Magma Energy to buy Plutonic Power

AI Load Forecasting for Utilities leverages machine learning, smart meters, and predictive analytics to balance energy demand during COVID-19 disruptions, optimize grid reliability, support demand response, and stabilize rates for residential and commercial customers.

Key Points

AI predicts utility demand with ML and smart meters to improve reliability and reduce costs.

✅ Adapts to rapid demand shifts with accurate short term forecasts

✅ Optimizes demand response and distributed energy resources

✅ Reduces outages risk while lowering procurement and operating costs

The spread of the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 has prompted state and local governments around the U.S. to institute shelter-in-place orders and business closures. As millions suddenly find themselves confined to their homes, the shift has strained not only internet service providers, streaming platforms, and online retailers, but the utilities supplying power to the nation’s electrical grid, which face longer, more frequent outages as well.

U.S. electricity use on March 27, 2020 was 3% lower than it was on March 27, 2019, a loss of about three years of sales growth. Peter Fox-Penner, director of the Boston University Institute for Sustainable Energy, asserted in a recent op-ed that utility revenues will suffer because providers are halting shutoffs and deferring rate increases. Moreover, according to research firm Wood Mackenzie, the rise in household electricity demand won’t offset reduced business electricity demand, mainly because residential demand makes up just 40% of the total demand across North America.

Some utilities are employing AI and machine learning for the energy transition to address the windfalls and fluctuations in energy usage resulting from COVID-19. Precise load forecasting could ensure that operations aren’t interrupted in the coming months, thereby preventing blackouts and brownouts. And they might also bolster the efficiency of utilities’ internal processes, leading to reduced prices and improved service long after the pandemic ends.

Innowatts
Innowatts, a startup developing an automated toolkit for energy monitoring and management, counts several major U.S. utility companies among its customers, including Portland General Electric, Gexa Energy, Avangrid, Arizona Public Service Electric, WGL, and Mega Energy. Its eUtility platform ingests data from over 34 million smart energy meters across 21 million customers in more than 13 regional energy markets, while its machine learning algorithms analyze the data to forecast short- and long-term loads, variances, weather sensitivity, and more.

Beyond these table-stakes predictions, Innowatts helps evaluate the effects of different rate configurations by mapping utilities’ rate structures against disaggregated cost models. It also produces cost curves for each customer that reveal the margin impacts on the wider business, and it validates the yield of products and cost of customer acquisition with models that learn the relationships between marketing efforts and customer behaviors (like real-time load).

Innowwatts told VentureBeat that it observed “dramatic” shifts in energy usage between the first and fourth weeks of March. In the Northeast, “non-essential” retailers like salons, clothing shops, and dry cleaners were using only 35% as much energy toward the end of the month (after shelter-in-place orders were enacted) versus the beginning of the month, while restaurants (excepting pizza chains) were using only 28%. In Texas, conversely, storage facilities were using 142% as much energy in the fourth week compared with the first.

Innowatts says that throughout these usage surges and declines, its clients took advantage of AI-based load forecasting to learn from short-term shocks and make timely adjustments. Within three days of shelter-in-place orders, the company said, its forecasting models were able to learn new consumption patterns and produce accurate forecasts, accounting for real-time changes.

Innowatts CEO Sid Sachdeva believes that if utility companies had not leveraged machine learning models, demand forecasts in mid-March would have seen variances of 10-20%, significantly impacting operations.

“During these turbulent times, AI-based load forecasting gives energy providers the ability to … develop informed, data-driven strategies for future success,” Sachdeva told VentureBeat. “With utilities and energy retailers seeing a once-in-a-lifetime 30%-plus drop in commercial energy consumption, accurate forecasting has never been more important. Without AI tools, utilities would see their forecasts swing wildly, leading to inaccuracies of 20% or more, placing an enormous strain on their operations and ultimately driving up costs for businesses and consumers.”

Autogrid
Autogrid works with over 50 customers in 10 countries — including Energy Australia, Florida Power & Light, and Southern California Edison — to deliver AI-informed power usage insights. Its platform makes 10 million predictions every 10 minutes and optimizes over 50 megawatts of power, which is enough to supply the average suburb.

Flex, the company’s flagship product, predicts and controls tens of thousands of energy resources from millions of customers by ingesting, storing, and managing petabytes of data from trillions of endpoints. Using a combination of data science, machine learning, and network optimization algorithms, Flex models both physics and customer behavior, automatically anticipating and adjusting for supply and demand patterns through virtual power plants that coordinate distributed assets.

Autogrid also offers a fully managed solution for integrating and utilizing end-customer installations of grid batteries and microgrids. Like Flex, it automatically aggregates, forecasts, and optimizes capacity from assets at sub-stations and transformers, reacting to distribution management needs while providing capacity to avoid capital investments in system upgrades.

Autogrid CEO Dr. Amit Narayan told VentureBeat that the COVID-19 crisis has heavily shifted daily power distribution in California, where it’s having a “significant” downward impact on hourly prices in the energy market. He says that Autogrid has also heard from customers about transformer failures in some regions due to overloaded circuits, which he expects will become a problem in heavily residential and saturated load areas during the summer months (as utilities prepare for blackouts across the U.S. when air conditioning usage goes up).

“In California, [as you’ll recall], more than a million residents faced wildfire prevention-related outages in PG&E territory in 2019,” Narayan said, referring to the controversial planned outages orchestrated by Pacific Gas & Electric last summer. “The demand continues to be high in 2020 in spite of the COVID-19 crisis, as residents prepare to keep the lights on and brace for a similar situation this summer. If a 2019 repeat happens again, it will be even more devastating, given the health crisis and difficulty in buying groceries.”

AI making a difference
AI and machine learning isn’t a silver bullet for the power grid — even with predictive tools at their disposal, utilities are beholden to a tumultuous demand curve and to mounting climate risks across the grid. But providers say they see evidence the tools are already helping to prevent the worst of the pandemic’s effects — chiefly by enabling them to better adjust to shifted daily and weekly power load profiles.

“The societal impact [of the pandemic] will continue to be felt — people may continue working remotely instead of going into the office, they may alter their commute times to avoid rush hour crowds, or may look to alternative modes of transportation,” Schneider Electric chief innovation officer Emmanuel Lagarrigue told VentureBeat. “All of this will impact the daily load curve, and that is where AI and automation can help us with maintenance, performance, and diagnostics within our homes, buildings, and in the grid.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Sidi Mansour Wind Farm Tunisia will deliver 30 MW as an IPP, backed by UPC Renewables and CFM, under a STEG PPA, supporting 2030 renewable energy targets, grid connection, job creation, and CO2 emissions reduction.

Key Points

A 30 MW wind IPP by UPC and CFM in Sidi Mansour, supplying STEG and advancing Tunisia's 2030 renewable target.

✅ 30 MW capacity under STEG PPA, first wind IPP in Tunisia

✅ Co-developed by UPC Renewables and Climate Fund Managers

✅ Cuts CO2 by up to 56,645 t and creates about 100 jobs

UPC Renewables (UPC) and the Climate Fund Managers (CFM) have partnered to develop a 30 megawatt wind farm in Sidi Mansour, Tunisia, which, amid regional wind expansion efforts, will help the country meet its 30% renewable energy target by 2030.

Tunisia announced the launch of its solar energy plan in 2016, with projects like the 10 MW Tunisian solar park aiming to increase the role of renewables in its electricity generation mix ten-fold to 30%,

This Sidi Mansour Project will help Tunisia meet its goals, reducing its reliance on imported fossil fuels and, mirroring 90 MW Spanish wind build milestones, demonstrating to the world that it is serious about further development of renewable energy investment.

“Chams Enfidha”, the first solar energy station in Tunisia with a capacity of 1 megawatt and located in the Enfidha region. (Ministry of Energy, Mines and Energy Transition Facebook page)

This project will also be among the country’s first Independent Power Producers (IPP). CFM is acting as sponsor, financial adviser and co-developer on the project, in a landscape shaped by IRENA-ADFD funding in developing countries, while UPC will lead the development with its local team. The team will be in charge of permitting, grid connection, land securitisation, assessment of wind resources, contract procurement and engineering.

UPC was selected under the “Authorisation Scheme” tender for the project in 2016, similar to utility-scale developments like a 450 MW U.S. wind farm, and promptly signed a power purchase agreement with Société Tunisienne Electricité et du Gaz (STEG).

Brian Caffyn, chairman of UPC Group, said: “We can start the construction of the Sidi Mansour wind farm in 2020, helping stimulate the Tunisian economy, create local jobs and a social plan for local communities while respecting international environmental protection guidelines.”

Sebastian Surie, CFM’s regional head of Africa, added: “CFM is thrilled to partner with a leading wind developer in the Sidi Mansour Wind Project to assist Tunisia in meeting its renewable energy goals. As potentially the first Wind IPP in Tunisia, this Project will be a testament to how CI1’s full life-cycle financing solution can unlock investment in renewable energy in new markets, as seen in an Irish offshore wind project globally.”

The project will not only provide electricity, but also reduce CO2 emissions by up to 56,645 tonnes and create some 100 new jobs.

Wind turbine in El Haouaria, Tunisia, highlighting advances such as a huge offshore wind turbine that can power 18,000 homes. (Reuters)

Tunisia’s first power station, “Chams Enfidha,” inaugurated at the beginning of July, has a capacity of one megawatt, with an estimated cost of 3.3 million dinars ($1.18 million). The state invested 2.3 million dinars into the project ($820,000), with the remaining 1 million dinars ($360,000) provided by a private investor.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Hydro One Q2 Earnings surge on a one-time gain from a court ruling on a deferred tax asset, lifting profit, revenue, and adjusted EPS at Ontario's largest utility regulated by the Ontario Energy Board.

Key Points

Hydro One Q2 earnings jumped on an $867M court gain, with revenue at $1.67B and adjusted EPS improving to $0.39.

✅ One-time gain: $867M from tax appeal ruling.

✅ Revenue: $1.67B vs $1.41B last year.

✅ Adjusted EPS: $0.39 vs $0.26.

Hydro One Ltd., following the Peterborough Distribution sale transaction closing, reported a second-quarter profit of $1.1 billion, boosted by a one-time gain related to a court decision.

The power utility says it saw a one-time gain of $867 million in the quarter due to an Ontario court ruling on a deferred tax asset appeal that set aside an Ontario Energy Board decision earlier.

Hydro One says the profit amounted to $1.84 per share for the quarter ended June 30, amid investor concerns about uncertainties, up from $155 million or 26 cents per share a year earlier.

Shares also moved lower after the Ontario government announced leadership changes, as seen when Hydro One shares fell on the news in prior trading.

On an adjusted basis, it says it earned 39 cents per share for the quarter, despite earlier profit plunge headlines, up from an adjusted profit of 26 cents per share in the same quarter last year.

Revenue totalled $1.67 billion, up from $1.41 billion in the second quarter of 2019, while other Canadian utilities like Manitoba Hydro face heavy debt burdens.

Hydro One is Ontario’s largest electricity transmission and distribution provider, and its CEO compensation has drawn scrutiny in the province.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Ukraine Winter Energy Attacks strain the power grid as Russian missile strikes hit critical infrastructure, causing blackouts, civilian casualties, and damage in Kyiv, Kherson, and Kharkiv, underscoring air defense needs and looming cold-weather risks.

Key Points

Russian strikes on energy infrastructure cause outages, damage, and harm as Ukraine braces for freezing winter months.

✅ Russian missile barrage targets critical infrastructure nationwide.

✅ Power cuts reported in 400 localities; grid stability at risk.

✅ Kyiv seeks more air defenses as winter threats intensify.

Ukraine has warned that a difficult winter looms ahead after a massive Russian missile barrage targeted civilian infrastructure, killing three in the south and wounding many across the country.

Russia launched the strikes as Ukraine prepares for a third winter during Moscow's 19-month long invasion and as President Volodymyr Zelensky made his second wartime trip to Washington amid a U.S. end to grid support announcement.

"Most of the missiles were shot down. But only the majority. Not all," Zelensky said, calling for the West to provide Kyiv with more anti-missile systems to help keep the lights on this winter amid ongoing attacks.

The fresh attack came as Poland said it would honour pre-existing commitments of weapons supplies to Kyiv, a day after saying it would no longer arm its neighbour in a mounting row between the two allies.

Moscow hit cities from Rivne in western Ukraine to Kherson in the south, the capital Kyiv and cities in the centre and northeast of the country.

Kyiv also reported power cuts across the country -- in almost 400 cities, towns and villages -- as Russia targeted power plants across the grid, but said it was "too early" to tell if this was the start of a new Russian campaign against its energy sites.

Officials added that electricity reserves could limit scheduled outages if no new large-scale strikes occur.

Last winter many Ukrainians had to go without electricity and heating in freezing temperatures as Russia hit Kyiv's energy facilities.

"Difficult months are ahead: Russia will attack energy and critically important facilities," said Oleksiy Kuleba, the deputy head of Kyiv's presidential office.

Ukraine also said that it had struck a military airfield in Moscow-annexed Crimea, a claim denied by Russian-installed authorities.

'Ceilings fell down'
Russia's overnight strikes were deadliest in the southern Kherson, where three people were killed.

In Kyiv's eastern Darnitsky district, frightened residents of a dormitory woke up to their rooms with shattered windows and parked cars outside completely burnt out.

Communities have also adopted new energy solutions to cope with winter blackouts, from generators to shared warming points.

Debris from a downed missile in the capital wounded seven people, including a child.

"God, god, god," Maya Pelyukh, a cleaner who lives in the building, said as she looked at her living room covered in broken glass and debris on her bed.

Her windows and door were blown away, with the 50-year-old saying she crawled out from under a door frame.

Some residents outside were still in dressing gowns as they watched emergency workers put out a fire the authorities said had spread over 400 square meters (4,300 square feet).

In the northeastern city of Kharkiv seamstresses were clearing a damaged clothing factory, with a Russian missile hitting nearby.

"The ceilings fell down. Windows were blown out. There are chunks of the road inside," Yulia Barantsova said, as she cleared a sewing machine from dust and rubble.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

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