Texas again attempts to block EPA rules

Manitoba Hydro Debt Load surges past $19.2B as the Crown corporation faces shrinking net income, restructuring costs, and PUB rate decisions, driven by Bipole III, Keeyask construction, aging infrastructure, and rising interest rate risks.

Key Points

Manitoba Hydro Debt Load refers to the utility's escalating borrowings exceeding $19B, pressuring rates and finances.

✅ Debt rose to $19.2B; projected near $25B within five years.

✅ Major drivers: Bipole III, Keeyask, aging assets, restructuring.

✅ Rate hikes sought; PUB approved 3.6% vs 7.9% request.

Manitoba Hydro's debt load now exceeds $19 billion as the provincial Crown corporation grapples with a shrinking net income amid ongoing efforts to slay costs.

The utility's annual report, to be released publicly on Tuesday, also shows its total consolidated net income slumped from $71 million in 2016-2017 to $37 million in the last fiscal year, mirroring a Hydro One profit drop as electricity revenue fell.

It said efforts to restructure the utility and reduce costs are partly to blame for the $34 million drop in year-over-year income.

These earnings come nowhere close, however, to alleviating Hydro's long-term debt problem, a dynamic also seen in a BC Hydro deferred costs report about customer exposure. The figure is pegged at $19.2 billion this fiscal year, up from $16.1 billion the previous year and $14.2 billion in 2016.

The utility projects its debt will grow to about $25 billion in the next five years. Its largest expenses include finishing the Bipole III line, working on the Keeyask Generating System that is halfway done and rebuilding aging wood poles and substations, the report said.

"This level of debt increases the potential financial exposure from risks facing the corporation and is a concern for both

the corporation and our customers who may be exposed to higher rate increases in the event of rising interest rates, a prolonged drought or a major system failure," outgoing president and CEO Kelvin Shepherd wrote.

The income drop is primarily a result of the $50 million spent in the form of restructuring charges associated with the utility's efforts to streamline the organization and drive down costs, amid NDP criticism of Hydro changes related to government policy.

Those efforts included the implementation of buyouts for employees through what the utility dubbed its "voluntary departure program."

Among the changes, Manitoba Hydro reduced its workforce by 800 employees, which is expected to save the utility over $90 million per year. It also reduced its management positions by 26 per cent, a Monday news release said, while Hydro One leadership upheaval in Ontario drove its shares down during comparable governance turmoil.

To improve its financial situation, Hydro has applied for rate increases, even as the Consumers Coalition pushes to have the proposal rejected. The Public Utilities Board offered a 3.6 per cent average rate hike, instead of the 7.9 per cent jump the utility asked for.

In May, when the PUB rendered its decision, it made several recommendations as an alternative to raising rates, including receiving a share of carbon tax revenue and asking the government to help pay for Bipole III.

Hydro is projecting a net income of $70 million for 2018-2019, which includes the impact of the recent rate increase. That total reflects an approximately 20 per cent reduction in net income from 2017-18 after restructuring costs are calculated.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Manitoba Hydro Phone Scam targets small businesses with disconnection threats, prepaid card payments, caller ID spoofing, phishing texts, and door-to-door fraud; hang up, verify your account directly, and never share banking information.

Key Points

A scam where callers threaten disconnection and demand prepaid cards; verify account status directly with Manitoba Hydro.

✅ Hang up and call Manitoba Hydro at 1-888-624-9376 to verify.

✅ Never pay by prepaid cards, gift cards, or crypto.

✅ Hydro will not cut power on one-hour notice.

Manitoba Hydro is warning customers, particularly small business owners, to be wary of high-pressure scammers, as Ontario utilities warn of scams in other provinces, threatening to shut off their electricity.

The callers demand the customer to make immediate payment by a prepaid card. Often, the calls are made in the middle of the day at a busy time, frightening the customer with aggressive threats about disconnection, as hydro disconnections have made headlines elsewhere, says hydro spokesman Bruce Owen.

"They tell them 'we have a truck on the way to cut off your power. If you don't pay in the next hour you're out of luck,'" he said.

"And because these folks have inventory in freezers and they have customers … they're willing to fork over several hundred or even several thousand dollars on a prepaid card to somebody they don't know to keep the lights on."

Maybe the business owners can't recall, with everything happening, including discussions about Hydro One peak rates in Ontario, if they've made their payments on time. They start second-guessing and believing the person on the other line, Owen says.

And they worry about losing thousands of dollars in business if they lose power. So they're more than willing to run out to a store, buy a prepaid debit card and provide the number to the caller.

"Their goal is to manipulate you into sending money before you figure out it's a scam," said Chris McColm, hydro's security and investigations supervisor. "These people are crooks and you should hang up on them."

For any customers that are in arrears, hydro will work with them to resolve the issue, Owen said.

"We do not have to take that extreme measure of cutting off or disconnecting anybody. That's not the business we're in — we don't strong arm people that way," he said.

"Anybody who's threatening to cut off your power with an hour or half-an-hour notice, well it's it's no better than someone waiting around the corner, waiting the club you over the head in the dark of night. That's what they are."

Fraud reports soar

The power utility has recorded a nearly-300 per cent jump in the number of fraud-related complaints this year over 2017. There have been 862 phone, text and e-mail scams and that could still go much higher.

The current statistics from 2018 have only calculated up to Oct. 31. In 2017, there were 221.

That jump in numbers doesn't necessarily mean there are more scammers out there.

It could simply mean people are finally getting wise to fraudsters and reporting it more, Owen says.

"At the same token, we don't hear of everybody who's been taking advantage of because once they've found out that they've been hoodwinked they don't want to tell anybody because they're so embarrassed," he said.

"These scammers can be very convincing and anyone can be victimized," McColm said.

If you are able to think clearly when some high-pressure caller gets you on the line, Owen suggests asking a few simple questions to challenge their legitimacy:

• What street am I on?
• What does my business look like? 
• What's the weather outside right now?

Phone scammers can falsify their caller ID information to make it appear they're calling from a local number, but what you'll find is most of them aren't in Winnipeg or Manitoba and likely not even this country or continent, Owen says.

The key to being safe is simply to never give out banking information, Owen says. It's a message that has been stressed for years and 80-90 per cent of people understand it, but it's that other 10-20 per cent that are still being victimized.And it's not just phone calls. Many other fraud-related complaints to Manitoba Hydro this year concerned unsolicited text messages to customers saying they had been overbilled, or faced retroactive charges elsewhere, and were eligible for a refund.

This scam is also aimed at getting a customer's personal banking information, under the guise of having money put back into their account.

Also, many people, especially seniors living alone, continue to be targeted by aggressive door-to-door fraudsters, and cases like the electricity theft ring in Montreal underscore the risks, McColm says. However, he adds, hydro employees always display photo ID and will never demand to come into a home. 

If you're unsure whether a phone call, text or email is real or a scam, contact Manitoba Hydro at 1-888-624-9376.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Heavy-Duty Truck Electrification is disrupting the aftermarket as diesel declines: fewer parts, regenerative braking, emissions rules, e-drives, gearboxes, and software engineering needs reshape service demand, while ICE fleets persist for years.

Key Points

Transition of heavy trucks to EV systems, reducing parts and emissions while reshaping aftermarket service and skills.

✅ 33% fewer parts; regenerative braking slashes brake wear

✅ Diesel share declines; EVs and natural gas slowly gain

✅ Aftermarket shifts to e-drives, gearboxes, software and service

Those who sell parts and repair trucks might feel uneasy when reports emerge about a coming generation of electric trucks.

There are reportedly about 33% fewer parts to consider when internal combustion engines and transmissions are replaced by electric motors. Features such as regenerative braking are expected to dramatically reduce brake wear. As for many of the fluids needed to keep components moving? They can remain in their tanks and drums.

Think of them as disruptors. But presenters during the annual Heavy Duty Aftermarket Dialogue are stressing that the changes are not coming overnight. Chris Patterson, a consultant and former Daimler Trucks North America CEO, noted that the Daimler electrification plan underscores the shift as he counts just 50 electrified heavy trucks in North America.

About 88% of today’s trucks run on diesel, with the remaining 12% mostly powered by gasoline, said John Blodgett, MacKay and Company’s vice-president of sales and marketing. Five years out, even amid talk of an EV inflection point, he expects 1% to be electric, 2% to be natural gas, 12% to be gasoline, and 84% on diesel.

But a decade from now, forecasts suggest a split of 76% diesel, 11% gasoline, 7% electric, and 5% natural gas, with a fraction of a percent relying on hydrogen-electric power. Existing internal combustion engines will still be in service, and need to be serviced, but aftermarket suppliers are now preparing for their roles in the mix, especially as Canada’s EV opportunity comes into focus for North American players.

“This is real, for sure,” said Delphi Technologies CEO Rick Dauch.

Aftermarket support is needed
“As programs are launched five to six years from now, what are the parts coming back?” he asked the crowd. “Braking and steering. The fuel injection business will go down, but not for 20-25 years.” The electric vehicles will also require a gear box and motor.

“You still have a business model,” he assured the crowd of aftermarket professionals.

Shifting emissions standards are largely responsible for the transformation that is occurring. In Europe, Volkswagen’s diesel emissions scandal and future emissions rules of Euro 7 will essentially sideline diesel-powered cars, even as electric buses have yet to take over transit systems. Delphi’s light-duty diesel business has dropped 70% in just five years, leading to plant closures in Spain, France and England.

“We’ve got a billion-dollar business in electrification, last year down $200 million because of the downturn in light-duty diesel controllers,” Dauch said. “We think we’re going to double our electrification business in five years.”

That has meant opening five new plants in Eastern European markets like Turkey, Romania and Poland alone.

Deciding when the market will emerge is no small task, however. One new plant in China offered manufacturing capacity in July 2019, but it has yet to make any electric vehicle parts, highlighting mainstream EV challenges tied to policy shifts, because the Chinese government changed the incentive plans for electric vehicles.

‘All in’ on electric vehicles
Dana has also gone “all in” on electrification, said chairman and CEO Jim Kamsickas, referring to Dana’s work on e-drives with Kenworth and Peterbilt. Its gasket business is focusing on the needs of battery cooling systems and enclosures.

But he also puts the demand for new electric vehicle systems in perspective. “The mechanical piece is still going to be there.”

The demand for the new components and systems, however, has both companies challenged to find enough capable software engineers. Delphi has 1,600 of them now, and it needs more.

“Just being a motor supplier, just being an inverter supplier, just being a gearbox supplier itself, yes you’ll get value out of that. But in the longhaul you’re going to need to have engineers,” Kamsickas said of the work to develop systems.

Dauch noted that Delphi will leave the capital-intensive work of producing batteries to other companies in markets like China and Korea. “We’re going to make the systems that are in between – inverters, chargers, battery management systems,” he said.

Difficult change
But people working for European companies that have been built around diesel components are facing difficult days. Dauch refers to one German village with a population of 1,200, about 800 of whom build diesel engine parts. That business is working furiously to shift to producing gasoline parts.

Electrification will face hurdles of its own, of course. Major cities around the world are looking to ban diesel-powered vehicles by 2050, but they still lack the infrastructure needed to charge all the cars and truck fleet charging at scale, he added.

Kamsickas welcomes the disruptive forces.

“This is great,” he said. “It’s making us all think a little differently. It’s just that business models have had to pivot – for you, for us, for everybody.”

They need to be balanced against other business demands, including evolving cross-border EV collaboration dynamics, too.

Said Kamsickas: “Working through the disruption of electrification, it’s how do you financially manage that? Oh, by the way, the last time I checked there are [company] shareholders and stakeholders you need to take care of.”

“It’s going to be tough,” Dauch agreed, referring to the changes for suppliers. “The next three to four years are really going to be game changes. “There’ll be some survivors and some losers, that’s for sure.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California Utility Spending Bill scrutinizes how ratepayer funds are used by utilities, targeting lobbying, advertising, wildfire prevention cost pass-throughs, and CPUC oversight to curb high electricity bills and increase accountability and transparency statewide.

Key Points

Legislation restricting utilities from using ratepayer money for lobbying and ads, with stronger CPUC oversight.

✅ Bans ratepayer-funded lobbying and political advertising

✅ Expands prohibited utility communications and influence spending

✅ Aims to curb bills, boost transparency, and CPUC accountability

California's legislators are about to vote on a bill that would impose stricter regulations on how utility companies spend the money they collect from ratepayers. This legislation directly responds to the growing discontent among Californians who are already grappling with high electricity bills, as Californians ask why electricity prices are soaring amid wildfire prevention efforts.

Consumer rights groups have been vehemently critical of how utilities have been allocating customer funds, amid growing calls for regulatory action from state officials. They allege that a substantial portion of this money is being funnelled into lobbying efforts and advertising campaigns that yield no direct benefits for the customers themselves.

The proposed bill would significantly broaden the definition of what constitutes prohibited advertising and political influence activities on the part of utility companies, separate from income-based fixed electricity charges proposals that affect rate design. This would effectively restrict the ways in which utilities can utilize customer funds for such purposes.

While consumer advocacy groups have favored the legislation, it has drawn opposition from utility companies and some labor unions, as lawmakers weigh overturning income-based utility charges in parallel debates. Opponents contend that it would hinder utilities' ability to communicate effectively with their customers and advocate for their interests. Additionally, they express concerns that the bill could result in job losses within the utility sector.

The vote on the bill is expected to take place on Monday. The outcome of the vote is uncertain, but it is sure to be a closely watched development for Californians struggling with the burden of high electricity bills, with many wondering about major changes to their electric bills in the near term.

California's Electricity Rates: A Burden for Residents

A recent report by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) revealed that the average Californian household spends a significantly higher amount on electricity compared to the national average. This disparity in electricity rates can be attributed to a number of factors, including the financial costs associated with wildfire prevention measures, investments in renewable energy infrastructure, and maintenance of aging electrical grids, even as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid.

Examples of Utility Company Spending that Raise Concerns

Consumer rights groups have specifically highlighted instances where utility companies have used customer money to fund lavish executive compensation packages, sponsor professional sports teams, and finance political campaigns. They argue that these expenditures do not provide any tangible benefits to ratepayers and should not be funded through customer bills.

The Need for Accountability and Prioritization

Proponents of the bill believe that the legislation is necessary to ensure that utility companies are held accountable for how they spend customer funds. They believe that the stricter regulations would compel utilities to prioritize investments that directly improve the quality and reliability of electricity services for Californians, alongside discussions of income-based flat-fee utility bills that could reshape rate structures.

The impending vote on the bill underscores the ongoing tension between the need for reliable electricity services and the desire to keep utility rates affordable for Californians. The outcome of the vote is likely to have a significant impact on how utility companies operate in the state and how much Californians pay for their electricity.

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

Key Points

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

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

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

The Case for Biofuels

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

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

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

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

The Case for Electric Vehicles

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

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

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

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

A Balancing Act

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News