Supergrid hopefuls form club to push project

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

Alberta Energy-Only Electricity Market faces capacity market debate, AESO price cap review, and coal-to-gas shifts by TransAlta and Capital Power, balancing reliability with volatility as investment signals evolve across Alberta's grid.

Key Points

An energy market paying generators only for electricity sold, with AESO oversight and a price cap guiding new capacity.

✅ AESO reviewing $999 per MW-h wholesale price cap.

✅ UCP retained energy-only; capacity market plan cancelled.

✅ TransAlta and Capital Power shift to coal-to-gas.

The Kenney government’s decision to cancel the redesign of Alberta’s electricity system to a capacity market won’t side-track two of the province’s largest power generators from converting coal-fired facilities to burn natural gas as part of Alberta’s shift from coal to cleaner energy overall.

But other changes could be coming to the province’s existing energy-only electricity market — including the alteration of the $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) wholesale price cap in Alberta.

The heads of TransAlta Corp. and Capital Power Corp. are proceeding with strategies to convert existing coal-fired power generating facilities to use natural gas in the coming years.

Calgary-based TransAlta first announced in 2017 that it would make the switch, as the NDP government was in the midst of overhauling the electricity sector and wind generation began to outpace coal in the province.

At the time, the Notley government planned to phase out coal-fired power by 2030, even as Alberta moved to retire coal by 2023 in practice, and shift Alberta into an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Such a move, made on the recommendation of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), was intended to reduce price volatility and ensure system reliability.

Under the energy-only market, generators receive payments for electricity produced and sold into the grid. In a capacity market, generators are also paid for having power available on demand, regardless of how often they sell energy into the provincial grid.

The UCP government decided last month to ditch plans for a capacity market after consulting with the sector, saying it would be better for consumers.

On a conference call, TransAlta CEO Dawn Farrell said the company will convert coal-fired generating plants to burn gas, although it may alter the mix between simple conversions and switching to so-called “hybrid” plants.

(A hybrid conversion is a larger and more-expensive switch, as it includes installing a new gas turbine and heat-recovery steam generator, but it creates a highly efficient combined cycle unit.)

“Our view is fundamentally that carbon will be priced over the next 20 years no matter what,” she said Friday.

“We cannot get off coal fast enough in this company, and gas right now in Alberta is extremely inexpensive…

“So our coal-to-gas strategy is completely predicated on our belief that it’s not smart to be in carbon-intensive fuels for the future.”

Elsewhere in Canada, the Stop the Shock campaign has advocated for reviving coal power, underscoring ongoing policy debates.

The company said it’s planning the coal-to-gas conversion and re-powering of some or all of the units at its Keephills and Sundance facilities to gas-fired generation sometime between 2020 and 2023.

Similarly, Capital Power CEO Brian Vaasjo said the Edmonton-based company is moving ahead with a project that will allow it to burn both coal and natural gas at its Genesee generating station, even as Ontario’s energy minister sought to explore a halt to natural gas generation elsewhere.

In June, the company announced it would spend an estimated $50 million between 2019 and 2021 to allow it to use gas at the facility.

“What we’re doing is going to be dual fuel, so we will be able to operate 100 per cent natural gas or 100 per cent coal and everything in between,” Vaasjo said in an interview.

“You can expect to see we will be burning coal in the winter when natural gas prices are high, and we will be burning natural gas in summer when gas prices are real low.”

The transition comes as the government’s decision to stick with the energy-only market has been welcomed by players in the industry, and as Alberta's electricity future increasingly leans on wind resources.

A study by electricity consultancy EDC Associates found the capacity market would result in consumers paying an extra $1.4 billion in direct costs in 2021-22, as it required more generation to come online earlier than expected.

These additional costs would have accumulated to $10 billion by 2030, said EDC chief executive Duane-Reid Carlson.

For Capital Power, the decision to stick with the current system makes the province more investable in the future. Vaasjo said there was great uncertainty about the transition to a capacity market, and the possibility of rules shifting further.

Officials with Enmax Corp. said the city-owned utility would not have invested in future generation under the proposed capacity market.

“There is no short-term need (today) for new generation, so we’re just looking at the market and saying, ‘OK, as it evolves, we will see what happens,’” said Enmax vice-president Tim Boston.

Sticking with the energy-only market doesn’t mean Alberta will keep the existing rules.

In a July 25 letter, Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage directed AESO chair Will Bridge to examine if changes to the existing market are needed and report back by July 2020.

AESO, which manages the power grid, has been asked to investigate whether the current price cap of $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) should be changed.

The price ceiling hasn’t been altered since the energy-only market was implemented by the Klein government about two decades ago.

While allowing prices to go higher would increase volatility, reflecting lessons from Europe’s power crisis about scarcity pricing, during periods of rising demand and limited supply, it would send a signal to generators when investment in new generation is required, said Kent Fellows, a research associate at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

“Keeping the price (cap) too low could end up costing us more in the long run,” he said.

In a 2016 report, AESO said the province examined raising the price cap to $5,000 per MW-h, but “determined that it was unlikely to be successful in attracting investment due to increased price volatility.”

However, the amount of future generation that will be required in Alberta has been scaled back by the province.

In the United States, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) allows wholesale power prices in the state to climb to a cap of $9,000 per megawatt hours as demand rises — as it did Tuesday in the midst of a heat wave, according to Bloomberg.

Jim Wachowich, legal counsel for the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta, said while few players are exposed to spot electricity prices, he has yet to be convinced raising the cap would be good for Albertans.

“Someone has to show me the evidence, and I suspect that’s what the minister has asked the AESO to do,” he said.

Generators say they believe some tinkering is needed to the energy-only market to ensure new generation is built when it’s required.

“The No. 1 change that the government has to … think about is in pricing,” added Farrell.

“If you don’t have enough of a price signal in an energy-only market to attract new capital, you won’t get new capital — and you’ll run up against the wall.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Utility-Scale Solar Delays driven by the coronavirus pandemic threaten construction timelines, supply chains, and financing, with interconnection and commissioning setbacks, module sourcing risks in Southeast Asia, and tax credit deadline pressures impacting project delivery.

Key Points

Setbacks to large U.S. solar builds from COVID-19 impacting construction, supply, financing, and permitting.

✅ Construction, interconnection, commissioning site visits delayed

✅ Supply chain risks for modules from Southeast Asia

✅ Tax credit deadline extensions sought by developers

About 5 gigawatts (GW) of big U.S. solar energy projects, enough to power nearly 1 million homes, could suffer delays this year if construction is halted for months due to the coronavirus pandemic, as the Covid-19 crisis hits renewables across the sector, according to a report published on Wednesday.

The forecast, a worst-case scenario laid out in an analysis by energy research firm Wood Mackenzie, would amount to about a third of the utility-scale solar capacity expected to be installed in the United States this year, even as US solar and wind growth continues under favorable plans.

The report comes two weeks after the head of the top U.S. solar trade group called the coronavirus pandemic (as solar jobs decline nationwide) "a crisis here" for the industry. Solar and wind companies are pleading with Congress to extend deadlines for projects to qualify for sunsetting federal tax credits.

Even the firm’s best-case scenario would result in substantial delays, mirroring concerns that wind investments at risk across the industry. With up to four weeks of disruption, the outbreak will push out 2 GW of projects, or enough to power about 380,000 homes. Before factoring in the impact of the coronavirus, Wood Mackenzie had forecast 14.7 GW of utility-scale solar projects would be installed this year.

In its report, the firm said the projects are unlikely to be canceled outright. Rather, they will be pushed into the second half of 2020 or 2021. The analysis assumes that virus-related disruptions subside by the end of the third quarter.

Mid-stage projects that still have to secure financing and receive supplies are at the highest risk, Wood Mackenzie analyst Colin Smith said in an interview, adding that it was too soon to know whether the pandemic would end up altering long-term electricity demand and therefore utility procurement plans, where policy shifts such as an ITC extension could reshape priorities.

Currently, restricted travel is the most likely cause of project delays, the report said. Developers expect delays in physical site visits for interconnection and commissioning, and workers have had difficulty reaching remote construction sites.

For earlier-stage projects, municipal offices that process permits are closed and in-person meetings between developers and landowners or local officials have slowed down.

Most solar construction is proceeding despite stay at home orders in many states because it is considered critical infrastructure, and long-term proposals like a tenfold increase in solar could reshape the outlook, the report said, adding that “that could change with time.”

Risks to supplies of solar modules include potential manufacturing shutdowns in key producing nations in Southeast Asia such as Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand. Thus far, solar module production has been identified as an essential business and has been allowed to continue.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

SaskPower 10% Electricity Rebate promises one-year bill relief for households, farms, businesses, hospitals, schools, and universities in Saskatchewan, boosting affordability amid COVID-19, offsetting rate hikes, and countering carbon tax impacts under Scott Moe's plan.

Key Points

One-year 10% SaskPower rebate lowering bills for residents, farms, and institutions, funded by general revenue.

✅ Applies automatically to all customers for 12 months from Dec 2020.

✅ Average savings: $215 residential; $845 farm; broad sector coverage.

✅ Cost $261.6M, paid from the general revenue fund; separate from carbon tax.

Saskatchewan Party leader Scott Moe says SaskPower customers can expect a one-year, 10 per cent rebate on electricity if they are elected government.

Moe said the pledge aims to make life more affordable for people, including through lower electricity rates initiatives seen in other provinces. The rate would apply to everyone, including residential customers, farmers, businesses, hospitals, schools and universities.

The plan, which would cost government $261.6 million, expects to save the average residential customer $215 over the course of the year and the average farm customer $845.  

“This is a very equitable way to ensure that we are not only providing that opportunity for those dollars to go back into our economy and foster the economic recovery that we are working towards here, in Saskatchewan, across Canada and around the globe, but it also speaks to the affordability for our Saskatchewan families, reducing the dollars a day off to pay for their for their power bill,” Moe said.

The rebate would be applied automatically to all SaskPower bills for 12 months, starting in December 2020. 

Moe said residential customers who are net metering and generating their own power, such as solar power, would receive a $215 rebate over the 12-month period, which is the equivalent of the average residential rebate.

The $261.6 million in costs would be covered by the government’s general revenue fund.   

The Saskatchewan NDP said the proposed reduction is "a big change in direction from the Sask. Party’s long history of making life more expensive for Saskatchewan families." and recently took aim at a SaskPower rate hike approval as part of that critique.

Trent Wotherspoon, NDP candidate for Regina Rosemont and former finance critic, called the pledge criticized the one year time frame and said Saskatchewan people need long term, reliable affordability, noting that the Ontario-Quebec hydro deal has not reduced hydro bills for consumers. Something, he said, is reflected in the NDP plan.

“We've already brought about announcements that bring about affordability, such as the break on SGI auto insurance that'll happen, year after year after year, affordable childcare which has been already announced and committed to things like a decent minimum wage instead of having the lowest minimum wage in Canada,” Wotherspoon said.

The NDP pointed out SaskPower bills have increased by 57 per cent since 2007 for families with an average household income of $75,000, while Nova Scotia's 14% rate hike was recently approved by its regulator.

It said the average bill for such household was $901 in 2007-08 and is now $1,418 in 2019-20, while in neighbouring provinces Manitoba rate increases of 2.5 per cent annually have also been proposed for three years.

"This is on top of the PST increases that the Sask. Party put on everyday families – costing them more than $700 a year," the NDP said.

Moe took aim at the federal Liberal government’s carbon tax, citing concerns that electricity prices could soar under national policies.

He said if the Saskatchewan government wins its court fight against Ottawa, all SaskPower customers can expect to save an additional $150 million per year, and he questioned the federal 2035 net-zero electricity grid target in that context.

“As it stands right now, the Trudeau government plans to raise the carbon tax from $30 to $40 a tonne on Jan. 1,” Moe said. “Trudeau plans to raise taxes and your SaskPower bill, in the middle of a pandemic.  The Saskatchewan Party will give you a break by cutting your power bill.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Denmark 2019 electricity CO2 intensity shows record-low emissions as renewable energy surges, wind power dominates, offshore wind expands, and coal phase-out accelerates Denmark's energy transition and grid decarbonization, driven by higher CO2 prices and flexibility.

Key Points

It is 135 g CO2/kWh, a record low enabled by wind power growth, offshore wind, and a sharp coal decline.

✅ Average emissions fell to 135 g CO2/kWh, the lowest on record

✅ Wind and solar supplied 49.9% of national electricity use

✅ Coal consumption dropped 46% as CO2 allowance prices rose

Danish electricity producers set a new green record in 2019, when an average produced kilowatt-hour emitted 135 gr CO2 / kWh.

It is the lowest CO2 emission ever measured in Denmark and about one-seventh of what the electricity producers emitted in 1990.

Never has a kilowatt-hour produced emitted as little CO2 as it did in 2019. And that's according to Energinet's recently published annual Environmental Report on Danish electricity generation and cogeneration, two primary causes.

One reason is that more green power has been produced because the Horns Rev 3 offshore wind farm, which can produce electricity for 425,000 households, was commissioned in 2019. The other is that Danish coal consumption fell by 46 percent from 2018 to 2019, as coal phase-out plans gathered pace across the sector. the dramatic decline in coal consumption is partly due a significant increase in the price of CO2 quotas, and thus also the price of CO2 emissions.

'Historically, 135 gr CO2 / kWh is a really, really low figure, showing the impressive green travel that the Danish electricity system has been on. In 1990, a kilowatt-hour produced emitted over 1000 grams of CO2, ie about seven times as much as today, 'says Hanne Storm Edlefsen, area manager in Energinet Power Systems Responsibility.

Wind energy is the dominant form of electricity generation in Denmark, a pattern the UK wind beat coal in 2016 when shifting away from fossil fuels.

17.1 TWh. Danish wind turbines and solar cells generated so much electricity in 2019, corresponding to 49.9 per cent. of Danish electricity consumption, reflecting broader EU wind and solar growth trends as well. An increase of 15 per cent. The wind turbines alone produced 16 TWh, which is not only a new green record, but also puts a thick line that wind energy is by far the most dominant form of electricity generation in Denmark.

'Thanks to our large wind resources, turbines are by far the largest supplier of renewable energy in Denmark, and this will be for many years to come. The large price drop in new wind energy in recent years - for both onshore and offshore winds - will ensure that wind energy will drive a large part of the growth in renewable energy in the coming years, as new wind generation records are set in markets like the UK, 'says Soren Klinge, electricity market manager at Wind Denmark.

Conversely, total electricity generation from fossil and bio-based fuels decreased by 26 PJ (petajoule ed.), Corresponding to 34 per cent. from 2018 to 2019, mirroring renewables overtaking coal in Germany. Nevertheless, net electricity generation was just under 30 TWh both years.

'It is worth noting that while fossil fuels are being phased out, Denmark maintains its annual net production of electricity. The green, so to speak, replaces the black. It once again underpins that green conversion, high security of supply and an affordable electricity price can go hand in hand, 'says Hanne Storm Edlefsen.

Danish power system is ready for a green future

Including trade in electricity with neighboring countries, 1 kWh in a Danish outlet generates 145 gr CO2 / kWh.

'There has been a very significant development in the Danish electricity system in recent years, where the electricity system can now be operated solely on the renewable energy. It is a remarkable development, also from an international perspective where low-carbon progress stalled in the UK in 2019, that one would not have thought possible for just a few years ago, 'he says.

More than expected have phased out coal

The electricity from the Danish sockets will be greener , predicts Energinet's environmental report , which expects CO2 intensity in the coming years. This is explained by an expectation of increased electrification of energy consumption, together with a continued expansion with wind and solar.

'Wind energy is the cornerstone of the green transition. With the commissioning of the Kriegers Flak offshore wind farm and several major onshore wind turbine projects within the next few years, we can well expect that only the wind's share of electricity consumption will exceed 50 per cent hopefully as early as 2021,' concludes Soren Klinge.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Electric power market crisis highlights grid reliability risks as coal and nuclear retire amid subsidies, mandates, and cheap natural gas; intermittent wind and solar raise blackout concerns, resilience costs, and pricing distortions across regulated markets.

Key Points

Reliability and cost risks as coal and nuclear retire; subsidies distort prices; intermittent renewables strain grid.

✅ Coal and nuclear retirements reduce baseload capacity

✅ Subsidies and mandates distort market pricing signals

✅ Intermittent renewables increase blackout and grid risk

Is anyone paying any attention to the crisis that is going on in our electric power markets?

Over the past six months at least four major nuclear power plants have been slated for shutdown, including the last one in operation in California. Meanwhile, dozens of coal plants have been shuttered as well — despite low prices and cleaner coal. Some of our major coal companies may go into bankruptcy.

This is a dangerous game we are playing here with our most valuable resource — outside of clean air and water. Traditionally, we've received almost half our electric power nationwide from coal and nuclear power, and for good reason. They are cheap sources of power and they are highly resilient and reliable.

The disruption to coal and nuclear power wouldn't be disturbing if this were happening as a result of market forces. That's only partially the case.

#google#

The amazing shale oil and gas revolution is providing Americans with cheap gas for home heating and power generation. Hooray. The price of natural gas has fallen by nearly two-thirds over the last decade and this has put enormous price pressure on other forms of power generation.

But this is not a free-market story of Schumpeterian creative destruction. If it were, then wind and solar power would have been shutdown years ago. They can't possibly compete on a level playing field with $3 natural gas.

In most markets solar and wind power survive purely because the states mandate that as much as 30 percent of residential and commercial power come from these sources. The utilities have to buy it regardless of price, even as electricity demand is flat in many regions. What a sweet deal. The California state legislature just mandated that every new home spend $10,000 on solar panels on the roof.

Well over $100 billion of subsidies to big wind and big solar were doled out over the last decade, and even with the avalanche of taxpayer subsidies and bailout funds many of these companies like Solyndra (which received $500 million in handouts) failed, underscoring why a green revolution hasn't materialized as promised.

These industries are not anywhere close to self sufficiency. In 2017 amid utility trends to watch the wind industry admitted that without a continuation of a multi-billion tax credit, the wind turbines would stop turning.

This combines with the left's war on coal through regulations that have destroyed coal plants in many areas. (Thank goodness for the exports of coal or the industry would be in much bigger trouble.)

Bottom line: Our power market is a Soviet central planner's dream come true and it is extinguishing our coal and nuclear industries.

Why should anyone care?

First, because government subsidies, regulations and mandates make electric power more expensive. Natural gas prices have fallen by two-thirds, but electric power costs have still risen in most areas — thanks to the renewable mandates.

More importantly, the electric power market isn't accurately pricing in the value of resilience and reliability. What is the value of making sure the lights don't go off? What is the cost to the economy and human health if we have rolling brownouts and blackouts because the aging U.S. grid doesn't have enough juice during peak demand.

Politicians, utilities and federal regulators are shortsightedly killing our coal and nuclear capacities without considering the risk of future energy shortages and power disruptions. Once a nuclear plant is shutdown, you can't just fire it back up again when you need it.

Wind and solar are notoriously unreliable. Most places where wind power is used, coal plants are needed to back up the system during peak energy use and when the wind isn't blowing.

The first choice to fix energy markets is to finally end the tangled web of layers and layers of taxpayer subsidies and mandates and let the market choose. Alas, that's nearly impossible given the political clout of big wind and solar.

The second best solution is for the regulators and utilities to take into account the grid reliability and safety of our energy. Would people be willing to pay a little more for their power to ensure against brownouts? I sure would. The cost of having too little energy far exceeds the cost of having too much.

A glass of water costs pennies, but if you're in a desert dying of thirst, that water may be worth thousands of dollars.

I'll admit I'm not sure what the best solution is to the power plant closures. But if we have major towns and cities in the country without electric power for stretches of time because of green energy fixation, Americans are going to be mighty angry and our economy will take a major hit.

When our manufacturers, schools, hospitals, the internet and iPhones shut down, we're not going to think wind and solar power are so chic.

If the lights start to go out five or 10 years from now, we will look back at what is happening today and wonder how we could have been so darn stupid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News