Utility capital spending to top $250 billion in U.S.

U.S. Energy Dominance envisions deregulation, oil and gas growth, LNG exports, pipelines, and geopolitical leverage, while facing OPEC pricing power, infrastructure bottlenecks, climate policy pressures, and accelerating renewables in global markets.

Key Points

U.S. policy to grow fossil fuel output and exports via deregulation, bolstering energy security, geopolitical influence.

✅ Deregulation to expand drilling, pipelines, and export capacity

✅ Exposed to OPEC pricing, global shocks, and cost competitiveness

✅ Faces infrastructure, ESG finance, and renewables transition risks

Former President Donald Trump has consistently advocated for “energy dominance” as a cornerstone of his energy policy. In his vision, the United States would leverage its abundant natural resources to achieve energy self-sufficiency, flood global markets with cheap energy, and undercut competitors like Russia and OPEC nations. However, while the rhetoric resonates with many Americans, particularly those in energy-producing states, the pursuit of energy dominance faces significant real-world challenges that could limit its feasibility and impact.

The Energy Dominance Vision

Trump’s energy dominance strategy revolves around deregulation, increased domestic production of oil and gas, and the rollback of climate-oriented restrictions. During his presidency, he emphasized opening federal lands to drilling, accelerating the approval of pipelines, and, through an executive order, boosting uranium and nuclear energy initiatives, as well as withdrawing from international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord. The goal was not only to meet domestic energy demands but also to establish the U.S. as a major exporter of fossil fuels, thereby reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.

This approach gained traction during Trump’s first term, with the U.S. achieving record levels of oil and natural gas production. Energy exports surged, making the U.S. a net energy exporter for the first time in decades. Yet, critics argue that this policy prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability, while supporters believe it provides a roadmap for energy security and geopolitical leverage.

Market Realities

The energy market is complex, influenced by factors beyond the control of any single administration, with energy crisis impacts often cascading across sectors. While the U.S. has significant reserves of oil and gas, the global market sets prices. Even if the U.S. ramps up production, it cannot insulate itself entirely from price shocks caused by geopolitical instability, OPEC production cuts, or natural disasters.

For instance, despite record production in the late 2010s, American consumers faced volatile gasoline prices during an energy crisis driven by $5 gas and external factors like tensions in the Middle East and fluctuating global demand. Additionally, the cost of production in the U.S. is often higher than in countries with more easily accessible reserves, such as Saudi Arabia. This limits the competitive advantage of U.S. energy producers in global markets.

Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns

A major obstacle to achieving energy dominance is infrastructure. Expanding oil and gas production requires investments in pipelines, export terminals, and refineries. However, these projects often face delays due to regulatory hurdles, legal challenges, and public opposition. High-profile pipeline projects like Keystone XL and Dakota Access have become battlegrounds between industry proponents and environmental activists, and cross-border dynamics such as support for Canadian energy projects amid tariff threats further complicate permitting, highlighting the difficulty of reconciling energy expansion with environmental and community concerns.

Moreover, the transition to cleaner energy sources is accelerating globally, with many countries committing to net-zero emissions targets. This trend could reduce the demand for fossil fuels in the long run, potentially leaving U.S. producers with stranded assets if global markets shift more quickly than anticipated.

Geopolitical Implications

Trump’s energy dominance strategy also hinges on the belief that U.S. energy exports can weaken adversaries like Russia and Iran. While increased American exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe have reduced the continent’s reliance on Russian gas, achieving total energy independence for allies is a monumental task. Europe’s energy infrastructure, designed for pipeline imports from Russia, cannot be overhauled overnight to accommodate LNG shipments.

Additionally, the influence of major producers like Saudi Arabia and the OPEC+ alliance remains significant, even as shifts in U.S. policy affect neighbors; in Canada, some viewed Biden as better for the energy sector than alternatives. These countries can adjust production levels to influence prices, sometimes undercutting U.S. efforts to expand its market share.

The Renewable Energy Challenge

The growing focus on renewable energy adds another layer of complexity. Solar, wind, and battery storage technologies are becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Many U.S. states and private companies are investing heavily in clean energy to align with consumer preferences and global trends, amid arguments that stepping away from fossil fuels can bolster national security. This shift could dampen the domestic demand for oil and gas, challenging the long-term viability of Trump’s energy dominance agenda.

Moreover, international pressure to address climate change could limit the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. Financial institutions and investors are increasingly reluctant to fund projects perceived as environmentally harmful, further constraining growth in the sector.

While Trump’s call for U.S. energy dominance taps into a desire for economic growth and energy security, it faces numerous challenges. Global market dynamics, infrastructure bottlenecks, environmental concerns, and the transition to renewable energy all pose significant barriers to achieving the ambitious vision.

For the U.S. to navigate these challenges effectively, a balanced approach that incorporates both traditional energy sources and investments in clean energy is likely needed. Striking this balance will require careful policymaking that considers not just immediate economic gains but also long-term sustainability and global competitiveness.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

E.ON Digital Transformer Stations modernize distribution grids with smart grid monitoring, voltage control, and remote switching, enabling bidirectional power flow, renewables integration, and rapid fault isolation from centralized grid control centres.

Key Points

Remotely monitored grid nodes enhancing smart grid stability and speedier fault response.

✅ Real-time voltage and current data along feeders and laterals

✅ Remote switching cuts outage duration and truck rolls

✅ Supports renewables and bidirectional power flows

E.ON plans to commission 2500 digital transformer stations in the service areas of its four German distribution grid operators - Avacon, Bayernwerk, E.DIS and Hansewerk - by the end of 2019. Starting this year, E.ON will solely install digital transformer stations in Germany, aligning with 2019 grid edge trends seen across the sector. This way, the digital grid is quite naturally being integrated into E.ON's distribution grids.

With these transformer stations as the centrepiece of the smart grid, it is possible to monitor and control using synchrophasors in the power grid from the grid control centre. This helps to maintain a more balanced utilisation of the grid and, with increasing complexity, ensures continued security of supply.

Until now, the current and voltage parameters required for safe grid operation could usually only be determined at the beginning of a power line, where there is usually a grid substation in place. Controlling current flow and voltage in the downstream system was physically impossible.

In the future, grids will have to function in both directions: they will bring electricity to the customer while at the same time collecting and transmitting more and more green electricity via HVDC technology where appropriate. This requires physical data to be made available along the entire route. To ensure security of supply, voltage fluctuations must be kept within narrowly defined limits and the current flow must not exceed the specified value, while reducing line losses with superconducting cables remains an important consideration. To manage this challenge, it is necessary to install digital technology.

The possibility of remotely controlling grids also reduces downtimes in the event of faults and supports a smarter electricity infrastructure approach. With the new technology, our grid operators can quickly and easily access the stations of the affected line. The grid control centres can thus limit and eliminate faults on individual line sections within a very short space of time.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Electricity Market Competition drives lower wholesale prices, stable retail rates, better grid reliability, and faster emissions cuts as deregulation and renewables adoption pressure utilities, improve efficiency, and enhance consumer choice in power markets.

Key Points

Electricity market competition opens supply to rivals, lowering prices, improving reliability, and reducing emissions.

✅ Wholesale prices fell faster in competitive markets

✅ Retail rates rose less than in monopoly states

✅ Fewer outages, shorter durations, improved reliability

By Bernard L. Weinstein

Electricity used to be boring.  Public utilities that provided power to homes and businesses were regulated monopolies and, by law, guaranteed a fixed rate-of-return on their generation, transmission, and distribution assets. Prices per kilowatt-hour were set by utility commissions after lengthy testimony from power companies, wanting higher rates, and consumer groups, wanting lower rates.

About 25 years ago, the electricity landscape started to change as economists and others argued that competition could lead to lower prices and stronger grid reliability. Opponents of competition argued that consumers weren’t knowledgeable enough about power markets to make intelligent choices in a competitive pricing environment. Nonetheless, today 20 states have total or partial competition for electricity, allowing independent power generators to compete in wholesale markets and retail electric providers (REPs) to compete for end-use customers, a dynamic echoed by the Alberta electricity market across North America. (Transmission, in all states, remains a regulated natural monopoly).

A recent study by the non-partisan Pacific Research Institute (PRI) provides compelling evidence that competition in power markets has been a boon for consumers. Using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), PRI’s researchers found that wholesale electricity prices in competitive markets have been generally declining or flat, prompting discussions of free electricity business models, over the last five years. For example, compared to 2015, wholesale power prices in New England have dropped more than 44 percent, those in most Mid-Atlantic States have fallen nearly 42 percent, and in New York City they’ve declined by nearly 45 percent. Wholesale power costs have also declined in monopoly states, but at a considerably slower rate.

As for end-users, states that have competitive retail electricity markets have seen smaller price increases, as consumers can shop for electricity in Texas more cheaply than in monopoly states. Again, using EIA data, PRI found that in 14 competitive jurisdictions, retail prices essentially remained flat between 2008 and 2020. By contrast, retail prices jumped an average of 21 percent in monopoly states.  The ten states with the largest retail price increases were all monopoly-based frameworks. A 2017 report from the Retail Energy Supply Association found customers in states that still have monopoly utilities saw their average energy prices increase nearly 19 percent from 2008 to 2017 while prices fell 7 percent in competitive markets over the same period.

The PRI study also observed that competition has improved grid reliability, the recent power disruptions in California and Texas, alongside disruptions in coal and nuclear sectors across the U.S., notwithstanding. Looking at two common measures of grid resiliency, PRI’s analysis found that power interruptions were 10.4 percent lower in competitive states while the duration of outages was 6.5 percent lower.

Citing data from the EIA between 2008 and 2018, PRI reports that greenhouse gas emissions in competitive states declined on average 12.1 percent compared to 7.3 percent in monopoly states. This result is not surprising, and debates over whether Israeli power supply competition can bring cheaper electricity mirror these dynamics.  In a competitive wholesale market, independent power producers have an incentive to seek out lower-cost options, including subsidized renewables like wind and solar. By contrast, generators in monopoly markets have no such incentive as they can pass on higher costs to end-users. Perhaps the most telling case is in the monopoly state of Georgia where the cost to build nuclear Plant Vogtle has doubled from its original estimate of $14 billion 12 years ago. Overruns are estimated to cost Georgia ratepayers an average of $854, and there is no definite date for this facility to come on line. This type of mismanagement doesn’t occur in competitive markets.

Unfortunately, some critics are attempting to halt the momentum for electricity competition and have pointed to last winter’s “deep freeze” in Texas that left several million customers without power for up to a week. But this example is misplaced. Power outages in February were the result of unprecedented and severe weather conditions affecting electricity generation and fuel supply, and numerous proposals to improve Texas grid reliability have focused on weatherization and fuel resilience; the state simply did not have enough access to natural gas and wind generation to meet demand. Competitive power markets were not a factor.

The benefits of wholesale and retail competition in power markets are incontrovertible. Evidence shows that households and businesses in competitive states are paying less for electricity while grid reliability has improved. The facts also suggest that wholesale and retail competition can lead to faster reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In short, competition in power markets is good for consumers and good for the environment.

Bernard L. Weinstein is emeritus professor of applied economics at the University of North Texas, former associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, and a fellow of Goodenough College, London. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Alberta Electricity Market Reform reshapes policy under the UCP, weighing a capacity market versus energy-only design, AESO reliability rules, renewables targets, coal phase-out, carbon pricing, consumer rates, and investment certainty before AUC decisions.

Key Points

Alberta Electricity Market Reform is the UCP plan to reassess capacity vs energy-only, renewables, and carbon pricing.

✅ Reviews capacity market timeline and AESO procurement

✅ Alters subsidies for renewables; slows wind and solar growth

✅ Adjusts industrial carbon levy; audits Balancing Pool losses

Hearings kicked off this week into the future of the province’s electricity market design, amid an electricity market reshuffle pledged by the province, but a high-stakes decision about the industry’s fate — affecting billions of dollars in investment and consumer costs — won’t be made inside the meeting room of the Alberta Utilities Commission.

Instead, it will take place in the office of Jason Kenney, as the incoming premier prepares to pivot away from the seismic reforms to Alberta’s electricity sector introduced by the Notley government.

The United Conservative Party has promised to adopt market-based policies, reflecting changes to how Alberta produces and pays for power, that will reset how the sector operates, from its approach to renewable energy and carbon pricing to re-evaluating the planned transition to an electricity “capacity market.”

“Every ball in electricity is up in the air right now,” Vittoria Bellissimo, of the Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta, said Tuesday during a break in the commission hearings.

Industry players are uncertain how quickly the UCP will change direction on power policies, but there’s little doubt Kenney’s government will take a strikingly different approach to the sector that keeps the lights on in Alberta.

“There’s some things they are going to change that are going to impact the electricity industry significantly,” said Duane Reid-Carlson, chief executive of consultancy EDC Associates.

“But I don’t think it’s going to be upheaval. I think the new government will proceed with caution because electricity is the foundation of our economy.”

Alberta’s electricity market has been turned on its head in recent years due to the recession, power prices dropping to near two-decade lows and several transformative policies initiated by the NDP.

The Notley government’s climate plan included an accelerated phase-out of all coal-fired generation and set targets for more renewable energy.

The most significant, but least-understood, move has been the planned shift to an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Under the strategy, generators will no longer solely be paid for the power produced and sold into the market; they will also receive payments for having electricity capacity available to the grid on demand.

The change was recommended by the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) as a way to reduce price volatility and provide more reliability than the current energy-only market, which some argue needs more competition to deliver better outcomes.

The independent system operator and industry officials have spent more than two years planning the transition since the switch was announced in late 2016. Proposed rules for the new system, outlining market changes, are now being discussed at the Alberta Utilities Commission hearings.

However, there is no ironclad guarantee the system remake will go ahead following the UCP’s election victory last week — amid calls to scrap the overhaul from a Calgary retailer — it plans to study the issue further — while other substantive electricity changes are already in store.

The UCP has promised to end “costly subsidies” to renewable energy developments and abandon the NDP’s pledge to have such energy sources make up 30 per cent of all power generation by 2030.

It will remove the planned phase-out of coal-fired electricity generation, although federal regulations for a 2030 prohibition remain in place.

It will also ask the auditor general to conduct a special audit of the massive losses sustained by the province’s Balancing Pool due to power purchase arrangements being handed back to the agency three years ago.

While Kenney has pledged to cancel the provincewide carbon tax, a levy on large industrial greenhouse gas emitters (such has power plants) will still be charged, although at a reduced rate of $20 a tonne.

The biggest unknown remains the power market’s structure, which underpins how the entire system operates.

The UCP has promised to consult on the shift to the capacity market and report back to Albertans within 90 days.

The complex issue may sound like an eye-glazer, but it will have a profound effect on industry investment, as well as how much consumers pay on their monthly electricity bills.

A number of industry players worry the capacity market will lead AESO to procure more power than is necessary, foisting unnecessary costs onto all Albertans.

“I still have concerns for what the impact on consumers is going to be,” said energy market consultant Sheldon Fulton. “I’d love to see the capacity market go away.”

An analysis by EDC Associates found the transition to a capacity market will procure additional electricity before it’s needed, requiring consumers to pay up to 40 per cent more — an extra $1.4 billion — for power in 2021-22 than under the existing market structure.

“I don’t think there’s any prejudged outcome,” said Blake Shaffer, former head trader at TransAlta Corp. and a fellow-in-residence at the C.D. Howe Institute.

“But it really matters about getting this right.”

Evan Bahry, executive director of the Independent Power Producers Society of Alberta, said the fact the UCP’s review was confined to just 90 days is helpful, as it avoids throwing the entire industry into a prolonged period of uncertainty.

As for the greening of Alberta’s power grid, amid growing attention to clean grids and storage, the demise of the NDP’s Renewable Electricity Program will likely slow down the rapid pace of wind and solar development. But it’s unlikely to stop the growth trend as costs continue to fall for such developments.

“Renewables over the last number of years have evolved to the point that they make sense on a subsidy-free basis,” said Dan Balaban, CEO of Greengate Power Corp., which has developed 480 MW of wind power in Alberta and Ontario.

“There is a path to clean electricity ahead.”

Chris Varcoe is a Calgary Herald columnist.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One Leadership Shakeup unsettles investors as Ontario government ousts CEO and board, pressuring shares; analysts cite political and regulatory risk, stock volatility, trimmed price targets, and dividend stability at the regulated utility.

Key Points

An abrupt CEO exit and board overhaul at Hydro One, driving share declines and raising political and regulatory risk.

✅ Shares fall as CEO retires and board resigns under provincial pressure.

✅ Analysts cut price targets; warn of political, regulatory risks.

✅ New board to pick CEO; province consults on compensation.

Hydro One Ltd. shares slid Thursday with some analysts sounding warnings of greater uncertainty after the new Ontario government announced the retirement of the electrical utility's chief executive and the replacement of its board of directors.

 After sagging by almost eight per cent in early trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange, following news that Q2 profit plunged 23% amid weaker electricity revenue, shares of the company were later down four per cent, or 81 cents, at $19.36 as of 11:42 a.m. ET.

On Wednesday, after stock markets had closed for the day, Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced the immediate retirement of Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt. He leaves with a $400,000 payout in lieu of post-retirement benefits and allowances, Hydro One said.

Doug Ford's government forces out Hydro One '$6-million man'

During the recent provincial election campaign, Ford vowed to fire Schmidt, who earned $6.2 million last year and whose salary wouldn't be reduced despite calls to cut electricity costs.

Paul Dobson, Hydro One's chief financial officer, will serve as acting CEO until a new top executive is selected.

Ford also said the entire board of directors of the utility would resign. Hydro One said a new board — four members of which will be nominated by the province — will select the company's next CEO, and the province will be consulted on the next leader's compensation.

A new board is expected to be formed by mid-August.

The provincial government is the largest single investor in Hydro One, holding a 47 per cent stake. The company was partly privatized by the former Liberal government in 2015, while the NDP has proposed to make hydro public again in Ontario to change course.

Doug Ford promises to keep Pickering nuclear plant open until 2024

In response to the government's move to supplant the utility's board and CEO, some analysts cautioned investors about too many unknowns in the near-term outlook, citing raised political or regulatory risks.

Analyst Jeremy Rosenfield of iA Securities cut his rating on Hydro One shares to hold from buy, and reduced his 12-month price target for the stock to $24 from $26.

Rosenfield said the stock is still a defensive investment supported by stable earnings and cash flows, good earnings growth and healthy dividend.

However, he said in a research note that "the heightened potential for further political interference in the province's electricity market and regulated utility framework represent key risk factors that are likely to outweigh Hydro One's fundamentals over the near term."

Potential challenge to find new CEO

Laurentian Bank Securities analyst Mona Nazir said in a research note that the magnitude of change all at once was "surprising but not shocking."

She said the agreement that will see Hydro One consult with the provincial government on matters involving executive pay could have an impact on the hiring of a new CEO for the utility.

"Given the government's open and public criticism of the company and a potential ceiling on compensation, it may be challenging to attract top talent to the position," she wrote.

Laurentian cut its rating on the Hydro One to hold and reduced its price target to $21 from $24.

Analysts at CIBC World Markets said investors face an uncertain future, noting parallels with debates at Manitoba Hydro over political direction.

"In particular, we are are concerned about the government meddling in with [power] rates," wrote Robert Catellier and Archit Kshetrapal in a research note, adding they believe the new provincial government is aiming for a 12 per cent reduction in customers' power bills.

CIBC reduced its price target on Hydro One's shares to $20.50 from its previous target of $24.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News