Town unruffled over wind farm

Alberta Electricity Market faces energy-only vs capacity debate as transmission, distribution, and administration fees surge; rural rates rise amid a regulated duopoly of investor-owned utilities, prompting calls for competition, innovation, and lower bills.

Key Points

Alberta's electricity market is an energy-only system with rising delivery charges and limited rural competition.

✅ Energy-only design; capacity market scrapped

✅ Delivery charges outpace energy on monthly bills

✅ Rural duopoly limits competition and raises rates

Last week, Alberta’s new Energy Minister Sonya Savage announced the government, through its new electricity rules, would be scrapping plans to shift Alberta’s electricity to a capacity market and would instead be “restoring certainty in the electricity system.”

The proposed transition from energy only to a capacity market is a contentious subject as a market reshuffle unfolds across the province that many Albertans probably don’t know much about. Our electricity market is not a particularly glamorous subject. It’s complicated and confusing and what matters most to ordinary Albertans is how it affects their monthly bills.

What they may not realize is that the cost of their actual electricity used is often just a small fraction of their bill amid rising electricity prices across the province. The majority on an average electricity bill is actually the cost of delivering that electricity from the generator to your house. Charges for transmission, distribution and franchise and administration fees are quickly pushing many Alberta households to the limit with soaring bills.

According to data from Alberta’s Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA), and alongside policy changes, in 2004 the average monthly transmission costs for residential regulated-rate customers was below $2. In 2018 that cost was averaging nearly $27 a month. The increase is equally dramatic in distribution rates which have more than doubled across the province and range wildly, averaging from as low as $10 a month in 2004 to over $80 a month for some residential regulated-rate customers in 2018.

Where you live determines who delivers your electricity. In Alberta’s biggest cities and a handful of others the distribution systems are municipally owned and operated. Outside those select municipalities most of Alberta’s electricity is delivered by two private companies which operate as a regulated duopoly. In fact, two investor-owned utilities deliver power to over 95 per cent of rural Alberta and they continue to increase their share by purchasing the few rural electricity co-ops that remained their only competition in the market. The cost of buying out their competition is then passed on to the customers, driving rates even higher.

As the CEO of Alberta’s largest remaining electricity co-op, I know very well that as the price of materials, equipment and skilled labour increase, the cost of operating follows. If it costs more to build and maintain an electricity distribution system there will inevitably be a cost increase passed on to the consumer. The question Albertans should be asking is how much is too much and where is all that money going with these private- investor-owned utilities, as the sector faces profound change under provincial leadership?

The reforms to Alberta’s electricity system brought in by Premier Klein in the late 1900s and early 2000s contributed to a surge in investment in the sector and led to an explosion of competition in both electricity generation and retail. 

More players entered the field which put downward pressure on electricity rates, encouraged innovation and gave consumers a competitive choice, even as a Calgary electricity retailer urged the government to scrap the overhaul. But the legislation and regulations that govern rural electricity distribution in Alberta continue to facilitate and even encourage the concentration of ownership among two players which is certainly not in the interests of rural Albertans.

It is also not in the spirit of the United Conservative Party platform commitment to a “market-based” system. A market-based system suggests more competition. Instead, what we have is something approaching a monopoly for many Albertans. The UCP promised a review of the transition to a capacity market that would determine which market would be best for Alberta, and through proposed electricity market changes has decided that we will remain an energy-only market.
Consumers in rural Alberta need electricity to produce the goods that power our biggest industries. Instead of regulating and approving continued rate increases from private multinational corporations, we need to drive competition and innovation that can push rates down and encourage growth and investment in rural-based industries and communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Last-Resort Power Rate Reform outlines consumer protection against market volatility, price spikes, and wholesale rate swings, promoting fixed-rate plans, price caps, transparency, and stable pricing mechanisms within Alberta's deregulated power market.

Key Points

Alberta Last-Resort Power Rate Reform seeks stable, transparent pricing and stronger consumer protections.

✅ Caps or hedges shield bills from wholesale price spikes

✅ Expand fixed-rate options and enrollment nudges

✅ Publish clear, real-time pricing and market risk alerts

Alberta’s electricity market is facing growing instability, with rising prices leaving many consumers struggling. The province's rate of last resort, a government-set price for people who haven’t chosen a fixed electricity plan, has become a significant concern. Due to volatile market conditions, this rate has surged, causing financial strain for households. Experts, like energy policy analyst Blake Shaffer, argue that the current market structure needs reform. They suggest creating more stability in pricing, ensuring better protection for consumers against unexpected price spikes, and addressing the flaws that lead to market volatility.

As electricity prices climb, many consumers are feeling the pressure. In Alberta, where energy deregulation is the norm in the electricity market, people without fixed-rate plans are automatically switched to the last-resort rate when their contracts expire. This price is based on fluctuating wholesale market rates, which can spike unexpectedly, leaving consumers vulnerable to sharp price increases. For those on tight budgets, such volatility makes it difficult to predict costs, leading to higher financial stress.

Blake Shaffer, a prominent energy policy expert, has been vocal about the need to address these issues. He has highlighted that while some consumers benefit from fixed-rate plans, with experts urging Albertans to lock in rates when possible, those who cannot afford them or who are unaware of their options often find themselves stuck with the unpredictable last-resort rate. This rate can be substantially higher than what a fixed-plan customer would pay, often due to rapid shifts in energy demand and supply imbalances.

Shaffer suggests that the province’s electricity market needs a restructuring to make it more consumer-friendly and less vulnerable to extreme price hikes. He argues that introducing more transparency in pricing and offering more stable options for consumers through new electricity rules could help. In addition, there could be better incentives for consumers to stay informed about their electricity plans, which would help reduce the number of people unintentionally placed on the last-resort rate.

One potential solution proposed by Shaffer and others is the creation of a more predictable and stable pricing mechanism, though a Calgary electricity retailer has urged the government to scrap an overhaul, where consumers could have access to reasonable rates that aren’t so closely tied to the volatility of the wholesale market. This could involve capping prices or offering government-backed insurance against large price fluctuations, making electricity more affordable for those who are most at risk.

The increasing reliance on market-driven prices has also raised concerns about Alberta’s energy policy changes and overall direction. As a province with a large reliance on oil and gas, Alberta’s energy sector is tightly connected to global energy trends. While this has its benefits, it also means that Alberta’s electricity prices are heavily influenced by factors outside the control of local consumers, such as geopolitical issues or extreme weather events. This makes it hard for residents to predict and plan their energy usage and costs.

For many Albertans, the current state of the electricity market feels precarious. As more people face unexpected price hikes, calls for a market overhaul continue to grow louder across Alberta. Shaffer and others believe that a new framework is necessary—one that balances the interests of consumers, the government, and energy companies, while ensuring that basic energy needs are met without overwhelming households with excessive costs.

In conclusion, Alberta’s last-resort electricity rate system is an increasing burden for many. While some may benefit from fixed-rate plans, others are left exposed to market volatility. Blake Shaffer advocates for reform to create a more stable, transparent, and affordable electricity market, one that could better protect consumers from the high risks associated with deregulated pricing. Addressing these challenges will be crucial in ensuring that energy remains accessible and affordable for all Alberta residents.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Energy Dominance envisions deregulation, oil and gas growth, LNG exports, pipelines, and geopolitical leverage, while facing OPEC pricing power, infrastructure bottlenecks, climate policy pressures, and accelerating renewables in global markets.

Key Points

U.S. policy to grow fossil fuel output and exports via deregulation, bolstering energy security, geopolitical influence.

✅ Deregulation to expand drilling, pipelines, and export capacity

✅ Exposed to OPEC pricing, global shocks, and cost competitiveness

✅ Faces infrastructure, ESG finance, and renewables transition risks

Former President Donald Trump has consistently advocated for “energy dominance” as a cornerstone of his energy policy. In his vision, the United States would leverage its abundant natural resources to achieve energy self-sufficiency, flood global markets with cheap energy, and undercut competitors like Russia and OPEC nations. However, while the rhetoric resonates with many Americans, particularly those in energy-producing states, the pursuit of energy dominance faces significant real-world challenges that could limit its feasibility and impact.

The Energy Dominance Vision

Trump’s energy dominance strategy revolves around deregulation, increased domestic production of oil and gas, and the rollback of climate-oriented restrictions. During his presidency, he emphasized opening federal lands to drilling, accelerating the approval of pipelines, and, through an executive order, boosting uranium and nuclear energy initiatives, as well as withdrawing from international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord. The goal was not only to meet domestic energy demands but also to establish the U.S. as a major exporter of fossil fuels, thereby reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.

This approach gained traction during Trump’s first term, with the U.S. achieving record levels of oil and natural gas production. Energy exports surged, making the U.S. a net energy exporter for the first time in decades. Yet, critics argue that this policy prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability, while supporters believe it provides a roadmap for energy security and geopolitical leverage.

Market Realities

The energy market is complex, influenced by factors beyond the control of any single administration, with energy crisis impacts often cascading across sectors. While the U.S. has significant reserves of oil and gas, the global market sets prices. Even if the U.S. ramps up production, it cannot insulate itself entirely from price shocks caused by geopolitical instability, OPEC production cuts, or natural disasters.

For instance, despite record production in the late 2010s, American consumers faced volatile gasoline prices during an energy crisis driven by $5 gas and external factors like tensions in the Middle East and fluctuating global demand. Additionally, the cost of production in the U.S. is often higher than in countries with more easily accessible reserves, such as Saudi Arabia. This limits the competitive advantage of U.S. energy producers in global markets.

Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns

A major obstacle to achieving energy dominance is infrastructure. Expanding oil and gas production requires investments in pipelines, export terminals, and refineries. However, these projects often face delays due to regulatory hurdles, legal challenges, and public opposition. High-profile pipeline projects like Keystone XL and Dakota Access have become battlegrounds between industry proponents and environmental activists, and cross-border dynamics such as support for Canadian energy projects amid tariff threats further complicate permitting, highlighting the difficulty of reconciling energy expansion with environmental and community concerns.

Moreover, the transition to cleaner energy sources is accelerating globally, with many countries committing to net-zero emissions targets. This trend could reduce the demand for fossil fuels in the long run, potentially leaving U.S. producers with stranded assets if global markets shift more quickly than anticipated.

Geopolitical Implications

Trump’s energy dominance strategy also hinges on the belief that U.S. energy exports can weaken adversaries like Russia and Iran. While increased American exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe have reduced the continent’s reliance on Russian gas, achieving total energy independence for allies is a monumental task. Europe’s energy infrastructure, designed for pipeline imports from Russia, cannot be overhauled overnight to accommodate LNG shipments.

Additionally, the influence of major producers like Saudi Arabia and the OPEC+ alliance remains significant, even as shifts in U.S. policy affect neighbors; in Canada, some viewed Biden as better for the energy sector than alternatives. These countries can adjust production levels to influence prices, sometimes undercutting U.S. efforts to expand its market share.

The Renewable Energy Challenge

The growing focus on renewable energy adds another layer of complexity. Solar, wind, and battery storage technologies are becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Many U.S. states and private companies are investing heavily in clean energy to align with consumer preferences and global trends, amid arguments that stepping away from fossil fuels can bolster national security. This shift could dampen the domestic demand for oil and gas, challenging the long-term viability of Trump’s energy dominance agenda.

Moreover, international pressure to address climate change could limit the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. Financial institutions and investors are increasingly reluctant to fund projects perceived as environmentally harmful, further constraining growth in the sector.

While Trump’s call for U.S. energy dominance taps into a desire for economic growth and energy security, it faces numerous challenges. Global market dynamics, infrastructure bottlenecks, environmental concerns, and the transition to renewable energy all pose significant barriers to achieving the ambitious vision.

For the U.S. to navigate these challenges effectively, a balanced approach that incorporates both traditional energy sources and investments in clean energy is likely needed. Striking this balance will require careful policymaking that considers not just immediate economic gains but also long-term sustainability and global competitiveness.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

PG&E power restoration continues across Butte and Yuba counties after PSPS shut-offs from high winds and dry weather, with crews patrolling overhead lines, repairing damage, and reopening community resource centers near Lake Berryessa.

Key Points

PG&E power restoration safely re-energizes lines after PSPS, using inspections and repairs to restore service.

✅ Crews patrolled 800 miles of overhead lines for hazards

✅ Repairs followed wind damage; gradual re-energization

✅ Resource centers offered water, outlets, air conditioning

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. field crews have begun restoring power to approximately 20,500 customers in Butte and Yuba counties after the utility shut off electricity to reduce wildfire risk because of gusty winds and dry weather conditions.

More than half of the affected customers had electricity again as of 1:47 p.m. Sunday, according to PG&E, and by 4 p.m. all of Yuba County power had been restored.

The utility also cut electricity for about 1,600 customers in parts of Napa, Solano and Yolo counties, primarily in the Lake Berryessa area, in a PSPS event separate from statewide grid conservation alerts that can trigger rolling blackouts. Power to those areas was switched off at 6:15 a.m. Saturday but was restored by the evening.

As the danger subsided Sunday, utility workers, as part of PG&E's local response planning for winter storms, worked throughout Butte and Yuba counties to re-energize power lines. The shut-offs affected areas including eastern Chico, Oroville and fire-ravaged Paradise.

Technicians checked lines for damage or fire hazards, like vegetation that could interfere with live wires, Pasion said, as part of broader pandemic grid preparedness that informed utility protocols.

PG&E “patrolled approximately 800 miles of overhead power lines,” the company said in a statement. “Crews found instances of damage to de-energized equipment caused by the extreme weather event and are making necessary repairs.”

While the shut-offs inconvenienced businesses and homeowners, they also highlighted energy inequality across impacted neighborhoods, and some called 911 with emergencies and confusion.

A half hour into the shut-off Saturday night, Butte County sheriff’s dispatchers received a call from a person requesting a welfare check on an individual whose care required electricity, according to department call logs. Two calls overnight from the Magalia area requested medical assistance because residents had oxygen concerns for medically sensitive spouses.

One woman requested an ambulance because her “husband was running out of oxygen,” according to the logs.

Around 4:11 a.m. Sunday, a resident of Hidden Valley Mobile Home Park in Oroville called about a tree falling into a trailer, causing a power line to fall, but noted that the electricity was off.

In a comparable storm-related outage, Sudbury Hydro crews worked to reconnect service after severe weather in Ontario.

And there were multiple calls asking for information about the shut-off, including one caller around midnight who was “demanding PG&E turn his power back on.”

The calls led the Butte County Sheriff’s Office to tweet a reminder Sunday afternoon that 911 is reserved for emergencies and requests for information about the power shutdown should be done through PG&E.

The utility opened a community resource center at Harrison Stadium in Oroville (Butte County) on Sunday morning to provide restrooms, bottled water, power outlets and air conditioning to residents. About 40 people showed up at the center in the first few hours, officials said.

“It’s a small but steady stream,” Pasion said.

Power was being restored to parts of Oroville as of 11 a.m. Sunday.

PG&E officials said it could take up to 48 hours for power to be restored in some areas.

For perspective, during severe storms in Ontario, Hydro One crews restored power to more than 277,000 customers within days.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Germany Industrial Electricity Price Subsidy weighs subsidies for energy-intensive industries to bolster competitiveness as Germany shifts to renewables, expands grid capacity, and debates free-market tax cuts versus targeted relief and long-term policies.

Key Points

Policy to subsidize power for energy-intensive industry, preserving competitiveness during the energy transition.

✅ SPD backs 5-7 cents per kWh for 10-15 years

✅ FDP prefers tax cuts and free-market pricing

✅ Scholz urges cheap renewables and grid expansion first

Germany’s three-party coalition is debating whether electricity prices for energy-intensive industries should be subsidised in a market where rolling back European electricity prices can be tougher than it appears, to prevent companies from moving production abroad.

Calls to reduce the electricity bill for big industrial producers are being made by leading politicians, who, like others in Germany, fear the country could lose its position as an industrial powerhouse as it gradually shifts away from fossil fuel-based production, amid historic low energy demand and economic stagnation concerns.

“It is in the interest of all of us that this strong industry, which we undoubtedly have in Germany, is preserved,” Lars Klingbeil, head of Germany’s leading government party SPD (S&D), told Bayrischer Rundfunk on Wednesday.

To achieve this, Klingbeil is advocating a reduced electricity price for the industry of about 5 to 7 cents per Kilowatt hour, which the federal government would subsidise. This should be introduced within the next year and last for about 10 to 15 years, he said.

Under the current support scheme, which was financed as part of the €200 billion “rescue shield” against the energy crisis, energy-intensive industries already pay 13 cents per Kilowatt hour (KWh) for 70% of their previous electricity needs, which is substantially lower than the 30 to 40 cents per KWh that private consumers pay.

“We see that the Americans, for example, are spending $450 billion on the Inflation Reduction Act, and we see what China is doing in terms of economic policy,” Klingbeil said.

“If we find out in 10 years that we have let all the large industrial companies slip away because the investments are not being made here in Germany or Europe, and jobs and prosperity and growth are being lost here, then we will lose as a country,” he added.

However, not everyone in the German coalition favours subsidising electricity prices.

Finance Minister Christian Lindner of the liberal FDP (Renew), for example, has argued against such a step, instead promoting free-market principles and, amid rising household energy costs, reducing taxes on electricity for all.

“Privileging industrial companies would only be feasible at the expense of other electricity consumers and taxpayers, for example, private households or the small trade sector,” Lindner wrote in an op-ed for Handelsblatt on Tuesday.

“Increasing competitiveness for some would mean a loss of competitiveness for others,” he added.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz, himself a member of SPD, was more careful with his words, amid ongoing EU electricity reform debates in Brussels.

Asked about a subsidised electricity price for the industry at a town hall event on Monday, Scholz said he does not “want to make any promises now”.

“First of all, we have to make sure that we have cheap electricity in Germany in the first place,” Scholz said, promoting the expansion of renewable energy such as wind and solar, as local utilities cry for help, as well as more electricity grid infrastructure.

“What we will not be able to do as an economy, even as France’s new electricity pricing scheme advances, is to subsidise everything that takes place in normal economic activity,” Scholz said. “We should not get into the habit of doing that,” he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Global Adjustment Supreme Court Appeal spotlights a constitutional challenge to Ontario's electricity charge, pitting National Steel Car against the IESO over regulatory charge vs tax, procurement policy, and renewable energy feed-in tariff contracts.

Key Points

An SCC leave bid on whether Ontario's global adjustment is a valid regulatory charge or an unconstitutional tax.

✅ Appeals Court revived case for full record review

✅ Dispute centers on regulatory charge vs tax classification

✅ FIT renewables contracts and procurement policies at issue

The Ontario government wants the Supreme Court of Canada to weigh in on a constitutional challenge being brought against a large provincial electricity charge, a case the province claims raises issues of national importance.

Ontario’s attorney general and its Independent Electricity System Operator applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in January, according to the court’s website.

The province is trying to appeal a Court of Appeal decision reinstating the challenge from November that said a legal challenge by Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. should be sent back to a lower-court for a full hearing.

Court reinstates constitutional challenge to Ontario's hefty ‘global adjustment’ electricity charge
National Steel Car appealing decision in legal challenge of Ontario electricity fee it calls an unconstitutional tax
Doug Ford’s cancellation of green energy deals costs Ontario taxpayers $231 million
National Steel Car launched its legal challenge in 2017, with the maker of steel rail cars claiming the province’s global adjustment electricity charge was a tax intended to fund certain post-financial-crisis policy goals. Since it is allegedly a tax, and one not imposed by the provincial legislature, the company’s argument is the global adjustment is unconstitutional, and also in breach of a provincial law requiring a referendum for new taxes.

The global adjustment mostly bridges the gap between the province’s hourly electricity price and the price guaranteed under contracts and regulated rates with power generators. It also helps cover the cost of building new electricity infrastructure and providing conservation programs, but the fee now makes up most of the commodity portion of a household power bill in the province.

Ontario argued the global adjustment is a valid regulatory charge, and moved to have National Steel Car’s challenge thrown out. An Ontario Superior Court judge agreed, and dismissed the challenge in 2018, saying it was “plain, obvious and beyond doubt” it could not succeed. However, an appeals court judge disagreed, writing in a decision last November that the “merits should not have been determined on a pleadings motion and without the development of a full record.”

In filings made to the Supreme Court, both the IESO and Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General argued their proposed appeals raise “issues of national and public importance,” such as whether incorporating environmental and social policy goals in procurement could turn attempts by a public body to recover costs into an unconstitutional tax.

Most applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court are dismissed, but the Ontario government claims the court’s guidance is required in this case, as it could lead to questions being raised about other fees or charges, such as money raised from fishing licences.

“A failure to dispose of this claim at the pleadings stage may well result in such uncertainty that public authorities across Canada decline to incorporate the kind of environmental and social policy goals objected to in this case into the decisions they make about how to spend funds raised from regulatory charges,” the filing from the attorney general states. “Alternatively, it may induce governments not to engage in cost recovery in connection with publicly supplied goods and services, which can otherwise be sound public policy.”

The government has so far had to pay National Steel Car $250,000 in legal costs “to avoid responding to the credible claim that the Global Adjustment is an unconstitutional tax,” said David Trafford of Morse Shannon LLP, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers.

“The application for leave to appeal is the next step in this effort to avoid having to respond to the case on the merits,” Trafford added in an email.

The application for leave to appeal is the next step in this effort to avoid having to respond to the case on the merits

David Trafford of Morse Shannon, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers
 
National Steel Car has particularly taken issue with the part of the global adjustment that funded contracts for renewable energy under a “feed-in tariff” program, or FIT, which the company called “the main culprit behind the dramatic price increases for electricity.”

The FIT program has been ended, but contracts awarded under it remain in place and form part of the global adjustment. Ontario’s auditor general estimated in 2015 that electricity consumers would pay $9.2 billion more for renewable energy under the government’s guaranteed-price program, a figure that later featured in a dispute between the auditor and the electricity regulator that drew political attention.

National Steel Car said its global adjustment costs grew from $207,260 in 2008 to almost $3.4 million in 2016, reflecting how high electricity rates have pressured manufacturers, to almost $3.4 million in 2016. For 2018, there was approximately $11.2 billion in global adjustment collected, according to the IESO’s reporting.

A spokesperson for the IESO said it “is not in a position to comment” because the case is still before the courts.

Electricity prices have been an ongoing problem for both Ontario consumers and politicians, which the previous Liberal government tried to address in 2017 by, among other things, refinancing global-adjustment costs through the Fair Hydro Plan and other measures.

Since National Steel Car filed its lawsuits, though, the Liberals lost power in the province and were succeeded in 2018 by Premier Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives, who made changes to the previous government’s power policies, including legislation to lower electricity rates introduced early in their mandate.

The province has also pursued interprovincial power arrangements, including building on an electricity deal with Quebec as part of its broader energy strategy.

“The present government of Ontario does not agree with the former government’s electricity procurement program, which ceased awarding new contracts in 2016,” Ontario’s attorney general said in a filing. “However, Ontario submits that (the lower-court judge) was correct in holding that it does not give rise to a claim susceptible to being remedied by the courts.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News