Power plant deregulation is faulted

Oil and Gas Profitability Decline reflects shale-driven oversupply, OPEC-Russia dynamics, LNG exports, renewables growth, and weak demand, signaling compressed margins for producers, stressed petrodollar budgets, and shifting energy markets post-Covid.

Key Points

A sustained squeeze on hydrocarbon margins from agile shale supply, weaker OPEC leverage, and expanding renewables.

✅ Shale responsiveness caps prices and erodes industry rents

✅ OPEC-Russia cuts face limited impact versus US supply

✅ Renewables and EVs slow long-term oil and gas demand

The oil-price crash of March 2020 will probably not last long. As in 2014, when the oil price dropped below $50 from $110 in a few weeks, this one will trigger a temporary collapse of the US shale industry. Unless the coronavirus outbreak causes Armageddon, cheap oil will also support policymakers’ efforts to help the global economy.

But there will be at least one important and lasting difference this time round — and it has major market and geopolitical implications.

The oil price crash is a foretaste of where the whole energy sector was going anyway — and that is down.

It may not look that way at first. Saudi Arabia will soon realise, as it did in 2015, that its lethal decision to pump more oil is not only killing US shale but its public finances as well. Riyadh will soon knock on Moscow’s door again. Once American shale supplies collapse, Russia will resume co-operation with Saudi Arabia.

With the world economy recovering from the Covid-19 crisis by then, and with electricity demand during COVID-19 shifting, moderate supply cuts by both countries will accelerate oil market recovery. In time, US shale producers will return too.

Yet this inevitable bounceback should not distract from two fundamental factors that were already remaking oil and gas markets. First, the shale revolution has fundamentally eroded industry profitability. Second, the renewables’ revolution will continue to depress growth in demand.

The combined result has put the profitability of the entire global hydrocarbon industry under pressure. That means fewer petrodollars to support oil-producing countries’ national budgets, including Canada's oil sector exposures. It also means less profitable oil companies, which traditionally make up a large segment of stock markets, an important component of so many western pension funds.

Start with the first factor to see why this is so. Historically, the geological advantages that made oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia so cheap to produce were unique. Because oil and gas were produced at costs far below the market price, the excess profits, or “rent”, enjoyed by the industry were very large.

Furthermore, collusion among low-cost producers has been a winning strategy. The loss of market share through output cuts was more than compensated by immediately higher prices. It was the raison d’être of Opec.

The US shale revolution changed all this, exposing the limits of U.S. energy dominance narratives. A large oil-producing region emerged with a remarkable ability to respond quickly to price changes and shrink its costs over time. Cutting back cheap Opec oil now only increases US supplies, with little effect on world prices.

That is why Russia refused to cut production this month. Even if its cuts did boost world prices — doubtful given the coronavirus outbreak’s huge shock to demand — that would slow the shrinkage of US shale that Moscow wants.

Shale has affected the natural gas industry even more. Exports of US liquefied natural gas now put an effective ceiling on global prices, and debates over a clean electricity push have intensified when gas prices spike.

On top of all this, there is also the renewables’ revolution, though a green revolution has not been guaranteed in the near term. Around the world, wind and solar have become ever-cheaper options to generate electricity. Storage costs have also dropped and network management improved. Even in the US, renewables are displacing coal and gas. Electrification of vehicle fleets will damp demand further, as U.S. electricity, gas, and EVs face evolving pressures.

Eliminating fossil fuel consumption completely would require sustained and costly government intervention, and reliability challenges such as coal and nuclear disruptions add to the complexity. That is far from certain. Meanwhile, though, market forces are depressing the sector’s usual profitability.

The end of oil and gas is not immediately around the corner. Still, the end of hydrocarbons as a lucrative industry is a distinct possibility. We are seeing that in dramatic form in the current oil price crash. But this collapse is merely a message from the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Summer Energy Bills Crisis is driven by record heatwaves, soaring electricity prices, AC cooling demand, energy poverty risks, and LIHEAP relief, straining low-income households, vulnerable seniors, and budgets amid volatile utilities and peak demand.

Key Points

Rising household energy costs from extreme heat, higher electricity prices, and AC demand, straining vulnerable families.

✅ Record heatwaves drive peak electricity and cooling loads

✅ Tiered rates and volatile markets inflate utility bills

✅ LIHEAP aid and cooling centers offer short-term relief

As the sweltering heat of summer continues to grip much of the United States, American households are grappling with a staggering rise in energy bills. The combination of record-breaking temperatures and rising electricity prices is placing an unprecedented financial strain on families, raising concerns about the long-term impact on household budgets and overall well-being.

Record Heat and Energy Consumption

This summer has witnessed some of the hottest temperatures on record across the country. With many regions experiencing prolonged heatwaves, the demand for air conditioning and cooling systems has surged amid unprecedented electricity demand across parts of the U.S. The increased use of these energy-intensive appliances has led to a sharp rise in electricity consumption, which, combined with elevated energy prices, has pushed household energy bills to new heights.

The situation is particularly dire for households that are already struggling financially. Many families are facing energy bills that are not only higher than usual but are reaching levels that are unsustainable, underscoring electricity struggles for thousands of families across the country. This has prompted concerns about the potential for energy poverty, where individuals are forced to make difficult choices between paying for essential services and covering other necessary expenses.

Impact on Low-Income and Vulnerable Households

Low-income households and vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected by these soaring energy costs. For many, the financial burden of high energy bills is compounded by energy insecurity during the pandemic and other economic pressures, such as rising food prices and stagnant wages. The strain of paying for electricity during extreme heat can lead to tough decisions, including cutting back on other essential needs like healthcare or education.

Moreover, the heat itself poses a serious health risk, particularly for the elderly, children, and individuals with pre-existing health conditions. High temperatures can exacerbate conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses, making the need for reliable cooling even more critical. For those struggling to afford adequate cooling, the risk of heat-related illnesses and fatalities increases significantly.

Utilities and Energy Pricing

The sharp rise in energy bills can be attributed to several factors, including higher costs of electricity production and distribution. The ongoing transition to cleaner energy sources, while necessary for long-term environmental sustainability, has introduced short-term volatility in energy markets. Additionally, power-company supply chain crises and increased demand during peak summer months have contributed to higher prices.

Utilities are often criticized for their pricing structures, which can be complex and opaque. Some regions, including areas where California electricity bills soar under scrutiny, use tiered pricing models that charge higher rates as energy consumption increases. This can disproportionately impact households that need to use more energy during extreme heat, further exacerbating financial strain.

Government and Community Response

In response to the crisis, various government and community initiatives are being rolled out to provide relief. Federal and state programs aimed at assisting low-income households with energy costs are being expanded. These programs, such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), offer financial assistance to help with utility bills, but demand often outstrips available resources.

Local community organizations are also stepping in to offer support. Initiatives include distributing fans and portable air conditioners, providing temporary cooling centers, and offering financial assistance to help cover energy costs. These efforts are crucial in helping to mitigate the immediate impact of high energy bills on vulnerable households.

Long-Term Solutions and Sustainability

The current crisis highlights the need for long-term solutions to address both the causes and consequences of high energy costs. Investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies can help reduce the overall demand for electricity and lower long-term costs. Improvements in building insulation, the adoption of energy-efficient appliances, and advancements in smart grid technologies to prevent summer power outages are all essential components of a sustainable energy future.

Furthermore, addressing income inequality and supporting economic stability are critical to ensuring that all households can manage their energy needs without facing financial hardship. Policymakers will need to consider a range of strategies, including financial support programs, regulatory reforms, and infrastructure investments, to create a more equitable and resilient energy system.

Conclusion

As American households endure the double burden of extreme summer heat and skyrocketing energy bills, the need for immediate relief and long-term solutions has never been clearer. The current crisis serves as a reminder of the broader challenges facing the nation’s energy system and the importance of addressing both short-term needs and long-term sustainability. By investing in efficient technologies, supporting vulnerable populations, and developing resilient infrastructure, the U.S. can work towards a future where energy costs are manageable, and everyone has access to the resources they need to stay safe and comfortable.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One-Avista acquisition sparks Idaho regulatory scrutiny over foreign ownership, utility merger impacts, rate credits, and public interest, as FERC and FCC approvals advance and consumers question governance, service reliability, and long-term rate stability.

Key Points

A cross-border utility merger proposal with Idaho oversight, weighing foreign ownership, rates, and reliability.

✅ Idaho PUC review centers on public interest and rate impacts.

✅ FERC and FCC approvals granted; state decisions pending.

✅ Avista to retain name and Spokane HQ post-transaction.

“Please don’t sell us to Canada.” That refrain, or versions of it, is on full display at the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, which admittedly isn’t everyone’s go-to entertainment site. But it is vitally important for this reason: the first big test of the expansionist dreams of the politically tempest-tossed Hydro One, facing political risk as it navigates markets, rests with its successful acquisition of Avista Corp., provider of electric generation, transmission and distribution to retail customers spread from Oregon to Washington to Montana and Idaho and up into Alaska.

The proposed deal — announced last summer, but not yet consummated — marks the first time the publicly traded Hydro One has embarked upon the acquisition of a U.S. utility. And if Idahoans spread from Boise to Coeur d’Alene to Hayden are any indication, they are not at all happy with the idea of foreign ownership. Here’s Lisa McCumber, resident of Hayden: “I am stating my objection to this outrageous merger/takeover. Hydro One charges excessive fees to the people it provides for, this is a monopoly beyond even what we are used to. I, in no way, support or as a customer, agree with the merger of this multi-billion-dollar, foreign, company.”

#google#

Or here’s Debra Bentley from Coeur d’Alene: “Fewer things have more control over a nation than its power source. In an age where we are desperately trying to bring American companies back home and ‘Buy American’ is somewhat of a battle cry, how is it even possible that it would or could be allowed for this vital necessity … to be controlled by a foreign entity?”

Or here’s Spencer Hutchings from Sagle: “This is an incredibly bad idea.”

There are legion of similar emails from concerned consumers, and the Maine transmission line debate offers a parallel in public opposition.

The rationale for the deal? Last fall Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt testified before the Idaho commission, which regulates all gas, water and electricity providers in the state. “Hydro One is a pure-play transmission and distribution utility located solely within Ontario,” Schmidt told commissioners. “It seeks diversification both in terms of jurisdictions and service areas. The proposed Transaction with Avista achieves both goals by expanding Hydro One into the U.S. Pacific Northwest and expanding its operations to natural gas distribution and electric generation. The proposed Transaction with Avista will deliver the increased scale and benefits that come from being a larger player in the utility industry.”

Translation: now that it is a publicly traded entity, Hydro needs to demonstrate a growth curve to the investment community. The value to you and me? Arguable. This is a transaction framed as a benefit to shareholders, one that won’t cause harm to customers. Premier Kathleen Wynne is feeling the pain of selling off control of an essential asset. In his testimony to the commission, Schmidt noted that the Avista acquisition would take the province’s Hydro ownership to under 45 per cent. (The Electricity Act technically prevents the sale of shares that would take the government’s ownership position below 40 per cent, though acquisitions appear to allow further dilution. )

Stratospheric compensation, bench-marked against other chief executives who enjoy similarly outsized rewards, is part of this game. I have written about Schmidt’s unconscionable compensation before, but that was when he was making a relatively modest $4 million. Relative, that is, to his $6.2 million in 2017 compensation ($3.5 million of that is in the form of share based awards).

Should the acquisition of Avista be approved, amendments to the CIC, or change in control agreements, for certain named Avista executive officers will allow them to voluntarily terminate their employment without “good reason.” That includes Scott Morris, the company’s CEO, who will exit with severance of $6.9 million (U.S.) and additional benefits taking the total to a potential $15.7 million.

Back to the deal: cost savings over time could be achieved, Schmidt continued in his testimony, though he was unable to quantify those. The integration between the two companies, he promised, will be “seamless.” Retail customers in Idaho, Washington and Oregon would benefit from proposed “Rate Credits” equalling an estimated $15.8 million across five years, even as Hydro One seeks to redesign its bills in Ontario. Idahoans would see a one per cent rate decrease through that period.

While Avista would become a wholly owned Hydro subsidiary, it would retain its name, and its headquarters in Spokane, Wash. In the case of Idaho specifically, a proposed settlement in April, subject to final approval by the commission, stipulates agreements on everything from staffing to governance to community contributions.

Will that meet the test? It’s up to the commission to determine whether the proposed transaction will keep a lid on rates and is “consistent with the public interest.” Hydro One is hoping for a decision from regulatory agencies in all the named states by mid-August and a closing date by the end of September, though U.S. regulators can ultimately determine the fate of such deals. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted its approval in January, followed last week by the Federal Communications Commission. Washington and Alaska have reached settlement agreements. These too are pending final state approvals.

The $5.3-billion deal (or $6.7 billion Canadian) is subject to ongoing hearings in Idaho, and elsewhere rate hikes face opposition as hearings begin. Members of the public are encouraged to have their say. The public comment deadline is June 27.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill aimed at expanding load flexibility in state grid planning, citing conflicts with California’s resource adequacy framework and concerns over grid reliability and energy planning uncertainty.

Why has Newsom vetoed the Bill to Codify Load Flexibility?

Governor Gavin Newsom’s veto blocks legislation that would have required the California Energy Commission to incorporate load flexibility into the state’s energy planning and policy framework, a move that has stirred debate across the clean energy sector.

✅ Argues the bill conflicts with California’s existing Resource Adequacy system

✅ Draws backlash from clean energy and grid modernization advocates

✅ Exposes ongoing tension over how to manage renewable integration and demand response

California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed Assembly Bill 44, which would have required the California Energy Commission to evaluate and incorporate load management mechanisms into the state’s energy planning process. The move drew criticism from clean energy advocates who say it undermines efforts to strengthen grid reliability and reduce costs.

The bill directed the commission to adopt “upfront technical requirements and load modification protocols” that would allow load-serving entities to adjust their electrical demand forecasts. Proponents viewed this as a way to modernize California’s grid management, and to explore a revamp of electricity rates to help clean the grid, making it more responsive to demand fluctuations and renewable energy variability.

In his veto statement, Newsom said the bill was incompatible with existing energy planning frameworks, even as a looming electricity shortage remains a concern. “While I support expanding electric load flexibility, this bill does not align with the California Public Utility Commission’s Resource Adequacy framework,” he said. “As a result, the requirements of this bill would not improve electric grid reliability planning and could create uncertainty around energy resource planning and procurement processes.”

Newsom’s decision comes shortly after he signed a broad package of energy legislation that set the stage for a regional Western electricity market and extended the state’s cap-and-trade program. However, that legislative package did not include continued funding for several key grid reliability programs — including what advocates have called the world’s largest virtual power plant, a distributed network of connected devices that can balance electricity demand in real time.

Clean energy supporters saw AB 44 as a crucial step toward integrating these distributed energy resources into long-term grid planning. “With Assembly Bill 44 being vetoed, the state has missed a huge opportunity to advance common-sense policy that would have lowered costs, strengthened the grid, and unlocked the full potential of advanced energy,” said Edson Perez, California lead at Advanced Energy United.

Perez added that the setback increases pressure on lawmakers to take stronger action in the next legislative session. “The pressure is on next session to ensure that California is using all tools in its policy toolbox to build critically needed infrastructure, strengthen the grid, and bring costs down,” he said.

California’s growing use of demand response programs and virtual power plants has been central to its strategy for managing grid stress during heat waves and wildfire seasons. These systems allow utilities and customers to temporarily reduce or shift energy use, helping to prevent blackouts and reduce the need for fossil-fuel peaker plants during peak demand.

A recent report by the Brattle Group found that California’s taxpayer-funded virtual power plant could save ratepayers $206 million between 2025 and 2028 while reducing reliance on gas generation. The study, commissioned by Sunrun and Tesla Energy, highlighted the potential for flexible load management to improve both grid reliability and reduce costs, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to ensure reliability.

Despite these findings, Newsom’s veto signals continued tension between state policymakers and clean energy advocates over how best to modernize California’s power grid. While the governor has prioritized large-scale renewable development and regional market integration, critics argue that California’s climate policy choices risk exacerbating reliability challenges and that failing to codify load flexibility could slow progress toward a more adaptive, resilient, and affordable clean energy future.

Related Articles

• USA Electricity News

US January power generation climbed to 373.2 TWh, EIA data shows, with coal edging natural gas, record wind output, record nuclear generation, rising hydro, and stable utility-scale solar amid higher Henry Hub prices.

Key Points

US January power generation hit 373.2 TWh; coal led gas, wind and nuclear set records, with solar edging higher.

✅ Coal 31.8% share; gas 29.4%; coal output 118.7 TWh, gas 109.6 TWh.

✅ Wind hit record 26.8 TWh; nuclear record 74.6 TWh.

✅ Total generation 373.2 TWh, highest January since 2014.

The US generated 373.2 TWh of power in January, up 7.9% from 345.9 TWh in December and 9.3% higher than the same month in 2017, Energy Information Administration data shows.

The monthly total was the highest amount in January since 377.3 TWh was generated in January 2014.

Coal generation totaled 118.7 TWh in January, up 11.4% from 106.58 TWh in December and up 2.8% from the year-ago month, consistent with projections of a coal-fired generation increase for the first time since 2014. It was also the highest amount generated in January since 132.4 TWh in 2015.

For the second straight month, more power was generated from coal than natural gas, as 109.6 TWh came from gas, up 3.3% from 106.14 TWh in December and up 19.9% on the year.

However, the 118.7 TWh generated from coal was down 9.6% from the five-year average for the month, due to the higher usage of gas and renewables and a rising share of non-fossil generation in the overall mix.

#google#

Coal made up 31.8% of the total US power generation in January, up from 30.8% in December but down from 33.8% in January 2017.

Gas` generation share was at 29.4% in the latest month, with momentum from record gas-fired electricity earlier in the period, down from 30.7% in December but up from 26.8% in the year-ago month.

In January, the NYMEX Henry Hub gas futures price averaged $3.16/MMBtu, up 13.9% from $2.78/MMBtu averaged in December but down 4% from $3.29/MMBtu averaged in the year-ago month.

WIND, NUCLEAR GENERATION AT RECORD HIGHS

Wind generation was at a record-high 26.8 TWh in January, up 29.3% from 22.8 TWh in December and the highest amount on record, according to EIA data going back to January 2001. Wind generated 7.2% of the nation`s power in January, as an EIA summer outlook anticipates larger wind and solar contributions, up from 6.6% in December and 6.1% in the year-ago month.

Utility-scale solar generated 3.3 TWh in January, up 1.3% from 3.1 TWh in December and up 51.6% on the year. In January, utility-scale solar generation made up 0.9% of US power generation, during a period when solar and wind supplied 10% of US electricity in early 2018, flat from December but up from 0.6% in January 2017.

Nuclear generation was also at a record-high 74.6 TWh in January, up 1.3% month on month and the highest monthly total since the EIA started tracking it in January 2001, eclipsing the previous record of 74.3 TWh set in July 2008. Nuclear generation made up 20% of the US power in January, down from 21.3% in December and 21.4% in the year-ago month.

Hydro power totaled 25.4 TWh in January, making up 6.8% of US power generation during the month, up from 6.5% in December but down from 8.2% in January 2017.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News