronger demand, inflation, and fuel costs, with higher retail prices, kWh consumption, and extreme weather driving 2022 spikes; forecasts point to stable summer usage and slight price increases.

Key Points

They are average household power costs shaped by prices, kWh use, weather, and upstream fuel costs.

✅ 2022 bills up 13% nominal, 5% real vs. 2021

✅ Retail price rose 11%; consumption up 2% to 907 kWh

✅ Fuel costs to plants up 34%, pressuring rates

In nominal terms, the average monthly electricity bill for residential customers in the United States increased 13% from 2021 to 2022, rising from $121 a month to $137 a month. After adjusting for inflation—which reached 8% in 2022, a 40-year high—electricity bills increased 5%. Last year had the largest annual increase in average residential electricity spending since we began calculating it in 1984. The increase was driven by a combination of more extreme temperatures, which increased U.S. consumption of electricity for both heating and cooling, and higher fuel costs for power plants, which drove up retail electricity prices nationwide.

Residential electricity customers’ monthly electricity bills are based on the amount of electricity consumed and the retail electricity price. Average U.S. monthly electricity consumption per residential customer increased from 886 kilowatthours (kWh) in 2021 to 907 kWh in 2022, even as U.S. electricity sales have declined over the past seven years. Both a colder winter and a hotter summer contributed to the 2% increase in average monthly electricity consumption per residential customer in 2022 because customers used more space heating during the winter and more air conditioning during the summer, with some states, such as Pennsylvania, facing sharp winter rate increases.

Although we don’t directly collect retail electricity prices, we do collect revenues from electricity providers that allow us to determine prices by dividing by consumption, and industry reports show major utilities spending more on electricity delivery than on power production. In 2022, the average U.S. residential retail electricity price was 15.12 cents/kWh, an 11% increase from 13.66 cents/kWh in 2021. After adjusting for inflation, U.S. residential electricity prices went up by 2.5%.

Higher fuel costs for power plants drove the increase in residential retail electricity prices. The cost of fossil fuels—including natural gas prices, coal, and petroleum—delivered to U.S. power plants increased 34%, from $3.82 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) in 2021 to $5.13/MMBtu in 2022. The higher fuel costs were passed along to residential customers and contributed to higher retail electricity prices, and Germany power prices nearly doubled over a year in a related trend.

In the first three months of 2023, the average U.S. residential monthly electricity bill was $133, or 5% higher than for the same time last year, according to data from our Electric Power Monthly. The increase was driven by a 13% increase in the average U.S. residential retail electricity price, which was partly offset by a 7% decrease in average monthly electricity consumption per residential customer, and industry outlooks also see U.S. power demand sliding 1% on milder weather. This summer, we expect that typical household electricity bills will be similar to last year’s, with customers paying about 2% more on average. The slight increase in electricity costs forecast for this summer stems from higher retail electricity prices but similar consumption levels as last summer.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

COVID-19 Energy Burden drives higher electricity bills as income falls, intensifying energy poverty, utility shut-offs, and affordability risks for low-income households; policy moratoriums, bill relief, and efficiency upgrades are vital responses.

Key Points

The COVID-19 energy burden is the rising share of income spent on energy as bills increase and earnings decline.

✅ Rising home demand and lost wages increase energy cost share.

✅ Mandated shut-off moratoriums and reconnections protect health.

✅ Fund assistance, efficiency, and solar for LMI households.

I have asthma. It’s a private piece of medical information that I don’t normally share with people, but it makes the potential risks associated with exposure to the coronavirus all the more dangerous for me. But I’m not alone. 107 million people in the U.S. have pre-existing medical conditions like asthma and heart disease; the same pre-existing conditions that elevate their risk of facing a life-threatening situation were we to contract COVID-19. There are, however, tens of millions more house-bound Americans with a condition that is likely to be exacerbated by COVID-19: The energy burden.

The energy burden is a different kind of pre-existing condition:
In the last four weeks, 22 million people filed for unemployment. Millions of people will not have steady income (or the healthcare tied to it) to pay rent and utility bills for the foreseeable future which means that thousands, possibly millions of home-bound Americans will struggle to pay for energy.

Your energy burden is the amount of your monthly income that goes to paying for energy, like your monthly electric bill. So, when household energy use increases or income decreases, your energy burden rises. The energy burden is not a symptom of the pandemic and the economic downturn; it is more like a pre-existing condition for many Americans.

Before the coronavirus outbreak, I shared a few maps that showed how expensive electricity is for some. The energy burden in most pronounced in places already struggling economically, like in Appalachia, where residents in some counties must put more than 30 percent of their income toward their electric bills, and in the Midwest where states such as Michigan have some families spending more than 1/5 of their income on energy bills. The tragic facts are that US families living below the poverty line are far more likely to also be suffering from their energy burden.

But like other pre-existing conditions, the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic are exacerbating the underlying problems afflicting communities across the country.

Critical responses to minimize the spread of COVID-19 are social distancing, washing hands frequently, covering our faces with masks and staying at home. More time at home for most will drive up energy bills, and not by a little. Estimates on how much electricity demand during COVID-19 will increase vary but I’ve seen estimates as high as a 20% increase on average. For some families that’s a bag of groceries or a refill on prescription medication.

What happens when the power gets turned off?
Under normal conditions, if you cannot pay your electric bill your electricity can get turned off. This can have devastating consequences. Most states have protections for health and medical reasons and some states have protections during extreme heat or cold weather. But enforcement of those protections can vary by utility service area and place unnecessary burdens on the customer.

UCS
Only Florida has no protections of any kind against utility shut-offs when health or medical reasons would merit protection against it. However, when it comes to protection against extreme heat, only a few states have mandatory protections based on temperature thresholds.

The NAACP has also pointed out that utilities have unceremoniously disconnected the power of millions of people, disproportionally African-American and Latinx households.

April tends to be a mild month for most of the country, but the South already had its first heat wave at the end of March. If this pandemic lasts into the summer, utility disconnects could become deadly, and efforts to prevent summer power outages will be even more critical to public health. In the summer, during extreme summer heat families can’t turn off the A/C and go to the movies if we are following public health measures and sheltering in place. Lots of families that don’t have or can’t afford to run A/C would otherwise gather at local community pools, beaches, or in cooling centers, but with parks, pools and community groups closed to prevent the virus’s spread, what will happen to these families in July or August?

But we won’t have to wait till the summer to see how families will be hard hit by falling behind on bills and losing power. Here are a few ways electricity disconnection policies cause people harm during the pandemic:

Loss of electricity during the COVID-19 pandemic means families will lose their ability to refrigerate essential food supplies.
Child abuse guidance discusses how unsanitary household conditions are a contributing factor to child protective services involvement. Unsanitary household conditions can include, for example, rotting food (which might happen if electricity is cut off).

HUD’s handbook on federally subsidized housing includes a chapter on termination, which says that lease agreements can be terminated for repeated minor infractions including failing to pay utilities.
Airway machines used to treat respiratory ailments—pre-existing conditions in this pandemic—will not work. Our elderly neighbors in particular might rely on medicine that requires refrigeration or medical equipment that requires electricity. They too have fallen victim to utility shut-offs even during the pandemic.

Empowering solutions are available today

Decisionmakers seeking solutions can look to implement utility shut off moratoriums as a good start. Good news is that many utilities have voluntarily taken action to that effect, and New Jersey and New York have suspended shut-offs, one of the best trackers on who is taking what action has been assembled by Energy Policy Institute.

But voluntary actions do not always provide comprehensive protection, and they certainly have not been universally adopted across the country. Some utilities are waiving fees as relief measures, and some moratoriums only apply to customers directly affected by COVID-19, which will place additional onerous red tape on households that are stricken and perhaps unable to access testing. Others might only be an extension of standard medical shut off protections. Moratoriums put in place by voluntary action can also be revoked or lifted by voluntary action, which does not provide any sense of certainty to people struggling to make ends meet.

This is why the US needs mandatory moratoriums on all utility disconnections. These normally would be rendered at the state level, either by a regulatory commission, legislative act, or even an emergency executive order. But the inconsistent leadership among states in response to the COVID-19 crisis suggests that Congressional action is needed to ensure that all vulnerable utility customers are protected. That’s exactly what a coalition of organizations, including UCS, is calling for in future federal aid legislation. UCS has called for a national moratorium on utility shut-offs.

And let’s be clear, preventing new shut-offs isn’t enough. Cutting power off at residence during a pandemic is not good public policy. People who are without electricity should have it restored so residents can safely shelter in place and help flatten the curve. So far, only Colorado and Wisconsin’s leadership has taken this option.

Addressing the root causes of energy poverty
Preventing shut-offs is a good first step, but the increased bill charges will nevertheless place greater economic pressure on an incalculable number of families. Addressing the root of the problem (energy affordability) must be prioritized when we begin to recover from the health and economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

One way policymakers can do that is to forgive outstanding balances on utility bills, perhaps with an eligibility cap based on income. Additional funds could be made available to those who are still struggling to pay their bills via capping bills, waiving late payment fees, automating payment plans or other protective measures that rightfully place consumers (particularly vulnerable consumers) at the center of any energy-related COVID-19 response. Low-and-moderate-income energy efficiency and solar programs should be funded as much as practically possible.

New infrastructure, particularly new construction that is slated for public housing, subsidized housing, or housing specifically marketed for low- and moderate-income families, should include smart thermostats, better insulation, and energy-efficient appliances.

Implementing these solutions may seem daunting, let us not forget that one of the best ways to ease people’s energy burden is to keep a utility’s overall energy costs low. That means state utility commissions must be vigilant in utility rate cases and fuel recovery cost dockets to protect people facing unfathomable economic pressures. Unscrupulous utilities have been known to hide unnecessary costs in our energy bills. Commissions and their staff are overwhelmed at this time, but they should be applying extra scrutiny during proceedings when utilities are recovering costs associated with delivering energy.

What might a utility try to get past the commission?
Well, residential demand is up, so for many people, bills will increase. However, wholesale electricity rates are low right now, in some cases at all-time lows. Why? Because industrial and commercial demand reductions (from social distancing at home) have more than offset residential demand increases. Overall US electricity demand is flat or declining, and supply/demand economics predicts that when demand decreases, prices decrease.

At the same time, natural gas prices have set record lows each month of this year and that’s a trend that is expected to hold true for a while.

Low demand plus low gas prices mean wholesale market prices are incredibly low. Utilities should be taking advantage of low market prices to ensure that they deliver electricity to customers at as low a cost as possible. Utilities must also NOT over-run coal plants uneconomically or lean on aging capacity despite disruptions in coal and nuclear that can invite brownouts because that will not only needlessly cost customers more, but it will also increase air pollution which will exacerbate respiratory issues and susceptibility to COVID-19, according to a recent study published by Harvard.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Harbour Air Electric Seaplanes pioneer sustainable aviation with battery-electric propulsion, zero-emission operations, and retrofitted de Havilland Beavers using magniX motors for regional commuter routes, cutting fuel burn, maintenance, and carbon footprints across British Columbia.

Key Points

Retrofitted floatplanes using magniX battery-electric motors to provide zero-emission, short-haul regional flights.

✅ Battery-electric magniX motors retrofit de Havilland DHC-2 Beavers

✅ Zero-emission, low-noise operations on short regional routes

✅ Lower maintenance and operating costs vs combustion engines

Aviation is one of the fastest rising sources of carbon emissions from transport, but can a small Canadian airline show the industry a way of flying that is better for the planet?

As air journeys go, it was just a short hop into the early morning sky before the de Havilland seaplane splashed back down on the Fraser River in Richmond, British Columbia. Four minutes earlier it had taken off from the same patch of water. But despite its brief duration, the flight may have marked the start of an aviation revolution.

Those keen of hearing at the riverside on that cold December morning might have been able to pick up something different amid the rumble of the propellers and whoosh of water as the six-passenger de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver took off and landed. What was missing was the throaty growl of the aircraft’s nine-cylinder radial engine.

In its place was an all-electric propulsion engine built by the technology firm magniX that had been installed in the aircraft over the course of several months. The four-minute test flight (the plane was restricted to flying in clear skies, so with fog and rain closing in the team opted for a short trip) was the first time an all-electric commercial passenger aircraft had taken to the skies.

The retrofitted de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver took off from the Fraser River in the early morning light for a four minute test flight (Credit: Diane Selkirk)

“It was the first shot of the electric aviation revolution,” says Roei Ganzarski, chief executive of magniX, which worked with Canadian airline Harbour Air Seaplanes to convert one of the aircraft in their fleet of seaplanes so it could run on battery power rather than fossil fuels.

For Greg McDougall, founder of Harbour Air and pilot during the test flight, it marked the culmination of years of trying to put the environment at the forefront of its operations, backed by research investment across the program.

Harbour Air, which has a fleet of some 40 commuter floatplanes serving the coastal regions around Vancouver, Victoria and Seattle, was the first airline in North America to become carbon-neutral through offsets in 2007. A one-acre green roof on their new Victoria airline terminal followed. Then in 2017, 50 solar panels and four beehives housing 10,000 honeybees were added, but for McDougall, a Tesla owner with an interest in disruptive technology, the big goal was to electrify the fleet, with 2023 electric passenger flights as an early target for service.

McDougall searched for alternative motor options for a couple of years and had put the plan on the backburner when Ganzarski first approached him in February 2019. “He said, ‘We’ve got a motor we want to get certified and we want to fly it before the end of the year,’” McDougall recalls.

The two companies found their environmental values and teams were a good match and quickly formed a partnership. Eleven months later, the modest Canadian airline got what McDougall refers to as their “e-plane” off the ground, pulling ahead of other electric flight projects, including those by big-name companies Airbus, Boeing and Rolls-Royce, and startups such as Eviation that later stumbled.

The test flight was followed years of work by Greg McDougall to make his airline more environmentally friendly (Credit: Diane Selkirk)

The project came together in record time considering how risk-adverse the aviation industry is, says McDougall. “Someone had to take the lead,” he says. “The reason I live in British Columbia is because of the outdoors: protecting it is in our DNA. When it came to getting the benefits from electric flight it made sense for us to step in and pioneer the next step.”

As the threat posed by the climate crisis deepens, there has been renewed interest in developing electric passenger aircraft as a way of reducing emissions
Electric flight has been around since the 1970s, but it’s remained limited to light-weight experimental planes flying short distances and solar-powered aircraft with enormous wingspans yet incapable of carrying passengers. But as the threat posed by the climate crisis deepens, there has been renewed interest in developing electric passenger aircraft as a way of reducing emissions and airline operating costs, aligning with broader Canada-U.S. collaboration on electrification across transport.

Currently there are about 170 electric aircraft projects underway internationally –up by 50% since April 2018, according to the consulting firm Roland Berger. Many of the projects are futuristic designs aimed at developing urban air taxis, private planes or aircraft for package delivery. But major firms such as Airbus have also announced plans to electrify their own aircraft. It plans to send its E-Fan X hybrid prototype of a commercial passenger jet on its maiden flight by 2021. But only one of the aircraft’s four jet engines will be replaced with a 2MW electric motor powered by an onboard battery.

This makes Harbour Air something of an outlier. As a coastal commuter airline, it operates smaller floatplanes that tend to make short trips up and down the coastline of British Columbia and Washington State, which means its aircraft can regularly recharge their batteries after a point-to-point electric flight along these routes. The company sees itself in a position to retrofit its entire fleet of floatplanes and make air travel in the region as green as possible.

This could bring some advantages. The efficiency of a typical combustion engine for a plane like this is fairly low – a large proportion of the energy from the fuel is lost as waste heat as it turns the propeller that drives the aircraft forward. Electrical motors have fewer moving parts, meaning there’s less maintenance and less maintenance cost, and comparable benefits are emerging for electric ships operating on the B.C. coast as well.

Electrical motors have fewer moving parts, meaning there’s less maintenance and less maintenance cost
Erika Holtz, Harbour Air’s engineering and quality manager, sees the move to electric as the next major aviation advancement, but warns that one stumbling block has been the perception of safety. “Mechanical systems are much better known and trusted,” she says. In contrast people see electrical systems as a bit unknown – think of your home computer. “Turning it off and on again isn’t an option in aviation,” she adds.

But it’s the possibility of spurring lasting change in aviation that’s made working on the Harbour Air/magniX project so exciting for Holtz. Aviation technology has stagnated over the past decades, she says. “Although there have been incremental improvements in certain technologies, there hasn't been a major development change in aviation in 50 years.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News