Deal would provide N.Y. with N.J. power

Hydro One CEO Mark Poweska aims to rebuild ties with Ontario's provincial government, investors, and communities, stabilize the executive team, boost earnings and dividends, and reset strategy after the scrapped Avista deal and regulatory setbacks.

Key Points

He plans to mend government and investor relations, rebuild the C-suite, and refocus growth after the failed Avista bid.

✅ Rebuild ties with Ontario government and regulators

✅ Stabilize executive team and governance

✅ Refocus growth after Avista deal termination

The incoming chief executive officer of Hydro One Ltd. said Thursday that he aims to rebuild the relationship between the Ontario electrical utility and the provincial government, as seen in COVID-19 support initiatives, as well as ties between the company and its investors.

Mark Poweska, the former executive vice-president of operations at BC Hydro, was announced as Hydro One’s new president and CEO in March. His hiring followed a turbulent period for Toronto-based Hydro One, Ontario’s biggest distributor and transmitter of electricity, with large-scale storm restoration efforts underscoring its role.

Hydro One’s former CEO and board of directors departed last year under pressure from a new Ontario government, the utility’s biggest shareholder. Earlier this year, the company’s plan for a $6.7-billion takeover fell apart over concerns of political interference and the utility clashed with the new provincial government and Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford over executive compensation levels, amid rate policy debates such as no peak rate cuts for self-isolating customers.

Hydro One facing $885 million charge as regulator upholds tax decision forcing it to share savings with customers

Shares of Hydro One were up more than eight per cent year-to-date on Wednesday, closing at $21.74. However, the stock price was up only six per cent from Hydro One’s 2015 initial public offering price, something its incoming CEO seems set on changing.

“One of my first priorities will be to solidify the executive team and build relationships with the Government of Ontario, our customers, informed by customer flexibility research, and communities, indigenous leaders, investors, and our partners across the electricity sector,” Poweska said Thursday on a conference call outlining Hydro One’s first-quarter results. “At the same time, I will be working to earn the trust and confidence of the investment community.”

Hydro One reported a profit of $171 million for the three months ended March 31, while peers such as Hydro-Québec reported pandemic-related losses as the sector adapted. Net income for the first quarter was down from $222 million a year earlier, which was due to $140 million in costs related to the scrapping of Hydro One’s proposed acquisition of U.S. energy company Avista Corp.

Hydro One Ltd. appointed Mark Poweska as President and CEO.

In January, Hydro One said the proposed takeover of Spokane, Wash.-headquartered Avista, an approximately $6.7-billion deal announced in July 2017, was being called off. As a result, Hydro One said it would pay Avista a US$103 million break fee.

Revenues net of purchased power for the first quarter rose to $952 million, up by 15.4 per cent compared to last year, Hydro One said, helped by higher distribution revenues. Adjusted profit for the quarter, which removes the Avista-related costs, was $311 million, up from $210 million a year ago.

The company is hiking its quarterly dividend to 24.15 cents per share, up five per cent from the last increase in May 2018, while also launching a pandemic relief fund for customers.

Poweska is taking over for acting president and CEO Paul Dobson this month, and the new executive will be charged with revamping Hydro One’s C-suite.

The company’s chief operating officer, chief legal officer, and chief corporate development officer have all departed this year. The company’s chief human resource officer has retired as well, although Poweska did announce Thursday that he had appointed acting chief financial officer Chris Lopez as CFO.

“Hydro One’s significant bench strength and management depth will ensure stability and continuity during this period of transition, as the sector pursues Hydro-Québec energy transition as well,” the company said in its first-quarter earnings press release.

Ontario remains Hydro One’s biggest shareholder, owning approximately 47 per cent of the company.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Massachusetts Energy Code Updates align DOER regulations with BBRS standards, advancing Stretch Code and Specialized Code beyond the Base Energy Code to accelerate net-zero construction, electrification, and high-efficiency building performance across municipal opt-in communities.

Key Points

They are DOER-led changes to Base, Stretch, and Specialized Codes to drive net-zero, electrified, efficient buildings.

✅ Updates apply Base, Stretch, or opt-in Specialized Code.

✅ Targets net-zero by 2050 with electrification-first design.

✅ Municipalities choose code path via City Council or Town Meeting.

Massachusetts will soon see significant updates to the energy codes that govern the construction and alteration of buildings throughout the Commonwealth.

As required by the 2021 climate bill, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) has recently finalized regulations updating the current Stretch Energy Code, previously promulgated by the state's Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS), and establishing a new Specialized Code geared toward achieving net-zero building energy performance.

The final code has been submitted to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy for review as required under state law, amid ongoing Connecticut market overhaul discussions that could influence regional dynamics.

Under the new regulations, each municipality must apply one of the following:

Base Energy Code - The current Base Energy Code is being updated by the BBRS as part of its routine updates to the full set of building codes. This base code is the default if a municipality has not opted in to an alternative energy code.

Stretch Code - The updated Stretch Code creates stricter guidelines on energy-efficiency for almost all new constructions and alterations in municipalities that have adopted the previous Stretch Code, paralleling 100% carbon-free target in Minnesota and elsewhere to support building decarbonization. The updated Stretch Code will automatically become the applicable code in any municipality that previously opted-in to the Stretch Code.

Specialized Code - The newly created Specialized Code includes additional requirements above and beyond the Stretch Code, designed to get to ensure that new construction is consistent with a net-zero economy by 2050, similar to Canada's clean electricity regulations that set a 2050 decarbonization pathway. Municipalities must opt-in to adopt the Specialized Code by vote of City Council or Town Meeting.

The new codes are much too detailed to summarize in a blog post. You can read more here. Without going into those details here, it is worth noting a few significant policy implications of the new regulations:

With roughly 90% of Massachusetts municipalities having already adopted the prior version of the Stretch Code, the Commonwealth will effectively soon have a new base code that, even if it does not mandate zero-energy buildings, is nonetheless very aggressive in pushing new construction to be as energy-efficient as possible, as jurisdictions such as Ontario clean electricity regulations continue to reshape the power mix.

Although some concerns have been raised about the cost of compliance, particularly in a period of high inflation, and amid solar demand charge debates in Massachusetts, our understanding is that many developers have indicated that they can work with the new regulations without significant adverse impacts.

Of course, the success of the new codes depends on the success of the Commonwealth's efforts to transition quickly to a zero-carbon electrical grid, supported by initiatives like the state's energy storage solicitation to bolster reliability. If the cost of doing so is higher than expected, there could well be public resistance. If new transmission doesn't get built out sufficiently quickly or other problems occur, such that the power is not available to electrify all new construction, that would be a much more significant problem - for many reasons!

In short, the new regulations unquestionably set the Commonwealth on a course to electrify new construction and squeeze carbon emissions out of new buildings. However, as with the rest of our climate goals, there are a lot of moving pieces, including proposals for a clean electricity standard shaping the power sector that are going to have to come together to make the zero-carbon economy a reality.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Pennsylvania Electric Rate Increases hit Peco, PPL, and Pike County, driven by natural gas costs and wholesale power markets; default rate changes, price to compare shifts, and time-of-use plans affect residential bills.

Key Points

Electric default rates are rising across Pennsylvania as natural gas costs climb, affecting Peco, PPL, and Pike customers.

✅ PPL, Peco, and Pike raising default rates Dec. 1

✅ Natural gas costs driving wholesale power prices

✅ Consider standard offer, TOU rates, and efficiency

Energy costs for electric customers are going up by as much as 50% across Pennsylvania next week, the latest manifestation of US electricity price increases impacting gasoline, heating oil, propane, and natural gas.

Eight Pennsylvania electric utilities are set to increase their energy prices on Dec. 1, reflecting the higher cost to produce electricity. Peco Energy, which serves Philadelphia and its suburbs, will boost its energy charge by 6.4% on Dec. 1, from 6.6 cents per kilowatt hour to about 7 cents per kWh. Energy charges account for about half of a residential bill.

PPL Electric Utilities, the Allentown company that serves a large swath of Pennsylvania including parts of Bucks, Montgomery, and Chester Counties, will impose a 26% increase on residential energy costs on Dec. 1, from about 7.5 cents per kWh to 9.5 cents per kWh. That’s an increase of $40 a month for an electric heating customer who uses 2,000 kWh a month.

Pike County Light & Power, which serves about 4,800 customers in Northeast Pennsylvania, will increase energy charges by 50%, according to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

“All electric distribution companies face the same market forces as PPL Electric Utilities,” PPL said in a statement. Each Pennsylvania utility follows a different PUC-regulated plan for procuring energy from power generators, and those forces can include rising nuclear power costs in some regions, which explains why some customers are absorbing the hit sooner rather than later, it said.

There are ways customers can mitigate the impact. Utilities offer a host of programs and grants to support low-income customers, and some states are exploring income-based fixed charges to address affordability, and they encourage anyone struggling to pay their bills to call the utility for help. Customers can also control their costs by conserving energy. It may be time to put on a sweater and weatherize the house.

Peco recently introduced time-of-use rates — as seen when Ontario ended fixed pricing — that include steep discounts for customers who can shift electric usage to late night hours — that’s you, electric vehicle owners.

There’s also a clever opportunity available for many Pennsylvania customers called the “standard offer” that might save you some real money, but you need to act before the new charges take effect on Dec. 1 to lock in the best rates.

Why are the price hikes happening?
But first, how did we get here?

Energy charges are rising for a simple reason: Fuel prices for power generators are increasing, and that’s driven mostly by natural gas. It’s pushing up electricity prices in wholesale power markets and has lifted typical residential bills in recent years.

“It’s all market forces right now,” said Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, PUC spokesperson. Energy charges are strictly a pass-through cost for utilities. Utilities aren’t allowed to mark them up.

The increase in utility energy charges does not affect customers who buy their energy from competitive power suppliers in deregulated electricity markets. About 27% of Pennsylvania’s 5.9 million electric customers who shop for electricity from third-party suppliers either pay fixed rates, whose price remains stable, or are on a variable-rate plan tied to market prices. The variable-rate electric bills have probably already increased to reflect the higher cost of generating power.

Most New Jersey electric customers are shielded for now from rising energy costs. New Jersey sets annual energy prices for customers who don’t shop for power. Those rates go into effect on June 1 and stay in place for 12 months. The current energy market fluctuations will be reflected in new rates that take effect next summer, said Lauren Ugorji, a spokesperson for Public Service Electric & Gas Co., New Jersey’s largest utility.

For each utility, its own plan
Pennsylvania has a different system for setting utility energy charges, which are also known as the “default rate,” because that’s the price a customer gets by default if they don’t shop for power. The default rate is also the same thing as the “price to compare,” a term the PUC has adopted so consumers can make an apples-to-apples comparison between a utility’s energy charge and the price offered by a competitive supplier.

Each of the state’s 11 PUC-regulated electric utilities prepares its own “default service plan,” that governs the method by which they procure power on wholesale markets. Electric distribution companies like Peco are required to buy the lowest priced power. They typically buy power in blind auctions conducted by independent agents, so that there’s no favoritism for affiliated power generators

Some utilities adjust charges quarterly, and others do it semi-annually. “This means that each [utility’s] resulting price to compare will vary as the market changes, some taking longer to reflect price changes, both up and down,” PPL said in a statement. PPL conducted its semi-annual auction in October, when energy prices were rising sharply.

Most utilities buy power from suppliers under contracts of varying durations, both long-term and short-term. The contracts are staggered so market price fluctuations are smoothed out. One utility, Pike County Power & Light, buys all its power on the spot market, which explains why its energy charge will surge by 50% on Dec. 1. Pike County’s energy charge will also be quicker to decline when wholesale prices subside, as they are expected to next year.

Peco adjusts its energy charge quarterly, but it conducts power auctions semi-annually. It buys about 40% of its power in one-year contracts, and 60% in two-year contracts, and does not buy any power on spot markets, said Richard G. Webster Jr., Peco’s vice president of regulatory policy and strategy.

“At any given time, we’re replacing about a third of our supplied portfolio,” he said.

The utility’s energy charge affects only part of the monthly bill. For a Peco residential electric customer who uses 700 kWh per month, the Dec. 1 energy charge increase will boost monthly bills by $2.94 per month, or 2.9%. For an electric heating customer who uses about 2,000 kWh per month, the change will boost bills $8.40 a month, or about 3.5%, said Greg Smore, a Peco spokesperson.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas After-Labor Day School Start could ease ERCOT's power grid strain by shifting peak demand, lowering air-conditioning loads in schools, improving grid reliability, reducing electricity costs, and curbing emissions during extreme heat the summer months.

Key Points

A proposed calendar shift to start school after Labor Day to lower ERCOT peak demand, costs, and grid risk.

✅ Cuts school HVAC loads during peak summer heat

✅ Lowers costly peaker plant use and electricity rates

✅ Requires calendar changes, testing and activities shifts

As Texas faces increasing demands on its power grid, a new proposal is gaining traction: starting the school year after Labor Day. This idea, reported by the Dallas News, suggests that delaying the start of the academic year could help alleviate some of the pressure on the state’s electricity grid during the peak summer months, potentially leading to both grid stability and financial savings. Here’s an in-depth look at how this proposed change could impact Texas’s energy landscape and education system.

The Context of Power Grid Strain

Texas's power grid, operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), has faced significant challenges in recent years. Extreme weather events, record-breaking temperatures, and high energy demand have strained the grid, and some analyses argue that climate change, not demand is the biggest challenge today, leading to concerns about reliability and stability. The summer months are particularly taxing, as the demand for air conditioning surges, often pushing the grid to its limits.

In this context, the idea of adjusting the school calendar to start after Labor Day has been proposed as a potential strategy to help manage electricity demand. By delaying the start of school, proponents argue that it could reduce the load on the power grid during peak usage periods, thereby easing some of the stress on energy resources.

Potential Benefits for the Power Grid

The concept of delaying the school year is rooted in the potential benefits for the power grid. During the hottest months of summer, the demand for electricity often spikes as families use air conditioning to stay cool, and utilities warn to prepare for blackouts as summer takes hold. School buildings, typically large and energy-intensive facilities, contribute significantly to this demand when they are in operation.

Starting school later could help reduce this peak demand, as schools would be closed during the hottest months when the grid is under the most pressure. This reduction in demand could help prevent grid overloads and reduce the risk of power outages, at a time when longer, more frequent outages are afflicting the U.S. power grid, ultimately contributing to a more stable and reliable electricity supply.

Additionally, a decrease in peak demand could help lower electricity costs. Power plants, particularly those that are less efficient and more expensive to operate, are often brought online during periods of high demand. By reducing the peak load, the state could potentially minimize the need for these costly power sources, leading to lower overall energy costs.

Financial and Environmental Considerations

The financial implications of starting school after Labor Day extend beyond just the power grid. By reducing energy consumption during peak periods, the state could see significant savings on electricity costs. This, in turn, could lead to lower utility bills for schools, businesses, and residents alike, a meaningful relief as millions risk electricity shut-offs during summer heat.

Moreover, reducing the demand for electricity from fossil fuel sources can have positive environmental impacts. Lower peak demand may reduce the reliance on less environmentally friendly energy sources, and aligns with calls to invest in a smarter electricity infrastructure nationwide, thereby decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to overall environmental sustainability.

Challenges and Trade-offs

While the proposal offers potential benefits, it also comes with challenges and trade-offs. Adjusting the school calendar would require significant changes to the academic schedule, potentially affecting extracurricular activities, summer programs, and family plans, and comparisons to California's reliability challenges underscore the complexity. Additionally, there could be resistance from various stakeholders, including parents, educators, and students, who are accustomed to the current school calendar.

There are also logistical considerations to address, such as how a delayed start might impact standardized testing schedules and the academic calendar for higher education institutions. These factors would need to be carefully evaluated to ensure that the proposed changes do not adversely affect educational outcomes or create unintended consequences.

Looking Ahead

The idea of starting Texas schools after Labor Day represents an innovative approach to addressing the challenges facing the state’s power grid. By potentially reducing peak demand and lowering energy costs, and alongside efforts to connect Texas's grid to the rest of the nation, this proposal could contribute to greater grid stability and financial savings. However, careful consideration and planning will be essential to navigate the complexities of altering the school calendar and to ensure that the benefits outweigh the challenges.

As Texas continues to explore solutions for managing its power grid and energy resources, the proposal to shift the school year schedule provides an intriguing possibility. It reflects a broader trend of seeking creative and multifaceted approaches to balancing energy demand, environmental sustainability, and public needs.

In conclusion, starting schools after Labor Day could offer tangible benefits for Texas’s power grid and financial well-being. As discussions on this proposal advance, it will be important to weigh all factors and engage stakeholders to ensure a successful and equitable implementation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Ofgem Renewables Obligations drive supplier payments for renewables fees, feed-in tariffs, and renewable generation, with non-payment risking supply licences amid the price cap and volatile wholesale prices across the UK energy market.

Key Points

Mandatory payments by suppliers funding renewables via feed-in tariffs; non-payment can trigger supply licence revoking.

✅ Covers Renewables Obligation and Feed-in Tariff scheme compliance.

✅ Non-payment can lead to Ofgem action and licence loss.

✅ Affected by price cap and wholesale price volatility.

Seven small British energy suppliers owe a total of 34 million pounds ($43.74 million) in renewables fees, amid a renewables backlog that has stalled projects, and could face losing their supply licences if they cannot pay, energy regulator Ofgem reports.

Under Britain’s energy market rules, suppliers of energy must meet so-called renewables obligations and feed-in tariffs, including households' ability to sell solar power back to energy firms, which are imposed on them by the government to help fund renewable power generation.

Several small energy companies have gone bust over the past two years, a trend echoed by findings from a global utility study on renewable priorities, as they struggled to pay the renewables fees and as their profits were affected by a price cap on the most commonly used tariffs and fluctuating wholesale prices, even as a 10 GW contract brings new renewable capacity onto the UK grid.

Ofgem has called on the companies to make necessary payments by Oct. 31, as moves to offer community-generated power to all UK customers progress.

“If they do not pay Ofgem could start the process of revoking their licences to supply energy,” it said in a statement, as offshore wind power continues to scale nationwide.

The seven suppliers are, amid debates over clean energy impacts, Co-Operative Energy Limited; Flow Energy Limited; MA Energy Limited; Nabuh Energy Limited; Robin Hood Energy Limited; Symbio Energy Limited and Tonik Energy Limited. ($1 = 0.7773 pounds)

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News