Battery-free, multi-detection wireless sensors developed

Texas Electric Cooperatives outperformed during Winter Storm Uri, with higher customer satisfaction, equitable rolling blackouts, and stronger grid reliability compared to deregulated markets, according to ERCOT-area survey data of regulated utilities and commercial providers.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities in Texas delivering power, noted for reliability and fair outages during Winter Storm Uri.

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

Winter Storm Uri began to hit parts of Texas on February 13, 2021 and its onslaught left close to 4.5 million Texas homes and businesses without power, and many faced power and water disruptions at its peak. By some accounts, the preliminary number of deaths attributed to the storm is nearly 200, and the economic toll for the Lone Star State is estimated to be as high as $295 billion. 

The more than two-thirds of Texans who lost power during this devastating storm were notably more negative than positive in their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, mirrored by a rise in electricity complaints statewide, with one exception. That exception are the members of the more than 60 electric cooperatives operating within the Texas Interconnection electrical grid, which, in sharp contrast to the customers of the commercial utilities that provide power to the majority of Texans, gave their local utility a positive evaluation related to its performance during the storm.

In order to study Winter Storm Uri’s impact on Texas, the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston conducted an online survey during the first half of March of residents 18 and older who live in the 213 counties (91.5% of the state population) served by the Texas power grid, which is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 

Three-quarters of the survey population (75%) live in areas with a deregulated utility market, where a specified transmission and delivery utility by region is responsible for delivering the electricity (purchased from one of a myriad of private companies by the consumer) to homes and businesses. The four main utility providers are Oncor, CenterPoint CNP -2.2%, American Electric Power (AEP) North, and American Electric Power (AEP) Central. 

The other 25% of the survey population live in areas with regulated markets, where a single company is responsible for both delivering the electricity to homes and businesses and serves as the only source from which electricity is purchased. Municipal-owned and operated utilities (e.g., Austin Energy, Bryan Texas Utilities, Burnet Electric Department, Denton Municipal Electric, New Braunfels Utilities, San Antonio’s CPS Energy CMS -2.1%) serve 73% of the regulated market. Electric cooperatives (e.g., Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Central Texas Electric Cooperative, Guadalupe Valley Cooperative, Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Pedernales Electricity Cooperative, Wood County Electric Cooperative) serve one-fifth of this market (21%), with private companies accounting for 6% of the regulated market.

The overall distribution of the survey population by electric utility providers is: Oncor (38%), CenterPoint (21%), municipal-owned utilities (18%), AEP Central & AEP North combined (12%), electric cooperatives (6%), other providers in the deregulated market (4%) and other providers in the regulated market (1%). 

There were no noteworthy differences among the 31% of Texans who did not lose power during the winter storm in regard to their evaluations of their local electricity provider or their belief that the power cuts in their locale were carried out in an equitable manner.  

However, among the 69% of Texans who lost power, those served by electric cooperatives in the regulated market and those served by private electric utilities in the deregulated market differed notably regarding their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, both in regard to their management of the rolling blackouts, amid debates over market reforms to avoid blackouts, and to their overall performance during the winter storm. Those Texans who lost power and are served by electric cooperatives in a regulated market had a significantly more positive evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility than did those Texans who lost power and are served by a private company in a deregulated electricity market. 

For example, only 24% of Texans served by electric cooperatives had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s overall performance during the winter storm, compared to 55%, 56% and 61% of those served by AEP, Oncor and CenterPoint respectively. A slightly smaller proportion of Texans served by electric cooperatives (22%) had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s performance managing the rolling blackouts during the winter storm, compared to 58%, 61% and 71% of Texans served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint, respectively.

Texans served by electric cooperatives in regulated markets were more likely to agree that the power cuts in their local area were carried out in an equitable manner compared to Texans served by commercial electricity utilities in deregulated markets. More than half (52%) of those served by an electric cooperative agreed that power cuts during the winter storm in their area were carried out in an equitable manner, compared to only 26%, 23% and 23% of those served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint respectively

The survey data did not allow us to provide a conclusive explanation as to why the performance during the winter storm by electric cooperatives (and to a much lesser extent municipal utilities) in the regulated markets was viewed more favorably by their customers than was the performance of the private companies in the deregulated markets viewed by their customers. Yet here are three, far from exhaustive, possible explanations.

First, electric cooperatives might have performed better (based on objective empirical metrics) during the winter storm, perhaps because they are more committed to their customers, who are effectively their bosses. .  

Second, members of electric cooperatives may believe their electric utility prioritizes their interests more than do customers of commercial electric utilities and therefore, even if equal empirical performance were the case, are more likely to rate their electric utility in a positive manner than are customers of commercial utilities.  

Third, regulated electric utilities where a single entity is responsible for the commercialization, transmission and distribution of electricity might be better able to respond to the type of challenges presented by the February 2021 winter storm than are deregulated electric utilities where one entity is responsible for commercialization and another is responsible for transmission and distribution, aligning with calls to improve electricity reliability across Texas.

Other explanations for these findings may exist, which in addition to the three posited above, await future empirical verification via new and more comprehensive studies designed specifically to study electric cooperatives, large commercial utilities, and the incentives that these entities face under the regulatory system governing production, commercialization and distribution of electricity, including rulings that some plants are exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under state law. 

Still, opinion about electricity providers during Winter Storm Uri is clear: Texans served by regulated electricity markets, especially by electric cooperatives, were much more satisfied with their providers’ performance than were those in deregulated markets. Throughout its history, Texas has staunchly supported the free market. Could Winter Storm Uri change this propensity, or will attempts to regulate electricity lessen as the memories of the storm’s havoc fades? With a hotter summer predicted to be on the horizon in 2021 and growing awareness of severe heat blackout risks, we may soon get an answer.   

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nunavut electricity rate increase sees QEC raise domestic electricity rates 6.6% over two years, affecting customer rates, base rates, subsidies, and kWh overage charges across communities, with public housing exempt and territory-wide pricing denied.

Key Points

A 6.6% QEC hike over 2018-2019, affecting customer rates, subsidies, and kWh overage; public housing remains exempt.

✅ 3.3% on May 1, 2018; 3.3% on Apr 1, 2019

✅ Subsidy caps: 1,000 kWh Oct-Mar; 700 kWh Apr-Sep

✅ Territory-wide base rate denied; public housing exempt

Ahead of the Nunavut government's approval of the general rate increase for the Qulliq Energy Corporation, many Nunavummiut wondered how the change would impact their electricity bills.

QEC's request for a 6.6-per-cent increase was approved by the government last week. The increase will be spread out over two years, a pattern similar to BC Hydro's two-year rate plan, with the first increase (3.3 per cent) effective May 1, 2018. The remaining 3.3 per cent will be applied on April 1, 2019.

Public housing units, however, are exempt from the government's increase altogether.

The power corporation also asked for a territory-wide rate, so every community would pay the same base rate (we'll go over specific terms in a minute if you're not familiar with them). But that request was denied, even as Manitoba Hydro scaled back increases next year, and QEC will now take the next two years reassessing each community's base rate.

#google#

So, what does this mean for your home's power bill? Well, there's a few things you need to know, which we'll get to in a second.

But in essence, as long as you don't go over the government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit, you're paying an extra 3.61 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh).

To be clear, we're talking about non-government domestic rates — basically, private homeowners — and those living in a government-owned unit but pay for their own power.

The basics

First, some quick terminology. The "base rate" term we're going to use (and used above) in this story refers to the community rate. As in, what QEC charges customers in every community. The "customer rate" is the rate customers actually pay, after the government's subsidy.

The first thing you need to know is everyone in Nunavut starts off by paying the same customer rate, unlike jurisdictions using a price cap to limit spikes.

That's because the government subsidizes electricity costs, and that subsidy is different in every community, because the base rate is different.

For example, Iqaluit's new base rate after the 3.3 per cent increase (remember, the 6.6 per cent is being applied over two years) is 56.69 cents per kWh, while Kugaaruk's base rate rose to 112.34 cents per kWh. Those, by the way, are the territory's lowest and highest respective base rates.

However, customers in both Iqaluit and Kugaaruk will each now pay 28.35 cents per kWh because, remember, the government subsidizes the base rates in every community.

Now, remember earlier we mentioned a "government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit?" That's where customers in various communities start to pay different amounts.

As simply as we can explain it, the government will only cover so much electricity usage in a month, in every household.

Between October and March, the government will subsidize the first 1,000 kilowatt hours, and only 700 kilowatt hours from April to September. QEC says the average Nunavut home will use about 500 kilowatt hours every month over the course of a year.

But if your household goes over that limit, you're at the mercy of your community's base rate for any extra electricity you use. Homes in Kugaaruk in December, for instance, will have to pay that 122.34 cents for every extra kilowatt hour it uses, while homes in Iqaluit only have to pay 56.69 cents per kWh for its extra electricity.

That's where many Nunavummiut have criticized the current rate structure, because smaller communities are paying more for their extra costs than larger communities.

QEC had hoped — as it had asked for — to change the structure so every community pays the same base rate. So regardless of if people go over their electricity usage limits for the government subsidy, everyone would pay the same overage rates.

But the government denied that request.

New rate is actually lower

The one thing we should highlight, however, is the new rate after the increase is actually lower than what customers were paying in 2014.

For the past seven months, customers have been getting power from QEC at a discount, whereas Newfoundland customers began paying for Muskrat Falls during the same period, to different effect.

That's because when QEC sets its rates, it does so based on global oil price forecasts. Since 2014, the price of oil worldwide has slumped, and so QEC was able to purchase it at less than it had anticipated.

When that happens, and QEC makes more than $1 million within a six month period thanks to the lower oil prices, it refunds the excess profits back to customers through a discount on electricity base rates — a mechanism similar to a lump-sum credit used elsewhere — the government subsidy, however, doesn't change so the savings are passed on directly to customers.

Now, the 6.6 per cent increase to electricity rates, is actually being applied to the discounted base rate from the last seven months.

So again, while customers are paying more than they have been for the last seven months, it's lower than what they were paying in 2014.

Lastly, to be clear, all the figures used in this story are only for domestic non-government rates. Commercial rates and changes have not been explored in this story, given the differences in subsidy and rate application.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Puerto Rico Power Restoration advances as PREPA, FEMA, and the Army Corps rebuild the grid after Hurricane Maria; 75% of customers powered, amid privatization debate, Whitefish contract fallout, and a continuing island-wide boil-water advisory.

Key Points

Effort to rebuild Puerto Rico's grid and restore power, led by PREPA with FEMA support after Hurricane Maria.

✅ 75.35% of customers have power; 90.8% grid generating

✅ PREPA, FEMA, and Army Corps lead restoration work

✅ Privatization debate, Whitefish contract scrutiny

Nearly six months after Hurricane Maria decimated Puerto Rico, the island's electricity has been restored to 75 percent capacity, according to its utility company, a contrast to California power shutdowns implemented for different reasons.

The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority said Sunday that 75.35 percent of customers now have electricity. It added that 90.8 percent of the electrical grid, already anemic even before the Sept. 20 storm barrelled through the island, is generating power again, though demand dynamics can vary widely as seen in Spain's power demand during lockdowns.

Thousands of power restoration personnel made up of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), industry workers from the mainland, and the Army Corps of Engineers have made marked progress in recent weeks, even as California power shutoffs highlight grid risks elsewhere.

Despite this, 65 people in shelters and an island-wide boil water advisory is still in effect even though almost 100 percent of Puerto Ricans have access to drinking water, local government records show.

The issue of power became controversial after Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rossello recently announced plans to privatize PREPA after it chose to allocate a $300 million power restoration contract to Whitefish, a Montana-based company with only a few staffers, rather than put it through the mutual-aid network of public utilities usually called upon to coordinate power restoration after major disasters, and unlike investor-owned utilities overseen by regulators such as the Florida PSC on the mainland.

That contract was nixed and Whitefish stopped working in Puerto Rico after FEMA raised "significant concerns" over the procurement process, scrutiny mirrored by the fallout from Taiwan's widespread outage where the economic minister resigned.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Hydro One-Avista Merger outlines a utility acquisition shaped by Washington regulators, Colstrip coal plant depreciation, and plans for renewables, clean energy, and emissions cuts, while Montana reviews implications for jobs, ratepayers, and a 2027 closure.

Key Points

A utility deal setting Colstrip depreciation and renewables, without committing to an early coal plant closure.

✅ Washington sets 2027 depreciation for Colstrip units

✅ Montana reviews jobs, ratepayer impacts, community fund

✅ Avista seeks renewables; no binding shutdown commitment

The Washington power company Hydro One is buying will be ready to close its huge coal-fired generating station ahead of schedule, thanks to conditions put on the corporate merger by state regulators there.

Not that we actually plan to do that, the company is telling other regulators in Montana, where coal unit retirements are under debate, the huge coal-fired generating station in question employs hundreds of people. We’ll be in the coal business for a good long time yet.

Hydro One, in which the Ontario government now owns a big minority stake, is still working on its purchase of Avista, a private power utility based in Spokane. The $6.7-billion deal, which Hydro One announced in July, includes a 15 per cent share in two of the four generating units in a coal plant in Colstrip, Montana, one of the biggest in the western United States. Avista gets most of its electricity from hydro dams and gas but uses the Colstrip plant when demand for power is high and water levels at its dams are low.

#google#

Colstrip’s a town of fewer than 2,500 people whose industries are the power plant and the open-pit mines that feed it about 10 million tonnes of coal a year. Two of Colstrip’s generators, older ones Avista doesn’t have any stake in, are closing in 2022. The other two will be all that keep the town in business.

In Washington, they don’t like the coal plant and its pollution. In Montana, the future of Colstrip is a much bigger concern. The companies have to satisfy regulators in both places that letting Hydro One buy Avista is in the public interest.

Ontario proudly closed the last of our coal plants in 2014 and outlawed new ones as environmental menaces, and Alberta's coal phase-out is now slated to finish by 2023. When Hydro One said it was buying Avista, which makes about $100 million in profit a year, Premier Kathleen Wynne said she hoped Ontario’s “value system” would spread to Avista’s operations.

The settlement is “an important step towards bringing together two historic companies,” Hydro One’s chief executive Mayo Schmidt said in announcing it.

The deal has approval from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission staff but is subject to a vote by the group’s three commissioners. It doesn’t commit Avista to closing anything at Colstrip or selling its share. But Avista and Hydro One will budget as if the Colstrip coal burners will close in 2027, instead of running into the 2040s as their owners had once planned, a timeline that echoes debates over the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico.

In accounting terms, they’ll depreciate the value of their share of the plant to zero over the next nine years, reflecting what they say is the end of the plant’s “useful life.” Another of Colstrip’s owners, Puget Sound Energy, has previously agreed with Washington regulators that it’ll budget for a Colstrip closure in 2027 as well.

Avista and Hydro One will look for sources of 50 megawatts of renewable electricity, including independent power projects where feasible, in the next four years and another 90 megawatts to supplement Avista’s supply once the Colstrip plant eventually closes, they promise in Washington. They’ll put $3 million into a “community transition fund” for Colstrip.

The money will come from the companies’ profits and cash, the agreement says. “Hydro One will not seek cost recovery for such funds from ratepayers in Ontario,” it says specifically.

“Ontario has always been a global leader in the transition away from dirty coal power and towards clean energy,” said Doug Howell, an anti-coal campaigner with the Sierra Club, which is a party to the agreement. “This settlement continues that tradition, paving the way for the closure of the largest single source of climate pollution in the American West by 2027, if not earlier.”

Montanans aren’t as thrilled. That state has its own public services commission, doing its own examination of the corporate merger, which has asked Hydro One and Avista to explain in detail why they want to write off the value of the Colstrip burners early. The City of Colstrip has filed a petition saying it wants in on Montana hearings because “the potential closure of (Avista’s units) would be devastating to our community.”

Don’t get too worked up, an Avista vice-president urged the Montana commission just before Easter.

“Just because an asset is depreciated does not mean that one would otherwise remove that asset from service if the asset is still performing as intended,” Jason Thackston testified in a session that dealt only with what the deal with Washington state would mean to Colstrip. We’re talking strictly about an accounting manoeuvre, not an operational commitment.

Six joint owners will have to agree to close the Colstrip generators and there’s “no other tacit understanding or unstated agreement” to do that, he said.

Besides Washington and Montana, state regulators in Idaho, including those overseeing the Idaho Power settlement process, Alaska and Oregon and multiple federal authorities have to sign off on the deal before it can happen. Hydro One hopes it’ll be done in the second half of this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Nuclear Plant Climate Risks span flood risk, heat stress, and water scarcity, threatening operations, safety systems, and steam generation; resilience depends on mitigation investments, cooling-water management, and adaptive maintenance strategies.

Key Points

Climate-driven threats to nuclear plants: floods, heat, and water stress requiring resilience and mitigation.

✅ Flooding threats to safety and cooling systems

✅ Heat stress reduces thermal efficiency and output

✅ Water scarcity risks limit cooling capacity

Climate change can affect every aspect of nuclear plant operations like fuel handling, power and steam generation and the need for resilient power systems planning, maintenance, safety systems and waste processing, the credit rating agency said.

However, the ultimate credit impact will depend upon the ability of plant operators to invest in carbon-free electricity and other mitigating measures to manage these risks, it added.
Close proximity to large water bodies increase the risk of damage to plant equipment that helps ensure safe operation, the agency said in a note.

Moody’s noted that about 37 gigawatts (GW) of U.S. nuclear capacity is expected to have elevated exposure to flood risk and 48 GW elevated exposure to combined rising heat, extreme heat costs and water stress caused by climate change.

Parts of the Midwest and southern Florida face the highest levels of heat stress, while the Rocky Mountain region and California face the greatest reduction in the availability of future water supply, illustrating the need for adapting power generation to drought strategies, it said.

Nuclear plants seeking to extend their operations by 20, or even 40 years, beyond their existing 40-year licenses in support of sustaining U.S. nuclear power and decarbonization face this climate hazard and may require capital investment adjustments, Moody’s said, as companies such as Duke Energy climate report respond to investor pressure for climate transparency.

“Some of these investments will help prepare for the increasing severity and frequency of extreme weather events, highlighting that the US electric grid is not designed for climate impacts today.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

DOE RMUC Cybersecurity Program supports rural, municipal, and small investor-owned utilities with grants, technical assistance, grid resilience, incident response, workforce training, and threat intelligence sharing to harden energy systems and protect critical infrastructure.

Key Points

A $250M DOE program providing grants to boost rural and municipal utilities' cybersecurity and incident response.

✅ Grants and technical assistance for grid security

✅ Enhances incident response and threat intel sharing

✅ Builds cybersecurity workforce in rural utilities

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking public input on a new $250 million program to strengthen the cybersecurity posture of rural, municipal, and small investor-owned electric utilities.

Funded by President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and broader clean energy funding initiatives, the Rural and Municipal Utility Advanced Cybersecurity Grant and Technical Assistance (RMUC) Program will help eligible utilities harden energy systems, processes, and assets; improve incident response capabilities; and increase cybersecurity skills in the utility workforce. Providing secure, reliable power to all Americans, with a focus on equity in electricity regulation across communities, will be a key focus on the pathway to achieving President Biden’s goal of a net-zero carbon economy by 2050. 

“Rural and municipal utilities provide power for a large portion of low- and moderate-income families across the nation and play a critical role in ensuring the economic security of our nation’s energy supply,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “This new program reflects the Biden Administration's commitment to improving energy reliability and connecting our nation’s rural communities to resilient energy infrastructure and the transformative benefits that come with it.” 

Nearly one in six Americans live in a remote or rural community. Utilities in these communities face considerable obstacles, including difficulty recruiting top cybersecurity talent, inadequate infrastructure, as the aging U.S. power grid struggles to support new technologies, and lack of financial resources needed to modernize and harden their systems. 

The RMUC Program will provide financial and technical assistance to help rural, municipal, and small investor-owned electric utilities improve operational capabilities, increase access to cybersecurity services, deploy advanced cyber security technologies, and increase participation of eligible entities in cybersecurity threat information sharing programs and coordination with federal partners initiatives. Priority will be given to eligible utilities that have limited cybersecurity resources, are critical to the reliability of the bulk power system, or those that support our national defense infrastructure. 

The Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER), which advances U.S. energy security objectives, will manage the RMUC Program, providing $250 million dollars in BIL funding over five years. To help inform Program implementation, DOE is seeking input from the cybersecurity community, including eligible utilities and representatives of third parties and organizations that support or interact with these utilities. The RFI seeks input on ways to improve cybersecurity incident preparedness, response, and threat information sharing; cybersecurity workforce challenges; risks associated with technologies deployed on the electric grid; national-scale initiatives to accelerate cybersecurity improvements in these utilities; opportunities to strengthen partnerships and energy security support efforts; the selection criteria and application process for funding awards; and more. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News