Information sought on advanced battery projects

EU Solar Impact on Electricity Prices highlights how rising solar PV penetration drives negative pricing, shifts peak hours, pressures wholesale markets, and challenges grid balancing, interconnection, and flexibility amid changing demand and renewables growth.

Key Points

Explains how rising solar PV cuts wholesale prices, shifts negative-price hours, and strains grid flexibility.

✅ Negative pricing events surge with higher solar penetration.

✅ Afternoon price dips replace night-time wind-led lows.

✅ Grid balancing, interconnectors, and flexibility become critical.

The latest EU electricity market report has confirmed the affect deeper penetration of solar is having on wholesale electricity prices more broadly.

The Quarterly Report on European Electricity Markets for the final three months of last year noted the number of periods of negative electricity pricing doubled from 2019, to almost 1,600 such events, as global renewables set new records in deployment across markets.

Having experienced just three negative price events in 2019, the Netherlands recorded almost 100 last year “amid a dramatic increase in solar PV capacity,” in the nation, according to the report.

Whilst stressing the exceptional nature of the Covid-19 pandemic on power consumption patterns, the quarterly update also noted a shift in the hours during which negative electric pricing occurred in renewables poster child Germany. Previously such events were most common at night, during periods of high wind speed and low demand, but 2020 saw a switch to afternoon negative pricing. “Thus,” stated the report, “solar PV became the main driver behind prices falling into negative territory in the German market in 2020, as Germany's solar boost accelerated, and also put afternoon prices under pressure generally.”

The report also highlighted two instances of scarce electricity–in mid September and on December 9–as evidence of the problems associated with accommodating a rising proportion of intermittent clean energy capacity into the grid, and called for more joined-up cross-border power networks, amid pushback from Russian oil and gas across the continent.

Rising solar generation–along with higher gas output, year on year–also helped the Netherlands generate a net surplus of electricity last year, after being a net importer “for many years.” The EU report also noted a beneficial effect of rising solar generation capacity on Hungary‘s national electricity account, and cited a solar “boom” in that country and Poland, mirroring rapid solar PV growth in China in recent years.

With Covid-19 falls in demand helping renewables generate more of Europe's electricity (39%) than fossil fuels (36%) for the first time, as renewables surpassed fossil fuels across Europe, the market report observed the 5% of the bloc's power produced from solar closed in on the 6% accounted for by hard coal. In the final three months of the year, European solar output rose 12%, year on year, to 18 TWh and “the increase was almost single-handedly driven by Spain,” the study added.

With coal and lignite-fired power plunging 22% last year across the bloc, it is estimated the European power sector reduced its carbon footprint 14% as part of Europe's green surge although the quarterly report warned cold weather, lower wind speeds and rising gas prices in the opening months of this year are likely to see carbon emissions rebound.

There was good news on the transport front, though, with the report stating the scale of the European “electrically-charged vehicle” fleet doubled in 2020, to 2 million, with almost half a million of the new registrations arriving in the final months of the year. That meant cars with plug sockets accounted for a remarkable 17% of new purchases in Q4, twice the proportion seen in China and a slice of the pie six times bigger than such products claimed in the U.S.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

India Industrial Output Slowdown deepens as power demand slumps, IIP contracts, and electricity, manufacturing, and mining weaken; capital goods plunge while RBI rate cuts struggle to lift GDP growth, infrastructure, and fuel demand.

Key Points

A downturn where IIP contracts as power demand, manufacturing, mining, and capital goods fall despite RBI rate cuts.

✅ IIP fell 4.3% in Sep, worst since Feb 2013.

✅ Power demand dropped for a third month, signaling weak industry.

✅ Capital goods output plunged 20.7%, highlighting weak investment.

India's power demand fell at the fastest pace in at least 12 years in October, signalling a continued decline in the industrial output, mirroring how China's power demand dropped when plants were shuttered, according to government data. Electricity has about 8% weighting in the country's index for industrial production.

India needs electricity to fuel its expanding economy and has at times rationed coal supplies when demand surged, but a third decline in power consumption in as many months points to tapering industrial activity in a nation that aims to become a $5 trillion economy by 2024.

India's industrial output fell at the fastest pace in over six years in September, adding to a series of weak indicators that suggests that the country’s economic slowdown is deep-rooted and interest rate cuts alone may not be enough to revive growth.

Annual industrial output contracted 4.3% in September, government data showed on Monday. It was the worst performance since a 4.4% contraction in February 2013, according to Refinitiv data.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast industrial output to fall 2% for the month.

“A contraction of industrial production by 4.3% in September is serious and indicative of a significant slowdown as both investment and consumption demand have collapsed,” said Rupa Rege Nitsure, chief economist of L&T Finance Holdings.

The industrial output figure is the latest in a series of worrying economic data in Asia's third largest economy, which is also the world's third-largest electricity producer as well.

Economists say that weak series of data could mean economic growth for July-September period will remain near April-June quarter levels of 5%, which was a six-year low, and some analysts argue for rewiring India's electricity to bolster productivity. The Indian government is likely to release April-September economic growth figures by the end of this month.

Subdued inflation and an economic slowdown have prompted the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to cut interest rates by a total of 135 basis points this year, while coal and electricity shortages eased in recent months.

“These are tough times for the RBI, as it cannot do much about it but there will be pressures on it to act ...Blunt tools like monetary policy may not be effective anymore,” Nitsure said.

Data showed in September mining sector fell 8.5%, while manufacturing and electricity fell 3.9% and 2.6% respectively, even as imported coal volumes rose during April-October. Capital goods output during the month fell 20.7%, indicating sluggish demand.

“IIP (Index of Industrial Production) growth in October 2019 is also likely to be in negative territory and only since November 2019 one can expect mild IIP expansion, said Devendra Kumar Pant, Chief Economist and Senior Director, Public Finance, India Ratings & Research (Fitch Group).

Infrastructure output, which comprises eight main sectors, in September showed a contraction of 5.2%, the worst in 14 years, even as global daily electricity demand fell about 15% during pandemic lockdowns.

India's fuel demand fell to its lowest in more than two years in September, with consumption of diesel to its lowest levels since January 2017. Diesel and gasoline together make up over 7.4% of the IIP weightage.

In 2019/20 India's fuel demand — also seen as an indicator of economic and industrial activity — is expected to post the slowest growth in about six years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

PG&E Bankruptcy Plan outlines wildfire victims compensation via a $13.5B trust funded by cash and stock, aiming CPUC and court approval before June 30 to access the state wildfire insurance fund and finalize settlement.

Key Points

A regulator-approved plan funding a $13.5B wildfire victims trust with cash and PG&E stock to exit bankruptcy.

✅ $13.5B trust split between cash and PG&E shares

✅ Targets CPUC and court approval to meet June 30 deadline

✅ Accesses state wildfire insurance fund for future risks

Pacific Gas & Electric's plan for getting out of bankruptcy has won overwhelming support from the victims of deadly Northern California wildfires ignited by the utility's fraying electrical grid, while some have pursued mega-fire lawsuits through the courts as well, despite concerns that they will be shortchanged by a $13.5 billion fund that's supposed to cover their losses.

The company announced the preliminary results of the vote on Monday without providing a specific tally. Those numbers are supposed to be filed with U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali by Friday.

The backing of the wildfire victims keeps PG&E on track to meet a June 30 deadline to emerge from bankruptcy in time to qualify for a coverage from a California wildfire insurance fund created to help protect the utility from getting into financial trouble again.

The current bankruptcy case, which began early last year, will require PG&E to pay out about $25.5 billion to cover the devastation caused by its neglect, including a Camp Fire guilty plea that underscored liabilities in court proceedings. It's the second time in less than 20 years that PG&E has filed for bankruptcy.

The backing for PG&E's plan isn't a surprise, even though some of the roughly 80,000 wildfire victims had been trying to rally resistance to what they consider to be a deeply flawed plan. The misgivings mostly center on the massive debt that the utility will take on to finance the plan and uncertainties about the fluctuating value of the $6.75 billion in company stock that comprises half of the $13.5 billion promised them.

As it became apparent that the COVID-19 pandemic would drive the economy into a deep recession, PG&E's shares plunged along with the rest of the stock market during March, even as it announced pandemic response measures for customers and employees during that period. That led one financial expert to estimate the PG&E stock earmarked for the wildfire victims' trust would be worth only $4.85 billion, a nearly 30% markdown.

But PG&E's stock price has rebounded in recent weeks and it's now worth more than it was when the deal setting up the victims' trust was struck last December. The shares surged more than 8% to $12.28 in Monday's late afternoon trading. The stock stood at $9.65 when PG&E reached its settlement the wildfire victims.

Critics of the utility's plan also are upset because the company still hasn't specified when the fire victims will be able to sell the shares. It now seems likely the victims will have to hold the stock through the upcoming wildfire season in Northern California, raising the specter that another calamity caused by the utility's badly outdated equipment, as power line fire reports have underscored, could cause the shares to plummet before they can cash out.

A petition signed by more than 3,100 wildfire victims recently urged Gov. Gavin Newsom to consider pushing back the deadline for qualifying for the state's wildfire from June 30 to late August to allow for more time to revise PG&E's plan, as many also turn to a wildfire assistance program for interim aid while they wait. Newsom's office hasn't responded to inquiry about the plan from The Associated Press.

But the lawyers representing the wildfire victims advised their clients to vote in favor of PG&E's plan, contending that it's the best deal they are going to get.

PG&E still must get its plan approved by the judge supervising its case, and a recent judge order on dividend use underscores the focus on wildfire mitigation. The confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin May 27. The judge, though, has indicated he will give great weight to the wishes of the wildfire victims.

California state regulators also must approve PG&E's plan, amid projections that rates will stabilize in 2025 for customers. A vote on that is scheduled Thursday before the Public Utilities Commission.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Spain 2050 Renewable Energy Plan drives decarbonisation with wind and solar, energy efficiency, fossil fuel bans, and Paris Agreement targets, enabling net-zero power, emissions cuts, and just transition measures for workers and coal regions.

Key Points

A roadmap to 100 percent renewable power by 2050, deep emissions cuts, and a just transition aligned with Paris goals.

✅ Adds 3,000 MW of wind and solar each year through 2030

✅ Bans new fossil fuel drilling, hydrocarbon extraction, and fracking

✅ Targets 35% energy efficiency gains and 35% green power by 2030

Spain has launched an ambitious plan to switch its electricity system entirely to renewable sources, similar to California's 100% clean electricity mandate, by 2050 and completely decarbonise its economy soon after.

By mid-century, as EU electricity demand projections suggest increases, greenhouse gas emissions would be slashed by 90% from 1990 levels under Spain’s draft climate change and energy transition law.

To do this, the country’s social democratic government is committing to installing at least 3,000MW of wind and solar power capacity every year in the next 10 years ahead.

New licences for fossil fuel drills, hydrocarbon exploitation and fracking wells, will be banned, and a fifth of the state budget will be reserved for measures that can mitigate climate change. This money will ratchet upwards from 2025.

Christiana Figueres, a former executive secretary of the UN’s framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC), hailed the draft Spanish law as “an excellent example of the Paris agreement”. She added: “It sets a long-term goal, provides incentives on scaling up emissions technologies and cares about a good transition for the workforce.”

Under the plan, “just transition” contracts will be drawn up, similar to the £220m package announced in October, that will shut most Spanish coalmines in return for a suite of early retirement schemes, re-skilling in clean energy jobs, and environmental restoration. These deals will be partly financed by auction returns from the sale of emissions rights.

The government has already scrapped a controversial “sun tax” that halted Spain’s booming renewables sector earlier this decade, even as IEA analysis finds solar the cheapest electricity worldwide, and the new law will also mandate a 35% electricity share for green energy by 2030.

James Watson, chief executive of the SolarPower Europe trade association, said the law was “a wake-up call to the rest of the world” amid debate on the global energy transition today.

Energy efficiency will also be improved by 35% within 11 years, and government and public sector authorities will be able to lease only buildings that have almost zero energy consumption.

Laurence Tubiana, chief executive of the European Climate Foundation, and former French climate envoy who helped draft the Paris accord, described the agreement as groundbreaking and inspirational. “By planning on going carbon neutral, Spain shows that the battle against climate change is deadly serious, that they are ready to step up and plan to reap the rewards of decarbonisation,” she said.

However, the government’s hold on power is fragile. With just a quarter of parliamentary seats it will depend on the more leftwing Podemos and liberal Ciudadanos parties to pass the climate plan.

No dates were included in the legislation for phaseouts of coal or nuclear energy, and, echoing UK net zero policy shifts, a ban on new cars with petrol or diesel engines was delayed until 2040.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Electricity Pricing Pilot Projects explore alternative rates beyond time-of-use, with LDCs and the Ontario Energy Board testing dynamic pricing, demand management, smart-meter billing, and residential customer choice to enhance service and energy efficiency.

Key Points

Ontario LDC trials testing alternatives to time-of-use rates to improve billing, demand response, and efficiency.

✅ Data shared across LDCs and Ontario Energy Board provincewide

✅ Tests dynamic pricing, peak/off-peak plans, demand management

✅ Insights to enhance customer choice, bills, and energy savings

The results from three electricity pilot projects being offered in southern Ontario will be valuable to utility companies across the province.

Ontario Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault was in Barrie on Tuesday to announce the pilot projects, which will explore alternative pricing plans for electricity customers from three different utility companies, informed by the electricity cost allocation framework guiding rate design.

"Everyone in the industry is watching to see how the pilots deliver.", said Wendy Watson, director of communications for Greater Sudbury Utilities.

"The data will be shared will all the LDCs [local distribution companies] in the province, and probably beyond...because the industry tends to share that kind of information."

Most electricity customers in the province are billed using time-of-use rates, including options like the ultra-low overnight rates that lower costs during off-peak periods, where the cost of electricity varies depending on demand.

The Ontario Energy Board said in a media release that the projects will give residential customers more choice in how much they pay for electricity at different times, reflecting changes for Ontario electricity consumers that expand plan options.

Pilot projects can help improve service

Watson says these kinds of projects give LDCs the chance to experiment and explore new ways of delivering their service, including demand-response initiatives like the Peak Perks program that encourage conservation.

"Any pilot project is a great way to see if in practice if the theory proves out, so I think it's great that the province is supporting these LDCs," she says.

GSU recently completed its own pilot project, the Home Energy Assessment and Retrofit (HEAR) program, which focused on customers who use electric baseboards to heat their homes, amid broader provincial support for electric bills to ease costs."We installed some measures, like programmable thermostats and a few other pieces of equipment into their house," Watson says. "We also made some recommendations about other things that they could do to make their homes more energy efficient."

At the end of the program, GSU provided customers with a report so that they could the see the overall impact on their energy consumption.

Watson says a report on the results of the HEAR program will be released in the near future, for other LDCs interested in new ways to improve their service.

"We think it's incumbent on every LDC...to see what ideas that they can come up with and get approved so they can best serve their customers."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News