Industry urges national framework for energy policy

California Electricity Reliability covers grid resilience amid heat waves, rolling blackouts, renewable energy integration, resource adequacy, battery storage, natural gas peakers, ISO oversight, and peak demand management to keep homes, businesses, and industry powered.

Key Points

Dependable California power delivery despite heat waves, peak demand, and challenges integrating renewables into grid.

✅ Rolling blackouts revealed gaps in resource adequacy.

✅ Early evening solar drop requires fast ramping and storage.

✅ Agencies pledge planning reforms and flexible backup supply.

One hallmark of an advanced society is a reliable supply of electrical energy for residential, commercial and industrial consumers. Uncertainty that California electricity will be there when we need it it undermines social cohesion and economic progress, as demonstrated by the travails of poor nations with erratic energy supplies.

California got a small dose of that syndrome in mid-August when a record heat wave struck the state and utilities were ordered to impose rolling blackouts to protect the grid from melting down under heavy air conditioning demands.

Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly demanded that the three overseers of electrical service to most of the state - the Public Utilities Commission, the Energy Commission and the California Independent Service Operator – explain what went wrong.

"These blackouts, which occurred without prior warning or enough time for preparation, are unacceptable and unbefitting of the nation's largest and most innovative state," Newsom wrote. "This cannot stand. California residents and businesses deserve better from their government."

Initially, there was some fingerpointing among the three entities. The blackouts had been ordered by the California Independent System Operator, which manages the grid and its president, Steve Berberich, said he had warned the Public Utilities Commission about the potential supply shortfall facing the state.

"We have indicated in filing after filing after filing that the resource adequacy program was broken and needed to be fixed," he said. "The situation we are in could have been avoided."

However, as political heat increased, the three agencies hung together and produced a joint report that admitted to lapses of supply planning and grid management and promised steps to avoid a repeat next summer.

"The existing resource planning processes are not designed to fully address an extreme heat storm like the one experienced in mid August," their report said. "In transitioning to a reliable, clean and affordable resource mix, resource planning targets have not kept pace to lead to sufficient resources that can be relied upon to meet demand in the early evening hours. This makes balancing demand and supply more challenging."

Although California's grid had experienced greater heat-related demands in previous years, most notably 2006, managers then could draw standby power from natural gas-fired plants and import juice from other Western states when necessary.

Since then, the state has shut down a number of gas-fired plants and become more reliant on renewable but less reliable sources such as windmills and solar panels.

August's air conditioning demand peaked just as output from solar panels was declining with the setting of the sun and grid managers couldn't tap enough electrons from other sources to close the gap.

While the shift to renewables didn't, unto itself, cause the blackouts, they proved the need for a bigger cushion of backup generation or power storage in batteries or some other technology. The Public Utilities Commission, as Beberich suggested, has been somewhat lax in ordering development of backup supply.

In the aftermath of the blackouts, the state Water Resources Control Board, no doubt with direction from Newsom's office, postponed planned shutdowns of more coastal plants, which would have reduced supply flexibility even more.

Shifting to 100% renewable electricity, the state's eventual goal, while maintaining reliability will not get any easier. The state's last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, is ticketed for closure and demand will increase as California eliminates gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles in favor of "zero emission vehicles" as part of its climate policies push and phases out natural gas in homes and businesses.

Politicians such as Newsom and legislators in last week's blackout hearing may endorse a carbon-free future in theory, but they know that they'll pay the price as electricity prices climb if nothing happens when Californians flip the switch.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Tesla Energy Ventures Texas enters the deregulated market as a retail electricity provider, leveraging ERCOT, battery storage, solar, and grid software to enable virtual power plants and customer energy trading with Powerwall and Megapack assets.

Key Points

Tesla Energy Ventures Texas is Tesla's retail power unit selling grid and battery energy and enabling solar exports.

✅ ERCOT retail provider; sells grid and battery-stored power

✅ Uses Powerwall/Megapack; supports virtual power plants

✅ Targets Tesla owners; enables solar export and trading

Last week, Tesla Energy Ventures, a new subsidiary of electric car maker Tesla Inc. (TSLA), filed an application to become a retail electricity provider in the state of Texas. According to reports, the company plans to sell electricity drawn from the grid to customers and from its battery storage products. Its grid transaction software may also enable customers for its solar panels to sell excess electricity back to the smart grid in Texas.1

For those who have been following Tesla's fortunes in the electric car industry, the Palo Alto, California-based company's filing may seem baffling. But the move dovetails with Tesla's overall ambitions for its renewable energy business, as utilities face federal scrutiny of climate goals and electricity rates.

Why Does Tesla Want to Become an Electricity Provider?
The simple answer to that question is that Tesla already manufactures devices that produce and store power. Examples of such devices are its electric cars, which come equipped with lithium ion batteries, and its suite of battery storage products for homes and enterprises. Selling power generated from these devices to consumers or to the grid is a logical next step.

Tesla's move will benefit its operations. The filing states that it plans to build a massive battery storage plant near its manufacturing facility in Austin. The plant will provide the company with a ready and cheap source of power to make its cars.

Tesla's filing should also be analyzed in the context of the Texas grid. The state's electricity market is fully deregulated, unlike regions debating grid privatization approaches, and generated about a quarter of its overall power from wind and solar in 2020.2 The Biden administration's aggressive push toward clean energy is only expected to increase that share.

After a February fiasco in the state grid resulted in a shutdown of renewable energy sources and skyrocketing natural gas prices, Texas committed to boosting the role of battery storage in its grid. The Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state's grid operator, has said it plans to install 3,008 MW of battery storage by the end of 2022, a steep increase from the 225 MW generated at the end of 2020.3 ERCOT's proposed increase in installation represents a massive market for Tesla's battery unit.

Tesla already has considerable experience in this arena. It has built battery storage plants in California and Australia and is building a massive battery storage unit in Houston, according to a June Bloomberg report.4 The unit is expected to service wholesale power producers. Besides this, the company plans to "drum up" business among existing customers for its batteries through an app and a website that will allow them to buy and sell power among themselves, a model also being explored by Octopus Energy in international talks.

Tesla Energy Ventures: A Future Profit Center?
Tesla's foray into becoming a retail electricity provider could boost the top line for its energy services business, even as issues like power theft in India highlight retail market challenges. In its last reported quarter, the company stated that its energy generation and storage business brought in $810 million in revenues.

Analysts have forecast a positive future for its battery storage business. Alex Potter from research firm Piper Sandler wrote last year that battery storage could bring in more than $200 billion per year in revenue and grow up to a third of the company's overall business.5

Immediately after the news was released, Morningstar analyst Travis Miller wrote that Tesla does not represent an immediate threat to other major players in Texas's retail market, where providers face strict notice obligations illustrated when NT Power was penalized for delayed disconnection notices, such as NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) and Vistra Corp. (VST). According to him, the company will initially target its own customers to "complement" its offerings in electric cars, battery, charging, and solar panels.6

Further down the line, however, Tesla's brand name and resources may work to its advantage. "Tesla's brand name recognition gives it an advantage in a hypercompetitive market," Miller wrote, adding that the car company's entry confirmed the firm's view that consumer technology or telecom companies will try to enter retail energy markets, where policy shifts like Ontario rate reductions can shape customer expectations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Community Solar for Low-Income Homes expands energy equity by delivering renewable energy access, predictable bill savings, and tax credit benefits to renters and energy-insecure households, accelerating distributed generation and storage adoption nationwide.

Key Points

A program model enabling renters and LMI households to subscribe to off-site solar and save on utility bills.

✅ Earn bill credits from shared solar generation.

✅ Expands access for renters and LMI subscribers.

✅ Often paired with storage and IRA tax credit adders.

On a square-foot basis, the issue of inequality is made worse by higher costs for energy usage in the nation. Efforts like community solar programs such as Maryland community solar are underway to boost low-income participation in the cost benefits of renewable energy.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that households that are considered energy insecure, or those that have the inability to adequately meet basic household energy costs, are paying more for electricity than their wealthier counterparts. 

On average in the United States in 2020, households were billed about $1.04 per square foot for all energy sources. For homes that did not report energy insecurity, that average was $0.98 per square foot, while homes with energy insecurity issues paid an average of $1.24 per square foot for energy. This means that U.S. residents that need the most support on their energy bills are stuck with costs 27% higher than their neighbors on square-foot-basis.

EIA said energy-insecure households have reduced or forgone basic necessities to pay energy bills, kept their houses at unsafe temperatures because of energy cost concerns, or been unable to repair heating or cooling equipment because of cost.

In 2020, households with income less than $10,000 a year were billed an average of $1.31 per square foot for energy, while households making $100,000 or more were billed an average of $0.96 per square foot, said EIA. Renters paid considerably more ($1.28 per square foot) than owners ($0.98 per square foot). There were also considerable differences between regions, with New England solar growth sparking grid upgrade debates, ethnic groups and races, and insulation levels, as seen below.

The energy transition toward renewables like solar has offered price stability, amid record solar and storage growth nationwide, but thus far energy-insecure communities have relatively been left behind. A recent Berkeley Lab report, Residential Solar-Adopter Income and Demographic Trends, indicates that even though the rate of solar adoption among low-income residents is increasing (from 5% in 2010 to 11% in 2021), that segment of energy consumers remains under-represented among solar adopters, relative to its share of the population.

Community solar efforts

As such, the United States is targeting communities most impacted by energy costs that have not benefitted from the transition, highlighting “Energy Communities” that are eligible for an additional 10% tax credit through funds made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act.

Additionally, a push for community solar development is taking place nationwide to extend access to affordable solar energy to renters and other residents that aren’t able to leverage finances to invest in predictable, low-cost residential solar systems. The Biden Administration set a goal this year to sign up 5 million community solar households, achieving $1 billion in bill savings by 2025. The community solar model only represents about 8% of the total distributed solar capacity in the nation. This target would entail a jump from 3 GW installed capacity to 20 GW by the target year. The Department of Energy estimates community solar subscribers save an average of 20% on their bills.

California this year passed AB 2316, the Community Renewable Energy Act takes aim at four acute problems in the state’s power market: reliability amid rising outage risks, rates, climate and equity. The law creates a community renewable energy program, including community solar-plus-storage, supported by cheaper batteries, to overcome access barriers for nearly half of Californians who rent or have low incomes. Community solar typically involves customers subscribing to an off-site solar facility, receiving a utility bill credit for the power it generates.

“Community renewable energy is a proven powerful tool to help close California’s clean energy gap, bringing much needed relief to millions struggling with high housing costs and utility debt,” said Alexis Sutterman, energy equity program manager at the California Environmental Justice Alliance.

The program has energy equity baked into its structure, working to make sure Californians of all income levels participate in the benefits of the energy transition. Not only does it open solar access to renters, the law ensures that at least 51% of subscribers are low-income customers, which is expected to make projects eligible for a 10% tax credit adder under the IRA.

“The money’s on the table now,” said Jeff Cramer, president and chief executive of the Coalition for Community Solar Access. “While there are groups pushing for solar access for all, and states with strong legislation, there are other pockets of interest in surprising places in the United States. For example, Louisiana has no policy for community solar or support for low-income residents going solar but the city of New Orleans has its own utility commission with a community solar program. In Nebraska, forward-looking co-operatives have created community solar projects.

Community solar markets are active in 22 states, with more expected to come online in the future as states pursue 100% clean energy targets across the country. However, the market is expected to require strong community outreach efforts to foster trust and gain subscribers.

“There is a distrust of community solar initially in LMI communities as many have been burned before by retail energy false promises,” said Eric LaMora, executive director, community solar, Nautilus Solar on a panel at the Solar Energy Industries Association Finance, Tax, and Buyers seminar. “People are suspicious but there really are no hooks with community solar.”

LMI residents are leery to provide tax records or much documents at all in order to sign up for community solar, LaMora said. “We were surprised to see less of a default rate with LMI residents. We attribute this to the fact that they see significant savings on their electric bill, making it easier to pay each month,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Nunavut electricity rate increase sees QEC raise domestic electricity rates 6.6% over two years, affecting customer rates, base rates, subsidies, and kWh overage charges across communities, with public housing exempt and territory-wide pricing denied.

Key Points

A 6.6% QEC hike over 2018-2019, affecting customer rates, subsidies, and kWh overage; public housing remains exempt.

✅ 3.3% on May 1, 2018; 3.3% on Apr 1, 2019

✅ Subsidy caps: 1,000 kWh Oct-Mar; 700 kWh Apr-Sep

✅ Territory-wide base rate denied; public housing exempt

Ahead of the Nunavut government's approval of the general rate increase for the Qulliq Energy Corporation, many Nunavummiut wondered how the change would impact their electricity bills.

QEC's request for a 6.6-per-cent increase was approved by the government last week. The increase will be spread out over two years, a pattern similar to BC Hydro's two-year rate plan, with the first increase (3.3 per cent) effective May 1, 2018. The remaining 3.3 per cent will be applied on April 1, 2019.

Public housing units, however, are exempt from the government's increase altogether.

The power corporation also asked for a territory-wide rate, so every community would pay the same base rate (we'll go over specific terms in a minute if you're not familiar with them). But that request was denied, even as Manitoba Hydro scaled back increases next year, and QEC will now take the next two years reassessing each community's base rate.

#google#

So, what does this mean for your home's power bill? Well, there's a few things you need to know, which we'll get to in a second.

But in essence, as long as you don't go over the government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit, you're paying an extra 3.61 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh).

To be clear, we're talking about non-government domestic rates — basically, private homeowners — and those living in a government-owned unit but pay for their own power.

The basics

First, some quick terminology. The "base rate" term we're going to use (and used above) in this story refers to the community rate. As in, what QEC charges customers in every community. The "customer rate" is the rate customers actually pay, after the government's subsidy.

The first thing you need to know is everyone in Nunavut starts off by paying the same customer rate, unlike jurisdictions using a price cap to limit spikes.

That's because the government subsidizes electricity costs, and that subsidy is different in every community, because the base rate is different.

For example, Iqaluit's new base rate after the 3.3 per cent increase (remember, the 6.6 per cent is being applied over two years) is 56.69 cents per kWh, while Kugaaruk's base rate rose to 112.34 cents per kWh. Those, by the way, are the territory's lowest and highest respective base rates.

However, customers in both Iqaluit and Kugaaruk will each now pay 28.35 cents per kWh because, remember, the government subsidizes the base rates in every community.

Now, remember earlier we mentioned a "government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit?" That's where customers in various communities start to pay different amounts.

As simply as we can explain it, the government will only cover so much electricity usage in a month, in every household.

Between October and March, the government will subsidize the first 1,000 kilowatt hours, and only 700 kilowatt hours from April to September. QEC says the average Nunavut home will use about 500 kilowatt hours every month over the course of a year.

But if your household goes over that limit, you're at the mercy of your community's base rate for any extra electricity you use. Homes in Kugaaruk in December, for instance, will have to pay that 122.34 cents for every extra kilowatt hour it uses, while homes in Iqaluit only have to pay 56.69 cents per kWh for its extra electricity.

That's where many Nunavummiut have criticized the current rate structure, because smaller communities are paying more for their extra costs than larger communities.

QEC had hoped — as it had asked for — to change the structure so every community pays the same base rate. So regardless of if people go over their electricity usage limits for the government subsidy, everyone would pay the same overage rates.

But the government denied that request.

New rate is actually lower

The one thing we should highlight, however, is the new rate after the increase is actually lower than what customers were paying in 2014.

For the past seven months, customers have been getting power from QEC at a discount, whereas Newfoundland customers began paying for Muskrat Falls during the same period, to different effect.

That's because when QEC sets its rates, it does so based on global oil price forecasts. Since 2014, the price of oil worldwide has slumped, and so QEC was able to purchase it at less than it had anticipated.

When that happens, and QEC makes more than $1 million within a six month period thanks to the lower oil prices, it refunds the excess profits back to customers through a discount on electricity base rates — a mechanism similar to a lump-sum credit used elsewhere — the government subsidy, however, doesn't change so the savings are passed on directly to customers.

Now, the 6.6 per cent increase to electricity rates, is actually being applied to the discounted base rate from the last seven months.

So again, while customers are paying more than they have been for the last seven months, it's lower than what they were paying in 2014.

Lastly, to be clear, all the figures used in this story are only for domestic non-government rates. Commercial rates and changes have not been explored in this story, given the differences in subsidy and rate application.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Labrador Island Link Reliability faces scrutiny as Nalcor Energy and General Electric address software issues; Liberty Consulting warns of Holyrood risks, winter outages, grid stability concerns, and PUB oversight for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Key Points

It is the expected dependability of the link this winter, currently uncertain due to GE software and Holyrood risks.

✅ GE software delays may hinder reliable in-service by mid-November.

✅ Holyrood performance issues increase winter outage risk.

✅ PUB directs Hydro to plan contingencies and improve assets.

An independent consultant is questioning if the brand new Labrador Island link can be counted on to supply power to Newfoundland this coming winter.

In June, Nalcor Energy confirmed it had successfully sent power from Churchill Falls to the Avalon Peninsula through its more than 1500-kilometre link, but now the Liberty Consulting Group says it doesn't expect the link will be up and running consistently this winter.

"What we have learned supports a conclusion that the Labrador Island Link is unlikely to be reliably in commercial operation at the start of the winter," says the report dated Aug. 30, 2018.

The link relies on software provided by General Electric but Liberty says there are lingering questions about GE's ability to ensure the necessary software will be in place this fall.

"At an August meeting, company representatives did not express confidence in GE's ability to meet an in-service date for the Labrador Island Link of mid-November," says the report.

Liberty also says testing the link for a brief period this spring and fall doesn't demonstrate long-term reliability.

"The link will remain prone to the uncertainties any new major facility faces early in its operating life, especially one involving technology new to the operating company," according to the report.

Holyrood trouble

The report goes on to say island residents should also be worried about the reliability of the troubled Holyrood facility — a facility that's important when demand for energy is high during winter months.

Liberty says "poor performance at the Holyrood thermal generating station increases the risk of outages considerably."

The group's report concludes the deteriorating condition of Holyrood is a major threat to the island's power supply and Liberty says that threat "could produce very severe consequences when the Labrador Island Link is unavailable."

The consultant says questions about the Labrador Island Link's readiness combined with concerns about the reliability of Holyrood may mean power outages, and for vulnerable customers, debates over hydro disconnections policies often intensify during winter.

"This all suggests that, for at least part of this winter, the island interconnected system may be at the mercy of the weather, where severe events can test utilities' storm response efforts further."

The consultant's report also includes five recommendations to the PUB, reflecting the kind of focused nuclear alert investigation follow-up seen elsewhere.

In essence, Liberty is calling for the board to direct Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to make plans for the possibility that the link won't be available this winter. It's also calling on hydro to do more to improve the reliability of its other assets, such as Holyrood, as some operators have even contemplated locking down key staff to maintain operations during crises.

Response to Liberty's report

Nalcor CEO Stan Marshall defended the Crown corporation's winter preparedness in an email statement to CBC.

"The right level of planning and investment has been made for our existing equipment so we can continue to meet all of our customer electricity needs for this coming winter season," he wrote.

Regarding the Labrador Island Link, Marshall called for patience.

"This is new technology for our province and integrating the new transmission assets into our current electricity system is complex work that takes time," he said.

There is also a more detailed response from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro which was sent to the province's Public Utiltiies Board.

Hydro says it will keep testing the Labrador Island Link and increasing the megawatts that are wheeled through it. It also says in October it will begin to give the PUB regular reports on the link's anticipated in-service date.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

CPUC Exit Fee Increase for CCAs adjusts the PCIA, affecting utilities, San Diego ratepayers, renewable energy procurement, customer equity, and cost allocation, while providing regulatory certainty for Community Choice Aggregation programs and clean energy goals.

Key Points

A CPUC-approved change raising PCIA exit fees paid by CCAs to utilities, balancing cost shifts and customer equity.

✅ PCIA rises from about 2.5c to roughly 4.25c per kWh in San Diego

✅ Aims to reduce cost shifts and protect non-CCA customers

✅ Offers regulatory certainty for CCA launches and clean energy goals

The California Public Utilities Commission approved an increase on the exit fees charged to customers who take part in Community Choice Aggregation -- government-run alternatives to traditional utilities like San Diego Gas & Electric.

After reviewing two competing exit fee proposals, all five commissioners voted Thursday in favor of an adjustment that many CCA advocates predicted could hamper the growth of the community choice movement.

But minutes after the vote was announced, one of the leading voices in favor of the city San Diego establishing its own CCA said the decision was good news because it provides some regulatory certainty.

"For us in San Diego, it's a green light to move forward with community choice," said Nicole Capretz, executive director of the Climate Action Campaign. "For us, it's let's go, let's launch and let's give families a choice. We no longer have to wait."

Under the CCA model, utilities still maintain transmission and distribution lines (poles and wires, etc.) and handle customer billing. But officials in a given local government entity make the final decisions about what kind of power sources are purchased.

Once a CCA is formed, its customers must pay an exit fee -- called a Power Charge Indifference Adjustment -- to the legacy utility serving that particular region. The fee is included in customers' monthly bills.

The fee is required to offset the costs of the investments utilities made over the years for things like natural gas power plants, renewable energy facilities and other infrastructure.

Utilities argue if the exit fee is set too low, it does not fairly compensate them for their investments; if it's too high, CCAs complain it reduces the financial incentive for their potential customers.

The Public Utilities Commission chose to adopt a proposal that some said was more favorable to utilities, leading to complaints from CCA boosters.

"We see this will really throw sand in the gears in our ability to do things that can move us toward (climate change) goals," Jim Parks, staff member of Valley Clean Energy, a CCA based in Davis, said before the vote.

Commissioner Carla Peterman, who authored the proposal that passed, said she supports CCAs but stressed the commission has a "legal obligation" to make sure increased costs are not shouldered by "customers who do not, or cannot, join a CCA. Today's proposal ensures a more level playing field between customers."

As for what the vote means for the exit fee in San Diego, Peterman's office earlier in the week estimated the charge would rise from 2.5 cents a kilowatt-hour to about 4.25 cents.

The Clear the Air Coaltion, a San Diego County group critical of CCAs, said the newly established exit fee -- which goes into effect starting next year -- is "a step in the direction."

But the group, which includes the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association and lobbyists for Sempra Energy (the parent company of SDG&E), repeated concerns it has brought up before.

"If the city of San Diego decides to get into the energy business this decision means ratepayers in National City, Chula Vista, Carlsbad, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, El Cajon and all other neighboring communities would see higher energy bills, and San Diego taxpayers would be faced with mounting debt," coalition spokesman Tony Manolatos said in an email.

CCA supporters say community choice is critical in ensuring San Diego meets the pledge made by Mayor Kevin Faulconer to adopt the city's Climate Action Plan, mandating 100 percent of the city's electricity needs must come from renewable sources by 2035.

Now attention turns to Faulconer, who promised to make a decision on bringing a CCA proposal to the San Diego City Council only after the utilities commission made its decision.

A Faulconer spokesman said Thursday afternoon that the vote "provides the clarity we've been waiting for to move forward" but did not offer a specific time table.

"We're on schedule to reach Mayor Faulconer's goal of choosing a pathway that achieves our renewable energy goals while also protecting ratepayers, and the mayor looks forward to making his recommendation in the next few weeks," said Craig Gustafson, a Faulconer spokesman, in an email.

A feasibility study released last year predicted a CCA in San Diego has the potential to deliver cheaper rates over time than SDG&E's current service, while providing as much as 50 percent renewable energy by 2023 and 80 percent by 2027.

"The city has already figured out we are still capable of launching a program, having competitive, affordable rates and finally offering families a choice as to who their energy provider is," said Capretz, who helped draft an initial blueprint of the climate plan as a city staffer.

SDG&E has come to the city with a counterproposal that offers 100 percent renewables by 2035.

Thus far, the utility has produced a rough outline for a "tariff" program that would charge ratepayers the cost of delivering more clean sources of energy over time.

Some council members have expressed frustration more specifics have not been sketched out.

SDG&E officials said they will take the new exit fee into account as they go forward with their counterproposal to the city council.

Speaking in general about the utility commission's decision, SDG&E spokeswoman Helen Gao called it "a victory for our customers, as it minimizes the cost shifts that they have been burdened with under the existing fee formula.

"As commissioners noted in rendering their decision, reforming the (exit fee) addresses a customer-to-customer equity issue and has nothing to do with increasing profits for investor-owned utilities," Gao said in an email.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News