Testing lab prepares utilities for the future

Manitoba Hydro Interim Rate Increase faces PUB scrutiny as consumers coalition challenges a 5% electricity rate hike, citing drought planning, retained earnings, affordability, transparency, and impacts on fixed incomes and northern communities.

Key Points

A proposed 5% electricity rate hike under PUB review, opposed by consumers citing drought planning and affordability.

✅ Coalition backs 2% hike; 5% seen as undue burden

✅ PUB review sought; interim process lacks transparency

✅ Retained earnings, efficiencies cited to offset drought

The Consumers Coalition is urging the Public Utilities Board (PUB) to reject Manitoba Hydro’s current interim rate increase application, amid ongoing debates about Hydro governance and policy.

Hydro is requesting a five per cent jump in electricity rates starting on January 1, claiming drought conditions warrant the increase but the coalition disagrees, saying a two per cent increase would be sufficient.

The coalition, which includes Harvest Manitoba, the Consumers’ Association of Canada-Manitoba, and the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, said a 5 per cent rate increase would put an unnecessary strain on consumer budgets, especially for those on fixed incomes or living up north.

"We feel that, in many ways, Manitobans have already paid for this drought," said Gloria Desorcy, executive director of the Consumers’ Association of Canada - Manitoba.

The coalition argues that hydroelectric companies already plan for droughts and that hydro should be using past earnings to mitigate any losses.

The group claims drought conditions would have added about 0.8 per cent to Hydro’s bottom line. They said remaining revenues from a two per cent increase could then be used to offset the increased costs of major projects like the Keeyask generating station and service its growing debt obligations.

The group also said Hydro is financially secure and is projecting a positive net income of $112 million next year without rate increases, even as utility profits can swing with market conditions, assuming the drought doesn’t continue.

They argue Hydro can use retained earnings as a tool to mitigate losses, rather than relying on deferral accounting that shifts costs, and find further efficiencies within the corporation.

"So we said two per cent, which is much more palatable for consumers especially at the time when so many consumers are struggling with so many higher bills,” said Desorcy.

According to the coalition’s calculations, that works out to a $2-4 increase per month, and debates such as ending off-peak pricing in Ontario show how design affects bills, depending on whether electricity is used for heating, but it could be higher.

The coalition said their proposed two per cent rate increase should be applied to all Manitoba Hydro customers and have a set expiration date of January 1, 2023.

Another issue, according to the coalition, is the process of an interim rate application does not provide any meaningful transparency and accountability, whereas recent OEB decisions in Ontario have outlined more robust public processes.

Desorcy said the next step is up to the PUB, though board upheaval at Hydro One in Ontario shows how governance shifts can influence outcomes.

The board is expected to decide on the proposed increase in the next couple of weeks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Small Modular Reactors in Canada are advancing through provincial collaboration, offering nuclear energy, clean power and carbon reductions for grids, remote communities, and mines, with factory-built modules, regulatory roadmaps, and pre-licensing by the nuclear regulator.

Key Points

Compact, factory-built nuclear units for clean power, cutting carbon for grids, remote communities, and industry.

✅ Provinces: Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick collaborate

✅ Targets coal replacement, carbon cuts, clean baseload power

✅ Modular, factory-made units; 5-10 year deployment horizon

The premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have committed to collaborate on developing nuclear reactor technology in Canada. 

Doug Ford, Scott Moe and Blaine Higgs made the announcement and signed a memorandum of understanding on Sunday in advance of a meeting of all the premiers. 

They will be working on the research, development and building of small modular reactors as a way to help their individual provinces reduce carbon emissions and move away from non-renewable energy sources like coal. 

Small modular reactors are easy to construct, are safer than large reactors and are regarded as cleaner energy than coal, the premiers say. They can be small enough to fit in a school gym. 

SMRs are actually not very close to entering operation in Canada, though Ontario broke ground on its first SMR at Darlington recently, signaling early progress. Natural Resources Canada released an "SMR roadmap" last year, with a series of recommendations about regulation readiness and waste management for SMRs.

In Canada, about a dozen companies are currently in pre-licensing with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is reviewing their designs.

"Canadians working together, like we are here today, from coast to coast, can play an even larger role in addressing climate change in Canada and around the world," Moe said.  

Canada's Paris targets are to lower total emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and nuclear's role in climate goals has been emphasized by the federal minister in recent remarks. Moe says the reactors would help Saskatchewan reach a 70 per cent reduction by that year.

The provinces' three energy ministries will meet in the new year to discuss how to move forward and by the fall a fully-fledged strategy for the reactors is expected to be ready.

However, don't expect to see them popping up in a nearby field anytime soon. It's estimated it will take five to 10 years before they're built. 

Ford lauds economic possibilities
The provincial leaders said it could be an opportunity for economic growth, estimating the Canadian market for this energy at $10 billion and the global market at $150 billion.

Ford called it an "opportunity for Canada to be a true leader." At a time when Ottawa and the provinces are at odds, Higgs said it's the perfect time to show unity. 

"It's showing how provinces come together on issues of the future." 

P.E.I. premier predicts unity at Toronto premiers' meeting
No other premiers have signed on to the deal at this point, but Ford said all are welcome and "the more, the merrier."

But developing new energy technologies is a daunting task. Higgs admitted the project will need national support of some kind, though he didn't specify what. The agreement signed by the premiers is also not binding. 

About 8.6 per cent of Canada's electricity comes from coal-fired generation. In New Brunswick that figure is much higher — 15.8 per cent — and New Brunswick's small-nuclear debate has intensified as New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs has said he worries about his province's energy producers being hit by the federal carbon tax.

Ontario has no coal-fired power plants, and OPG's SMR commitment aligns with its clean electricity strategy today. In Saskatchewan, burning coal generates 46.6 per cent of the province's electricity.

How would it work?
The federal government describes small modular reactors (SMRs) as the "next wave of innovation" in nuclear energy technology, and collaborations like the OPG and TVA partnership are advancing development efforts, and an "important technology opportunity for Canada."

Traditional nuclear reactors used in Canada typically generate about 800 megawatts of electricity, and Ontario is exploring new large-scale nuclear plants alongside SMRs, or enough to power about 600,000 homes at once (assuming that 1 megawatt can power about 750 homes).

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN organization for nuclear co-operation, considers a nuclear reactor to be "small" if it generates under 300 megawatts.

Designs for small reactors ranging from just 3 megawatts to 300 megawatts have been submitted to Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, for review as part of a pre-licensing process, while plans for four SMRs at Darlington outline a potential build-out pathway that regulators will assess.

Ford rallying premiers to call for large increase in federal health transfers
Such reactors are considered "modular" because they're designed to work either independently or as modules in a bigger complex (as is already the case with traditional, larger reactors at most Canadian nuclear power plants). A power plant could be expanded incrementally by adding additional modules.

Modules are generally designed to be small enough to make in a factory and be transported easily — for example, via a standard shipping container.

In Canada, there are three main areas where SMRs could be used:

Traditional, on-grid power generation, especially in provinces looking for zero-emissions replacements for CO2-emitting coal plants.
Remote communities that currently rely on polluting diesel generation.
Resource extraction sites, such as mining and oil and gas.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Adani Electricity Mumbai Power Cuts follow non-payment rules, reflecting billing disputes, regulatory compliance, consumer impact, and affordability concerns, while prompting mitigation measures like flexible payment plans, assistance programs, and clearer communication for residents.

Key Points

AEML cutoffs for unpaid bills per rules, raising affordability worries, billing issues, and calls for flexible aid.

✅ Triggered by unpaid bills under regulatory guidelines

✅ Affordability and billing transparency concerns raised

✅ Mitigation: flexible plans, aid for low-income users

Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited (AEML) recently made headlines by cutting power supply to around 100 homes in Mumbai, sparking discussions about the reasons behind this action and its implications for consumers, especially as reports like the Northeast D.C. outage continue to surface.

Background of the Incident

The power supply disconnections by AEML were reportedly due to non-payment of electricity bills by the affected households. This action, although necessary under AEML's policies and in accordance with regulatory guidelines, has raised concerns about the impact on residents, particularly during challenging economic times when pandemic electricity shut-offs highlighted energy insecurity.

Reasons for Non-Payment

Non-payment of electricity bills can stem from various reasons, including financial hardships, disputes over billing accuracy, or unforeseen circumstances affecting household finances. In Mumbai, where the cost of living is high, utility bills constitute a significant portion of monthly expenses for many households, mirroring trends of rising electricity bills seen elsewhere.

Regulatory and Legal Framework

AEML's decision to disconnect power supply aligns with regulatory provisions governing utility services, which may include emergency disconnection moratoriums in other jurisdictions. Utility companies are mandated to enforce bill payments to maintain operational sustainability and ensure fair distribution of resources among consumers.

Consumer Impact and Response

The power disconnections have prompted reactions from affected residents and consumer advocacy groups, highlighting issues related to affordability, transparency in billing practices, and the need for supportive measures during times of economic distress amid heat-related electricity struggles that pressure vulnerable households.

Mitigation Measures

In response to such incidents, utility companies and regulatory authorities often implement mitigation measures. These may include flexible payment options, financial assistance programs for low-income households, and enhanced communication about billing procedures and payment deadlines, along with policy scrutiny such as utility spending oversight to curb unnecessary costs.

Future Considerations

As cities like Mumbai continue to grow and face challenges related to urbanization and infrastructure development, ensuring reliable and affordable access to essential services like electricity, including efforts to prevent summer power outages, remains a priority. Balancing the operational needs of utility providers with consumer welfare concerns requires ongoing dialogue and proactive measures from all stakeholders.

Conclusion

The power supply cuts by Adani Electricity in Mumbai underscore the complexities of managing utility services in urban centers. While necessary for financial viability and regulatory compliance, such actions also highlight broader issues of affordability and consumer protection. Moving forward, collaborative efforts between utility companies, regulatory authorities, and community stakeholders are essential in addressing these challenges and ensuring equitable access to essential services for all residents.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

World Bank Energy Policy debates financing for coal, oil, gas, and renewables to fight energy poverty, expand grid reliability, ensure baseload power, and balance climate goals with development finance for affordable, reliable electricity access.

Key Points

It outlines the bank's stance on financing fossil fuels and renewables to expand affordable, reliable electricity.

✅ Focus on energy access, baseload reliability, and poverty alleviation

✅ Debate over coal, gas, and renewables in development finance

✅ Geopolitics: China and Russia fill funding gaps, raising risks

Why isn’t the World Bank using all available energy resources in its global efforts to fight poverty? That’s the question I’ve asked World Bank President David Malpass. Nearly two years ago, the multilateral development bank decided to stop supporting critical coal, oil and gas projects that help people in developing countries escape poverty.

Along with 11 other senators, and as a member who votes on whether to give U.S. taxpayer dollars to the World Bank, I am pressing the bank to lift these restrictions. Developing countries desperately need access to a steady supply of affordable, reliable clean electricity to support economic growth.

The World Bank has pulled funding for critical electricity projects in poor countries, including high-efficiency power stations that are fueled by coal, even as efforts to revitalize coal communities with clean energy have grown.

Despite Kosovo having the world’s fifth-largest reserves of coal, the bank announced it would only support new energy projects from renewable sources going forward. Kosovo’s Minister of Economic Development Valdrin Lluka responded: “We don’t have the luxury to do such experiments in a poor country such as Kosovo. … It is in our national security interest to secure base energy inside our country.”

The World Bank’s misguided move comes as 840 million people worldwide are living without electricity, including 70 percent of sub-Saharan Africa, and as the fall in global energy investment may lead to shortages.

Even more troubling, nearly 3 billion people in developing countries rely on fuels like wood and other biomass for cooking and home heating, resulting in serious health problems and premature deaths, and the pandemic saw widespread electricity shut-offs that deepened energy insecurity. In 2016, household smoke killed an estimated 2.6 million people.

The World Bank’s mission is to lift people out of poverty. The bank is now compromising that mission in favor of a political agenda targeting certain energy sources.

With the World Bank blocking financing to affordable and reliable energy projects, Russia and China are stepping up their investments in order to gain geopolitical leverage.

President Vladimir Putin is pursuing Russian oil and gas projects in Mozambique, Gabon, and Angola. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is supporting traditional energy resources, with 36 percent of its power projects from 2014 to 2017 involving coal. South Africa had to turn to the China Development Bank to fund its $1.5 billion coal-fired power plant.

There are real risks for countries partnering with China and Russia on these projects. Developing countries are facing what some are calling China’s “debt trap” diplomacy. These nations have also raised concerns over safety compliance, unfair business practices, and labor standards.

As the bank’s largest contributor, the United States has a duty to make sure U.S. taxpayer dollars are used wisely and effectively. Every U.S. dollar at the World Bank should make a difference for people in the developing world.

My colleagues and I have asked the bank to pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy as it strives to achieve its mission to end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity. We will take the bank’s response into account during the congressional appropriations process.

The United States is a top global energy producer. And yet Democrats running for president are pursuing anti-energy policies that would hurt not only the United States but the entire world, with implications for U.S. national security as well.

Utilizing our abundant energy resources has fueled an American energy renaissance and a booming U.S. economy, even as disruptions in coal and nuclear have strained the grid, with millions of new jobs and higher wages.

People who are struggling to survive and thrive in developing countries deserve the same opportunity to access affordable and reliable sources of power.

As Microsoft founder and global philanthropist Bill Gates has noted of renewables: "Many people experiencing energy poverty live in areas without access to the kind of grids that are needed to make those technologies cheap and reliable enough to replace fossil fuels."

Ultimately, there is a role for all sources of energy to help countries alleviate poverty and improve the education, health and wellbeing of their people.

The solution to ending energy poverty does not lie in limiting options, but in using all available options. The World Bank must recommit to ending extreme poverty by helping countries use all of the world’s abundant energy resources. Let’s end energy poverty now.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Income-Based Electricity Rates propose a fixed monthly fee set by income as utilities and the CPUC weigh progressive pricing, aiming to cut low-income bills while PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E retain usage-based charges.

Key Points

CPUC plan adds income-tiered fixed fees to lower low-income bills while keeping per-kWh usage charges.

✅ Adds fixed monthly fees by income to complement per-kWh charges

✅ Cuts bills for low-income households; higher earners pay more

✅ Utilities say revenue neutral; conservation signals preserved

California’s electric bills — already some of the highest in the nation — are rising as electricity prices soar across the state, but regulators are debating a new plan to charge customers based on their income level. 

Typically what you pay for electricity depends on how much you use. But the state’s three largest electric utilities — Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company — have proposed a plan to charge customers not just for how much energy they use, but also based on their household income, moving toward income-based flat-fee utility bills over time. Their proposal is one of several state regulators received designed to accommodate a new law to make energy less costly for California’s lowest-income customers.

Some state Republican lawmakers are warning the changes could produce unintended results, such as weakening incentives to conserve electricity or raising costs for customers using solar energy, and some have introduced a plan to overturn the charges in the Legislature.

But the utility companies say the measure would reduce electricity bills for the lowest income customers. Those residents would save about $300 per year, utilities estimate.

California households earning more than $180,000 a year would end up paying an average of $500 more a year on their electricity bills, according to the proposal from utility companies. 

The California Public Utilities Commission’s deadline for deciding on the suggested changes is July 1, 2024, as regulators face calls for action from consumers and advocates. The proposals come at a time when many moderate and low-income families are being priced out of California by rising housing costs.  

Who wants to change the fee structure?
Lawmakers passed and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a comprehensive energy bill last summer that mandates restructuring electricity pricing across the state. 

The Legislature passed the measure in a “trailer-bill” process that limited deliberation. Included in the 21,000-word law are a few sentences requiring the public utilities commission to establish a “fixed monthly fee” based on each customer’s household income. 

A similar idea was first proposed in 2021 by researchers at UC Berkeley and the nonprofit thinktank Next 10. Their main recommendation was to split utility costs into two buckets. Fixed charges, which everyone has to pay just to be connected to the energy grid, would be based on income levels. Variable charges would depend on how much electricity you use.

Utilities say that part of customers’ bills still will be based on usage, but the other portion will reduce costs for lower- and middle-income customers, who “pay a greater percentage of their income towards their electricity bill relative to higher income customers,” the utilities argued in a recent filing. 

They said the current billing system is unjust, regressive and fails to recognize differences in energy usage among households,

“When we were putting together the reform proposal, front and center in our mind were customers who live paycheck to paycheck, who struggle to pay for essentials such as energy, housing and food,” Caroline Winn, CEO of San Diego Gas & Electric in a statement. 

The utilities say in their proposal that the changes likely would not reduce or increase their revenues.

James Sallee, an associate professor at UC Berkeley, said the utilities’ prior system of billing customers mostly by measuring their electric use to pay for what are essentially fixed costs for power is inefficient and regressive. 

The proposed changes “will shift the burden, on average, to a more progressive system that recovers more from higher income households and less from lower income households,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

PG&E Camp Fire Guilty Plea underscores involuntary manslaughter charges as the utility admits sparking Paradise's wildfire; Butte County prosecution, CAL FIRE findings, bankruptcy oversight, victim compensation trust, and safety reforms shape accountability.

Key Points

The legal admission by PG&E to 84 involuntary manslaughter counts and unlawfully starting the 2018 Camp Fire.

✅ 84 involuntary manslaughter counts; unlawful ignition admitted.

✅ $3,486,950 fine, $500,000 DA costs; no prison terms.

✅ $13.5B victim trust, Paradise and Butte County payments.

California utility Pacific Gas and Electric Company pleaded guilty Tuesday to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count of unlawfully starting the Camp Fire, the deadliest blaze in the state's history.

Butte County District Attorney Michael L. Ramsey said the "historic moment" should be a signal that corporations will be held responsible for "recklessly endangering" lives.
The 84 people "did not need to die," Ramsey said. He said the deaths were "of the most unimaginable horror, being burned to death."

Before sentencing, survivors will testify Wednesday about the losses of their loved ones, and many have pursued lawsuits against the utility seeking accountability.

No individuals will be sent to prison, Ramsey said.

"This is the first time that PG&E or any major utility has been charged with homicide as the result of a reckless fire. It killed a town," Ramsey said, referring to Paradise, which was annihilated by the blaze.
According to court documents filed in March, the company will be fined "no more than $3,486,950," and it must reimburse the Butte County District Attorney's Office $500,000 for the costs of its investigation into the blaze, and under separate oversight a federal judge ordered dividends to be directed to wildfire risk reduction to prioritize safety.

Among other provisions, PG&E must establish a trust, compensating victims of the 2018 Camp Fire and other wildfires to the tune of $13.5 billion as part of its bankruptcy plan, according to the plea agreement included in a regulatory filing.
It has to pay hundreds of millions to the town of Paradise and Butte County and cooperate with prosecutors' investigation, the plea deal says.
PG&E also waived its right to appeal.

"I have heard the pain and the anguish of victims as they've described the loss they continue to endure, and the wounds that can't be healed," PG&E Corporation CEO and President Bill Johnson said after the plea. "No words from me could ever reduce the magnitude of such devastation or do anything to repair the damage. But I hope that the actions we are taking here today will help bring some measure of peace, including aid through a Wildfire Assistance Program the company announced."

Johnson was in court Tuesday, where Butte County Superior Court Judge Michael Deems read the names of each victim as their photos were shown on a screen, CNN affiliate KTLA reported.
Johnson said the utility would never put profits ahead of safety again. He told the judge that PG&E took responsibility for the devastation "with eyes wide open to what happened and to what must never happen again," KTLA reported.

In March, the utility and the state agreed to bankruptcy terms, which included an overhaul of PG&E's board selection process, financial structure and oversight, with rates expected to stabilize in 2025 as reforms take hold.
According to investigators with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, PG&E was responsible for the devastating Camp Fire.

Electrical lines owned and operated by PG&E started the fire November 8, 2018, CAL Fire said in a news release, after the company acknowledged its power lines may have started two fires that day.

"The tinder dry vegetation and Red Flag conditions consisting of strong winds, low humidity and warm temperatures promoted this fire and caused extreme rates of spread," CAL Fire said.
PG&E had previously said it was "probable" that its equipment started the Camp Fire but that it wasn't conclusive whether its lines ignited a second fire, as CAL Fire alleged.
The power company filed for bankruptcy in January 2019 as it came under pressure from billions of dollars in claims tied to deadly wildfires, and other utilities such as Southern California Edison have faced similar lawsuits.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News