Talks over proposed coal-fired power plant south of D-FW rile Dallas mayor

France Electricity Crisis drives record power prices as nuclear outages squeeze supply, forcing energy imports, fuel oil and coal generation, amid gas market shocks, weak wind output, and freezing weather straining the grid.

Key Points

A French power shortfall from nuclear outages, record prices, heavy imports, and oil-fired backup amid cold weather.

✅ EDF halted reactors; 10% capacity offline, 30% by January

✅ Imports surge; fuel oil and coal units dispatched

✅ Prices spike as gas reverses flow and wind output drops

Electricity prices surged to a fresh record as France scrambled to keep its lights on, sucking up supplies from the rest of Europe.

France, usually an exporter of power, is boosting electricity imports and even burning fuel oil, and has at times limited nuclear output due to high river temperatures during heatwaves. The crunch comes after Electricite de France SA said it would halt four reactors accounting for 10% of the nation’s nuclear capacity, straining power grids already facing cold weather. Six oil-fired units were turned on in France on Tuesday morning, according to a filing with Entsoe.

“It’s illustrating how severe it is when they’re actually starting to burn fuel oil and importing from all these countries,” said Fabian Ronningen, an analyst at Rystad Energy. The unexpected plant maintenance “is reflected in the market prices,” he said

Europe is facing an energy crisis, with utilities relying on coal and oil. Almost 30% of France’s nuclear capacity will be offline at the beginning of January, leaving the energy market at the mercy of the weather. To make matters worse, Germany is closing almost half of its nuclear capacity before the end of the year, as Europe loses nuclear power just when it really needs energy.

German power for delivery next year surged 10% to 278.50 euros a megawatt-hour, while the French contract for January added 9.5% to a record 700.60 euros. Prices also gained, under Europe’s marginal pricing system, as gas jumped after shipments from Russia via a key pipeline reversed direction, flowing eastward toward Poland instead.

Neighboring countries are boosting their exports to France this week to cover for lost nuclear output, with imports from Germany rising to highest level in at least four years. In the U.K., four coal power units were operating on Tuesday with as much as 1.5 gigawatts of hourly output being sent across the channel. 

The power crisis is so severe that the French government has asked EDF to restart some nuclear reactors earlier than planned amid outage risks for nuclear-powered France. Ecology Minister Barbara Pompili said last weekend that, in addition to the early reactor restarts and past river-temperature limits, the country had contracts with some companies in which they agreed to cut production during peak demand hours in exchange for payments from the government.

Higher energy prices threaten to derail Europe’s economic recovery just as the coronavirus omicron variety is spreading. Trafigura Group’s Nyrstar will pause production at its zinc smelter in France in the first week of January because of rising electricity prices. Norwegian fertilizer producer Yara International, which curbed output earlier this year, said it would continue to monitor the situation closely and curtail production where necessary.

Freezing weather this week is also sending short-term power prices surging as renewables can’t keep up, even though wind and solar overtook gas in the EU last year. German wind output plunged to a five-week low on Tuesday.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

VW Germany Plant Closures For EV Shift signal a strategic realignment toward electric vehicles, sustainability, and zero-emission mobility, optimizing manufacturing, cutting ICE capacity, boosting battery production, retraining workers, and aligning with the Accelerate decarbonization strategy.

Key Points

VW is shuttering German plants to cut ICE costs and scale EV output, advancing sustainability and competitiveness.

✅ Streamlines operations; reallocates capital to EV platforms and batteries.

✅ Cuts ICE output, lowers emissions, and boosts clean manufacturing capacity.

✅ Retrains workforce amid closures; invests in software and charging tech.

Volkswagen (VW), one of the world’s largest automakers, is undergoing a significant transformation with the announcement of plant closures in Germany. As reported by The Guardian, this strategic shift is part of VW’s broader move towards prioritizing electric vehicles (EVs) and adapting to the evolving automotive market as EVs reach an inflection point globally. The decision highlights the company’s commitment to sustainability and innovation amid a rapidly changing industry landscape.

Strategic Plant Closures

Volkswagen’s decision to close several of its plants in Germany marks a pivotal moment in the company's history. These closures are part of a broader strategy to streamline operations, reduce costs, and focus on the production of electric vehicles. The move reflects VW’s response to the growing demand for EVs and the need to transition from traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to cleaner, more sustainable alternatives.

The affected plants, which have been key components of VW’s manufacturing network, will cease production as the company reallocates resources and investments towards its electric vehicle programs. This realignment is aimed at improving operational efficiency and ensuring that VW remains competitive in a market that is increasingly oriented towards electric mobility.

A Shift Towards Electric Vehicles

The closures are closely linked to Volkswagen’s strategic shift towards electric vehicles. The automotive industry is undergoing a profound transformation as governments and consumers place greater emphasis on sustainability and reducing carbon emissions. Volkswagen has recognized this shift and is investing heavily in the development and production of EVs as part of its "Accelerate" strategy, anticipating widespread EV adoption within a decade across key markets.

The company’s commitment to electric vehicles is evident in its plans to launch a range of new electric models and increase production capacity for EVs. Volkswagen aims to become a leader in the electric mobility sector by leveraging its technological expertise and scale to drive innovation and expand its EV offerings.

Economic and Environmental Implications

The closure of VW’s German plants carries both economic and environmental implications. Economically, the move will impact the workforce and local economies dependent on these manufacturing sites. Volkswagen has indicated that it will work on providing support and retraining opportunities for affected employees, as the EV aftermarket evolves and reshapes service needs, but the transition will still pose challenges for workers and their communities.

Environmentally, the shift towards electric vehicles represents a significant positive development. Electric vehicles produce zero tailpipe emissions, which aligns with global efforts to combat climate change and reduce air pollution. By focusing on EV production, Volkswagen is contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and supporting the transition to a more sustainable transportation system.

Challenges and Opportunities

While the transition to electric vehicles presents opportunities, it also comes with challenges. Volkswagen will need to manage the complexities of closing and repurposing its existing plants while ramping up production at new or upgraded facilities dedicated to EVs. This transition requires substantial investment in new technologies, infrastructure, and training, including battery supply strategies that influence manufacturing footprints, to ensure a smooth shift from traditional automotive manufacturing.

Additionally, Volkswagen faces competition from other automakers that are also investing heavily in electric vehicles, including Daimler's electrification plan outlining the scope of its transition. To maintain its competitive edge, VW must continue to innovate and offer attractive, high-performance electric models that meet consumer expectations.

Future Outlook

Looking ahead, Volkswagen’s focus on electric vehicles aligns with broader industry trends and regulatory pressures. Governments worldwide are implementing stricter emissions regulations and providing incentives for EV adoption, although Germany's plan to end EV subsidies has sparked debate domestically, creating a favorable environment for companies that are committed to sustainability and clean technology.

Volkswagen’s investment in electric vehicles and its strategic realignment reflect a proactive approach to addressing these trends. The company’s ability to navigate the challenges associated with plant closures and the transition to electric mobility will be critical, especially as Europe's EV slump tests demand signals, in determining its success in the evolving automotive landscape.

Conclusion

Volkswagen’s decision to close several plants in Germany and focus on electric vehicle production represents a significant shift in the company’s strategy. While the closures present challenges, they also highlight Volkswagen’s commitment to sustainability and its response to the growing demand for cleaner transportation solutions. By investing in electric vehicles and adapting its operations, Volkswagen aims to lead the way in the transition to a more sustainable automotive future. As the company moves forward, its ability to effectively manage this transition will be crucial in shaping its role in the global automotive market.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

U.S. Residential Electricity Bills rose on stronger demand, inflation, and fuel costs, with higher retail prices, kWh consumption, and extreme weather driving 2022 spikes; forecasts point to stable summer usage and slight price increases.

Key Points

They are average household power costs shaped by prices, kWh use, weather, and upstream fuel costs.

✅ 2022 bills up 13% nominal, 5% real vs. 2021

✅ Retail price rose 11%; consumption up 2% to 907 kWh

✅ Fuel costs to plants up 34%, pressuring rates

In nominal terms, the average monthly electricity bill for residential customers in the United States increased 13% from 2021 to 2022, rising from $121 a month to $137 a month. After adjusting for inflation—which reached 8% in 2022, a 40-year high—electricity bills increased 5%. Last year had the largest annual increase in average residential electricity spending since we began calculating it in 1984. The increase was driven by a combination of more extreme temperatures, which increased U.S. consumption of electricity for both heating and cooling, and higher fuel costs for power plants, which drove up retail electricity prices nationwide.

Residential electricity customers’ monthly electricity bills are based on the amount of electricity consumed and the retail electricity price. Average U.S. monthly electricity consumption per residential customer increased from 886 kilowatthours (kWh) in 2021 to 907 kWh in 2022, even as U.S. electricity sales have declined over the past seven years. Both a colder winter and a hotter summer contributed to the 2% increase in average monthly electricity consumption per residential customer in 2022 because customers used more space heating during the winter and more air conditioning during the summer, with some states, such as Pennsylvania, facing sharp winter rate increases.

Although we don’t directly collect retail electricity prices, we do collect revenues from electricity providers that allow us to determine prices by dividing by consumption, and industry reports show major utilities spending more on electricity delivery than on power production. In 2022, the average U.S. residential retail electricity price was 15.12 cents/kWh, an 11% increase from 13.66 cents/kWh in 2021. After adjusting for inflation, U.S. residential electricity prices went up by 2.5%.

Higher fuel costs for power plants drove the increase in residential retail electricity prices. The cost of fossil fuels—including natural gas prices, coal, and petroleum—delivered to U.S. power plants increased 34%, from $3.82 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) in 2021 to $5.13/MMBtu in 2022. The higher fuel costs were passed along to residential customers and contributed to higher retail electricity prices, and Germany power prices nearly doubled over a year in a related trend.

In the first three months of 2023, the average U.S. residential monthly electricity bill was $133, or 5% higher than for the same time last year, according to data from our Electric Power Monthly. The increase was driven by a 13% increase in the average U.S. residential retail electricity price, which was partly offset by a 7% decrease in average monthly electricity consumption per residential customer, and industry outlooks also see U.S. power demand sliding 1% on milder weather. This summer, we expect that typical household electricity bills will be similar to last year’s, with customers paying about 2% more on average. The slight increase in electricity costs forecast for this summer stems from higher retail electricity prices but similar consumption levels as last summer.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

NB Power Smart Meter Opt-Out Fees reflect cost causation principles set before the Energy and Utilities Board, covering meter reading charges, transmitter-disable options, rollout targets, and education plans across New Brunswick's smart metering program.

Key Points

Fees NB Power may apply to customers opting out of smart meters, reflecting cost causation and meter-reading costs.

✅ Based on cost causation and meter reading expenses

✅ BC and Quebec charge monthly opt-out surcharges

✅ Policy finalized during rollout after EUB review

NB Power customers who do not want a smart meter installed on their home could be facing a stiff fee for that decision, but so far the utility is not saying how much it might be.  

"It will be based on the principles of cost causation, but we have not gotten into the detail of what that fee would be at this point," said NB Power Senior Vice President of Operations Lori Clark at Energy and Utilities Board hearings on Friday.

In other jurisdictions that have already adopted smart meters, customers not wanting to participate have faced hundreds of dollars in extra charges, while Texas utilities' pullback from smart-home networks shows approaches can differ.

In British Columbia, power customers are charged a meter reading fee of $32.40 per month if they refuse a smart meter, or $20 per month if they accept a smart meter but insist its radio transmitter be turned off. That's a cost of between $240 and $388.80 per year for customers to opt out.

In Quebec, smart meters were installed beginning in 2012. Customers who refused the devices were initially charged $98 to opt out plus a meter reading fee of $17 per month. That was eventually cut by Quebec's energy board in 2014 to a $15 refusal fee and a $5 per month meter reading surcharge.

NB Power said it may be a year or more before it settles on its own fee.

"The opt out policy will be developed and implemented as part of the roll out.  It will be one of the last things we do," said Clark.

Customers need to be on board

NB Power is in front of the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board seeking permission to spend $122.7 million to install 350,000 smart meters province wide, as neighboring markets grapple with major rate increases that heighten affordability concerns.  

The meters are capable of transmitting consumption data of customers back to NB Power in real time, which the utility said will allow for a number of innovations in pricing and service, and help address old meter inaccuracies that affected some households.

The meters require near universal adoption by customers to maximize their financial benefit — like eliminating more than $20 million a year NB Power currently spends to read meters manually. The utility has said the switch will not succeed if too many customers opt out.

"We certainly wouldn't be looking at making an investment of this size without having the customer with us," said Clark.

On Thursday, Kent County resident Daniel LeBlanc, who along with Roger Richard, is opposing the introduction of smart meters for health reasons, predicted a cool reception for the technology in many parts of the province, given concerns that include health effects and billing disputes in Nova Scotia reported elsewhere.

"If one were to ask most of the people in the rural areas, I'm not sure you would get a lot of takers for this infrastructure," said LeBlanc, who is concerned with the long-term effect microwave frequencies used by the meters to transmit data may have on human health.

That issue is before the EUB next week.

Haven't tested the waters

NB Power acknowledged it has not measured public opinion on adopting smart meters but is confident it can convince customers it is a good idea for them and the utility, even as seasonal rate proposals in New Brunswick have prompted consumer backlash.

"People don't understand what the smart meter is," said Clark. "We need to educate our customers first to allow them to make an informed decision so that will be part of the roll out plan."

Clark noted that smart meters, helped by stiff opting out penalties, were eventually accepted by 98 per cent of customers in British Columbia and by 97.4 per cent of customers in Quebec.

"We will check and adjust along the way if there are issues with customer uptake," said Clark.

"This is very similar to what has been done in other jurisdictions and they haven't had those challenges."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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