China set for additional 1,650MW of wind power

US Electricity Price Surge drives bills as BLS data show 15.8 percent jump; natural gas and coal costs escalate amid energy crisis, NYISO warns of wholesale prices and winter futures near $200 per MWh.

Key Points

A sharp rise in power bills driven by higher natural gas and coal costs and tighter wholesale markets.

✅ BLS reports electricity bills up 15.8% year over year

✅ Natural gas bills up 33% as fuel costs soar

✅ NYISO flags winter wholesale prices near $200/MWh

Electricity bills for US consumers jumped the most since 1981, gaining 15.8% from the same period a year ago, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and residential bills rose 5% in 2022 across the U.S.

Natural gas bills, which crept back up last month after dipping in July, surged 33% from the same month last year, labor data released Tuesday showed, as electricity and natural gas pricing dynamics continue to ripple through markets. Broader energy costs slipped for a second consecutive month because of lower gasoline and fuel oil prices. Even with that drop, total energy costs were still about 24% above August 2021 levels.

Electricity costs are relentlessly climbing because prices for the two biggest power-plant fuels -- natural gas and coal -- have surged in the last year as the US economy rebounds from the pandemic and as Russia’s war in Ukraine triggers an energy crisis in Europe, where German electricity prices nearly doubled over a year. Another factor is the hot and humid summer across most of the lower 48 states drove households and businesses to crank up air conditioners. Americans likely used a record amount of power in the third quarter, according to US Energy Information Administration projections, even as U.S. power demand is seen sliding 1% in 2023 on milder weather.

New York’s state grid operator warned of a “sharp rise in wholesale electric costs expected this winter” with spiking global demand for fossil fuels, lagging supply and instability from Russia’s war in Ukraine driving up oil and gas prices, with multiple energy-crisis impacts on U.S. electricity and gas still unfolding, according to a Tuesday report. Geopolitical factors are ultimately reflected in wholesale electricity prices and supply charges to consumer bills, the New York Independent System Operator said, and as utilities direct more spending to delivery rather than production.

Electricity price futures for this winter have increased fourfold from last year, and potential deep-freeze disruptions to the energy sector could add volatility, with prices averaging near $200 a megawatt-hour, the grid operator said. That has been driven by natural gas futures for the upcoming winter, which are more than double current prices to nearly $20 per million British thermal units.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

NB Power Smart Meter Opt-Out Fees reflect cost causation principles set before the Energy and Utilities Board, covering meter reading charges, transmitter-disable options, rollout targets, and education plans across New Brunswick's smart metering program.

Key Points

Fees NB Power may apply to customers opting out of smart meters, reflecting cost causation and meter-reading costs.

✅ Based on cost causation and meter reading expenses

✅ BC and Quebec charge monthly opt-out surcharges

✅ Policy finalized during rollout after EUB review

NB Power customers who do not want a smart meter installed on their home could be facing a stiff fee for that decision, but so far the utility is not saying how much it might be.  

"It will be based on the principles of cost causation, but we have not gotten into the detail of what that fee would be at this point," said NB Power Senior Vice President of Operations Lori Clark at Energy and Utilities Board hearings on Friday.

In other jurisdictions that have already adopted smart meters, customers not wanting to participate have faced hundreds of dollars in extra charges, while Texas utilities' pullback from smart-home networks shows approaches can differ.

In British Columbia, power customers are charged a meter reading fee of $32.40 per month if they refuse a smart meter, or $20 per month if they accept a smart meter but insist its radio transmitter be turned off. That's a cost of between $240 and $388.80 per year for customers to opt out.

In Quebec, smart meters were installed beginning in 2012. Customers who refused the devices were initially charged $98 to opt out plus a meter reading fee of $17 per month. That was eventually cut by Quebec's energy board in 2014 to a $15 refusal fee and a $5 per month meter reading surcharge.

NB Power said it may be a year or more before it settles on its own fee.

"The opt out policy will be developed and implemented as part of the roll out.  It will be one of the last things we do," said Clark.

Customers need to be on board

NB Power is in front of the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board seeking permission to spend $122.7 million to install 350,000 smart meters province wide, as neighboring markets grapple with major rate increases that heighten affordability concerns.  

The meters are capable of transmitting consumption data of customers back to NB Power in real time, which the utility said will allow for a number of innovations in pricing and service, and help address old meter inaccuracies that affected some households.

The meters require near universal adoption by customers to maximize their financial benefit — like eliminating more than $20 million a year NB Power currently spends to read meters manually. The utility has said the switch will not succeed if too many customers opt out.

"We certainly wouldn't be looking at making an investment of this size without having the customer with us," said Clark.

On Thursday, Kent County resident Daniel LeBlanc, who along with Roger Richard, is opposing the introduction of smart meters for health reasons, predicted a cool reception for the technology in many parts of the province, given concerns that include health effects and billing disputes in Nova Scotia reported elsewhere.

"If one were to ask most of the people in the rural areas, I'm not sure you would get a lot of takers for this infrastructure," said LeBlanc, who is concerned with the long-term effect microwave frequencies used by the meters to transmit data may have on human health.

That issue is before the EUB next week.

Haven't tested the waters

NB Power acknowledged it has not measured public opinion on adopting smart meters but is confident it can convince customers it is a good idea for them and the utility, even as seasonal rate proposals in New Brunswick have prompted consumer backlash.

"People don't understand what the smart meter is," said Clark. "We need to educate our customers first to allow them to make an informed decision so that will be part of the roll out plan."

Clark noted that smart meters, helped by stiff opting out penalties, were eventually accepted by 98 per cent of customers in British Columbia and by 97.4 per cent of customers in Quebec.

"We will check and adjust along the way if there are issues with customer uptake," said Clark.

"This is very similar to what has been done in other jurisdictions and they haven't had those challenges."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC-Alberta Transmission Intertie enables clean hydro to balance wind and solar, expanding transmission capacity so Site C hydro can dispatch power, cut emissions, lower costs, and accelerate electrification across provincial grids under federal climate policy.

Key Points

A cross-provincial grid link using BC hydro to firm Alberta wind and solar, cutting emissions and costs.

✅ Balances variable renewables with dispatchable hydro from Site C.

✅ Enables power trade: peak exports, low-cost wind imports.

✅ Lowers decarbonization costs and supports electrification goals.

By Mark Jaccard

Lost in the news and noise of the federal government's newly announced $170-per-tonne carbon tax was a single, critical sentence in Canada's updated climate plan, one that signals a strategy that could serve as the cornerstone for a future free of greenhouse gas emissions.

"The government will work with provinces and territories to connect parts of Canada that have abundant clean hydroelectricity with parts that are currently more dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation — including by advancing strategic intertie projects."

Why do we think this one sentence is so important? And what has it got to do with the controversial Site C project Site C electricity debate under construction in British Columbia?

The answer lies in the huge amount of electricity we'll need to generate in Canada to achieve our climate goals for 2030 and 2050. Even while we aggressively pursue energy efficiency, our electric cars, buses and perhaps trucks in Canada's net-zero race will need a huge amount of new electricity, as will our buildings and industries. 

Luckily, Canada is blessed with an electricity system that is the envy of the world — already over 80 per cent zero emission, the bulk being from flexible hydro-electricity, with a backbone of nuclear power largely in Ontario, a national electricity success and rapidly growing shares of cheap wind and solar. 

Provincial differences
Yet the story differs significantly from one province to another. While B.C.'s electricity is nearly emissions free, the opposite is true of its neighbour, Alberta, where more than 80 per cent still comes from fossil fuels. This, despite an impressive shift away from coal power in recent years.

Now imagine if B.C. and Alberta were one province.

This might sound like the start of a bad joke, or a horror movie to some, but it's the crux of new research by a trio of energy economists who put a fine point on the value of such co-operation.

The study, by Brett Dolter, Kent Fellows and Nic Rivers, takes a detailed look at the economic case for completing Site C, BC Hydro's controversial large hydro project under construction, and makes three key conclusions.

First, they argue Site C should likely not have been started in the first place. Only a narrow set of assumptions can now justify its total cost. But what's done is done, and absent a time machine, the decision to complete the dam rests on go-forward costs.

On that note, their second conclusion is no more optimistic. Considering the cost to complete the project, even accounting for avoiding termination costs should it be cancelled, they find the economics of completing Site C over-budget status to be weak. If the New York Times had a Site C needle in the style of the newspaper's election visual, it would be "leaning cancel" at this point.

In Alberta, more than 80 per cent of the electricity still comes from fossil fuels, despite an impressive shift away from coal power in recent years. (CBC)
But it is their third conclusion that stands out as worthy of attention. They argue there is a case for completing Site C if the following conditions are met:

B.C. and Alberta reduce their electricity sector emissions by more than 75 per cent (this really means Alberta, given B.C.'s already clean position); and

B.C. and Alberta expand their ability to move electricity between their respective provinces by building new transmission lines.

Let's deal with each of these in turn.

On Condition 1, we give an emphatic: YES! Reducing electricity emissions is an absolute must to meet climate pledges if Canada is to come even close to achieving its net-zero goals. As noted above, a clean electricity grid will be the cornerstone of a decarbonized economy as we generate a great deal more power to electrify everything from industrial processes to heating to transportation and more. 

Condition 2 is more challenging. Talk of increasing transmission connections across Canada, including Hydro-Québec's U.S. strategy has been ongoing for over 50 years, with little success to speak of. But this time might well be different. And the implications for a completed Site C, should the government go that route, are profound.

Wind and solar costs rapidly declining
Somewhat ironically, the case for Site C is made stronger by the rapidly declining costs of two of its apparent renewable competitors: wind and solar.

The cost of wind and solar generation has fallen by 70 per cent and 90 per cent, respectively, a dramatic decline in the past 10 years. No longer can these variable sources of power be derided as high cost; they are unequivocally the cheapest sources of raw energy in electricity systems today.

However, electricity system operators must deal with their "non-dispatchability," a seemingly complicated term that simply means they produce electricity only when the sun shines and the wind blows, which is not necessarily when electricity customers want their electricity delivered (dispatched) to them. And because of this characteristic, the value of dispatchable electricity sources, like a completed Site C, will grow as a complement to wind and solar. 

Thus, as Alberta's generation of cheap wind and solar grows, so too does the value of connecting it with the firm, dispatchable resources available in B.C.

Rather than displacing wind and solar, large hydro facilities with the ability to increase or decrease output on short notice can actually enable more investment in these renewable sources. Expanding the transmission connection, with Site C on one side of that line, becomes even more valuable.

Many in B.C. might read this and rightly ask themselves, why should we foot the bill for this costly project to help out Albertans? The answer is that it won't be charity — B.C. will get paid handsomely for the power it delivers in peak periods and will be able to import wind power at low prices from Alberta in other times. B.C. will benefit greatly from these gains of trade.

Turning to Alberta, why should Albertans support B.C. reaping these gains? The answer is two-fold.

First, Site C will actually enable more low-cost wind and solar to be built in Alberta due to hydro's ability to balance these non-dispatchable renewables. Jobs and economic opportunity will occur in Alberta from this renewable energy growth.

Second, while B.C. imports won't come cheap, they will be less costly than the decarbonization alternatives Alberta would need without B.C.'s flexible hydro, as the economists' study shows. This means lower overall costs to Alberta's power consumers.

A clear role for Ottawa
To be sure, there are challenges to increasing the connectedness of B.C. and Alberta's power systems, not least of which is BC Hydro being a regulated, government-owned monopoly while Alberta is a competitive market amongst private generators. Some significant accommodations in climate policy and grids will be needed to ensure both sides can compete and benefit from trade on an equal footing.

There is also the pesky matter of permitting and constructing thousands of kilometres of power lines. Getting linear energy infrastructure built in Canada has not exactly been our forte of late.

We are not naive to the significant challenges in such an approach, but it's not often that we see such a clear narrative for beneficial climate action that, when considered at the provincial level, is likely to be thwarted, but when considered more broadly can produce a big win.

It's the clearest example yet of a role for the federal government to bridge the gap, to facilitate the needed regulatory conversations, and, let's be frank, to bring money to the table to make the line happen. Neither provincial side is likely to do it on their own, nor, as history has shown, are they likely to do it together. 

For a government committed to reducing emissions, and with a justified emphasis on the electricity sector, the opportunity to expand the Alberta-B.C. transmission intertie, leveraging the flexibility of B.C.'s hydro with the abundance of wind and solar potential on the Prairies, offers a potential massive decarbonization win for Western Canada that is too good to ignore.

Mark Jaccard, a professor at Simon Fraser University, and Blake Shaffer, a professor at the University of Calgary

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

New York Climate Transition Costs highlight rising utility bills for ratepayers as the state pursues renewable energy, electrification, and a zero-emissions grid, with Inflation Reduction Act funding to offset consumer burdens while delivering health benefits.

Key Points

Ratepayer-funded costs to meet New York's renewable targets and zero-emissions grid, offset by federal incentives.

✅ $48B in projects funded by consumers over two decades

✅ Up to 10% of utility bills already paid by some upstate users

✅ Targets: 70% renewables by 2030; zero-emissions grid by 2040

A generational push to tackle climate change in New York that includes its Green New Deal is quickly becoming a pocketbook issue headed into 2024.

Some upstate New York electric customers are already paying 10 percent of their electricity bills to support the state’s effort to move off fossil fuels and into renewable energy. In the coming years, people across the state can expect to give up even bigger chunks of their income to the programs — $48 billion in projects is set to be funded by consumers over the next two decades.

The scenario is creating a headache for New York Democrats grappling with the practical and political risk of the transition.

It’s an early sign of the dangers Democrats across the country will face as they press forward with similar policies at the state and federal level. New Jersey, Maryland and California are also wrestling with the issue and, in some cases, are reconsidering their ambitious plans, including a 100% carbon-free mandate in California.

“This is bad politics. This is politics that are going to hurt all New Yorkers,” said state Sen. Mario Mattera, a Long Island Republican who has repeatedly questioned the costs of the state’s climate law and who will pay for it.

Democrats, Mattera said, have been unable to explain effectively the costs for the state’s goals. “We need to transition into renewable energy at a certain rate, a certain pace,” he said.

Proponents say the switch will ultimately lower energy bills by harnessing the sun and wind, result in significant health benefits and — critically — help stave off the most devastating climate change scenarios. And they hope new money to go green from the Inflation Reduction Act, celebrating its one-year anniversary, can limit costs to consumers.

New York has statutory mandates calling for 70 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and a fully “zero emissions” grid by 2040, among the most aggressive targets in the country, aligning with a broader path to net-zero electricity by mid-century. The grid needs to be greened, while demand for electricity is expected to more than double by 2050 — the same year when state law requires emissions to be cut by 85 percent from 1990 levels.

But some lawmakers in New York, particularly upstate Democrats, and similar moderates across the nation are worried about moving too quickly and sparking a backlash against higher costs, as debates over Minnesota's 2050 carbon-free plan illustrate. The issue is another threat to Democrats heading into the critical 2024 battleground House races in New York, which will be instrumental in determining control of Congress.

Even Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who is fond of saying that “we’re the last generation to be able to do anything” about climate change, last spring balked at the potential price tag of a policy to achieve New York’s climate targets, a concern echoed in debates over a fully renewable grid by 2030 elsewhere. And she’s not the only top member of her party to say so.

“If it’s all just going to be passed along to the ratepayers — at some point, there’s a breaking point, and we don’t want to lose public support for this agenda,” state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, a Democrat, warned in an interview.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out reflects a decisive energy policy shift, retiring reactors as firms shun new builds amid high costs, radioactive waste challenges, climate goals, insurance gaps, and debate over small modular reactors and subsidies.

Key Points

Germany's policy to end nuclear plants and block new builds, emphasizing safety, waste, climate goals, and viability.

✅ Driven by safety risks, waste storage limits, and insurance gaps

✅ High capital costs and subsidies make new reactors uneconomic

✅ Political debate persists; SMRs raise cost and proliferation concerns

A year has passed since Germany deactivated its last three nuclear power plants, marking a significant shift in its energy policy.

Nuclear fission once heralded as the future of energy in Germany during the 1960s, was initially embraced with minimal concern for the potential risks of nuclear accidents. As Heinz Smital from Greenpeace recalls, the early optimism was partly driven by national interest in nuclear weapon technology rather than energy companies' initiatives.

Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Ministry of Development, reflects on that era, noting Germany's strong, almost naive, belief in technology. Germany, particularly the Ruhr region, grappled with smog-filled skies at that time due to heavy industrialization and coal-fired power plants. Nuclear energy presented a "clean" alternative at the time.

This sentiment was also prevalent in East Germany, where the first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1961. In total, 37 nuclear reactors were activated across Germany, reflecting a widespread confidence in nuclear technology.

However, the 1970s saw a shift in attitudes. Environmental activists protested the construction of new power plants, symbolizing a generational rift. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the US, followed by the catastrophic Chornobyl disaster in 1986, further eroded public trust in nuclear energy.

The Chornobyl accident, in particular, significantly dampened Germany's nuclear ambitions, according to Smital. Post-Chernobyl, plans for additional nuclear power plants in Germany, once numbering 60, drastically declined.

The emergence of the Green Party in 1980, rooted in anti-nuclear sentiment, and its subsequent rise to political prominence further influenced Germany's energy policy. The Greens, joining forces with the Social Democrats in 1998, initiated a move away from nuclear energy, facing opposition from the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).

However, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted a policy reversal from CDU and CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to Germany's eventual nuclear phase-out in March 2023, after briefly extending nuclear power amid the energy crisis.

Recently, the CDU and CSU have revised their stance once more, signaling a potential U-turn on the nuclear phaseout, advocating for new nuclear reactors and the reactivation of the last shut-down plants, citing climate protection and rising fossil fuel costs. CDU leader Friedrich Merz has lamented the shutdown as a "black day for Germany." However, these suggestions have garnered little enthusiasm from German energy companies.

Steffi Lemke, the Federal Environment Minister, isn't surprised by the companies' reluctance, noting their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, which she argues would do little to solve the gas issue in Germany, due to its high-risk nature and the long-term challenge of radioactive waste management.

Globally, 412 reactors are operational across 32 countries, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during an energy crunch, with the total number remaining relatively stable over the years. While countries like China, France, and the UK plan new constructions, there's a growing interest in small, modern reactors, which Smital of Greenpeace views with skepticism, noting their potential military applications.

In Germany, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste storage looms large. With temporary storage facilities near power plants proving inadequate for long-term needs, the search for permanent sites faces resistance from local communities and poses financial and logistical challenges.

Environment Minister Lemke underscores the economic impracticality of nuclear energy in Germany, citing prohibitive costs and the necessity of substantial subsidies and insurance exemptions.

As things stand, the resurgence of nuclear power in Germany appears unlikely, with economic factors playing a decisive role in its future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Storm Outages and Landslides strain utilities, trigger flooding, road closures, and debris flows, causing widespread power cuts and infrastructure damage as emergency response teams race to restore service, clear slides, and support evacuations.

Key Points

California Storm Outages and Landslides are storm-driven power cuts and slope failures disrupting roads and utilities.

✅ Tens of thousands face prolonged power outages across regions

✅ Landslides block highways, damage property, hinder access

✅ Crews restore grids, clear debris, support shelters and evacuees

California is grappling with a dual crisis of power outages and landslides following a severe storm that has swept across the state. The latest reports indicate widespread disruptions affecting thousands of residents and significant infrastructure damage. This storm is not only a test of California's emergency response capabilities but also a stark reminder of the increasing vulnerability of the state to extreme weather events, and of the U.S. electric grid in the face of climate stressors.

Storm’s Impact on California

The recent storm, which hit California with unprecedented intensity, has unleashed torrential rain, strong winds, and widespread flooding. These severe weather conditions have overwhelmed the state’s infrastructure, leading to significant power outages that are affecting numerous communities. According to local utilities, tens of thousands of homes and businesses are currently without electricity. The outages have been exacerbated by the combination of heavy rain and gusty winds, which have downed power lines and damaged electrical equipment.

In addition to the power disruptions, the storm has triggered a series of landslides across various regions. The combination of saturated soil and intense rainfall has caused several hillside slopes to give way, leading to road closures and property damage. Emergency services are working around the clock to address the aftermath of these landslides, but access to affected areas remains challenging due to blocked roads and ongoing hazardous conditions.

Emergency Response and Challenges

California’s emergency response teams are on high alert as they coordinate efforts to manage the fallout from the storm. Utility companies are deploying repair crews to restore power as quickly as possible, but the extensive damage to infrastructure means that some areas may be without electricity for several days. The state’s Department of Transportation is also engaged in clearing debris from landslides and repairing damaged roads to ensure that emergency services can reach affected communities.

The response efforts are complicated by the scale of the storm’s impact. With many areas experiencing both power outages and landslides, the logistical challenges are immense. Emergency shelters have been set up to provide temporary refuge for those displaced by the storm, but the capacity is limited, and there are concerns about overcrowding and resource shortages.

Community and Environmental Implications

The storm’s impact on local communities has been profound. Residents are facing not only the immediate challenges of power outages and unsafe road conditions but also longer-term concerns about recovery and rebuilding. Many individuals have been forced to evacuate their homes, and local businesses are struggling to cope with the disruption.

Environmental implications are also significant. The landslides and flooding have caused considerable damage to natural habitats and have raised concerns about water contamination and soil erosion. The impact on the environment could have longer-term consequences for the state’s ecosystems and water supply.

Climate Change and Extreme Weather

This storm underscores a growing concern about the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events linked to climate change. California has been experiencing a rise in severe weather patterns, including intense storms, prolonged droughts, and extreme heat waves that strain the grid. These changes are putting additional strain on the state’s infrastructure and emergency response systems.

Experts have pointed out that while individual storms cannot be directly attributed to climate change, the overall trend towards more extreme weather is consistent with scientific predictions. As such, there is a pressing need for California to invest in infrastructure improvements and resilience measures, and to consider accelerating its carbon-free electricity mandate to better withstand future events.

Looking Ahead

As California deals with the immediate aftermath of this storm, attention will turn to recovery and rebuilding efforts. The state will need to address the damage caused by power outages and landslides while also preparing for future challenges posed by climate change.

In the coming days, the focus will be on restoring power, clearing debris, and providing support to affected communities. Long-term efforts will likely involve reassessing infrastructure vulnerabilities, improving emergency response protocols, and investing in climate resilience measures across the grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News