Toronto Hydro makes top 100 list

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

TEPCO Kashiwazaki-Kariwa restart plan clears NRA fitness review, anchored by a seven-point safety code, Niigata consent, Fukushima lessons, seismic risk analysis, and upgrades to No. 6 and No. 7 reactors, each rated 1.35 GW.

Key Points

TEPCO's plan to restart Kashiwazaki-Kariwa under NRA rules, pending Niigata consent and upgrades to Units 6 and 7.

✅ NRA deems TEPCO fit; legally binding seven-point safety code

✅ Local consent required: Niigata review of evacuation and health impacts

✅ Initial focus on Units 6 and 7; 1.35 GW each, seismic upgrades

Tokyo Electric Power Co. cleared a major regulatory hurdle toward restarting a nuclear power plant in Niigata Prefecture, but the utility’s bid to resume its operations still hangs in the balance of a series of political approvals.

The government’s nuclear watchdog concluded Sept. 23 that the utility is fit to operate the plant, based on new legally binding safety rules TEPCO drafted and pledged to follow, even as nuclear projects worldwide mark milestones across different regulatory environments today. If TEPCO is found to be in breach of those regulations, it could be ordered to halt the plant’s operations.

The Nuclear Regulation Authority’s green light now shifts the focus over to whether local governments will agree in the coming months to restart the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.

TEPCO is keen to get the plant back up and running. It has been financially reeling from the closure of its nuclear plants in Fukushima Prefecture following the triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant in 2011 triggered by the earthquake and tsunami disaster.

In parallel, Japan is investing in clean energy innovations such as a large hydrogen system being developed by Toshiba, Tohoku Electric Power and Iwatani.

The company plans to bring the No. 6 and No. 7 reactors back online at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear complex, which is among the world’s largest nuclear plants, amid China’s nuclear energy continuing on a steady development track in the region.

The two reactors each boast 1.35 gigawatts in output capacity, while Kenya’s nuclear plant aims to power industry as part of that country’s expansion. They are the newest of the seven reactors there, first put into service between 1996 and 1997.

TEPCO has not revealed specific plans yet on what to do with the older five reactors.

In 2017, the NRA cleared the No. 6 and No. 7 reactors under the tougher new reactor regulations established in 2013 in response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, while jurisdictions such as Ontario support continued operation at Pickering under strict oversight.

It also closely scrutinized the operator’s ability to run the Niigata Prefecture plant safely, given its history as the entity responsible for the nation’s most serious nuclear accident.

After several rounds of meetings with top TEPCO managers, the NRA managed to hold the utility’s feet to the fire enough to make it pledge, in writing, to abide by a new seven-point safety code for the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.

The creation of the new code, which is legally binding, is meant to hold the company accountable for safety measures at the facility.

“As the top executive, the president of TEPCO will take responsibility for the safety of nuclear power,” one of the points reads. “TEPCO will not put the facility’s economic performance above its safety,” reads another.

The company promised to abide by the points set out in writing during the NRA’s examination of its safety regulations.

TEPCO also vowed to set up a system where the president is directly briefed on risks to the nuclear complex, including the likelihood of earthquakes more powerful than what the plant is designed to withstand. It must also draft safeguard measures to deal with those kinds of earthquakes and confirm whether precautionary steps are in place.

The utility additionally pledged to promptly release public records on the decision-making process concerning crucial matters related to nuclear safety, and to preserve the documents until the facility is decommissioned.

TEPCO plans to complete its work to reinforce the safety of the No. 7 reactor in December. It has not set a definite deadline for similar work for the No. 6 reactor.

To restart the Kashiwazki-Kariwa plant, TEPCO needs to obtain consent from local governments, including the Niigata prefectural government.

The prefectural government is studying the plant’s safety through a panel of experts, which is reviewing whether evacuation plans are adequate as off-limits areas reopen and the health impact on residents from the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Niigata Governor Hideyo Hanazumi said he will not decide on the restart until the panel completes its review.

The nuclear complex suffered damage, including from fire at an electric transformer, when an earthquake it deemed able to withstand hit in 2007.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

ATCO Electric administrative penalty underscores an Alberta Utilities Commission probe into a sole-sourced First Nation contract, Jasper transmission line overpayments, and nondisclosure to ratepayers, sparked by a whistleblower and pending settlement approval.

Key Points

A $31M AUC settlement over alleged overpayment, sole-sourcing, and nondisclosure tied to a Jasper transmission line.

✅ $31M administrative penalty; AUC settlement pending approval

✅ Sole-sourced First Nation contract to protect related ATCO deal

✅ Overpayment concealed when seeking recovery from ratepayers

Regulated Alberta utility ATCO Electric has agreed to pay a $31 million administrative penalty after an Alberta Utilities Commission utilities watchdog investigation found it deliberately overpaid a First Nation group for work on a new transmission line, and then failed to disclose the reasons for it when it applied to be reimbursed by ratepayers for the extra cost.

An agreed statement of facts contained in a settlement agreement between ATCO Electric Ltd. and the commission's enforcement staff says the company sole-sourced a contract in 2018 for work that was necessary for an electric transmission line to Jasper, Alta., even as BC Hydro marked a Site C transmission line milestone elsewhere.

The company that won the contract was co-owned by the Simpcw First Nation in Barriere, B.C., while debates over a First Nations electricity line in Ontario underscore related issues, and the agreement says one of the reasons for the sole-sourcing was that another of Calgary-based ATCO's subsidiaries had a prior deal with the First Nation for infrastructure projects that included the provision of work camps on the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project.

The statement of facts says ATCO Electric feared that if it didn't grant the contract to the First Nation group and instead put the work to tender, amid legal pressures such as a treaty rights challenge, the group might back out of its deal with ATCO Structures and Logistics and partner with another, non-ATCO company on the Trans Mountain work.

The agreed statement says ATCO Electric paid several million dollars more than market value for some of the Jasper line work, while a Manitoba-Minnesota line delay was being weighed in another jurisdiction, and staff attempted to conceal the reasons for the overpayment when they sought to recover the extra money from Alberta consumers.

It states the investigation was sparked by a whistleblower, and notes the agreement between the utility commission's enforcement staff and ATCO Electric must still be approved by the Alberta Utilities Commission, a process comparable to hearings that consider oral traditional evidence on interprovincial lines.

The commission must be satisfied the settlement is in the public interest, a consideration often informed by concerns from Site C opponents in other regions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Alberta Coal-to-Gas Transition will retire coal units, convert plants to natural gas, boost renewables, and affect electricity prices, with policy tools like a price cap and carbon tax shaping the power market.

Key Points

Shift retiring coal units and converting to natural gas and renewables, targeting coal elimination by 2030.

✅ TransAlta retires Sundance coal unit; more units convert to gas.

✅ Forward prices seen near $40 to low $50/MWh in 2018.

✅ 6.8-cent cap shields consumers; carbon tax backstops costs.

The turn of the calendar to 2018 saw TransAlta retire one of its coal power generating units at its Sundance plant west of Edmonton and mothball another as it begins the transition to cleaner sources of energy across Alberta.

The company will say goodbye to three more units over the next year and a half to prepare them for conversion to natural gas.

This is part of a fundamental shift in Alberta, which will see coal power retired ahead of schedule by 2030, replaced by a mix of natural gas and renewable sources.

“We’re going to see that transition continue right up from now until 2030, and likely beyond 2030 as wind generation starts to outpace coal and new technologies become available.”

Coal has long been the backbone of Alberta’s grid, currently providing nearly 40 per cent of the provinces power. Analysts believe removing it will come with a cost to consumers, according to a report on coal phase-out costs published recently.

“The open question over the next couple of years is whether they’re going to inch up gradually, or whether they’re going to inch up like they did in 2012 and 2013, by having periods of very high power prices.”

Albertans are currently paying historically low power prices, with generation costs last year averaging below $23/MWh, less than half of the average of the past 10 years.

A report released in mid-December by electricity consultant firm EDC Associates showed forward prices moving from the $40/MWh in the first three months of 2018, to the low $50/MWh range.

“The forwards tend to take several weeks to fully react to announcements, so its anticipated that prices will continue to gradually track upwards over the coming weeks,” the report reads.

The NDP government has taken steps to protect consumers against price surges. Last spring, a price cap of 6.8 cents/MWh was put in place until the spring of 2021, with any cost above that to be covered by carbon tax revenue.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Pennsylvania Electricity Market Deregulation has driven competitive pricing, leveraged low-cost natural gas, and spurred private investment, jobs, and efficient power plants, while nuclear subsidies threaten wholesale market signals and long-term consumer savings.

Key Points

Policy that opens generation to competition, leverages cheap gas, lowers rates, and resists subsidies for nuclear plants.

✅ Competitive wholesale pricing benefits consumers statewide

✅ Gas-driven plants add efficient, flexible capacity and jobs

✅ Nuclear subsidies distort market signals and raise costs

For decades, the government regulation of Pennsylvania's electricity markets dictated all aspects of power generation resources in the state, thus restricting market-driven prices for consumers and hindering new power plant development and investment.

Deregulation has enabled competitive markets to drive energy prices downward, as recent grid auction payouts fell 64% indicate, which has transformed Pennsylvania from a higher-electricity-cost state to one with prices below the national average.

Recently, the economic advantage of abundant low-cost natural gas has spurred an influx of billions of dollars of private capital investment and thousands of jobs to construct environmentally responsible natural gas power generation facilities throughout the commonwealth — including our three power generation facilities in operation and one presently under construction.

Calpine is an independent power provider with a national portfolio of 80 highly efficient power plants in operation or under construction with an electric generating capacity of approximately 26,000 megawatts. Collectively, these resources can provide sufficient power for more than 30 million residential homes. We are not a regulated utility receiving a guaranteed rate of return on investment. Rather, Calpine competes to sell wholesale power into the electric markets, and the economics of supply and demand are fundamental to the success of our business.

Pennsylvania's deregulated electricity market is working. Consumers are benefiting from low-cost natural gas, as broader evidence shows competition benefits consumers and the environment across markets, and companies such as Calpine are investing billions of dollars and creating thousands of jobs to build advanced, energy efficient, environmentally responsible and flexible power generating facilities.

There are presently seven electric generating projects under construction in the commonwealth, representing about a $7 billion capital investment that will produce about 7,000 megawatts of efficient electrical power, with additional facilities being planned.

Looking back 20 years following the enactment of the Pennsylvania Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, Pennsylvania's regulators and policymakers must conclude that the results of a free and fair market-driven structure have delivered indisputable benefits to the consumer, even amid potential winter rate spikes for residents, and the Pennsylvania economy.

While consumers are now reaping the benefits of open and competitive electricity markets, we see challenges on the horizon that could threaten the foundation of those markets. Due to pressure from nuclear power generators, state policymakers throughout the nation have been increasing efforts to impact the generation mix in their respective states by offering ratepayer funded subsidies to existing nuclear generation resources or by considering a market structure overhaul in New England.

Subsidizing one power generation type over others is having a significant, negative impact on wholesale electric markets, competitive retails markets and ultimately the cost the consumer will have to pay, and can exacerbate disruptions in coal and nuclear industries that strain the economy and risk brownouts.

In Pennsylvania, these subsidies would follow nearly $9 billion already paid by ratepayers to help the commonwealth's nuclear industry transition from regulated to competitive energy markets.

The deregulation of Pennsylvania's electricity markets in the late 1990s allowed the nuclear industry to receive billions of dollars from ratepayers to recover "stranded costs" related to investments in the commonwealth's nuclear plants. These costs were negotiated amounts based on settlements with Pennsylvania's Public Utility Commission to allow the nuclear industry to prepare and transition to competitive electricity markets.

Enough is enough. Regulatory or governmental interference in well functioning markets does not lead to better outcomes. Pennsylvania's state Legislature should not pick winners and losers by enacting legislation that would create an uneven playing field that subsidizes nuclear generating resources in the commonwealth.

William Ferguson is regional vice president for Calpine Corp.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Energy-Only Electricity Market faces capacity market debate, AESO price cap review, and coal-to-gas shifts by TransAlta and Capital Power, balancing reliability with volatility as investment signals evolve across Alberta's grid.

Key Points

An energy market paying generators only for electricity sold, with AESO oversight and a price cap guiding new capacity.

✅ AESO reviewing $999 per MW-h wholesale price cap.

✅ UCP retained energy-only; capacity market plan cancelled.

✅ TransAlta and Capital Power shift to coal-to-gas.

The Kenney government’s decision to cancel the redesign of Alberta’s electricity system to a capacity market won’t side-track two of the province’s largest power generators from converting coal-fired facilities to burn natural gas as part of Alberta’s shift from coal to cleaner energy overall.

But other changes could be coming to the province’s existing energy-only electricity market — including the alteration of the $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) wholesale price cap in Alberta.

The heads of TransAlta Corp. and Capital Power Corp. are proceeding with strategies to convert existing coal-fired power generating facilities to use natural gas in the coming years.

Calgary-based TransAlta first announced in 2017 that it would make the switch, as the NDP government was in the midst of overhauling the electricity sector and wind generation began to outpace coal in the province.

At the time, the Notley government planned to phase out coal-fired power by 2030, even as Alberta moved to retire coal by 2023 in practice, and shift Alberta into an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Such a move, made on the recommendation of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), was intended to reduce price volatility and ensure system reliability.

Under the energy-only market, generators receive payments for electricity produced and sold into the grid. In a capacity market, generators are also paid for having power available on demand, regardless of how often they sell energy into the provincial grid.

The UCP government decided last month to ditch plans for a capacity market after consulting with the sector, saying it would be better for consumers.

On a conference call, TransAlta CEO Dawn Farrell said the company will convert coal-fired generating plants to burn gas, although it may alter the mix between simple conversions and switching to so-called “hybrid” plants.

(A hybrid conversion is a larger and more-expensive switch, as it includes installing a new gas turbine and heat-recovery steam generator, but it creates a highly efficient combined cycle unit.)

“Our view is fundamentally that carbon will be priced over the next 20 years no matter what,” she said Friday.

“We cannot get off coal fast enough in this company, and gas right now in Alberta is extremely inexpensive…

“So our coal-to-gas strategy is completely predicated on our belief that it’s not smart to be in carbon-intensive fuels for the future.”

Elsewhere in Canada, the Stop the Shock campaign has advocated for reviving coal power, underscoring ongoing policy debates.

The company said it’s planning the coal-to-gas conversion and re-powering of some or all of the units at its Keephills and Sundance facilities to gas-fired generation sometime between 2020 and 2023.

Similarly, Capital Power CEO Brian Vaasjo said the Edmonton-based company is moving ahead with a project that will allow it to burn both coal and natural gas at its Genesee generating station, even as Ontario’s energy minister sought to explore a halt to natural gas generation elsewhere.

In June, the company announced it would spend an estimated $50 million between 2019 and 2021 to allow it to use gas at the facility.

“What we’re doing is going to be dual fuel, so we will be able to operate 100 per cent natural gas or 100 per cent coal and everything in between,” Vaasjo said in an interview.

“You can expect to see we will be burning coal in the winter when natural gas prices are high, and we will be burning natural gas in summer when gas prices are real low.”

The transition comes as the government’s decision to stick with the energy-only market has been welcomed by players in the industry, and as Alberta's electricity future increasingly leans on wind resources.

A study by electricity consultancy EDC Associates found the capacity market would result in consumers paying an extra $1.4 billion in direct costs in 2021-22, as it required more generation to come online earlier than expected.

These additional costs would have accumulated to $10 billion by 2030, said EDC chief executive Duane-Reid Carlson.

For Capital Power, the decision to stick with the current system makes the province more investable in the future. Vaasjo said there was great uncertainty about the transition to a capacity market, and the possibility of rules shifting further.

Officials with Enmax Corp. said the city-owned utility would not have invested in future generation under the proposed capacity market.

“There is no short-term need (today) for new generation, so we’re just looking at the market and saying, ‘OK, as it evolves, we will see what happens,’” said Enmax vice-president Tim Boston.

Sticking with the energy-only market doesn’t mean Alberta will keep the existing rules.

In a July 25 letter, Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage directed AESO chair Will Bridge to examine if changes to the existing market are needed and report back by July 2020.

AESO, which manages the power grid, has been asked to investigate whether the current price cap of $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) should be changed.

The price ceiling hasn’t been altered since the energy-only market was implemented by the Klein government about two decades ago.

While allowing prices to go higher would increase volatility, reflecting lessons from Europe’s power crisis about scarcity pricing, during periods of rising demand and limited supply, it would send a signal to generators when investment in new generation is required, said Kent Fellows, a research associate at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

“Keeping the price (cap) too low could end up costing us more in the long run,” he said.

In a 2016 report, AESO said the province examined raising the price cap to $5,000 per MW-h, but “determined that it was unlikely to be successful in attracting investment due to increased price volatility.”

However, the amount of future generation that will be required in Alberta has been scaled back by the province.

In the United States, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) allows wholesale power prices in the state to climb to a cap of $9,000 per megawatt hours as demand rises — as it did Tuesday in the midst of a heat wave, according to Bloomberg.

Jim Wachowich, legal counsel for the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta, said while few players are exposed to spot electricity prices, he has yet to be convinced raising the cap would be good for Albertans.

“Someone has to show me the evidence, and I suspect that’s what the minister has asked the AESO to do,” he said.

Generators say they believe some tinkering is needed to the energy-only market to ensure new generation is built when it’s required.

“The No. 1 change that the government has to … think about is in pricing,” added Farrell.

“If you don’t have enough of a price signal in an energy-only market to attract new capital, you won’t get new capital — and you’ll run up against the wall.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News