Coal shortage leads to shutdowns in China's power grid

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

IAEA Nuclear Reactor Simulators enable virtual nuclear power plant training on IPWR/PWR systems, load-following operations, baseload dynamics, and turbine coupling, supporting advanced reactor education, flexible grid integration, and low-carbon electricity skills development during remote learning.

Key Points

IAEA Nuclear Reactor Simulators are tools for training on reactor operations, safety, and flexible power management.

✅ Simulates IPWR/PWR systems with real-time parameter visualization.

✅ Practices load-following, baseload, and grid flexibility scenarios.

✅ Supports remote training on safety, controls, and turbine coupling.

Students and professionals in the nuclear field are making use of learning opportunities during lockdown made necessary by the Covid-19 pandemic, drawing on IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons for the future.

Requests to use the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) basic principle nuclear reactor simulators have risen sharply in recent weeks, IAEA said on 1 May, as India takes steps to get nuclear back on track. New users will have the opportunity to learn more about operating them.

“This suite of nuclear power plant simulators is part of the IAEA education and training programmes on technology development of advanced reactors worldwide. [It] can be accessed upon request by interested parties from around the world,” said Stefano Monti, head of the IAEA’s Nuclear Power Technology Development Section.

Simulators include several features to help users understand fundamental concepts behind the behaviour of nuclear plants and their reactors. They also provide an overview of how various plant systems and components work to power turbines and produce low-carbon electricity, while illustrating roles beyond electricity as well.

In the integral pressurised water reactor (IPWR) simulator, for instance, a type of advanced nuclear power design, users can navigate through several screens, each containing information allowing them to adjust certain variables. One provides a summary of reactor parameters such as primary pressure, flow and temperature. Another view lays out the status of the reactor core.

The “Systems” screen provides a visual overview of how the plant’s main systems, including the reactor and turbines, work together. On the “Controls” screen, users can adjust values which affect reactor performance and power output.

This simulator provides insight into how the IPWR works, and also allows users to see how the changes they make to plant variables alter the plant’s operation. Operators can also perform manoeuvres similar to those that would take place in the course of real plant operations e.g. in load following mode.

“Currently, most nuclear plants operate in ‘baseload’ mode, continually generating electricity at their maximum capacity. However, there is a trend of countries, aligned with green industrial revolution strategies, moving toward hybrid energy systems which incorporate nuclear together with a diverse mix of renewable energy sources. A greater need for flexible operations is emerging, and many advanced power plants offer standard features for load following,” said Gerardo Martinez-Guridi, an IAEA nuclear engineer who specialises in water-cooled reactor technology.

Prospective nuclear engineers need to understand the dynamics of the consequences of reducing a reactor’s power output, for example, especially in the context of next-generation nuclear systems and emerging grids, and simulators can help students visualise these processes, he noted.

“Many reactor variables change when the power output is adjusted, and it is useful to see how this occurs in real-time,” said Chirayu Batra, an IAEA nuclear engineer, who will lead the webinar on 12 May.

“Users will know that the operation is complete once the various parameters have stabilised at their new values.”

Observing and comparing the parameter changes helps users know what to expect during a real power manoeuvre, he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro-Québec Bill 34 Refund issues $535M customer credits tied to electricity rates, consumption-based rebates, and variance accounts, averaging $60 per account and 2.49% of 2018-2019 usage, via bill credits or mailed cheques.

Key Points

A $535M credit refunding 2.49% of 2018-2019 usage to Hydro-Québec customers via bill credits or cheques.

✅ Applies to 2018-2019 consumption; average refund about $60.

✅ Current customers get bill credits; former customers receive cheques.

✅ Refund equals 2.49% of usage from variance accounts under prior rates.

Following the adoption of Bill 34 in December 2019, a total amount of $535 million will be refunded to customers who were Hydro-Québec account holders in 2018 or 2019. This amount was accumulated in variance accounts required under the previous rate system between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019.

If you are still a Hydro-Québec customer, a credit will be applied to your bill in the coming weeks, and improving billing layout clarity is a focus in some provinces as well. The amount will be indicated on your bill.

An average refund amount of $60. The refund amount is calculated based on the quantity of electricity that each customer consumed in 2018 and 2019. The refund will correspond to 2,49% of each customer's consumption between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019, for an average of approximately $60, while Ontario hydro rates are set to increase on Nov. 1.

The following chart provides an overview of the refund amount based on the type of home. Naturally, the number of occupants, electricity use habits and features of the home, such as insulation and energy efficiency, may have a significant impact on the amount of the refund, and in other provinces, oversight debates continue following a BC Hydro fund surplus revelation.

What if you were an account holder in 2018 or 2019 but you are no longer a Hydro-Québec customer?
People who were account holders in 2018 or 2019, but who are no longer Hydro-Québec customers will receive their credit by cheque, a lump sum credit approach seen elsewhere.

To receive their cheque, these people must get in touch to update their address in one of the following ways:  

If they have a Hydro-Québec Customer Space and remember their access code, they can update their profile.

Anyone without a Customer Space or who doesn't remember their access code can fill out the Request for a credit form at the following address: www.hydroquebec.com/credit in which they can indicate the address where they wish to receive their cheque, where applicable.

Those who cannot send us their address online can call 514 385-7252 or 1 888 385-7252 to give it to a customer services representative, as utilities like Hydro One have moved to reconnect customers in some cases. Note that the process will take longer on the phone, especially if the call volume is high.

UPDATE: Hydro-Québec will be returning an additional $35 million to customers under the adoption of Bill 34, amid overcharging allegations reported elsewhere.

Energy Minister Jonatan Julien announced on Tuesday that the public utility will be refunding a total of $535 million to customers between January and April.

The legislation, which was passed in December, allows the Quebec government to take control of the rates charged for electricity in the province, including decisions on whether to seek a rate hike next year under the new framework.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Russia-Ukraine Energy Ceasefire Violations escalate as U.S.-brokered truce frays, with drone strikes, shelling, and grid attacks disrupting gas supply and power infrastructure across Kursk, Luhansk, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk, prompting sanctions calls.

Key Points

Alleged breaches of a U.S.-brokered truce, with both sides striking power grids, gas lines, and critical energy nodes.

✅ Drone and artillery attacks reported on power and gas assets

✅ Both sides accuse each other of breaking truce terms

✅ U.S. mediation faces verification and compliance hurdles

Russia and Ukraine have traded fresh accusations regarding violations of a fragile energy ceasefire, brokered by the United States, which both sides had agreed to last month. These new allegations highlight the ongoing tensions between the two nations and the challenges involved in implementing a truce amid global energy instability in such a complex and volatile conflict.

The U.S.-brokered ceasefire had initially aimed to reduce the intensity of the fighting, specifically in the energy sector, where both sides had previously targeted each other’s infrastructure. Despite this agreement, the accusations on Wednesday suggest that both Russia and Ukraine have continued their attacks on each other's energy facilities, a crucial aspect of the ceasefire’s terms.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence claimed that Ukrainian forces had launched drone and shelling attacks in the western Kursk region, cutting power to over 1,500 homes. This attack allegedly targeted key infrastructure, leaving several localities without electricity. Additionally, in the Russian-controlled part of Ukraine's Luhansk region, a Ukrainian drone strike hit a gas distribution station, severely disrupting the gas supply for over 11,000 customers in the area around Svatove.

In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia of breaking the ceasefire. He claimed that Russian drone strikes had targeted an energy substation in Ukraine’s Sumy region, while artillery fire had damaged a power line in the Dnipropetrovsk region, leaving nearly 4,000 consumers without power even as Ukraine increasingly leans on electricity imports to stabilize the grid. Ukraine's accusations painted a picture of continued Russian aggression against critical energy infrastructure, a strategy that had previously been a hallmark of Russia’s broader military operations in the war.

The U.S. had brokered the energy truce as a potential stepping stone toward a more comprehensive ceasefire agreement. However, the repeated violations raise questions about the truce’s viability and the broader prospects for peace between Russia and Ukraine. Both sides are accusing each other of undermining the agreement, which had already been delicate due to previous suspicions and mistrust. In particular, the U.S. administration, led by President Donald Trump, has expressed impatience with the slow progress in moving toward a lasting peace, amid debates over U.S. national energy security priorities.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov defended Russia’s stance, emphasizing that President Vladimir Putin had shown a commitment to peace by agreeing to the energy truce, despite what he termed as daily Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure. He reiterated that Russia would continue to cooperate with the U.S., even though the Ukrainian strikes were ongoing. This perspective suggests that Russia remains committed to the truce but views Ukraine’s actions as violations that could potentially derail efforts to reach a more comprehensive ceasefire.

On the other hand, President Zelensky argued that Russia was not adhering to the terms of the ceasefire. He urged the U.S. to take a stronger stance against Russia, including increasing sanctions on Moscow as punishment for its violations. Zelensky’s call for heightened sanctions is a continuation of his efforts to pressure international actors, particularly the U.S. and European countries, to provide greater energy security support for Ukraine’s struggle and to hold Russia accountable for its actions.

The ceasefire’s fragility is also reflected in the differing views between Ukraine and Russia on what constitutes a successful resolution. Ukraine had proposed a full 30-day ceasefire, but President Putin declined, raising concerns about monitoring and verifying compliance with the terms. This disagreement suggests that both sides are not entirely aligned on what a peaceful resolution should look like and how it can be realistically achieved.

The situation is complicated by the broader context of the war, which has now dragged on for over three years. The conflict has seen significant casualties, immense destruction, and deep geopolitical ramifications. Both countries are heavily reliant on their energy infrastructures, making any attack on these systems not only a military tactic but also a form of economic warfare. Energy resources, including electricity and natural gas, have become central to the ongoing conflict, with both sides using them to exert pressure on the other amid Europe's deepening energy crisis that reverberates beyond the battlefield.

As of now, it remains unclear whether the recent violations of the energy ceasefire will lead to a breakdown of the truce or whether the United States will intervene further to restore compliance, even as Ukraine prepares for winter amid energy challenges. The situation remains fluid, and the international community continues to closely monitor the developments. The U.S., which played a central role in brokering the energy ceasefire, has made it clear that it expects both sides to uphold the terms of the agreement and work toward a more permanent cessation of hostilities.

The continued accusations between Russia and Ukraine regarding the breach of the energy ceasefire underscore the challenges of negotiating peace in such a complex and entrenched conflict. While both sides claim to be upholding their commitments, the reality on the ground suggests that reaching a full and lasting peace will require much more than temporary truces. The international community, particularly the U.S., will likely continue to push for stronger actions to enforce compliance and to prevent the conflict from further escalating. The outcome of this dispute will have significant implications for both countries and the broader European energy landscape and security landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California income-based utility charges face bipartisan pushback as the PUC weighs fixed fees for PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison, reshaping rate design, electricity affordability, energy equity, and privacy amid proposed per-kWh reductions.

Key Points

PUC-approved fixed fees tied to household income for PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, offset by lower per-kWh rates.

✅ Proposed fixed fees: $51 SCE, $73.31 SDG&E, $50.92 PG&E

✅ Critics warn admin, privacy, legal risks and higher bills for savers

✅ Backers say lower-income pay less; kWh rates cut ~33% in PG&E area

Efforts are being made across California's political landscape to derail a legislative initiative that introduced income-based utility charges for customers of Southern California Edison and other major utilities.

Legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties have proposed bills aimed at nullifying the 2022 legislation that established a sliding scale for utility charges based on customer income, a decision made in a late-hour session and subsequently endorsed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

The plan, pending final approval from the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) — all of whose current members were appointed by Governor Newsom — would enable utilities like Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and PG&E to apply new income-based charges as early as this July.

Among the state legislators pushing back against the income-based charge scheme are Democrats Jacqui Irwin and Marc Berman, along with Republicans Janet Nguyen, Kelly Seyarto, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Scott Wilk, Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, and Roger Niello.

A cadre of specialists, including economist Ahmad Faruqui who has advised all three utilities implicated in the fee proposal, have outlined several concerns regarding the PUC's pending decision.

Faruqui and his colleagues argue that the proposed charges are excessively high in comparison to national standards, reflecting soaring electricity prices across the state, potentially leading to administrative challenges, legal disputes, and negative unintended outcomes, such as penalizing energy-conservative consumers.

Advocates for the income-based fee model, including The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the National Resources Defense Council, argue it would result in higher charges for wealthier consumers and reduced fees for those with lower incomes. They also believe that the utilities plan to decrease per kilowatt-hour rates as part of a broader rate structure review to balance out the new fees.

However, even supporters like TURN and the Natural Resources Defense Council acknowledge that the income-based fee model is not a comprehensive solution to making soaring electricity bills more affordable.

If implemented, California would have the highest income-based utility fees in the country, with averages far surpassing the national average of $11.15, as reported by EQ Research:

• Southern California Edison would charge $51.
• San Diego Gas & Electric would levy $73.31.
• PG&E would set fees at $50.92.

The proposal has raised concerns among state legislators about the additional financial burden on Californians already struggling with high electricity costs.

Critics highlight several practical challenges, including the PUC's task of assessing customers' income levels, a process fraught with privacy concerns, potential errors, and constitutional questions regarding access to tax information.

Economists have pointed out further complications, such as the difficulty in accurately assessing incomes for out-of-state property owners and the variability of customers' incomes over time.

The proposed income-based charges would differ by income bracket within the PG&E service area, for example, with lower-income households facing lower fixed charges and higher-income households facing higher charges, alongside a proposed 33% reduction in electricity rates to help mitigate the fixed charge impact.

Yet, the economists warn that most customers, particularly low-usage customers, could end up paying more, essentially rewarding higher consumption and penalizing efficiency.

This legislative approach, they caution, could inadvertently increase costs for moderate users across all income brackets, a sign of major changes to electric bills that could emerge, challenging the very goals it aims to achieve by promoting energy inefficiency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Electricity Demand Outlook examines EIA forecasts, GDP decoupling, energy efficiency, electrification, electric vehicles, grid load growth, and weather variability to frame long term demand trends and utility planning scenarios.

Key Points

An analysis of EIA projections showing demand decoupling from GDP, with EV adoption and efficiency shaping future grid load.

✅ EIA lowers load growth; demand decouples from GDP.

✅ Efficiency and sector shifts depress kWh sales.

✅ EV adoption could revive load and capacity needs.

Electricity producers and distributors are in an unusual business. The product they provide is available to all customers instantaneously, literally at the flip of a switch. But the large amount of equipment, both hardware and software to do this takes years to design, site and install.

From a long range planning perspective, just as important as a good engineering design is an accurate sales projections. For the US electric utility industry the most authoritative electricity demand projec-tions come from the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA). EIA's compre-hensive reports combine econometric analysis with judgment calls on social and economic trends like the adoption rate of new technologies that could affect future electricity demand, things like LED light-ing and battery powered cars, and the rise of renewables overtaking coal in generation.

Before the Great Recession almost a decade ago, the EIA projected annual growth in US electricity production at roughly 1.5 percent per year. After the Great Recession began, the EIA lowered its projections of US electricity consumption growth to below 1 percent. Actual growth has been closer to zero. While the EIA did not antici-pate the last recession or its aftermath, we cannot fault them on that.

After the event, though, the EIA also trimmed its estimates of economic growth. For the 2015-2030 period it now predicts 2.1 percent economic and 0.3 percent electricity growth, down from previously projections of 2.7 percent and 1.3 percent respectively. (See Figures 1 and 2.)

Table 1. EIA electric generation projections by year of forecast (kWh billions)

Table 2. EIA forecast of GDP by year of forecast (billion 2009 $)

Back in 2007, the EIA figured that every one percent increase in economic activity required a 0.48 percent in-crease in electric generation to support it. By 2017, the EIA calculated that a 1 percent growth in economic activity now only required a 0.14 percent increase in electric output. What accounts for such a downgrade or disconnect between electricity usage and economic growth? And what factors might turn the numbers 
around?

First, the US economy lost energy intensive heavy industry like smelting, steel mills and refineries; patterns in China's electricity sector highlight how industrial shifts can reshape power demand. A more service oriented economy (think health care) relies more heavily on the movement of data or information and uses far less power than a manufacturing-oriented economy.

A small volcano in Argentina is about to fuel the next tech boom – and a little known company is going to be right at the center. Early investors stand to gain incredible profits and you can too. Read the report.

Second, internet shopping has hurt so-called "brick and mortar" retailers. Despite the departure of heavy industry, in years past a burgeoning US commercial sector increased its demand and usage of electricity to offset the industrial decline. But not anymore. Energy efficiency measures as well as per-haps greater concern about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions and have cut into electricity sales. “Do more with less” has the right ring to it.

But there may be other components to the ongoing decline in electricity usage. Academic studies show that electricity usage seems to increase with income along an S curve, and flattens out after a certain income level. That is, if you earn $1 billion per year you do not (or cannot) use ten times a much electricity as someone earning only $100 million.

But people at typical, middle income levels increase or decrease electricity usage when incomes rise or fall. The squeeze on middle income families was discussed often in the late presidential campaign. In recent decades an increasing percentage of income has gone to a small percentage of the population at the top of the income scale. This trend probably accounts for some weakness in residential sales. This suggests that government policy addressing income inequality would also boost electricity sales.

Population growth affects demand for electricity as well as the economy as a whole. The EIA has made few changes in its projections, showing 0.7 percent per year population growth in 2015- 2030 in both the 2007 and 2017 forecasts. Recent studies, however, have shown a drop in the birth rate to record lows. More troubling, from a national health perspective is that the average age of death may have stopped rising. Those two factors point to lower population growth, especially if the government also restricts immi-gration. Thus, the US may be approaching a period of rather modest population growth.

All of the above factors point to minimal sales growth for electricity producers in the US--perhaps even lower than the seemingly conservative EIA estimates. But the cloud on the horizon has a silver lining in the shape of an electric car. Both the United Kingdom and France have set dates to end of production of automobiles with internal combustion engines. Several European car makers have declared that 20 percent of their output will be electric vehicles by the early 2020s. If we adopt automobiles powered by electricity and not gasoline or diesel, electricity sales would increase by one third. For the power indus-try, electric vehicles represent the next big thing.

We don’t pretend to know how electric car sales will progress. But assume vehicle turnover rates re-main at the current 7 percent per year and electric cars account for 5 percent of sales in the first five years (as op-posed to 1 percent now), 20 percent in the next five years and 50 percent in the third five year period. Wildly optimistic assumptions? Maybe. By 2030, electric cars would constitute 28 percent of the vehicle fleet. They would add about 10 percent to kilowatt hour sales by that date, assuming that battery efficiencies do not improved by then. Those added sales would require increased electric generation output, with low-emissions sources expected to cover almost all the growth globally. They would also raise long term growth rates for 2015-2030 from the present 0.3 percent to 1.0 percent. The slow upturn in demand should give the electric companies time to gear up so to speak.

In the meantime, weather will continue to play a big role in electricity consumption. Record heat-induced demand peaks are being set here in the US even as surging global demand puts power systems under strain worldwide.

Can we discern a pattern in weather conditions 15 years out? Maybe we can, but that is one topic we don’t expect a government agency to tackle in public right now. Meantime, weather will affect sales more than anything else and we cannot predict the weather. Or can we?

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News