Columbia treaty may affect hydropower future

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Comprehensive Electricity Plan delivers Global Adjustment reductions for industrial and commercial non-RPP customers, lowering electricity rates, shifting renewable energy costs, and enhancing competitiveness across Ontario businesses in 2022, with additional 4 percent savings.

Key Points

Ontario's plan lowers Global Adjustment by shifting renewable costs, cutting industrial and commercial bills 15-17%.

✅ Shifts above-market non-hydro renewable costs to the Province

✅ Reduces GA for industrial and commercial non-RPP customers

✅ Additional 4% savings on 2022 bills after GA deferral

As of January 1, 2022, industrial and commercial electricity customers will benefit from the full savings introduced through the Ontario government’s Comprehensive Electricity Plan, which supports stable electricity pricing for industrial and commercial companies, announced in Budget 2020, and first implemented in January 2021. This year customers could see an additional four percent savings compared to their bills last year, bringing the full savings from the Comprehensive Electricity Plan to between 15 and 17 per cent, making Ontario a more competitive place to do business.

“Our Comprehensive Electricity Plan has helped reverse the trend of skyrocketing electricity prices that drove jobs out of Ontario,” said Todd Smith, Minister of Energy. “Over 50,000 customers are benefiting from our government’s plan which has reduced electricity rates on clean and reliable power, allowing them to focus on reinvesting in their operations and creating jobs here at home.”

Starting on January 1, 2021, the Comprehensive Electricity Plan reduced overall Global Adjustment (GA) costs for industrial and commercial customers who do not participate in the Regulated Price Plan (RPP) by shifting the forecast above-market costs of non-hydro renewable energy, such as wind, solar and bioenergy, from the rate base to the Province, alongside energy-efficiency programs that complement demand reduction efforts.

“Since taking office, our government has listened to job creators and worked to lower the costs of doing business in the province. Through these significant reductions in electricity prices through the Comprehensive Electricity Plan, customers all across Ontario will benefit from significant savings in their business operations in 2022,” said Vic Fedeli, Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. “By continuing to reduce electricity costs, lowering taxes, and cutting red tape our government has reduced the cost of doing business in Ontario by nearly $7 billion annually to ensure that we remain competitive, innovative and poised for economic recovery.”

As part of its COVID response, including electricity relief for families and small businesses, Ontario had deferred a portion of GA between April and June 2020 for industrial and non-RPP commercial customers, with more than 50,000 customers benefiting. Those same businesses paid back these deferred GA costs over 12 months, between January 2021 and December 2021, while the province prepared to extend disconnect moratoriums for residential customers.

During the pandemic, residential electricity use rose even as overall consumption dropped, underscoring shifts in load patterns.

Now that the GA deferral repayment period is over, industrial and non-RPP commercial customers will benefit from the full cost reductions provided to them by the Comprehensive Electricity Plan, alongside temporary off-peak rate relief that supported families and small businesses. This means that, beginning January 1, 2022, these businesses could see an additional four per cent savings on their bills compared to 2021, as new ultra-low overnight pricing options emerge depending on their location and consumption.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

COVID-19 Impact on US Renewable Energy disrupts solar and wind projects, dries up tax equity financing, strains supply chains, delays construction, and slows jobs growth amid limited federal stimulus and uncertain investor appetite.

Key Points

COVID-19 has slowed US clean energy growth by curbing tax equity, disrupting supply chains, and delaying projects.

✅ Tax equity dries up as investor profits fall

✅ Supply chain and construction face pandemic delays

✅ Policy aid and credit extensions sought by industry

Swinerton Renewable Energy had everything it needed to build a promising new solar farm in Texas. It lined up more than 2,000 acres for the $109 million project estimated to generate 400 jobs while under construction. By its completion date, the solar farm was expected to produce 200 megawatts of energy — enough to power about 25,000 homes — and generate big tax breaks for its investors as part of a government program to incentivize clean energy.

But the coronavirus pandemic put everything on hold. The solar farm’s backers aren’t sure they will make enough money from other investments during the pandemic-fueled downturn for those tax breaks to be worth it. So the project has been delayed at least six months.

“This is not a shortage of materials. It is not a pricing issue,” said George Hershman, president of Swinerton Renewable Energy. “Everything was pointing to successful projects.”

The coronavirus crisis is not only battering the oil and gas industry. It’s drying up capital and disrupting supply chains for businesses trying to move the country toward cleaner sources of energy.

While President Trump has promised lifelines for airlines and oil companies struggling with a drastic decrease in demand as Americans remain under stay-at-home orders, there is little focus in Washington on economic relief for this sector, despite a power coalition's call for action to address the pandemic — unlike during the Great Recession a decade ago, when Congress and the Obama administration earmarked an unprecedented sum for renewable energy and more efficient automobiles in a stimulus bill.

“We don’t want to lose our great oil companies,” Trump said during an April 1 news briefing. He so far has not made a similar promise to help wind and solar firms, and none of the four economic rescue and stimulus packages that Congress has passed to respond to the coronavirus crisis set aside any money for renewable energy specifically.

Sign up for our Coronavirus Updates newsletter to track the outbreak. All stories linked in the newsletter are free to access.

The impact of the crisis is already clear: About 106,000 clean-energy workers have already filed for unemployment in March alone, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data by Environmental Entrepreneurs, an advocacy group.

The layoffs are a blow to a sector that has prided itself on official projections that solar installers and wind turbine technicians would be the two fastest growing occupations over the next decade.

The job losses include not just wind and solar construction workers, but also those assembling electric cars and installing energy-efficient appliances, lighting, heating and air conditioning.

“These aren’t left-wing coastal hippies,” said Bob Keefe, executive director of Environmental Entrepreneurs. “These are construction workers who get up every day and lace up their boots and pull on their gloves and go to work putting insulation in our attics.”

Despite the economic turmoil, climate experts say the coronavirus pandemic could be an opportunity to make drastic shifts in the energy landscape, with green investments potentially driving a robust recovery. They say governments around the world should help fund renewable energy and use the turmoil in energy markets to remake the industry and slash carbon dioxide emissions, which will tumble 8 percent this year, according to the International Energy Agency.

The agency said that while global energy demand fell 3.8 percent in the first quarter, renewables were the only source to post an increase in demand, rising 1.5 percent thanks to new renewable power plants, low operating costs and priority on some electricity grids.

But many investors, who rely on a broad mix of investments, are spooked. “Everything is quiet because people want to see where we land with the current crisis, and people are holding on to cash,” said Daniel Klier, the global head of sustainable finance at HSBC bank. “As soon as people have a bit of confidence that the market is recovering, they can get projects going.”

Social distancing and the country’s stay-at-home orders are also having a deep effect on daily operations. The areas hardest hit are installing solar panels on rooftops and adding energy-efficiency measures inside homes — work that often requires face-to-face interactions. Sungevity, once one of the nation’s leading solar-installation companies, laid off 377 workers, most of its workforce, in late March, according to filings with California’s Employment Development Department. The company, which had emerged from a 2017 bankruptcy, cited economic conditions.

The push to promote a more fuel-efficient automobile fleet has also veered off track. The electric car maker Tesla was forced to shut down its factory in Fremont, Calif., just as it was turning up production on its new crossover vehicle, the Model Y.

Lockdown orders across the country led Tesla’s outspoken chief executive, Elon Musk, to launch into an expletive-laden rant during an earnings call last week in which Tesla posted a lukewarm profit of $16 million.

“To say that they cannot leave their house and they will be arrested if they do,” Musk said, “this is fascist.”

Sungevity and Tesla represent only a sliver of the economic pain in this sector across the country. The Solar Energy Industries Association had anticipated a growth in solar jobs, from 250,000 to 300,000, over the course of the year, said the group’s president, Abigail Ross Hopper. Now, she said, half the workforce is at risk.

“Shelter in place puts limitations on how people can work,” she said. “Literally, people don’t want other people inside their houses to fix electrical boxes. And there are no door-to-door sales.”

Bigger projects are also grappling with the pandemic economy, though not as severely. Hopper said the industry was geared up to increase the number of new solar farms, in part to take advantage of federal tax credits. “We were on track to do almost 20 gigawatts, which would have been the highest year yet,” Hopper said. That would have been enough to power about 3.7 million homes. Now she expects new projects will come closer to last year’s 13.27 gigawatts’ worth of new construction, after a report on utility-scale solar delays warned of widespread slowdowns, enough to run approximately 2.5 million homes.

Wind energy companies, too, are bracing for lost progress unless the federal government steps in. The American Wind Energy Association said projects that would add 25 gigawatts of wind power to the U.S. grid are at risk of being scaled back or canceled outright over the next two years because of the pandemic. Altogether, that work represents about 35,000 jobs.

“2019 was a good year for the wind industry,” said Tom Kiernan, the association’s chief executive. “We were expecting 2020 to be an even stronger year.”

One project put on the back burner: an enormous 9 gigawatt offshore wind venture led by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority set to be completed by 2035.

With New York City besieged by coronavirus cases, the authority said it would comply with an executive order from Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), “pausing” all on-site work on clean-energy projects until at least May 15. Michigan, New Jersey and Pennsylvania also delayed wind turbine projects by deeming construction on them nonessential.

The Danish offshore wind firm Orsted said that plans for offshore U.S. wind installations would move “at a slower pace than originally expected due to a combination of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s prolonged analysis of the cumulative impacts from the build-out of US offshore wind projects, and now also COVID-19 effects.” The company told investors it expects delays on projects off the coasts of New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island totaling almost 3 gigawatts.

The supply chains have also taken a hit during the pandemic: Even if contractors can get the money to erect wind turbines or lay solar arrays, that doesn’t mean they will have the parts. At least two factories that make wind turbine parts — one in North Dakota and another in Iowa — were forced to pause production because of coronavirus outbreaks. Factory shutdowns in China have constrained solar supplies, too.

The key reason for delaying most big solar and wind projects is the use of tax credits known as “tax equity.” These allow investors, such as banks, to use the credits to directly offset their overall tax burdens. But if an investor doesn’t have enough profit to offset the credits, the tax equity could become worthless.

“If your profitability is going down, you don’t have the same appetite,” Hopper said.

Solar and wind industry leaders are pressing Congress and the Trump administration to extend the eligibility period for tax credits that are due to expire, with senators urging support for clean energy in relief packages, and to make the tax credits refundable, meaning the government would issue a check to investors who do not have enough profit to justify their investments.

Currently, big wind turbines get a 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour tax credit if construction begins before the end of this year. Tax credits for residential renewable energy — solar panels and small wind — phase out by the end of 2021, and debate over a potential solar ITC extension continues to shape expectations in the wind market.

The lack of attention to renewables in Congress’s relief efforts so far is in stark contrast to 2009, when the United States spent $112 billion to boost “green” energy, according to the World Resources Institute. The government’s package then provided a mixture of grants and loans for a variety of renewable energy ventures — including a $465 million loan Tesla used to get its Fremont factory off the ground.

This year, a handful of clean-energy firms, including a Connecticut-based manufacturer of fuel cells and an Ohio-based maker of energy-efficient lighting systems, took money from a federal small-business lending program, before funds ran dry in the middle of last month. Broadwind Energy, a maker of steel wind energy towers based outside Chicago, received $9.5 million in small-business loans, one of the biggest totals in the program.

So far, the Trump administration has shown far more eagerness to help American petroleum producers that the president said were “ravaged” by a sharp drop in energy demand. Last month, Trump met with oil executives at the White House, and Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette has floated the idea of bridge loans for struggling oil firms.

During negotiations for the last relief package, congressional Democrats tried to strike a deal to refill the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve in exchange for extending the clean-energy incentives, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) rebuffed those calls.

“Democrats won’t let us fund hospitals or save small businesses unless they get to dust off the Green New Deal,” McConnell said in March.

Already, Democrats are signaling they will make a push again in the next round of stimulus spending.

“Relief and recovery legislation will shape our society for years to come,” said Rep. A. Donald McEachin (D-Va.), vice chair of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, a caucus that supports renewable energy resources. “We must use these bills to build in a climate-smart way.”

But it remains unclear how much appetite the GOP will have for a deal. “I just don’t know how to handicap that at this point,” said Grant Carlisle, an analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a major environmental group.

Kiernan, the head of the American Wind Energy Association, said his group has “gotten a very good reception with the administration and with the Hill” when it comes to coronavirus relief, but he declined to go into specifics.

In other parts of the world, governments have been providing support for renewables. The European Union has its own Green New Deal, and China is expected to support wind and solar to get the economy moving more quickly.

Some energy analysts note that big oil companies don’t have to wait for government stimulus. The price of oil is so low that they would be better off investing in wind and solar, they say.

“For all these oil companies, the returns on these renewable projects are better than what they can do in the oil and gas industry,” said Sarah Ladislaw, director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Now is a good time to do that and tell their investors.”

This fits in with their broader goals, analysts contend. After all, Royal Dutch Shell recently matched BP’s earlier promise to aim to be net-zero for carbon emissions by 2050.

Shell’s chief executive Ben van Beurden has said the company would try to protect its low-carbon Integrated Gas and New Energies division from the largest spending cuts as it sought to weather the pandemic. “We must maintain focus on the long term,” he said in a video message. “Society expects nothing less.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Extreme Heat and Rising Electricity Bills amplify energy costs as climate change drives air conditioning demand, stressing the power grid and energy affordability, with low income households facing outsized burdens during prolonged heat waves.

Key Points

Heat waves from climate change raise AC demand, driving up electricity costs and straining energy affordability.

✅ More AC use spikes electricity demand during heat waves

✅ Low income households face higher energy burden

✅ Grid reliability risks rise with peak cooling loads

Extreme heat waves are not only straining public health systems but also having a significant impact on household finances, particularly through rising electricity bills. According to a recent AP-NORC poll, a growing number of Americans are feeling the financial pinch as soaring temperatures drive up the cost of cooling their homes. This development underscores the broader implications of climate change and its effects on everyday life.

The AP-NORC poll highlights that a majority of Americans are experiencing increased electricity costs as a direct result of extreme heat. As temperatures climb, so does the demand for air conditioning and other cooling systems. This increased energy consumption is contributing to higher utility bills, which can put additional strain on household budgets.

Extreme heat waves have become more frequent and intense due to climate change, which has led to a greater reliance on air conditioning to maintain comfortable indoor environments. Air conditioners and fans work harder during heat waves, and wasteful air conditioning can add around $200 to summer bills, consuming more electricity and consequently driving up energy bills. For many households, particularly those with lower incomes, these increased costs can be a significant burden.

The poll reveals that the impact of rising electricity bills is widespread, affecting a diverse range of Americans. Households across different income levels and geographic regions are feeling the heat, though the extent of the financial strain can vary. Lower-income households are particularly vulnerable, as they often have less flexibility in their budgets to absorb higher utility costs. For these families, the choice between cooling their homes and other essential expenses can be a difficult one.

In addition to financial strain, the poll highlights concerns about energy affordability and access. As electricity bills rise, some Americans may face challenges in paying their bills, leading to potential utility shut-offs or the need to make difficult choices between cooling and other necessities. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that many utility companies do not offer sufficient assistance or relief programs to help low-income households manage their energy costs.

The increasing frequency of extreme heat events and the resulting spike in electricity consumption also have broader implications for the energy infrastructure. Higher demand for electricity can strain power grids, as seen when California narrowly avoided blackouts during extreme heat, potentially leading to outages or reduced reliability. Utilities and energy providers may need to invest in infrastructure upgrades and maintenance to ensure that the grid can handle the increased load during heat waves.

Climate change is a key driver of the rising temperatures that contribute to higher electricity bills. As global temperatures continue to rise, extreme heat events are expected to become more common and severe, and experts warn the US electric grid was not designed to withstand these impacts. This trend underscores the need for comprehensive strategies to address both the causes and consequences of climate change. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency, and invest in renewable energy sources are critical components of a broader climate action plan.

Energy efficiency measures can play a significant role in mitigating the impact of extreme heat on electricity bills. Upgrading to more efficient cooling systems, improving home insulation, and adopting smart thermostats can help reduce energy consumption and lower utility costs. Additionally, utility companies and government programs can offer incentives and rebates, including ways to tap new funding that help encourage energy-saving practices and support households in managing their energy use.

The poll also suggests that there is a growing awareness among Americans about the connection between climate change and rising energy costs. Many people are becoming more informed about the ways in which extreme weather events and rising temperatures impact their daily lives. This increased awareness can drive demand for policy changes and support for initiatives aimed at addressing climate change and improving energy efficiency, with many willing to contribute income to climate efforts, about the connection between climate change and rising energy costs.

In response to the rising costs and the impact of extreme heat, there are calls for policy interventions and support programs to help manage energy affordability. Proposals include expanding assistance programs for low-income households, investing in infrastructure improvements, and promoting energy efficiency initiatives alongside steps to make electricity systems more resilient to climate risks. By addressing these issues, policymakers can help alleviate the financial burden on households and support a more resilient and sustainable energy system.

Debates over policy impacts on electricity prices continue; in Alberta, federal policies are blamed by some for higher rates, illustrating how regulation can affect affordability.

In conclusion, the AP-NORC poll highlights the growing financial impact of extreme heat on American households, with rising electricity bills being a significant concern for many. The increased demand for cooling during heat waves is straining household budgets and raising broader questions about energy affordability and infrastructure resilience. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach, including efforts to combat climate change, improve energy efficiency, and provide support for those most affected by rising energy costs. As extreme heat events become more common, finding solutions to manage their impact will be crucial for both individual households and the broader energy system.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Hydro-Quebec NECEC Transmission Line faces Maine PUC scrutiny over clean energy claims, greenhouse gas emissions, spillage capacity, resource shuffling, and Massachusetts contracts, amid opposition from natural gas generators and environmental groups debating public need.

Key Points

A $1B Maine corridor for Quebec hydropower to Massachusetts, debated over emissions, spillage, and public need.

✅ Maine PUC weighing public need and ratepayer benefits

✅ Emissions impact disputed: resource shuffling vs new supply

✅ Hydro-Quebec spillage claims questioned without data

As Maine regulators are deciding whether to approve construction of a $1 billion electricity corridor across much of western Maine, the Canadian hydroelectric utility poised to make billions of dollars from the project has been absent from the process.

This has left both opponents and supporters of the line arguing about how much available energy the utility has to send through a completed line, and whether that energy will help fulfill the mission of the project: fighting climate change.

And while the utility has avoided making its case before regulators, which requires submitting to cross-examination and discovery, it has engaged in a public relations campaign to try and win support from the region's newspapers.

Government-owned Hydro-Quebec controls dams and reservoirs generating hydroelectricity throughout its namesake province. It recently signed agreements to sell electricity across the proposed line, named the New England Clean Energy Connect, to Massachusetts as part of the state's effort to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, including natural gas.

At the Maine Public Utilities Commission, attorneys for Central Maine Power Co., which would build and maintain the line, have been sparring with the opposition over the line's potential impact on Maine and its electricity consumers. Leading the opposition is a coalition of natural gas electricity generators that stand to lose business should the line be built, as well as the Natural Resources Council of Maine, an environmental group.

That unusual alliance of environmental and business groups wants Hydro-Quebec to answer questions about its hydroelectric system, which they argue can't deliver the amount of electricity promised to Massachusetts without diverting energy from other regions.

In that scenario, critics say the line would not produce the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that CMP and Hydro-Quebec have made a central part of their pitch for the project. Instead, other markets currently buying energy from Hydro-Quebec, such as New York, Ontario and New Brunswick, would see hydroelectricity imports decrease and have to rely on other sources of energy, including coal or oil, to make up the difference. If that happened, the total amount of clean energy in the world would remain the same.

Opponents call this possibility "greenwashing." Massachusetts regulators have described these circumstances as "resource shuffling."

But CMP spokesperson John Carroll said that if hydropower was diverted from nearby markets to power Massachusetts, those markets would not turn to fossil fuels. Rather they would seek to develop other forms of renewable energy "leading to further reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the region."

Hydro-Quebec said it has plenty of capacity to increase its electricity exports to Massachusetts without diverting energy from other places.

However, Hydro-Quebec is not required to participate -- and has not voluntarily participated -- in regulatory hearings where it would be subject to cross examinations and have to testify under oath. Some participants wish it would.

At a January hearing at the Maine Public Utilities Commission, hearing examiner Mitchell Tannenbaum had to warn experts giving testimony to "refrain from commentary regarding whether Hydro-Quebec is here or not" after they complained about its absence when trying to predict potential ramifications of the line.

"I would have hoped they would have been visible and available to answer legitimate questions in all of these states through which their power is going to be flowing," said Dot Kelly, a member of the executive committee at the Maine Chapter of the Sierra Club who has participated in the line's regulatory proceedings as an individual. "If you're going to have a full and fair process, they have to be there."

[What you need to know about the CMP transmission line proposed for Maine]

While Hydro-Quebec has not presented data on its system directly to Maine regulators, it has brought its case to the press. Central to that case is the fact that it's "spilling" water from its reservoirs because it is limited by how much electricity it can export. It said that it could send more water through its turbines and lower reservoir levels, eliminating spillage and creating more energy, if only it had a way to get that energy to market. Hydro-Quebec said the line would make that possible, and, in doing so, help lower emissions and fight climate change.

"We have that excess potential that we need to use. Essentially, it's a good problem to have so long as you can find an export market," Hydro-Quebec spokesperson Serge Abergel told the Bangor Daily News.

Hydro-Quebec made its "spillage" case to the editorial boards of The Boston Globe, The Portland Press Herald and the BDN, winning qualified endorsements from the Globe and Press Herald. (The BDN editorial board has not weighed in on the project).

Opponents have questioned why Hydro-Quebec is willing to present their case to the press but not regulators.

"We need a better answer than 'just trust us,'" Natural Resources Council of Maine attorney Sue Ely said. "What's clear is that CMP and HQ are engaging in a full-court publicity tour peddling false transparency in an attempt to sell their claims of greenhouse gas benefits."

Energy generators aren't typically parties to public utility commission proceedings involving the building of transmission lines, but Maine regulators don't typically evaluate projects that will help customers in another state buy energy generated in a foreign country.

"It's a unique case," said Maine Public Advocate and former Democratic Senate Minority Leader Barry Hobbins, who has neither endorsed nor opposed the project. Hobbins noted the project was not proposed to improve reliability for Maine electricity customers, which is typically the point of new transmission line proposals evaluated by the commission. Instead, the project "is a straight shot to Massachusetts," Hobbins said.

Maine Public Utilities Commission spokesperson Harry Lanphear agreed. "The Commission has never considered this type of project before," he said in an email.

In order to proceed with the project, CMP must convince the Maine Public Utilities Commission that the proposed line would fill a "public need" and benefit Mainers. Among other benefits, CMP said it will help lower electricity costs and create jobs in Maine. A decision is expected in the spring.

Given the uniqueness of the case, even the commission seems unsure about how to apply the vague "public need" standard. On Jan. 14, commission staff asked case participants to weigh in on how it should apply Maine law when evaluating the project, including whether the hydroelectricity that would travel over the line should be considered "renewable" and whether Maine's own carbon reduction goals are relevant to the case.

James Speyer, an energy consultant whose firm was hired by natural gas company and project opponent Calpine to analyze the market impacts of the line, said he has testified before roughly 20 state public utility commissions and has never seen a proceeding like this one.

"I've never been in a case where one of the major beneficiaries of the PUC decision is not in the case, never has filed a report, has never had to provide any data to support its assertions, and never has been subject to cross examination," Speyer said. "Hydro-Quebec is like a black box."

Hydro-Quebec would gladly appear before the Maine Public Utilities Commission, but it has not been invited, said spokesperson Abergel.

"The PUC is doing its own process," Abergel said. "If the PUC were to invite us, we'd gladly intervene. We're very willing to collaborate in that sense."

But that's not how the commission process works. Individuals and organizations can intervene in cases, but the commission does not invite them to the proceedings, commission spokesperson Lanphear said.

CMP spokesperson Carroll dismissed concerns over emissions, noting that Hydro-Quebec is near the end of completing a more than 15-year effort to develop its clean energy resources. "They will have capacity to satisfy the contract with Massachusetts in their reservoirs," Carroll said.

While Maine regulators are evaluating the transmission line, Massachusetts' Department of Public Utilities is deciding whether to approve 20-year contracts between Hydro-Quebec and that state's electric utilities. Those contracts, which Hydro-Quebec has estimated could be worth close to $8 billion, govern how the utility sells electricity over the line.

Dean Murphy, a consultant hired by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office to review the contracts, testified before Massachusetts regulators that the agreements do not require a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. Murphy also warned the contracts don't actually require Hydro-Quebec to increase the total amount of energy it sends to New England, as energy could be shuffled from established lines to the proposed CMP line to satisfy the contracts.

Parties in the Massachusetts proceeding are also trying to get more information from Hydro-Quebec. Energy giant NextEra is currently trying to convince Massachusetts regulators to issue a subpoena to force Hydro-Quebec to answer questions about how its exports might change with the construction of the transmission line. Hydro-Quebec and CMP have opposed the motion.

Hydro-Quebec has a reputation for guarding its privacy, according to Hobbins.

"It would have been easier to not have to play Sherlock Holmes and try to guess or try to calculate without having a direct 'yes' or 'no' response from the entity itself," Hobbins said.

Ultimately, the burden of proving that Maine needs the line falls on CMP, which is also responsible for making sure regulators have all the information they need to make a decision on the project, said former Maine Public Utilities Commission Chairman Kurt Adams.

"Central Maine Power should provide the PUC with all the info that it needs," Adams said. "If CMP can't, then one might argue that they haven't met their burden."

'They treat HQ with nothing but distrust'

If completed, the line would bring 9.45 terawatt hours of electricity from Quebec to Massachusetts annually, or about a sixth of the total amount of electricity Massachusetts currently uses every year (and roughly 80 percent of Maine's annual load). CMP's parent company Avangrid would make an estimated $60 million a year from the line, according to financial analysts.

As part of its legally mandated efforts to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change, Massachusetts would pay the $950 million cost of constructing the line. The state currently relies on natural gas, a fossil fuel, for nearly 70 percent of its electricity, a figure that helps explain natural gas companies' opposition to the project.

A panel of experts recently warned that humanity has 12 years to keep global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius and prevent the worst effects of climate change, which include floods, droughts and extreme heat.

The line could lower New England's annual carbon emissions by as much as 3 million metric tons, an amount roughly equal to Washington D.C.'s annual emissions. Opponents worry that reduction could be mostly offset by increases in other markets.

But while both sides have claimed they are fighting for the environment, much of the debate features giant corporations with headquarters outside of New England fighting over the future of the region's electricity market, echoing customer backlash seen in other utility takeovers.

Hydro-Quebec is owned by the people of Quebec, and CMP is owned by Avangrid, which is in turn owned by Spanish energy giant Iberdrola. Leading the charge against the line are several energy companies in the Fortune 500, including Houston-based Calpine and Florida-based NextEra Energy.

However, only one side of the debate counts environmental groups as part of its coalition, and, curiously enough, that's the side with fossil fuel companies.

Some environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Council of Maine and Environment Maine, have come out against the line, while others, including the Acadia Center and the Conservation Law Foundation, are still deciding whether to support or oppose the project. So far, none have endorsed the line.

"It is discouraging that some of the environmental groups are so opposed, but it seems the best is the enemy of the good," said CMP's Carroll in an email. "They seem to have no sense of urgency; and they treat HQ with nothing but distrust."

Much of the environmentally minded opposition to the project focuses on the impact the line would have on local wildlife and tourism.

Sandi Howard administers the Say NO To NECEC Facebook page and lives in Caratunk, one of the communities along the proposed path of the line. She said opposition to the line might change if it was proven to reduce emissions.

"If it were going to truly reduce global CO2 emissions, I think it would be be a different conversation," Howard said.

Not the first choice

Before Maine, New Hampshire had its own debate over whether it should serve as a conduit between Quebec and Massachusetts. The proposed Northern Pass transmission line would have run the length of the state. It was Massachusetts' first choice to bring Quebec hydropower to its residents.

But New Hampshire's Site Evaluation Committee unanimously voted to reject the Northern Pass project in February 2018 on the grounds that the project's sponsor, Eversource, had failed to prove the project would not interfere with local business and tourism. Though it was the source of the electricity that would have traveled over the line, Hydro-Quebec was not a party to the proceedings.

In its decision, the committee noted the project would not reduce emissions if it was not coupled with a "new source of hydropower" and the power delivered across the line was "diverted from Ontario and New York." The committee added that it was unclear if the power would be new or diverted.

The next month, Massachusetts replaced Northern Pass by selecting CMP's proposed line. As the project came before Maine regulators, questions about Hydro-Quebec and emissions persisted. Two different analyses of CMP's proposed line, including one by the Maine Public Utility Commission's independent consultant, found the line would greatly reduce New England's emissions.

But neither of those studies took into account the line's impact on emissions outside of New England. A study by Calpine's consultant, Energyzt, found New England's emissions reduction could be mostly offset by increased emissions in other areas, including New Brunswick and New York, that would see hydroelectricity imports shrink as energy was redirected to fulfill the contract with Massachusetts.

'They failed in any way to back up those spillage claims'

Hydro-Quebec seemed content to let CMP fight for the project alone before regulators for much of 2018. But at the end of the year, the utility took a more proactive approach, meeting with editorial boards and providing a two-page letter detailing its "spillage" issues to CMP, which entered it into the record at the Maine Public Utilities Commission.

The letter provided figures on the amount of water the utility spilled that could have been converted into sellable energy, if only Hydro-Quebec had a way to get it to market. Instead, by "spilling" the water, the company essentially wasted it.

Instead of sending water through turbines or storing it in reservoirs, hydroelectric operators sometimes discharge water held behind dams down spillways. This can be done for environmental reasons. Other times it is done because the operator has so much water it cannot convert it into electricity or store it, which is usually a seasonal issue: Reservoirs often contain the most water in the spring as temperatures warm and ice melts.

Hydro-Quebec said that, in 2017, it spilled water that could have produced 4.5 terawatt hours of electricity, or slightly more than half the energy needed to fulfill the Massachusetts contracts. In 2018, the letter continued, Hydro-Quebec spilled water that could have been converted into 10.4 terawatts worth of energy. The company said it didn't spill at all due to transmission constraints prior to 2017.

The contracts Hydro-Quebec signed with the Massachusetts utilities are for 9.45 terawatt hours annually for 20 years. In its letter, the utility essentially showed it had only one year of data to show it could cover the terms of the contract with "spilled" energy.

"Reservoir levels have been increasing in the last 15 years. Having reached their maximum levels, spillage maneuvers became necessary in 2017 and 2018," said Hydro-Quebec spokesperson Lynn St. Laurent.

By providing the letter through CMP, Hydro-Quebec did not have to subject its spillage figures to cross examination.

Dr. Shaleen Jain, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Maine, said that, while spilled water could be converted into power generation in some circumstances, spills happen for many different reasons. Knowing whether spillage can be translated into energy requires a great deal of analysis.

"Not all of it can be repurposed or used for hydropower," Jain said.

In December, one of the Maine Public Utility Commission's independent consultants, Gabrielle Roumy, told the commission that there's "no way" to "predict how much water would be spilled each and every year." Roumy, who previously worked for Hydro-Quebec, added that even after seeing the utility's spillage figures, he believed it would need to divert energy from other markets to fulfill its commitment to Massachusetts.

"I think at this point we're still comfortable with our assumptions that, you know, energy would generally be redirected from other markets to NECEC if it were built," Roumy said.

In January, Tanya Bodell, the founder and executive director of consultant Energyzt, testified before the commission on behalf of Calpine that it was impossible to know why Hydro-Quebec was spilling without more data.

"There's a lot of details you'd have to look at in order to properly assess what the reason for the spillage is," Bodell said. "And you have to go into an hourly level because the flows vary across the year, within the month, the week, the days. ...And, frankly, it would have been nice if Hydro-Quebec was here and brought their model and allowed us to see how this could help them to sell more."

Even though CMP and Hydro-Quebec's path to securing approval of the project does not go through the Legislature, and despite a Maine court ruling that energized Hydro-Quebec's export bid, lawmakers have taken notice of Hydro-Quebec's absence. Rep. Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham, the House chairman of the Joint Committee On Energy Utilities and Technology and a frequent critic of CMP, said he would like to see Hydro-Quebec "show up and subject their proposal to examination and full analysis and public examination by the regulators and the people of Maine."

"They're trying to sell an incredibly lucrative proposal, and they failed in any way to back up those spillage claims with defensible numbers and defensible analysis," Berry said.

Berry was part of a bipartisan group of Maine lawmakers that wrote a letter to Massachusetts regulators last year expressing concerns about the project, which included doubts about whether the line would actually reduce global gas emissions. On Monday, he announced legislation that would direct the state to create an independent entity to buy out CMP from its foreign investors.

'No benefit to remaining quiet'

Hydro-Quebec would like to provide answers, but "there is always a commercially sensitive information concern when we do these things," said spokesperson Abergel.

"There might be stuff we can do, having an independent study that looks at all of this. I'm not worried about the conclusion," Abergel said. "I'm worried about how long it takes."

Instead of asking Hydro-Quebec questions directly, participants in both Maine and Massachusetts regulatory proceedings have had to direct questions for Hydro-Quebec to CMP. That arrangement may be part of Hydro-Quebec's strategy to control its information, said former Maine Public Utilities Commissioner David Littell.

"From a tactical point of view, it may be more beneficial for the evidence to be put through Avangrid and CMP, which actually doesn't have that back-up info, so can't provide it," Littell said.

Getting information about the line from CMP, and its parent company Avangrid, has at times been difficult, opponents say.

In August 2018, the commission's staff warned CMP in a legal filing that it was concerned "about what appears to be a lack of completeness and timeliness by CMP/Avangrid in responding to data requests in this proceeding."

The trouble in getting information from Hydro-Quebec and CMP only creates more questions for Hydro-Quebec, said Jeremy Payne, executive director of the Maine Renewable Energy Association, which opposes the line in favor of Maine-based renewables.

"There's a few questions that should have relatively simple answers. But not answering a couple of those questions creates more questions," Payne said. "Why didn't you intervene in the docket? Why are you not a party to the case? Why won't you respond to these concerns? Why wouldn't you open yourself up to discovery?"

"I don't understand why they won't put it to bed," Payne said. "If you've got the proof to back it up, then there's no benefit to remaining quiet."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Eviation Collapse underscores electric aviation headwinds, from Alice aircraft battery limits to FAA/EASA certification hurdles, funding shortfalls, and leadership instability, reshaping sustainability roadmaps for regional airliners and future zero-emission flight.

Key Points

Eviation Collapse is the 2025 shutdown of Eviation Aircraft, revealing battery, certification, and funding hurdles.

✅ Battery energy density limits curtailed Alice's range

✅ FAA/EASA certification timelines delayed commercialization

✅ Funding gaps and leadership churn undermined execution

The electric aviation industry was poised to revolutionize the skies through an aviation revolution with startups like Eviation Aircraft leading the charge to bring environmentally friendly, cost-efficient electric airplanes into commercial use. However, in a shocking turn of events, Eviation has faced an abrupt collapse, signaling challenges that may impact the future of electric flight.

Eviation’s Vision and Early Promise

Founded in 2015, Eviation was an ambitious electric airplane startup with the goal of changing the way the world thinks about aviation. The company’s flagship product, the Alice aircraft, was designed to be an all-electric regional airliner capable of carrying up to 9 passengers. With a focus on sustainability, reduced operating costs, and a quieter flight experience, Alice attracted attention as one of the most promising electric aircraft in development.

Eviation’s aircraft was aimed at replacing small, inefficient, and environmentally damaging regional aircraft, reducing emissions in the aviation industry. The startup’s vision was bold: to create an airplane that could offer all the benefits of electric power – lower operating costs, less noise, and a smaller environmental footprint. Their goal was not only to attract major airlines but also to pave the way for a more sustainable future in aviation.

The company’s early success was driven by substantial investments and partnerships. It garnered attention from aviation giants and venture capitalists alike, drawing support for its innovative technology. In fact, in 2019, Eviation secured a deal with the Israeli airline, El Al, for several aircraft, a deal that seemed to promise a bright future for the company.

Challenges in the Electric Aviation Industry

Despite its early successes and strong backing, Eviation faced considerable challenges that eventually contributed to its downfall. The electric aviation sector, as promising as it seemed, has always been riddled with hurdles – from battery technology to regulatory approvals, and compounded by Europe’s EV slump that dampened clean-transport sentiment, the path to producing commercially viable electric airplanes has proven more difficult than initially anticipated.

The first major issue Eviation encountered was the slow development of battery technology. While electric car companies like Tesla were able to scale their operations quickly during the electric vehicle boom due to advancements in battery efficiency, aviation technology faced a more significant obstacle. The energy density required for a plane to fly long distances with sufficient payload was far greater than what existing battery technology could offer. This limitation severely impacted the range of the Alice aircraft, preventing it from meeting the expectations set by its creators.

Another challenge was the lengthy regulatory approval process for electric aircraft. Aviation is one of the most regulated industries in the world, and getting a new aircraft certified for flight takes time and rigorous testing. Although Eviation’s Alice was touted as an innovative leap in aviation technology, the company struggled to navigate the complex process of meeting the safety and operational standards required by aviation authorities, such as the FAA and EASA.

Financial Difficulties and Leadership Changes

As challenges mounted, Eviation’s financial situation became increasingly precarious. The company struggled to secure additional funding to continue its development and scale operations. Investors, once eager to back the promising startup, grew wary as timelines stretched and costs climbed, amid a U.S. EV market share dip in early 2024, tempering enthusiasm. With the electric aviation market still in its early stages, Eviation faced stiff competition from more established players, including large aircraft manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus, who also began to invest heavily in electric and hybrid-electric aircraft technologies.

Leadership instability also played a role in Eviation’s collapse. The company went through several executive changes over a short period, and management’s inability to solidify a clear vision for the future raised concerns among stakeholders. The lack of consistent leadership hindered the company’s ability to make decisions quickly and efficiently, further exacerbating its financial challenges.

The Sudden Collapse

In 2025, Eviation made the difficult decision to shut down its operations. The company announced the closure after failing to secure enough funding to continue its development and meet its ambitious production goals. The sudden collapse of Eviation sent shockwaves through the electric aviation sector, where many had placed their hopes on the startup’s innovative approach to electric flight.

The failure of Eviation has left many questioning the future of electric aviation. While the industry is still in its infancy, Eviation’s downfall serves as a cautionary tale about the challenges of bringing cutting-edge technology to the skies. The ambitious vision of a sustainable, electric future in aviation may still be achievable, but the path to success will require overcoming significant technological, regulatory, and financial obstacles.

What’s Next for Electric Aviation?

Despite Eviation’s collapse, the electric aviation sector is far from dead. Other companies, such as Joby Aviation, Vertical Aerospace, and Ampaire, are continuing to develop electric and hybrid-electric aircraft, building on milestones like Canada’s first commercial electric flight that signal ongoing demand for green alternatives to traditional aviation.

Moreover, major aircraft manufacturers are doubling down on their own electric aircraft projects. Boeing, for example, has launched several initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions in aviation, while Harbour Air’s point-to-point e-seaplane flight showcases near-term regional progress, and Airbus is testing a hybrid-electric airliner prototype. The collapse of Eviation may slow down progress, but it is unlikely to derail the broader movement toward electric flight entirely.

The lessons learned from Eviation’s failure will undoubtedly inform the future of the electric aviation sector. Innovation, perseverance, and a steady stream of investment will be critical for the success of future electric aircraft startups, as exemplified by Harbour Air’s research-driven electric aircraft efforts that highlight the value of sustained R&D. While the dream of electric planes may have suffered a setback, the long-term vision of cleaner, more sustainable aviation is still alive.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News