GM Volt ready for September?

Affordable Clean Energy Rule Lawsuit pits EPA and coal industry allies against health groups over Clean Power Plan repeal, greenhouse gas emissions standards, climate change, public health, and state authority before the D.C. Circuit.

Key Points

A legal fight over EPA's ACE rule and CPP repeal, weighing emissions policy, state authority, climate, and public health.

✅ Challenges repeal of Clean Power Plan and adoption of ACE.

✅ EPA backed by coal, utilities; health groups seek stricter limits.

✅ D.C. Circuit to review emissions authority and state roles.

The largest trade association representing coal interests in the country has joined other business and electric utility groups in siding with the EPA in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Power Plan.

The suit -- filed by the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association -- seeks to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop a new rule-making process that critics claim would allow higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, further contributing to the climate crisis and negatively impacting public health.

The new rule, which the Trump administration calls the "Affordable Clean Energy rule" (ACE), "would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which EPA has proposed to repeal because it exceeded EPA's authority. The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never gone into effect," according to an EPA statement.

EPA has also moved to rewrite wastewater limits for coal power plants, signaling a broader rollback of related environmental requirements.

America's Power -- formerly the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association have filed motions seeking to join the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has not yet responded to the motion.

Separately, energy groups warned that President Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were rushing major changes to electricity pricing that could disrupt markets.

"In this rule, the EPA has accomplished what eluded the prior administration: providing a clear, legal pathway to reduce emissions while preserving states' authority over their own grids," Hal Quinn, president and chief executive officer of the mining association, said when the new rule was released last month. "ACE replaces a proposal that was so extreme that the Supreme Court issued an unprecedented stay of the proposal, having recognized the economic havoc the mere suggestion of such overreach was causing in the nation's power grid."

Around the same time, a coal industry CEO blasted a federal agency's decision on the power grid as harmful to reliability.

The trade and business groups have argued that the Clean Power Plan, set by the Obama administration, was an overreach of federal power. Finalized in 2015, the plan was President Obama's signature policy on climate change, rooted in compliance with the Paris Climate Treaty. It would have set state limits on emissions from existing power plants but gave wide latitude for meeting goals, such as allowing plant operators to switch from coal to other electric generating sources to meet targets.

Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued that the rule exceeded federal statutory limits by imposing "outside the fence" regulations on coal-fired plants instead of regulating "inside the fence" operations that can improve efficiency.

The Clean Power Plan set a goal of reducing carbon emissions from power generators by 32 percent by the year 2030. An analysis from the Rhodium Group found that had states taken full advantage of the CPP's flexibility, emissions would have been reduced by as much as 72 million metric tons per year on average. Still, even absent federal mandates, the group noted that states are taking it upon themselves to enact emission-reducing plans based on market forces.

In its motion, America's Power argues the EPA "acknowledged that the [Best System of Emission Reduction] for a source category must be 'limited to measures that can be implemented ... by the sources themselves.'" If plants couldn't take action, compliance with the new rule would require the owners or operators to buy emission rate credits that would increase investment in electricity from gas-fired or renewable sources. The increase in operating costs plus federal efforts to shift power generation to other sources of energy, thereby increasing costs, would eventually force the coal-fired plants out of business.

In related proceedings, renewable energy advocates told FERC that a DOE proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants was unsupported by the record, highlighting concerns about market distortions.

"While we are confident that EPA will prevail in the courts, we also want to help EPA defend the new rule against others who prefer extreme regulation," said Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America's Power.

"Extreme regulation" to one group is environmental and health protections to another, though.

Howard A. Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest, defended the Clean Power Plan in an opinion piece published in June.

"The Midwest still produces more electricity from coal plants than any other region of the country, and Midwesterners bear the full range of pollution harms to public health, the Great Lakes, and overall environmental quality," Learner wrote. "The new [Affordable Clean Energy] Rule is a misguided policy, moves our nation backward in solving climate change problems, and misses opportunities for economic growth and innovation in the global shift to renewable energy. If not reversed by the courts, as it should be, the next administration will have the challenge of doing the right thing for public health, the climate and our clean energy future."

When it initially filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule, the American Lung Association accused the EPA of "abdicat[ing] its legal duties and obligations to protect public health." It also referred to the new rule as "dangerous."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

European Electricity Market Trends 2020 highlight decarbonisation, rising renewables, EV adoption, shifting energy mix, COVID-19 impacts, fuel switching, hydro, wind and solar growth, gas price dynamics, and wholesale electricity price increases.

Key Points

EU power in 2020 saw lower emissions, more renewables, EV growth, demand shifts, and higher wholesale prices.

✅ Power sector CO2 down 14% on higher renewables, lower coal

✅ Renewables 39% vs fossil 36%; hydro, wind, solar expanded

✅ EV share hit 17%; wholesale prices rose with gas, ETS costs

According to the Market Observatory for Energy DG Energy report, the COVID-19 pandemic and favorable weather conditions are the two key drivers of the trends experienced within the European electricity market in 2020. However, the two drivers were exceptional or seasonal.

The key trends within Europe’s electricity market include:

1. Decrease in power sector’s carbon emissions

As a result of the increase in renewables generation and decrease in fossil-fueled power generation in 2020, the power sector was able to reduce its carbon footprint by 14% in 2020. The decrease in the sector’s carbon footprint in 2020 is similar to trends witnessed in 2019 when fuel switching was the main factor behind the decarbonisation trend.

However, most of the drivers in 2020 were exceptional or seasonal (the pandemic, warm winter, high
hydro generation). However, the opposite is expected in 2021, with the first months of 2021 having relatively cold weather, lower wind speeds and higher gas prices, with stunted hydro and nuclear output also cited, developments which suggest that the carbon emissions and intensity of the power sector could rise.

The European Union is targeting to completely decarbonise its power sector by 2050 through the introduction of supporting policies such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, the Renewable Energy Directive and legislation addressing air pollutant emissions from industrial installations, with expectations that low-emissions sources will cover most demand growth in the coming years.

According to the European Environment Agency, Europe halved its power sector’s carbon emissions in 2019 from 1990 levels.

2. Changes in energy consumption

EU consumption of electricity fell by -4% as majority of industries did not operate at full level during the first half of 2020. Although majority of EU residents stayed at home, meaning an increase in residential energy use, rising demand by households could not reverse falls in other sectors of the economy.

However, as countries renewed COVID-19 restrictions, energy consumption during the 4th quarter was closer to the “normal levels” than in the first three quarters of 2020. 

The increase in energy consumption in the fourth quarter of 2020 was also partly due to colder temperatures compared to 2019 and signs of surging electricity demand in global markets.

3. Increase in demand for EVs

As the electrification of the transport system intensifies, the demand for electric vehicles increased in 2020 with almost half a million new registrations in the fourth quarter of 2020. This was the highest figure on record and translated into an unprecedented 17% market share, more than two times higher than in China and six times higher than in the United States.

However, the European Environment Agency (EEA)argues that the EV registrations were lower in 2020 compared to 2019. EEA states that in 2019, electric car registrations were close to 550 000 units, having reached 300 000 units in 2018.

4. Changes in the region’s energy mix and increase in renewable energy generation

The structure of the region’s energy mix changed in 2020, according to the report.

Owing to favorable weather conditions, hydro energy generation was very high and Europe was able to expand its portfolio of renewable energy generation such that renewables (39%) exceeded the share of fossil fuels (36%) for the first time ever in the EU energy mix.

Rising renewable generation was greatly assisted by 29 GW of wind and solar capacity additions in 2020, which is comparable to 2019 levels. Despite disrupting the supply chains of wind and solar resulting in project delays, the pandemic did not significantly slow down renewables’ expansion.

In fact, coal and lignite energy generation fell by 22% (-87 TWh) and nuclear output dropped by 11% (-79 TWh). On the other hand, gas energy generation was not significantly impacted owing to favorable prices which intensified coal-to-gas and lignite-to-gas switching, even as renewables crowd out gas in parts of the market.

5. Retirement of coal energy generation intensify

 As the outlook for emission-intensive technologies worsens and carbon prices rise, more and more early coal retirements have been announced. Utilities in Europe are expected to continue transitioning from coal energy generation under efforts to meet stringent carbon emissions reduction targets and as they try to prepare themselves for future business models that they anticipate to be entirely low-carbon reliant.

6. Increase in wholesale electricity prices

In recent months, more expensive emission allowances, along with rising gas prices, have driven up wholesale electricity prices on many European markets to levels last seen at the beginning of 2019. The effect was most pronounced in countries that are dependent on coal and lignite. The wholesale electricity prices dynamic is expected to filter through to retail prices.

The rapid sales growth in the EVs sector was accompanied by expanding charging infrastructure. The number of high-power charging points per 100 km of highways rose from 12 to 20 in 2020.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Income-Based Electricity Rates propose a fixed monthly fee set by income as utilities and the CPUC weigh progressive pricing, aiming to cut low-income bills while PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E retain usage-based charges.

Key Points

CPUC plan adds income-tiered fixed fees to lower low-income bills while keeping per-kWh usage charges.

✅ Adds fixed monthly fees by income to complement per-kWh charges

✅ Cuts bills for low-income households; higher earners pay more

✅ Utilities say revenue neutral; conservation signals preserved

California’s electric bills — already some of the highest in the nation — are rising as electricity prices soar across the state, but regulators are debating a new plan to charge customers based on their income level. 

Typically what you pay for electricity depends on how much you use. But the state’s three largest electric utilities — Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company — have proposed a plan to charge customers not just for how much energy they use, but also based on their household income, moving toward income-based flat-fee utility bills over time. Their proposal is one of several state regulators received designed to accommodate a new law to make energy less costly for California’s lowest-income customers.

Some state Republican lawmakers are warning the changes could produce unintended results, such as weakening incentives to conserve electricity or raising costs for customers using solar energy, and some have introduced a plan to overturn the charges in the Legislature.

But the utility companies say the measure would reduce electricity bills for the lowest income customers. Those residents would save about $300 per year, utilities estimate.

California households earning more than $180,000 a year would end up paying an average of $500 more a year on their electricity bills, according to the proposal from utility companies. 

The California Public Utilities Commission’s deadline for deciding on the suggested changes is July 1, 2024, as regulators face calls for action from consumers and advocates. The proposals come at a time when many moderate and low-income families are being priced out of California by rising housing costs.  

Who wants to change the fee structure?
Lawmakers passed and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a comprehensive energy bill last summer that mandates restructuring electricity pricing across the state. 

The Legislature passed the measure in a “trailer-bill” process that limited deliberation. Included in the 21,000-word law are a few sentences requiring the public utilities commission to establish a “fixed monthly fee” based on each customer’s household income. 

A similar idea was first proposed in 2021 by researchers at UC Berkeley and the nonprofit thinktank Next 10. Their main recommendation was to split utility costs into two buckets. Fixed charges, which everyone has to pay just to be connected to the energy grid, would be based on income levels. Variable charges would depend on how much electricity you use.

Utilities say that part of customers’ bills still will be based on usage, but the other portion will reduce costs for lower- and middle-income customers, who “pay a greater percentage of their income towards their electricity bill relative to higher income customers,” the utilities argued in a recent filing. 

They said the current billing system is unjust, regressive and fails to recognize differences in energy usage among households,

“When we were putting together the reform proposal, front and center in our mind were customers who live paycheck to paycheck, who struggle to pay for essentials such as energy, housing and food,” Caroline Winn, CEO of San Diego Gas & Electric in a statement. 

The utilities say in their proposal that the changes likely would not reduce or increase their revenues.

James Sallee, an associate professor at UC Berkeley, said the utilities’ prior system of billing customers mostly by measuring their electric use to pay for what are essentially fixed costs for power is inefficient and regressive. 

The proposed changes “will shift the burden, on average, to a more progressive system that recovers more from higher income households and less from lower income households,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

COVID-19 Impact on Electricity Demand, per IEA data, shows 15% global load drop from lockdowns, with residential use up, industrial and service sectors down; fossil fuel generation fell as renewables and photovoltaics gained share.

Key Points

An overview of how lockdowns cut global power demand, boosted residential use, and increased the renewable share.

✅ IEA review shows at least 15% dip in daily global electricity load

✅ Lockdowns cut commercial and industrial demand; homes used more

✅ Fossil fuels fell as renewables and PV generation gained share

The daily demand for electricity dipped at least 15 per cent across the globe, according to Global Energy Review 2020: The impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on global energy demand and CO2 emissions, a report published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in April 2020, even as global power demand surged above pre-pandemic levels.

The report collated data from 30 countries, including India and China, that showed partial and full lockdown measures adopted by them were responsible for this decrease.

Full lockdowns in countries — including France, Italy, India, Spain, the United Kingdom where daily demand fell about 10% and the midwest region of the United States (US) — reduced this demand for electricity.

Reduction in electricity demand after lockdown measures (weather corrected)

Source: Global Energy Review 2020: The impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on global energy demand and CO2 emissions, IEA

Drivers of the fall

There was, however, a spike in residential demand for electricity as a result of people staying and working from home. This increase in residential demand, though, was not enough to compensate for reduced demand from industrial and commercial operations.

The extent of reduction depended not only on the duration and stringency of the lockdown, but also on the nature of the economy of the countries — predominantly service- or industry-based — the IEA report said.

A higher decline in electricity demand was noted in countries where the service sector — including retail, hospitality, education, tourism — was dominant, compared to countries that had industrial economies.

The US, for example — where industry forms only 20 per cent of the economy — saw larger reductions in electricity demand, compared to China, where power demand dropped as the industry accounts for more than 60 per cent of the economy.

Italy — the worst-affected country from COVID-19 — saw a decline greater than 25 per cent when compared to figures from last year, even as power demand held firm in parts of Europe during later lockdowns.

The report said the shutting down of the hospitality and tourism sectors in the country — major components of the Italian economy — were said to have had a higher impact, than any other factor, for this fall.

Reduced fossil fuel dependency

Almost all of the reduction in demand was reportedly because of the shutting down of fossil fuel-based power generation, according to the report. Instead, the share of electricity supply from renewables in the entire portfolio of energy sources, increased during the pandemic, reflecting low-carbon electricity lessons observed during COVID-19.

This was due to a natural increase in wind and photovoltaic power generation compared to 2019 along with a drop in overall electricity demand that forced electricity producers from non-renewable sources to decrease their supplies, before surging electricity demand began to strain power systems worldwide.

The Power System Operation Corporation of India also reported that electricity production from coal — India’s primary source of electricity — fell by 32.2 per cent to 1.91 billion units (kilowatt-hours) per day, in line with India's electricity demand decline reported during the pandemic, compared to the 2019 levels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Hydro COVID-19 Bill Relief provides payment deferrals, no-penalty payment plans, Crisis Fund grants up to $600, and utility bill assistance as customers face pandemic layoffs, social distancing, and increased home power usage.

Key Points

A BC Hydro program offering bill deferrals, no-penalty plans, and up to $600 Crisis Fund grants during COVID-19.

✅ Defer payments or set no-penalty payment plans

✅ Apply for up to $600 Customer Crisis Fund grants

✅ Measures to ensure reliable power and remote customer service

BC Hydro is implementing a program, including bill relief measures, to help people pay their bills if they’re affected by the novel coronavirus.

The Crown corporation says British Columbians are facing a variety of financial pressures related to the COVID-19 pandemic, as some workplaces close or reduce staffing levels and commercial power consumption plummets across the province.

BC Hydro said it also expects increased power usage as more people stay home amid health officials’ requests that people take social distancing measures, even as electricity demand is down 10% provincewide.

Under the new program, customers will be able to defer bill payments or arrange a payment plan with no penalty, though a recent report on deferred operating costs outlines long-term implications for the utility.

BC Hydro says some customers could also be eligible for grants of up to $600 under its Customer Crisis Fund, if facing power disconnection due to job loss, illness or loss of a family member, while in other jurisdictions power bills were cut for households during the pandemic.

The company says it has taken precautions to keep power running by isolating key facilities, including its control centre, and by increasing its cleaning schedule, a priority even as some utilities face burgeoning debt amid COVID-19.

It has also closed its walk-in customer service desks to reduce risk from face-to-face contact and suspended all non-essential business travel, public meetings and site tours, and warned businesses about BC Hydro impersonation scams during this period.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News