GO to study electrifying its rail lines

Ontario Comprehensive Electricity Plan delivers Global Adjustment reductions for industrial and commercial non-RPP customers, lowering electricity rates, shifting renewable energy costs, and enhancing competitiveness across Ontario businesses in 2022, with additional 4 percent savings.

Key Points

Ontario's plan lowers Global Adjustment by shifting renewable costs, cutting industrial and commercial bills 15-17%.

✅ Shifts above-market non-hydro renewable costs to the Province

✅ Reduces GA for industrial and commercial non-RPP customers

✅ Additional 4% savings on 2022 bills after GA deferral

As of January 1, 2022, industrial and commercial electricity customers will benefit from the full savings introduced through the Ontario government’s Comprehensive Electricity Plan, which supports stable electricity pricing for industrial and commercial companies, announced in Budget 2020, and first implemented in January 2021. This year customers could see an additional four percent savings compared to their bills last year, bringing the full savings from the Comprehensive Electricity Plan to between 15 and 17 per cent, making Ontario a more competitive place to do business.

“Our Comprehensive Electricity Plan has helped reverse the trend of skyrocketing electricity prices that drove jobs out of Ontario,” said Todd Smith, Minister of Energy. “Over 50,000 customers are benefiting from our government’s plan which has reduced electricity rates on clean and reliable power, allowing them to focus on reinvesting in their operations and creating jobs here at home.”

Starting on January 1, 2021, the Comprehensive Electricity Plan reduced overall Global Adjustment (GA) costs for industrial and commercial customers who do not participate in the Regulated Price Plan (RPP) by shifting the forecast above-market costs of non-hydro renewable energy, such as wind, solar and bioenergy, from the rate base to the Province, alongside energy-efficiency programs that complement demand reduction efforts.

“Since taking office, our government has listened to job creators and worked to lower the costs of doing business in the province. Through these significant reductions in electricity prices through the Comprehensive Electricity Plan, customers all across Ontario will benefit from significant savings in their business operations in 2022,” said Vic Fedeli, Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. “By continuing to reduce electricity costs, lowering taxes, and cutting red tape our government has reduced the cost of doing business in Ontario by nearly $7 billion annually to ensure that we remain competitive, innovative and poised for economic recovery.”

As part of its COVID response, including electricity relief for families and small businesses, Ontario had deferred a portion of GA between April and June 2020 for industrial and non-RPP commercial customers, with more than 50,000 customers benefiting. Those same businesses paid back these deferred GA costs over 12 months, between January 2021 and December 2021, while the province prepared to extend disconnect moratoriums for residential customers.

During the pandemic, residential electricity use rose even as overall consumption dropped, underscoring shifts in load patterns.

Now that the GA deferral repayment period is over, industrial and non-RPP commercial customers will benefit from the full cost reductions provided to them by the Comprehensive Electricity Plan, alongside temporary off-peak rate relief that supported families and small businesses. This means that, beginning January 1, 2022, these businesses could see an additional four per cent savings on their bills compared to 2021, as new ultra-low overnight pricing options emerge depending on their location and consumption.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

US Grid Pandemic Response coordinates control rooms, grid operators, and critical infrastructure, leveraging hydroelectric plants, backup control centers, mutual assistance networks, and deep cleaning protocols to maintain reliability amid reduced demand and COVID-19 risks.

Key Points

US Grid Pandemic Response encompasses measures by utilities and operators to safeguard power reliability during COVID-19

✅ Control rooms staffed on-site; operators split across backup centers

✅ Health screenings, deep cleaning, and isolation protocols mitigate contagion

✅ Reduced demand and mutual assistance improve grid resilience

Control rooms are the brains of NYPA’s power plants, which are mostly hydroelectric and supply about a quarter of all the electricity in New York state. They’re also a bit like human petri dishes. The control rooms are small, covered with frequently touched switches and surfaces, and occupied for hours on end by a half-dozen employees. Since social distancing and telecommuting isn’t an option in this context, NYPA has instituted regular health screenings and deep cleanings to keep the coronavirus out.

The problem is that each power plant relies on only a handful of control room operators. Since they have a specialized skill set, they can’t be easily replaced if they get sick. “They are very, very critical,” says Gil Quiniones, NYPA president and CEO. If the pandemic worsens, Quiniones says that NYPA may require control room operators to live on-site at power plants to reduce the chance of the virus making it in from the outside world. It sounds drastic, but Quiniones says NYPA has done it before during emergencies—once during the massive 2003 blackout, and again during Hurricane Sandy.

Meanwhile, PJM is one of North America’s nine regional grid operators and manages the transmission lines that move electricity from power plants to millions of customers in 13 states on the Eastern seaboard, including Washington, DC. PJM has had a pandemic response plan on the books for 15 years, but Mike Bryson, senior vice president of operations, says that this is the first time it’s gone into full effect. As of last week, about 80 percent of PJM’s 750 full-time employees have been working from home. But PJM also requires a skeleton crew of essential workers to be on-site at all times in its control centers. As part of its emergency planning, PJM built a backup control center years ago, and now it is splitting control center operators between the two to limit contact.

Past experience with large-scale disasters has helped the energy sector keep the lights on and ventilators running during the pandemic. Energy is one of 16 sectors that the US government has designated as “critical infrastructure,” which also includes the communications industry, transportation sector, and food and water systems. Each is seen as vital to the country and therefore has a duty to maintain operations during national emergencies.

“We need to be treated as first responders,” says Scott Aaronson, the vice president of security and preparedness at the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group representing private utilities. “Everybody's goal right now is to keep the public healthy, and to keep society functioning as best we can. A lack of electricity will certainly create a challenge for those goals.”

America’s electricity grid is a patchwork of regional grid operators connecting private and state-owned utilities. This means simply figuring out who’s in charge and coordinating among the various organizations is one of the biggest challenges to keeping the electricity flowing during a national emergency, according to Aaronson.

Generally, a lot of this responsibility falls on formal energy organizations like the nonprofit North American Electric Reliability Corporation and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. But during the coronavirus outbreak, an obscure organization run by the CEOs of electric utilities called the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council has also served as a primary liaison between the federal government and the thousands of utility companies around the US. Aaronson says the organization has been meeting twice a week for the past three weeks to ensure that utilities are implementing best practices in their response to the coronavirus, as well as to inform the government of material needs to keep the energy sector running smoothly.

This tight-knit coordination will be especially important if the pandemic gets worse, as many forecasts suggest it will. Most utilities belong to at least one mutual assistance group, an informal network of electricity suppliers that help each other out during a catastrophe. These mutual assistance networks are usually called upon following major storms that threaten prolonged outages. But they could, in principle, be used to help during the coronavirus pandemic too. For example, if a utility finds itself without enough operators to manage a power plant, it could conceivably borrow trained operators from another company to make sure the power plant stays online.

So far, utilities and grid operators have managed to make it work on their own. There have been a handful of coronavirus cases reported at power plants, but they haven’t yet affected these plants’ ability to deliver energy. The challenges of running a power plant with a skeleton crew is partially offset by the reduced power demand as businesses shut down and more people work from home, says Robert Hebner, the director of the Center for Electromechanics at the University of Texas. “The reduced demand for power gives utilities a little breathing room,” says Hebner.

A recent study by the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute found that electricity demand in Italy has plunged by 18 percent following the severe increase in coronavirus cases in the country. Energy demand in China also plummeted as a result of the pandemic. Bryson, at PJM, says the grid operator has seen about a 6 percent decrease in electricity demand in recent weeks, but expects an even greater drop if the pandemic gets worse.

Generally speaking, problems delivering electricity in the US occur when the grid is overloaded or physically damaged, such as during California wildfires or a hurricane.

An open question among coronavirus researchers is whether there will be a second wave of the pandemic later this year. During the Spanish flu pandemic in the early 20th century, the second wave turned out to be deadlier than the first. If the coronavirus remerges later this year, it could be a serious threat to reliable electricity in the US, says John MacWilliams, a former associate deputy secretary of the Department of Energy and a senior fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

“If this crisis extends into the fall, we're going to hit hurricane season along the coasts,” MacWilliams says. “Utilities are doing a very good job right now, but if we get unlucky and have an active hurricane season, they're going to get very stressed because the number of workers that are available to repair damage and restore power will become more limited.”

This was a sentiment echoed by Bryson at PJM. “Any one disaster is manageable, but when you start layering them on top of each other, it gets much more challenging,” he adds. The US electricity grid struggles to handle major storms as it is, and these challenges will be heightened if too many workers are home sick. In this sense, the energy sector’s ability to deliver the electricity needed to keep manufacturing medical supplies or keep ventilators running depends to a large extent on our ability to flatten the curve today. The coronavirus is bad enough without having to worry about the lights going out.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Affordable Clean Energy Rule Lawsuit pits EPA and coal industry allies against health groups over Clean Power Plan repeal, greenhouse gas emissions standards, climate change, public health, and state authority before the D.C. Circuit.

Key Points

A legal fight over EPA's ACE rule and CPP repeal, weighing emissions policy, state authority, climate, and public health.

✅ Challenges repeal of Clean Power Plan and adoption of ACE.

✅ EPA backed by coal, utilities; health groups seek stricter limits.

✅ D.C. Circuit to review emissions authority and state roles.

The largest trade association representing coal interests in the country has joined other business and electric utility groups in siding with the EPA in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Power Plan.

The suit -- filed by the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association -- seeks to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop a new rule-making process that critics claim would allow higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, further contributing to the climate crisis and negatively impacting public health.

The new rule, which the Trump administration calls the "Affordable Clean Energy rule" (ACE), "would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which EPA has proposed to repeal because it exceeded EPA's authority. The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never gone into effect," according to an EPA statement.

EPA has also moved to rewrite wastewater limits for coal power plants, signaling a broader rollback of related environmental requirements.

America's Power -- formerly the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association have filed motions seeking to join the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has not yet responded to the motion.

Separately, energy groups warned that President Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were rushing major changes to electricity pricing that could disrupt markets.

"In this rule, the EPA has accomplished what eluded the prior administration: providing a clear, legal pathway to reduce emissions while preserving states' authority over their own grids," Hal Quinn, president and chief executive officer of the mining association, said when the new rule was released last month. "ACE replaces a proposal that was so extreme that the Supreme Court issued an unprecedented stay of the proposal, having recognized the economic havoc the mere suggestion of such overreach was causing in the nation's power grid."

Around the same time, a coal industry CEO blasted a federal agency's decision on the power grid as harmful to reliability.

The trade and business groups have argued that the Clean Power Plan, set by the Obama administration, was an overreach of federal power. Finalized in 2015, the plan was President Obama's signature policy on climate change, rooted in compliance with the Paris Climate Treaty. It would have set state limits on emissions from existing power plants but gave wide latitude for meeting goals, such as allowing plant operators to switch from coal to other electric generating sources to meet targets.

Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued that the rule exceeded federal statutory limits by imposing "outside the fence" regulations on coal-fired plants instead of regulating "inside the fence" operations that can improve efficiency.

The Clean Power Plan set a goal of reducing carbon emissions from power generators by 32 percent by the year 2030. An analysis from the Rhodium Group found that had states taken full advantage of the CPP's flexibility, emissions would have been reduced by as much as 72 million metric tons per year on average. Still, even absent federal mandates, the group noted that states are taking it upon themselves to enact emission-reducing plans based on market forces.

In its motion, America's Power argues the EPA "acknowledged that the [Best System of Emission Reduction] for a source category must be 'limited to measures that can be implemented ... by the sources themselves.'" If plants couldn't take action, compliance with the new rule would require the owners or operators to buy emission rate credits that would increase investment in electricity from gas-fired or renewable sources. The increase in operating costs plus federal efforts to shift power generation to other sources of energy, thereby increasing costs, would eventually force the coal-fired plants out of business.

In related proceedings, renewable energy advocates told FERC that a DOE proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants was unsupported by the record, highlighting concerns about market distortions.

"While we are confident that EPA will prevail in the courts, we also want to help EPA defend the new rule against others who prefer extreme regulation," said Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America's Power.

"Extreme regulation" to one group is environmental and health protections to another, though.

Howard A. Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest, defended the Clean Power Plan in an opinion piece published in June.

"The Midwest still produces more electricity from coal plants than any other region of the country, and Midwesterners bear the full range of pollution harms to public health, the Great Lakes, and overall environmental quality," Learner wrote. "The new [Affordable Clean Energy] Rule is a misguided policy, moves our nation backward in solving climate change problems, and misses opportunities for economic growth and innovation in the global shift to renewable energy. If not reversed by the courts, as it should be, the next administration will have the challenge of doing the right thing for public health, the climate and our clean energy future."

When it initially filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule, the American Lung Association accused the EPA of "abdicat[ing] its legal duties and obligations to protect public health." It also referred to the new rule as "dangerous."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Minnesota Electric Cooperatives are driving grid innovation with smart meters, time-of-use pricing, demand response, and energy storage, including iron-air batteries, to manage peak loads, integrate wind and solar, and cut costs for rural members.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities piloting load management, meters, and storage to integrate wind and solar, cutting peak demand.

✅ Time-of-use pricing pilots lower bills and shift peak load.

✅ Iron-air battery tests add multi-day, low-cost energy storage.

✅ Smart meters enable demand response across rural co-ops.

Minnesota electric cooperatives have quietly emerged as laboratories for clean grid innovation, outpacing investor-owned utilities on smart meter installations, time-based pricing pilots, and experimental battery storage solutions.

“Co-ops have innovation in their DNA,” said David Ranallo, a spokesperson for Great River Energy, a generation and distribution cooperative that supplies power to 28 member utilities — making it one of the state’s largest co-op players.

Minnesota farmers helped pioneer the electric co-op model more than a century ago, similar to modern community-generated green electricity initiatives, pooling resources to build power lines, transformers and other equipment to deliver power to rural parts of the state. Today, 44 member-owned electric co-ops serve about 1.7 million rural and suburban customers and supply almost a quarter of the state’s electricity.

Co-op utilities have by many measures lagged on clean energy. Many still rely on electricity from coal-fired power plants. They’ve used political clout with rural lawmakers to oppose new pollution regulations and climate legislation, and some have tried to levy steep fees on customers who install solar panels.

Where they are emerging as innovators is with new models and technology for managing electric grid loads — from load-shifting water heaters to a giant experimental battery made of iron. The programs are saving customers money by delaying the need for expensive new infrastructure, and also showing ways to unlock more value from cheap but variable wind and solar power.

Unlike investor-owned utilities, “we have no incentive to invest in new generation,” said Darrick Moe, executive director of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association. Curbing peak energy demand has a direct financial benefit for members.

Minnesota electric cooperatives have launched dozens of programs, such as the South Metro solar project, in recent years aimed at reducing energy use and peak loads, in particular. They include:

Cost calculations are the primary driver for electric cooperatives’ recent experimentation, and a lighter regulatory structure and evolving electricity market reforms have allowed them to act more quickly than for-profit utilities.

“Co-ops and [municipal utilities] can act a lot more nimbly compared to investor-owned utilities … which have to go through years of proceedings and discussions about cost-recovery,” said Gabe Chan, a University of Minnesota associate professor who has researched electric co-ops extensively. Often, approval from a local board is all that’s required to launch a venture.

Great River Energy’s programs, which are rebranded and sold through member co-ops, yielded more than 101 million kilowatt-hours of savings last year — enough to power 9,500 homes for a year.

Beyond lowering costs for participants and customers at large, the energy-saving and behavior-changing programs sometimes end up being cited as case studies by larger utilities considering similar offerings. Advocates supporting a proposal by the city of Minneapolis and CenterPoint Energy to allow residents to pay for energy efficiency improvements on their utility bills through distributed energy rebates used several examples from cooperatives.

Despite the pace of innovation on load management, electric cooperatives have been relatively slow to transition from coal-fired power. More than half of Great River Energy’s electricity came from coal last year, and Dairyland Power, another major power wholesaler for Minnesota co-ops, generated 70% of its energy from coal. Meanwhile, Xcel Energy, the state’s largest investor-owned utility, has already reduced coal to about 20% of its energy mix.

The transition to cleaner power for some co-ops has been slowed by long-term contracts with power suppliers that have locked them into dirty power. Others have also been stalled by management or boards that have been resistant to change. John Farrell, director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s Energy Democracy program, said generalizing co-ops is difficult. 

“We’ve seen some co-ops that have got 75-year contracts for coal, that are invested in coal mines and using their newsletter to deny climate change,” he said. “Then you see a lot of them doing really amazing things like creating energy storage systems … and load balancing [programs], because they are unique and locally managed and can have that freedom to experiment without having to go through a regulatory process.”

Great River Energy, for its part, says it intends to reach 54% renewable generation by 2025, while some communities, like Frisco, Colorado, are targeting 100% clean electricity by specific dates. Its members recently voted to sell North Dakota’s largest coal plant, but the arrangement involves members continuing to buy power from the new owners for another decade.

The cooperative’s path to clean power could become clearer if its experimental iron-air battery project is successful. The project, the first of its kind in the country, is expected to be completed by 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

CPUC Decision on San Diego Community Power directs SDG&E to use updated forecasts, stabilizing electricity rates for CCA customers and supporting clean energy in San Diego with accurate rate forecasting and reduced volatility.

Key Points

A CPUC ruling directing SDG&E to use updated forecasts to ensure accurate, stable CCA rates and limit volatility.

✅ Uses 2021 sales forecasts for rate setting

✅ Aims to prevent undercollection and bill spikes

✅ Levels changes across customer classes

The California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday sided with the soon-to-launch San Diego community energy program in a dispute it had with San Diego Gas & Electric.

San Diego Community Power — which will begin to purchase power for customers in San Diego, Chula Vista, La Mesa, Encinitas and Imperial Beach later this year — had complained to the commission that data SDG&E intended to use to calculate rates, including community choice exit fees that could make the new energy program less attractive to prospective customers.

SDG&E argued it was using numbers it was authorized to employ as part of a general rate case amid a potential rate structure revamp that is still being considered by the commission.

But in a 4-0 vote, the commission, or CPUC, sided with San Diego Community Power and directed SDG&E to use an updated forecast for energy sales.

"This was not an easy decision," said CPUC president Marybel Batjer at the meeting, held remotely due to COVID-19 restrictions. "In my mind, this outcome best accounts for the shifting realities ... in the San Diego area while minimizing the impact on ratepayers during these difficult financial times."

In filings to the commission, SDG&E predicted a rate decrease of 12.35 percent in the coming year. While that appears to be good news for customers, Californians still face soaring electricity prices statewide, Commissioner Martha Guzman Aceves said the data set SDG&E wanted to use would lead to an undercollection of $150 million to $260 million.

That would result in rates that would be "artificially low," Guzman Aceves said, and rates "would inevitably go up quite a bit after the undercollection was addressed."

San Diego Community Power, or SDCP, said the temporary reduction would make its rates less attractive than SDG&E's, especially amid SDG&E's minimum charge proposal affecting low-usage customers, just as it is about to begin serving customers. SDCP's board members wrote an open letter last month to the commission, accusing the utility of "willful manipulation of data."

Working with an administrative law judge at the CPUC, Guzman Aceves authored a proposal requiring SDG&E to use numbers based on 2021 forecasts, as regulators simultaneously weigh whether the state needs more power plants to ensure reliability. The utility argued that could result in an increase of "roughly 40 percent" for medium and large commercial and industrial customers this year.

To help reduce potential volatility, Guzman Aceves, SDCP and other community energy supporters called for using a formula that would average out changes in rates across customer classes amid debates over income-based utility charges statewide. That's what the commissioners OK'd Thursday.

"It is essential that customer commodity rates be as accurate as we can possibly get them to avoid undercollections," said Commissioner Genevieve Shiroma.

San Diego Community Power is one of 23 community choice aggregation, or CCA, energy programs that have launched in California in the past decade.

CCAs compete with traditional power companies amid California's evolving power competition landscape, in one important role — purchasing power for a given community. They were created to boost the use of cleaner energy sources, such as wind and solar, at rates equal to or lower than investor-owned utilities.

However, CCAs do not replace utilities because the incumbent power companies still perform all of the tasks outside of power purchasing, such as transmission and distribution of energy and customer billing.

When a CCA is formed, California rules stipulate the utility customers in that area are automatically enrolled in the CCA. If customers prefer to stay with their previous power company, they can opt out of joining the CCA.

The shift of customers from SDG&E to San Diego Community Power is expected to be large. The total number of accounts for SDCP is expected to be 770,000, which would make it the second-largest CCA in the state. That's why SDCP considered Thursday's CPUC decision to be so important.

"At a time when customers are choosing between sticking with San Diego Gas & Electric and migrating to a CCA, we want them to have accurate bill information," said Commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen.

"SDCP is very happy with today's CPUC decision, and that the commissioners shared our goal of limiting rate volatility for businesses and families in the region," said SDCP interim CEO Bill Carnahan. "This is definitely a win for accurate rate forecasting, and our mutual customers, and we look forward to working with SDG&E on next steps."

In an email, SDG&E spokeswoman Helen Gao said, "We are committed to continuing to work collaboratively with local Community Choice Aggregation programs to support their successful launch in 2021 and ensure that our mutual customers receive excellent customer service."

San Diego Community Power's case before the CPUC was joined by the California Community Choice Association, a trade group advocating for CCAs, and the Clean Energy Alliance — the North County-based CCA representing Del Mar, Solana Beach and Carlsbad that is scheduled to launch this summer.

SDCP will begin its rollout this year, folding in about 71,000 municipal, commercial and industrial accounts. The bulk of its roughly 700,000 residential accounts is expected to come in January 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News