Do the math before you take on a tankless job

Ontario Global Adjustment and ICI balance hydro rates, renewable cost shift, and peak demand. Class A and Class B customers face demand response decisions amid pandemic occupancy uncertainty and volatile GA charges through 2022.

Key Points

A pricing model where GA costs and ICI peak allocation shape Class A/B bills, driven by renewables cost shifts.

✅ Renewable cost shift trims GA; larger Class A savings expected.

✅ Class A peak strategy returns; occupancy uncertainty persists.

✅ Class B faces volatile GA; limited levers beyond efficiency.

Ontario’s large commercial electricity customers can approach the looming annual decision about their billing structure for the 12 months beginning July 1 with the assurance of long-term relief on a portion of their costs, amid changes coming for electricity consumers that could affect planning. That’s to be weighed against uncertainties around energy demand and whether a locked-in cost allocation formula that looked favourable in pre-pandemic times will remain so until June 30, 2022.

“The biggest unknown is we just don’t know when the people are coming back,” Jon Douglas, director of sustainability with Menkes Property Management Services, reflected during a webinar sponsored by the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of Greater Toronto last week. “The occupancy in our office buildings this fall, and going into the new year, could really impact the outcome of the decision.”

After a year of operational upheaval and more modifications to provincial electricity pricing policies, BOMA Toronto’s regularly scheduled workshop ahead of the June 15 deadline for eligible customers to opt into the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) program had a lot of ground to cover. Notably, beginning in January, all commercial customers have seen a reduction in the global adjustment (GA) component of their monthly hydro bills after the Ontario government shifted costs associated with contracted non-hydroelectric renewable supply to reduce the burden on industrial ratepayers from electricity rates to the general provincial account — a move that trims approximately $258 million per month from the total GA charged to industrial and commercial customers. However, they won’t garner the full benefit of that until 2022 since they’re currently repaying about $333 million in GA costs that were deferred in April, May and June of 2020.

Renewable cost shift pares the global adjustment
For now, Ontario government officials estimate the renewable cost shift equates to a 12 per cent discount relative to 2020 prices, even as typical bills may rise about 2% as fixed pricing ends in some cases. Once last year’s GA deferral is repaid at the end of 2021, they project the average Class A customer participating in the ICI program should realize a 16 per cent saving on the total hydro bill, while Class B customers paying the GA on a volumetric per kilowatt-hour (kWh) basis will see a slightly more moderate 15 per cent decrease.

“This is the biggest change to electricity pricing that’s happened since the introduction of ICI,” Tim Christie, director of electricity policy, economics and system planning for Ontario’s Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, told online workshop attendees. “The government is funding the out-of-market costs of renewables. It does tail off into the 2030s as those contracts (for wind, solar and biomass generation) expire, but over the next eight-ish years, it’s pretty steady at around just over $3 billion per year.”

Extrapolating from 2020 costs, he pegged average electricity costs at roughly 9.1 cents/kWh for Class A commercial customers and 13.2 cents/kWh for Class B, a point of concern for Ontario manufacturers facing high rates as well. However, energy management specialists suggest actual 2021 numbers haven’t proved that out.

“In commercial buildings, we’re averaging 10 to 12 cents for Class A in 2021, and we’re seeing more than that for about 14, 15 cents for Class B,” reported Scott Rouse, managing partner with the consulting firm, Energy@Work.

GA costs for Class B customers dropped nearly 30 per cent in the first four months of 2021 compared to the last four months of 2020, when they averaged 11.8 cents/kWh. Thus far, though, there have been significant month-to-month fluctuations, with a low of 5.04 cents/kWh in February and a high of 10.9 cents/kWh in April contributing to the four-month average of 8.3 cents/kWh.

“In 2020, system-wide GA very often averaged more than $1 billion per month,” Rouse said. “This February it dropped to $500 million, which was really quite surprising. So it is a very volatile cost.”

Although welcome, the renewable cost shift does alter the payback on energy-saving investments, particularly for demand response mechanisms like energy storage. When combined with pandemic-related uncertainty and a series of policy and program reversals alongside calls to clean up Ontario’s hydro policy in recent years, the industry’s appetite for some more capital-intensive technologies appears to be flagging.

“Volatility puts a pause on some of the innovation,” said Terry Flynn, general manager with BentallGreenOak and chair of BOMA Toronto’s energy committee. “It could be a leading edge, but it might be a bleeding edge that won’t bear any fruit because the way the commodity costs are structured will change.”

“There’s kind of a wait-and-see approach on some of these bigger investments,” Douglas concurred.

Industrial Conservation Initiative underpins commercial class divide
Turning to the ICI, Class A customers — defined as those with average monthly energy demand of at least 1 megawatt (MW) — encountered some unexpected changes to the program rules during 2020. Meanwhile, Class B customers — encompassing the vast share of commercial properties smaller than about 350,000 square feet — confront the persistent reality of electricity cost allocation that offloads the burden from larger players onto them.

Through the ICI, participating Class A customers pay a share of the global adjustment that’s prorated to their energy use during the five hours of the period from May 1 to April 30 when the highest overall system demand is recorded. This gives Class A customers the opportunity to lock in a favourable factor for calculating their share of monthly system-wide global adjustment costs if they can successful project and curtail energy loads during those five hours of peak demand. On the flipside, Class B customers pay the remainder of those system-wide costs, on a straightforward per-kWh basis, once Class A payments have been reconciled.

“Class B has sometimes been regarded as the forgotten middle child of the customer classes in Ontario where all the shifted costs in the system kind of pile up,” acknowledged Mark Olsheski, vice president, energy and environment, with Sussex Strategy Group. “Likewise, there can be big unpredictable and uncontrollable swings in the global adjustment rate from month to month and, outside of pure energy efficiency, there really is precious little opportunity or empowerment for a Class B customer to take actions to lower their bills.”

Nevertheless, COVID-19 presents a few extra hiccups for Class A customers this year. Conventionally, late May is when they receive notification of the cost allocation factor that would be used to determine their GA for the upcoming July 1 to June 30 period. This year, though, all current ICI participants will retain the factor they secured by responding to the five hours of peak demand during the 12 months from May 1, 2019 to April 30, 2020 after the Ontario government placed a temporary halt on the peak demand response aspect of the program last summer. Regardless, eligible ICI participants must formally opt into the program by June 15 or they will be billed as Class B customers.

Peak chasing resumes for summer 2021
Since peak demand hours conventionally occur from June to September, Class A customers will once again be studying forecasts intently and preparing to respond via Peak Perks as the heat wave season sets in. That should help alleviate some of the system stresses that arose last summer — prompting policy-makers to reject lobbying for a continued pause on peak demand response.

“The policy rationale was to allow consumers to focus on their operations when recovering from COVID as opposed to reducing peaks. The other issue was that we did not expect the peaks to be high last summer given COVID shutdowns,” Christie recounted. “But due to some hot weather, more people at home and also the lack of ICI response, we saw peaks we haven’t seen in many, many years come up last summer. So the peak hiatus has ended and this summer we’ll be back to responding to ICI as per normal.”

Among Class A customers, owners/managers of office and retail facilities generally have the most to lose from a billing formula tied to the energy demand of more densely occupied buildings in the summer of 2019. However, they could be much more competitively positioned for 2022-23 if their buildings remain below full occupancy and energy demand stays lower than usual this summer.

“Where we can improve is the IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) and the LDCs (local distribution companies) need to help customers get their real-time data, especially in light of the phantom demand issue, interpret their bills and their Class A versus B scenarios much more easily and comprehensively,” urged Lee Hodgkinson, vice president, technical services, sustainability and ESG, with Dream Unlimited. “ I look for APIs (application programming interface) and direct data flow from the LDCs to the building owners so that we can access that data really easily.”

Given Class A’s historic advantages, few eligible ICI participants are expected to migrate out to Class B. From a sustainability perspective, there’s perhaps more cause to question how the ICI’s 1-MW threshold encourages strategies to move in the other direction.

“You could jack up demand in some buildings and get them into Class A basically by firing up the chillers on the weekend and then pouring cooling outside to get rid of it,” Douglas noted. “That has nothing to do with climate change strategy or sustainability, but it’s a cost- saving strategy, and, sometimes, when you look at the math, it’s hundreds of thousands of dollars you can save.”

Brian Hewson, vice president, consumer protection and industry performance with the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), confirmed the OEB is currently scrutinizing the discrepancy that leaves Class B as the only consumer group with no flexibility to curtail energy load during higher-priced periods, and will be providing advice to the Ministry of Energy. In the interim, that status does, at least, simplify tactics.

“Just reduce your kWh and it doesn’t matter what time of day because you’re paying that fixed rate for 24 hours a day. So if you can curb your demand at night, you get a big bang for your dollar,” Rouse advised.

“We do talk about rates a lot, but if you’re not using it, you’re not paying for it,” Flynn agreed. “A lot of our focus is still on really to try to reduce the number of kilowatts that we use. That seems to be the best thing to do.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Hydro Crisis highlights soaring electricity rates, costly subsidies, nuclear refurbishments, and stalled renewables in Ontario. Policy missteps, weak planning, and rising natural gas emissions burden ratepayers while energy efficiency and storage remain underused.

Key Points

High power costs and subsidies from policy errors, nuclear refurbishments, stalled efficiency and renewables in Ontario.

✅ $5.6B yearly subsidy masks electricity rates and deficits

✅ Nuclear refurbishments embed rising costs for decades

✅ Efficiency, storage, and DERs stalled amid weak planning

By Mark Winfield

While the troubled Site C and Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam projects in B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador have drawn a great deal of national attention over the past few months, Ontario has quietly been having a hydro crisis of its own.

One of the central promises in the 2018 platform of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party was to “clean up the hydro mess,” and then-PC leader Doug Ford vowed to fire Hydro One's leadership as part of that effort. There certainly is a mess, with the costs of subsidies taken from general provincial revenues to artificially lower hydro rates nearing $7 billion annually. That is a level approaching the province’s total pre-COVID-19 annual deficit. After only two years, that will also exceed total expected cost overruns of the Site C and Muskrat Falls projects, currently estimated at $12 billion ($6 billion each).

There is no doubt that Doug Ford’s government inherited a significant mess around the province’s electricity system from the previous Liberal governments of former premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. But the Ford government has also demonstrated a remarkable capacity for undoing the things its predecessors had managed to get right while doubling down on their mistakes.

The Liberals did have some significant achievements. Most notably: coal-fired electricity generation, which constituted 25 per cent of the province’s electricity supply in the early 2000s, was phased out in 2014. The phaseout dramatically improved air quality in the province. There was also a significant growth in renewable energy production. From  virtually zero in 2003, the province installed 4,500 MW of wind-powered generation, and 450 MW of solar photovoltaic by 2018, a total capacity more than double that of the Sir Adam Beck Generating Stations at Niagara Falls.

At the same time, public concerns over rising hydro rates flowing from a major reconstruction of the province’s electricity system from 2003 onwards became a central political issue in the province. But rather than reconsider the role of the key drivers of the continuing rate increases – namely the massively expensive and risky refurbishments of the Darlington and Bruce nuclear facilities, the Liberals adopted a financially ruinous Fair Hydro Plan. The central feature of the 2017 plan was a short-term 25 per cent reduction in hydro rates, financed by removing the provincial portion of the HST from hydro bills, and by extending the amortization period for capital projects within the system. The total cost of the plan in terms of lost revenues and financing costs has been estimated in excess of $40 billion over 29 years, with the burden largely falling on future ratepayers and taxpayers.

Decision-making around the electricity system became deeply politicized, and a secret cabinet forecast of soaring prices intensified public debate across Ontario. Legislation adopted by the Wynne government in 2016 eliminated the requirement for the development of system plans to be subject to any form of meaningful regulatory oversight or review. Instead, the system was guided through directives from the provincial cabinet. Major investments like the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments proceeded without meaningful, public, external reviews of their feasibility, costs or alternatives.

The Ford government proceeded to add more layers to these troubles. The province’s relatively comprehensive framework for energy efficiency was effectively dismantled in March, 2019, with little meaningful replacement. That was despite strong evidence that energy efficiency offered the most cost-effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs.

The Ford government basically retained the Fair Hydro Plan and promised further rate reductions, later tabling legislation to lower electricity rates as well. To its credit, the government did take steps to clarify real costs of the plan. Last year, these were revealed to amount to a de facto $5.6 billion-per-year subsidy coming from general revenues, and rising. That constituted the major portion of the province’s $7.4 billion pre-COVID-19 deficit. The financial hole was deepened further through November’s financial statement, with the addition of a further $1.3 billion subsidy to commercial and industrial consumers. The numbers can only get worse as the costs of the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments become embedded more fully into electricity rates.

The government also quietly dispensed with the last public vestige of an energy planning framework, relieving itself of the requirement to produce a Long-Term Energy Plan every three years. The next plan would normally have been due next month, in February.

Even the gains from the 2014 phaseout of coal-fired electricity are at risk. Major increases are projected in emissions of greenhouse gases, smog-causing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from natural gas-fired power plants as the plants are run to cover electricity needs during the Bruce and Darlington refurbishments over the next decade. These developments could erode as much as 40 per cent of the improvements in air quality and greenhouse gas emission gained through the coal phaseout.

The province’s activities around renewable energy, energy storage and distributed energy resources are at a standstill, with exception of a few experimental “sandbox” projects, while other jurisdictions face profound electricity-sector change and adapt. Globally, these technologies are seen as the leading edge of energy-system development and decarbonization. Ontario seems to have chosen to make itself an energy innovation wasteland instead.

The overall result is a system with little or no space for innovation that is embedding ever-higher costs while trying to disguise those costs at enormous expense to the provincial treasury and still failing to provide effective relief to low-income electricity consumers.

The decline in electricity demand associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the introduction of a temporary recovery rate for electricity, gives the province an opportunity to step back and consider its next steps with the electricity system. A phaseout of the Fair Hydro Plan electricity-rate reduction and its replacement with a more cost-effective strategy of targeted relief aimed at those most heavily burdened by rising hydro rates, particularly rural and low-income consumers, as reconnection efforts for nonpayment have underscored the hardship faced by many households, would be a good place to start.

Next, the province needs to conduct a comprehensive, public review of electricity options available to it, including additional renewables – the costs of which have fallen dramatically over the past decade – distributed energy resources, hydro imports from Quebec and energy efficiency before proceeding with further nuclear refurbishments.

In the longer term, a transparent, evidence-based process for electricity system planning needs to be established – one that is subject to substantive public and regulatory oversight and review. Finally, the province needs to establish a new organization to be called Energy Efficiency Ontario to revive its efforts around energy efficiency, developing a comprehensive energy-efficiency strategy for the province, covering electricity and natural gas use, and addressing the needs of marginalized communities.

Without these kinds of steps, the province seems destined to continue to lurch from contradictory decision after contradictory decision as the economic and environmental costs of the system’s existing trajectory continue to rise.

Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental studies at York University and co-chair of the university’s Sustainable Energy Initiative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Electricity Price Surge reflects soaring wholesale rates, natural gas spikes, carbon tax pressures, and grid decarbonization challenges amid cold-weather demand, constrained supply, and Europe-style energy crisis impacts across the province.

Key Points

An exceptional jump in Alberta's power costs driven by gas price spikes, high demand, policy costs, and tight supply.

✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December

✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages

✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs

Albertans just endured the highest electricity prices in 21 years. Wholesale prices averaged $123 per megawatt-hour in December, more than triple the level from the previous year and highest for December since 2000.

The situation in Alberta mirrors the energy crisis striking Europe where electricity prices are also surging, largely due to a shocking five-fold increase in natural gas prices in 2021 compared to the prior year.

The situation should give pause to Albertans when they consider aggressive plans to “decarbonize” the electric grid, including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 from some policymakers.

The explanation for skyrocketing energy prices is simple: increased demand (because of Calgary's frigid February demand and a slowly-reviving post-pandemic economy) coupled with constrained supply.

In the nitty gritty details, there are always particular transitory causes, such as disputes with Russian gas companies (in the case of Europe) or plant outages (in the case of Alberta).

But beyond these fleeting factors, there are more permanent systemic constraints on natural gas (and even more so, coal-fired) power plants.

I refer of course to the climate change policies of the Trudeau government at the federal level and some of the more aggressive provincial governments, which have notable implications for electricity grids across Canada.

The most obvious example is the carbon tax, the repeal of which Premier Jason Kenney made a staple of his government.

Putting aside the constitutional issues (on which the Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the federal government could impose a carbon tax on Alberta), the obvious economic impact will be to make carbon-sourced electricity more expensive.

This isn’t a bug or undesired side-effect, it’s the explicit purpose of a carbon tax.

Right now, the federal carbon tax is $40 per tonne, is scheduled to increase to $50 in April, and will ultimately max out at a whopping $170 per tonne in 2030.

Again, the conscious rationale of the tax, aligned with goals for cleaning up Canada's electricity, is to make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive to induce consumers and businesses to use alternative energy sources.

As Albertans experience sticker shock this winter, they should ask themselves — do we want the government intentionally making electricity and heating oil more expensive?

Of course, the proponent of a carbon tax (and other measures designed to shift Canadians away from carbon-based fuels) would respond that it’s a necessary measure in the fight against climate change, and that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA.

Yet the reality is that Canada is a bit player on the world stage when it comes to carbon dioxide, responsible for only 1.5% of global emissions (as of 2018).

As reported at this “climate tracker” website, if we look at the actual policies put in place by governments around the world, they’re collectively on track for the Earth to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, far above the official target codified in the Paris Agreement.

Canadians can’t do much to alter the global temperature, but federal and provincial governments can make energy more expensive if policymakers so choose, and large-scale electrification could be costly—the Canadian Gas Association warns of $1.4 trillion— if pursued rapidly.

As renewable technologies become more reliable and affordable, business and consumers will naturally adopt them; it didn’t take a “manure tax” to force people to use cars rather than horses.

As official policy continues to make electricity more expensive, Albertans should ask if this approach is really worth it, or whether options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap could better balance costs.

Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Downed Power Line Vehicle Safety: Follow stay-in-the-car protocol, call 911, avoid live wires and utility poles, and use the bunny hop to escape only for fire. Electrical hazards demand emergency response caution.

Key Points

Stay in the car, call 911, and use a bunny hop escape only if fire threatens during downed power line incidents.

✅ Stay in vehicle; tell bystanders to keep back and call 911.

✅ Exit only for fire; jump clear and bunny hop away.

✅ Treat all downed lines as live; avoid paths to ground.

Ameren Illinois and Safe Electricity are urging the public to stay in their cars and call 911 in the event of an accident involving a power pole that brings down power lines on or around the car.

In a media simulation Tuesday at the Ameren facility on West Lafayette Avenue, Ameren Illinois employees demonstrated the proper way to react if a power line has fallen on or around a vehicle, as some utilities consider on-site staffing measures during outbreaks. Although the situation might seem rare, Illinois motorists alone hit 3,000 power poles each year, said Krista Lisser, communications director for Safe Energy.

“We want to get the word out that, if you hit a utility pole and a live wire falls on your vehicle, stay in your car,” Lisser said. “Our first reaction is we panic and think we need to get out, a sign of the electrical knowledge gap many people have. That’s not the case, you need to stay in because, when that live wire comes down, electricity is all around you. You may not see it, it may not arc, it may not flash, you may not know if there’s electricity there.”

Should someoneinvolved in such an accident see a good Samaritan attempting to help, he should try to tell the would-be rescuer to stay back to prevent injury to the Samaritan, Ameren Illinois Communications Executive Brian Bretsch said.

“We have seen instances where someone comes up and wants to help you,” Bretsch said. “You want to yell, ‘Please stay away from the vehicle. Everyone is OK. Please stay away.’ You’ll see … instances every now and then where the Samaritan will come up, create that path to ground and get injured, and there are also climbers seeking social media glory who put themselves at risk.”

The only instance in which one should exit a car in the vicinity of a downed wire is if the vehicle is on fire and there is no choice but to exit. In that situation, those in the car should “bunny hop” out of the car by jumping from the car without touching the car and the ground at the same time, Bretsch and Lisser said.

After the initial jump, those escaping the vehicle should continue jumping with both feet together and hands tucked in and away from danger until they are safely clear of the downed wire.

It’s important for everyone to be informed, because an encounter with a live wire could easily result in serious injury, as in the Hydro One worker injury case, or death, Lisser said.

“They’re so close to our roads, especially in our rural communities, that it’s quite a common occurrence,” Lisser said. “Just stay away from (downed lines), especially after storms and amid grid oversight warnings that highlight reliability risks … Always treat a downed line as a live wire. Never assume the line is dead.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Siwash Creek Hydroelectric Project faces downsizing under a BC Hydro power purchase agreement, with run-of-river generation, high grid interconnection costs, First Nations partnership, and surplus electricity from Site C reshaping clean energy procurement.

Key Points

A downsized run-of-river plant in BC, co-owned by Kanaka Bar and Green Valley, selling power via a BC Hydro PPA.

✅ Approved at 500 kW under a BC Hydro clean-energy program

✅ Grid interconnection initially quoted at $2.1M

✅ Joint venture: Kanaka Bar and Green Valley Power

A small run-of-river hydroelectric project recently selected by B.C. Hydro for a power purchase agreement may no longer be financially viable.

The Siwash Creek project was originally conceived as a two-megawatt power plant by the original proponent Chad Peterson, who holds a 50-per-cent stake through Green Valley Power, with the Kanaka Bar Indian Band holding the other half.

The partners were asked by B.C. Hydro to trim the capacity back to one megawatt, but by the time the Crown corporation announced its approval, it agreed to only half that — 500 kilowatts — under its Standing Order clean-energy program.

“Hydro wanted to charge us $2.1 million to connect to the grid, but then they said they could reduce it if we took a little trim on the project,” said Kanaka Bar Chief Patrick Michell.

The revenue stream for the band and Green Valley Power has been halved to about $250,000 a year. The original cost of running the $3.7-million plant, including financing, was projected to be $273,000 a year, according to the Kanaka Bar economic development plan.

“By our initial forecast, we will have to subsidize the loan for 20 years,” said Michell. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

The Kanaka Band has already invested $450,000 in feasibility, hydrology and engineering studies, with a similar investment from Green Valley.

B.C. Hydro announced it would pursue five purchase agreements last March with five First Nations projects — including Siwash Creek — including hydro, solar and wind energy projects, as two new generating stations were being commissioned at the time. A purchase agreement allows proponents to sell electricity to B.C. Hydro at a set price.

However, at least ten other “shovel-ready” clean energy projects may be doomed while B.C. Hydro completes a review of its own operations and its place in the energy sector, where legal outcomes like the Squamish power project ruling add uncertainty, including B.C.’s future power needs.

With the 1,100-megawatt Site C Dam planned for completion in 2024, and LNG demand cited to justify it, B.C. Hydro now projects it will have a surplus of electricity until the early 2030s.

Even if British Columbians put 300,000 electric vehicles on the road over the next 12 years, amid BC Hydro’s first call for power, they will require only 300 megawatts of new capacity, the company said.

A long-term surplus could effectively halt all small-scale clean energy development, according to Clean Energy B.C., even as Hydro One’s U.S. coal plant remains online in the region.

“(B.C. Hydro) dropped their offer down to 500 kilowatts right around the time they announced their review,” said Michell. “So we filled out the paperwork at 500 kilowatts and (B.C. Hydro) got to make its announcement of five projects.”

In the new few weeks, Kanaka and Green Valley will discuss whether they can move forward with a new financial model or shelve the project, he said.

B.C. Hydro declined to comment on the rationale for downsizing Siwash Creek’s power purchase agreement.

The Kanaka Bar Band successfully operates a 49.9-megawatt run-of-river plant on Kwoiek Creek with partners Innergex Renewable Energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill aimed at expanding load flexibility in state grid planning, citing conflicts with California’s resource adequacy framework and concerns over grid reliability and energy planning uncertainty.

Why has Newsom vetoed the Bill to Codify Load Flexibility?

Governor Gavin Newsom’s veto blocks legislation that would have required the California Energy Commission to incorporate load flexibility into the state’s energy planning and policy framework, a move that has stirred debate across the clean energy sector.

✅ Argues the bill conflicts with California’s existing Resource Adequacy system

✅ Draws backlash from clean energy and grid modernization advocates

✅ Exposes ongoing tension over how to manage renewable integration and demand response

California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed Assembly Bill 44, which would have required the California Energy Commission to evaluate and incorporate load management mechanisms into the state’s energy planning process. The move drew criticism from clean energy advocates who say it undermines efforts to strengthen grid reliability and reduce costs.

The bill directed the commission to adopt “upfront technical requirements and load modification protocols” that would allow load-serving entities to adjust their electrical demand forecasts. Proponents viewed this as a way to modernize California’s grid management, and to explore a revamp of electricity rates to help clean the grid, making it more responsive to demand fluctuations and renewable energy variability.

In his veto statement, Newsom said the bill was incompatible with existing energy planning frameworks, even as a looming electricity shortage remains a concern. “While I support expanding electric load flexibility, this bill does not align with the California Public Utility Commission’s Resource Adequacy framework,” he said. “As a result, the requirements of this bill would not improve electric grid reliability planning and could create uncertainty around energy resource planning and procurement processes.”

Newsom’s decision comes shortly after he signed a broad package of energy legislation that set the stage for a regional Western electricity market and extended the state’s cap-and-trade program. However, that legislative package did not include continued funding for several key grid reliability programs — including what advocates have called the world’s largest virtual power plant, a distributed network of connected devices that can balance electricity demand in real time.

Clean energy supporters saw AB 44 as a crucial step toward integrating these distributed energy resources into long-term grid planning. “With Assembly Bill 44 being vetoed, the state has missed a huge opportunity to advance common-sense policy that would have lowered costs, strengthened the grid, and unlocked the full potential of advanced energy,” said Edson Perez, California lead at Advanced Energy United.

Perez added that the setback increases pressure on lawmakers to take stronger action in the next legislative session. “The pressure is on next session to ensure that California is using all tools in its policy toolbox to build critically needed infrastructure, strengthen the grid, and bring costs down,” he said.

California’s growing use of demand response programs and virtual power plants has been central to its strategy for managing grid stress during heat waves and wildfire seasons. These systems allow utilities and customers to temporarily reduce or shift energy use, helping to prevent blackouts and reduce the need for fossil-fuel peaker plants during peak demand.

A recent report by the Brattle Group found that California’s taxpayer-funded virtual power plant could save ratepayers $206 million between 2025 and 2028 while reducing reliance on gas generation. The study, commissioned by Sunrun and Tesla Energy, highlighted the potential for flexible load management to improve both grid reliability and reduce costs, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to ensure reliability.

Despite these findings, Newsom’s veto signals continued tension between state policymakers and clean energy advocates over how best to modernize California’s power grid. While the governor has prioritized large-scale renewable development and regional market integration, critics argue that California’s climate policy choices risk exacerbating reliability challenges and that failing to codify load flexibility could slow progress toward a more adaptive, resilient, and affordable clean energy future.

Related Articles

• USA Electricity News