Italy rejoins the nuclear club

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One CEO Salary shapes debate on Ontario electricity costs, executive compensation, sunshine list transparency, and public disclosure rules, as officials argue pay is not driving planned hydro rate cuts for consumers.

Key Points

Hydro One CEO pay disclosed in public filings, central to debates on Ontario electricity rates and transparency.

✅ 2016 compensation: $4.5M (salary + bonuses)

✅ Excluded from Ontario's sunshine list after privatization

✅ Government says pay won't affect planned hydro rate cuts

The $4.5 million in pay received by Hydro One's CEO is not a factor in the government's plan to cut electricity costs for consumers, an Ontario cabinet minister said Thursday amid opposition concerns about the executive's compensation and wider sector pressures such as Manitoba Hydro's rising debt in other provinces.

Treasury Board President Liz Sandals made her comments on the eve of the release of the province's so-called sunshine list.

The annual disclosure of public-sector salaries over $100,000 will be released Friday, but Hydro One salaries such as that of company boss Mayo Schmidt won't be on it.Though the government still owns most of Hydro One — 30 per cent has been sold — the company is required to follow the financial disclosure rules of publicly traded companies, which means disclosing the salaries of its CEO, CFO and next three highest-paid executives, and financial results such as a Q2 profit decline in filings.

New filings show that Schmidt was paid $4.5 million in 2016 — an $850,000 salary plus bonuses — and those top five executives were paid a total of about $11.7 million. 

"Clearly that's a very large amount," said Sandals. Sandals wouldn't say whether or not she thought the pay was appropriate at a time when the government is trying to reduce system costs and cut people's hydro bills.

Mayo Schmidt, President & CEO of Hydro One Limited and Hydro One Inc. (Hydro One )

But she suggested the CEO's salary was not a factor in efforts to bring down hydro prices, even as Hydro One shares fell after a leadership shakeup in a later period. "The CEO salary is not part of the equation of will 'we be able to make the cut,"' she said. "Regardless of what those salaries are, we will make a 25-per-cent-off cut." The cut coming this summer is actually an average of 17 per cent -- the 25-per-cent figure factors in an earlier eight-per-cent rebate.

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, who has proposed to make hydro public again in Ontario, said the executive salaries are relevant to cutting hydro costs.

"All of this is cost of operating the electricity system, it's part of the operating of Hydro One and so of course those increased salaries are going to impact the cost of our electricity," she said.

Schmidt was appointed Aug. 31, 2015, and in the last four months of that year earned $1.3 million, but the former CEO was paid $745,000 in 2014. About 3,800 workers were paid over $100,000 that year, none of whom will be on the sunshine list this year.

Progressive Conservative energy critic Todd Smith has a private member's bill that would put Hydro One salaries back on the list, amid investor concerns about Hydro One that cite too many unknowns.

"The Wynne Liberals don't want the people of Ontario to know that their rates have helped create a new millionaire's club at Hydro One," Smith said. "Hydro One is still under the majority ownership of the public, but Premier Kathleen Wynne has removed these salaries from the public's watchful eye."

The previous sunshine list showed 115,431 people were earning more than $100,000 — an increase of nearly 4,000 people despite the fact 3,774 Hydro One workers were not on the list for the first time.

Tom Mitchell, the former CEO at Ontario Power Generation who resigned last summer, topped the 2015 list at $1.59 million.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

DOE Grid Resilience Pricing Rule faces FERC review as energy groups challenge an expedited timeline to reward coal and nuclear for reliability in wholesale markets, impacting natural gas, renewables, baseload economics, and grid pricing.

Key Points

A DOE proposal directing FERC to compensate coal and nuclear plants for reliability attributes in wholesale markets.

✅ Industry coalition seeks normal FERC timeline and review

✅ Impacts wholesale pricing, baseload economics, reliability

✅ Request for 90-day comments and reply period

A coalition of 11 industry groups is pushing back on Energy Secretary Rick Perry's efforts to quickly implement a major change to the way electric power is priced in the United States.

The Energy Department on Friday proposed a rule that stands to bolster coal and nuclear power plants by forcing the regional markets that set electricity prices to compensate them for the reliability they provide. Perry asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to consider and finalize the rule within 60 days, including a 45-day period during which stakeholders can issue comments.

On Monday, groups representing petroleum, natural gas, electric power and renewable energy interests including ACORE urged FERC to reject the expedited process, as well as the Department of Energy's request that the regulatory commission consider putting in place an interim rule.

They say the time frame is "aggressive" and the department didn't provide adequate justification for fast-tracking a process that could have huge impacts on wholesale electricity markets.

"This is one of the most significant proposed rules in decades related to the energy industry and, if finalized, would unquestionably have significant ramifications for wholesale markets under the Commission's jurisdiction," the groups said in the motion filed with FERC.

"The Energy Industry Associations urge the Commission to reject the proposed unreasonable timelines and instead proceed in a manner that would afford meaningful consideration of public comments and be consistent with the normal deliberative process that it typically affords such major undertakings," they said.

The groups are requesting a 90-day comment period, as well as another period for reply comments. FERC, which has authority to regulate interstate transmission and sale of electricity and natural gas, is not required to decide in favor of the rule but, amid a recent FERC decision that drew industry criticism, must consider it.

Expediting the process or imposing an interim rule is generally limited to emergencies, the groups said. The Energy Department's letter to FERC does not even attempt to establish that an immediate threat to U.S. electricity reliability exists, they allege.

• A coalition of energy industry groups asked regulators to reject a rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Energy on Friday.
• The rule would bolster coal-fired and nuclear power plants by requiring wholesale markets to compensate them for certain attributes.
• The groups say the Energy Department proposed "unreasonable timelines" for stakeholders to offer feedback on a rule with "significant ramifications for wholesale markets."

The groups cite a recent Energy Department report on grid reliability that concluded: "reliability is adequate today despite the retirement of 11 percent of the generating capacity available in 2002, as significant additions from natural gas, wind, and solar have come online since then."

The Department of Energy did not return a request for comment.

The Energy Department's rule marks a flashpoint in the battle between natural gas-fired and renewable energy and so-called baseload power sources like coal and nuclear.

Separately, coal and business groups have supported the EPA in litigation over the Affordable Clean Energy rule, as documented in legal challenges brought during the rule's defense.

Gas, wind and solar power have eaten into coal and nuclear's share of U.S. electric power generation in recent years. That is thanks to a boom in U.S. gas production that has pushed down prices, the rapid adoption of subsidized renewable energy and President Barack Obama's efforts to mitigate emissions from power plants, which the Trump administration has sought to replace with a tune-up as policies shift.

Electric power is priced in deregulated, wholesale markets in many parts of the country. Utilities typically draw on the cheapest power sources first.

Some worry that the retirement of coal-fired and nuclear power plants undermines the nation's ability to reliably and affordably deliver electricity to households and businesses.

President Donald Trump has vowed to revive the ailing coal industry, declaring an end to the 'war on coal' in public remarks. Trump, Perry and other administration officials reject the consensus among climate scientists that carbon emissions from sources like coal-fired plants are the primary cause of global warming.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nova Scotia Power Rate Increase Settlement faces UARB scrutiny as regulators weigh electricity rates, fuel costs, storm rider provisions, Bill 212 limits, and Muskrat Falls impacts on ratepayers and affordability for residential and industrial customers.

Key Points

A deal proposing 13.8% electricity hikes for 2023-2024, before the UARB, covering fuel costs, a storm rider, and Bill 212.

✅ UARB review may set different rates than the settlement

✅ Fuel cost prepayment and hedging incentives questioned

✅ Storm rider shifts climate risk onto ratepayers

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston is calling on provincial regulators to reject a settlement agreement between Nova Scotia Power and customer groups that would see electricity rates rise by nearly 14% electricity rate hike over the next two years.

"It is our shared responsibility to protect ratepayers and I can't state strongly enough how concerned I am that the agreement before you does not do that," Houston wrote in a letter to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board late Monday.

Houston urged the three-member panel to "set the agreement aside and reach its own conclusion on the aforementioned application."

"I do not believe, based on what I know, that the proposed agreement is in the best interest of ratepayers," he said.

The letter does not spell out what his Progressive Conservative government would do if the board accepts the settlement reached last week between Nova Scotia Power and lawyers representing residential, small business and large industrial customer classes.

Other groups also endorsed the deal, although Nova Scotia Power's biggest customer — Port Hawkesbury Paper — did not sign on.

'We're protecting the ratepayers'
Natural Resources Minister Tory Rushton said the province was not part of the negotiations leading up to the settlement.

"As a government or department we had no intel on those conversations that were taking place," he said Tuesday. "So, we saw the information the same as the public did late last week, and right now we're protecting the ratepayers of Nova Scotia, even though the province cannot order Nova Scotia Power to lower rates under current law. We want to make sure that that voice is still heard at the UARB level."

Rushton said he didn't want to presuppose what the UARB will say.

"But I think the premier's been very loud and clear and I believe I have been, too. The ratepayers are at the top of our mind. We have different tools at our [disposal] and we'll certainly do what we can and need to [do] to protect those ratepayers."

The settlement agreement
If approved by regulators, rates would rise by 6.9 per cent in 2023 and 6.9 per cent in 2024 — almost the same amount on the table when hearings before the review board ended in September.

The Houston government later intervened with legislation, known as Bill 212, that capped rates to cover non-fuel costs by 1.8 per cent. It did not cap rates to cover fuel costs or energy efficiency programs.

In a statement announcing the agreement, Nova Scotia Power president Peter Gregg claimed the settlement adhered "to the direction provided by the provincial government through Bill 212."

Consumer advocate Bill Mahody, representing residential customers, told CBC News the proposed 13.8 per cent increase was "a reasonable rate increase given the revenue requirement that was testified to at the hearing."

Settlement 'remarkably' similar to NSP application
The premier disagrees, noting that the settlement and rate application that triggered the rate cap are "remarkably consistent."

He objects to the increased amount of fuel costs rolled into rates next year before the annual true up of actual fuel costs, which are automatically passed on to ratepayers.

"If Nova Scotia Power is effectively paid in advance, what motive do they have to hedge and mitigate the adjustment eventually required," Houston asked in his letter.

He also objected to the inclusion of a storm rider in rates to cover extreme weather, which he said pushed the risk of climate change on to ratepayers.

Premier second-guesses Muskrat Falls approval
Houston also second-guessed the board for approving Nova Scotia Power's participation in the Muskrat Falls hydro project in Labrador.

"The fact that Nova Scotians have paid over $500 million for this project with minimal benefit, and no one has been held accountable, is wrong," he said. "It was this board of the day that approved the contracts and entered the final project into rates."

Ratepayers are committed to paying $1.7 billion for the Maritime Link to bring the green source of electricity into the province, while rate mitigation talks in Newfoundland lack public details for their customers.

Although the Maritime Link was built on time and on budget by an affiliated company, only a fraction of Muskrat Falls hydro has been delivered because of ongoing problems in Newfoundland, including an 18% electricity rate hike deemed unacceptable by the province's consumer advocate.

"I find it remarkable that those contracts did not include different risk sharing mechanisms; they should have had provisions for issues in oversight of project management. Nevertheless, it was approved, and is causing significant harm to ratepayers in the form of increased rates."

Houston notes that because of non-delivery from Muskrat Falls, Nova Scotia Power has been forced to buy much more expensive coal to burn to generate electricity.

Opposition reaction
Opposition parties in Nova Scotia reacted to Houston's letter.

NDP Leader Claudia Chender dismissed it as bluster.

"It exposes his Bill 212 as not really helping Nova Scotians in the way that he said it would," she said. "Nothing in the settlement agreement contravenes that bill. But it seems that he's upset that he's been found out. And so here we are with another intervention in an independent regulatory body."

Liberal Leader Zach Churchill said the government should intervene to help ratepayers directly.

"We just think that it makes more sense to do that directly by supporting ratepayers through heating assistance, lump-sum electricity credits, rebate programs and expanding the eligibility for that or to provide funding directly to ratepayers instead of intervening in the energy market in this way," he said.

The premier's office said that no one was available when asked about an interview on Tuesday.

"The letter speaks for itself," the office responded.

Nova Scotia Power issued a statement Tuesday. It did not directly address Houston's claims.

"The settlement agreement is now with the NS Utility and Review Board," the utility said.

"The UARB process is designed to ensure customers are represented with strong advocates and independent oversight. The UARB will determine whether the settlement results in just and reasonable rates and is in the public interest."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Irving Oil hydrogen electrolyzer expands green hydrogen capacity at the Saint John refinery with Plug Power technology, cutting carbon emissions, enabling clean fuel for buses, and supporting Atlantic Canada decarbonization and renewable grid integration.

Key Points

A 5 MW Plug Power unit at Irving's Saint John refinery producing low-carbon hydrogen via electrolysis.

✅ Produces 2 tonnes/day, enough to fuel about 60 hydrogen buses

✅ Uses grid power; targets cleaner supply via renewables and nuclear

✅ First Canadian refinery investing in electrolyzer technology

Irving Oil is expanding hydrogen capacity at its Saint John, N.B., refinery in a bid to lower carbon emissions and offer clean energy to customers.

The family-owned company said Tuesday it has a deal with New York-based Plug Power Inc. to buy a five-megawatt hydrogen electrolyzer that will produce two tonnes of hydrogen a day — equivalent to fuelling 60 buses with hydrogen — using electricity from the local grid and drawing on examples such as reduced electricity rates proposed in Ontario to grow the hydrogen economy.

Hydrogen is an important part of the refining process as it's used to lower the sulphur content of petroleum products like diesel fuel, but most refineries produce hydrogen using natural gas, which creates carbon dioxide emissions and raises questions explored in hydrogen's future for power companies in the energy sector.

"Investing in a hydrogen electrolyzer allows us to produce hydrogen in a very different way," Irving director of energy transition Andy Carson said in an interview.

"Instead of using natural gas, we're actually using water molecules and electricity through the electrolysis process to produce ... a clean hydrogen."

Irving plans to continue to work with others in the province to decarbonize the grid amid pressures like Ontario's push into energy storage as electricity supply tightens and ensure the electricity being used to power its hydrogen electrolyzer is as clean as possible, he said.

N.B. Power's electrical system includes 14 generating stations powered by hydro, coal, oil, wind, nuclear and diesel. The utility has committed to increasing its renewable energy sources and exploring innovations such as EV-to-grid integration piloted in Nova Scotia.

Irving said it will be the first oil refinery in Canada to invest in electrolyzer technology, as Ontario's Hydrogen Innovation Fund supports broader deployment nationwide.

The company said its goal is to offer hydrogen fuelling infrastructure in Atlantic Canada, complementing N.L.'s fast-charging network for EV drivers in the region.

"This kind of investment allows us to not just move to a cleaner form of hydrogen in the refinery. It also allows us to store and make hydrogen available to the marketplace," Carson said.

Federal watchdog warns Canada's 2030 emissions target may not be achievable
The hydrogen technology will help Irving "unlock pent up demand for hydrogen as an energy transition fuel for logistics organizations," he said.

Alberta also aims to expand its hydrogen production over the coming years, alongside British Columbia's $900 million hydrogen project moving ahead on the West Coast. 

Those plans lean on the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology that aims to trap the emissions created when producing hydrogen from natural gas.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Western Washington Bomb Cyclone unleashed gale-force winds, torrential rain, and coastal flooding, causing massive power outages from Seattle to Tacoma; storm surge, downed trees, and blocked roads hindered emergency response and infrastructure repairs.

Key Points

A rapidly deepening storm with severe winds, rain, flooding, and major power outages across Western Washington.

✅ Rapid barometric pressure drop intensified the system

✅ Gale-force winds downed trees and power lines

✅ Coastal flooding and storm surge disrupted transport

A powerful "bomb cyclone" recently hit Western Washington, causing widespread destruction across the region. The intense storm left more than half a million residents without power, similar to B.C. bomb cyclone outages seen to the north, with outages affecting communities from Seattle to Olympia. This weather phenomenon, marked by a rapid drop in atmospheric pressure, unleashed severe wind gusts, heavy rain, and flooding, causing significant disruption to daily life.

The bomb cyclone, which is a rapidly intensifying storm, typically features a sharp drop in barometric pressure over a short period of time. This creates extreme weather conditions, including gale-force winds, torrential rain, and coastal flooding, as seen during California storm impacts earlier in the season. In Western Washington, the storm struck just as the region was beginning to prepare for the winter season, catching many off guard with its strength and unpredictability.

The storm's impact was immediately felt as high winds downed trees, power lines, and other infrastructure. By the time the worst of the storm had passed, utility companies had reported widespread power outages, with more than 500,000 customers losing electricity. The outages were particularly severe in areas like Seattle, Tacoma, and the surrounding communities. Crews worked tirelessly in difficult conditions to restore power, but many residents faced extended outages, underscoring US grid climate vulnerabilities that complicate recovery efforts, with some lasting for days due to the scope of the damage.

The power outages were accompanied by heavy rainfall, leading to localized flooding. Roads were inundated, making it difficult for first responders and repair crews to reach affected areas. Emergency services were stretched thin as they dealt with downed trees, blocked roads, and flooded neighborhoods. In some areas, floodwaters reached homes, forcing people to evacuate. In addition, several schools were closed, and public transportation services were temporarily halted, leaving commuters stranded and businesses unable to operate.

As the storm moved inland, its effects continued to be felt. Western Washington’s coastal regions were hammered by high waves and storm surges, further exacerbating the damage. The combination of wind and rain also led to hazardous driving conditions, prompting authorities to advise people to stay off the roads unless absolutely necessary.

While power companies worked around the clock to restore electricity, informed by grid resilience strategies that could help utilities prepare for future events, challenges persisted. Fallen trees and debris blocked access to repair sites, and the sheer number of outages made it difficult for crews to restore power quickly. Some customers were left in the dark for days, forced to rely on generators, candles, and other makeshift solutions. The storm's intensity left a trail of destruction, requiring significant resources to address the damages and rebuild critical infrastructure.

In addition to the immediate impacts on power and transportation, the bomb cyclone raised important concerns about climate change and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events. Experts note that storms like these are becoming more common, with rapid intensification leading to more severe consequences and compounding pressures such as extreme-heat electricity costs for households. As the planet warms, scientists predict that such weather systems will continue to grow in strength, posing greater challenges to cities and regions that are not always prepared for such extreme events.

In the aftermath of the storm, local governments and utility companies faced the daunting task of not only restoring services but also assessing the broader impact of the storm on communities. Many areas, especially those hit hardest by flooding and power outages, will require substantial recovery efforts. The devastation of the bomb cyclone highlighted the vulnerability of infrastructure in the face of rapidly changing weather patterns and water availability, as seen in BC Hydro drought adaptations nearby, and reinforced the need for greater resilience in the face of future storms.

The storm's impact on the Pacific Northwest is a reminder of the power of nature and the importance of preparedness. As Western Washington recovers, there is a renewed focus on strengthening infrastructure, including expanded renewable electricity to diversify supply, improving emergency response systems, and ensuring that communities are better equipped to handle the challenges posed by increasingly severe weather events. For now, residents remain hopeful that the worst is behind them and are working together to rebuild and prepare for whatever future storms may bring.

The bomb cyclone has left an indelible mark on Western Washington, but it also serves as a call to action for better preparedness, more robust infrastructure, and a greater focus on combating climate change to mitigate the impact of such extreme weather in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News