TVAÂ’s CEO says trust the agency

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

Build Back Better Act Energy Savings curb volatile fossil fuel heating bills by accelerating electrification and renewable electricity, insulating households from natural gas, propane, and oil price spikes while cutting emissions and lowering energy costs.

Key Points

BBBA policies expand clean power and electrification to curb volatility, lower bills, and cut emissions.

✅ Tax credits for renewables, EVs, and efficient all-electric homes

✅ Shields households from natural gas, propane, and heating oil spikes

✅ Cuts methane, lowers bills, and improves grid reliability and jobs

Experts are forecasting serious sticker shock from home heating bills this winter. Nearly 60 percent of United States’ households heat their homes with fossil fuels, including natural gas, propane, or heating oil, and these consumers are expected to spend much more this winter because of fuel price increases.

That could greatly burden many families and businesses already operating on thin margins. Yet homes that use electricity for heating and cooking are largely insulated from the pain of volatile fuel markets, and they’re facing dramatically lower price increases as a result.

Projections say cost increases for households could range anywhere from 22% to 94% more, depending on the fuel used for heating and the severity of the winter temperatures. But the added expenditures for the 41% of U.S. households using electricity for heating are much less stark—these consumers will see only a 6% price increase on average. The projected fossil fuel price spikes are largely due to increased demand, limited supply, declining fuel stores, and shifting investment priorities in the face of climate change.

The fossil fuel industry is already seizing this moment to use high prices to persuade policymakers to vote against clean energy policies, particularly the Build Back Better Act (BBBA). Spokespeople with ties to the fossil fuel industry and some consumer groups are trying to pin higher fuel prices on the proposed legislation even before it has passed, even as analyses show the energy crisis is not spurring a green revolution on its own, let alone begun impacting fuel markets. But the claim the BBBA would cost Americans and the economy is false.

The facts tell a different story. Adopting smart climate policies and accelerating the clean energy transition are precisely the solutions to counter this vicious cycle by ending our dependance on volatile fossil fuels. The BBBA will ensure reliable, affordable clean electricity for millions of Americans, in line with a clean electricity standard many experts advocate—a key strategy for avoiding future vulnerability. Unlike fossil fuels subject to the whims of a global marketplace, wind and sunshine are always free. So renewable-generated electricity comes with an ultra-low fixed price decades into the future.

By expanding clean energy and electric vehicle tax credits, creating new incentives for efficient all-electric homes, and dedicating new funding for state and local programs, the BBBA provides practical solutions that build on lessons from Biden's climate law to protect Americans from price shocks, save consumers money, and reduce emissions fueling dangerous climate change.

What’s really causing the gas price spikes?
The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s winter 2021 energy price forecasts project that homes heated with natural gas, fuel oil, and propane will see average price increases of 30%, 43%, and 54%, respectively. Those who heat their homes with electricity, on the other hand, should expect a modest 6% increase. At the pump, drivers are seeing some of the highest gas prices in nearly a decade as the U.S. energy crisis ripples through electricity, gas, and EV markets today. And the U.S. is not alone. Countries around the globe are experiencing similar price jumps, including Britain's high winter energy costs this season.

A closer look confirms the cause of these high prices is not clean energy or climate policies—it’s fossil fuels themselves.  

First, the U.S. (and the world) are just now feeling the effects of the oil and gas industry’s reduced fuel production and spending due to the pandemic. COVID-19 brought the world’s economies to a screeching halt, and most countries have not returned to pre-COVID economic activity. During the past 20 months, the oil and gas industry curtailed its production to avoid oversupply as demand fell to all-time lows. Just as businesses were reopening, stored fuel was needed to meet high demand for cooling during 2021’s hottest summer on record, driving sky-high summer energy bills for many households. February’s Texas Big Freeze also disrupted gas distribution and production.

The world is moving again and demand for goods and services is rebounding to pre-pandemic levels. But even with higher energy demand, OPEC announced it would not inject more oil into the economy. Major oil companies have also held oil and gas spending flat in 2021, with their share of overall upstream spending at 25%, compared with nearly 40% in the mid-2010s. And as climate change threats loom in the financial world, investors are reducing their exposure to the risks of stranded assets, increasingly diversifying and divesting from fossil fuels. 

Second, despite strong and sustained growth for renewable energy, energy storage, and electric vehicles, the relatively slow pace to adopt fossil fuel alternatives at scale has left U.S. households and businesses tethered to an industry well-known for price volatility. Today, some oil drillers are using profits from higher gas prices to pay back debt and reward shareholders as demanded by investors, instead of increasing supply. Rising prices for a limited commodity in high demand is generating huge profits for many of the world’s largest companies at the expense of U.S. households.

Because 48% of homes use fossil gas for heating and another 10% heat with propane and fuel oil, more than half of U.S. households will feel the impact of rising prices on their home energy bills. One in four U.S. households continues to experience a high energy burden (meaning their energy expenses consume an inordinate amount of their income), including risks of pandemic power shut-offs that deepen energy insecurity, and many are still experiencing financial hardships exacerbated by the pandemic. Those with inefficient fossil-fueled appliances, homes, and cars will be hardest hit, and many families with fixed- and lower-incomes could be forced to choose between heat or other necessities.

We have the solutions—the BBBA will unlock their benefits for all households

Short-term band-aids may be enticing, but long-term policies are the only way out of this negative feedback loop. Clean energy and building electrification will prevent more costly disasters in the future, but they’re the very solutions the fossil fuel industry fights at every turn. All-electric homes and vehicles are a natural hedge against the price spikes we’re experiencing today since renewables are inherently devoid of fuel-related price fluctuations.

RMI analysis shows all-electric single-family homes in all regions of the country have lower energy bills than a comparable mixed fuel-homes (i.e., electricity and gas). Electric vehicles also save consumers money. Research from University of California, Berkeley and Energy Innovation found consumers could save a total of $2.7 trillion in 2050—or $1,000 per year, per household for the next 30 years—if we accelerate electric vehicle deployment in the coming decade.

The BBBA would help deliver these consumer savings by expanding and expediting clean energy, while ensuring equitable adoption among lower-income households and underserved communities. Extending and expanding clean energy tax credits; new incentives for electric vehicles (including used electric vehicles); and new incentives for energy efficient homes and all-electric appliances (and electrical upgrades) will reduce up-front costs and spur widespread adoption of all-electric homes, buildings, and cars.

A combination of grants, incentives, and programs will promote private sector investments in a decarbonized economy, while also funding and supporting state and local governments already leading the way. The BBBA also allocates dedicated funding and makes important modifications (such as higher rebate amounts and greater point-of-purchase availability) to ensure these technologies are available to low-income households, underserved urban and rural communities, tribes, frontline communities, and people living in multifamily housing.

Finally, the BBBA proposes to make oil and gas polluters pay for the harm they are causing to people’s health and the climate through a methane fee. This fee would cost companies less than 1% of their revenue, meaning the industry would retain over 99% of its profits. In return return we’d see substantial reductions of a powerful greenhouse gas and a healthier environment in communities living near fossil fuel production. These benefits also come with a stronger economy—Energy Innovation analysis shows the methane fee would create more than 70,000 jobs by 2050 and boost gross domestic product more than $250 billion from 2023 to 2050.

The facts speak for themselves. Gas prices are rising because of reasons totally unrelated to smart climate and clean energy policies, which research shows actually lower costs. For the first time in more than a decade, America has the opportunity to enact a comprehensive energy policy that will yield measurable savings to consumers and free us from oil and gas industry control over our wallets.

The BBBA will help the U.S. get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and achieve a stable energy future, ensuring that today’s price spikes will be a thing of the past. Proving, once and for all, that the solution to our fossil fuel woes is not more fossil fuels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

COVID-19 Impact on U.S. Power Demand shows falling electricity load, lower wholesale prices, and resilient utilities in competitive markets, with regional differences tied to weather, renewable energy, stay-at-home orders, and hedging strategies.

Key Points

It outlines reduced load and prices, while regulatory design and hedging support utility stability across regions.

✅ Load down in NY, New England, PJM; weather drives South up.

✅ Wholesale prices fall 8-10% in key markets.

✅ Decoupling, contracts, hedging support utility earnings.

On March 27, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) released a report on electricity demand and wholesale market prices impact from COVID-19 fallout. The model compares expected load based largely on weather with actual observed electricity demand changes.

So far, the hardest hit power grid is New York, with load down 7 and prices off by 10 percent. That’s expected, given New York City is the current epicenter of the US health crisis.

Next is New England, with 5 percent lower demand and 8 percent reduced wholesale prices for the week from March 19-25. BNEF says the numbers could go higher following advisories and orders issued March 24 for some 70 percent of the region’s population to stay at home.

Demand on the biggest grid in the US, the PJM (Pennsylvania/Jersey/Maryland), is 4 percent lower, with prices dropping 8 percent, as recent capacity auction payouts fell sharply. BNEF believes there will be more impact as stay at home orders are ramped up in several states.

California’s power demand for March 19-25 was 5 percent below what BNEF’s model expects without COVID-19 impact. That reflects a full week of stay-at-home orders from Governor Newsom issued March 19.

Health officials in Los Angeles and elsewhere expect a spike in COVID-19 cases in coming weeks. But BNEF’s model now actually projects rising electricity load for the state, due to what it calls "freakishly mild weather a year ago."

Rounding out the report, power demand is up for a band of southern states stretching from Florida to the desert Southwest, with weather more than offsetting public response to COVID-19 so far. BNEF says the Northwest’s grid "has not yet been highly impacted," while the Southeast is "generally in line" with pre-virus expectations.

Clearly, all of this data can change quickly and radically. Only California and New York are currently in full shutdown mode. Following them are New England (70 percent), the Midwest (65 percent), Texas (50 percent), PJM (50 percent) and the Northwest (50 percent).

In contrast, only small parts of Florida, the Southeast and Southwest are restricting movement. That could mean a big future increase for shut-ins, with heightened risks of electricity shut-offs that burden households and a corresponding impact on power demand.

Also, weather will play a major role on what happens to actual electricity demand, just as it always does. A very hot summer, for example, could offset virus-related shut-ins, just as it apparently is now in states like Texas. And it should be pointed out that regions vary widely by exposure to recession-sensitive sources of demand, such as heavy industry.

Most important for investors, however, is the built in protection US utility earnings enjoy from declining power demand, even amid broader energy crisis pressures facing the sector. For one thing, US power grids in California, ERCOT (Texas), MISO (Midwest), New England, New York and PJM have wholesale power markets, where producers compete for sales and the lowest bidder sets the price.

In those states, most regulated utilities don’t produce power at all. In fact, companies’ revenue is decoupled entirely from demand in California, as well as much of New England. In the roughly three-dozen states where utilities still operate as integrated monopolies, demand does affect revenue, and in many regions flat electricity demand already persists. But the cost of electricity is passed through directly to customers, whether produced or purchased.

A number of US electric companies have invested in renewable energy facilities as part of broader electrification trends nationwide. These sell their output under long-term contracts primarily with other utilities and government entities.

This isn’t a risk free business: For the past year, generators selling electricity to bankrupt PG&E Corp (PCG) have had their cash trapped at the power plant level as surety for lenders. But even PG&E has honored its contracts. And with states continuing aggressive mandates for renewable energy adoption, growth doesn’t appear at risk to COVID-19 fallout either.

The wholesale price of power from natural gas, coal and many nuclear plants was already sliding before COVID-19, due to renewables adoption and low natural gas prices, even as coal and nuclear disruptions raise reliability concerns. But here too, big producers like Exelon Corp (EXC) and Vistra Energy (VST) have employed aggressive price hedging near term, with regulated utilities and retail businesses protecting long-term health, respectively.

Bottom line: It’s early days for the COVID-19 crisis and much can still change. But so far at least, the US power industry is absorbing the blow of reduced demand, just as it’s done in previous crises.

That means future selloffs in the ongoing bear market are buying opportunities for best in class electric utilities, not a reason to sell. For top candidates, see the Conrad’s Utility Investor Portfolios and Dream Buy List in the March issue. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Climate Change Consensus and Disinformation highlights the 97% peer-reviewed agreement on human-caused warming, IPCC warnings, and how fossil fuel lobbying, misinformation, and astroturf tactics echo tobacco denial to mislead media and voters.

Key Points

Explains the 97% scientific consensus and the disinformation that obscures IPCC findings and misleads the public.

✅ 97% peer-reviewed consensus on human-caused climate change

✅ Fossil fuel funding drives denial and media misinformation

✅ IPCC and major scientific bodies confirm severe impacts

Orson Johnson says there is no scientific consensus on climate change. He’s wrong. A 2015 study by Drexel University’s Robert Brulle found that nearly $1 billion per year is being spent to support climate change denial. Electric utilities, fossil fuel and transportation sectors outspent environmental and renewable energy sectors by more than 10-to-1, undermining efforts to achieve net-zero electricity emissions globally. It is virtually the same strategy that tobacco companies used to deny the dangers of tobacco smoke, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to delay recognition of harm from tobacco smoke for decades, and today Trump's oil policies can similarly influence Wall Street's energy strategy. These are the same debunked sources Johnson quotes in his commentary.

The authors of six independent peer-reviewed papers on the consensus for human-caused climate change examined “the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies,” according to an abstract in Environmental Research Letters, and public support for action is strong, with most Americans willing to contribute financially to climate solutions. Of the 30,000 scientists (people with a bachelor’s degree or higher in science) Johnson cites, only 39 specialized in climate science.

A new study by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change draws on momentum from the Katowice climate summit to warn that “The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe.”

California’s Office of Planning and Research says: “Every major scientific organization in the United States with relevant expertise has confirmed the IPCC’s conclusion, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The list of international scientific organizations affirming the worldwide consensus on climate change is even longer.”

Former President Obama argued that decarbonization is irreversible as the clean-energy transition accelerates.

This issue is a symptom of an even larger problem. Recently, Facebook announced it would continue to allow political ads that contain obvious lies. America’s corporate news media has been following the same policy for years. Printing stories and commentary with information that is clearly not true or where data has been cherry-picked to strongly imply a lie, such as claims that Ottawa is making electricity more expensive for Albertans, sets up a false equivalence fallacy in which two incompatible arguments appear to be logically equivalent when, in fact, they are not.

Conservatives focus exclusively on progressive income taxes to argue that rich people pay a disproportionate share of taxes while ignoring that they take a disproportionate share of income, and federal income taxes account for less than half of taxes collected, with almost all of the other taxes being heavily regressive. Critics of single-payer healthcare disregard that almost every other developed country on earth has been using single-payer for decades to provide better care with universal coverage at roughly half the cost. Other examples abound, including recent policy milestones like the historic U.S. climate deal that nevertheless become targets of misinformation. We live in a society where truth is no longer truth, reality is supplanted by alternative facts and where crippling polarization is driven by the inability to agree on basic facts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Mercury Energy Tilt Renewables acquisition signals a trans-Tasman energy push as PowAR and Mercury split assets via a scheme of arrangement, offering $7.80 per share and a $2.96b valuation across Australia and New Zealand.

Key Points

A PowAR-Mercury deal to buy Tilt Renewables, splitting Australian and New Zealand assets via a court-approved scheme.

✅ $7.80 per share, valuing Tilt at $2.96b

✅ PowAR takes AU assets; Mercury gets NZ business

✅ Infratil and Mercury to vote for the scheme

Mercury Energy and an Australian partner appear to have won the race to buy Tilt Renewables, an Australasian wind farm developer which was spun out of TrustPower, bidding almost $3 billion, amid wider utility consolidation such as the Peterborough Distribution sale to Hydro One.

Yesterday Tilt Renewables announced that it had entered a scheme implementation agreement under which it was proposed that PowAR would acquire its Australian business and Mercury would acquire the New Zealand business, mirroring cross-border approvals where U.S. antitrust clearance shaped Hydro One's bid for Avista.

Conducted through a scheme of arrangement, Tilt shareholders will be offered $7.80 a share, valuing Tilt at $2.96b.

Yesterday morning shares in Tilt opened about 18 per cent up at $7.65, though regulatory outcomes can swing valuations as seen when Hydro One-Avista reconsideration of a U.S. order came into play.

In early December Infratil, which owns around two thirds of Tilt's shares, announced it was undertaking a review of its investment after receiving approaches, with investor sentiment sensitive to governance shifts as when Hydro One shares fell after leadership changes in Ontario.

According to a report in the Australian Financial Review, the transtasman bid beat out other parties including ASX-listed APA Group, Canadian pension fund CDPQ and Australian fund manager Infrastructure Capital Group, as Canadian investors like Ontario Teachers' Plan pursue similar infrastructure deals.

“This compelling acquisition proposal is a result of Tilt Renewables’ constant focus on delivering long-term value for shareholders and the board is pleased that, with these new owners, the transition to renewables in Australia and New Zealand will continue to accelerate,” Tilt’s chairman Bruce Harker said.

Comparable community-led clean energy partnerships, such as initiatives with British Columbia First Nations highlighted in clean-energy generation, underscore the broader momentum.

Just prior to the announcement, Tilt shares had been trading for less than $4. Such repricing reflects how utilities can face perceived uncertainties, as one investor argued too many unknowns at the time.

Mercury is already Tilt’s second largest shareholder, at just under 20 per cent. Both Infratil and Mercury have agreed to vote in favour of the scheme. The deal values Tilt’s New Zealand business at $770m, however the value of Mercury’s existing shareholding is around $585m, meaning the company will increase debt by around $185m.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Alberta Electricity Rate Cap stays despite carbon tax repeal, keeping the Regulated Rate Option at 6.8 cents/kWh. Levy funds cover market gaps as the UCP reviews NDP policies to maintain affordable utility bills.

Key Points

Program capping RRO power at 6.8 cents/kWh, using levy funds to offset market prices while the UCP reviews policy.

✅ RRO cap fixed at 6.8 cents/kWh for eligible customers

✅ Levy funds pay generators when market prices exceed the cap

✅ UCP reviewing NDP policies to ensure affordable rates

Alberta's carbon tax has been cancelled, but a consumer price cap on electricity — which the levy pays for — is staying in place for now.

June electricity rates are due out on Monday, about four days after the new UCP government did away with the carbon charge on natural gas and vehicle fuel.

Part of the levy's revenue was earmarked by the previous NDP government to keep power prices at or below 6.8 cents per kilowatt hour under new electricity rules set by the province.

"The Regulated Rate Option cap of 6.8 cents/kWh was implemented by the previous government and currently remains in effect. We are reviewing all policies put in place by the former government and will make decisions that ensure more affordable electricity rates for job-creators and Albertans," said a spokesperson for Alberta's energy ministry in an emailed statement.

Albertans with regulated rate contracts and all City of Medicine Hat utility customers only pay that amount or less, though some Alberta ratepayers have faced deferral-related arrears.

If the actual market price rises above that, the difference is paid to generators directly from levy funds, a buffer that matters as experts warn prices are set to soar later this year.

The government has paid more than $55 million to utilities over the past year ending in March 2019, due to that electricity price cap being in place.

Alberta Energy says the price gap program will continue, at least for the time being, amid electricity policy changes being considered.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News