Lack of power stymies home construction

Alberta Rate of Last Resort provides a baseline electricity price, boosting energy reliability, affordability, and consumer protection amid market volatility, aligning with grid modernization, integration, pricing transparency, and oversight from the Alberta Utilities Commission.

Key Points

A fallback electricity rate ensuring affordable, reliable power and consumer protection during market volatility.

✅ Guarantees a stable baseline price when markets spike

✅ Supports vulnerable customers lacking competitive offers

✅ Overseen by AUC to balance protection and competition

The Alberta government has announced significant strides in its electricity market reforms, unveiling a new plan under new electricity rules that aims to enhance energy reliability and affordability for consumers. This initiative, highlighted by the introduction of a "rate of last resort," is a critical response to ongoing challenges in the province's electricity sector, particularly following recent market volatility and increasing consumer concerns about rising electricity prices across the province.

Understanding the Rate of Last Resort

The "rate of last resort" (RLR) is designed to ensure that all Albertans have access to affordable electricity, even when they face challenges securing a competitive rate in the open market. This measure is particularly beneficial for those who may not have the means or the knowledge to navigate complex energy contracts, such as low-income families or seniors.

Under this new plan, the RLR will serve as a safety net, guaranteeing a stable and predictable rate for customers who find themselves without a competitive provider. This move is seen as a crucial step in addressing the needs of vulnerable populations who might otherwise be at risk of being shut out of the energy market.

Market Volatility and Consumer Protection

Alberta's electricity market has faced significant fluctuations over the past few years, and is headed for a reshuffle as policymakers respond to unpredictability in pricing and service availability. The rise in energy costs has caused distress among consumers, with many advocating for stronger protections against sudden price hikes.

The government's recent decision to implement the RLR is a direct acknowledgment of these concerns. By creating a baseline rate, officials aim to provide consumers with peace of mind, knowing that there is a fallback option should market conditions turn unfavorable. This initiative complements other measures aimed at enhancing consumer protections, including improved transparency in pricing, the consumer price cap on power bills being advanced, and the regulation of energy suppliers.

Broader Implications for Alberta’s Energy Landscape

This plan is not only about consumer protection; it also represents a broader shift towards a more sustainable and stable energy market in Alberta, aligning with proposed electricity market changes under consideration. The introduction of the RLR is part of a comprehensive strategy that includes investments in renewable energy and infrastructure improvements. By modernizing the grid and promoting cleaner energy sources, the government aims to reduce dependency on fossil fuels while maintaining reliability and affordability.

Additionally, this move aligns with the province's goals to meet climate targets and transition to a more sustainable energy future as Alberta is changing how it produces and pays for electricity through policy updates. As the demand for clean energy grows, Alberta is positioning itself to be a leader in this transformation, appealing to both residents and businesses committed to sustainability.

Public and Industry Reactions

The announcement has garnered mixed reactions from various stakeholders. While consumer advocacy groups have largely praised the government's efforts to protect consumers and ensure affordable electricity, some industry experts express concerns about potential long-term impacts on competition, arguing the market needs competition to remain dynamic. They argue that while the RLR provides immediate relief, it could disincentivize companies from offering competitive rates, leading to a less dynamic market in the future.

The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) is expected to play a pivotal role in overseeing the implementation of the RLR, ensuring that it operates effectively and that any unintended consequences are addressed swiftly. This regulatory oversight will be crucial in balancing consumer protection with the need for a competitive energy market.

Conclusion

As Alberta forges ahead with its electricity market reforms, the introduction of the rate of last resort marks a significant step in enhancing consumer protection and ensuring energy affordability. While challenges remain, the government's proactive approach reflects a commitment to addressing the needs of all Albertans, particularly those most vulnerable to market fluctuations.

In this evolving energy landscape, the RLR will serve not only as a safety net for consumers but also as a foundation for a more sustainable and reliable electricity system. As Alberta continues to adapt to changing energy demands and climate considerations, the effectiveness of these measures will be closely monitored, shaping the future of the province’s electricity market.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

PG&E Wind Shutdown and Renewable Reliability examines PSPS strategy, wildfire risk, transmission line exposure, wind turbine cut-out speeds, grid stability, and California's energy mix amid historic high-wind events and supply constraints across service areas.

Key Points

An overview of PG&E's PSPS decisions, wildfire mitigation, and how wind cut-out limits influence grid reliability.

✅ Wind turbines reach cut-out near 55 mph, reducing generation.

✅ PSPS mitigates ignition from damaged transmission infrastructure.

✅ Baseload diversity improves resilience during high-wind events.

According to the official, widely reported story, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) initiated power shutoffs across substantial portions of its electric transmission system in northern California as a precautionary measure.

Citing high wind speeds they described as “historic,” the utility claims that if it didn’t turn off the grid, wind-caused damage to its infrastructure could start more wildfires.

Perhaps that’s true. Perhaps. This tale presumes that the folks who designed and maintain PG&E’s transmission system are unaware of or ignored the need to design it to withstand severe weather events, and that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) allowed the utility to do so.

Ignorance and incompetence happens, to be sure, but there’s much about this story that doesn’t smell right—and it’s disappointing that most journalists and elected officials are apparently accepting it without question.

Take, for example, this statement from a Fox News story about the Kincade Fires: “A PG&E meteorologist said it’s ‘likely that many trees will fall, branches will break,’ which could damage utility infrastructure and start a fire.”

Did you ever notice how utilities cut wide swaths of trees away when transmission lines pass through forests? There’s a reason for that: When trees fall and branches break, the grid can still function, and even as the electric rhythms of New York City shifted during COVID-19, operators planned for variability.

So, if badly designed and poorly maintained infrastructure isn’t the reason PG&E cut power to millions of Californians, what might have prompted them to do so? Could it be that PG&E’s heavy reliance on renewable energy means they don’t have the power to send when a “historic” weather event occurs, especially as policymakers weigh the postponed closure of three power plants elsewhere in California?

Wind Speed Limits

The two most popular forms of renewable energy come with operating limitations, which is why some energy leaders urge us to keep electricity options open when planning the grid. With solar power, the constraint is obvious: the availability of sunlight. One doesn’t generate solar power at night and energy generation drops off with increasing degrees of cloud cover during the day.

The main operating constraint of wind power is, of course, wind speed, and even in markets undergoing 'transformative change' in wind generation, operators adhere to these technical limits. At the low end of the scale, you need about a 6 or 7 miles-per-hour wind to get a turbine moving. This is called the “cut-in speed.” To generate maximum power, about a 30 mph wind is typically required. But, if the wind speed is too high, the wind turbine will shut down. This is called the “cut-out speed,” and it’s about 55 miles per hour for most modern wind turbines.

It may seem odd that wind turbines have a cut-out speed, but there’s a very good reason for it. Each wind turbine rotor is connected to an electric generator housed in the turbine nacelle. The connection is made through a gearbox that is sized to turn the generator at the precise speed required to produce 60 Hertz AC power.

The blades of the wind turbine are airfoils, just like the wings of an airplane. Adjusting the pitch (angle) of the blades allows the rotor to maintain constant speed, which, in turn, allows the generator to maintain the constant speed it needs to safely deliver power to the grid. However, there’s a limit to blade pitch adjustment. When the wind is blowing so hard that pitch adjustment is no longer possible, the turbine shuts down. That’s the cut-out speed.

Now consider how California’s power generation profile has changed. According to Energy Information Administration data, the state generated 74.3 percent of its electricity from traditional sources—fossil fuels and nuclear, amid debates over whether to classify nuclear as renewable—in 2001. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass-generated power accounted for most of the remaining 25.7 percent, with wind and solar providing only 1.98 percent of the total.

By 2018, the state’s renewable portfolio had jumped to 43.8 percent of total generation, with clean power increasing and wind and solar now accounting for 17.9 percent of total generation. That’s a lot of power to depend on from inherently unreliable sources. Thus, it wouldn’t be at all surprising to learn that PG&E didn’t stop delivering power out of fear of starting fires, but because it knew it wouldn’t have power to deliver once high winds shut down all those wind turbines

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Bitcoin energy consumption is driven by mining electricity demand, with TWh-scale power use, carbon footprint concerns, and Cambridge estimates. Rising prices incentivize more hardware; efficiency gains and renewables adoption shape sustainability outcomes.

Key Points

Bitcoin energy consumption is mining's electricity use, driven by price, device efficiency, and energy mix.

✅ Cambridge tool estimates ~121 TWh annual usage

✅ Rising BTC price incentivizes more mining hardware

✅ Efficiency, renewables, and costs shape footprint

"Mining" for the cryptocurrency is power-hungry, with power curtailments reported during heat waves, involving heavy computer calculations to verify transactions.

Cambridge researchers say it consumes around 121.36 terawatt-hours (TWh) a year - and is unlikely to fall unless the value of the currency slumps, even as Americans use less electricity overall.

Critics say electric-car firm Tesla's decision to invest heavily in Bitcoin undermines its environmental image.

The currency's value hit a record $48,000 (£34,820) this week. following Tesla's announcement that it had bought about $1.5bn bitcoin and planned to accept it as payment in future.

But the rising price offers even more incentive to Bitcoin miners to run more and more machines.

And as the price increases, so does the energy consumption, according to Michel Rauchs, researcher at The Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, who co-created the online tool that generates these estimates.

“It is really by design that Bitcoin consumes that much electricity,” Mr Rauchs told BBC’s Tech Tent podcast. “This is not something that will change in the future unless the Bitcoin price is going to significantly go down."

The online tool has ranked Bitcoin’s electricity consumption above Argentina (121 TWh), the Netherlands (108.8 TWh) and the United Arab Emirates (113.20 TWh) - and it is gradually creeping up on Norway (122.20 TWh).

The energy it uses could power all kettles used in the UK, where low-carbon generation stalled in 2019, for 27 years, it said.

However, it also suggests the amount of electricity consumed every year by always-on but inactive home devices in the US alone could power the entire Bitcoin network for a year, and in Canada, B.C. power imports have helped meet demand.

Mining Bitcoin
In order to "mine" Bitcoin, computers - often specialised ones - are connected to the cryptocurrency network.

They have the job of verifying transactions made by people who send or receive Bitcoin.

This process involves solving puzzles, which, while not integral to verifying movements of the currency, provide a hurdle to ensure no-one fraudulently edits the global record of all transactions.

As a reward, miners occasionally receive small amounts of Bitcoin in what is often likened to a lottery.

To increase profits, people often connect large numbers of miners to the network - even entire warehouses full of them, as seen with a Medicine Hat bitcoin operation backed by an electricity deal.

That uses lots of electricity because the computers are more or less constantly working to complete the puzzles, prompting some utilities to consider pauses on new crypto loads in certain regions.

The University of Cambridge tool models the economic lifetime of the world's Bitcoin miners and assumes that all the Bitcoin mining machines worldwide are working with various efficiencies.

Using an average electricity price per kilowatt hour ($0.05) and the energy demands of the Bitcoin network, it is then possible to estimate how much electricity is being consumed at any one time, though in places like China's power sector data can be opaque.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Electricity Price Surge reflects soaring wholesale rates, natural gas spikes, carbon tax pressures, and grid decarbonization challenges amid cold-weather demand, constrained supply, and Europe-style energy crisis impacts across the province.

Key Points

An exceptional jump in Alberta's power costs driven by gas price spikes, high demand, policy costs, and tight supply.

✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December

✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages

✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs

Albertans just endured the highest electricity prices in 21 years. Wholesale prices averaged $123 per megawatt-hour in December, more than triple the level from the previous year and highest for December since 2000.

The situation in Alberta mirrors the energy crisis striking Europe where electricity prices are also surging, largely due to a shocking five-fold increase in natural gas prices in 2021 compared to the prior year.

The situation should give pause to Albertans when they consider aggressive plans to “decarbonize” the electric grid, including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 from some policymakers.

The explanation for skyrocketing energy prices is simple: increased demand (because of Calgary's frigid February demand and a slowly-reviving post-pandemic economy) coupled with constrained supply.

In the nitty gritty details, there are always particular transitory causes, such as disputes with Russian gas companies (in the case of Europe) or plant outages (in the case of Alberta).

But beyond these fleeting factors, there are more permanent systemic constraints on natural gas (and even more so, coal-fired) power plants.

I refer of course to the climate change policies of the Trudeau government at the federal level and some of the more aggressive provincial governments, which have notable implications for electricity grids across Canada.

The most obvious example is the carbon tax, the repeal of which Premier Jason Kenney made a staple of his government.

Putting aside the constitutional issues (on which the Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the federal government could impose a carbon tax on Alberta), the obvious economic impact will be to make carbon-sourced electricity more expensive.

This isn’t a bug or undesired side-effect, it’s the explicit purpose of a carbon tax.

Right now, the federal carbon tax is $40 per tonne, is scheduled to increase to $50 in April, and will ultimately max out at a whopping $170 per tonne in 2030.

Again, the conscious rationale of the tax, aligned with goals for cleaning up Canada's electricity, is to make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive to induce consumers and businesses to use alternative energy sources.

As Albertans experience sticker shock this winter, they should ask themselves — do we want the government intentionally making electricity and heating oil more expensive?

Of course, the proponent of a carbon tax (and other measures designed to shift Canadians away from carbon-based fuels) would respond that it’s a necessary measure in the fight against climate change, and that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA.

Yet the reality is that Canada is a bit player on the world stage when it comes to carbon dioxide, responsible for only 1.5% of global emissions (as of 2018).

As reported at this “climate tracker” website, if we look at the actual policies put in place by governments around the world, they’re collectively on track for the Earth to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, far above the official target codified in the Paris Agreement.

Canadians can’t do much to alter the global temperature, but federal and provincial governments can make energy more expensive if policymakers so choose, and large-scale electrification could be costly—the Canadian Gas Association warns of $1.4 trillion— if pursued rapidly.

As renewable technologies become more reliable and affordable, business and consumers will naturally adopt them; it didn’t take a “manure tax” to force people to use cars rather than horses.

As official policy continues to make electricity more expensive, Albertans should ask if this approach is really worth it, or whether options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap could better balance costs.

Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Clean Power Plan Rollback signals EPA's shift to inside-the-fence efficiency at coal plants, emphasizing heat-rate improvements over sector-wide decarbonization, renewables, natural gas switching, demand-side efficiency, and carbon capture under Clean Air Act constraints.

Key Points

A policy shift by the EPA to replace broad emissions rules with plant-level efficiency standards, limiting CO2 cuts.

✅ Inside-the-fence heat-rate improvements at coal units

✅ Potential CO2 cuts limited to about 6% per plant

✅ Alternatives: fuel switching, renewables, carbon capture

President Barack Obama’s signature plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical generation took years to develop and touched every aspect of power production and use, from smokestacks to home insulation.

The Trump administration is moving to scrap that plan and has signaled that any alternative it might adopt would take a much less expansive approach, possibly just telling utilities to operate their plants more efficiently.

That’s a strategy environmentalists say is almost certain to fall short of what’s needed.

The Trump administration is making "a wholesale retreat from EPA’s legal, scientific and moral obligation to address the threats of climate change," said former Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy, the architect of Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

President Donald Trump promised to rip up the initiative, echoing an end to the 'war on coal' message from his campaign, which mandated that states change their overall power mix, displacing coal-fired electricity with that from wind, solar and natural gas. The EPA is about to make it official, arguing the prior administration violated the Clean Air Act by requiring those broad changes to the electricity sector, according to a draft obtained by Bloomberg.

Possible Replacements

Later, the agency will also ask the public to weigh in on possible replacements. The administration will ask whether the EPA can or should develop a replacement rule -- and, if so, what actions can be mandated at individual power plants, though some policymakers favor a clean electricity standard to drive broader decarbonization.

Follow the Trump Administration’s Every Move

Such changes -- such as adding automation or replacing worn turbine seals -- would yield at most a 6 percent gain in efficiency, along with a corresponding fall in greenhouse gas emissions, according to earlier modeling by the Environmental Protection Agency and other analysts. That compares to the 32 percent drop in emissions by 2030 under Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

"In these existing plants, there’s only so many places to look for savings," said John Larsen, a director of the Rhodium Group, a research firm. "There’s only so many opportunities within a big spinning machine like that."

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt outlined such an "inside-the-fence-line" approach in 2014, later embodied in the Affordable Clean Energy rule that industry groups backed, when he served as Oklahoma’s attorney general. Under his blueprint, states would set emissions standards after a detailed unit-by-unit analysis, looking at what reductions are possible given "the engineering limits of each facility."

The EPA has not decided whether it will promulgate a new rule at all, though it has also proposed new pollution limits for coal and gas plants in separate actions. In a forthcoming advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA will ask "what inside-the-fence-line options are legal, feasible and appropriate," according to a document obtained by Bloomberg.

Increased efficiency at a coal plant -- known as heat-rate improvement -- translates into fewer carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of electric power generated.

Under Obama, the EPA envisioned utilities would make some straightforward efficiency improvements at coal-fired power plants as the first step to comply with the Clean Power Plan. But that was expected to coincide with bigger, broader changes -- such as using more cleaner-burning natural gas, adding more renewable power projects and simply encouraging customers to do a better job turning down their thermostats and turning off their lights.

Obama’s EPA didn’t ask utilities to wring every ounce of efficiency they could out of coal-fired power plants because they saw the other options as cheaper. A plant-specific approach "would be grossly insufficient to address the public health and environmental impacts from CO2 emissions," Obama’s EPA said.

That approach might yield modest emissions reductions and, in a perverse twist, might event have the opposite effect. If utilities make coal plants more efficient -- thereby driving down operating costs -- they also make them more competitive with natural gas and renewables, "so they might run more and pollute more," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force.  

In a competitive market, any improvement in emissions produced for each unit of energy could be overwhelmed by an increase in electrical output, and debates over changes to electricity pricing under Trump and Perry added further uncertainty.

"A very minor heat rate improvement program would very likely result in increased emissions," Schneider said. "It might be worse than nothing."

Power companies want to get as much electricity as possible from every pound of coal, so they already have an incentive to keep efficiency high, said Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant EPA administrator now at Bracewell LLP. But an EPA regulation known as “new source review” has discouraged some from making those changes, for fear of triggering other pollution-control requirements, he said.

"If EPA’s replacement rule allows companies to improve efficiency without triggering new source review, it would make a real difference in terms of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions," Holmstead said.

Modest Impact

A plant-specific approach doesn’t have to mean modest impact.

"If you’re thinking about what can be done at the power plants by themselves, you don’t stop at efficiency tune-ups," said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean air program. "You look at things like switching to natural gas or installing carbon capture and storage."

Requirements that facilities use carbon capture technology or swap in natural gas for coal could actually come close to hitting the same goals as in Obama’s Clean Power Plan -- if not go even further, Schneider said. They just would cost more.

The benefit of the Clean Power Plan "is that it enabled states to create programs and enabled companies to find a reduction strategy that was the most efficient and made the most sense for their own content," said Kathryn Zyla, deputy director of the Georgetown Climate Center. "And that flexibility was really important for the states and companies."

Some utilities, including Houston-based Calpine Corp., PG&E Corp. and Dominion Resources Inc., backed the Obama-era approach. And they are still pushing the Trump administration to be creative now.

"The Clean Power Plan achieved a thoughtful, balanced approach that gave companies and states considerable flexibility on how best to pursue that goal," said Melissa Lavinson, vice president of federal affairs and policy for PG&E’s Pacific Gas and Electric utility. “We look forward to working with the administration to devise an alternative plan for decarbonizing the U.S. economy."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas ERCOT Power Grid leads U.S. wind generation yet faces isolated interconnection, FERC exemption, and high industrial energy use, with distinct electricity and natural gas prices managed by a single balancing authority.

Key Points

The state-run interconnection that balances Texas electricity, isolated from FERC oversight and other U.S. grids.

✅ Largest U.S. wind power producer, high industrial demand

✅ Operates one balancing authority, independent interconnection

✅ Pays lower electricity, higher natural gas vs national average

For nearly two decades, the Lone Star State has generated more wind-sourced electricity than any other state in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Administration, or EIA.

In 2022, EIA reported Texas produced more electricity than any other state and generated twice as much as second-place Florida.

However, Texas also leads the country in another category. According to EIA, Texas is the largest energy-consuming state in the nation across all sectors with more than half of the state’s energy being used by the industrial sector.

As of May 2023, Texas residents paid 43% more for natural gas and around 10% less for electricity compared to the national average, according to EIA, and in competitive areas shopping for electricity is getting cheaper as well. Commercial and industrial sectors on average for the same month paid 25% less for electricity compared to the national average.

U.S. electric system compared to Texas
The U.S. electric system is essentially split into three regions called interconnections and are managed by a total of 74 entities called balancing authorities that ensure that power supply and demand are balanced throughout the region to prevent the possibility of blackouts, according to EIA.

The three regions (Interconnections):

Eastern Interconnection: Covers all U.S. states east of the Rocky Mountains, a portion of northern Texas, and consists of 36 balancing authorities.
Western Interconnection: Covers all U.S. states west of the Rockies and consists of 37 balancing authorities.
ERCOT: Covers the majority of Texas and consists of one balancing authority (itself).

During the 2021 winter storm, Texas electric cooperatives were credited with helping maintain service in many communities.

“ERCOT is unique in that the balancing authority, interconnection, and the regional transmission organization are all the same entity and physical system,” according to EIA, a structure often discussed in analyses of Texas power grid challenges today.

With this being the case, Texas is the only state in the U.S. that balances itself, the only state that is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, and the only state that is not synchronously interconnected to the grid in the rest of the United States in the event of tight grid conditions, highlighting ongoing discussions about improving Texas grid reliability before peak seasons, according to EIA.

Every other state in the U.S. is connected to a web of multiple balancing authorities that contribute to ensuring power supply and demand are met.

California, for example, was the fourth largest electricity producer and the third largest electricity consumer in the nation in 2022, according to EIA, and California imports the most electricity from other states while Pennsylvania exports the most.

Although California produces significantly less electricity than Texas, it has the ability to connect with more than 10 neighboring balancing authorities within the Western Interconnection to interchange electricity, a dynamic that can see clean states importing dirty electricity under certain market conditions. ERCOT being independent only has electricity interchange with two balancing authorities, one of which is in Mexico.

Regardless of Texas’ unique power structure compared to the rest of the nation, the vast majority of the U.S. risked electricity supplies during this summer’s high heat, as outlined in severe heat blackout risks reports, according to EIA.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News