Wind, coal proposal advocates square off

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

Air Humidity Energy Harvesting converts thin air into clean electricity using air-gen devices with nanopores, delivering continuous renewable energy from ambient moisture, as demonstrated by UMass Amherst researchers in Advanced Materials.

Key Points

A method using nanoporous air-gen devices to harvest continuous clean electricity from ambient atmospheric moisture.

✅ Nanopores drive charge separation from ambient water molecules

✅ Works across materials: silicon, wood, bacterial films

✅ Predictable, continuous power unlike intermittent solar or wind

Sure, we all complain about the humidity on a sweltering summer day. But it turns out that same humidity could be a source of clean, pollution-free energy, aligning with efforts toward cheap, abundant electricity worldwide, a new study shows.

"Air humidity is a vast, sustainable reservoir of energy that, unlike wind and solar power resources, is continuously available," said the study, which was published recently in the journal Advanced Materials.

While humidity harvesting promises constant output, advances like a new fuel cell could help fix renewable energy storage challenges, researchers suggest.

“This is very exciting,” said Xiaomeng Liu, a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and the paper’s lead author. “We are opening up a wide door for harvesting clean electricity from thin air.”

In fact, researchers say, nearly any material can be turned into a device that continuously harvests electricity from humidity in the air, a concept echoed by raindrop electricity demonstrations in other contexts.

“The air contains an enormous amount of electricity,” said Jun Yao, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and the paper’s senior author. “Think of a cloud, which is nothing more than a mass of water droplets. Each of those droplets contains a charge, and when conditions are right, the cloud can produce a lightning bolt – but we don’t know how to reliably capture electricity from lightning.

"What we’ve done is to create a human-built, small-scale cloud that produces electricity for us predictably and continuously so that we can harvest it.”

The heart of the human-made cloud depends on what Yao and his colleagues refer to as an air-powered generator, or the "air-gen" effect, which relates to other atmospheric power concepts like night-sky electricity studies in the field.

In broader renewable systems, flexible resources such as West African hydropower can support variable wind and solar output, complementing atmospheric harvesting concepts as they mature.

The study builds on research from a study published in 2020. That year, scientists said this new technology "could have significant implications for the future of renewable energy, climate change and in the future of medicine." That study indicated that energy was able to be pulled from humidity by material that came from bacteria; related bio-inspired fuel cell design research explores better electricity generation, the new study finds that almost any material, such as silicon or wood, also could be used.

The device mentioned in the study is the size of a fingernail and thinner than a single hair. It is dotted with tiny holes known as nanopores, it was reported. "The holes have a diameter smaller than 100 nanometers, or less than a thousandth of the width of a strand of human hair."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

New England oil-fired generation surges as ISO New England manages a cold snap, dual-fuel switching, and a natural gas price spike, highlighting winter reliability challenges, LNG and pipeline limits, and rising CO2 emissions.

Key Points

Reliance on oil-burning power plants during winter demand spikes when natural gas is costly or constrained.

✅ Driven by dual-fuel switching amid high natural gas prices

✅ ISO-NE winter reliability rules encourage oil stockpiles

✅ Raises CO2 emissions despite coal retirements and renewables growth

New England is relying on oil-fired generators for the most electricity since 2018 as a frigid blast boosts demand for power and natural gas prices soar across markets. 

Oil generators were producing more than 4,200 megawatts early Thursday, accounting for about a quarter of the grid’s power supply, according to ISO New England. That was the most since Jan. 6, 2018, when oil plants produced as much as 6.4 gigawatts, or 32% of the grid’s output, said Wood Mackenzie analyst Margaret Cashman.  

Oil is typically used only when demand spikes, because of higher costs and emissions concerns. Consumption has been consistently high over the past three weeks as some generators switch from gas, which has surged in price in recent months. New England generators are producing power from oil at an average rate of almost 1.8 gigawatts so far this month, the highest for January in at least five years. 

Oil’s share declined to 16% Friday morning ahead of an expected snowstorm, which was “a surprise,” Cashman said. 

“It makes me wonder if some of those generators are aiming to reserve their fuel for this weekend,” she said.

During the recent cold snap, more than a tenth of the electricity generated in New England has been produced by power plants that haven’t happened for at least 15 years.

Burning oil for electricity was standard practice throughout the region for decades. It was once our most common fuel for power and as recently as 2000, fully 19% of the six-state region’s electricity came from burning oil, according to ISO-New England, more than any other source except nuclear power at the time.

Since then, however, natural gas has gotten so cheap that most oil-fired plants have been shut or converted to burn gas, to the point that just 1% of New England’s electricity came from oil in 2018, whereas about half our power came from natural gas generation regionally during that period. This is good because natural gas produces less pollution, both particulates and greenhouse gasses, although exactly how much less is a matter of debate.

But as you probably know, there’s a problem: Natural gas is also used for heating, which gets first dibs. Prolonged cold snaps require so much gas to keep us warm, a challenge echoed in Ontario’s electricity system as supply tightens, that there might not be enough for power plants – at least, not at prices they’re willing to pay.

After we came close to rolling brownouts during the polar vortex in the 2017-18 winter because gas-fired power plants cut back so much, ISO-NE, which has oversight of the power grid, established “winter reliability” rules. The most important change was to pay power plants to become dual-fuel, meaning they can switch quickly between natural gas and oil, and to stockpile oil for winter cold snaps.

We’re seeing that practice in action right now, as many dual-fuel plants have switched away from gas to oil, just as was intended.

That switch is part of the reason EPA says the region’s carbon emissions have gone up in the pandemic, from 22 million tons of CO2 in 2019 to 24 million tons in 2021. That reverses a long trend caused partly by closing of coal plants and partly by growing solar and offshore wind capacity: New England power generation produced 36 million tons of CO2 a decade ago.

So if we admit that a return to oil burning is bad, and it is, what can we do in future winters? There are many possibilities, including tapping more clean imports such as Canadian hydropower to diversify supply.

The most obvious solution is to import more natural gas, especially from fracked fields in New York state and Pennsylvania. But efforts to build pipelines to do that have been shot down a couple of times and seem unlikely to go forward and importing more gas via ocean tanker in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is also an option, but hits limits in terms of port facilities.

Aside from NIMBY concerns, the problem with building pipelines or ports to import more gas is that pipelines and ports are very expensive. Once they’re built they create a financial incentive to keep using natural gas for decades to justify the expense, similar to moves such as Ontario’s new gas plants that lock in generation. That makes it much harder for New England to decarbonize and potentially leaves ratepayers on the hook for a boatload of stranded costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario-U.S. Energy Tariff Dispute highlights cross-border trade tensions, retaliatory tariffs, export surcharges, and White House negotiations as Doug Ford meets U.S. officials to de-escalate pressure over steel, aluminum, and energy supplies.

Key Points

A trade standoff over energy exports and tariffs, sparked by Ontario's surcharge and U.S. duties on steel and aluminum.

✅ 25% Ontario energy surcharge paused before White House talks

✅ U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs reduced from 50% to 25%

✅ Potential energy supply cutoff remains leverage in negotiations

Ontario Premier Doug Ford's recent high-stakes diplomatic trip to Washington, D.C., underscores the delicate trade tensions between Canada and the United States, particularly concerning energy exports and Canada's electricity exports across the border. Ford's potential use of tariffs or even halting U.S. energy supplies, amid Ontario's energy independence considerations, remains a powerful leverage tool, one that could either de-escalate or intensify the ongoing trade conflict between the two neighboring nations.

The meeting in Washington follows a turbulent series of events that began with Ontario's imposition of a 25% surcharge on energy exports to the U.S. This move came in retaliation to what Ontario perceived as unfair treatment in trade agreements, a step that aligned with Canadian support for tariffs at the time. In response, U.S. President Donald Trump's administration threatened its own set of tariffs, specifically targeting Canadian steel and aluminum, which further escalated tensions. U.S. officials labeled Ford's threat to cut off U.S. electricity exports and energy supplies as "egregious and insulting," warning of significant economic retaliation.

However, shortly after these heated exchanges, Trump’s commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, extended an invitation to Ford for a direct meeting at the White House. Ford described this gesture as an "olive branch," signaling a potential de-escalation of the dispute. In the lead-up to this diplomatic encounter, Ford agreed to pause the energy surcharge, allowing the meeting to proceed, amid concerns tariffs could spike NY energy prices, without further escalating the crisis. Trump's administration responded by lowering its proposed 50% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum to a more manageable 25%.

The outcome of the meeting, which is set to address these critical issues, could have lasting implications for trade relations between Canada and the U.S. If Ford and Lutnick can reach an agreement, the potential for tariff imposition on energy exports, though experts advise against cutting Quebec's energy exports due to broader risks, could be resolved. However, if the talks fail, it is likely that both countries could face further retaliatory measures, compounding the economic strain on both sides.

As Canada and the U.S. continue to navigate these complex issues, where support for Canadian energy projects has risen, the outcome of Ford's meeting with Lutnick will be closely watched, as it could either defuse the tensions or set the stage for a prolonged trade battle.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Clean Energy Job Losses highlight COVID-19 impacts on renewable energy, solar, wind, and energy efficiency, with PPP fatigue, unemployment, and calls for Congressional stimulus, per Department of Labor data analyzed by E2.

Key Points

Pandemic-driven layoffs across renewable, solar, wind, and efficiency sectors, risking recovery without federal aid.

✅ Over 620,500 clean energy jobs lost in three months

✅ Energy efficiency, solar, and wind hit hardest nationwide

✅ Industry urges Congress for stimulus, tax credit relief

As Congress this week begins debating economic stimulus support for the energy industry, a new analysis of unemployment data shows the biggest part of America's energy economy - clean energy - lost another 27,000 jobs in May, bringing the total number of clean energy workers who have lost their jobs in the past three months to more than 620,500.

While May saw an improvement in new unemployment claims over March and April, the findings represent the sector's third straight month of significant job losses across solar, wind, energy efficiency, clean vehicles and other industries. With coronavirus cases once again rising in many states and companies beginning to run out of the Payroll Protection Program (PPP) funding that has helped small businesses keep workers employed, and as households confront pandemic power shut-offs that heighten energy insecurity, the report increases concerns the sector will be unable to resume its economy-leading jobs growth in the short- or long-term without a significant policy response.

Given the size and scope of the clean energy industry, such a sustained loss would cast a pall on the nation's overall economic recovery, as shifting electricity demand during COVID-19 complicates forecasts, according to the analysis of the Department of Labor's May unemployment data from E2 (Environmental Entrepreneurs), E4TheFuture and the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE).

Prior to COVID-19, clean energy - including energy efficiency, solar and wind generation, clean vehicles and related sectors - was among the U.S. economy's biggest and fastest-growing employment sectors, growing 10.4% since 2015 to nearly 3.4 million jobs at the end of 2019. That made clean energy by far the biggest employer of workers in all energy occupations, employing nearly three times as many people as the fossil fuel industry. For comparison, coal mining employs about 47,000 workers, even as clean energy projects in coal communities aim to revitalize local economies.

The latest monthly analysis for the groups by BW Research Partnership runs contrary to recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports, which indicated that a more robust economic rebound was underway, even as high fuel prices haven't spurred a green shift in adoption, while also acknowledging misclassifications and serious reporting difficulties in its own data.

Bob Keefe, Executive Director at E2, said:

"May's almost 30,000 clean energy jobs loss is sadly an improvement in the rate of jobs shed but make no mistake: There remains huge uncertainty and volatility ahead. It will be very tough for clean energy to make up these continuing job losses without support from Congress. Lawmakers must act now. If they do, we can get hundreds of thousands of these workers back on the job today and build a better, cleaner, more equitable economy for tomorrow. And who doesn't want that?"

Pat Stanton, Policy Director at E4TheFuture, said:

"Most of the time, energy efficiency workers need to go inside homes, businesses and other buildings to get the job done. Since they couldn't do that during COVID lockdowns, they couldn't work. Now states are opening up. But utilities, contractors and building owners need to protect employees and occupants from possible exposure to the virus and need more clarity about potential liabilities."

Gregory Wetstone, President and CEO of ACORE, said:

"In May, we saw thousands of additional renewable energy workers join the ranks of the unemployed, further underscoring the damage COVID-19 is inflicting on our workforce. Since the pandemic began, nearly 100,000 renewable energy workers have lost their jobs. We need help from Congress to get American clean energy workers back to work. With commonsense measures like temporary refundability and a delay in the phasedown of renewable energy tax credits, Congress can help restore these good-paying jobs so the renewable sector can continue to provide the affordable, pollution-free power American consumers and businesses want and deserve."

Phil Jordan, Vice President and Principal at BW Research Partnership, said:

"We understand the challenges and limitations of data collection for BLS in the middle of a global pandemic. But any suggestion that a strong employment rebound is underway in the United States simply is not reflected in the clean energy sector right now. And with PPP expiring, that only increases uncertainty in the months ahead."

The report comes as both the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Energy and Commerce Committee are considering clean energy stimulus to restart the U.S. economy, and amid assessments of mixed results from the climate law shaping expectations, and as lawmakers in both the House and Senate are increasing calls for supporting clean energy workers and businesses, including this bicameral letter signed by 57 members of Congress and another signed today by 180 House members.

Industries Hit Hardest

According to the analysis, energy efficiency lost more jobs than any other clean energy sector for the third consecutive month in May, shedding about 18,900 jobs. These workers include electricians, HVAC technicians who work with high-efficiency systems, and manufacturing employees who make Energy Star appliances, LED lighting systems and efficient building materials.

Renewable energy, including solar and wind, lost nearly 4,300 jobs in May.

Clean grid and storage and clean vehicles manufacturing -- including grid modernization, energy storage, car charging and electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle manufacturing -- lost a combined 3,200 jobs in May, as energy crisis impacts electricity, gas, and EVs in several ways.

The clean fuels sector lost more than 650 jobs in May.

States and Localities Hit Across Country

California continues to be the hardest hit state in terms of total job losses, losing 4,313 jobs in May and more than 109,700 since the COVID-19 crisis began. Florida was the second hardest hit state in May, losing an additional 2,563 clean energy jobs, while Georgia, Texas, Washington, and Michigan all suffered more than 1,000 job losses across the sector. An additional 12 states saw at least 500 clean energy unemployment filings, and reports like Pennsylvania's clean energy jobs analysis provide added context, according to the latest analysis.

For a full breakdown of clean energy job losses in each state, along with a list of the hardest hit counties and metro areas, see the full analysis here.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Washington-Led Lawsuit Against Energy Emergency challenges President Trump's executive order, citing state rights, environmental reviews, permitting, and federal overreach; coalition argues record energy output undermines emergency claims in Seattle federal court.

Key Points

Multistate suit to void Trump's energy emergency, alleging federal overreach and weakened environmental safeguards.

? Challenges executive order's legal basis and scope

? Claims expedited permitting skirts environmental reviews

? Seeks to halt emergency permits for non-emergencies

In a significant legal move, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown has spearheaded a coalition of 15 states in filing a lawsuit against President Donald Trump's executive order declaring a national energy emergency. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Seattle on May 9, 2025, challenges the legality of the emergency declaration, which aims to expedite permitting processes for fossil fuel projects in pursuit of an energy dominance vision by bypassing key environmental reviews.

Background of the Energy Emergency Declaration

President Trump's executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, asserts that the United States faces an inadequate and unreliable energy grid, particularly affecting the Northeast and West Coast regions. The order directs federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior, to utilize "any lawful emergency authorities" to facilitate the development of domestic energy resources, with a focus on oil, gas, and coal projects. This includes expediting reviews under the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, potentially reducing public input and environmental oversight.

Legal Grounds for the Lawsuit

The coalition of states, led by Washington and California, argues that the emergency declaration is an overreach of presidential authority, echoing disputes over the Affordable Clean Energy rule in federal courts. They contend that U.S. energy production is already at record levels, and the declaration undermines state rights and environmental protections. The lawsuit seeks to have the executive order declared unlawful and to halt the issuance of emergency permits for non-emergency projects. 

Implications for Environmental Protections

Critics of the energy emergency declaration express concern that it could lead to significant environmental degradation. By expediting permitting processes, including geothermal permitting, and reducing public participation, the order may allow projects to proceed without adequate consideration of their impact on water quality, wildlife habitats, and cultural resources. Environmental advocates argue that such actions could set a dangerous precedent, enabling future administrations to bypass essential environmental safeguards under the guise of national emergencies, even as the EPA advances new pollution limits for coal and gas plants to address the climate crisis.

Political and Legal Reactions

The Trump administration defends the executive order, asserting that the president has the authority to declare national emergencies and that the energy emergency is necessary to address perceived deficiencies in the nation's energy infrastructure and potential electricity pricing changes debated by industry groups. However, legal experts suggest that the broad application of emergency powers in this context may face challenges in court. The outcome of the lawsuit could have significant implications for the balance of power between state and federal authorities, as well as the future of environmental regulations in the United States.

The legal challenge led by Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over energy policy and environmental protection. As the lawsuit progresses through the courts, it will likely serve as a bellwether for future conflicts between state and federal governments regarding the scope of executive authority and the preservation of environmental standards, amid ongoing efforts to expand uranium and nuclear energy programs nationwide. The outcome may set a precedent for how national emergencies are declared and managed, particularly concerning their impact on state governance and environmental laws.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News