Efficiency could cut energy use by 23 per cent

Texas Power Grid Reliability faces ERCOT blackouts and winter storm risks; solutions span weatherization, natural gas coordination, PUC-ERCOT reform, capacity market signals, demand response, grid batteries, and geothermal to maintain resilient electricity supply.

Key Points

Texas Power Grid Reliability is ERCOT's ability to keep electricity flowing during extreme weather and demand spikes.

✅ Weatherize power plants and gas supply to prevent freeze-offs

✅ Merge PUC and Railroad Commission for end-to-end oversight

✅ Pay for firm capacity, demand response, and grid storage

The blackouts in February shined a light on the fragile infrastructure that supports modern life. More and more, every task in life requires electricity, and no one is in charge of making sure Texans have enough.

Of the 4.5 million Texans who lost power last winter, many of them also lost heat and at least 100 froze to death. Wi-Fi stopped working and phones soon lost their charges, making it harder for people to get help, find someplace warm to go or to check in on loved ones.

In some places pipes froze, and people couldn’t get water to drink or flush after power and water failures disrupted systems, and low water pressure left some health care facilities unable to properly care for patients. Many folks looking for gasoline were out of luck; pumps run on electricity.

But rather than scouting for ways to use less electricity, we keep plugging in more things. Automatic faucets and toilets, security systems and locks. Now we want to plug in our cars, so that if the grid goes down, we have to hope our Teslas have enough juice to get to Oklahoma.

The February freeze illuminated two problems with electricity sufficiency. First, power plants had mechanical failures, triggering outages for days. But also, Texans demanded a lot more electricity than usual as heaters kicked on because of the cold. The ugly truth is, the Texas power grid probably couldn’t have generated enough electricity to meet demand, even if the plants kept whirring. And that is what should chill us now.

The stories of the people who died because the electricity went out during the freeze are difficult to read. A paletero and cotton-candy vendor well known in Old East Dallas, Leobardo Torres Sánchez, was found dead in his armchair, bundled in quilts beside two heaters that had no power.

Arnulfo Escalante Lopez, 41, and Jose Anguiano Torres, 28, died from carbon monoxide poisoning after using a gas-powered generator to heat their apartment in Garland.

Pramod Bhattarai, 23, a college student from Nepal, died from carbon monoxide after using a charcoal grill to heat his home in Houston, according to news reports. And Loan Le, 75; Olivia Nguyen, 11; Edison Nguyen, 8; and Colette Nguyen, 5, died in Sugar Land after losing control of a fire they started in the fireplace to keep warm.

A 65-year-old San Antonio man with esophageal cancer died after power outages cut off supply from his oxygen machine. And local Abilene media reported that a man died in a local hospital when a loss of water pressure prevented staff from treating him.

Gloria Jones of Hillsboro, 87, was living by herself, healthy and social. According to the Houston Chronicle, as the cold weather descended, she told her friends and family she was fine. But when her children checked on her after she didn’t answer her phone, they found her on the floor beside her bed. Hospital workers tried to warm her, but they soon pronounced her dead.

Officials said in July that 210 people died because of the freezing weather, including those who died in car crashes and other weather-related causes, but that figure will be updated. The Department of State Health Services said most of those deaths were due to hypothermia.

Policy recommendation: Weatherize power plants and fuel suppliers

Texas could have avoided those deaths if power plants had worked properly. It’s mechanically possible to generate electricity in freezing temperatures; the Swedes and Finns have electricity in winter. But preparing equipment for the winter costs money, and now that the Public Utility Commission set new requirements for plant owners to weatherize equipment, we expect better reliability.

The PUC officials certainly expect better performance. Chairman Peter Lake earlier this month promised: “We go into this winter knowing that because of all these efforts the lights will stay on.”

Yet, there’s no matching requirement to weatherize key fuel supplies for natural gas-fired power plants. While the PUC and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas were busy this year coming up with standards and enforcement processes, the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas production, was not.

The Railroad Commission is working to ensure that natural gas producers who supply power plants have filed the proper paperwork so that they do not lose electricity in a blackout, rendering them unable to provide vital fuel. But weatherization regulations will not happen for some months, not in time for this winter.

Policy recommendation: Combine the state’s Public Utility Commission and Railroad Commission into one energy agency

Electricity and natural gas regulators came to realize the importance of natural gas suppliers communicating their electricity needs with the PUC to avoid getting cut off when the fuel is needed the most. Not last year; they realized this ten years ago, when the same thing happened and triggered a day of rolling outages.

Why did it take a decade for the companies regulated by one agency to get their paperwork in order with a separate agency? It makes more sense for a single agency to regulate the entire energy process, from wellhead to lightbulb. (Or well-to-wheel, as cars increasingly need electricity, too.)

Over the years, various legislative sunset commissions have recommended combining the agencies, with different governance suggestions, none of which passed the Legislature. We urge lawmakers in 2023 to take up the idea in earnest, hammer out the governance details, and make sure the resulting agency has the heft and resources to regulate energy in a way that keeps the industry healthy and holds it accountable.

Policy recommendation: Incentivize building more power plants

Regardless, if energy companies in February had operated their equipment exactly right, the lights likely would have still gone out. Perhaps for a shorter period, perhaps in a more shared way, allowing people to keep homes above freezing and phones charged between rolling blackouts. But Texas was heading for trouble.

Before the winter freeze, ERCOT anticipated Texas would have 74,000 MW of power generation capacity for the winter of 2021. That’s less than the usual summer fleet as some plants go down for maintenance in the winter, but sufficient to meet their wildest predictions of winter electricity demand. The power generation on hand for the winter would have met the historic record winter demand, at 65,918 MW. Even in ERCOT’s planning scenario with extreme generator failures, the grid had enough capacity.

But during the second week of February, as weather forecasts became more dire, grid operators began rapidly hiking their estimates of electricity demand. On Valentine’s Day, ERCOT estimated demand would rise to 75,573 MW in the coming week.

Clearly that is more demand than all of Texas’ winter power generation fleet of 74,000 MW could handle. Demand never reached that level because ERCOT turned off service to millions of customers when power plants failed.

This raises questions about whether the Texas grid has enough power plants to remain resilient as climate change brings more frequent bouts of extreme weather and blackout risks across the U.S. Or if we have enough power to grow, as more people and companies, more homes and businesses and manufacturing plants, move to Texas.

What a shame if the Texas Miracle, our robust and growing economy, died because we ran out of electricity.

This is no exaggeration. In November, ERCOT released its seasonal assessment of whether Texas will have enough electricity resources for the coming winter. If weather is normal, yes, Texas will be in good shape. But if extreme weather again pushes Texas to use an inordinate amount of electricity for heat, and if wind and solar output are low, there won’t be enough. In that scenario, even if power plants mostly continue to operate properly, we should brace for outages.

Further, there are few investors planning to build more power plants in Texas, other than solar and wind. Renewable plants have many good qualities, but reliability isn’t one of them. Some investors are building grid-scale batteries, a technology that promises to add reliability to the grid.

How come power plant developers aren’t building more generators, especially with flat electricity demand in many markets today?

Policy recommendation: Incentivize reliability

The Texas electrical grid, independent of the rest of the U.S., operates as a competitive market. No regulator plans a power plant; investors choose to build plants based on expectations of profit.

How it works is, power generators offer their electricity into the market at the price of their choosing. ERCOT accepts the lowest bids first, working up to higher bids as demand for power increases in the course of a day.

The idea is that Texans always get the lowest possible price, and if prices rise high, investors will build more power plants. Basic supply and demand. When the market was first set up, this worked pretty well, because the big, reliable baseload generators, the coal and nuclear industries, were the cheapest to operate and bid their power at prices that kept them online all the time. The more agile natural gas-fired plants ramped up and down to meet demand minute-by-minute, at higher prices.

Renewable energy disrupts the market in ways that are great, generating cheap, clean power that has forced some high-polluting coal plants to mothball. But the disruption also undermines reliability. Wind and solar plants are the cheapest and quickest power generation to build and they have the lowest operating cost, allowing them to bid very low prices into the power market. Wind tends to blow hardest in West Texas at night, so the abundance of wind turbines has pushed many of those old baseload plants out of the market.

That’s how markets work, and we’re not crying for coal plant operators. But ERCOT has to figure out how to operate the market differently to keep the lights on.

The PUC announced a slew of electricity market reforms last week to address this very problem, including new to market pricing and an emergency reliability service for ERCOT to contract for more back-up power. These changes cost money, but failing to make any changes could cost more lives.

Texas became the No. 1 wind state thanks in part to a smart renewable energy credit system that created financial incentives to erect wind turbines. But those credits mean that sometimes at night, wind generators bid electricity into the market at negative prices, because they will make money off of the renewable energy credits.

It’s time for the Legislature to review the credit program to determine if it’s still needed, of a similar program could be added to incentivize reliability. The market-based program worked better than anyone could have expected to produce clean energy. Why not use this approach to create what we need now: clean and reliable energy?

We were pleased that PUC commissioners discussed last week an idea that would create a market for reliable power generation capacity by adding requirements that power market participants meet a standard of reliability guarantees.

A market for reliable electricity capacity will cost more, and we hope regulators keep the requirements as modest as possible. Renewable requirements were modest, but turned out to be powerful in a competitive market.

We expect a reliability program to be flexible enough that entrepreneurs can participate with new technology, such as batteries or geothermal energy or something that hasn’t been invented yet, rather than just old reliable fossil fuels.

We also welcome the PUC’s review of pricing rules for the market. Commissioners intend for a new pricing formula to offer early price signals of pending scarcity, to allow time for industrial customers to reduce consumption or suppliers to ramp up. This is intriguing, but we hope the final implementation keeps market interventions at a minimum.

We witnessed in February a scenario in which extremely high prices on the power market did nothing to attract more electricity into the market. Power plants broke down; there was no way to generate more power, no matter how high market prices went. So the PUC was silly to intervene in the market and keep prices artificially high; the outcome was billions of dollars of debt and a proposed electricity market bailout that electricity customers will end up paying.

Nor did this PUC pricing intervention prompt power generation developers to say: “I tell you what, let’s build more plants in Texas.” In the next few years, ERCOT can expect more solar power generation to come online, but little else.

Natural gas plant operators have told the PUC that market price signals show that a new plant wouldn’t be profitable. Natural gas plants are cheaper and faster to build than nuclear reactors; if those developers cannot figure out how to make money, then the prospect of a new nuclear reactor in Texas is a fantasy, even setting aside the environmental and political opposition.

Policy proposal: Use less energy

Politicians like to imagine that technology will solve our energy problem. But the quickest, cheapest, cleanest solution to all of our energy problems is to use less. Investing some federal infrastructure money to make homes more energy efficient would cut energy use, and could help homes retain heat in an emergency.

The PUC’s plan to offer more incentives for major power users to reduce demand in a grid emergency is a good idea. Bravo – next let’s take this benefit to the masses.

Upgrading building codes to require efficiency for office buildings and apartments can help, and might have prevented the frozen pipes in so many multifamily housing units that left people without water.

When North Texas power-line utility Oncor invested in smart grid technology in past decades, part of the promise was to help users reduce demand when electricity prices rise or in emergencies. A review and upgrade of the smart technology could allow more customers to benefit from discounts in exchange for turning things off when electricity supply is tight.

Problem is, we seem to be going in the opposite direction as consumers. Forget turning off the TV and unplugging the coffee machine as we leave the house each morning; now everything is always-on and always connected to Wi-Fi. Our appliances, electronics and the services that operate them can text us when anything interesting happens, like the laundry finishes or somebody opens the patio door or the first season of Murder She Wrote is available for streaming.

As Texans plug in electric vehicles, we will need even more power generation capacity. Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin estimated that if every Texan switched to an electric vehicle, demand for electricity would rise about 30%.

Texans will need to think realistically and rationally about where that electricity is going to come from. Before we march toward a utopian vision of an all-electric world, we need to make sure we have enough electricity.

Getting this right is a matter of life and death for each of one us and for Texas.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California income-based utility charges face bipartisan pushback as the PUC weighs fixed fees for PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison, reshaping rate design, electricity affordability, energy equity, and privacy amid proposed per-kWh reductions.

Key Points

PUC-approved fixed fees tied to household income for PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, offset by lower per-kWh rates.

✅ Proposed fixed fees: $51 SCE, $73.31 SDG&E, $50.92 PG&E

✅ Critics warn admin, privacy, legal risks and higher bills for savers

✅ Backers say lower-income pay less; kWh rates cut ~33% in PG&E area

Efforts are being made across California's political landscape to derail a legislative initiative that introduced income-based utility charges for customers of Southern California Edison and other major utilities.

Legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties have proposed bills aimed at nullifying the 2022 legislation that established a sliding scale for utility charges based on customer income, a decision made in a late-hour session and subsequently endorsed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

The plan, pending final approval from the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) — all of whose current members were appointed by Governor Newsom — would enable utilities like Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and PG&E to apply new income-based charges as early as this July.

Among the state legislators pushing back against the income-based charge scheme are Democrats Jacqui Irwin and Marc Berman, along with Republicans Janet Nguyen, Kelly Seyarto, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Scott Wilk, Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, and Roger Niello.

A cadre of specialists, including economist Ahmad Faruqui who has advised all three utilities implicated in the fee proposal, have outlined several concerns regarding the PUC's pending decision.

Faruqui and his colleagues argue that the proposed charges are excessively high in comparison to national standards, reflecting soaring electricity prices across the state, potentially leading to administrative challenges, legal disputes, and negative unintended outcomes, such as penalizing energy-conservative consumers.

Advocates for the income-based fee model, including The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the National Resources Defense Council, argue it would result in higher charges for wealthier consumers and reduced fees for those with lower incomes. They also believe that the utilities plan to decrease per kilowatt-hour rates as part of a broader rate structure review to balance out the new fees.

However, even supporters like TURN and the Natural Resources Defense Council acknowledge that the income-based fee model is not a comprehensive solution to making soaring electricity bills more affordable.

If implemented, California would have the highest income-based utility fees in the country, with averages far surpassing the national average of $11.15, as reported by EQ Research:

• Southern California Edison would charge $51.
• San Diego Gas & Electric would levy $73.31.
• PG&E would set fees at $50.92.

The proposal has raised concerns among state legislators about the additional financial burden on Californians already struggling with high electricity costs.

Critics highlight several practical challenges, including the PUC's task of assessing customers' income levels, a process fraught with privacy concerns, potential errors, and constitutional questions regarding access to tax information.

Economists have pointed out further complications, such as the difficulty in accurately assessing incomes for out-of-state property owners and the variability of customers' incomes over time.

The proposed income-based charges would differ by income bracket within the PG&E service area, for example, with lower-income households facing lower fixed charges and higher-income households facing higher charges, alongside a proposed 33% reduction in electricity rates to help mitigate the fixed charge impact.

Yet, the economists warn that most customers, particularly low-usage customers, could end up paying more, essentially rewarding higher consumption and penalizing efficiency.

This legislative approach, they caution, could inadvertently increase costs for moderate users across all income brackets, a sign of major changes to electric bills that could emerge, challenging the very goals it aims to achieve by promoting energy inefficiency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Australian Electric Vehicle Sales tripled in 2019 amid expanding charging infrastructure and more models, but market share remains low, constrained by limited government policy, weak incentives, and absent emissions standards despite growing ultra-fast chargers.

Key Points

EV units sold in Australia; in 2019 they tripled to 6,718, but market share was just 0.6%.

✅ Sales rose from 2,216 (2018) to 6,718 (2019); ~80% were BEVs.

✅ Public charging sites reached 2,307; fast chargers up 40% year-on-year.

✅ Policy gaps and absent standards limit model supply and EV uptake.

Sales of electric vehicles in Australia tripled in 2019 despite a lack of government support, according to the industry’s peak body.

The country’s network of EV charging stations was also growing, the Electric Vehicle Council’s annual report found, including a rise in the number of faster charging stations that let drivers recharge a car in about 15 minutes.

But the report, released on Wednesday, found the market share for electric vehicles was still only 0.6% of new vehicle sales – well behind the 2.5% to 5% in other developed countries.

The chief executive of the council, Behyad Jafari, said the rise in sales was down to more models becoming available. There are now 28 electric models on sale, with eight priced below $65,000.

Six more were due to arrive before the end of 2021, including two priced below $50,000, the council’s report said.

“We have repeatedly heard from car companies that they were planning to bring vehicles here, but Australia doesn’t have that policy support.”

The Morrison government promised a national electric vehicle strategy would be finalised by the middle of this year, but the policy has been delayed. The prime minister, Scott Morrison, last year accused Labor of wanting to “end the weekend” and force people out of four-wheel drives after the opposition set a target of 50% of new car sales being electric by 2030.

Jafari cited the Kia e-Niro – an award-winning electric SUV that was being prepared for an Australian launch, but is now reportedly on hold because the manufacturer favoured shipping to countries with emissions standards.

The council’s members include BMW, Nissan, Hyundai and Harley Davidson, as well as energy, technology and charging infrastructure companies.

Sales of electric vehicles – which include plug-in hybrids – went from 2,216 in 2018 to 6,718 in 2019, the report said. Jafari said about 80% of those sales were all-electric vehicles.

There have been 3,226 electric vehicles sold in 2020, the report said, despite an overall drop of 20% in vehicle sales due to the Covid-19 pandemic, while U.S. EV sales have surged into 2024.

Jafari said: “Our report is showing that Australian consumers want these cars.

“There is no controversy that the future of the industry is electric, but at the moment the industry is looking at different markets. We want policies that show [Australia] is going on this journey.”

Government agency data has forecast that half the new cars sold will be electric by 2035, underscoring that the age of electric cars is arriving even if there is no policy to support their uptake.

Manufacturers currently selling electric cars in Australia are Nissan, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Tesla, Volvo, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar and Renault, the report said.

Jafari said most G20 countries had emissions standards in place for vehicles sold and incentives in place to support electric vehicles, such as rebates or exemptions from charges. This hadn’t happened in Australia, he said.

The report said: “Globally, carmakers are rolling out more electric vehicle models as the electric car market expands, but so far production cannot keep up with demand. This means that without policy signals, Australians will continue to be denied access to the full global range of electric vehicles.”

On Tuesday, one Australian charging provider, Evie Networks, opened an ultra-fast station at a rest stop at Campbell Town in Tasmania – between Launceston and Hobart.

The company said the station would connect EV owners in the state’s north and south and the two 350kW chargers could recharge a vehicle in 15 minutes, highlighting whether grids have the power to charge EVs at scale. Two more sites were planned for Tasmania, the company said.

A Tasmanian government grant to support electric vehicle charging had helped finance the site. Evie was also supported with a $15m grant from the federal government’s Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

According to the council report, Australia now has 2,307 public charging stations, including 357 fast chargers – a rise of 40% in the past year.

A survey of 2,900 people in New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and South Australia, carried out by NRMA, RACV and RAA on behalf of the council, found the main barriers to buying an electric vehicle were concerns over access to charging points, higher prices and uncertainty over driving range.

Consumers favoured electric vehicles because of their environmental footprint, lower maintenance costs and vehicle performance.

The report said the average battery range of electric vehicles available in Australia was 400km, but almost 80% of people thought the average was less.

According to the survey, 56% of Australians would consider an electric car when they next bought a vehicle, and in the UK, EV inquiries soared during a fuel supply crisis.

“We are far behind, but it is surmountable,” Jafari said.

The council report also rated state and territories on the policies that supported its industry and found the ACT was leading, followed by NSW and Queensland.

A review of commercial electric vehicle use found public electric bus trials were planned or under way in Queensland, NSW, WA, Victoria and ACT. There are now more than 400,000 electric buses in use around the globe.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California Battery Storage is transforming grid reliability as distributed energy, solar-plus-storage, and demand response mitigate rolling blackouts, replace peaker plants, and supply flexible capacity during heat waves and evening peaks across utilities and homes.

Key Points

California Battery Storage uses distributed and utility batteries to stabilize power, shift solar, and curb blackouts.

✅ Supplies flexible capacity during peak demand and heat waves

✅ Enables demand response and replaces gas peaker plants

✅ Aggregated assets form virtual power plants for grid support

Last month as a heat wave slammed California, state regulators sent an email to a group of energy executives pleading for help to keep the lights on statewide. “Please consider this an urgent inquiry on behalf of the state,” the message said.

The manager of the state’s grid was struggling to increase the supply of electricity because power plants had unexpectedly shut down and demand was surging. The imbalance was forcing officials to order rolling blackouts across the state for the first time in nearly two decades.

What was unusual about the emails was whom they were sent to: people who managed thousands of batteries installed at utilities, businesses, government facilities and even homes. California officials were seeking the energy stored in those machines to help bail out a poorly managed grid and reduce the need for blackouts.

Many energy experts have predicted that batteries could turn homes and businesses into mini-power plants that are able to play a critical role in the electricity system. They could soak up excess power from solar panels and wind turbines and provide electricity in the evenings when the sun went down or after wildfires and hurricanes, which have grown more devastating because of climate change in recent years. Over the next decade, the argument went, large rows of batteries owned by utilities could start replacing power plants fueled by natural gas.

But that day appears to be closer than earlier thought, at least in California, which leads the country in energy storage. During the state’s recent electricity crisis, more than 30,000 batteries supplied as much power as a midsize natural gas plant. And experts say the machines, which range in size from large wall-mounted televisions to shipping containers, will become even more important because utilities, businesses and homeowners are investing billions of dollars in such devices.

“People are starting to realize energy storage isn’t just a project or two here or there, it’s a whole new approach to managing power,” said John Zahurancik, chief operating officer at Fluence, which makes large energy storage systems bought by utilities and large businesses. That’s a big difference from a few years ago, he said, when electricity storage was seen as a holy grail — “perfect, but unattainable.”

On Friday, Aug. 14, the first day California ordered rolling blackouts, Stem, an energy company based in the San Francisco Bay Area, delivered 50 megawatts — enough to power 20,000 homes — from batteries it had installed at businesses, local governments and other customers. Some of those devices were at the Orange County Sanitation District, which installed the batteries to reduce emissions by making it less reliant on natural gas when energy use peaks.

John Carrington, Stem’s chief executive, said his company would have provided even more electricity to the grid had it not been for state regulations that, among other things, prevent businesses from selling power from their batteries directly to other companies.

“We could have done two or three times more,” he said.

The California Independent System Operator, which manages about 80 percent of the state’s grid, has blamed the rolling blackouts on a confluence of unfortunate events, including extreme weather impacts on the grid that limited supply: A gas plant abruptly went offline, a lack of wind stilled thousands of turbines, and power plants in other states couldn’t export enough electricity. (On Thursday, the grid manager urged Californians to reduce electricity use over Labor Day weekend because temperatures are expected to be 10 to 20 degrees above normal.)

But in recent weeks it has become clear that California’s grid managers also made mistakes last month, highlighting the challenge of fixing California’s electric grid in real time, that were reminiscent of an energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 when millions of homes went dark and wholesale electricity prices soared.

Grid managers did not contact Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office until moments before it ordered a blackout on Aug. 14. Had it acted sooner, the governor could have called on homeowners and businesses to reduce electricity use, something he did two days later. He could have also called on the State Department of Water Resources to provide electricity from its hydroelectric plants.

Weather forecasters had warned about the heat wave for days. The agency could have developed a plan to harness the electricity in numerous batteries across the state that largely sat idle while grid managers and large utilities such as Pacific Gas & Electric scrounged around for more electricity.

That search culminated in frantic last-minute pleas from the California Public Utilities Commission to the California Solar and Storage Association. The commission asked the group to get its members to discharge batteries they managed for customers like the sanitation department into the grid. (Businesses and homeowners typically buy batteries with solar panels from companies like Stem and Sunrun, which manage the systems for their customers.)

“They were texting and emailing and calling us: ‘We need all of your battery customers giving us power,’” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the solar and storage association. “It was in a very last-minute, herky-jerky way.”

At the time of blackouts on Aug. 14, battery power to the electric grid climbed to a peak of about 147 megawatts, illustrating how virtual power plants can rapidly scale, according to data from California I.S.O. After officials asked for more power the next day, that supply shot up to as much as 310 megawatts.

Had grid managers and regulators done a better job coordinating with battery managers, the devices could have supplied as much as 530 megawatts, Ms. Del Chiaro said. That supply would have exceeded the amount of electricity the grid lost when the natural gas plant, which grid managers have refused to identify, went offline.

Officials at California I.S.O. and the public utilities commission said they were working to determine the “root causes” of the crisis after the governor requested an investigation.

Grid managers and state officials have previously endorsed the use of batteries, using AI to adapt as they integrate them at scale. The utilities commission last week approved a proposal by Southern California Edison, which serves five million customers, to add 770 megawatts of energy storage in the second half of 2021, more than doubling its battery capacity.

And Mr. Zahurancik’s company, Fluence, is building a 400 megawatt-hour battery system at the site of an older natural gas power plant at the Alamitos Energy Center in Long Beach. Regulators this week also approved a plan to extend the life of the power plant, which was scheduled to close at the end of the year, to support the grid.

But regulations have been slow to catch up with the rapidly developing battery technology.

Regulators and utilities have not answered many of the legal and logistical questions that have limited how batteries owned by homeowners and businesses are used. How should battery owners be compensated for the electricity they provide to the grid? Can grid managers or utilities force batteries to discharge even if homeowners or businesses want to keep them charged up for their own use during blackouts?

During the recent blackouts, Ms. Del Chiaro said, commercial and industrial battery owners like Stem’s customers were compensated at the rates similar to those that are paid to businesses to not use power during periods of high electricity demand. But residential customers were not paid and acted “altruistically,” she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

UK Energy Switching Surge sees 600,000 customers change suppliers in October, driven by competition, the Energy Switch Guarantee, and better tariffs, with Electralink's DTN supporting customer switching and Ofgem oversight.

Key Points

A rise in UK customers switching electricity suppliers in October, driven by competition and the Energy Switch Guarantee.

✅ 600,000 switches recorded in October

✅ 32% moved to small and mid-tier suppliers

✅ Energy Switch Guarantee assures simple, safe transfers

More than 600,000 customers took steps to save on their energy bills this winter by switching electricity provider in October, as forecasts such as a 16% bill decrease in April offer further encouragement, the latest figures from Energy UK reveal.

A third (32 per cent) of those changing providers in October moved to small and mid-tier suppliers.

Regional markets have seen changes too, including Irish electricity price increases that highlight wider cost pressures.

With recent research showing that that nine in ten energy switchers were happy with the process of changing suppliers and with the reassurance provided by the Energy Switch Guarantee - a series of commitments ensuring switches are simple, speedy and safe - and amid MPs proposing price restrictions to protect consumers, more and more customers are now confident when looking to move.

Lawrence Slade, chief executive of Energy UK said: 'Switching continues to surge with over 600,000 customers changing supplier to find a better deal last month. Many more will have made savings by checking they are on the best deal with their current supplier. It only takes a few minutes to do this and with over 55 suppliers across the market, there's never been more competition or choice.'

Around 75 per cent of the market are signatories of the Guarantee. This includes: British Gas, Bulb Energy, E.ON, EDF Energy, First Utility, Flow Energy, npower, Octopus Energy, Pure Planet, Sainsbury's Energy, Scottish Power, So Energy and Tonik Energy.

The switching data is supplied by Electralink who provides a secure service to transfer data between the electricity market participants. The company operates the Data Transfer Network (DTN) which underpins customer switching, meter interoperability and other business processes critical to a competitive electricity market, where knowing where your electricity comes from can support informed choices.

The data referenced in these reports is since our collection of data only and is for electricity only.

These figures do not include internal electricity switching, and statistics on this from the larger suppliers and on Standard Variable Tariffs can be viewed on the Ofgem website, while ministers consider ending the gas-electricity price link to reduce bills.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One-Avista acquisition sparks Idaho regulatory scrutiny over foreign ownership, utility merger impacts, rate credits, and public interest, as FERC and FCC approvals advance and consumers question governance, service reliability, and long-term rate stability.

Key Points

A cross-border utility merger proposal with Idaho oversight, weighing foreign ownership, rates, and reliability.

✅ Idaho PUC review centers on public interest and rate impacts.

✅ FERC and FCC approvals granted; state decisions pending.

✅ Avista to retain name and Spokane HQ post-transaction.

“Please don’t sell us to Canada.” That refrain, or versions of it, is on full display at the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, which admittedly isn’t everyone’s go-to entertainment site. But it is vitally important for this reason: the first big test of the expansionist dreams of the politically tempest-tossed Hydro One, facing political risk as it navigates markets, rests with its successful acquisition of Avista Corp., provider of electric generation, transmission and distribution to retail customers spread from Oregon to Washington to Montana and Idaho and up into Alaska.

The proposed deal — announced last summer, but not yet consummated — marks the first time the publicly traded Hydro One has embarked upon the acquisition of a U.S. utility. And if Idahoans spread from Boise to Coeur d’Alene to Hayden are any indication, they are not at all happy with the idea of foreign ownership. Here’s Lisa McCumber, resident of Hayden: “I am stating my objection to this outrageous merger/takeover. Hydro One charges excessive fees to the people it provides for, this is a monopoly beyond even what we are used to. I, in no way, support or as a customer, agree with the merger of this multi-billion-dollar, foreign, company.”

#google#

Or here’s Debra Bentley from Coeur d’Alene: “Fewer things have more control over a nation than its power source. In an age where we are desperately trying to bring American companies back home and ‘Buy American’ is somewhat of a battle cry, how is it even possible that it would or could be allowed for this vital necessity … to be controlled by a foreign entity?”

Or here’s Spencer Hutchings from Sagle: “This is an incredibly bad idea.”

There are legion of similar emails from concerned consumers, and the Maine transmission line debate offers a parallel in public opposition.

The rationale for the deal? Last fall Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt testified before the Idaho commission, which regulates all gas, water and electricity providers in the state. “Hydro One is a pure-play transmission and distribution utility located solely within Ontario,” Schmidt told commissioners. “It seeks diversification both in terms of jurisdictions and service areas. The proposed Transaction with Avista achieves both goals by expanding Hydro One into the U.S. Pacific Northwest and expanding its operations to natural gas distribution and electric generation. The proposed Transaction with Avista will deliver the increased scale and benefits that come from being a larger player in the utility industry.”

Translation: now that it is a publicly traded entity, Hydro needs to demonstrate a growth curve to the investment community. The value to you and me? Arguable. This is a transaction framed as a benefit to shareholders, one that won’t cause harm to customers. Premier Kathleen Wynne is feeling the pain of selling off control of an essential asset. In his testimony to the commission, Schmidt noted that the Avista acquisition would take the province’s Hydro ownership to under 45 per cent. (The Electricity Act technically prevents the sale of shares that would take the government’s ownership position below 40 per cent, though acquisitions appear to allow further dilution. )

Stratospheric compensation, bench-marked against other chief executives who enjoy similarly outsized rewards, is part of this game. I have written about Schmidt’s unconscionable compensation before, but that was when he was making a relatively modest $4 million. Relative, that is, to his $6.2 million in 2017 compensation ($3.5 million of that is in the form of share based awards).

Should the acquisition of Avista be approved, amendments to the CIC, or change in control agreements, for certain named Avista executive officers will allow them to voluntarily terminate their employment without “good reason.” That includes Scott Morris, the company’s CEO, who will exit with severance of $6.9 million (U.S.) and additional benefits taking the total to a potential $15.7 million.

Back to the deal: cost savings over time could be achieved, Schmidt continued in his testimony, though he was unable to quantify those. The integration between the two companies, he promised, will be “seamless.” Retail customers in Idaho, Washington and Oregon would benefit from proposed “Rate Credits” equalling an estimated $15.8 million across five years, even as Hydro One seeks to redesign its bills in Ontario. Idahoans would see a one per cent rate decrease through that period.

While Avista would become a wholly owned Hydro subsidiary, it would retain its name, and its headquarters in Spokane, Wash. In the case of Idaho specifically, a proposed settlement in April, subject to final approval by the commission, stipulates agreements on everything from staffing to governance to community contributions.

Will that meet the test? It’s up to the commission to determine whether the proposed transaction will keep a lid on rates and is “consistent with the public interest.” Hydro One is hoping for a decision from regulatory agencies in all the named states by mid-August and a closing date by the end of September, though U.S. regulators can ultimately determine the fate of such deals. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted its approval in January, followed last week by the Federal Communications Commission. Washington and Alaska have reached settlement agreements. These too are pending final state approvals.

The $5.3-billion deal (or $6.7 billion Canadian) is subject to ongoing hearings in Idaho, and elsewhere rate hikes face opposition as hearings begin. Members of the public are encouraged to have their say. The public comment deadline is June 27.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News