DTE ups rewards for copper theft info

Los Angeles Power Station Fire prompts LADWP to shut a Northridge/Reseda substation, causing a San Fernando Valley outage amid a heatwave; high-voltage equipment and mineral oil burned as 94,000 customers lost power, elevator rescues reported.

Key Points

An LADWP substation fire in Northridge/Reseda caused a major outage; 94,000 customers affected as crews restore power.

✅ Fire started around 6:52 p.m.; fully extinguished by 9 p.m.

✅ High-voltage gear and mineral oil burned; no injuries reported.

✅ Outages hit Porter Ranch, Reseda, West Hills, Granada Hills.

About 94,000 customers were without electricity Saturday night after the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power shut down a power station in the northeast San Fernando Valley that caught fire, the agency said.

The fire at the station in the Northridge/Reseda area of Los Angeles started about 6:52 p.m. and involved equipment that carries high-voltage electricity and distributes it at lower voltages to customers in the surrounding area, the department said, even as other utilities sometimes deploy wildfire safety shut-offs to reduce risk during dangerous conditions.

The department shut off power to the station as a precautionary move, and it is restoring power now that the fire has been put out, similar to restoration after intentional shut-offs in other parts of California. Initially, 140,000 customers were without power. That number had been cut to 94,000 by 11 p.m.

The power outage comes as much of California baked in heat that broke records, and rolling blackout warnings were issued as the grid strained. A record that stood 131 years in Los Angeles was snapped when the temperature spiked at 98 degrees downtown.

People reported losing power in Porter Ranch, Winnetka, West Hills, Canoga Park, Woodland Hills, Granada Hills, North Hills, Reseda and Chatsworth, KABC TV reported, highlighting electricity inequality across communities.

Shortly after the blaze broke out, firefighters found a huge container of mineral oil that is used to cool electrical equipment on fire, Los Angeles Fire Department spokesman Brian Humphrey told the Los Angeles Times. The incident underscores infrastructure risks that in some regions have required a complete grid rebuild after severe storms.

Firefighters had the blaze under control by 8:30 p.m. and were able to put it out by 9 p.m., Humphrey said. "These were fierce flames, with smoke towering more than 300 feet into the sky," he told the newspaper.

No one was injured.

Firefighters rescued people who were stranded in elevators, Humphrey said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Adani Electricity Mumbai Power Cuts follow non-payment rules, reflecting billing disputes, regulatory compliance, consumer impact, and affordability concerns, while prompting mitigation measures like flexible payment plans, assistance programs, and clearer communication for residents.

Key Points

AEML cutoffs for unpaid bills per rules, raising affordability worries, billing issues, and calls for flexible aid.

✅ Triggered by unpaid bills under regulatory guidelines

✅ Affordability and billing transparency concerns raised

✅ Mitigation: flexible plans, aid for low-income users

Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited (AEML) recently made headlines by cutting power supply to around 100 homes in Mumbai, sparking discussions about the reasons behind this action and its implications for consumers, especially as reports like the Northeast D.C. outage continue to surface.

Background of the Incident

The power supply disconnections by AEML were reportedly due to non-payment of electricity bills by the affected households. This action, although necessary under AEML's policies and in accordance with regulatory guidelines, has raised concerns about the impact on residents, particularly during challenging economic times when pandemic electricity shut-offs highlighted energy insecurity.

Reasons for Non-Payment

Non-payment of electricity bills can stem from various reasons, including financial hardships, disputes over billing accuracy, or unforeseen circumstances affecting household finances. In Mumbai, where the cost of living is high, utility bills constitute a significant portion of monthly expenses for many households, mirroring trends of rising electricity bills seen elsewhere.

Regulatory and Legal Framework

AEML's decision to disconnect power supply aligns with regulatory provisions governing utility services, which may include emergency disconnection moratoriums in other jurisdictions. Utility companies are mandated to enforce bill payments to maintain operational sustainability and ensure fair distribution of resources among consumers.

Consumer Impact and Response

The power disconnections have prompted reactions from affected residents and consumer advocacy groups, highlighting issues related to affordability, transparency in billing practices, and the need for supportive measures during times of economic distress amid heat-related electricity struggles that pressure vulnerable households.

Mitigation Measures

In response to such incidents, utility companies and regulatory authorities often implement mitigation measures. These may include flexible payment options, financial assistance programs for low-income households, and enhanced communication about billing procedures and payment deadlines, along with policy scrutiny such as utility spending oversight to curb unnecessary costs.

Future Considerations

As cities like Mumbai continue to grow and face challenges related to urbanization and infrastructure development, ensuring reliable and affordable access to essential services like electricity, including efforts to prevent summer power outages, remains a priority. Balancing the operational needs of utility providers with consumer welfare concerns requires ongoing dialogue and proactive measures from all stakeholders.

Conclusion

The power supply cuts by Adani Electricity in Mumbai underscore the complexities of managing utility services in urban centers. While necessary for financial viability and regulatory compliance, such actions also highlight broader issues of affordability and consumer protection. Moving forward, collaborative efforts between utility companies, regulatory authorities, and community stakeholders are essential in addressing these challenges and ensuring equitable access to essential services for all residents.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Municipal Renewable Energy Procurement surged as cities contracted 3.7 GW of solar and wind, leveraging green tariffs, community solar, and utility partnerships across the Southeast, led by Houston, RMI, and WRI data.

Key Points

The process by which cities contract solar and wind via utilities or green tariffs to meet climate goals.

✅ 3.7 GW procured in 2020, nearly 25% year-over-year growth

✅ Houston runs city ops on 500 MW solar, a record purchase

✅ Southeast cities use green tariffs and community solar

Cities around the country bought more renewable energy last year than ever before, reflecting how renewables may soon provide one-fourth of U.S. electricity across the grid, with some of the most remarkable projects in the Southeast, according to new data unveiled Thursday.

Even amid the pandemic, about eight dozen municipalities contracted to buy nearly 3.7 gigawatts of mostly solar and wind energy — enough to power more than 800,000 homes. The figure is almost a quarter higher than the year before.

Half of the cites listed as “most noteworthy” in Thursday’s release —  from research groups Rocky Mountain Institute and World Resources Institute — are in the region that stretches from Texas to Washington, D.C. 

Houston stands out for the sheer enormity of its purchase: In July, it began powering city operations entirely from nearly 500 megawatts of solar power — the largest municipal purchase of renewable energy ever in the United States, as renewable electricity surpassed coal nationwide.

The groups also feature smaller deals in North Carolina and Tennessee, achieved through a utility partnership called a green tariff.

“We wanted to recognize that Nashville and Charlotte were really blazing a new trail,” said Stephen Abbott, principal at the Rocky Mountain Institute.

And the nation’s capital shows how renewable energy can be a source of revenue: It’s leasing out its public transit station rooftops for 10 megawatts of community solar.

All of these strategies will be necessary for scores of U.S. cities to meet their ambitious climate goals, researchers believe. An interactive clean energy targets tracker shows all 95 clean energy procurements from the year in detail.

Tracker 
Even before former President Donald Trump promised to remove the United States from the Paris Climate Accord, a lack of federal action on climate left a void that some cities and counties were beginning to fill, as renewables hit a record 28% in a recent month. In 2015, the first year tracked by researchers at the Rocky Mountain Institute and the World Resources Institute, municipalities contracted to buy more than 1 gigawatt of wind, solar and other forms of clean energy. 

But when Trump officially set in motion the withdrawal from the climate agreement, the ranks of municipalities dedicated to 100% clean energy multiplied. Today there are nearly 200 of them. The growth in activity last year reflects, in part, that surge of new pledges.

“It takes a while to get city staff up to speed and understand the options, and create the roadmap and then start executing,” Abbott said. “There is a bit of a lag, but we’re starting to see the impact.”

Even in Houston — one of the earliest to begin procuring renewable energy — there has been a steep learning curve as market forces change and prices drop, including cheaper solar batteries shaping procurement strategies, said Lara Cottingham, Houston’s chief of staff and chief sustainability officer.

No matter how well resourced and educated their staff, cities have to clear a thicket of structural, political and economic challenges to procure renewable energy. Most don’t own their own sources of power. Nearly all face budget constraints. Few have enough land or government rooftops to meet their goals within city limits.

“Cities face a situation where it’s a square peg in a round hole,” Cottingham said.

The hurdles are especially steep in much of the Southeast, where only publicly regulated utilities can sell electricity to retail customers, even large ones such as major cities. That’s where a green tariff regime comes in: Cities can purchase clean energy from a third party, such as a solar company, using the utility as a go-between.

Early last year, Charlotte became the largest city to use such a program, partnering with Duke Energy and two North Carolina solar developers to build a solar farm 50 miles north in Iredell County. At first, the city will pay a premium for the energy, but in the latter half of the 20-year contract, as gas prices rise, it will save money compared to business as usual.

“Over the course of 20 years, it’s projected we would save about $2 million,” Katie Riddle, sustainability analyst with Charlotte, told the Energy News Network last year.

The growing size of projects, innovative partnerships like green tariff programs, and the improving economics all give Abbott hope that renewable energy investments from cities will only grow — even with the Trump presidency over and the country back in the Paris agreement.

And when cities meet their goals for procuring renewable energy for their own operations, they must then turn to an even bigger task: reducing the carbon footprint of every person in their jurisdiction with broader decarbonization strategies and community engagement.

“The city needs to do its part for sure,” said Houston’s Cottingham. “Then we have this challenge of how do we get everyone else to.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Teachers' Evoltz Acquisition expands electricity transmission in Brazil, adding seven grid lines across ten states, aligning infrastructure strategy with inflation-linked cash flows, renewable energy integration, Latin America and net-zero objectives pending regulatory approvals.

Key Points

A 100% purchase of Brazil's Evoltz, adding seven grid lines and delivering stable, inflation-linked cash flows.

✅ 100% stake in Evoltz with seven transmission lines

✅ Aligns with net-zero and renewable energy strategy

✅ Inflation-linked, core infrastructure cash flows in Brazil

The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan has acquired Evoltz Participações, an electricity transmission firm in Brazil, from US asset manager TPG. 

The retirement system took a 100% stake in the energy firm, Ontario Teachers’ said Monday. The acquisition has netted the pension fund seven electricity transmission lines that service consumers and businesses across 10 states in Brazil, amid dynamics similar to electricity rate reductions for businesses seen in Ontario. The firm was founded by TPG just three years ago. 

“Our strategy focuses on allocating significant capital to high-quality core infrastructure assets with lower risks and stable inflation-linked cash flows,” Dale Burgess, senior managing director of infrastructure and natural resources at Ontario Teachers, said in a statement. “Electricity transmission businesses are particularly attractive given their importance in facilitating a transition to a low-carbon economy.” 

The pension fund has invested in other electricity distribution companies recently. In March, Ontario Teachers’ took a 40% stake in Finland’s Caruna, and agreed to acquire a 25% stake in SSEN Transmission in the UK grid. For more than a decade, it has maintained a 50% stake in Chile-based transmission firm Saesa. 

The investment into Evoltz demonstrates Ontario Teachers’ growing portfolio in Brazil and Latin America, while activity in Ontario such as the Peterborough Distribution sale reflects ongoing utility consolidation. In 2016, the firm, with the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), invested in toll roads in Mexico. They took a 49% stake with Latin American infrastructure group IDEAL. 

Evoltz, which delivers renewable energy, will also help decarbonize the pension fund’s portfolio. In January, the fund pledged to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Last year, Ontario Teachers’ issued its first green bond offering. The $890 million 10-year bond will help the retirement system fund sustainable investments aligned with policy measures like Ontario's subsidized hydro plan during COVID-19. 

However, Ontario Teachers’ has also received criticism for its investment into parts of Abu Dhabi’s gas pipeline network, and investor concerns about Hydro One highlight sector uncertainties. Last summer, it joined other institutional investors in investing $10.1 billion for a 49% stake. 

As of December, Ontario Teachers’ reached a portfolio with C$221.2 billion (US$182.5 billion) in assets. Since 1990, the fund has maintained a 9.6% annualized return. Last year, it missed its benchmark with an 8.6% return, with examples such as Hydro One shares fall after shake-up underscoring market volatility.

The pension fund expects the deal will close later this fall, pending closing conditions and regulatory approvals, including decisions such as the OEB combined T&D rates ruling that shape utility economics. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for ratepayers, impacting hydropower and the California-Oregon Intertie under the Trump 2018 budget proposal in the Pacific Northwest region.

Key Points

Selling Bonneville's transmission grid to private owners, raising rates and returns, shifting costs to ratepayers.

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

✅ Higher capital costs, taxes, and profit would raise transmission rates.

✅ California-Oregon Intertie and hydropower flows face price impacts.

President Trump's 2018 budget proposal is so chock-full of noxious elements — replacing food stamps with "food boxes," drastically cutting Medicaid and Medicare, for a start — that it's unsurprising that one of its most misguided pieces has slipped under the radar.

That's the proposal to privatize the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration, which owns about three-quarters of the high-voltage electric transmission lines in a region that includes California, Washington state and Oregon, serving more than 13.5 million customers. By one authoritative estimate, any such sale would drive up the cost of transmission by 26%-44%.

The $5.2-billon price cited by the Trump administration, moreover, is nearly 20% below the actual value of the Bonneville grid — meaning that a private buyer would pocket an immediate windfall of $1.2 billion, at the expense of federal taxpayers and Bonneville customers.

Trump's plan for Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville is part of a larger proposal to sell off other government-owned electricity bodies, including the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration and the Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. But Bonneville is by far the largest of the three, accounting for nearly 90% of the total $5.8 billion the budget anticipates collecting from the sales. The proposal is also part of the administration's

Both plans are said to be politically dead-on-arrival in Washington. But they offer a window into the thinking in the Trump White House.

"The word 'muddle' comes to mind," says Robert McCullough, a respected Portland energy consultant, referring to the justification for the privatization sale included in the Trump budget.

The White House suggests that selling the Bonneville grid would result in lower costs. But that narrative, McCullough wrote in a blistering assessment of the proposal, "displays a severe lack of understanding about the process of setting transmission rates."

McCullough's assessment is an update of a similar analysis he performed when the privatization scheme was first raised by the Trump administration last year. In that analysis issued in June, McCullough said the proposal "raises the question of why these valuable assets would be sold at a discount — and who would get the benefit of the discounted price."

The implications of a sale could be dire for Californians. Bonneville is the majority owner of the California-Oregon Intertie, an electrical transmission system that carries power, including Columbia River-generated hydropower and other clean-energy generation in British Columbia that supports the regional exchange, south to California in the summer and excess California generation to the Pacific Northwest in the winter.

But the idea has drawn fire throughout the region. When it was first broached last year, the Public Power Council, an association of utilities in the Northwest, assailed it as an apparent "transfer of value from the people of the Northwest to the U.S. Treasury," drawing parallels to Manitoba Hydro governance issues elsewhere.

The region's political leaders had especially harsh words for the idea this time around. "Oregonians raised hell last year when Trump tried to raise power bills for Pacific Northwesterners by selling off Bonneville Power, and yet his administration is back at it again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said after the idea reappeared. "Our investment shouldn't be put up for sale to free up money for runaway military spending or tax cuts for billionaires." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promised in a statement to work to "stop this bad idea in its tracks."

The notion of privatizing Bonneville predates the Trump administration; it was raised by Bill Clinton and again by George W. Bush, who thought the public would gain if the administration could sell its power at market rates. Both initiatives failed.

The same free-enterprise ideology underlies the Trump proposal. Privatizing the transmission lines "encourages a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigates unnecessary risk to taxpayers," the budget asserts. "Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives."

But that's based on a misunderstanding of how transmission rates are set, McCullough says. Transmission is essentially a monopoly enterprise, with rates overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission based on the grid's costs, and with federal scrutiny of public utilities such as the TVA underscoring that oversight. There's very little in the way of market "incentives" involved in transmission, since no one has come forward to build a competing grid.

Those include the owners' cost of capital — which would be much higher for a private owner than a government agency, McCullough observes, as Hydro One investor uncertainty demonstrates in practice. A private owner, unlike the government-owned Bonneville, also would owe federal income taxes, which would be passed on to consumers.

Then there's the profit motive. Bonneville "currently sells and delivers its power at cost," McCullough wrote last year. "Under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely charge a higher rate of return, a pattern seen when UK network profits drew regulatory rebukes."

None of these considerations appears to have been factored into the White House budget proposal. "Either there's an unsophisticated person at the Office of Management and Budget thinking up these numbers himself," McCullough told me, "or there would seem to be ongoing negotiations with an unidentified third party." No such buyer has emerged in the past, however.

What's left is a blind faith in the magic of the market, compounded by ignorance about how the transmission market operates. Put it together, and there's reason to wonder if Trump is even serious about this plan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News