Utility looks elsewhere for Energy Authority services

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

Key Points

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

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Nuclear Waste Corrosion accelerates as stainless steel, glass, and ceramics interact in aqueous conditions, driving localized corrosion in repositories like Yucca Mountain, according to Nature Materials research on high-level radioactive waste storage.

Key Points

Degradation of waste forms and canisters from water-driven chemistry, causing accelerated, localized corrosion in storage.

✅ Stainless steel-glass contact triggers severe localized attack

✅ Ceramics and steel co-corrosion observed under aqueous conditions

✅ Yucca Mountain-like chemistry accelerates waste form degradation

The materials the United States and other countries plan to use to store high-level nuclear waste, even as utilities expand carbon-free electricity portfolios, will likely degrade faster than anyone previously knew because of the way those materials interact, new research shows.

The findings, published today in the journal Nature Materials (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-019-0579-x), show that corrosion of nuclear waste storage materials accelerates because of changes in the chemistry of the nuclear waste solution, and because of the way the materials interact with one another.

"This indicates that the current models may not be sufficient to keep this waste safely stored," said Xiaolei Guo, lead author of the study and deputy director of Ohio State's Center for Performance and Design of Nuclear Waste Forms and Containers, part of the university's College of Engineering. "And it shows that we need to develop a new model for storing nuclear waste."

Beyond waste storage, options like carbon capture technologies are being explored to reduce atmospheric CO2 alongside nuclear energy.

The team's research focused on storage materials for high-level nuclear waste -- primarily defense waste, the legacy of past nuclear arms production. The waste is highly radioactive. While some types of the waste have half-lives of about 30 years, others -- for example, plutonium -- have a half-life that can be tens of thousands of years. The half-life of a radioactive element is the time needed for half of the material to decay.

The United States currently has no disposal site for that waste; according to the U.S. General Accountability Office, it is typically stored near the nuclear power plants where it is produced. A permanent site has been proposed for Yucca Mountain in Nevada, though plans have stalled. Countries around the world have debated the best way to deal with nuclear waste; only one, Finland, has started construction on a long-term repository for high-level nuclear waste.

But the long-term plan for high-level defense waste disposal and storage around the globe is largely the same, even as the U.S. works to sustain nuclear power for decarbonization efforts. It involves mixing the nuclear waste with other materials to form glass or ceramics, and then encasing those pieces of glass or ceramics -- now radioactive -- inside metallic canisters. The canisters then would be buried deep underground in a repository to isolate it.

At the generation level, regulators are advancing EPA power plant rules on carbon capture to curb emissions while nuclear waste strategies evolve.

In this study, the researchers found that when exposed to an aqueous environment, glass and ceramics interact with stainless steel to accelerate corrosion, especially of the glass and ceramic materials holding nuclear waste.

In parallel, the electrical grid's reliance on SF6 insulating gas has raised warming concerns across Europe.

The study qualitatively measured the difference between accelerated corrosion and natural corrosion of the storage materials. Guo called it "severe."

"In the real-life scenario, the glass or ceramic waste forms would be in close contact with stainless steel canisters. Under specific conditions, the corrosion of stainless steel will go crazy," he said. "It creates a super-aggressive environment that can corrode surrounding materials."

To analyze corrosion, the research team pressed glass or ceramic "waste forms" -- the shapes into which nuclear waste is encapsulated -- against stainless steel and immersed them in solutions for up to 30 days, under conditions that simulate those under Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear waste repository.

Those experiments showed that when glass and stainless steel were pressed against one another, stainless steel corrosion was "severe" and "localized," according to the study. The researchers also noted cracks and enhanced corrosion on the parts of the glass that had been in contact with stainless steel.

Part of the problem lies in the Periodic Table. Stainless steel is made primarily of iron mixed with other elements, including nickel and chromium. Iron has a chemical affinity for silicon, which is a key element of glass.

The experiments also showed that when ceramics -- another potential holder for nuclear waste -- were pressed against stainless steel under conditions that mimicked those beneath Yucca Mountain, both the ceramics and stainless steel corroded in a "severe localized" way.

Other Ohio State researchers involved in this study include Gopal Viswanathan, Tianshu Li and Gerald Frankel.

This work was funded in part by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.

Meanwhile, U.S. monitoring shows potent greenhouse gas declines confirming the impact of control efforts across the energy sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

U.S. Transmission Grid Modernization underscores FERC policy certainty, high-voltage infrastructure upgrades, renewables integration, electrification, and grid resilience to cut congestion and enable distributed energy resources, safeguarding against extreme weather, cyber threats, and market volatility.

Key Points

A plan to expand, upgrade, and secure high-voltage networks for renewables integration, electrification, reliability.

✅ Replace aging lines to cut congestion and customer costs

✅ Integrate renewables and distributed energy resources at scale

✅ Enhance resilience to weather, cyber, and physical threats

Today, in a high-visibility hearing on U.S. energy delivery infrastructure before the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, WIRES Executive Director and Former FERC Chairman Jim Hoecker addressed the challenges and opportunities that confront the modern high-voltage grid as the industry strives to upgrade and expand it to meet the demands of consumers and the economy.

In prepared testimony and responses to Senators' questions, Hoecker urged the Committee to support industry efforts to expand and upgrade the transmission network and to help regulators, especially the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC action on aggregated DERs), promote certainty and predictability in energy policy and regulation. 

His testimony stressed these points:

Significant transmission investment is needed now to replace aging infrastructure like the aging grid risks to clean energy, reduce congestion costs, and deliver widespread benefits to customers.

Increasingly, the role of the transmission grid is to integrate new distributed resources and renewable energy into the electric system and make them available to the market.

The changing electric generation mix, including needed nuclear innovation, and the coming electrification of transportation, heating, and other segments of the American economy in the next quarter century will depend on a strong and adaptable electric system. A robust transmission grid will be the linchpin that will enable us to meet those demands.

"Transmission is the common element that will support all future electricity needs and provide a hedge against uncertainties and potential costly outcomes. The time is now to be proactive in encouraging additional investments in our nation's most crucial infrastructure: the electric transmission system," Hoecker said. 

Hoecker's testimony also emphasized that transmission investment will contribute to the overall resilience of the electric system by bringing multiple resources and technologies to bear on threats to the power system, including extreme weather and proposals like a wildfire-resilient grid bill, cyber or physical attacks, or other events. Visit WIRES website for recently filed comments on the subject (supported by a Brattle Group study). 

"Transmission gives us the optionality to adapt to whatever the future holds, and a modern and resilient transmission system, informed by Texas reliability improvements, will be the most valuable energy asset we have," says Nina Plaushin, president of WIRES and vice president of federal affairs, regulatory and communications for ITC Holdings Corp. 

Hoecker closed his testimony by emphasizing that the "electrification" scenario that is being discussed across multiple industries demands action now in order to ensure policy and regulatory certainty that will support needed transmission investment. More studies need to be conducted to better understand and define how this delivery network must be configured and planned in anticipation of this potential transformation in how we use electrical energy. A full copy of the WIRES testimony can be found here.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Distributed Energy Resources (DER) are surging as solar PV, battery storage, and demand response decarbonize power, cut costs, and boost grid resilience for utilities, ESCOs, and C&I customers through 2030.

Key Points

DER are small-scale, grid-connected assets like solar PV, storage, and demand response that deliver flexible power.

✅ Investments in DER to rise 75% by 2030; $846B in assets, $285B in storage.

✅ Residential solar PV: 49.3% of spend; C&I solar PV: 38.9% by 2030.

✅ Drivers: favorable policy, falling costs, high demand charges, decarbonization.

Frost & Sullivan's recent analysis, Growth Opportunities in Distributed Energy, Forecast to 2030, finds that the rate of annual investment in distributed energy resources (DER) will increase by 75% by 2030, with the market set for a decade of high growth. Favorable regulations, declining project and technology costs, and high electricity and demand charges are key factors driving investments in DER across the globe, with rising European demand boosting US solar equipment makers prospects in export markets. The COVID-19 pandemic will reduce investment levels in the short term, but the market will recover. Throughout the decade, $846 billion will be invested in DER, supported by a further $285 billion that will be invested in battery storage, with record solar and storage growth anticipated as installations and investments accelerate.

"The DER business model will play an increasingly pivotal role in the global power mix, as highlighted by BNEF's 2050 outlook and as part of a wider effort to decarbonize the sector," said Maria Benintende, Senior Energy Analyst at Frost & Sullivan. "Additionally, solar photovoltaic (PV) will dominate throughout the decade. Residential solar PV will account for 49.3% of total investment ($419 billion), though policy moves like a potential Solar ITC extension could pressure the US wind market, with commercial and industrial solar PV accounting for a further 38.9% ($330 billion)."

Benintende added: "In developing economies, DER offers a chance to bridge the electricity supply gap that still exists in a number of country markets. Further, in developed markets, DER is a key part of the transition to a cleaner and more resilient energy system, consistent with IRENA's renewables decarbonization findings across the energy sector."

DER offers significant revenue growth prospects for all key market participants, including:

• Technology original equipment manufacturers (OEMs): Offer flexible after-sales support, including digital solutions such as asset integrity and optimization services for their installed base.
• System integrators and installers: Target household customers and provide efficient and trustworthy solutions with flexible financial models.
• Energy service companies (ESCOs): ESCOs should focus on adding DER deployments, in line with US decarbonization pathways and policy goals, to expand and enhance their traditional role of providing energy savings and demand-side management services to customers.

Utility companies: Deployment of DER can create new revenue streams for utility companies, from real-time and flexibility markets, and rapid solar PV growth in China illustrates how momentum in renewables can shape utility strategies.
Growth Opportunities in Distributed Energy, Forecast to 2030 is the latest addition to Frost & Sullivan's Energy and Environment research and analyses available through the Frost & Sullivan Leadership Council, which helps organizations identify a continuous flow of growth opportunities to succeed in an unpredictable future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Britain Coal-Free Week signals a historic shift to clean energy, with zero coal power, increased natural gas and renewables, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and ambitious UK energy policy targeting a 2025 coal phase-out and decarbonization.

Key Points

A seven-day period with no coal power in the UK, signaling cleaner energy and progress on emission reductions.

✅ Seven days of zero coal generation in the UK

✅ Natural gas and renewables dominated the electricity mix

✅ Coal phase-out targeted by 2025; emissions cuts planned

For the first time in a century, Britain weaned itself off of coal consumption for an entire week, a coal-free power record for the country.

Reuters reported that Britain went seven days without relying on any power generated by coal-powered stations as the share of coal in the grid continued to hit record lows.

The accomplishment is symbolic of a shift to more clean energy sources, with wind surpassing coal in 2016 and the UK leading the G20 in wind share as of recent years; Britain was home to the first coal-powered plant back in the 1880s.

Today, Britain has some aggressive plans in place to completely eliminate its coal power generation permanently by 2025, with a plan to end coal power underway. In addition, Britain aims to cut its total greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels within the next 30 years.

Natural gas was the largest source of power for Britain in 2018, providing 39 percent of the nation's total electricity, as the Great Britain generation dashboard shows. Coal contributed only about 5 percent, though low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to reports. Burning natural gas also produces greenhouse gases, but it is much more efficient and greener than coal.

In the U.S., 63.5 percent of electricity generated in 2018 came from fossil fuels. About 35.1 percent was produced from natural gas and 27.4 percent came from coal. In addition, 19.3 percent of electricity came from nuclear power and 17.1 percent came from renewable energy sources, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News