Potshots damage utility equipment

SDG&E Minimum Bill Proposal would impose a $38.40 fixed charge, discouraging rooftop solar, burdening low income households, and shifting grid costs during peak demand, as the CPUC weighs consumer impacts and affordability.

Key Points

Sets a $38.40 monthly minimum bill that raises low usage costs, deters rooftop solar, and burdens low income households.

✅ $38.40 fixed charge regardless of usage

✅ Disincentivizes rooftop solar investments

✅ Disproportionate impact on low income customers

The utility San Diego Gas & Energy has an aggressive proposal pending before the California Public Utilities Commission, amid recent commission changes in San Diego that highlight how regulatory decisions affect local customers: It wants to charge most residential customers a minimum bill of $38.40 each month, regardless of how much energy they use. The costs of this policy would hit low-income customers and those who generate their own energy with rooftop solar. We’re urging the Commission to oppose this flawed plan—and we need your help.

SDG&E’s proposal is bad news for sustainable energy. About half of the customers whose bills would go up under this proposal have rooftop solar. The policy would deter other customers from investing in rooftop solar by making these investments less economical. Ultimately, lost opportunities for solar would mean burning more gas in polluting power plants. 

The proposal is also bad news for people who already have to scrimp on energy costs. Most customers with big homes and billowing air conditioners won't notice if this policy goes into effect, because they use at least $38 worth of electricity a month anyway. But for households that don’t buy much electricity from the company, including those in small apartments without air conditioning, this proposal would raise the bills. Even for customers on special low-income rates, amid electric bill changes statewide, SDG&E wants a minimum bill of $19.20.

Penalizing customers who don’t use much electricity would disproportionately hurt lower-income customers, raising energy equity concerns across the region, who tend to use less energy than their wealthier neighbors. In the region SDG&E serves, the average family in an apartment uses half as much electricity as a single-family residence. Statewide, low-income households are more than four times as likely to be low-usage electricity customers than high-income households. When it gets hot, residential electricity patterns are often driven by air conditioning. The vast majority of SDG&E's customers live in the coastal climate zone, where access to air conditioning is strongly linked to income: Households with incomes over $150,000 are more than twice as likely to have air conditioning than families making less than $35,000, with significant racial disparities in who has AC.

In its attempt to rationalize its request, SDG&E argues that it should charge everyone for infrastructure costs that do not depend on how much energy they use. But the cost of the grid is driven by how much energy SDG&E delivers on hot summer afternoons, when some customers blast their AC and demand for electricity peaks. If more customers relied on their own solar power or conserved energy, the utility would spend less on its grid and help rein in soaring electricity prices over time.

In the long term, reducing incentives to go solar and conserve energy will strain the grid and drive up costs for everyone, especially as lawmakers may overturn income-based charges and reshape rate design. SDG&E's arguments are part of a standard utility playbook for trying to hike income-based fixed charges, and consumer advocates have repeatedly shut them down.  As far as we know, no regulators in the country have allowed a utility to charge customers over $38 for the “privilege” of accessing electric service. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

ESCC COVID-19 Resource Guide outlines control center continuity, sequestration, social distancing, remote operations, testing priorities, mutual assistance, supply chain risk, and PPE protocols to sustain grid reliability and plant operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Key Points

An industry guide to COVID-19 mitigation for the power sector covering control centers, testing, PPE, and mutual aid.

✅ Control center continuity: segregation, remote ops, reserve shifts

✅ Sequestration triggers, testing priorities, and PPE protocols

✅ Mutual assistance, supply chain risk, and workforce planning

The latest version of the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council’s (ESCC’s) resource guide to assess and mitigate COVID-19 suggests the U.S. power sector continues to grapple with key concerns involving control center continuity, power plant continuity, access to restricted and quarantined areas, mutual assistance, and supply chain challenges, alongside urban demand shifts seen in Ottawa’s electricity demand during closures.

In its fifth and sixth versions of the “ESCC Resource Guide—Assessing and Mitigating the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19),” released on April 16 and April 20, respectively, the ESCC expanded its guidance as it relates to social distancing and sequestration within tight power sector environments like control centers, crucial mitigation strategies that are designed to avoid attrition of essential workers.

The CEO-led power sector group that serves as a liaison with the federal government during emergencies introduced the guide on March 23, and it provides periodic updates  sourced from “tiger teams,” which are made up of representatives from investor-owned electric companies, public power utilities, electric cooperatives, independent power producers (IPPs), and other stakeholders. Collating regulatory updates and emerging resources, it serves as a general shareable blueprint for generators,  transmission and distribution (T&D) facilities, reliability coordinators, and balancing authorities across the nation on issues the sector is facing as the COVID-19 pandemic endures.

Controlling Spread at Control Centers
While control centers are typically well-isolated, physically secure, and may be conducive to on-site sequestration, the guide is emphatic that staff at these facilities are typically limited and they need long lead times to be trained to properly use the information technology (IT) and operational technology (OT) tools to keep control centers functioning and maintain grid visibility. Control room operators generally include: reliability engineers, dispatchers, area controllers, and their shift supervisors. Staff that directly support these function, also considered critical, consist of employees who maintain and secure the functionality of the IT and OT tools used by the control room operators.

In its latest update, the ESCC notes that many entities took “proactive steps to isolate their control center facilities from external visitors and non-essential employees early in the pandemic, leveraging the presence of back-up control centers, self-quarantining of employees, and multiple shifts to maximize social distancing.” To ensure all levels of logistical and operational challenges posed by the pandemic are addressed, it envisions several scenarios ranging from mild contagion—where a single operator is affected at one of two control center sites to the compromise of both sites.

Previous versions of the guide have set out universal mitigation strategies—such as clear symptom reporting, cleaning, and travel guidance. To ensure continuity even in the most dire of circumstances, for example, it recommends segregating shifts, and even sequestering a “complete healthy shift” as a “reserve” for times when minimum staffing levels cannot be met. It also encourages companies to develop a backup staff of retirees, supervisors, managers, and engineers that could backfill staffing needs.

Meanwhile, though social distancing has always been a universal mitigation strategy, the ESCC last week detailed what social distancing at a control room could look like. It says, for example, that entities should consider if personnel can do their jobs in spaces adjacent to the existing control room; moving workstations to allow at least six feet of space between employees; or designating workstations for individual operators. The guide also suggests remote operations outside of a single control room as an option, and some markets are exploring virtual power plant models in the UK to support flexibility, though it underscores that not all control center operations can be performed remotely, and remote operations increase the potential for security vulnerabilities. “The NERC [North American Electric Reliability Corp.] Reliability Standards address requirements for BES [bulk electric system] control centers and security controls for remote access of systems, applications, or data,” the resource guide notes.

Sequestration—Highly Effective but Difficult
Significantly, the new update also clarifies circumstances that could “trigger” sequestration—or keeping mission-essential workers at facilities. Sequestration, it notes, “is likely to be the most effective means of reducing risk to critical control center employees during a pandemic, but it is also the most resource- and cost-intensive option to implement.”

It is unclear exactly how many power sector workers are currently being sequestered at facilities. According to the  American Public Power Association (APPA), as of last week, the New York Power Authority was sequestering 82 power plant control room and transmission control operator, amid New York City’s shifting electric rhythms during COVID-19; the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) in California had begun sequestering critical employees; and the Electric & Gas Utility at the City of Tallahassee had 44 workers being rotated in and out of sequestration. Another 37 workers from the New York ISO were already being sequestered or housed onsite as of April 9. PJM began sequestering a team of operators on April 11, and National Grid was sequestering 200 employees as of April 12. 

Decisions to trigger sequestration at T&D and other grid monitoring facilities are typically driven by entities’ risk assessment, ESCC noted. Considerations may involve: 

The number of people showing symptoms or testing positive as a percentage of the population in a county or municipality where the control center is sited. One organization, for example, is considering a lower threshold of 10% community infection as a trigger of “officer-level decision” to determine whether to sequester. A higher threshold of 20% “mandates a move to sequestration,” ESCC said.
The number of essential workers showing symptoms or having tested positive. “Acceptable risk should be based on the minimum staffing requirements of the control center and should include the availability of a reserve shift for critical position backfills. For example, shift supervisors are commonly certified in all positions in the control center, and the unavailability of more than one-third of a single organization’s shift supervisors could compromise operations,” it said.
The rate of infection spread across a geographic region. In the April 20 version, the guide removes specific mention that cases are doubling “every 3–5 days or more frequently in some areas.” It now says:  “Considering the rapid spread of COVID-19, special care should be taken to identify the point at which control center personnel are more likely than not to come into contact with an infected individual during their off-shift hours.”
Generator Sequestration Measures Vary
Generators, meanwhile, have taken different approaches to sequester generation operators. Some have reacted to statewide outbreaks, others to low reserves, and others still, as with one IPP, to control exposure to smaller staffs, which cannot afford attrition. The IPP, for example, decided sequestration was necessary because it “did not want to wait for confirmed cases in the workforce.” That company sequestered all its control room operators, outside operators, and instrumentation and control technicians.

The ESCC resource guide says workers are being sequestered in several ways. On-site, these could range from housing workers in two separate areas, for example, or in trailers brought in. Off-site, workers may be housed in hotel rooms, which the guide notes, “are plentiful.”

Location makes a difference, it said: “Onsite requires more logistical co-ordination for accommodations, food, room sanitization, linens, and entertainment.”  To accommodate sequestered workers, generators have to consider off-site food and laundry services (left at gates for pick-up)—and even extending Wi-Fi for personal use. Generators are learning from each other about all aspects of sequestration—including how to pay sequestered workers. It suggests sequestered workers should receive pay for all hours inside the plant, including straight time for regularly scheduled hours and time-and-a-half for all other hours. To maintain non-sequestered employees, who are following stay-at-home protocols, pay should remain regularly scheduled, it says.

Testing Remains a Formidable Hurdle
Though decisions to sequester differ among different power entities, they appear commonly complicated by one prominent issue: a dearth of testing.

At the center of a scuffle between the federal and state governments of late, the number of tests has not kept pace with the severity of the pandemic, and while President Trump has for some weeks claimed that “Testing is a local thing,” state officials, business leaders—including from the power sector—and public health experts say that it is far short of the several hundred thousands or perhaps even millions of daily tests it might take to safely restart the economy, even as calls to keep electricity options open grow among policymakers, a three-phase approach for which the Trump administration rolled out this week. While the White House said the approach is “based on the advice of public health experts, the suggestions do not indicate a specific timeframe. Some hard-hit states have committed to keeping current restrictions in place. New York on April 16 said it would maintain a shutdown order through May 15, while California published its own guidelines and states in the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast entered regional pacts that may involve interstate coordination on COVID-19–related policy going forward.

On Sunday, responding to a call by governors across the political spectrum that insisted the federal government should step up efforts to help states obtain vital supplies for tests, Trump said the federal government will be “using” and “preparing to use” the Defense Production Act to increase swab production.

For the power entities that are part of the ESCC, widespread testing underlies many mitigation strategies. The group’s generation owners and operating companies, which include members from the full power spectrum, have said testing is central to “successful mitigation of risk to control center continuity.”

In the updated guide, the entities recommend requesting that governmental authorities—it is unclear whether the focus should be on the federal or state governments—“direct medical facilities to prioritize testing for asymptomatic generation control room operators, operator technicians, instrument and control technicians, and the operations supervisor (treat comparable to first responders) in advance of sequestered, extended-duration shifts; and obtain state regulatory approval for corporate health services organizations to administer testing for coronavirus to essential employees, if applicable.”

The second priority, as crucial, involves asking the government to direct medical facilities to prioritize testing for control room operators before they are sequestered or go into extended-duration shifts.

Generators also want local, regional, state, and federal governments to ensure operators of generating facilities are allowed to move freely if “populace-wide quarantine/curfew or other travel restrictions” are enacted. Meanwhile,  they have also asked federal agencies and state permitting agencies to allow for non-compliance operations of generating facilities in case enough workers are not available.

Lower on its list, but still “medium priority,” is that the government should obtain authority for priority supply of sanitizing supplies and personal protective equipment (PPE) for generating facilities. They are also asking states to allow power plant employees (as opposed to crucially redirected medical personnel) to administer health questionnaires and temperature checks without Americans with Disabilities Act or other legal constraints. Newly highlighted in the update, meanwhile, is an emphasis on enough fire retardant (FR) vests and hoods and PPE, including masks and face coverings, so technicians don’t have to share them.

The worst-case scenario envisioned for generators involves a 40% workforce attrition, a nine-month pandemic, and no mutual assistance. As the update suggests, along with universal mitigation strategies, some power companies are eliminating non-essential work that would require close contact, altering assignments so work tasks are done by paired teams that do not rotate, and ensuring workers wear masks. The resource guide includes case studies and lessons learned so far, and all suggest pandemic planning was crucial to response. 

Gearing Up for Mutual Assistance—Even for Generation—During COVID-19
Meanwhile, though the guide recognizes that protecting employees is a key priority for many entities, it also lauds the crucial role mutual assistance plays in the sector’s collective response to the pandemic, even as coal and nuclear plant closures test just transition planning across regions. Mutual assistance is a long-standing power sector practice in the U.S. Last week, for example, as severe weather impacted the southern and eastern portions of the U.S., causing power outages for 1.3 million customers at the peak, the sector demonstrated the “versatility of mutual assistance processes,” bringing in additional workers and equipment from nearby utilities and contractors to assist with assessment and repair. “Crews utilized PPE and social distancing per the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] guidelines to perform their restoration duties,” the Energy Department told POWER.

But as the ESCC’s guide points out, mutual assistance has traditionally been deployed to help restore electric service to customers, typically focused on T&D infrastructure. The COVID-19 pandemic, uniquely, “has motivated generation entities to consider the use of mutual assistance for generation plant operation” it notes. As with the model it proposes to ensure continuity of control centers, mutual aid poses key challenges, such as for task variance, knowledge of operational practice, system customization, and legal indemnification.

Among guidelines ESCC proposes for generators are to use existing employee work stoppage plans as a resource in planning for the use of personnel not currently assigned to plant operation. It urges, for example, that generators keep a list of workers with skills who can be called from corporate/tech support (such as former operators or plant engineers/managers), or retirees and other individuals who could be called upon to help operate the control room first. ESCC also recommends considering the use of third-party contractor operations to supplement plant operations.

Key to these efforts is to “Create a thorough list of experience and qualifications needed to operate a particular unit. Important details include fuel type, OEM [original equipment manufacturer] technology, DCS [distributed control system] type, environmental controls, certifications, etc,” it says. “Consider proactively sharing this information internally within your company first and then with neighboring companies”—and that includes sufficient detail from manufacturers (such as Emerson Ovation, GE Mark VI, ABB, Honeywell)—“without exposing proprietary information.” One way to control this information is to develop a mutual assistance agreement with “strategic” companies within the region or system, it says.

Of specific interest is that the ESCC also recommends that generators consider “leaving units in extended or planned maintenance outage in that state as long as possible.” That’s because, “Operators at these offline sites could be considered available for a site responding to pandemic challenges,” it says.

However, these guidelines differ by resource. Nuclear generators, for example, already have robust emergency plans that include minimum staffing requirements, and owing to regulations, mutual aid is managed by each license holder, it says. However, to provide possible relief for attrition at operating nuclear plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on March 28 outlined a streamlined process that could allow nuclear operators to obtain exemptions from work hour rules, while organizations also point to IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons for future planning.

Uncertainty of Supply Chain Endurance
As the guide stresses, operational continuity during the pandemic will require that all power entities maintain supply of inputs and physical equipment. To help entities plan ahead—by determining volumes needed and geographic location of suppliers—it lists the most important materials needed for power delivery and bulk chemicals. “Clearly, the extent and duration of this emergency will influence the importance of one supply chain component compared to another,” it says.

As Massachusetts Institute of Technology supply chain expert David Simchi-Levi noted on April 13, global supply chains have been heavily taxed by the pandemic, and manufacturing activities in the European Union and North America are still going offline. China is showing signs of slow recovery. Even in the best-case scenario, however—even if North America and Europe manage to control and reduce the pandemic—the supply chain will likely experience significant logistical capacity shortages, from transportation to warehousing. Owing to variability in timing, he suggested that companies plan to reconfigure supply chains and reposition inventory in case suppliers go out of business or face quarantine, while some industry groups urge investing in hydropower as part of resilient recovery strategies.

Also in short supply, according to ESCC, is industry-critical PPE. “While our sector recognizes that the priority is to ensure that PPE is available for workers in the healthcare sector and first responders, a reliable energy supply is required for healthcare and other sectors to deliver their critical services,” its resource guide notes. “The sector is not looking for PPE for the entire workforce. Rather, we are working to prioritize supplies for mission-essential workers – a subset of highly skilled energy workers who are unable to work remotely and who are mission-essential during this extraordinary time.”

Among critical industry PPE needs are nitrile gloves, shoe covers, Tyvek suits, goggles/glasses, hand sanitizer, dust masks, N95 respirators, antibacterial soap, and trashbags. While it provides a list of non-governmental PPE vendors and suppliers, the guide also provides several “creative” solutions. These include, for example, formulations for effective hand sanitizer; 3D printer face shield files; methods for decontaminating face piece respirators and other PPE; and instructions for homemade masks with pockets for high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter inserts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

European Energy Market Crisis drives record natural gas and electricity prices across the EU, as LNG supply constraints, Russian pipeline dependence, marginal pricing, and renewables integration expose volatility in liberalised power markets.

Key Points

A 2021 surge in European gas and electricity prices from supply strains, demand rebounds, and marginal pricing exposure.

✅ Record TTF gas and day-ahead power prices across Europe

✅ LNG constraints and Russian pipeline dependence tightened supply

✅ Debate over marginal pricing vs regulated models intensifies

By Ronan Bolton

The year 2021 was a turbulent one for energy markets across Europe, as Europe's energy nightmare deepened across the region. Skyrocketing natural gas prices have created a sense of crisis and will lead to cost-of-living problems for many households, as wholesale costs feed through into retail prices for gas and electricity over the coming months.

This has created immediate challenges for governments, but it should also encourage us to rethink the fundamental design of our energy markets as we seek to transition to net zero, with many viewing it as a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels across the bloc.

This energy crisis was driven by a combination of factors: the relaxation of Covid-19 lockdowns across Europe created a surge in demand, while cold weather early in the year diminished storage levels and contributed to increasing demand from Asian economies. A number of technical issues and supply-side constraints also combined to limit imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) into the continent.

Europe’s reliance on pipeline imports from Russia has once again been called into question, as Gazprom has refused to ride to the rescue, only fulfilling its pre-existing contracts. The combination of these, and other, factors resulted in record prices – the European benchmark price (the Dutch TTF Gas Futures Contract) reached almost €180/MWh on 21 December, with average day-ahead electricity prices exceeding €300/MWh across much of the continent in the following days.

Countries which rely heavily on natural gas as a source of electricity generation have been particularly exposed, with governments quickly put under pressure to intervene in the market.

In Spain the government and large energy companies have clashed over a proposed windfall tax on power producers. In Ireland, where wind and gas meet much of the country’s surging electricity demand, the government is proposing a €100 rebate for all domestic energy consumers in early 2022; while the UK government is currently negotiating a sector-wide bailout of the energy supply sector and considering ending the gas-electricity price link to curb bills.

This follows the collapse of a number of suppliers who had based their business models on attracting customers with low prices by buying cheap on the spot market. The rising wholesale prices, combined with the retail price cap previously introduced by the Theresa May government, led to their collapse.

While individual governments have little control over prices in an increasingly globalised and interconnected natural gas market, they can exert influence over electricity prices as these markets remain largely national and strongly influenced by domestic policy and regulation. Arising from this, the intersection of gas and power markets has become a key site of contestation and comment about the role of government in mitigating the impacts on consumers of rising fuel bills, even as several EU states oppose major reforms amid the price spike.

Given that renewables are constituting an ever-greater share of production capacity, many are now questioning why gas prices play such a determining role in electricity markets.

As I outline in my forthcoming book, Making Energy Markets, a particular feature of the ‘European model’ of liberalised electricity trade since the 1990s has been a reliance on spot markets to improve the efficiency of electricity systems. The idea was that high marginal prices – often set by expensive-to-run gas peaking plants – would signal when capacity limits are reached, providing clear incentives to consumers to reduce or delay demand at these peak periods.

This, in theory, would lead to an overall more efficient system, and in the long run, if average prices exceeded the costs of entering the market, new investments would be made, thus pushing the more expensive and inefficient plants off the system.

The free-market model became established during a more stable era when domestically-sourced coal, along with gas purchased on long-term contracts from European sources (the North Sea and the Netherlands), constituted a much greater proportion of electricity generation.

While prices fluctuated, they were within a somewhat predictable range, and provided a stable benchmark for the long-term contracts underpinning investment decisions. This is no longer the case as energy markets become increasingly volatile and disrupted during the energy transition.

The idea that free price formation in a competitive market, with governments standing back, would benefit electricity consumers and lead to more efficient systems was rooted in sound economic theory, and is the basis on which other major commodity markets, such as metals and agricultural crops, have been organised for decades.

The free-market model applied to electricity had clear limitations, however, as the majority of domestic consumers have not been exposed directly to real-time price signals. While this is changing with the roll-out of smart meters in many countries, the extent to which the average consumer will be willing or able to reduce demand in a predicable way during peak periods remains uncertain.

Also, experience shows that governments often come under pressure to intervene in markets if prices rise sharply during periods of scarcity, thus undermining a basic tenet of the market model, with EU gas price cap strategies floated as one option.

Given that gas continues to play a crucial role in balancing supply and demand for electricity, the options available to governments are limited, illustrating why rolling back electricity prices is harder than it appears for policymakers. One approach would be would be to keep faith with the liberalised market model, with limited interventions to help consumers in the short term, while ultimately relying on innovations in demand side technologies and alternatives to gas as a means of balancing systems with high shares of variable renewables.

An alternative scenario may see a return to old style national pricing policies, involving a move away from marginal pricing and spot markets, even as the EU prepares to revamp its electricity market in response. In the past, in particular during the post-WWII decades, and until markets were liberalised in the 1990s, governments have taken such an approach, centrally determining prices based on the costs of delivering long term system plans. The operation of gas plants and fuel procurement would become a much more regulated activity under such a model.

Many argue that this ‘traditional model’ better suits a world in which governments have committed to long-term decarbonisation targets, and zero marginal cost sources, such as wind and solar, play a more dominant role in markets and begin to push down prices.

A crucial question for energy policy makers is how to exploit this deflationary effect of renewables and pass-on cost savings to consumers, whilst ensuring that the lights stay on.

Despite the promise of storage technologies such as grid-scale batteries and hydrogen produced from electrolysis, aside from highly polluting coal, no alternative to internationally sourced natural gas as a means of balancing electricity systems and ensuring our energy security is immediately available.

This fact, above all else, will constrain the ambitions of governments to fundamentally transform energy markets.

Ronan Bolton is Reader at the School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh and Co-Director of the UK Energy Research Centre. His book Making Energy Markets: The Origins of Electricity Liberalisation in Europe is to be published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Muskrat Falls funding deal delivers federal relief to Newfoundland and Labrador: Justin Trudeau outlines loan guarantees, transmission investment, Hibernia royalties, and $10-a-day child care to stabilize hydroelectric costs and curb electricity rate hikes.

Key Points

A $5.2b federal plan aiding NL hydro via loan guarantees, transmission funds, and Hibernia royalties to curb power rates.

✅ $1b for transmission and $1b in federal loan guarantees

✅ $3.2b via Hibernia royalty transfers through 2047

✅ Limits power rate hikes; adds $10-a-day child care in NL

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in Newfoundland and Labrador Wednesday to announce a $5.2-billion ratepayer protection plan to help the province cover the costs of a troubled hydroelectric project ahead of an expected federal election call.

Trudeau's visit to St. John's, N.L., wrapped up a two-day tour of Atlantic Canada that featured several major funding commitments, and he concluded his day in Newfoundland and Labrador by announcing the province will become the fourth to strike a deal with Ottawa for a $10-a-day child-care program.

As he addressed reporters, the prime minister was flanked by the six Liberal members of Parliament from the province. He alluded to the mismanagement that led the over-budget Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project to become what Liberal Premier Andrew Furey has called an "anchor around the collective souls" of the province.

"The pressures and challenges faced by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for mistakes made in the past is something that Canadians all needed to step up on, and that's exactly what we did," Trudeau said.

Furey, who joined Trudeau for the two announcements and was effusive in his praise for the federal government, said the federal funding will help Newfoundland and Labrador avoid a spike in electricity rates as customers start paying for Muskrat Falls ahead of when the project begins generating power this November.

"Muskrat Falls has been the No. 1 issue facing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians now for well over a decade," Furey said, adding that he is regularly asked by people whether their electricity rates are going to double, a concern other provinces address through rate legislation in Ontario as well.

"We landed on a deal today that I think -- I know -- is a big deal for Newfoundland and Labrador and will finally get the muskrat off our back," he said.

The agreement-in-principle between the two governments includes a $1-billion investment from Ottawa in a transmission through Quebec portion of the project, as well as $1 billion in loan guarantees. The rest will come from annual transfers from Ottawa equivalent to its annual royalty gains from its share in the Hibernia offshore oilfield, which sits off the coast of St. John's. Those transfers are expected to add up to about $3.2 billion between now and 2047, when the oilfield is expected to run dry.

The money will help cover costs set to come due when the Labrador project comes online, preventing rate increases that would have been needed to pay the bills, and officials have discussed a lump-sum bill credit to help households. Though electricity rates in the province will still rise, to 14.7 cents per kilowatt hour from the current 12.5 cents, that's well below the projected 23 cents that officials had said would be needed to cover the project's costs.

Muskrat Falls was commissioned in 2012 at a cost of $7.4 billion, but its price tag has since ballooned to $13.1 billion. Ottawa previously backed the project with billions of dollars in loan guarantees, and in December, Trudeau announced he had appointed Serge Dupont, former deputy clerk of the Privy Council, to oversee rate mitigation talks with the province about financially restructuring the project.

Its looming impact on the provincial budget is set against an already grim financial situation: the province projected an $826-million deficit in its latest budget, and a recent financial update from the provincial energy corporation reflected pandemic impacts, coupled with $17.2 billion in net debt.

After visiting with children from a daycare centre in the College of the North Atlantic, Trudeau and Furey announced that in 2023, the average cost of regulated child care in the province for children under six would be cut to $10 a day from $25 a day. Trudeau said that within five years, almost 6,000 new daycare spaces would be created in the province.

"As part of the agreement, a new full-day, year-round pre-kindergarten program for four-year-olds will also start rolling out in 2023," the prime minister told reporters. "For parents, this agreement is huge."

Newfoundland and Labrador is the fourth province, after Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, to sign on to the federal government's child-care program.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario IESO COVID-19 Control Room Measures detail how essential operators safeguard the electricity grid with split shifts, backup control centres, real-time balancing, deep cleaning, social distancing, and shelter-in-place readiness to maintain reliable power.

Key Points

Measures that protect essential grid operators with split shifts, backup sites, and hygiene to keep power reliable.

✅ Split teams across primary and backup control centres

✅ 12-hour shifts with remote handoffs and deep cleaning

✅ Real-time grid modeling to balance demand and supply

A group of personnel key to keeping Ontario's electricity system functioning may end up locked down in their control centres due to the COVID-19 crisis, according to the head of the province's power operator.

But that has so far proven unnecessary with a change-up in routine, Independent Electricity System Operator CEO Peter Gregg said.

While about 90 per cent of staff were sent to work from home on March 13, another 48 control-room operators deemed essential are still going into work, Gregg said in an interview.

"We identified a smaller cohort of critical operations room staff that need to go in to operate the system out of our control centres," Gregg said. "My biggest concern is to maintain their health, their safety as we rely on them to do this critical work."

Some of the operators manage power demand and supply in real time as Ontario electricity demand shifts, by calling for more or less generation and keeping an eye on the distribution grid, which also allows power to flow to and from Ontario's neighbours. Others do scenario planning and modelling to prepare for changes.

The essential operators have been split into eight teams of six each working 12-hour shifts. The day crew works out of a control centre near Toronto and the night shift out of a backup centre in the city's west end, Gregg said.

"That means that we're not having physical hand-off between control room operators on shift change -- we can do it remotely -- and it also allows us to do deep cleansing," Gregg said. "We're fortunate that the way the room is set up allows us to practice good social distancing."

Should it become necessary, he said, bed, food and other on-site arrangements have been made to allow the operators to stay at their workplaces as a similar agency in New York has done.

"If we do need to shelter these critical employees in place, we've got the ability to do so."

IESO is responsible for ensuring a balance between supply and demand for electricity across the province. Because power cannot be stored, the IESO ensures generators produce enough power to meet peak demand while making sure they don't produce too much.

"You're seeing, obviously, commercial demand drop, some industrial demand drop," Gregg said. "But you're also seeing a shift in the demand curve as well, where normally you have people heading off to work and so residential demand would go down. But obviously with them staying home, you're seeing an increase in residential electricity use across the province."

Some utilities have indicated no cuts to peak rates for self-isolating customers, with Hydro One peak pricing remaining in place for now.

IESO also runs and settles the wholesale electricity markets. Market prices are set based on accepted offers to supply electricity, while programs supporting stable electricity pricing for industrial and commercial users can affect costs against forecast demand.

With the pandemic forcing many businesses to close and people to stay home, and provincial electricity relief for families and small businesses in place, typical power needs fallen about seven per cent at a time of year that would normally see demand soften anyway. It remains to be seen whether, and how much, power needs shift further amid stringent isolation measures and the ongoing economic impact of the outbreak.

Gregg said the operator is constantly modeling different possibilities.

"What we do normally is prepare for all of these sort of emergency scenarios, as reflected in the U.S. grid response coverage, and test and drill for these," he said. "What we're experiencing over the last few weeks is that those drills come in handy because they help us prepare for when the real-time situation actually happens."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Brain Stimulation is transforming neuromodulation, from TMS and DBS to closed loop devices, targeting neural circuits for addiction, depression, Parkinsons, epilepsy, and chronic pain, powered by advanced imaging, AI analytics, and the NIH BRAIN Initiative.

Key Points

Brain stimulation uses pulses to modulate neural circuits, easing symptoms in depression, Parkinsons, and epilepsy.

✅ Noninvasive TMS and invasive DBS modulate specific brain circuits

✅ Closed loop systems adapt stimulation via real time biomarker detection

✅ Emerging uses: addiction, depression, Parkinsons, epilepsy, chronic pain

In June 2015, biology professor Colleen Hanlon went to a conference on drug dependence. As she met other researchers and wandered around a glitzy Phoenix resort’s conference rooms to learn about the latest work on therapies for drug and alcohol use disorders, she realized that out of the 730 posters, there were only two on brain stimulation as a potential treatment for addiction — both from her own lab at Wake Forest School of Medicine.

Just four years later, she would lead 76 researchers on four continents in writing a consensus article about brain stimulation as an innovative tool for addiction. And in 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved a transcranial magnetic stimulation device to help patients quit smoking, a milestone for substance use disorders.

Brain stimulation is booming. Hanlon can attend entire conferences devoted to the study of what electrical currents do—including how targeted stimulation can improve short-term memory in older adults—to the intricate networks of highways and backroads that make up the brain’s circuitry. This expanding field of research is slowly revealing truths of the brain: how it works, how it malfunctions, and how electrical impulses, precisely targeted and controlled, might be used to treat psychiatric and neurological disorders.

In the last half-dozen years, researchers have launched investigations into how different forms of neuromodulation affect addiction, depression, loss-of-control eating, tremor, chronic pain, obsessive compulsive disorder, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, and more. Early studies have shown subtle electrical jolts to certain brain regions could disrupt circuit abnormalities — the miscommunications — that are thought to underlie many brain diseases, and help ease symptoms that persist despite conventional treatments.

The National Institute of Health’s massive BRAIN Initiative put circuits front and center, distributing $2.4 billion to researchers since 2013 to devise and use new tools to observe interactions between brain cells and circuits. That, in turn, has kindled interest from the private sector. Among the advances that have enhanced our understanding of how distant parts of the brain talk with one another are new imaging technology and the use of machine learning, much as utilities use AI to adapt to shifting electricity demand, to interpret complex brain signals and analyze what happens when circuits go haywire.

Still, the field is in its infancy, and even therapies that have been approved for use in patients with, for example, Parkinson’s disease or epilepsy, help only a minority of patients, and in a world where electricity drives pandemic readiness expectations can outpace evidence. “If it was the Bible, it would be the first chapter of Genesis,” said Michael Okun, executive director of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at University of Florida Health.

As brain stimulation evolves, researchers face daunting hurdles, and not just scientific ones. How will brain stimulation become accessible to all the patients who need it, given how expensive and invasive some treatments are? Proving to the FDA that brain stimulation works, and does so safely, is complicated and expensive. Even with a swell of scientific momentum and an influx of funding, the agency has so far cleared brain stimulation for only a handful of limited conditions. Persuading insurers to cover the treatments is another challenge altogether. And outside the lab, researchers are debating nascent issues, such as the ethics of mind control, the privacy of a person’s brain data—concerns that echo efforts to develop algorithms to prevent blackouts during rising ransomware threats—and how to best involve patients in the study of the human brain’s far-flung regions.

Neurologist Martha Morrell is optimistic about the future of brain stimulation. She remembers the shocked reactions of her colleagues in 2004 when she left full-time teaching at Stanford (she still has a faculty appointment as a clinical professor of neurology) to direct clinical trials at NeuroPace, then a young company making neurostimulator systems to potentially treat epilepsy patients.

Related: Once a last resort, this pain therapy is getting a new life amid the opioid crisis
“When I started working on this, everybody thought I was insane,” said Morrell. Nearly 20 years in, she sees a parallel between the story of jolting the brain’s circuitry and that of early implantable cardiac devices, such as pacemakers and defibrillators, which initially “were used as a last option, where all other medications have failed.” Now, “the field of cardiology is very comfortable incorporating electrical therapy, device therapy, into routine care. And I think that’s really where we’re going with neurology as well.”

Reaching a ‘slope of enlightenment’
Parkinson’s is, in some ways, an elder in the world of modern brain stimulation, and it shows the potential as well as the limitations of the technology. Surgeons have been implanting electrodes deep in the brains of Parkinson’s patients since the late 1990s, and in people with more advanced disease since the early 2000s.

In that time, it’s gone through the “hype cycle,” said Okun, the national medical adviser to the Parkinson’s Foundation since 2006. Feverish excitement and overinflated expectations have given way to reality, bringing scientists to a “slope of enlightenment,” he said. They have found deep brain stimulation to be very helpful for some patients with Parkinson’s, rendering them almost symptom-free by calming the shaking and tremors that medications couldn’t. But it doesn’t stop the progression of the disease, or resolve some of the problems patients with advanced Parkinson’s have walking, talking, and thinking.

In 2015, the same year Hanlon found only her lab’s research on brain stimulation at the addiction conference, Kevin O’Neill watched one finger on his left hand start doing something “funky.” One finger twitched, then two, then his left arm started tingling and a feeling appeared in his right leg, like it was about to shake but wouldn’t — a tremor.

“I was assuming it was anxiety,” O’Neill, 62, told STAT. He had struggled with anxiety before, and he had endured a stressful year: a separation, selling his home, starting a new job at a law firm in California’s Bay Area. But a year after his symptoms first began, O’Neill was diagnosed with Parkinson’s.

In the broader energy context, California has increasingly turned to battery storage to stabilize its strained grid.

Related: Psychiatric shock therapy, long controversial, may face fresh restrictions
Doctors prescribed him pills that promote the release of dopamine, to offset the death of brain cells that produce this messenger molecule in circuits that control movement. But he took them infrequently because he worried about insomnia as a side effect. Walking became difficult — “I had to kind of think my left leg into moving” — and the labor lawyer found it hard to give presentations and travel to clients’ offices.

A former actor with an outgoing personality, he developed social anxiety and didn’t tell his bosses about his diagnosis for three years, and wouldn’t have, if not for two workdays in summer 2018 when his tremors were severe and obvious.

O’Neill’s tremors are all but gone since he began deep brain stimulation last May, though his left arm shakes when he feels tense.

It was during that period that he learned about deep brain stimulation, at a support group for Parkinson’s patients. “I thought, ‘I will never let anybody fuss with my brain. I’m not going to be a candidate for that,’” he recalled. “It felt like mad scientist science fiction. Like, are you kidding me?”

But over time, the idea became less radical, as O’Neill spoke to DBS patients and doctors and did his own research, and as his symptoms worsened. He decided to go for it. Last May, doctors at the University of California, San Francisco surgically placed three metal leads into his brain, connected by thin cords to two implants in his chest, just near the clavicles. A month later, he went into the lab and researchers turned the device on.

“That was a revelation that day,” he said. “You immediately — literally, immediately — feel the efficacy of these things. … You go from fully symptomatic to non-symptomatic in seconds.”

When his nephew pulled up to the curb to pick him up, O’Neill started dancing, and his nephew teared up. The following day, O’Neill couldn’t wait to get out of bed and go out, even if it was just to pick up his car from the repair shop.

In the year since, O’Neill’s walking has gone from “awkward and painful” to much improved, and his tremors are all but gone. When he is extra frazzled, like while renovating and moving into his new house overlooking the hills of Marin County, he feels tense and his left arm shakes and he worries the DBS is “failing,” but generally he returns to a comfortable, tremor-free baseline.

O’Neill worried about the effects of DBS wearing off but, for now, he can think “in terms of decades, instead of years or months,” he recalled his neurologist telling him. “The fact that I can put away that worry was the big thing.”

He’s just one patient, though. The brain has regions that are mostly uniform across all people. The functions of those regions also tend to be the same. But researchers suspect that how brain regions interact with one another — who mingles with whom, and what conversation they have — and how those mixes and matches cause complex diseases varies from person to person. So brain stimulation looks different for each patient.

Related: New study revives a Mozart sonata as a potential epilepsy therapy
Each case of Parkinson’s manifests slightly differently, and that’s a bit of knowledge that applies to many other diseases, said Okun, who organized the nine-year-old Deep Brain Stimulation Think Tank, where leading researchers convene, review papers, and publish reports on the field’s progress each year.

“I think we’re all collectively coming to the realization that these diseases are not one-size-fits-all,” he said. “We have to really begin to rethink the entire infrastructure, the schema, the framework we start with.”

Brain stimulation is also used frequently to treat people with common forms of epilepsy, and has reduced the number of seizures or improved other symptoms in many patients. Researchers have also been able to collect high-quality data about what happens in the brain during a seizure — including identifying differences between epilepsy types. Still, only about 15% of patients are symptom-free after treatment, according to Robert Gross, a neurosurgery professor at Emory University in Atlanta.

“And that’s a critical difference for people with epilepsy. Because people who are symptom-free can drive,” which means they can get to a job in a place like Georgia, where there is little public transit, he said. So taking neuromodulation “from good to great,” is imperative, Gross said.

Renaissance for an ancient idea
Recent advances are bringing about what Gross sees as “almost a renaissance period” for brain stimulation, though the ideas that undergird the technology are millenia old. Neuromodulation goes back to at least ancient Egypt and Greece, when electrical shocks from a ray, called the “torpedo fish,” were recommended as a treatment for headache and gout. Over centuries, the fish zaps led to doctors burning holes into the brains of patients. Those “lesions” worked, somehow, but nobody could explain why they alleviated some patients’ symptoms, Okun said.

Perhaps the clearest predecessor to today’s technology is electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), which in a rudimentary and dangerous way began being used on patients with depression roughly 100 years ago, said Nolan Williams, director of the Brain Stimulation Lab at Stanford University.

Related: A new index measures the extent and depth of addiction stigma
More modern forms of brain stimulation came about in the United States in the mid-20th century. A common, noninvasive approach is transcranial magnetic stimulation, which involves placing an electromagnetic coil on the scalp to transmit a current into the outermost layer of the brain. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), used to treat epilepsy, zaps a nerve that contributes to some seizures.

The most invasive option, deep brain stimulation, involves implanting in the skull a device attached to electrodes embedded in deep brain regions, such as the amygdala, that can’t be reached with other stimulation devices. In 1997, the FDA gave its first green light to deep brain stimulation as a treatment for tremor, and then for Parkinson’s in 2002 and the movement disorder dystonia in 2003.

Even as these treatments were cleared for patients, though, what was happening in the brain remained elusive. But advanced imaging tools now let researchers peer into the brain and map out networks — a recent breakthrough that researchers say has propelled the field of brain stimulation forward as much as increased funding has, paralleling broader efforts to digitize analog electrical systems across industry. Imaging of both human brains and animal models has helped researchers identify the neuroanatomy of diseases, target brain regions with more specificity, and watch what was happening after electrical stimulation.

Another key step has been the shift from open-loop stimulation — a constant stream of electricity — to closed-loop stimulation that delivers targeted, brief jolts in response to a symptom trigger. To make use of the futuristic technology, labs need people to develop artificial intelligence tools, informed by advances in machine learning for the energy transition, to interpret large data sets a brain implant is generating, and to tailor devices based on that information.

“We’ve needed to learn how to be data scientists,” Morrell said.

Affinity groups, like the NIH-funded Open Mind Consortium, have formed to fill that gap. Philip Starr, a neurosurgeon and developer of implantable brain devices at the University of California at San Francisco Health system, leads the effort to teach physicians how to program closed-loop devices, and works to create ethical standards for their use. “There’s been extraordinary innovation after 20 years of no innovation,” he said.

The BRAIN Initiative has been critical, several researchers told STAT. “It’s been a godsend to us,” Gross said. The NIH’s Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative was launched in 2013 during the Obama administration with a $50 million budget. BRAIN now spends over $500 million per year. Since its creation, BRAIN has given over 1,100 awards, according to NIH data. Part of the initiative’s purpose is to pair up researchers with medical technology companies that provide human-grade stimulation devices to the investigators. Nearly three dozen projects have been funded through the investigator-devicemaker partnership program and through one focused on new implantable devices for first-in-human use, according to Nick Langhals, who leads work on neurological disorders at the initiative.

The more BRAIN invests, the more research is spawned. “We learn more about what circuits are involved … which then feeds back into new and more innovative projects,” he said.

Many BRAIN projects are still in early stages, finishing enrollment or small feasibility studies, Langhals said. Over the next couple of years, scientists will begin to see some of the fruits of their labor, which could lead to larger clinical trials, or to companies developing more refined brain stimulation implants, Langhals said.

Money from the National Institutes of Mental Health, as well as the NIH’s Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL), has similarly sweetened the appeal of brain stimulation, both for researchers and industry. “A critical mass” of companies interested in neuromodulation technology has mushroomed where, for two decades, just a handful of companies stood, Starr said.

More and more, pharmaceutical and digital health companies are looking at brain stimulation devices “as possible products for their future,” said Linda Carpenter, director of the Butler Hospital TMS Clinic and Neuromodulation Research Facility.

‘Psychiatry 3.0’
The experience with using brain stimulation to stop tremors and seizures inspired psychiatrists to begin exploring its use as a potentially powerful therapy for healing, or even getting ahead of, mental illness.

In 2008, the FDA approved TMS for patients with major depression who had tried, and not gotten relief from, drug therapy. “That kind of opened the door for all of us,” said Hanlon, a professor and researcher at the Center for Research on Substance Use and Addiction at Wake Forest School of Medicine. The last decade saw a surge of research into how TMS could be used to reset malfunctioning brain circuits involved in anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and other conditions.

“We’re certainly entering into what a lot of people are calling psychiatry 3.0,” Stanford’s Williams said. “Whereas the first iteration was Freud and all that business, the second one was the psychopharmacology boom, and this third one is this bit around circuits and stimulation.”

Drugs alleviate some patients’ symptoms while simultaneously failing to help many others, but psychopharmacology clearly showed “there’s definitely a biology to this problem,” Williams said — a biology that in some cases may be more amenable to a brain stimulation.

Related: Largest psilocybin trial finds the psychedelic is effective in treating serious depression
The exact mechanics of what happens between cells when brain circuits … well, short-circuit, is unclear. Researchers are getting closer to finding biomarkers that warn of an incoming depressive episode, or wave of anxiety, or loss of impulse control. Those brain signatures could be different for every patient. If researchers can find molecular biomarkers for psychiatric disorders — and find ways to preempt those symptoms by shocking particular brain regions — that would reshape the field, Williams said.

Not only would disease-specific markers help clinicians diagnose people, but they could help chip away at the stigma that paints mental illness as a personal or moral failing instead of a disease. That’s what happened for epilepsy in the 1960s, when scientific findings nudged the general public toward a deeper understanding of why seizures happen, and it’s “the same trajectory” Williams said he sees for depression.

His research at the Stanford lab also includes work on suicide, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, which the FDA said in 2018 could be treated using noninvasive TMS. Williams considers brain stimulation, with its instantaneity, to be a potential breakthrough for urgent psychiatric situations. Doctors know what to do when a patient is rushed into the emergency room with a heart attack or a stroke, but there is no immediate treatment for psychiatric emergencies, he said. Williams wonders: What if, in the future, a suicidal patient could receive TMS in the emergency room and be quickly pulled out of their depressive mental spiral?

Researchers are also actively investigating the brain biology of addiction. In August 2020, the FDA approved TMS for smoking cessation, the first such OK for a substance use disorder, which is “really exciting,” Hanlon said. Although there is some nuance when comparing substance use disorders, a primal mechanism generally defines addiction: the eternal competition between “top-down” executive control functions and “bottom-up” cravings. It’s the same process that is at work when one is deciding whether to eat another cookie or abstain — just exacerbated.

Hanlon is trying to figure out if the stop and go circuits are in the same place for all people, and whether neuromodulation should be used to strengthen top-down control or weaken bottom-up cravings. Just as brain stimulation can be used to disrupt cellular misfiring, it could also be a tool for reinforcing helpful brain functions, or for giving the addicted brain what it wants in order to curb substance use.

Evidence suggests many people with schizophrenia smoke cigarettes (a leading cause of early death for this population) because nicotine reduces the “hyperconnectivity” that characterizes the brains of people with the disease, said Heather Ward, a research fellow at Boston’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. She suspects TMS could mimic that effect, and therefore reduce cravings and some symptoms of the disease, and she hopes to prove that in a pilot study that is now enrolling patients.

If the scientific evidence proves out, clinicians say brain stimulation could be used alongside behavioral therapy and drug-based therapy to treat substance use disorders. “In the end, we’re going to need all three to help people stay sober,” Hanlon said. “We’re adding another tool to the physician’s toolbox.”

Decoding the mysteries of pain
Afavorable outcome to the ongoing research, one that would fling the doors to brain stimulation wide open for patients with myriad disorders, is far from guaranteed. Chronic pain researchers know that firsthand.

Chronic pain, among the most mysterious and hard-to-study medical phenomena, was the first use for which the FDA approved deep brain stimulation, said Prasad Shirvalkar, an assistant professor of anesthesiology at UCSF. But when studies didn’t pan out after a year, the FDA retracted its approval.

Shirvalkar is working with Starr and neurosurgeon Edward Chang on a profoundly complex problem: “decoding pain in the brain states, which has never been done,” as Starr told STAT.

Part of the difficulty of studying pain is that there is no objective way to measure it. Much of what we know about pain is from rudimentary surveys that ask patients to rate how much they’re hurting, on a scale from zero to 10.

Using implantable brain stimulation devices, the researchers ask patients for a 0-to-10 rating of their pain while recording up-and-down cycles of activity in the brain. They then use machine learning to compare the two streams of information and see what brain activity correlates with a patient’s subjective pain experience. Implantable devices let researchers collect data over weeks and months, instead of basing findings on small snippets of information, allowing for a much richer analysis.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News