China might give hybrids a big push

Hydro One-Avista Merger outlines a utility acquisition shaped by Washington regulators, Colstrip coal plant depreciation, and plans for renewables, clean energy, and emissions cuts, while Montana reviews implications for jobs, ratepayers, and a 2027 closure.

Key Points

A utility deal setting Colstrip depreciation and renewables, without committing to an early coal plant closure.

✅ Washington sets 2027 depreciation for Colstrip units

✅ Montana reviews jobs, ratepayer impacts, community fund

✅ Avista seeks renewables; no binding shutdown commitment

The Washington power company Hydro One is buying will be ready to close its huge coal-fired generating station ahead of schedule, thanks to conditions put on the corporate merger by state regulators there.

Not that we actually plan to do that, the company is telling other regulators in Montana, where coal unit retirements are under debate, the huge coal-fired generating station in question employs hundreds of people. We’ll be in the coal business for a good long time yet.

Hydro One, in which the Ontario government now owns a big minority stake, is still working on its purchase of Avista, a private power utility based in Spokane. The $6.7-billion deal, which Hydro One announced in July, includes a 15 per cent share in two of the four generating units in a coal plant in Colstrip, Montana, one of the biggest in the western United States. Avista gets most of its electricity from hydro dams and gas but uses the Colstrip plant when demand for power is high and water levels at its dams are low.

#google#

Colstrip’s a town of fewer than 2,500 people whose industries are the power plant and the open-pit mines that feed it about 10 million tonnes of coal a year. Two of Colstrip’s generators, older ones Avista doesn’t have any stake in, are closing in 2022. The other two will be all that keep the town in business.

In Washington, they don’t like the coal plant and its pollution. In Montana, the future of Colstrip is a much bigger concern. The companies have to satisfy regulators in both places that letting Hydro One buy Avista is in the public interest.

Ontario proudly closed the last of our coal plants in 2014 and outlawed new ones as environmental menaces, and Alberta's coal phase-out is now slated to finish by 2023. When Hydro One said it was buying Avista, which makes about $100 million in profit a year, Premier Kathleen Wynne said she hoped Ontario’s “value system” would spread to Avista’s operations.

The settlement is “an important step towards bringing together two historic companies,” Hydro One’s chief executive Mayo Schmidt said in announcing it.

The deal has approval from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission staff but is subject to a vote by the group’s three commissioners. It doesn’t commit Avista to closing anything at Colstrip or selling its share. But Avista and Hydro One will budget as if the Colstrip coal burners will close in 2027, instead of running into the 2040s as their owners had once planned, a timeline that echoes debates over the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico.

In accounting terms, they’ll depreciate the value of their share of the plant to zero over the next nine years, reflecting what they say is the end of the plant’s “useful life.” Another of Colstrip’s owners, Puget Sound Energy, has previously agreed with Washington regulators that it’ll budget for a Colstrip closure in 2027 as well.

Avista and Hydro One will look for sources of 50 megawatts of renewable electricity, including independent power projects where feasible, in the next four years and another 90 megawatts to supplement Avista’s supply once the Colstrip plant eventually closes, they promise in Washington. They’ll put $3 million into a “community transition fund” for Colstrip.

The money will come from the companies’ profits and cash, the agreement says. “Hydro One will not seek cost recovery for such funds from ratepayers in Ontario,” it says specifically.

“Ontario has always been a global leader in the transition away from dirty coal power and towards clean energy,” said Doug Howell, an anti-coal campaigner with the Sierra Club, which is a party to the agreement. “This settlement continues that tradition, paving the way for the closure of the largest single source of climate pollution in the American West by 2027, if not earlier.”

Montanans aren’t as thrilled. That state has its own public services commission, doing its own examination of the corporate merger, which has asked Hydro One and Avista to explain in detail why they want to write off the value of the Colstrip burners early. The City of Colstrip has filed a petition saying it wants in on Montana hearings because “the potential closure of (Avista’s units) would be devastating to our community.”

Don’t get too worked up, an Avista vice-president urged the Montana commission just before Easter.

“Just because an asset is depreciated does not mean that one would otherwise remove that asset from service if the asset is still performing as intended,” Jason Thackston testified in a session that dealt only with what the deal with Washington state would mean to Colstrip. We’re talking strictly about an accounting manoeuvre, not an operational commitment.

Six joint owners will have to agree to close the Colstrip generators and there’s “no other tacit understanding or unstated agreement” to do that, he said.

Besides Washington and Montana, state regulators in Idaho, including those overseeing the Idaho Power settlement process, Alaska and Oregon and multiple federal authorities have to sign off on the deal before it can happen. Hydro One hopes it’ll be done in the second half of this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Australia Energy Policy Debate highlights IPCC warnings, Paris Agreement goals, coal phase-out, emissions reduction, renewables, gas, pumped hydro, storage, reliability, and investment certainty amid NEG uncertainty and federal-state tensions over targets.

Key Points

Debate over coal, emissions targets, and grid reliability, guided by IPCC science, Paris goals, and market reforms.

✅ IPCC urges rapid cuts and coal phase-out by 2050

✅ NEG's emissions pillar stalled; reliability obligation alive

✅ States, market operators push investment certainty and storage

The United Nation’s climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on Monday said radical emissions reduction across the world’s economies, including a phase-out of coal by 2050, was required to avoid the most devastating climate change impacts.

The Morrison government dismissed the findings. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg insisted this week that “coal is an important part of the energy mix”.

“If we were to take coal out of the system the lights would go out on the east coast of Australia overnight. It provides more than 60 per cent of our power," he said.

Ms Zibelman, whose organisation operates the nation’s largest gas and electricity markets, said if Australia was to make an orderly transition to low-emissions electricity generation, aligning with the sustainable electric planet vision, “then certainly we would keep the lights on”.

Ms Zibelman said coal assets should be maintained “as long as they are economically viable and we should have a plan to replace them with resources that are lowest cost”.

Those options comprised gas, renewables, pumped hydro and other energy storage, she told ABC radio, as New Zealand weighs electrification to replace fossil fuels.

Under the Paris treaty the government has pledged to lower emissions by 26 per cent by 2030, based on 2005 levels, even as national emissions rose 2% recently according to industry reports.

Labor would increase the goal to a 45 per cent cut - a policy Prime Minister Scott Morrison said last month would " shut down every coal-fired power station in the country and ... increase people’s power bill by about $1,400 on average for every single household”.

The federal government has scrapped its proposed National Energy Guarantee, which would have cut emissions in the electricity sector, but the reliability component of the plan may continue in some form.

The policy was being developed by the Energy Security Board. The group’s chairwoman Kerry Schott has expressed anger at its demise but on Thursday revealed the board was still working on the policy because “nobody told us to stop”.

Speaking at the Melbourne Institute's Outlook conference, she urged the government to revive the emissions reduction component of the plan to provide investment certainty, noting the IEA net-zero report on Canada shows electricity demand rises in decarbonisation.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor, an energy consultant before entering Parliament, on Thursday said the electricity sector would reduce emissions in line with the Paris deal without a mandated target.

Mr Taylor said only a “very brave state” would not support the policy’s reliability obligation.

The federal government has called a COAG energy council meeting for October 26 in Sydney to discuss electricity reliability.

It is understood Mr Taylor has not contacted Victoria, Queensland or the ACT since taking the portfolio, despite needing unanimous support from the states to progress the issue.

The Victorian government goes into caretaker mode on October 30 ahead of that state's election.

Victorian Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio said the federal government was “a rabble when it comes to energy policy, and we won’t be signing anything until after the election".

Speaking at the Melbourne Institute conference, prominent business leaders on Thursday bemoaned a lack of political leadership on energy policy and climate change, saying the only way forward appeared to be for companies to take action themselves, with some pointing to Canada's race to net-zero as a case study in the role of renewables.

Jayne Hrdlicka, chief executive of ASX-listed dairy and infant-formula company a2 Milk, said "we all have an obligation to do the very best job we can in managing our carbon footprint".

"We just need to get on doing what we can .. and then hope that policy will catch up. But we can’t wait," she said.

Ms Hrdlicka said the recent federal political turmoil had been frustrating "because if you invest in building relationships as most of us do in Canberra and then overnight they are all changed, you’re starting from scratch".

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Texas Power Grid Reliability faces ERCOT blackouts and winter storm risks; solutions span weatherization, natural gas coordination, PUC-ERCOT reform, capacity market signals, demand response, grid batteries, and geothermal to maintain resilient electricity supply.

Key Points

Texas Power Grid Reliability is ERCOT's ability to keep electricity flowing during extreme weather and demand spikes.

✅ Weatherize power plants and gas supply to prevent freeze-offs

✅ Merge PUC and Railroad Commission for end-to-end oversight

✅ Pay for firm capacity, demand response, and grid storage

The blackouts in February shined a light on the fragile infrastructure that supports modern life. More and more, every task in life requires electricity, and no one is in charge of making sure Texans have enough.

Of the 4.5 million Texans who lost power last winter, many of them also lost heat and at least 100 froze to death. Wi-Fi stopped working and phones soon lost their charges, making it harder for people to get help, find someplace warm to go or to check in on loved ones.

In some places pipes froze, and people couldn’t get water to drink or flush after power and water failures disrupted systems, and low water pressure left some health care facilities unable to properly care for patients. Many folks looking for gasoline were out of luck; pumps run on electricity.

But rather than scouting for ways to use less electricity, we keep plugging in more things. Automatic faucets and toilets, security systems and locks. Now we want to plug in our cars, so that if the grid goes down, we have to hope our Teslas have enough juice to get to Oklahoma.

The February freeze illuminated two problems with electricity sufficiency. First, power plants had mechanical failures, triggering outages for days. But also, Texans demanded a lot more electricity than usual as heaters kicked on because of the cold. The ugly truth is, the Texas power grid probably couldn’t have generated enough electricity to meet demand, even if the plants kept whirring. And that is what should chill us now.

The stories of the people who died because the electricity went out during the freeze are difficult to read. A paletero and cotton-candy vendor well known in Old East Dallas, Leobardo Torres Sánchez, was found dead in his armchair, bundled in quilts beside two heaters that had no power.

Arnulfo Escalante Lopez, 41, and Jose Anguiano Torres, 28, died from carbon monoxide poisoning after using a gas-powered generator to heat their apartment in Garland.

Pramod Bhattarai, 23, a college student from Nepal, died from carbon monoxide after using a charcoal grill to heat his home in Houston, according to news reports. And Loan Le, 75; Olivia Nguyen, 11; Edison Nguyen, 8; and Colette Nguyen, 5, died in Sugar Land after losing control of a fire they started in the fireplace to keep warm.

A 65-year-old San Antonio man with esophageal cancer died after power outages cut off supply from his oxygen machine. And local Abilene media reported that a man died in a local hospital when a loss of water pressure prevented staff from treating him.

Gloria Jones of Hillsboro, 87, was living by herself, healthy and social. According to the Houston Chronicle, as the cold weather descended, she told her friends and family she was fine. But when her children checked on her after she didn’t answer her phone, they found her on the floor beside her bed. Hospital workers tried to warm her, but they soon pronounced her dead.

Officials said in July that 210 people died because of the freezing weather, including those who died in car crashes and other weather-related causes, but that figure will be updated. The Department of State Health Services said most of those deaths were due to hypothermia.

Policy recommendation: Weatherize power plants and fuel suppliers

Texas could have avoided those deaths if power plants had worked properly. It’s mechanically possible to generate electricity in freezing temperatures; the Swedes and Finns have electricity in winter. But preparing equipment for the winter costs money, and now that the Public Utility Commission set new requirements for plant owners to weatherize equipment, we expect better reliability.

The PUC officials certainly expect better performance. Chairman Peter Lake earlier this month promised: “We go into this winter knowing that because of all these efforts the lights will stay on.”

Yet, there’s no matching requirement to weatherize key fuel supplies for natural gas-fired power plants. While the PUC and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas were busy this year coming up with standards and enforcement processes, the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas production, was not.

The Railroad Commission is working to ensure that natural gas producers who supply power plants have filed the proper paperwork so that they do not lose electricity in a blackout, rendering them unable to provide vital fuel. But weatherization regulations will not happen for some months, not in time for this winter.

Policy recommendation: Combine the state’s Public Utility Commission and Railroad Commission into one energy agency

Electricity and natural gas regulators came to realize the importance of natural gas suppliers communicating their electricity needs with the PUC to avoid getting cut off when the fuel is needed the most. Not last year; they realized this ten years ago, when the same thing happened and triggered a day of rolling outages.

Why did it take a decade for the companies regulated by one agency to get their paperwork in order with a separate agency? It makes more sense for a single agency to regulate the entire energy process, from wellhead to lightbulb. (Or well-to-wheel, as cars increasingly need electricity, too.)

Over the years, various legislative sunset commissions have recommended combining the agencies, with different governance suggestions, none of which passed the Legislature. We urge lawmakers in 2023 to take up the idea in earnest, hammer out the governance details, and make sure the resulting agency has the heft and resources to regulate energy in a way that keeps the industry healthy and holds it accountable.

Policy recommendation: Incentivize building more power plants

Regardless, if energy companies in February had operated their equipment exactly right, the lights likely would have still gone out. Perhaps for a shorter period, perhaps in a more shared way, allowing people to keep homes above freezing and phones charged between rolling blackouts. But Texas was heading for trouble.

Before the winter freeze, ERCOT anticipated Texas would have 74,000 MW of power generation capacity for the winter of 2021. That’s less than the usual summer fleet as some plants go down for maintenance in the winter, but sufficient to meet their wildest predictions of winter electricity demand. The power generation on hand for the winter would have met the historic record winter demand, at 65,918 MW. Even in ERCOT’s planning scenario with extreme generator failures, the grid had enough capacity.

But during the second week of February, as weather forecasts became more dire, grid operators began rapidly hiking their estimates of electricity demand. On Valentine’s Day, ERCOT estimated demand would rise to 75,573 MW in the coming week.

Clearly that is more demand than all of Texas’ winter power generation fleet of 74,000 MW could handle. Demand never reached that level because ERCOT turned off service to millions of customers when power plants failed.

This raises questions about whether the Texas grid has enough power plants to remain resilient as climate change brings more frequent bouts of extreme weather and blackout risks across the U.S. Or if we have enough power to grow, as more people and companies, more homes and businesses and manufacturing plants, move to Texas.

What a shame if the Texas Miracle, our robust and growing economy, died because we ran out of electricity.

This is no exaggeration. In November, ERCOT released its seasonal assessment of whether Texas will have enough electricity resources for the coming winter. If weather is normal, yes, Texas will be in good shape. But if extreme weather again pushes Texas to use an inordinate amount of electricity for heat, and if wind and solar output are low, there won’t be enough. In that scenario, even if power plants mostly continue to operate properly, we should brace for outages.

Further, there are few investors planning to build more power plants in Texas, other than solar and wind. Renewable plants have many good qualities, but reliability isn’t one of them. Some investors are building grid-scale batteries, a technology that promises to add reliability to the grid.

How come power plant developers aren’t building more generators, especially with flat electricity demand in many markets today?

Policy recommendation: Incentivize reliability

The Texas electrical grid, independent of the rest of the U.S., operates as a competitive market. No regulator plans a power plant; investors choose to build plants based on expectations of profit.

How it works is, power generators offer their electricity into the market at the price of their choosing. ERCOT accepts the lowest bids first, working up to higher bids as demand for power increases in the course of a day.

The idea is that Texans always get the lowest possible price, and if prices rise high, investors will build more power plants. Basic supply and demand. When the market was first set up, this worked pretty well, because the big, reliable baseload generators, the coal and nuclear industries, were the cheapest to operate and bid their power at prices that kept them online all the time. The more agile natural gas-fired plants ramped up and down to meet demand minute-by-minute, at higher prices.

Renewable energy disrupts the market in ways that are great, generating cheap, clean power that has forced some high-polluting coal plants to mothball. But the disruption also undermines reliability. Wind and solar plants are the cheapest and quickest power generation to build and they have the lowest operating cost, allowing them to bid very low prices into the power market. Wind tends to blow hardest in West Texas at night, so the abundance of wind turbines has pushed many of those old baseload plants out of the market.

That’s how markets work, and we’re not crying for coal plant operators. But ERCOT has to figure out how to operate the market differently to keep the lights on.

The PUC announced a slew of electricity market reforms last week to address this very problem, including new to market pricing and an emergency reliability service for ERCOT to contract for more back-up power. These changes cost money, but failing to make any changes could cost more lives.

Texas became the No. 1 wind state thanks in part to a smart renewable energy credit system that created financial incentives to erect wind turbines. But those credits mean that sometimes at night, wind generators bid electricity into the market at negative prices, because they will make money off of the renewable energy credits.

It’s time for the Legislature to review the credit program to determine if it’s still needed, of a similar program could be added to incentivize reliability. The market-based program worked better than anyone could have expected to produce clean energy. Why not use this approach to create what we need now: clean and reliable energy?

We were pleased that PUC commissioners discussed last week an idea that would create a market for reliable power generation capacity by adding requirements that power market participants meet a standard of reliability guarantees.

A market for reliable electricity capacity will cost more, and we hope regulators keep the requirements as modest as possible. Renewable requirements were modest, but turned out to be powerful in a competitive market.

We expect a reliability program to be flexible enough that entrepreneurs can participate with new technology, such as batteries or geothermal energy or something that hasn’t been invented yet, rather than just old reliable fossil fuels.

We also welcome the PUC’s review of pricing rules for the market. Commissioners intend for a new pricing formula to offer early price signals of pending scarcity, to allow time for industrial customers to reduce consumption or suppliers to ramp up. This is intriguing, but we hope the final implementation keeps market interventions at a minimum.

We witnessed in February a scenario in which extremely high prices on the power market did nothing to attract more electricity into the market. Power plants broke down; there was no way to generate more power, no matter how high market prices went. So the PUC was silly to intervene in the market and keep prices artificially high; the outcome was billions of dollars of debt and a proposed electricity market bailout that electricity customers will end up paying.

Nor did this PUC pricing intervention prompt power generation developers to say: “I tell you what, let’s build more plants in Texas.” In the next few years, ERCOT can expect more solar power generation to come online, but little else.

Natural gas plant operators have told the PUC that market price signals show that a new plant wouldn’t be profitable. Natural gas plants are cheaper and faster to build than nuclear reactors; if those developers cannot figure out how to make money, then the prospect of a new nuclear reactor in Texas is a fantasy, even setting aside the environmental and political opposition.

Policy proposal: Use less energy

Politicians like to imagine that technology will solve our energy problem. But the quickest, cheapest, cleanest solution to all of our energy problems is to use less. Investing some federal infrastructure money to make homes more energy efficient would cut energy use, and could help homes retain heat in an emergency.

The PUC’s plan to offer more incentives for major power users to reduce demand in a grid emergency is a good idea. Bravo – next let’s take this benefit to the masses.

Upgrading building codes to require efficiency for office buildings and apartments can help, and might have prevented the frozen pipes in so many multifamily housing units that left people without water.

When North Texas power-line utility Oncor invested in smart grid technology in past decades, part of the promise was to help users reduce demand when electricity prices rise or in emergencies. A review and upgrade of the smart technology could allow more customers to benefit from discounts in exchange for turning things off when electricity supply is tight.

Problem is, we seem to be going in the opposite direction as consumers. Forget turning off the TV and unplugging the coffee machine as we leave the house each morning; now everything is always-on and always connected to Wi-Fi. Our appliances, electronics and the services that operate them can text us when anything interesting happens, like the laundry finishes or somebody opens the patio door or the first season of Murder She Wrote is available for streaming.

As Texans plug in electric vehicles, we will need even more power generation capacity. Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin estimated that if every Texan switched to an electric vehicle, demand for electricity would rise about 30%.

Texans will need to think realistically and rationally about where that electricity is going to come from. Before we march toward a utopian vision of an all-electric world, we need to make sure we have enough electricity.

Getting this right is a matter of life and death for each of one us and for Texas.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Agrivoltaics in Alberta integrates solar energy with agriculture, boosting crop yields and water conservation. The Strathmore Solar project showcases dual land use, sheep grazing for vegetation control, and PPAs that expand renewable energy capacity.

Key Points

A dual-use model where solar arrays and farming co-exist, boosting yields, saving water, and diversifying revenue.

✅ Strathmore Solar: 41 MW on 320 acres with managed sheep grazing

✅ 25-year TELUS PPA secures power and renewable energy credits

✅ Panel shade cuts irrigation needs and protects crops from extremes

Alberta is emerging as a leader in agrivoltaics—the innovative practice of integrating solar energy production with agricultural activities, aligning with the province's red-hot solar growth in recent years. This approach not only generates renewable energy but also enhances crop yields, conserves water, and supports sustainable farming practices. A notable example of this synergy is the Strathmore Solar project, a 41-megawatt solar farm located on 320 acres of leased industrial land owned by the Town of Strathmore. Operational since March 2022, it exemplifies how solar energy and agriculture can coexist and thrive together.

The Strathmore Solar Initiative

Strathmore Solar is a collaborative venture between Capital Power and the Town of Strathmore, with a 25-year power purchase agreement in place with TELUS Corporation for all the energy and renewable energy credits generated by the facility. The project not only contributes significantly to Alberta's renewable energy capacity, as seen with new solar facilities contracted at lower cost across the province, but also serves as a model for agrivoltaic integration. In a unique partnership, 400 to 600 sheep from Whispering Cedars Ranch are brought in to graze the land beneath the solar panels. This arrangement helps manage vegetation, reduce fire hazards, and maintain the facility's upkeep, all while providing shade for the grazing animals. This mutually beneficial setup maximizes land use efficiency and supports local farming operations, illustrating how renewable power developers can strengthen outcomes with integrated designs today. 

Benefits of Agrivoltaics in Alberta

The integration of solar panels with agricultural practices offers several advantages for a province that is a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels already across sectors:

• Enhanced Crop Yields: Studies have shown that crops grown under solar panels can experience increased yields due to reduced water evaporation and protection from extreme weather conditions.
  
  

• Water Conservation: The shade provided by solar panels helps retain soil moisture, leading to a decrease in irrigation needs.
  
  

• Diversified Income Streams: Farmers can generate additional revenue by selling renewable energy produced by the solar panels back to the grid.
  
  

• Sustainable Land Use: Agrivoltaics allows for dual land use, enabling the production of both food and energy without the need for additional land.
  
  

These benefits are evident in various agrivoltaic projects across Alberta, where farmers are successfully combining crop cultivation with solar energy production amid a renewable energy surge that is creating thousands of jobs.

Challenges and Considerations

While agrivoltaics presents numerous benefits, there are challenges to consider as Alberta navigates challenges with solar expansion today across Alberta:

• Initial Investment: The setup costs for agrivoltaic systems can be high, requiring significant capital investment.
  
  

• System Maintenance: Regular maintenance is essential to ensure the efficiency of both the solar panels and the agricultural operations.
  
  

• Climate Adaptability: Not all crops may thrive under the conditions created by solar panels, necessitating careful selection of suitable crops.

Addressing these challenges requires careful planning, research, and collaboration between farmers, researchers, and energy providers.

Future Prospects

The success of projects like Strathmore Solar and other agrivoltaic initiatives in Alberta indicates a promising future for this dual-use approach. As technology advances and research continues, agrivoltaics could play a pivotal role in enhancing food security, promoting sustainable farming practices, and contributing to Alberta's renewable energy goals. Ongoing projects and partnerships aim to refine agrivoltaic systems, making them more efficient and accessible to farmers across the province.

The integration of solar energy production with agriculture in Alberta is not just a trend but a transformative approach to sustainable farming. The Strathmore Solar project serves as a testament to the potential of agrivoltaics, demonstrating how innovation can lead to mutually beneficial outcomes for both the agricultural and energy sectors.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

TVA Rates and Renewable Energy Scrutiny spotlights electricity rates, distributed energy resources, solar and wind deployment, natural gas plans, grid access charges, energy efficiency cuts, and House oversight of lobbying, FERC inquiries, and least-cost planning.

Key Points

A congressional probe into TVA pricing and practices affecting renewables, energy efficiency, and climate goals.

✅ House panel probes TVA rates, DER and solar policies.

✅ Efficiency programs cut; least-cost planning questioned.

✅ Inquiry on lobbying, hidden fees; FERC scrutiny.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is facing federal scrutiny about its electricity rates and climate action, amid ongoing debates over network profits in other markets.

Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce are “requesting information” from TVA about its ratepayer bills and “out of concern” that TVA is interfering with the deployment of renewable and distributed energy resources, even as companies such as Tesla explore electricity retail to expand customer options.

“The Committee is concerned that TVA’s business practices are inconsistent with these statutory requirements to the disadvantage of TVA’s ratepayers and the environment,” the committee said in a letter to TVA CEO Jeffrey Lyash.

The four committee members — U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Bobby L. Rush (D-IL), Diana DeGette (D-CO), and Paul Tonko (D-NY) — suggested that Tennessee Valley residents pay too much for electricity despite TVA’s relatively low rates, even as regulators have, in other cases, scrutinized mergers like the Hydro One-Avista deal to safeguard ratepayers, underscoring similar concerns. In 2020, Tennessee residents had electric bills higher than the national average, while low-income residents in Memphis have historically faced one of the highest energy burdens in the U.S.

In 2018, TVA reduced its wholesale rate while adding a grid access charge on local power companies—and interfered with the adoption of solar energy. Internal TVA documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Energy and Policy Institute revealed that TVA permitted local power companies to impose new fees on distributed solar generation to “lessen the potential decrease in TVA load that may occur through the adoption of [behind the meter] generation.”

Additionally, the committee said TVA is not prioritizing energy conservation and efficiency or “least-cost planning” that includes renewables, as seen in oversight such as the OEB's Hydro One rates decision emphasizing cost allocation. TVA reduced its energy efficiency programs by nearly two-thirds between 2014 and 2018 and cut its energy efficiency customer incentive programs.

At this time, TVA has not aligned its long-term planning with the Biden administration’s goal to achieve a carbon-free electricity sector by 2035. TVA’s generation mix, which is roughly 60% carbon-free, comprises 39% nuclear, 19% coal, 26% natural gas, 11% hydro, 3% wind and solar, and 1% energy efficiency programs, according to TVA.

The committee is “greatly concerned that TVA has invested comparatively little to date in deploying solar and wind energy, while at the same time considering investments in new natural gas generation.”

TVA has announced plans to shutter the Kingston and Cumberland coal plants and is evaluating whether to replace this generation with natural gas, which is a fossil fuel, while debates over grid privatization raise questions about consumer benefits. TVA’s coal and natural gas plants represent most of the largest sources of greenhouses emissions in Tennessee.

TVA responded with a statement without directly addressing the committee’s concerns. TVA said its “developing and implementing emerging technologies to drive toward net-zero emissions by 2050.”

The final question that the House committee posed is whether TVA is funding any political activity. In 2019, the committee questioned TVA about its membership to the now-disbanded Utility Air Regulatory Group, a coalition that was involved in over 200 lawsuits that primarily fought Clear Air Act regulations.

TVA revealed that it had contributed $7.3 million to the industry lobbying group since 2001. Since TVA doesn’t have shareholders, customers paid for UARG membership fees, echoing findings that deferred utility costs burden customers in other jurisdictions. An Office of the Inspector General investigation couldn’t prove whether TVA’s contributions directly funded litigation because UARG didn’t have a line-by-line accounting of what they did with TVA’s dollars.

The congressional committee questioned whether TVA is still paying for lobbying or litigation that opposes “public health and welfare regulations.”

This last question follows a recent trend of questioning utilities about “hidden fees.” In December, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry to examine how bills from investor-owned utilities might contain fees that fund political activity, and regulators have penalized firms like NT Power over customer notice practices, highlighting consumer protection. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition to protect electric and gas customers of investor-owned utilities from paying these fees, which may be used for lobbying, campaign-related donations and litigation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

COVID-19 Electricity Demand Shift flattens New York's load curve, lowers peak demand, and reduces wholesale prices as NYISO operators balance the grid amid stay-at-home orders, rising residential usage, cheap natural gas, and constrained renewables.

Key Points

An industry-wide change in load patterns: flatter peaks, lower prices, and altered grid operations during lockdowns.

✅ NYISO operators sequestered to maintain reliable grid control

✅ Morning and evening peaks flatten; residential use rises mid-day

✅ Wholesale prices drop amid cheap natural gas and reduced demand

At his post 150 miles up the Hudson, Jon Sawyer watches as a stay-at-home New York City stirs itself with each new dawn in this era of covid-19.

He’s a manager in the system that dispatches electricity throughout New York state, keeping homes lit and hospitals functioning, work that is so essential that he, along with 36 colleagues, has been sequestered away from home and family for going on four weeks now, to avoid the disease, a step also considered for Ontario power staff during COVID-19 measures.

The hour between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. once saw the city bounding to life. A sharp spike would erupt on the system’s computer screens. Not now. The disease is changing the rhythms of the city, and, as this U.S. grid explainer notes, you can see it in the flows of electricity.

Kids are not going to school, restaurants are not making breakfast for commuters, offices are not turning on the lights, and thousands if not millions of people are staying in bed later, putting off the morning cup of coffee and a warm shower.

Electricity demand in a city that has been shut down is running 18 percent lower at this weekday morning hour than on a typical spring morning, according to the New York Independent System Operator, Sawyer’s employer. As the sun rises in the sky, usage picks up, but it’s a slower, flatter curve.

Though the picture is starkest in New York, it’s happening across the country. Daytime electricity demand is falling, even accounting for the mild spring weather, and early-morning spikes are deflating, with similar patterns in Ontario electricity demand as people stay home. The wholesale price of electricity is falling, too, driven by both reduced demand and the historically low cost of natural gas.

Sign up for our Coronavirus Updates newsletter to track the outbreak. All stories linked in the newsletter are free to access.

As covid-19 hits, coal companies aim to cut the tax they pay to support black-lung miners

Falling demand will hit the companies that run the “merchant generators” hardest. These are the privately owned power plants that sell electricity to the utilities and account for about 57 percent of electricity generation nationwide.

Closed businesses have resulted in falling demand. Residential usage is up — about 15 percent among customers of Con Edison, which serves New York City and Westchester County — as workers and schoolchildren stay home, while in Canada Hydro One peak rates remain unchanged for self-isolating customers, but it’s spread out through the day. Home use does not compensate for locked-up restaurants, offices and factories. Or for the subway system, which on a pre-covid-19 day used as much electricity as Buffalo.

Hospitals are a different story: They consume twice as much energy per square foot as hotels, and lead schools and office buildings by an even greater margin. And their work couldn’t be more vital as they confront the novel coronavirus.

Knowing that, Sawyer said, puts the ordinary routines of his job, which rely on utility disaster planning, the things about it he usually takes for granted, into perspective.

“Keeping the lights on: It comes to the forefront a little more when you understand, ‘I’m going to be sequestered on site to do this job, it’s so critical,’” he said, speaking by phone from his office in East Greenbush, N.Y., where he has been living in a trailer, away from his family, since March 23.

As coronavirus hospitalizations in New York began to peak in April, emergency medicine physician Howard Greller recorded his reflections. (Whitney Leaming/The Washington Post)
Sawyer, 53, is a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, so he has experience when it comes to being isolated from friends and family for long periods. Many of his colleagues in isolation, who all volunteered for the duty, also are military veterans, and they’re familiar with the drill. Life in East Greenbush has advantages over a submarine — you can go outside and throw a football or Frisbee or walk or run the trail on the company campus reserved for the operators, and every day you can use FaceTime or Skype to talk with your family.

His wife understood, he said, though “of course it’s a sacrifice.” But she grasped the obligation he felt to be there with his colleagues and keep the power on.

“It’s a new world, it’s definitely an adjustment,” said Rich Dewey, the system’s CEO, noting that America’s electricity is safe for now. “But we’re not letting a little virus slow us down.”

There are 31 operators, two managers and four cooks and cleaners all divided between East Greenbush, which handles daytime traffic, and another installation just west of Albany in Guilderland, which works at night. The operators work 12-hour shifts every other day.

Computers recalibrate generation, statewide, to equal demand, digesting tens of thousands of data points, every six seconds. Other computers forecast the needs looking ahead 2½ hours. The operators monitor the computers and handle the “contingencies” that inevitably arise.

They dispatch the electricity along transmission lines ranging from 115,000 volts to 765,000 volts, much of it going from plants and dams in western and northern New York downstate toward the city and Long Island.

They always focus on: “What is the next worse thing that can happen, and how can we respond to that?” Sawyer said.

It’s the same shift and the same work they’ve always done, and that gives this moment an oddly normal feeling, he said. “There’s a routine to it that some of the people working at home now don’t have.”

Medical workers check in with them daily to monitor their physical health and mental condition. So far, there have been no dropouts.

Cheap oil doesn’t mean much when no one’s going anywhere

Statewide, the daily demand for electricity has fallen nearly 9 percent.

The distribution system in New England is looking at a 3 to 5 percent decline; the Mid-Atlantic states at 5 to 7 percent; Washington state at 10 percent; and California by nearly as much. In Texas, demand is down 2 percent, “but even there you’re still seeing drops in the early-morning hours,” said Travis Whalen, a utility analyst with S&P Global Platts.

In the huge operating system that embraces much of the middle of the country, usage has fallen more than 8 percent — and the slow morning surge doesn’t peak until noon.

In New York, there used to be a smaller evening spike, too (though starting from a higher load level than the one in the morning). But that’s almost impossible to see anymore because everyone isn’t coming home and turning on the lights and TV and maybe throwing a load in the laundry all at once. No one goes out, either, and the lights aren’t so bright on Broadway.

California, in contrast, had a bigger spike in the evening than in the morning before covid-19 hit; maybe some of that had to do with the large number of early risers spreading out the morning demand and highlighting electricity inequality that shapes access. Both spikes have flattened but are still detectable, and the evening rise is still the larger.

Only at midnight, in New York and elsewhere, does the load resemble what it used to look like.

The wholesale price of electricity has fallen about 40 percent in the past month, according to a study by S&P Global Platts. In California it’s down about 30 percent. In a section covered by the Southwest Power Pool, the price is down 40 percent from a year ago, and in Indiana, electricity sold to utilities is cheaper than it has been in six years.

Some of the merchant generators “are going to be facing some rather large losses,” said Manan Ahuja, also an analyst with S&P Global Platts. With gas so cheap, coal has built up until stockpiles average a 90-day supply, which is unusually large. Ahuja said he believes renewable generators of electricity will be especially vulnerable because as demand slackens it’s easier for operators to fine-tune the output from traditional power plants.

Bravado, dread and denial as oil-price collapse hits the American fracking heartland

As Dewey put it, speaking of solar and wind generators, “You can dispatch them down but you can’t dispatch them up. You can’t make the wind blow or the sun shine.”

Jason Tundermann, a vice president at Level 10 Energy, which promotes renewables, argued that before the morning and evening spikes flattened they were particularly profitable for fossil fuel plants. He suggested electricity demand will certainly pick up again. But an issue for renewable projects under development is that supply chain disruptions could cause them to miss tax credit deadlines.

With demand “on pause,” as Sawyer put it, and consumption more evenly spread through the day, the control room operators in East Greenbush have a somewhat different set of challenges. The main one, he said, is to be sure not to let those high-voltage transmission lines overload. Nuclear power shows up as a steady constant on the real-time dashboard; hydropower is much more up and down, depending on the capacity of transmission lines from the far northern and western parts of the state.

Some human habits are more reliably fixed. The wastewater that moves through New York City’s sewers — at a considerably slower pace than the electricity in the nearby wires — hasn’t shown any change in rhythm since the coronavirus struck, according to Edward Timbers, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Environmental Protection. People may be sleeping a little later, but the “big flush” still arrives at the wastewater treatment plants, about three hours or so downstream from the typical home or apartment, every day in the late morning, just as it always has.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News