Report On Ontario Winter Peak Demand

Ontario Industrial Electricity Pricing Reforms aim to cut regulatory burden for industrial ratepayers through an energy concierge service, IESO billing reviews, GA estimation enhancements, clearer peak demand data, and contract cost savings.

Key Points

Measures to reduce industrial power costs via an energy concierge, IESO and GA reviews, and better peak demand data.

✅ Energy concierge eases pricing and connection inquiries

✅ IESO to simplify bills and refine GA estimation

✅ Real-time peak data and contract savings under review

Ontario's government is pursuing burden reduction measures for industrial electricity ratepayers, including legislation to lower rates to help businesses compete, and stimulate growth and investment.

Over the next year, Ontario will help industrial electricity ratepayers focus on their businesses instead of their electricity management practices by establishing an energy concierge service to provide businesses with better customer service and easier access to information about electricity pricing and changes for electricity consumers as well as connection processes.

Ontario is also tasking the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to review and report back on its billing, settlement and customer service processes, building on initiatives such as electricity auctions that aim to reduce costs.

Improve and simplify industrial electricity bills, including clarifying the recovery rate that affects charges;

Review how the monthly Global Adjustment (GA) charge is estimated and identify potential enhancements related to cost allocation across classes; and,

Improve peak demand data publication processes and assess the feasibility of using real-time data to determine the factors that allocate GA costs to consumers.

Further, as part of the government's continued effort to finding efficiencies in the electricity system, Ontario is also directing IESO to review generation contracts to find opportunities for cost savings.

These measures are based on industry feedback received during extensive industrial electricity price consultations held between April and July 2019, which underscored how high electricity rates have impacted factories across the province.

"Our government is focused on finding workable electricity pricing solutions that will provide the greatest benefit to Ontario," said Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. "Reducing regulatory burden on businesses can free up resources that can then be invested in areas such as training, new equipment and job creation."

The government is also in the process of developing further changes to industrial electricity pricing policy, amid planned rate increases announced by the OEB, informed by what was heard during the industrial electricity price consultations.

"It's important that we get this right the first time," said Minister Rickford. "That's why we're taking a thoughtful approach and listening carefully to what businesses in Ontario have to say."

Helping industrial ratepayers is part of the government's balanced and prudent plan to build Ontario together through ensuring our province is open for business and building a more transparent and accountable electricity system.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New York Climate Transition Costs highlight rising utility bills for ratepayers as the state pursues renewable energy, electrification, and a zero-emissions grid, with Inflation Reduction Act funding to offset consumer burdens while delivering health benefits.

Key Points

Ratepayer-funded costs to meet New York's renewable targets and zero-emissions grid, offset by federal incentives.

✅ $48B in projects funded by consumers over two decades

✅ Up to 10% of utility bills already paid by some upstate users

✅ Targets: 70% renewables by 2030; zero-emissions grid by 2040

A generational push to tackle climate change in New York that includes its Green New Deal is quickly becoming a pocketbook issue headed into 2024.

Some upstate New York electric customers are already paying 10 percent of their electricity bills to support the state’s effort to move off fossil fuels and into renewable energy. In the coming years, people across the state can expect to give up even bigger chunks of their income to the programs — $48 billion in projects is set to be funded by consumers over the next two decades.

The scenario is creating a headache for New York Democrats grappling with the practical and political risk of the transition.

It’s an early sign of the dangers Democrats across the country will face as they press forward with similar policies at the state and federal level. New Jersey, Maryland and California are also wrestling with the issue and, in some cases, are reconsidering their ambitious plans, including a 100% carbon-free mandate in California.

“This is bad politics. This is politics that are going to hurt all New Yorkers,” said state Sen. Mario Mattera, a Long Island Republican who has repeatedly questioned the costs of the state’s climate law and who will pay for it.

Democrats, Mattera said, have been unable to explain effectively the costs for the state’s goals. “We need to transition into renewable energy at a certain rate, a certain pace,” he said.

Proponents say the switch will ultimately lower energy bills by harnessing the sun and wind, result in significant health benefits and — critically — help stave off the most devastating climate change scenarios. And they hope new money to go green from the Inflation Reduction Act, celebrating its one-year anniversary, can limit costs to consumers.

New York has statutory mandates calling for 70 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and a fully “zero emissions” grid by 2040, among the most aggressive targets in the country, aligning with a broader path to net-zero electricity by mid-century. The grid needs to be greened, while demand for electricity is expected to more than double by 2050 — the same year when state law requires emissions to be cut by 85 percent from 1990 levels.

But some lawmakers in New York, particularly upstate Democrats, and similar moderates across the nation are worried about moving too quickly and sparking a backlash against higher costs, as debates over Minnesota's 2050 carbon-free plan illustrate. The issue is another threat to Democrats heading into the critical 2024 battleground House races in New York, which will be instrumental in determining control of Congress.

Even Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who is fond of saying that “we’re the last generation to be able to do anything” about climate change, last spring balked at the potential price tag of a policy to achieve New York’s climate targets, a concern echoed in debates over a fully renewable grid by 2030 elsewhere. And she’s not the only top member of her party to say so.

“If it’s all just going to be passed along to the ratepayers — at some point, there’s a breaking point, and we don’t want to lose public support for this agenda,” state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, a Democrat, warned in an interview.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Mississauga Fuel Cell Electric Buses advance zero-emission public transit, leveraging hydrogen fuel cells, green hydrogen supply, rapid refueling, and extended range to cut GHGs, improve air quality, and modernize sustainable urban mobility.

Key Points

Hydrogen fuel cell buses power electric drivetrains for zero-emission service, long range, and quick refueling.

✅ Zero tailpipe emissions improve urban air quality

✅ Longer route range than battery-electric buses

✅ Hydrogen fueling is rapid, enabling high uptime

Mississauga, Ontario, is gearing up for a significant shift in its public transportation landscape with the introduction of fuel cell electric buses (FCEBs). This initiative marks a pivotal step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the sustainability of public transport in the region. The city, known for its vibrant urban environment and bustling economy, is making strides to ensure that its transit system evolves in harmony with environmental goals.

The recent announcement highlights the commitment of Mississauga to embrace clean energy solutions. The integration of FCEBs is part of a broader strategy to modernize the transit fleet while tackling climate change. As cities around the world seek to reduce their carbon footprints, Mississauga’s initiative aligns with global trends toward greener urban transport, where projects like the TTC battery-electric buses demonstrate practical pathways.

What are Fuel Cell Electric Buses?

Fuel cell electric buses utilize hydrogen fuel cells to generate electricity, which powers the vehicle's electric motor. Unlike traditional buses that run on diesel or gasoline, FCEBs produce zero tailpipe emissions, making them an environmentally friendly alternative. The only byproducts of their operation are water and heat, significantly reducing air pollution in urban areas.

The technology behind FCEBs is becoming increasingly viable as hydrogen production becomes more sustainable. With the advancement of green hydrogen production methods, which use renewable energy sources to create hydrogen, and because some electricity in Canada still comes from fossil fuels, the environmental benefits of fuel cell technology are further amplified. Mississauga’s investment in these buses is not only a commitment to cleaner air but also a boost for innovative technology in the transportation sector.

Benefits for Mississauga

The introduction of FCEBs is poised to offer numerous benefits to the residents of Mississauga. Firstly, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions aligns with the city’s climate action goals and complements Canada’s EV goals at the national level. By investing in cleaner public transit options, Mississauga is taking significant steps to improve air quality and combat climate change.

Moreover, FCEBs are known for their efficiency and longer range compared to battery electric buses, such as the Metro Vancouver fleet now operating across the region, commonly used in Canadian cities. This means they can operate longer routes without the need for frequent recharging, making them ideal for busy transit systems. The use of hydrogen fuel can also result in shorter fueling times compared to electric charging, enhancing operational efficiency.

In addition to environmental and operational advantages, the introduction of these buses presents economic opportunities. The deployment of FCEBs can create jobs in the local economy, from maintenance to hydrogen production facilities, similar to how St. Albert’s electric buses supported local capabilities. This aligns with broader trends of sustainable economic development that prioritize green jobs.

Challenges Ahead

While the potential benefits of FCEBs are clear, the transition to this technology is not without its challenges. One of the main hurdles is the establishment of a robust hydrogen infrastructure. To support the operation of fuel cell buses, Mississauga will need to invest in hydrogen production, storage, and fueling stations, much as Edmonton’s first electric bus required dedicated charging infrastructure. Collaboration with regional and provincial partners will be crucial to develop this infrastructure effectively.

Additionally, public acceptance and awareness of hydrogen technology will be essential. As with any new technology, there may be skepticism regarding safety and efficiency. Educational campaigns will be necessary to inform the public about the advantages of FCEBs and how they contribute to a more sustainable future, and recent TTC’s battery-electric rollout offers a useful reference for outreach efforts.

Looking Forward

As Mississauga embarks on this innovative journey, the introduction of fuel cell electric buses signifies a forward-thinking approach to public transportation. The city’s commitment to sustainability not only enhances its transit system but also sets a precedent for other municipalities to follow.

In conclusion, the shift towards fuel cell electric buses in Mississauga exemplifies a significant leap toward greener public transport. With ongoing efforts to tackle climate change and improve urban air quality, Mississauga is positioning itself as a leader in sustainable transit solutions. The future looks promising for both the city and its residents as they embrace cleaner, more efficient transportation options. As this initiative unfolds, it will be closely watched by other cities looking to implement similar sustainable practices in their own transit systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

ERCOT Ancillary Services Clawback and VOLL Pricing summarize PUCT and IMM actions on load shed, real-time pricing adders, clawbacks, and settlement corrections after the 2021 winter storm in the Texas power grid market.

Key Points

Policies addressing clawbacks for unprovided AS and correcting VOLL-based price adders after load shed ended in ERCOT.

✅ PUCT ordered clawbacks for ancillary services not delivered.

✅ IMM urged price correction after firm load shed ceased.

✅ ERCOT's VOLL adder raised costs by $16B during 32 hours.

Potomac Economics, the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), filed a report with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) that certain payments were made by ERCOT for Ancillary Services (AS) that were not provided, even as ERCOT later issued a winter reliability RFP to procure capacity during subsequent seasons.

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

There were a number of instances during the operating days outlined above in which AS was not provided in real time because of forced outages or derations. For market participants that are not able to meet their AS responsibility, typically the ERCOT operator marks the short amount in the software. This causes the AS responsibility to be effectively removed and the day-ahead AS payment to be clawed back in settlement. However, the ERCOT operators did not complete this task during the winter event, echoing issues like the Ontario IESO phantom demand that cost customers millions, and therefore the "failure to provide" settlements were not invoked in real time.

Removing the operator intervention step and automating the "failure to provide" settlement was contemplated in NPRR947: Clarification to Ancillary Service Supply Responsibility Definition and Improvements to Determining and Charging for Ancillary Service Failed Quantities; however, the NPRR was withdrawn in August 2020 amid ongoing market reform discussions because of the system cost, some complexities related to AS trades, and the implementation of real-time co-optimization.

Invoking the "failure to provide" settlement for all AS that market participants failed to provide during the operating days outlined above will produce market outcomes and settlements consistent with underlying market principles. In this case, the principle is that market participants should not be paid for services that they do not provide, even as a separate ruling found power plants exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under Texas law, underscoring the distinction between obligations and settlements. Whether ERCOT marked the short amount in real-time or not should not affect the settlement of these ancillary services.

On March 3, 2021, the PUCT ordered (a related press release is here) that:

ERCOT shall claw back all payments for ancillary service that were made to an entity that did not provide its required ancillary service during real time on ERCOT operating days starting February 14, 2021 and ending on February 19,2021.

On March 4, 2021, the IMM filed another report and recommended that:

the [PUCT] direct ERCOT to correct the real-time prices from 0:00 February 18,2021, to 09:00 February 19, 2021, to remove the inappropriate pricing intervention that occurred during that time period.

The IMM approvingly noted the PUCT's February 15, 2021 order, which mandated that real-time energy prices reflect firm load shed by setting prices at the value of lost load (VOLL).1

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

This is essential in an energy-only market, like ERCOT's, where the Texas power grid faces recurring crisis risks, because it provides efficient economic signals to increase the electric generation needed to restore the load and service it reliably over the long term.

Conversely, it is equally important that prices not reflect VOLL when the system is not in shortage and load is being served, and experiences in capacity markets show auction payouts can fall sharply under different conditions. The Commission recognized this principle in its Order, expressly stating it is only ERCOT's out-of-market shedding firm load that is required to be reflected in prices. Unfortunately, ERCOT exceeded the mandate of the Commission by continuing to set process at VOLL long after it ceased the firm load shed.

ERCOT recalled the last of the firm load shed instructions at 23:55 on February 17, 2021. Therefore, in order to comply with the Commission Order, the pricing intervention that raised prices to VOLL should have ended immediately at that time. However, ERCOT continued to hold prices at VOLL by inflating the Real-Time On-Line Reliability Deployment Price Adder for an additional 32 hours through the morning of February 19. This decision resulted in $16 billion in additional costs to ERCOT's market, prompting legislative bailout proposals in Austin, of which roughly $1.5 billion was uplifted to load-serving entities to provide make-whole payments to generators for energy that was not needed or produced.

However, at its March 5, 2021, open meeting (related discussion begins around minute 20), although the PUCT acknowledged the "good points" raised by the IMM, the PUCT was not willing to retrospectively adjust its real-time pricing for this period out of concerns that some related transactions (ICE futures and others) may have already settled and for unintended consequences of such retroactive adjustments.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Great British Energy could cut UK electricity costs via public ownership, investing in clean energy like wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear, curbing windfall profits, stabilizing bills, and reinvesting returns through a state-backed generator.

Key Points

A proposed state-backed UK generator investing in clean power to cut costs and return gains to taxpayers.

✅ Publicly owned investment in wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear

✅ Cuts electricity bills by reducing generators' windfall profits

✅ Funded via bonds or asset buyouts; non-profit operations

A publicly owned electricity generation firm could save Britons nearly £21bn a year, according to new analysis that bolsters Labour’s case to launch a national energy company if the party gains power.

Thinktank Common Wealth has calculated that the cost of generating electricity to power homes and businesses could be reduced by £20.8bn or £252 per household a year under state ownership, according to a report seen by the Guardian.

The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, has committed to creating “a publicly owned national champion in clean energy” named Great British Energy.

Starmer is yet to lay out the exact structure of the mooted company, although he has said it would not involve nationalising existing assets, or become involved in the transmission grid or retail supply of energy.

Starmer instead hopes to create a state-backed entity that would invest in clean energy – wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, large-scale storage and other emerging technologies – creating jobs and ensuring windfalls from the growth in low carbon power feed back to the government.

The Common Wealth report, which analysed scenarios for reforming the electricity market, said that a huge saving on electricity costs could be made by buying out assets such as wind, solar and biomass generators on older contracts and running them on a non-profit basis. Funding the measure could require a government bond issuance, or some form of compulsory purchase process.

Last year the government attempted to get companies operating low carbon generators, including nuclear power plants, on older contracts to switch to contracts for difference (CfD), allowing any outsized profits to flow back to taxpayers. However, the government later decided to tax eligible firms through the electricity generator levy instead.

The Common Wealth study concluded that a publicly owned low carbon energy generator would best deliver on Britain’s climate and economic goals, would eliminate windfall profits made by generators and would cut household bills significantly.

MPs and campaigners have argued that Britain’s energy companies should be nationalised since the energy crisis, even as coal-free records have multiplied and renewables still need more support, which has resulted in North Sea oil and gas producers and electricity generators making windfall profits, and a string of retail suppliers collapsing, costing taxpayers billions. Detractors of nationalisation in energy argue it can stifle innovation and expose taxpayers to huge financial risks.

Common Wealth pointed out that more than 40% of the UK’s offshore wind generation capacity was publicly owned by overseas national entities, meaning the benefits of high electricity prices linked to the war in Ukraine had flowed back to other governments.

The study found the publicly owned generator model would create more savings than other options, including a drive for voluntary CfDs; splitting the generation market between low carbon and fossil fuel sources at a time when wind and solar have outproduced nuclear, and a “single buyer model” with nationalised retail suppliers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News