Governor to speak on offshore wind plans

Smart Meter Texas real-time pricing faces rollback as utilities limit on-demand reads, impacting demand response, home area networks, ERCOT wholesale tracking, and thermostat automation, reducing efficiency gains promised through deregulation and smart meter investments.

Key Points

A plan linking smart meters to ERCOT prices, enabling near real-time usage alignment and automated demand response.

✅ Twice-hourly reads miss 15-minute ERCOT price spikes.

✅ Less than 1% of 7.3M meters use HAN real-time features.

✅ Limits hinder automation for HVAC, EV charging, and pool pumps.

Utilities made a promise several years ago when they built Smart Meter Texas that they’d come up with a way for consumers to monitor their electricity use in real time. But now they’re backing out of the deal with the approval of state regulators, leaving in the lurch retail power companies that are building their business model on the promise of real time pricing and denying consumers another option for managing their electricity costs.

Texas utilities collected higher rates to finance the building of a statewide smart meter network that would allow customers to track their electricity use and the quickly changing prices on wholesale power markets almost as they happened. Some retailers are building electricity plans around this promise, providing customers with in-home devices that would eventually track pricing minute-by-minute and allow them to automatically turn down or shut off air conditioners, pool pumps and energy sucking appliances when prices spiked on hot summer afternoons and turn them back on when they prices fell again.

The idea is to help save consumers money by allowing them to shift their electricity consumption to periods when power is cheaper, typically nights and weekends, even as utility revenue in a free-power era remains a debated topic.

“We’re throwing away a large part of (what) ratepayers paid for,” said John Werner, CEO of GridPlus Texas, one of the companies offering consumers a real-time pricing plan that is scheduled to begin testing next month. “They made the smart meters dumb meters.”

When Smart Meter Texas was launched a decade ago by a consortium of the state’s biggest utilities, it was considered an important part of deregulation. The competitive market for electricity held the promise that consumers would eventually have the technology to control their electricity use through a home area network and cut their power bills.

Regulators and legislators also were enticed by the possibility of making the electric system more efficient and relieving pressure on the power grid as consumers responded to high prices and cut consumption when temperatures soared, with ongoing discussions about Texas grid reliability informing policy choices.

One study found that smart meters coupled with smart real time consumption monitors could reduce electricity use between 3 percent and 5 percent, according to Call Me Power, a website sponsored by the European electricity price shopping service Selectra.

But utilities complained that the home area network devices were expensive to install and not used very often, and, with flat electricity demand weighing on growth, they questioned further investment. CenterPoint manager Esther Floyd Kent filed an affidavit with the commission in May that it costs the utility about $30,000 annually to support the network devices, plus maintenance.

Over a six-year period, CenterPoint paid $124,500, or about $20,000 a year, to maintain the system. As of April, there were only 4,067 network devices in CenterPoint’s service area, meaning the utility pays about $30.70 each year to maintain each device.

Centerpoint last year generated $9.6 billion in revenues and earned a $1.8 billion profit, according to its financial filings. CenterPoint officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Other utilities that are part of the Smart Meter consortium also complained to the Public Utility Commission that, up to now, the system hasn’t developed. All told, Texas has 7.3 million meters connected to Smart Meter Texas, but less than 1 percent are using the networking functions to track real-time prices and consumption, according to the testimony of Donny R. Helm, director of technology strategy and architecture for the state’s largest utility Oncor Electric Delivery Co. in Dallas.

The isssue was resolved recently through a settlement agreement that limits on-demand readings to twice an hour that Smart Meter Texas must provide customers. The price of power changes every 15 minutes, so a twice an hour reading may miss some price spikes.

The Public Utility Commission signed off on the deal, and so did several other groups including several retail electricity providers and the Office of Public Utility Counsel which represents residential customers and small businesses.

Michele Gregg, spokeswoman for the Public Utility Counsel, testified in December that the consumer advocate supported the change because widespread use of the networks never materialized. Catherine Webking, an Austin lawyer who represents the Texas Energy Association for Marketers, a group of retail electric providers, said she believes the deal was a reasonable resolution of providing the benefits of Smart Meter Texas while not incurring too much cost.

But Griddy, an electricity provider that offers customers the opportunity to pay wholesale power prices, which also issued a plea to customers during a price surge, said the state hasn’t given the smart-meter networks a chance and could miss out on its potential. Griddy was counting on the continued adoption of real time pricing as the next step for customers wanting to control their electricity costs.

Right now, Griddy sends out price alerts from the grid operator Electric Reliability Council of Texas so businesses like hotels can run washers and dryers when electricity prices are cheapest. But the company was counting on a smart-meter program that would allow customers to track wholesale prices and manage consumption themselves, making Griddy’s offerings attractive to more people.

Wholesale prices are generally cheaper than retail prices, but they can fluctuate widely, especially when the Texas power grid faces another crisis during extreme weather. Last year, wholesale prices averaged less than 3 cents per kilowatt hour, much lower than than retail rates that now are running above 11 cents, but they can spike at times of high demand to as much as $9 a kilowatt hour.

What customers want is to be able to use energy when it’s cheapest, said Greg Craig, Griddy’s CEO, and they want to do it automatically. They want to be able to program their thermostat so that if the price rises they can shut off their air conditioning and if the price falls, they can charge their electric-powered vehicle.

Griddy customers may still save money even without real time data, he said. But they won’t be able to see their usage in real time or see how much they’re spending.

“The big utilities have big investments in the existing way and going to real time and more transparency isn’t really in their best interest,” said Craig.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Electricity Peak Demand surged to 10,638 MW, as AESO reported record summer load from air conditioning, Stampede visitors, and heatwave conditions, with ample generation capacity, stable grid reliability, and conservation urged during 5-7 p.m.

Key Points

It is the record summer power load in Alberta, reaching 10,638 MW, with evening conservation urged by AESO.

✅ Record 10,638 MW at 4 pm; likely to rise this week

✅ Drivers: A/C use, heat, Stampede visitors

✅ AESO reports ample capacity; conserve 5-7 pm

Consumer use hit 10,638 MW, blowing past a previous high of 10,520 MW set on July 9, 2015, said the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO).

“We hit a new summer peak and it’s likely we’ll hit higher peaks as the week progresses,” said AESO spokeswoman Tara De Weerd.

“We continue to have ample supply, and as Alberta's electricity future trends toward more wind, our generators are very confident there aren’t any issues.”

That new peak was set at 4 p.m. but De Weerd said it was likely to be exceeded later in the day.

Heightened air conditioner use is normally a major driver of such peak electricity consumption, said De Weerd.

She also said Calgary’s big annual bash is also likely playing a role.

“It’s the beginning of Stampede, you have an influx of visitors so you’ll have more people using electricity,” she said.

Alberta’s generation capacity is 16,420 MW, said the AESO, with wind power increasingly outpacing coal in the province today.

There are no plans, she said, for any of the province’s electricity generators to shut down any of their plants for maintenance or other purposes in the near future as demand rises.

The summer peak is considerably smaller than that reached in the depths of Alberta’s winter.

Alberta’s winter peak usage was recorded last year and was 11,458 MW.

Though the province’s capacity isn’t being strained by the summer heat, De Weerd still encouraged consumers to go easy during the peak use time of the day, between 5 and 7 p.m.

“We don’t have to be running all of our appliances at once,” she said.

Alberta exports an insignificant amount of electricity to Montana, B.C. and Saskatchewan, where demand recently set a new record.

The weather forecast calls for temperatures to soar above 30C through the weekend.

In northern Canada, Yukon electricity demand recently hit a record high, underscoring how extreme temperatures can strain systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Edmonton Electricity Rate Increase signals Alberta RRO changes as the UCP ends the NDP price cap; kilowatt-hour rises to 7.5 cents, raising energy bills for typical households by 3.9 percent in December.

Key Points

The end of Alberta’s RRO cap lifts kWh to 7.5 cents, raising an average Edmonton home’s bill about 3.9% in December.

✅ RRO price cap scrapped; kWh set at 7.5 cents in December.

✅ Average 600 kWh home pays about $7.37 more vs November.

✅ UCP ends NDP-era cap after stakeholder and consumer feedback.

Electricity will be more expensive for some Edmontonians in December after the UCP government scrapped a program that capped rates amid prices spiking in Alberta this year.

Effective Nov. 30, the province got rid of the consumer price cap program for Regulated Rate Option customers.

In 2017, the NDP government capped the kilowatt per hour price at 6.8 cents under a consumer price cap policy, meaning Edmontonians would pay the market rate and not more than the capped price.

In December, kWh will cost 7.5 cents amid expert warnings to lock in rates across Alberta. Typical Edmonton homes use an average of 600 kWh, increasing bills by $7.37, or 3.9 per cent, compared to November.

In Calgary, electricity bills have been rising as well, reflecting similar market pressures.

The NDP created the capacity system to bring price stability to Albertans, though a Calgary retailer urged scrapping the market overhaul at the time.

Energy Minister Sonya Savage said the UCP decided to scrap it after "overwhelming" feedback from consumers and industry stakeholders, as the province introduced new electricity rules earlier this year. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario Electricity Capacity Gap threatens reliability as IESO forecasts shortfalls from the Pickering shutdown and rapid electrification, requiring new low-emission nuclear generation to meet net-zero targets, maintain baseload, and stabilize the grid.

Key Points

Expected 2030 shortfalls from Pickering closure and electrification, requiring new low-emission nuclear to meet net-zero.

✅ IESO projects a 3.6-9.5 GW capacity gap by 2030

✅ Pickering shutdown removes baseload, stressing reliability

✅ New low-emission nuclear needed to meet net-zero targets

Ontario faces an electricity supply shortage and reliability risks in the next four to eight years and will not meet net-zero objectives without building new low-emission, nuclear generation starting as soon as possible, according to a report released yesterday by the Power Workers' Union (PWU). The capacity needed to fill the expected supply gap will be equivalent to doubling the province's planned nuclear fleet in eight years.

The planned closure of the Pickering nuclear power plant in 2025 and the increase in demand from electrification of the economy are the drivers behind a capacity gap in 2030 of at least 3.6 GW which could widen to as much as 9.5 GW, Electrification Pathways for Ontario to Reduce Emissions, finds. Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has since 2013 been forecasting a significant gap in the province's electricity supply due the closure of Pickering, but has been underestimating the impact of electrification, the report says.

In addition, the electrification of buildings, transport and industry sectors that will be needed to achieve goals of net-zero emissions by 2050 that being set by the federal government and civil society will see the province's electricity demand increase by at least 130% over current planning forecasts, and potentially by over 190%. Leveraging electricity, natural gas and hydrogen synergies can reduce supply needs, but 55 GW of new electricity capacity, including new large-scale nuclear plants, will still be needed by 2050 - four times Ontario's current nuclear and hydro assets - the report finds.

These findings underscore the urgent need for a paradigm shift in Ontario's electricity planning and procurement process, the authors say, adding that immediate action is needed both to mitigate the system reliability risks and enable the significant societal benefits needed to pursue net-zero objectives. Planning for procurement to replace Pickering's capacity, or to pursue life extension options, must begin as soon as possible.

"Policymakers around the world realise climate change can't be tackled without nuclear. Ontario's nuclear fleet has delivered emissions reductions for over 50 years," PWU President Jeff Parnell said. "In fact, without building new nuclear units, Ontario will miss its emission reduction targets and carbon emissions from electricity generation will rise dramatically, as explored in why Ontario's power could get dirtier today."

"This report clearly shows that Ontario cannot sustain the low-carbon status of its hydro and nuclear-based electricity system, decarbonise its economy and meet its carbon reduction targets without new nuclear or continued operation at Pickering in the near term. Most disturbing is the fact that we are already well behind and needed to start planning for this capacity yesterday," he said.

The six operating Candu reactors at Ontario Power Generation's Pickering plant have been kept in operation to provide baseload electricity during the refurbishment of units at the Darlington and Bruce plants. Currently, the company plans to shut down Pickering units 1 and 4 in 2024 and units 5 to 8 in 2025, even as Ontario moves to refurbish Pickering B to extend life.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EV Decarbonization Strategy weighs life-cycle emissions and climate targets, highlighting mode shift to public transit, cycling, and walking, grid decarbonization, renewable energy, and charging infrastructure to cut greenhouse gases while reducing private car dependence.

Key Points

A plan to cut transport emissions by pairing EV adoption with mode shift, clean power, and less private car use.

✅ Prioritize mode shift: transit, cycling, and walking.

✅ Electrify remaining vehicles with clean, renewable power.

✅ Expand charging, improve batteries, and manage critical minerals.

California recently announced that it plans to ban the sales of gas-powered vehicles by 2035, a move similar to a 2035 electric vehicle mandate seen elsewhere, Ontario has invested $500 million in the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and Tesla is quickly becoming the world's highest-valued car company.

It almost seems like owning an electric vehicle is a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, but it isn't, as a U of T study explains today. What we should also be focused on is whether anyone should use a private vehicle at all.
 
As a researcher in sustainable mobility, I know this answer is unsatisfying. But this is where my latest research has led.

Battery EVs, such as the Tesla Model 3 - the best selling EV in Canada in 2020 - have no tailpipe emissions. But they do have higher production and manufacturing emissions than conventional vehicles, and often run on electricity that comes from fossil fuels.

Almost 18 per cent of the electricity generated in Canada came from fossil fuels in 2019, and even as Canada's EV goals grow more ambitious today, the grid mix varies from zero in Quebec to 90 per cent in Alberta.
 
Researchers like me compare the greenhouse gas emissions of an alternative vehicle, such as an EV, with those of a conventional vehicle over a vehicle lifetime, an exercise known as a life-cycle assessment. For example, a Tesla Model 3 compared with a Toyota Corolla can provide up to 75 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases emitted per kilometre travelled in Quebec, but no reductions in Alberta.

Hundreds of millions of new cars

To avoid extreme and irreversible impacts on ecosystems, communities and the overall global economy, we must keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2 C - and ideally 1.5 C - above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100.

We can translate these climate change targets into actionable plans. First, we estimate greenhouse gas emissions budgets using energy and climate models for each sector of the economy and for each country. Then we simulate future emissions, taking alternative technologies into account, as well as future potential economic and societal developments.

I looked at the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet, which adds up to about 260 million vehicles, while noting the potential for Canada-U.S. collaboration in this transition, to answer a simple question: Could the greenhouse gas emissions from the sector be brought in line with climate targets by replacing gasoline-powered vehicles with EVs?

The results were shocking. Assuming no changes to travel behaviours and a decarbonization of 80 per cent of electricity, meeting a 2 C target could require up to 300 million EVs, or 90 per cent of the projected U.S. fleet, by 2050. That would require all new purchased vehicles to be electric from 2035 onwards.

To put that into perspective, there are currently 880,000 EVs in the U.S., or 0.3 per cent of the fleet. Even the most optimistic projections, despite hype about an electric-car revolution gaining steam, from the International Energy Agency suggest that the U.S. fleet will only be at about 50 per cent electrified by 2050.

Massive and rapid electrification

Still, 90 per cent is theoretically possible, isn't it? Probably, but is it desirable?

In order to hit that target, we'd need to very rapidly overcome all the challenges associated with EV adoption, such as range anxiety, the higher purchase cost and availability of charging infrastructure.
 
A rapid pace of electrification would severely challenge the electricity infrastructure and the supply chain of many critical materials for the batteries, such as lithium, manganese and cobalt. It would require vast capacity of renewable energy sources and transmission lines, widespread charging infrastructure, a co-ordination between two historically distinct sectors (electricity and transportation systems) and rapid innovations in electric battery technologies. I am not saying it's impossible, but I believe it's unlikely.

Read more: There aren't enough batteries to electrify all cars - focus on trucks and buses instead

So what? Shall we give up, accept our collective fate and stop our efforts at electrification?

On the contrary, I think we should re-examine our priorities and dare to ask an even more critical question: Do we need that many vehicles on the road?

Buses, trains and bikes

Simply put, there are three ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger transport: avoid the need to travel, shift the transportation modes or improve the technologies. EVs only tackle one side of the problem, the technological one.

And while EVs do decrease emissions compared with conventional vehicles, we should be comparing them to buses, including leading electric bus fleets in North America, trains and bikes. When we do, their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions disappears because of their life cycle emissions and the limited number of people they carry at one time.

If we truly want to solve our climate problems, we need to deploy EVs along with other measures, such as public transit and active mobility. This fact is critical, especially given the recent decreases in public transit ridership in the U.S., mostly due to increasing vehicle ownership, low gasoline prices and the advent of ride-hailing (Uber, Lyft)

Governments need to massively invest in public transit, cycling and walking infrastructure to make them larger, safer and more reliable, rather than expanding EV subsidies alone. And we need to reassess our transportation needs and priorities.

The road to decarbonization is long and winding. But if we are willing to get out of our cars and take a shortcut through the forest, we might get there a lot faster.

Author: Alexandre Milovanoff - Postdoctoral Researcher, Environmental Engineering, University of Toronto 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News