Hydro One responds to poor public service accusations

UK power grid bottleneck is stalling renewable energy, with connection queues, planning delays, and transmission infrastructure gaps raising costs, slowing decarbonization, and deterring investment as government considers reforms led by a new chief adviser.

Key Points

Delays and capacity gaps that hinder connecting new generation and demand, raising costs and slowing decarbonization.

✅ Connection queues delay projects for years

✅ Planning and NIMBY barriers stall transmission builds

✅ Investment costs on bills risk political pushback

During his three decades at investment bank Morgan Stanley, Franck Petitgas developed a reputation for solving problems that vexed others. Fixing the UK’s creaking power grid could be his most challenging task yet.

Earlier this year, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak appointed Petitgas as his chief business adviser, and the former financier has been pushing to tackle the gridlock that’s left projects waiting endlessly for a connection, an issue he sees as one of the biggest problems for industry.

But there are no easy solutions to tackle the years-long queue to get on the grid or the drawn-out planning process for building clean power generation, with the energy transition stalled by supply delays compounding the problem. And sluggish progress in expanding and improving the electricity network is preventing the construction of new housing developments and offices, as well as slowing the transition to greener power.

That transition has already taken a knock after Sunak last week controversially watered down some of the UK’s climate ambitions, citing in part the cost to consumers. He also acknowledged the issues surrounding the grid and promised the “most transformative plans” in response, drawing on lessons from Europe’s power crisis where applicable. Those are due to be unveiled within weeks. 

Shortly after his appointment, Petitgas offered reassurances to business leaders at a meeting in Downing Street that solutions were being worked on, according to people familiar with the matter. But there’s a lack of confidence across business that enough will be done.

Cost is a big factor in the expansion of the electricity grid, and some argue a state-owned generation model could ease bills over time. Improving the onshore network alone could require investment of between £100 billion and £240 billion ($122-$293 billion) by 2050, according to a government analysis last year. 

With network expansion funded through power bills, that’s a big ask, particularly with Sunak trailing in polls ahead of an election expected next year.

“It’s very difficult for politicians to say more money should be on bills,” said Emma Pinchbeck, chief executive of Energy UK, a trade body. “So you get to a situation where no one wants to pay for the infrastructure investment until it’s really sticky, and that’s where we’ve got to with the grid.”

There are huge competitive and economic implications if the UK falls further behind. With US President Joe Biden spending an estimated $370 billion on climate measures through his Inflation Reduction Act, and China already a world leader in electric vehicles, Britain’s grid inaction is holding it back in the global race to decarbonize, said Jess Ralston, an analyst at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit think tank.

“The UK is dithering and delaying, and not making any strategic decisions,” she said. “You can see companies just saying ‘I’m going to the US, or I’m going to China’.” 

In a statement, the government said it’s a “priority to speed up the time taken to connect new power generators and power consumers to the grid.” It added that it’s taking “significant steps to accelerate grid infrastructure,” including support for new Channel interconnectors announced this year.

The government expects demand for electricity to double by 2035 and that will mean more generation that needs to be linked up to the network by cables and pylons. Local grids will also have to expand to accommodate more connection points for electric vehicles and homes, and invest in large-scale energy storage capacity to balance supply.

But so far, the rapid rise in renewable energy investment has not been accompanied by matching spend on the power network, according to BloombergNEF, a pattern seen in Germany’s grid expansion woes as well.

“The pace and scale of what we now have to deliver is significantly different from the last few decades,” said Carl Trowell, president of UK strategic infrastructure at National Grid. “It’s a national endeavor.”

In June, Electricity Networks Commissioner Nick Winser sent the government recommendations for how to accelerate construction of more transmission infrastructure. He said efforts to decarbonize the power sector will be “wasted if we cannot get the power to homes and businesses.”

“We need a seriously stronger sense of urgency,” said Kevin O’Donovan, country manager for Statkraft UK, which is holding off investment in four wind farms and two solar projects due to grid connection delays.

In addition to cost, the other major stumbling block is planning. Politicians in the governing Conservative Party are wary of angering voters with new infrastructure in rural areas that typically vote Tory. Across the country, “Not In My Back Yard” campaigners – NIMBYs — pose a major challenge to projects.

Petitgas, 62, retired from Morgan Stanley last year after nearly 30 years at the bank, where he led its international division from London. The issues over connections and planning have been repeatedly pointed out to Petitgas by investors and trade groups over a series of meetings this year, according to people familiar with the matter, requesting anonymity discussing private talks.

Yet with a general election looming and the issue plagued by political headaches, many are skeptical that Sunak can find the solutions needed.

One business chief said Downing Street considers the issue too tricky and expensive to tackle in the short-term. Others are concerned that while Petitgas has license from Sunak, he doesn’t have influence across the relevant departments to get grids to the top of the agenda.

Wind Farms

Multiple parts of the UK’s climate plans are under pressure. Earlier this month, an auction for contracts to build new wind farms received zero bids from developers, even as wind leads the power mix in many regions, marking yet another green setback. 

The UK is already behind on its target of having 50 gigawatts of offshore wind built by 2030, up from 14 GW today. The challenge is accelerating development without railroading local communities.

Within Sunak’s Conservative Party, some lawmakers are pushing back on new infrastructure in their local areas. A group including Environment Secretary Therese Coffey and former Home Secretary Priti Patel is campaigning against building new pylons across a stretch of eastern England.

According to Adam Bell, director of policy at consultancy Stonehaven, backbench pressure means Sunak is unlikely to take major action on the grid in the near term. He doesn’t see the prime minister accepting Winser’s recommendations, least of all accelerating planning decisions.

“Over the last year, Sunak has favored party management over things that will benefit the country,” Bell said. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Miami Valley EV Chargers Expansion strengthens Level 2 charging infrastructure across Dayton, with Ohio EPA funding and Volkswagen settlement support, easing range anxiety and promoting sustainable transportation at Austin Landing and high-traffic destinations.

Key Points

An Ohio initiative installing 24 Level 2 stations to boost EV adoption, reduce range anxiety, and expand access in Dayton.

✅ 24 new Level 2 chargers at high-traffic regional sites

✅ Ohio EPA and VW settlement funds support deployment

✅ Reduces range anxiety, advancing sustainable mobility

The Miami Valley region in Ohio is accelerating its transition to electric vehicles (EVs) with the installation of 24 new Level 2 EV chargers, funded through a $1.1 million project supported by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This initiative aims to enhance EV accessibility and alleviate "range anxiety" among drivers as the broader U.S. EV boom tests grid readiness.

Strategic Locations Across the Region

The newly installed chargers are strategically located in high-traffic areas to maximize their utility as national charging networks compete to expand coverage across travel corridors. Notable sites include Austin Landing, the Dayton Art Institute, the Oregon District, Caesar Creek State Park, and the Rose Music Center. These locations were selected to ensure that EV drivers have convenient access to charging stations throughout the region, similar to how Ontario streamlines station build-outs to place chargers where drivers already travel.

Funding and Implementation

The project is part of Ohio's broader effort to expand EV infrastructure, reflecting the evolution of U.S. charging infrastructure while utilizing funds from the Volkswagen Clean Air Act settlement. The Ohio EPA awarded approximately $3.25 million statewide for the installation of Level 2 EV chargers, with the Miami Valley receiving a significant portion of this funding, while Michigan utility programs advance additional investments to scale regional infrastructure.

Impact on the Community

The expansion of EV charging infrastructure is expected to have several positive outcomes. It will provide greater convenience for current EV owners and encourage more residents to consider electric vehicles as a viable transportation option, including those in apartments and condos who benefit from expanded access. Additionally, the increased availability of charging stations supports the state's environmental goals by promoting the adoption of cleaner, more sustainable transportation.

Looking Ahead

As the adoption of electric vehicles continues to grow, the Miami Valley's investment in EV infrastructure positions the region as a leader in sustainable transportation as utilities pursue ambitious charging strategies to meet demand. The success of this project may serve as a model for other regions looking to expand their EV charging networks. This initiative reflects a significant step towards a more sustainable and accessible transportation future for the Miami Valley.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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

Hydro One-Avista acquisition sparks Idaho regulatory scrutiny over foreign ownership, utility merger impacts, rate credits, and public interest, as FERC and FCC approvals advance and consumers question governance, service reliability, and long-term rate stability.

Key Points

A cross-border utility merger proposal with Idaho oversight, weighing foreign ownership, rates, and reliability.

✅ Idaho PUC review centers on public interest and rate impacts.

✅ FERC and FCC approvals granted; state decisions pending.

✅ Avista to retain name and Spokane HQ post-transaction.

“Please don’t sell us to Canada.” That refrain, or versions of it, is on full display at the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, which admittedly isn’t everyone’s go-to entertainment site. But it is vitally important for this reason: the first big test of the expansionist dreams of the politically tempest-tossed Hydro One, facing political risk as it navigates markets, rests with its successful acquisition of Avista Corp., provider of electric generation, transmission and distribution to retail customers spread from Oregon to Washington to Montana and Idaho and up into Alaska.

The proposed deal — announced last summer, but not yet consummated — marks the first time the publicly traded Hydro One has embarked upon the acquisition of a U.S. utility. And if Idahoans spread from Boise to Coeur d’Alene to Hayden are any indication, they are not at all happy with the idea of foreign ownership. Here’s Lisa McCumber, resident of Hayden: “I am stating my objection to this outrageous merger/takeover. Hydro One charges excessive fees to the people it provides for, this is a monopoly beyond even what we are used to. I, in no way, support or as a customer, agree with the merger of this multi-billion-dollar, foreign, company.”

#google#

Or here’s Debra Bentley from Coeur d’Alene: “Fewer things have more control over a nation than its power source. In an age where we are desperately trying to bring American companies back home and ‘Buy American’ is somewhat of a battle cry, how is it even possible that it would or could be allowed for this vital necessity … to be controlled by a foreign entity?”

Or here’s Spencer Hutchings from Sagle: “This is an incredibly bad idea.”

There are legion of similar emails from concerned consumers, and the Maine transmission line debate offers a parallel in public opposition.

The rationale for the deal? Last fall Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt testified before the Idaho commission, which regulates all gas, water and electricity providers in the state. “Hydro One is a pure-play transmission and distribution utility located solely within Ontario,” Schmidt told commissioners. “It seeks diversification both in terms of jurisdictions and service areas. The proposed Transaction with Avista achieves both goals by expanding Hydro One into the U.S. Pacific Northwest and expanding its operations to natural gas distribution and electric generation. The proposed Transaction with Avista will deliver the increased scale and benefits that come from being a larger player in the utility industry.”

Translation: now that it is a publicly traded entity, Hydro needs to demonstrate a growth curve to the investment community. The value to you and me? Arguable. This is a transaction framed as a benefit to shareholders, one that won’t cause harm to customers. Premier Kathleen Wynne is feeling the pain of selling off control of an essential asset. In his testimony to the commission, Schmidt noted that the Avista acquisition would take the province’s Hydro ownership to under 45 per cent. (The Electricity Act technically prevents the sale of shares that would take the government’s ownership position below 40 per cent, though acquisitions appear to allow further dilution. )

Stratospheric compensation, bench-marked against other chief executives who enjoy similarly outsized rewards, is part of this game. I have written about Schmidt’s unconscionable compensation before, but that was when he was making a relatively modest $4 million. Relative, that is, to his $6.2 million in 2017 compensation ($3.5 million of that is in the form of share based awards).

Should the acquisition of Avista be approved, amendments to the CIC, or change in control agreements, for certain named Avista executive officers will allow them to voluntarily terminate their employment without “good reason.” That includes Scott Morris, the company’s CEO, who will exit with severance of $6.9 million (U.S.) and additional benefits taking the total to a potential $15.7 million.

Back to the deal: cost savings over time could be achieved, Schmidt continued in his testimony, though he was unable to quantify those. The integration between the two companies, he promised, will be “seamless.” Retail customers in Idaho, Washington and Oregon would benefit from proposed “Rate Credits” equalling an estimated $15.8 million across five years, even as Hydro One seeks to redesign its bills in Ontario. Idahoans would see a one per cent rate decrease through that period.

While Avista would become a wholly owned Hydro subsidiary, it would retain its name, and its headquarters in Spokane, Wash. In the case of Idaho specifically, a proposed settlement in April, subject to final approval by the commission, stipulates agreements on everything from staffing to governance to community contributions.

Will that meet the test? It’s up to the commission to determine whether the proposed transaction will keep a lid on rates and is “consistent with the public interest.” Hydro One is hoping for a decision from regulatory agencies in all the named states by mid-August and a closing date by the end of September, though U.S. regulators can ultimately determine the fate of such deals. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted its approval in January, followed last week by the Federal Communications Commission. Washington and Alaska have reached settlement agreements. These too are pending final state approvals.

The $5.3-billion deal (or $6.7 billion Canadian) is subject to ongoing hearings in Idaho, and elsewhere rate hikes face opposition as hearings begin. Members of the public are encouraged to have their say. The public comment deadline is June 27.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

OEB Hydro One Rate Decision 2023-2027 sets approved transmission and distribution rates in Ontario, with a settlement reducing revenue requirement, modest bill impacts, higher productivity factors, inflation certainty, DVA credits, and First Nations participation measures.

Key Points

OEB-approved Hydro One 2023-2027 transmission and distribution rates settlement, lowering costs and limiting bill impacts.

✅ $482.7M revenue reductions vs. original proposal

✅ Avg bill impact: +$0.69 trans., +$2.43 distr. per month

✅ Faster DVA refunds; productivity and efficiency incentives

The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) issued its Decision and Order on an application filed by Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One) on August 5, 2021 seeking approval for changes to the rates it charges for electricity transmission and distribution, beginning January 1, 2023 and for each subsequent year through to December 31, 2027. 

The proceeding resulted in the filing of a settlement proposal that the OEB has now approved after concluding that it is in the public interest. 

The negotiated reductions in Hydro One's transmission and distribution revenue requirements over the 2023 to 2027 period total $482.7 million compared to the requests made by Hydro One in its application.

The OEB found that the reductions in Hydro One's proposed capital expenditure and operating, maintenance and administration costs were reasonable, and should not compromise the safety and reliability of Hydro One's transmission and distribution systems. It also concluded that the estimated bill impacts for both transmission and distribution customers are reasonable, and that the January 1, 2023 implementation and effective date of the new rates is appropriate.

In the broader Canadian context, pressures on utility finances at other companies, such as Manitoba Hydro's debt provide additional background for stakeholders.

Bill Impacts

This proceeding related to both transmission and distribution operations.

Transmission

The new transmission revenue requirement will affect Ontario electricity consumers across the province because it will be incorporated into updated transmission rates, which are paid by electricity distributors and other large consumers connected directly to the transmission system, and distributors then pass this cost on to their customers.

As a result of the settlement approved on the transmission portion of the application, it is estimated that for a typical Hydro One residential customer with a monthly consumption of 750 kWh, the total bill impact averaged over the 2023-2027 period will be an increase of $0.69 per month or 0.5%, which follows the 2021 electricity rate reductions that affected many businesses.

Distribution

The new OEB-approved distribution rates will affect Hydro One's distribution customers, including areas served through acquisitions such as the Peterborough Distribution sale which expanded its customer base.

As a result of the settlement reached on the distribution portion of the application, it is estimated that for a typical residential distribution customer of Hydro One with a monthly consumption of 750 kWh, the total bill impact averaged over the 2023-2027 period will be an increase of $2.43 per month or 1.5%.
This proceeding included 24 approved intervenors representing a wide variety of customer classes and other interests. Representatives of 18 of those intervenors participated in the settlement conference. Having this diversity of perspective enriches the already thorough examination of evidence and argument that the OEB routinely undertakes when considering an application.

Other features of the settlement proposal include:

• A commitment by Hydro One to include, in future operational and capital investment plans, a discussion of how the proposed spending will directly support the achievement of Hydro One's climate change policy.
• Eliminating further updates to reflect changes to inflation in 2022 and 2023 as originally proposed, to provide Hydro One's customers with greater certainty as to the potential impacts of inflation on their bills.
• Increases in the productivity factors and supplemental stretch factors for both the distribution and transmission business segments which will provide Hydro One with additional incentives to achieve greater efficiencies during the 2023 to 2027 period.
• Undertaking certain measures to seek economic participation or equity investment opportunities from First Nations.
• Disposition of net credit balances in deferral and variance accounts (DVAs) owed to customers will be returned over a shorter period of time:
• Transmission DVA – $22.5M over a one-year period in 2023 (versus five years)
• Distribution DVA – $85.9M over a three-year period – 2023-2025 (versus five years)
• Undertaking certain measures to continue examining cost-effective transmission and distribution line losses
• In the decision, the OEB acknowledged the efforts involved by parties to participate in this entire proceeding, including the settlement conference, considering the number of participants, the complexity of the issues, and the challenging logistics of a "virtual" proceeding. The OEB commended the parties and OEB staff for achieving a comprehensive settlement on all issues.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Japan Electricity Crunch exposes vulnerabilities in a liberalised power market as LNG shortages, JEPX price spikes, snow-hit solar, and weak hedging strain energy security and retail providers amid cold snap demand and limited reserve capacity.

Key Points

A winter demand shock and LNG shortfalls sent JEPX to records, exposing gaps in hedging, data, and energy security.

✅ JEPX wholesale prices spiked to an all-time high

✅ LNG inventories and procurement proved insufficient

✅ Snow disabled solar; new entrants lacked hedging

Japan's worst electricity crunch since the aftermath of the Fukushima crisis has exposed vulnerabilities in the country's recently liberalised power market, although some of the problems appear self-inflicted.

Power prices in Japan hit record highs last month, mirroring UK peak power prices during tight conditions, as a cold snap across northeast Asia prompted a scramble for supplies of liquefied natural gas (LNG), a major fuel for the country's power plants. Power companies urged customers to ration electricity to prevent blackouts, although no outages occurred.

The crisis highlighted how many providers were unprepared for such high demand. Experts say LNG stocks were not topped up ahead of winter and snow disabled solar power farms, while China's power woes strained solar supply chains.

The hundreds of small power companies that sprang up after the market was opened in 2016 have struggled the most, saying the government does not disclose the market data they need to operate. The companies do not have their own generators, instead buying electricity on the wholesale market.

Prices on the Japan Electric Power Exchange (JEPX) hit a record high of 251 yen ($2.39) per kilowatt hour in January, equating to $2,390 per megawatt hour of electricity, above record European price surges seen recently and the highest on record anywhere in the world. One megawatt hour is roughly what an average home in the U.S. would consume over 35 days.

But the vast majority of the new, smaller companies are locked into low, fixed rates they set to lure customers from bigger players, crushing them financially during a price spike like the one in January.

More than 50 small power providers wrote on Jan. 18 to Japan's industry minister, Hiroshi Kajiyama, who oversees the power sector, asking for more accessible data on supply and demand, reserve capacity and fuel inventories.

"By organising and disclosing this information, retail electricity providers will be able to bid at more appropriate prices," said the companies, led by Looop Co.

They also called on Kajiyama to require transmission and distribution companies to pass on some of the unexpected profits from price spikes to smaller operators.

The industry ministry said it had started releasing more timely market data, and is reviewing the cause of the crunch and considering changes, echoing calls by Fatih Birol to keep electricity options open amid uncertainty.

Japan reworked its power markets after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, liberalizing the sector in 2016 while pushing for more renewables.

But Japan is still heavily reliant on LNG and coal, and only four of 33 nuclear reactors are operating. The power crisis has led to growing calls to restart more reactors.

Kazuno Power, a small retail provider controlled by a municipality of the same name in northern Japan, where abundant renewable energy is locally produced, buys electricity from hydropower stations and JEPX.

During the crunch, the company had to pay nearly 10 times the usual price, Kazuno Power president Takao Takeda said in an interview. Like most other new providers, it could not pass on the costs, lost money, and folded. The local utility has taken over its customers.

"There is a contradiction in the current system," Takeda said. "We are encouraged to locally produce power for local consumption as well as use more renewable energy, but prices for these power supplies are linked to wholesale prices, which depend on the overall power supply."

The big utilities, which receive most of their LNG on long-term contracts, blamed the power shortfall on a tight spot market and glitches at generation units.

"We were not able to buy as much supply as we wanted from the spot market because of higher demand from South Korea and China, where power cuts have tightened supply," Kazuhiro Ikebe, the head of the country's electricity federation, said recently.

Ikebe is also president of Kyushu Electric Power, which supplies the southern island of Kyushu.

Utilities took extreme measures - from burning polluting fuel oil in coal plants to scavenging the dregs from empty LNG tankers - to keep the grid from breaking down.

"There is too much dependence on JEPX for procurement," said Bob Takai, the local head of European Energy Exchange, where electricity pricing reforms are being discussed, and which started offering Japan power futures last year. He added that new entrants were not hedging against sharp price moves.

Three people, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, were more blunt. One called the utilities arrogant in assuming they could find LNG cargoes in a pinch. Prices were already rising as China snapped up supplies, the sources noted.

"You had volatility caused by people saying 'Oh, well, demand is going to be weak because of coronavirus impacts' and then saying 'we can rely more on solar than in the past,' but solar got snowed out," said a senior executive from one generator. "We have a problem of who is charge of energy security in Japan."

Inventories of LNG, generally about two weeks worth of supplies, were also not topped up enough to prepare for winter, a market analyst said.

The fallout from the crunch has become more apparent in recent days, with new power companies like Rakuten Inc suspending new sales and Tokyo Gas, along with traditional electricity utilities, issuing profit downgrades or withdrawing their forecasts.

Although prices have fallen sharply as temperatures warmed up slightly and more generation units have come back online, the power generator executive said, "we are not out of the woods yet."
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News