Halton police arrest Hamilton man in copper theft incident

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Five Nations Energy Transmission Line connects remote First Nations to the Ontario power grid, delivering clean, reliable electricity to Western James Bay through Indigenous-owned transmission infrastructure, replacing diesel generators and enabling sustainable community growth.

Key Points

An Indigenous-owned grid link providing reliable power to Western James Bay First Nations, replacing polluting diesel.

✅ Built by five First Nations; fully Indigenous-owned utility

✅ 270 km line connecting remote James Bay communities

✅ Ended diesel dependence; enabled sustainable development

For the Indigenous communities along northern Ontario’s James Bay — the ones that have lived on and taken care of the lands as long as anyone can remember — the new millenium marked the start of a diesel-less future, even as Ontario’s electricity outlook raised concerns about getting dirtier in policy debates. 

While the southern part of the province took Ontario’s power grid for granted, despite lessons from Europe’s power crisis about reliability, the vast majority of these communities had never been plugged in. Their only source of power was a handful of very loud diesel-powered generators. Because of that, daily life in the Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations involved deliberating a series of tradeoffs. Could you listen to the radio while toasting a piece of bread? How many Christmas lights could you connect before nothing else was usable? Was there enough power to open a new school? 

The communities wanted a safe, reliable, clean alternative, with Manitoba’s clean energy illustrating regional potential, too. So did their chiefs, which is why they passed a resolution in 1996 to connect the area to Ontario’s grid, not just for basic necessities but to facilitate growth and development, and improve their communities’ quality of life. 

The idea was unthinkable at the time — scorned and dismissed by those who held the keys to Ontario’s (electrical) power, much like independent power projects can be in other jurisdictions. Even some in the community didn’t fully understand it. When the idea was first proposed at a gathering of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which represents 49 First Nations, one attendee said the only way he could picture the connection was as “a little extension cord running through the bush from Moosonee.” 

But the leadership of Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations had been dreaming and planning. In 1997, along with members of Taykwa Tagamou and Moose Cree First Nations, they created the first, and thus far only, fully Indigenous-owned energy company in Canada: Five Nations Energy Inc., as partnerships like an OPG First Nation hydro project would later show in action, too. 

Over the next five years, the organization built Omushkego Ishkotayo, the Cree name for the Western James Bay transmission line: “Omushkego” refers to the Swampy Cree people, and “Ishkotayo” to hydroelectric power, while other regions were commissioning new BC generating stations in parallel. The 270-kilometre-long transmission line is in one of the most isolated regions of Ontario, one that can only be accessed by plane, except for a few months in winter when ice roads are strong enough to drive on. The project went online in 2001, bringing reliable power to over 7,000 people who were previously underserved by the province’s energy providers. It also, somewhat controversially, enabled Ontario’s first diamond mine in Attawapiskat territory.

The future the First Nations created 25 years ago is blissfully quiet, now that the diesel generators are shut off. “When the power went on, you could hear the birds,” Patrick Chilton, the CEO of Five Nations Energy, said with a smile. “Our communities were glowing.”

Power, politics and money: Five Nations Energy needed government, banks and builders on board
Chilton took over in 2013 after the former CEO, his brother Ed, passed away. “This was all his idea,” Chilton told The Narwhal in a conversation over Zoom from his office in Timmins, Ont. The company’s story has never been told before in full, he said, because he felt “vulnerable” to the forces that fought against Omushkego Ishkotayo or didn’t understand it, a dynamic underscored by Canada’s looming power problem reporting in recent years. 

The success of Five Nations Energy is a tale of unwavering determination and imagination, Chilton said, and it started with his older brother. “Ed was the first person who believed a transmission line was possible,” he said.

In a Timmins Daily Press death notice published July 2, 2013, Ed Chilton is described as having “a quiet but profound impact on the establishment of agreements and enterprises benefitting First Nations peoples and their lands.” Chilton doesn’t describe him that way, exactly. 

“If you knew my brother, he was very stubborn,” he said. A certified engineering technologist, Ed was a visionary whose whole life was defined by the transmission line. He was the first to approach the chiefs with the idea, the first to reach out to energy companies and government officials and the one who persuaded thousands of people in remote, underserved communities that it was possible to bring power to their region.

After that 1996 meeting of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, there came a four-year-long effort to convince the rest of Ontario, and the country, the project was possible and financially viable. The chiefs of the five First Nations took their idea to the halls of power: Queen’s Park, Parliament Hill and the provincial power distributor Hydro One (then Ontario Hydro). 

“All of them said no,” Chilton said. “They saw it as near to impossible — the idea that you could build a transmission line in the ‘swamp,’ as they called it.” The Five Nations Energy team kept a document at the time tracking how many times they heard no; it topped out at 37. 

One of the worst times was in 1998, at a meeting on the 19th floor of the Ontario Hydro building in the heart of downtown Toronto. There, despite all their preparation and planning, a senior member of the Ontario Hydro team told Chilton, Martin and other chiefs “you’ll build that line over my dead body,” Chilton recalled. 

At the time, Chilton said, Ontario Hydro was refusing to cooperate: unwilling to let go of its monopoly over transmission lines, but also saying it was unable to connect new houses in the First Nations to diesel generators it said were at maximum capacity. (Ontario Hydro no longer exists; Hydro One declined to comment.)

“There’s always naysayers no matter what you’re doing,” Martin said. “What we were doing had never been done before. So of course people were telling us how we had never managed something of this size or a budget of this size.” 

“[Our people] basically told them to blow it up your ass. We can do it,” Chilton said.

So the chiefs of the five nations did something they’d never done before: they went to all of the big banks and many, many charitable foundations trying to get the money, a big ask for a project of this scale, in this location. Without outside support, their pitch was that they’d build it themselves.

This was the hardest part of the process, said Lawrence Martin, the former Grand Chief of Mushkegowuk Tribal Council and a member of the Five Nations Energy board. “We didn’t know how to finance something like this, to get loans,” he told The Narwhal. “That was the toughest task for all of us to achieve.”

Eventually, they got nearly $50 million in funding from a series of financial organizations including the Bank of Montreal, Pacific and Western Capital, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation (an Ontario government agency) and the engineering and construction company SNC Lavalin, which did an assessment of the area and deemed the project viable. 

And in 1999, Ed Chilton, other members of the Chilton family and the chiefs were able to secure an agreement with Ontario Hydro that would allow them to buy electricity from the province and sell it to their communities. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Power Sector Outlook 2022 previews clean energy targets, grid reliability and resilience upgrades, transmission expansion, renewable integration, EV charging networks, and decarbonization policies shaping utilities, markets, and climate strategies amid extreme weather risks.

Key Points

An outlook on clean energy goals, grid resilience, transmission, and EV infrastructure shaping U.S. decarbonization.

✅ States set 100% clean power targets; equity plans deepen.

✅ Grid reforms, transmission builds, and RTO debates intensify.

✅ EV plants, batteries, and charging corridors accelerate.

As sweeping climate legislation stalled in Congress this year, states and utilities were busy aiming to reshape the future of electricity.

States expanded clean energy goals and developed blueprints on how to reach them. Electric vehicles got a boost from new battery charging and factory plans.

The U.S. power sector also is sorting through billions of dollars of damage that will be paid for by customers over time. States coped with everything from blackouts during a winter storm to heat waves, hurricanes, wildfires and tornadoes. The barrage has added urgency to a push for increased grid reliability and resilience, especially as the power generation mix evolves, EV grid challenges grow as electricity is used to power cars and the climate changes.

“The magnitude of our inability to serve with these sort of discontinuous jumps in heat or cold or threats like wildfires and flooding has made it really clear that we can’t take the grid for granted anymore — and that we need to do something,” said Alison Silverstein, a Texas-based energy consultant.

Many of the announcements in 2021 could see further developments next year as legislatures, utilities and regulators flesh out details on everything from renewable projects to ways to make the grid more resilient.

On the policy front, the patchwork of state renewable energy and carbon reduction goals stands out considering Congress’ failure so far to advance a key piece of President Biden’s agenda — the "Build Back Better Act," which proposed about $550 billion for climate action. Criticism from fellow Democrats has rained on Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) since he announced his opposition this month to that legislation (E&E Daily, Dec. 21).

The Biden administration has taken some steps to advance its priorities as it looks to decarbonize the U.S. power sector by 2035. That includes promoting electric vehicles, which are part of a goal to make the United States have net-zero emissions economywide no later than 2050. The administration has called for a national network of 500,000 EV charging stations as the American EV boom raises power-supply questions, and mandated the government begin buying only EVs by 2035.

Still, the fate of federal legislation and spending is uncertain. States and utility plans are considered a critical factor in whether Biden’s targets come to fruition. Silverstein also stressed the importance of regional cooperation as policymakers examine the grid and challenges ahead.

“Our comfort as individuals and as households and as an economy depends on the grid staying up,” Silverstein said, “and that’s no longer a given.”

Here are three areas of the electricity sector that saw changes in 2021, and could see significant developments next year:

1. Clean energy
The list of states with new or revamped clean energy goals expanded again in 2021, with Oregon and Illinois joining the ranks requiring 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 2040 and 2050, respectively.

Washington state passed a cap-and-trade bill. Massachusetts and Rhode Island adopted 2050 net-zero goals.

North Carolina adopted a law requiring a 70 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels and establishing a midcentury net-zero goal.

Nebraska didn’t adopt a statewide policy, but its three public power districts voted separately to approve clean energy goals, actions that will collectively have the same effect. Even the governor of fossil-fuel-heavy North Dakota, during an oil conference speech, declared a goal of making the state carbon-neutral by the end of the decade.

These and other states join hundreds of local governments, big energy users and utilities, which were also busy establishing and reworking renewable energy and climate goals this year in response to public and investor pressure.

However, many of the details on how states will reach those targets are still to be determined, including factors such as how much natural gas will remain online and how many renewable projects will connect to the grid.

Decisions on clean energy that could be made in 2022 include a key one in Arizona, which has seen support rise and fall over the years for a proposal to lead to 100 percent clean power for regulated electric utilities. The Arizona Corporation Commission could discuss the matter in January, though final approval of the plan is not a sure thing. Eyes also are on California, where a much bigger grid for EVs will be needed, as it ponders a recent proposal on rooftop solar that has supporters of renewables worried about added costs that could hamper the industry.

In the wake of the major energy bill North Carolina passed in 2021, observers are waiting for Duke Energy Corp.’s filing of its carbon-reduction plan with state utility regulators. That plan will help determine the future electricity mix in the state.

Warren Leon, executive director of the Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA), said that without federal action, state goals are “going to be more difficult to achieve.”

State and federal policies are complementary, not substitutes, he said. And Washington can provide a tailwind and help states achieve their goals more quickly and easily.

“Progress is going to be most rapid if both the states and the federal government are moving in the same direction, but either of them operating independently of the others can still make a difference,” he said.

While emissions reductions and renewable energy goals were centerpieces of the state energy and climate policies adopted this year, there were some other common threads that could continue in 2022.

One that’s gone largely unnoticed is that an increasing number of states went beyond just setting targets for clean energy and have developed plans, or road maps, for how to meet their goals, Leon said.

Like the New Year resolutions that millions of Americans are planning — pledges to eat healthier or exercise more — it’s far easier to set ambitious goals than to achieve them.

According to CESA, California, Colorado, Nevada, Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Washington state all established plans for how to achieve their clean energy goals. Prior to late 2020, only two states — New York and New Jersey — had done so.

Another trend in state energy and climate policies: Equity and energy justice provisions factored heavily in new laws in places such as Maine, Illinois and Oregon.

Equity isn’t a new concern for states, Leon said. But state plans have become more detailed in terms of their response to ways the energy transition may affect vulnerable populations.

“They’re putting much more concrete actions in place,” he said. “And they are really figuring out how they go about electricity system planning to make sure there are new voices at the table, that the processes are different, and there are things that are going to be measured to determine whether they’re actually making progress toward equity.”

2. Grid
Climate change and natural disasters have been a growing worry for grid planners, and 2021 was a year the issue affected many Americans directly.

Texas’ main power grid suffered massive outages during a deadly February winter storm, and it wasn’t far from an uncontrolled blackout that could have required weeks or months of recovery.

Consumers elsewhere in the country watched as millions of Texans lost grid power and heat amid a bitter cold snap. Other parts of the central United States saw more limited power outages in February.

“I think people care about the grid a lot more this year than they did last year,” Silverstein said, adding, “All of a sudden people are realizing that electricity’s not as easy as they’ve assumed it was and … that we need to invest more.”

Many of the challenges are not specific to one state, she added.

“It seems to me that the state regulators need to put a lot — and utilities need to put a lot — more commitment into working together to solve broad regional problems in cooperative regional ways,” Silverstein said.

In 2022, multiple decisions could affect the grid, including state oversight of spending on upgrades and market proposals that could sway the amount of clean energy brought online.

A focal point will be Texas, where state regulators are examining further changes to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas’ market design. That could have major implications for how renewables develop in the state. Leaders in other parts of the country will likely keep tabs on adjustments in Texas as they ponder their own changes.

Texas has already embarked on reforms to help improve the power sector and its coordination with the natural gas system, which is critical to keeping plants running. But its primary power grid, operated by ERCOT, remains largely isolated and hasn’t been able to rule out power shortages this winter if there are extreme conditions (Energywire, Nov. 22).

Transmission also remains a key issue outside of the Lone Star State, both for resilience and to connect new wind and solar farms. In many areas of the country, the job of planning these new regional lines and figuring out how to allocate billions of dollars in costs falls to regional grid operators (Energywire, Dec. 13).

In the central U.S., the issue led to tension between states in the Midwest and the Gulf South (Energywire, Oct. 15).

In the Northeast, a Maine environmental commissioner last month suspended a permit for a major transmission project that could send hydropower to the region from Canada (Greenwire, Nov. 24). The project’s developers are now battling the state in court to force construction of the line — a process that could be resolved in 2022 — after Mainers signaled opposition in a November vote.

Advocates of a regional transmission organization for Western states, meanwhile, hope to keep building momentum even as critics question the cost savings promoted by supporters of organized markets. Among those in existing markets, states such as Louisiana are expected to monitor the costs and benefits of being associated with the Midcontinent Independent System Operator.

In other states, more details are expected to emerge in 2022 about plans announced this year.

In California, where policymakers are also exploring EVs for grid stability alongside wildfire prevention, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. announced a plan over the summer to spend billions of dollars to underground some 10,000 miles of power lines to help prevent wildfires, for example (Greenwire, July 22).

Several Southeastern utilities, including Dominion Energy Inc., Duke Energy, Southern Co. and the Tennessee Valley Authority, won FERC approval to create a new grid plan — the Southeast Energy Exchange Market, or SEEM — that they say will boost renewable energy.

SEEM is an electricity trading platform that will facilitate trading close to the times when the power is used. The new market is slated to include two time zones, which would allow excess renewables such as solar and wind to be funneled to other parts of the country to be used during peak demand times.

SEEM is significant because the Southeast does not have an organized market structure like other parts of the country, although some utilities such as Dominion and Duke do have some operations in the region managed by PJM Interconnection LLC, the largest U.S. regional grid operator.

SEEM is not a regional transmission organization (RTO) or energy imbalance market. Critics argue that because it doesn’t include a traditional independent monitor, SEEM lacks safeguards against actions that could manipulate energy prices.

Others have said the electric companies that formed SEEM did so to stave off pressure to develop an RTO. Some of the regulated electric companies involved in the new market have denied that claim.

3. Electric vehicles
With electric vehicles, the Midwest and Southeast gained momentum in 2021 as hubs for electrifying the transportation sector, as EVs hit an inflection point in mainstream adoption, and the Biden administration simultaneously worked to boost infrastructure to help get more EVs on the road.

From battery makers to EV startups to major auto manufacturers, companies along the entire EV supply chain spectrum moved to or expanded in those two regions, solidifying their footprint in the fast-growing sector.

A wave of industry announcements capped off in December with California-based Rivian Automotive Inc. declaring it would build a $5 billion electric truck, SUV and van factory in Georgia. Toyota Motor Corp. picked North Carolina for its first U.S.-based battery plant. General Motors Co. and a partner plan to build a $2.5 billion battery plant in GM’s home state of Michigan. And Proterra Inc. has unveiled plans to build a new battery factory in South Carolina.

Advocates hope the EV shift by automakers in the Midwest and Southeast will widen the options for customers. Automakers and startups also have been targeting states with zero-emission vehicle targets to launch new and more models because there’s an inherent demand for them.

“The states that have adopted those standards are getting more vehicles,” said Anne Blair, senior EV policy manager for the Electrification Coalition.

EV advocates say they hope those policies could help bring products like Ford’s electrified signature truck line on the road and into rural areas. Ford also is partnering with Korean partner SK Innovation Co. Ltd. to build two massive battery plants in Kentucky.

Regardless of the fanfare about new vehicles, more jobs and must-needed economic growth, barriers to EV adoption remain. Many states have tacked on annual fees, which some elected officials argue are needed to replace revenues secured from a gasoline tax.

Other states do not allow automakers to sell directly to consumers, preventing companies like Lordstown Motors Corp. and Rivian to effectively do business there.

“It’s about consumer choice and consumers having the capacity to buy the vehicles that they want and that are coming out, in new and innovative ways,” Blair told E&E News. Blair said direct sales also will help boost EV sales at traditional dealerships.

In 2022, advocates will be closely watching progress with the National Electric Highway Coalition, amid tensions over charging control among utilities and networks, which was formed by more than 50 U.S. power companies to build a coast-to-coast fast-charging network for EVs along major U.S. travel corridors by the end of 2023 (Energywire, Dec. 7).

A number of states also will be holding legislative sessions, and they could include new efforts to promote EVs — or change benefits that currently go to owners of alternative vehicles.

EV advocates will be pushing for lawmakers to remove barriers that they argue are preventing customers from buying alternative vehicles.

Conversations already have begun in Georgia to let startup EV makers sell their cars and trucks directly to consumers. In Florida, lawmakers will try again to start a framework that will create a network of charging stations as charging networks jostle for position under federal electrification efforts, as well as add annual fees to alternative vehicles to ease concerns over lost gasoline tax revenue.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

India Power Sector Payment Crisis strains utilities with electricity theft, discom arrears, coal dues, and subsidy burdens, triggering outages, load-shedding, and tariff stress as record heatwave demand tests grid reliability, billing compliance, and infrastructure upgrades.

Key Points

Linked payment shortfalls, theft, and subsidies driving arrears, outages, and planning gaps across Indias power grid.

✅ Discom arrears surpass Rs 1 lakh crore, straining cash flow

✅ Coal India unpaid, fuel risk rises and tariffs face pressure

✅ Outages and load-shedding worsen amid heatwave demand spike

India is among the world leaders in losing money to electricity theft. The country’s power sector also has a peculiar pattern of entities selling without getting the money on time, or nothing at all, while Manitoba Hydro debt highlights similar strains elsewhere. Coal India is owed about Rs 12,300 crore by power generation companies, which themselves have not been paid over Rs 1 lakh crore by distribution companies. The figures of losses suffered by discoms are much higher, even as UK network profits have drawn criticism, underscoring divergent market outcomes. The circuit does get completed somehow, but the uneven transaction, which defies business sense, introduces a disruptive strand that limits the scope for any future planning. Regular and unannounced shutdowns become the norm as the power supply falls short of demand, which this time is expected to touch record highs of 215-220 gigawatts amid the scorching heatwave, and cases like deferred BC Hydro costs illustrate how financial pressures accumulate.

In debt-ridden Punjab, the power subsidy bill is over Rs 10,000 crore, a large portion of which serves farmers. The AAP government plans to provide free electricity up to 300 units for every household from July 1, even as power bill cuts in Thailand show alternative approaches to affordability. The generous giveaways cannot camouflage the state of affairs. Thirty-three government departments had outstanding electricity bills of Rs 62 crore as on March 31, the end of the last financial year. With arrears of Rs 22.48 crore, the biggest defaulter was the Water and Sanitation Department. According to the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, around 40 police stations and posts have been found to be stealing power or failing to clear the bills, while utility impersonation scams target consumers elsewhere. Customary warnings have been issued of snapping supply if the dues are not paid, even as utility penalties for disconnection delays underscore enforcement challenges, but ‘public interest’ and ‘essential services’ will ensure that such an eventuality does not arise.

The substantial fine imposed on a dera stealing power in Tarn Taran, along with the registration of an FIR, is exemplary action that needs to be carried forward. Change is tough, but a new way of working begins with those in positions of power leading by example, be it fixing the payment mechanism, upgrading infrastructure with smart grid initiatives in mind, minimising the use of electricity or a gradual switch to alternative energy sources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

BC Hydro Holiday Energy Saving Tips highlight electricity usage trends and power conservation during Christmas cooking. Use efficient appliances, lower the thermostat, and track consumption with MyHydro to reduce bills while hosting guests.

Key Points

Guidelines from BC Hydro to cut holiday electricity usage via efficient cooking, smart thermostats, and MyHydro tracking.

✅ Use microwave, toaster oven, or slow cooker to save power.

✅ Batch-bake cookies and pies to minimize oven cycles.

✅ Set thermostat to 18 C and monitor use with MyHydro.

BC Hydro is reminding British Columbians to conserve power over the holidays after a report commissioned by the utility found the arrival of guests for Christmas dinner results in a 15% increase in electricity usage, and it expects holiday usage to rise as gatherings ramp up.

Cooking appears to be the number one culprit for the uptick in peoples’ hydro bills. According to BC Hydro press release, British Columbians use about 8,000 megawatt hours more of electricity by mid-day Christmas — that's about 1.5 million turkeys roasted in electric ovens — while Ontario electricity demand shifted as people stayed home during the pandemic.
 article continues below 

About 95% of British Columbians said they would make meals at home from scratch over the holiday season, mirroring the uptick in residential electricity use observed during the pandemic. The survey found that inviting friends or family over trumped any plans people had to buy pre-made meals or order take-out. Six in 10 respondents said they would also rather bake holiday treats than pick them up pre-made from the store. 

The survey also showed people in B.C. are taking steps to reduce their electricity usage, echoing earlier findings that many British Columbians changed daily electricity habits during the pandemic. When participants were asked whether they were conscious of how much electricity they used when visiting friends or family, 80% said they would be taking steps to limit their usage.

And while cooking meals from scratch over the holidays may contribute to a spike in a person's electricity bill, some studies have found that, when comparing their overall environmental impact against that of ready-made meals, a roasted dinner has a lower negative impact.

Still, there are many ways to improve your energy efficiency and save some money over the holiday season, and conserving can also help the grid during events like the recent atypical storm response noted by BC Hydro. BC Hydro recommends:

• using smaller appliances whenever possible, such as a microwave, crockpot or toaster oven as they use less than half the power of a regular electric oven;

• baking cookies or pies in batches to save energy;

• turning down the household thermostat to 18 C when possible to reduce costs during peak hydro rates where applicable;

• and tracking how much electricity you use through the MyHydro tool alongside potential time-of-use rates for smarter scheduling

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Shell's Industrial Electricity Supply Strategy targets UK and US industrial customers, leveraging gas-to-power, renewables, long-term PPAs, and energy transition momentum to disrupt utilities, cut costs, and secure demand in the evolving electricity market.

Key Points

Shell will sell power directly to industrial clients, leveraging gas, renewables, and PPAs to secure demand and pricing.

✅ Direct power sales to industrials in UK and US

✅ Leverages gas-to-power, renewables, and flexible sourcing

✅ Targets long-term PPAs, price stability, and demand security

Royal Dutch Shell’s decision to sell electricity direct to industrial customers is an intelligent and creative one. The shift is strategic and demonstrates that oil and gas majors are capable of adapting to a new world as the transition to a lower carbon economy develops. For those already in the business of providing electricity it represents a dangerous competitive threat. For the other oil majors it poses a direct challenge on whether they are really thinking about the future sufficiently strategically.

The move starts small with a business in the UK that will start trading early next year, in a market where the UK’s second-largest electricity operator has recently emerged, signaling intensifying competition. Shell will supply the business operations as a first step and it will then expand. But Britain is not the limit — Shell recently announced its intention of making similar sales in the US. Historically, oil and gas companies have considered a move into electricity as a step too far, with the sector seen as oversupplied and highly politicised because of sensitivity to consumer price rises. I went through three reviews during my time in the industry, each of which concluded that the electricity business was best left to someone else. What has changed? I think there are three strands of logic behind the strategy.

First, the state of the energy market. The price of gas in particular has fallen across the world over the last three years to the point where the International Energy Agency describes the current situation as a “glut”. Meanwhile, Shell has been developing an extensive range of gas assets, with more to come. In what has become a buyer’s market it is logical to get closer to the customer — establishing long-term deals that can soak up the supply, while options such as storing electricity in natural gas pipes gain attention in Europe. Given its reach, Shell could sign contracts to supply all the power needed by the UK’s National Health Service or with the public sector as a whole as well as big industrial users. It could agree long-term contracts with big businesses across the US.

To the buyers, Shell offers a high level of security from multiple sources with prices presumably set at a discount to the market. The mutual advantage is strong. Second, there is the transition to a lower carbon world. No one knows how fast this will move, but one thing is certain: electricity will be at the heart of the shift with power demand increasing in transportation, industry and the services sector as oil and coal are displaced. Shell, with its wide portfolio, can match inputs to the circumstances and policies of each location. It can match its global supplies of gas to growing Asian markets, including China’s 2060 electricity share projections, while developing a renewables-based electricity supply chain in Europe. The new company can buy supplies from other parts of the group or from outside. It has already agreed to buy all the power produced from the first Dutch offshore wind farm at Egmond aan Zee.

The move gives Shell the opportunity to enter the supply chain at any point — it does not have to own power stations any more than it now owns drilling rigs or helicopters. The third key factor is that the electricity market is not homogenous. The business of supplying power can be segmented. The retail market — supplying millions of households — may be under constant scrutiny, as efforts to fix the UK’s electricity grid keep infrastructure in the headlines, with suppliers vilified by the press and governments forced to threaten price caps but supplying power to industrial users is more stable and predictable, and done largely out of the public eye. The main industrial and commercial users are major companies well able to negotiate long-term deals.

Given its scale and reputation, Shell is likely to be a supplier of choice for industrial and commercial consumers and potentially capable of shaping prices. This is where the prospect of a powerful new competitor becomes another threat to utilities and retailers whose business models are already under pressure. In the European market in particular, electricity pricing mechanisms are evolving and public policies that give preference to renewables have undermined other sources of supply — especially those produced from gas. Once-powerful companies such as RWE and EON have lost much of their value as a result. In the UK, France and elsewhere, public and political hostility to price increases have made retail supply a risky and low-margin business at best. If the industrial market for electricity is now eaten away, the future for the existing utilities is desperate.

Shell’s move should raise a flag of concern for investors in the other oil and gas majors. The company is positioning itself for change. It is sending signals that it is now viable even if oil and gas prices do not increase and that it is not resisting the energy transition. Chief executive Ben van Beurden said last week that he was looking forward to his next car being electric. This ease with the future is rather rare. Shareholders should be asking the other players in the old oil and gas sector to spell out their strategies for the transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News