Echos of Hydro One

Canada Net-Zero Transition unites energy workers, R&D, and clean tech to decarbonize steel and cement with hydrogen, scale renewables, and build hybrid storage, delivering a just transition that strengthens communities and the economy.

Key Points

A national plan to reach net-zero by 2050 via renewables, hydrogen, decarbonization, and a just transition for workers.

✅ Hydrogen for steel and cement decarbonization

✅ Hybrid energy storage and clean tech R&D

✅ Just transition pathways for energy workers

Except for an isolated pocket of skeptics, there is now an almost universal acceptance that climate change is a global emergency that demands immediate and far-reaching action to defend our home and future generations. Yet in Canada we remain largely focused on how the crisis divides us rather than on the potential for it to unite us, despite nationwide progress in electricity decarbonization efforts.

It’s not a case of fossil-fuel industry workers versus the rest, or Alberta versus British Columbia where bridging the electricity gap could strengthen cooperation. We are all in this together. The challenge now is how to move forward in a way that leaves no one behind.

The fossil fuel industry has been — and continues to be — a key driver of Canada’s economy. Both of us had successful careers in the energy sector, but realized, along with an increasing number of energy workers, that the transition we need to cope with climate change could not be accomplished solely from within the industry.

Even as resource companies innovate to significantly reduce the carbon burden of each barrel, the total emission of greenhouse gases from all sources continues to rise. We must seize the opportunity to harness this innovative potential in alternative and complementary ways, mobilizing research and development, for example, to power carbon-intensive steelmaking and cement manufacture from hydrogen or to advance hybrid energy storage systems and decarbonizing Canada's electricity grid strategies — the potential for cross-over technology is immense.

The bottom line is inescapable: we must reach net-zero emissions by 2050 in order to prevent runaway global warming, which is why we launched Iron & Earth in 2016. Led by oilsands workers committed to increasingly incorporating renewable energy projects into our work scope, our non-partisan membership now includes a range of industrial trades and professions who share a vision for a sustainable energy future for Canada — one that would ensure the health and equity of workers, our families, communities, the economy, and the environment.

Except for an isolated pocket of skeptics, there is now an almost universal acceptance that climate change is a global emergency that demands immediate and far-reaching action, including cleaning up Canada's electricity to meet climate pledges, to defend our home and future generations. Yet in Canada we remain largely focused on how the crisis divides us rather than on the potential for it to unite us.

It’s not a case of fossil-fuel industry workers versus the rest, or Alberta versus British Columbia. We are all in this together. The challenge now is how to move forward in a way that leaves no one behind.

The fossil fuel industry has been — and continues to be — a key driver of Canada’s economy. Both of us had successful careers in the energy sector, but realized, along with an increasing number of energy workers, that the transition we need to cope with climate change could not be accomplished solely from within the industry.

Even as resource companies innovate to significantly reduce the carbon burden of each barrel, the total emission of greenhouse gases from all sources continues to rise, underscoring that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero, according to the IEA. We must seize the opportunity to harness this innovative potential in alternative and complementary ways, mobilizing research and development, for example, to power carbon-intensive steelmaking and cement manufacture from hydrogen or to advance hybrid energy storage systems — the potential for cross-over technology is immense.

The bottom line is inescapable: we must reach net-zero emissions by 2050 in order to prevent runaway global warming, which is why we launched Iron & Earth in 2016. Led by oilsands workers committed to increasingly incorporating renewable energy projects into our work scope, as calls for a fully renewable electricity grid by 2030 gain attention, our non-partisan membership now includes a range of industrial trades and professions who share a vision for a sustainable energy future for Canada — one that would ensure the health and equity of workers, our families, communities, the economy, and the environment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Line connects Bipole III to Minnesota, raising export capacity, as NEB hearings weigh Indigenous rights, treaty obligations, environmental assessment, cumulative effects, and cross-border hydroelectric infrastructure impacts, land access, socio-economic concerns, and regulatory review.

Key Points

A cross-border hydro line linking Manitoba to Minnesota under review on Indigenous rights and environment concerns.

✅ Connects Bipole III to Minnesota to boost exports

✅ NEB hearings include Indigenous rights and treaty issues

✅ Environmental and access impacts debated in regulatory review

Concerned Indigenous groups asked the National Energy Board this week to take into consideration existing and future impacts and treaty rights, which have prompted a halt to Site C work elsewhere, when considering whether to OK a new hydro transmission line between Manitoba and Minnesota.

Friday was the last day of the oral traditional evidence hearings in Winnipeg on Manitoba Hydro's Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission project.

The international project will connect Manitoba Hydro's Bipole III transmission line to Minnesota and increase the province's electricity export capacity to 3185 MW from 2300 MW.

#google#

During the hearings Indigenous groups brought forward concerns and evidence of environmental degradation, echoing Site C dam opponents in other regions, and restricted access to traditional lands.

Ramona Neckoway, a member of the Nelson House First Nation, talked about her concern about the scope of Manitoba Hydro's application to the NEB.

"It's only concerned with a narrow 213 km corridor and thus it erases the histories, socio-economic impacts and the environmental degradation attached to this energy source," said Neckoway.

Prior to the hearings the board stated it did not intend to assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts of upstream or downstream facilities associated with electricity production, even as a utilities watchdog on Site C stability raised questions elsewhere.

However, the board did hear evidence from upstream and downstream affected communities despite objection from Manitoba Hydro lawyers.

"Manitoba Hydro objected to us being here, saying that we are irrelevant, but we are not irrelevant," said Elder Tommy Monias from Cross Lake First Nation.

Manitoba Hydro representative Bruce Owen said, "We respect the NEB hearing process and look forward to the input of all interested parties."

The hearings provided a rare opportunity for First Nations communities, similar to Ontario First Nations urging action, to voice their concerns about the line on a federal level.

"One of the hopes is that this project can't be built until a system-wide assessment is made," said Dr. Peter Kulchyski, an expert witness for the southern chiefs organization and professor of Native Studies at the University of Manitoba.

Hearings continue

The line is already under construction on the American side of the border as the NEB public hearings continue until June 22 with cross examinations and final arguments from Manitoba Hydro and intervenor groups.

The NEB's final decision on the Manitoba-Minnesota transmission line, amid an energy board delay recommendation, will be made before March 2019.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

South Carolina Energy Freedom Act lifts net metering caps, reforms PURPA, and overhauls utility planning to boost solar competition, grid resiliency, and consumer choice across the Southeast amid Santee Cooper debt and utility monopoly pressure.

Key Points

A bipartisan reform lifting net metering caps, modernizing PURPA, and updating utility planning to expand solar.

✅ Lifts net metering cap to accelerate rooftop and community solar.

✅ Reforms PURPA contracts to enable fair pricing and transparent procurement.

✅ Modernizes utility IRP and opens markets to competition and customer choice.

The South Carolina House has approved the latest version of the Energy Freedom Act, a bill that overhauls the state’s electricity policies, including lifting the net metering caps and reforming PURPA implementation and utility planning processes in a way that advocates say levels the playing field for solar at all scales.

With Governor Henry McMaster (R) expected to sign the bill shortly, this is a major coup not just for solar in the state, but the region. This is particularly notable given the struggle that solar has had just to gain footing in many parts of the South, which is dominated by powerful utility monopolies and conservative politicians.

Two days ago when the bill passed the Senate we covered the details of the policy, but today we’re going to take a look at the politics of getting the Energy Freedom Act passed, and what this means for other Southern states and “red” states.

Opportunity amid crisis

The first thing to note about this bill is that it comes within a crisis in South Carolina’s electricity sector. This was the first legislative session following state-run utility Santee Cooper’s formal abandonment of a project to build two new reactors at the Virgil C. Sumner nuclear power plant, on which work stopped nearly two years ago.

Santee Cooper still holds $4 billion in construction debt related to the nuclear projects. According to an article in The State, this is costing its customers $5 per month toward the current debt, and this will rise to $13 per month for the next 40 years.

Such costs are particularly unwelcome in South Carolina, which has the highest annual electricity bills in the nation due to a combination of very high electricity usage driven by widespread air conditioning during the hot summers and higher prices per unit of power than other Southern states.

Following this fiasco, Santee Cooper’s CEO has stepped down, and the state government is currently considering selling the utility to a private entity. According to Maggie Clark, southeast state affairs senior manager for Solar Energy Industries Association, all of this set the stage for the bill that passed today.

“South Carolina is in a really ripe state for transformational energy policy in the wake of the VC Sumner nuclear plant cancellation,” Clark told pv magazine. “They were looking for a way forward, and I think this bill really provided them something to champion.”

Renewable energy policy for red states

This major win for solar policy comes in a state where the Republican Party holds majorities in both houses of the state’s legislature and sends bills to a Republican governor.

Broadly speaking, Republican politicians seldom show the level of interest in supporting renewable energy that Democrats do either at the state or national level, and show even less inclination to act to address greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the 100% clean energy mandates that are being implemented in four states and Washington D.C. have only passed with Democratic trifectas, in other words with Republicans controlling neither house of the state legislature nor the governor’s office. (Note: This does not apply to Puerto Rico, which has a different party structure to the rest of the United States)

However, South Carolina shows there are Republican politicians who will support pro-renewable energy policies, and circumstances under which Republican majorities will vote for legislation that aids the adoption of solar. And these specific circumstances speak to both different priorities and ideological differences between the two parties.

SEIA’s Maggie Clark emphasizes that the Energy Freedom Act was about reforming market rules. “This was a way to provide a program that did not provide subsidies or incentives in any way, but to really open the market to competition,” explains Clark. “I think that appealing to conservatives in the South about energy independence and resiliency and ultimately cost savings is the winning message on this issue.”

Such messaging in South Carolina is not an accident. Not only has such messaging been successful in the past, but coalition partner Vote Solar paid for polling to find what messages resounded with the state’s voters, and found that choice and competition were likely to resound.

And all of this happened in the context of what Clark describes as an “extremely well-resourced effort”, with SEIA in particular dedicating national attention and resources to the state – as part of an effort by President and CEO Abigail Hopper to shift attention more towards state-level policy. Maggie Clark is one of two new regional staff who Hopper has hired, and SEIA’s first staff member focused on Southern states.

“Absolutely the South is a prioritized region,” Hopper told pv magazine, noting that three Southern states – the Carolinas and Florida – are among the 12 states that the organization has identified to work on this year. “It became clear that as a region it needed more attention.”

SEIA is not expecting fly-by-night victories, and Hopper attributes the success in South Carolina not only to a broad coalition, but to years of work on the ground in the state.

Nor is SEIA the only organization to grow its presence in the region. Vote Solar now has two full time staff located in the South, whereas two years ago its sole staff member dedicated to the region was located in Washington D.C.

Ideology versus reality in the South

The Energy Freedom Act aligns with conservative ideas about small government and competition, but the American right is not monolithic, nor do political ideas and actions always line up neatly, as other successful policies in other states in the region show

By far the largest deployment of renewable energy in the nation has been in Texas, aside from in California which leads overall. Here a system of renewable energy zones in the sparsely populated but windy and sunny west, north and center of the state feed cities to the east with power from wind and more recently solar.

This was enabled by transmission lines whose cost was socialized among the state’s ratepayers – a tremendous irony given that the state’s politicians would be some of the last in the nation to want to be identified with socializing anything.

Another example is Louisiana, which saw a healthy residential solar market over the last decade due to a 50% state rebate. The policy has expired, but when operating it was exactly the sort of outright subsidy that right-wing media and politicians rail against.

Of course there is also North Carolina, which built the 2nd-largest solar market in the nation on the back of successful state-level implementation of PURPA, a federal law. Finally there is Virginia, where large-scale projects are booming following a 2018 law that found that 5 GW of solar is in the public interest.

Furthermore, while conservatives continually expound the virtues of the free market, the reality of the electricity sector in the “deep red” South is anything but that. The region missed out on the wave of deregulation in the 1990s, and remains dominated by monopoly utilities regulated by the state: a union of big business and big government where competition is non-existent.

This has also meant that the solar which has been deployed in the South is mostly not the kind of rooftop solar that many think of as embodying energy independence, but rather large-scale solar built in farms, fields and forests.

Where to from here?

With such contradictions between stated ideology and practice, it is less clear what makes for successful renewable energy policy in the South. However, opening up markets appears to be working not only in South Carolina, but also in Florida, where third-party solar companies are making inroads after the state’s voters rejected a well-funded and duplicitous utilities’ campaign to kill distributed solar.

SEIA’s Hopper says that she is “aggressively optimistic” about solar in Florida. As utilities have dominated large-solar deployment in the state, even as the state declined federal solar incentives earlier this year, she says that she sees opening up the state’s booming utility-scale solar market to competition as a priority.

Some parts of the region may be harder than others, and it is notable that SEIA has not had as much to say about Alabama, Mississippi or Louisiana, which are largely controlled by utility giants Southern Company and Entergy, or the area under the thumb of the Tennessee Valley Authority, one of the most anti-solar entities in the power sector.

Abby Hopper says ultimately, demand from customers – both individuals and corporations – is the key to transforming policy. “You replicate these victories by customer demand,” Hopper told pv magazine. “That combination of voices from the customer are what’s going to drive change.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Energy Price Surge is driving up electricity and gas costs, inflation, and cost of living across the EU, prompting tax cuts, price caps, subsidies, and household support measures in France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

Key Points

A surge in EU gas and electricity costs driving inflation and prompting government subsidies, tax cuts, and price caps.

✅ Low-income EU households now spend 50-70 percent more on energy.

✅ Governments deploy tax cuts, price caps, and direct subsidies.

✅ Gas-dependent power markets drive electricity price spikes.

Higher energy prices, including for natural gas, are pushing up electricity prices and the cost of living for households across the EU, prompting governments to cut taxes and provide financial support to the tune of several billion euros.

In the United Kingdom, households are bracing for high winter energy bills this season.

A series of reports published by Cambridge Econometrics in October and November 2022 found that households in EU countries are spending much more on energy than in 2020 and that governments are spending billions of euros to help consumers pay bills and cut taxes.

In France, for example, the poorest households now spend roughly one-third more on energy than in 2020. Between August 2020 and August 2022, household energy prices increased by 37 percent, while overall inflation increased by 9.2 percent.

“We estimate that the increase in household energy prices make an average French household €410 worse off in 2022 compared to 2020, mostly due to higher gas prices,” said the report.

In response to rising energy prices, the French government has adopted price caps and support measures forecast to cost over €71 billion, equivalent to 2.9 percent of French GDP, according to the U.K.-based consultancy.

In Italy, fossil fuels alone were responsible for roughly 30 percent of the country’s annual rate of inflation during spring 2022, according to Cambridge Econometrics. Unlike in other European countries, retail electricity prices have outpaced other energy prices in Italy and were 112 percent higher in July 2022 than in August 2020, the report found. Over the same time period, retail petrol prices were up 14 percent, diesel up 22 percent, and natural gas up 42 percent.

We estimate that households in the lowest-income quintile now spend about 50 percent more on energy than in 2020.

“We estimate that before government support, an average Italian household will be spending around €1,400 more on energy and fuel bills this year than in 2020,” the report said. “Low-income households are worse affected by the increasing energy prices: we estimate that households in the lowest-income quintile now spend about 50 percent more on energy than in 2020.”

Electricity production in Italy is dominated by natural gas, which has also led to a spike in wholesale electricity prices. In 2010, natural gas accounted for 50 percent of all electricity production. The share of natural gas fell to 33 percent in 2014, but then rose again, reaching 48 percent in 2021, and 56 percent in the first half of 2022, according to the report, as gas filled the gap of record low hydro power production in 2022.

In Spain, where electricity prices have seen extreme spikes, low-income households are now spending an estimated 70% more on energy than in 2020, according to Cambridge Econometrics.

Low-income squeeze
In Spain, low-income households are now spending an estimated 70% more on energy than in 2020, according to Cambridge Econometrics. It noted that the Spanish government has intervened heavily in energy markets by cutting taxes, introducing cash transfers for households, and capping the price of natural gas for power generators. The latter has led to lower electricity prices than in many other EU countries.

These support measures are forecast to cost the Spanish government over €35 billion, equivalent to nearly 3 percent of Spain’s GDP. Yet consumers will still feel the burden of higher costs of living, and rolling back electricity prices may prove difficult in the near term.

In March, electricity prices alone were responsible for 45 percent of year-on-year inflation in Spain but prices have since fallen as a result of government intervention, Cambridge Econometrics said. Between May and July, fossil fuels prices accounted for 19-25 percent of the overall inflation rate, and electricity prices for 16 percent.

Support measures
Rising inflation is also a real challenge in Germany, Europe’s largest economy, where German power prices have surged this year, adding pressure. Also there, higher gas prices are to blame.

“We estimate that the increase in energy prices currently make an average household €735 worse off in 2022 compared to 2020, mostly due to higher gas prices,” Cambridge Econometrics said, in a report focused on Germany.

The German government has introduced a number of support measures in order to help households, businesses and industry to pay energy bills, amid rising heating and electricity costs for consumers, including price caps that are expected to take effect in March next year. Moreover, households’ energy bills for December this year will be paid by the state. According to the report, these interventions will mitigate the impact of higher prices “to some extent”, but the aid measures are forecast to cost the government nearly 5 percent of GDP.

Fossil-fuel effect
In addition to gas, higher coal prices have also pushed up inflation in some countries, and U.S. electricity prices have reached multi-decade highs as inflation endures.

In Poland, which is heavily dependent on coal for electricity generation, fossil fuels accounted for roughly 40 percent of Poland’s overall year-on-year inflation rate in June 2022, which stood at over 14 percent, the consultancy said.

The price of household coal, which is widely used in heating Polish homes, increased by 157 percent between August 2021 and August 2022.

Higher energy prices in Poland are partly due to Polish and EU sanctions against Russian gas and coal. Other drivers are the weakening of the Polish zloty against the U.S. dollar and the euro, and the uptick in global demand after COVID-19 lockdowns, said Cambridge Econometrics.

Electricity prices have risen at a much slower pace than energy for transport and heating, with an annualized increase of 5.1 percent.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

COVID-19 Impact on U.S. Electricity Consumption shows commercial and industrial demand dropped as residential use rose, with flattened peak loads, weekday-weekend convergence, Texas hourly data, and energy demand as a real-time economic indicator.

Key Points

It reduced commercial and industrial demand while raising residential use, shifting peaks and weekday patterns.

✅ Commercial electricity down 12%; industrial down 14% in Q2 2020

✅ Residential use up 10% amid work-from-home and lockdowns

✅ Peaks flattened; weekday-weekend loads converged in Texas

This is an important turning point for the United States. We have a long road ahead. But one of the reasons I’m optimistic about Biden-Harris is that we will once again have an administration that believes in science.

To embrace this return to science, I want to write today about a fascinating new working paper by Tufts economist Steve Cicala.

Professor Cicala has been studying the effect of Covid on electricity consumption since back in March, when the Wall Street Journal picked up his work documenting an 18% decrease in electricity consumption in Italy.

The new work, focused on the United States, is particularly compelling because it uses data that allows him to distinguish between residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, against a backdrop of declining U.S. electricity sales over recent years.

Without further ado, here are four facts he uncovers about Covid and U.S. electricity demand during COVID-19 and consumption.

Fact #1: Firms Are Using Less
U.S. commercial electricity consumption fell 12% during the second quarter of 2020. U.S. industrial electricity consumption fell 14% over the same period.

This makes sense. The second quarter was by some measures, the worst quarter for the U.S. economy in over 145 years!

Economic activity shrank. Schools closed. Offices closed. Factories closed. Restaurants closed. Malls closed. Even health care offices closed as patients delayed going to the dentist and other routine care. All this means less heating and cooling, less lighting, less refrigeration, less power for computers and other office equipment, less everything.

The decrease in the industrial sector is a little more surprising. My impression had been that the industrial sector had not fallen as far as commercial, but amid broader disruptions in coal and nuclear power that strained parts of the energy economy, the patterns for both sectors are quite similar with the decline peaking in May and then partially rebounding by July. The paper also shows that areas with higher unemployment rates experienced larger declines in both sectors.

Fact #2: Households Are Using More
While firms are using less, households are using more. U.S. residential electricity consumption increased 10% during the second quarter of 2020. Consumption surged during March, April, and May, a reflection of the lockdown lifestyle many adopted, and then leveled off in June and July – with much less of the rebound observed on the commercial/industrial side.

This pattern makes sense, too. In Professor Cicala’s words, “people are spending an inordinate amount of time at home”. Many of us switched over to working from home almost immediately, and haven’t looked back. This means more air conditioning, more running the dishwasher, more CNN (especially last week), more Zoom, and so on.

The paper also examines the correlates of the decline. Areas in the U.S. where more people can work from home experienced larger increases. Unemployment rates, however, are almost completely uncorrelated with the increase.

Fact #3: Firms are Less Peaky
The paper next turns to a novel dataset from Texas, where Texas grid reliability is under active discussion, that makes it possible to measure hourly electricity consumption by sector.

As the figure above illustrates, the biggest declines in commercial/industrial electricity consumption have occurred Monday through Friday between 9AM and 5PM.

The dashed line shows the pattern during 2019. Notice the large spikes in electricity consumption during business hours. The solid line shows the pattern during 2020. Much smaller spikes during business hours.

Fact #4: Everyday is Like Sunday
Finally, we have what I would like to nominate as the “Energy Figure of the Year”.

Again, start with the pattern for 2019, reflected by the dashed line. Prior to Covid, Texas households used a lot more electricity on Saturdays and Sundays.

Then along comes Covid, and turned every day into the weekend. Residential electricity consumption in Texas during business hours Monday-Friday is up 16%(!).

In the pattern for 2020, it isn’t easy to distinguish weekends from weekdays. If you feel like weekdays and weekends are becoming a big blur – you are not alone.

Conclusion
Researchers are increasingly thinking about electricity consumption as a real-time indicator of economic activity, even as flat electricity demand complicates utility planning and investment. This is an intriguing idea, but Professor Cicala’s new paper shows that it is important to look sector-by-sector.

While commercial and industrial consumption indeed seem to measure the strength of an economy, residential consumption has been sharply countercylical – increasing exactly when people are not at work and not at school.

These large changes in behavior are specific to the pandemic. Still, with the increased blurring of home and non-home activities we may look back on 2020 as a key turning point in how we think about these three sectors of the economy.

More broadly, Professor Cicala’s paper highlights the value of social science research. We need facts, data, and yes, science, if we are to understand the economy and craft effective policies on energy insecurity and shut-offs as well.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News