Chinese companies building hydropower projects in Nigeria and Kenya

Nova Scotia Power solar charge proposes an $8/kW monthly system access fee on net metering customers, citing grid costs. UARB review, carbon credits, rate hikes, and solar industry impacts fuel political and consumer backlash.

Key Points

A proposed $8/kW monthly grid access fee on net metered solar customers, delayed to Feb 1, 2023, pending UARB review.

✅ $8/kW monthly system access fee on net metering

✅ Delay to Feb 1, 2023 after industry and political pushback

✅ UARB review; debate over grid costs and carbon credits

Nova Scotia Power has pushed back by a year the start date of a proposed new charge for customers who generate electricity and sell it back to the grid, following days of concern from the solar industry and politicians worried that it will damage the sector.

The company applied to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) last week for various changes, including a "system access charge" of $8 per kilowatt monthly on net metered installations, and the province cannot order the utility to lower rates under current law. The vast majority of the province's 4,100 net metering customers are residential customers with solar power, according to the application. 

The proposed charge would have come into effect Tuesday if approved, but Nova Scotia Power said in a news release Tuesday it will change the date in its filing from Feb. 1, 2022, to Feb. 1, 2023.

"We understand that the solar industry was taken off guard," utility CEO Peter Gregg said in an interview.

"There could have been an opportunity to have more conversations in advance."

Gregg said the utility will meet with members of the solar industry over the next year to work on finding solutions that support the sector's growth, while addressing what NSP sees as an inequity in the net metering system.

NSP recognized that customers who choose solar invest a significant amount and pay for the electricity they use, but they don't pay for costs associated with accessing the electrical grid when they need energy, such as on cold winter evenings when the sun is not shining.

"I know that's hit a nerve, but it doesn't take away the fact that it is an issue," Gregg said.

He said this is an issue utilities are navigating around North America, where seasonal rate designs have sparked consumer backlash in New Brunswick, and NSP is open to hearing ideas for other models of charges or fees.

The utility's suggested system access charge closely resembles one proposed in California, which has also raised major concerns from the solar industry and been criticized by the likes of Elon Musk, and has parallels to Massachusetts solar demand charges as well.

Although the "solar profile" of Nova Scotia and California is very different, with far more solar customers in that state, and in other provinces such as Saskatchewan, NDP criticism of 8% hikes has intensified affordability debates, Gregg said the fundamental issues are the same.

For those with a typical 10-kilowatt solar system, which generates around $1,800 of electricity a year, the new charge would mean those customers would be required to pay $960 back to NSP. That would roughly double the length of time it takes for those customers to pay off their investment for the panels.

David Brushett, chair of Solar Nova Scotia, said he relayed concerns from solar installers and others in the industry to Gregg on Monday. 

Brushett said the year delay is a positive first step, but he is still calling on the province to take a strong stance against the application, which has led to customers cancelling their panel installations and companies considering layoffs.

"There's still an urgency to this situation that hasn't been addressed, and we need to kind of protect the industry," he said Tuesday.

NSP's original application proposed exempting net metering customers who enrolled before Feb. 1, 2022, from the charge for 25 years after they sign up. But any benefit would be lost if those customers sold their home, and the exemption wouldn't extend to the new buyers, said Brushett.

Carbon offsets missing from equation: industry
Brushett said NSP "completely ignored" the fact that it's getting free carbon offset credits from homeowners who use solar energy under the provincial cap and trade program.

If the net metering system continues as is, NSP has said non-solar customers would pay about $55 million between now and 2030. That number assumes about 2,000 people sign up for net metering each year over the next nine years.

When asked whether those carbon emission credits were factored into the calculations for the proposed charge, Gregg said, "I don't believe in the current structure it is, but it's something that certainly we'd be open to hearing about."

Brushett said his group is finalizing a legal response to NSP's proposal and has already filed an official complaint against the company with the UARB.

Base charge on actual electrical output: customer
At least one shareholder in NSP parent company Emera is considering selling his shares in response to the application.

Joe Hood, a shareholder from Middle Sackville, said the proposed charge won't apply to his existing 11.16-kilowatt solar system, but if it did, it would cost him $1,071 a year.

"I am offended that a company I would invest in would do this to the solar industry in Nova Scotia," he said.

According to his meter, Hood said he pushed 9,600 kilowatt hours of solar electricity to the grid last year— some only for a brief period, and all of which was used by his home by the end of the year.

Under the proposed charge, someone with one solar panel who goes away on vacation in the summer would push all their electricity to the grid, and be charged far less than someone with 10 panels who has used all their own power and hasn't pushed anything.

"Nova Scotia Power's argument is that it's an issue with the grid. Well, then it should be based on what touches the grid," Hood said.

Far from actually making the system fair for everyone, Hood said this charge places solar only in the hands of the super-rich or NSP, with projects like its community solar gardens in Amherst, N.S.

Green Party suggests legislation update
Nova Scotia's Green Party also said Tuesday that Gregg's arguments of fairness are misleading, echoing earlier premier opposition to a 14% hike on rates.

The party is calling for an update to the Electricity Act that would "prevent penalizing any activity that helps Nova Scotia reach its emissions target," aligning with calls to make the electricity system more accountable to residents.

In its application, NSP has also asked to increase electricity rates for residential customers by at least 10 per cent over the next three years, amid debate that culminated in a 14% rate hike approval by regulators. 

The company wants to maintain its nine per cent rate of return.

NSP expects to earn $153 million this year, $192 million in 2023, and $213 million in 2024 from its rate of return. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Site C Dam Controversy highlights Peace River risks, BC Hydro claims, Indigenous rights under Treaty 8, environmental assessment findings, and potential impacts to agriculture and the Peace-Athabasca Delta across Alberta and the Northwest Territories.

Key Points

Debate over BC Hydro's Site C dam: clean energy vs Indigenous rights, Peace-Athabasca Delta impacts, and agriculture.

✅ Potential drying of Peace-Athabasca Delta and wildlife habitat

✅ Treaty 8 rights and First Nations legal challenges

✅ Loss of prime Peace Valley farmland; alternatives in renewables

One of the leading opponents of the Site C dam in northeastern B.C. is sharing her concerns with northerners this week.

Proponents of the Site C dam say it will be a cost-effective source of clean electricity, even as a major Alberta wind farm was scrapped elsewhere in Canada, and that it will be able to produce enough energy to power the equivalent of 450,000 homes per year in B.C. But a number of Indigenous groups and environmentalists are against the project.

Wendy Holm is an economist and agronomist who did an environmental assessment of the dam focusing on its potential impacts on agriculture.

On Tuesday she spoke at a town hall presentation in Fort Smith, N.W.T., organized by the Slave River Coalition. She is also speaking at an event in Yellowknife on Friday, as small modular reactors in Yukon receive study as a potential long-term option.

Worried about downstream impacts, Northern leaders urge action on Site C dam

"I learned that people outside of British Columbia are as concerned with this dam as we are," Holm said.

"There's just a lot of concern with what's happening on the Peace River and this dam and the implications for Alberta, where hydro's share has diminished in recent decades, and the Northwest Territories."

If completed, BC Hydro's Site C energy project will be the third dam on the Peace River in northeast B.C. and the largest public works project in B.C. history. The $10.7-billion project was approved by both the provincial and federal governments as B.C. moves to streamline clean energy permitting for future projects.

Amy Lusk, co-ordinator of the Slave River Coalition, said many issues were discussed at the town hall, but she also left with a sense of hope.

"I think sometimes in our little corner of the world, we are up against so much when it comes to industrial development and threats to our water," she said.

"To kind of take away that message of, this is not a done deal, and that we do have a few options in place to try and stop this and not to lose hope, I think was a very important message for the community."

Drying of the Peace-Athabasca Delta

Holm said her main concern for the Northwest Territories is how it could affect the Peace-Athabasca Delta. She said the two dams already on the river are responsible for two-thirds of the drying that's happening in the delta.

"These are very real issues and very present in the minds of northerners who want to stay connected to a traditional lifestyle, want to have access to those wild foods," she said.

Lusk said northerners are fed up with defending waters "time after time after time."

BC Hydro, however, said studies commissioned during the environmental assessment of Site C show the project will have no measurable effect on the delta, which is located 1,100 kilometres away.

Holm said the fight against the Site C dam is also important when it comes to First Nations treaty rights.

The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations applied for an injunction to halt construction on Site C, as well as a treaty infringement lawsuit against the B.C. government. They argue the dam would cause irreparable harm to their territories and way of life, which are rights protected under Treaty 8.

Agricultural land

While the project is located in B.C., Holm said its impacts on prime horticulture land would also affect northerners, something that's important given issues of food security and nutrition.

"This is some of the best agriculture land in all of Canada," she said of the Peace Valley.

According to BC Hydro, around 2.6 million hectares of land in the Peace agricultural region would remain available for agricultural production while 3,800 hectares would be unavailable. It has also proposed a number of mitigation efforts, including a $20-million agricultural compensation fund.

Holm said renewable energy, including tidal energy for remote communities, will be cheaper and less destructive than the dam, and there's a connection between the dams on the Peace River and water sharing with the U.S.

"When you run out of water there's nothing else you can use. You can't use orange juice to irrigate your fields or to run your industries or to power your homes," she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CPUC Decision on San Diego Community Power directs SDG&E to use updated forecasts, stabilizing electricity rates for CCA customers and supporting clean energy in San Diego with accurate rate forecasting and reduced volatility.

Key Points

A CPUC ruling directing SDG&E to use updated forecasts to ensure accurate, stable CCA rates and limit volatility.

✅ Uses 2021 sales forecasts for rate setting

✅ Aims to prevent undercollection and bill spikes

✅ Levels changes across customer classes

The California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday sided with the soon-to-launch San Diego community energy program in a dispute it had with San Diego Gas & Electric.

San Diego Community Power — which will begin to purchase power for customers in San Diego, Chula Vista, La Mesa, Encinitas and Imperial Beach later this year — had complained to the commission that data SDG&E intended to use to calculate rates, including community choice exit fees that could make the new energy program less attractive to prospective customers.

SDG&E argued it was using numbers it was authorized to employ as part of a general rate case amid a potential rate structure revamp that is still being considered by the commission.

But in a 4-0 vote, the commission, or CPUC, sided with San Diego Community Power and directed SDG&E to use an updated forecast for energy sales.

"This was not an easy decision," said CPUC president Marybel Batjer at the meeting, held remotely due to COVID-19 restrictions. "In my mind, this outcome best accounts for the shifting realities ... in the San Diego area while minimizing the impact on ratepayers during these difficult financial times."

In filings to the commission, SDG&E predicted a rate decrease of 12.35 percent in the coming year. While that appears to be good news for customers, Californians still face soaring electricity prices statewide, Commissioner Martha Guzman Aceves said the data set SDG&E wanted to use would lead to an undercollection of $150 million to $260 million.

That would result in rates that would be "artificially low," Guzman Aceves said, and rates "would inevitably go up quite a bit after the undercollection was addressed."

San Diego Community Power, or SDCP, said the temporary reduction would make its rates less attractive than SDG&E's, especially amid SDG&E's minimum charge proposal affecting low-usage customers, just as it is about to begin serving customers. SDCP's board members wrote an open letter last month to the commission, accusing the utility of "willful manipulation of data."

Working with an administrative law judge at the CPUC, Guzman Aceves authored a proposal requiring SDG&E to use numbers based on 2021 forecasts, as regulators simultaneously weigh whether the state needs more power plants to ensure reliability. The utility argued that could result in an increase of "roughly 40 percent" for medium and large commercial and industrial customers this year.

To help reduce potential volatility, Guzman Aceves, SDCP and other community energy supporters called for using a formula that would average out changes in rates across customer classes amid debates over income-based utility charges statewide. That's what the commissioners OK'd Thursday.

"It is essential that customer commodity rates be as accurate as we can possibly get them to avoid undercollections," said Commissioner Genevieve Shiroma.

San Diego Community Power is one of 23 community choice aggregation, or CCA, energy programs that have launched in California in the past decade.

CCAs compete with traditional power companies amid California's evolving power competition landscape, in one important role — purchasing power for a given community. They were created to boost the use of cleaner energy sources, such as wind and solar, at rates equal to or lower than investor-owned utilities.

However, CCAs do not replace utilities because the incumbent power companies still perform all of the tasks outside of power purchasing, such as transmission and distribution of energy and customer billing.

When a CCA is formed, California rules stipulate the utility customers in that area are automatically enrolled in the CCA. If customers prefer to stay with their previous power company, they can opt out of joining the CCA.

The shift of customers from SDG&E to San Diego Community Power is expected to be large. The total number of accounts for SDCP is expected to be 770,000, which would make it the second-largest CCA in the state. That's why SDCP considered Thursday's CPUC decision to be so important.

"At a time when customers are choosing between sticking with San Diego Gas & Electric and migrating to a CCA, we want them to have accurate bill information," said Commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen.

"SDCP is very happy with today's CPUC decision, and that the commissioners shared our goal of limiting rate volatility for businesses and families in the region," said SDCP interim CEO Bill Carnahan. "This is definitely a win for accurate rate forecasting, and our mutual customers, and we look forward to working with SDG&E on next steps."

In an email, SDG&E spokeswoman Helen Gao said, "We are committed to continuing to work collaboratively with local Community Choice Aggregation programs to support their successful launch in 2021 and ensure that our mutual customers receive excellent customer service."

San Diego Community Power's case before the CPUC was joined by the California Community Choice Association, a trade group advocating for CCAs, and the Clean Energy Alliance — the North County-based CCA representing Del Mar, Solana Beach and Carlsbad that is scheduled to launch this summer.

SDCP will begin its rollout this year, folding in about 71,000 municipal, commercial and industrial accounts. The bulk of its roughly 700,000 residential accounts is expected to come in January 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Clean Electricity Expansion is urged by the IEA to meet net-zero targets, scaling non-emitting generation, electrification, EV demand, and grid integration across provinces to decarbonize industry, buildings, and transport while ensuring reliability and affordability.

Key Points

An IEA-backed pathway for Canada to scale non-emitting power, electrification, and grid links to meet net-zero goals.

✅ Double or triple clean generation to replace fossil fuels

✅ Integrate provincial grids to decarbonize dependent regions

✅ Manage EV and heating loads with reliability and affordability

Canada will need more electricity capacity if it wants to hit its climate targets, and cleaning up Canada's electricity will be critical, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The report offers mainly a rosy picture of Canada's overall federal energy policy. But, the IEA draws attention to Canada's increasing future electricity demands, and ultimately, calls on Canada to leverage its non-emitting energy potential and expand renewable energy to hit its climate targets.  

"Canada's wealth of clean electricity and its innovative spirit can help drive a secure and affordable transformation of its energy system and help realize its ambitious goals," stated Fatih Birol, the IEA executive director, in a news release.

The IEA notes that Canada has one of the cleanest energy grids globally, with 83 per cent of electricity coming from non-emitting sources in 2020. But this reflects nationwide progress in electricity to date; the report warns this is not a reason for Canada to rest on its laurels. More electricity will be needed to displace fossil fuels if Canada wants to hit its 2030 targets, the report states, and "even deeper cuts" will be required to reach net-zero by 2050.

"Perhaps more significantly, however, Canada will need to ensure sufficient new clean generation capacity to meet the sizeable levels of electrification that its net-zero targets imply."

Investing in new coal, oil and gas projects must stop to hit climate goals, global energy agency says
The Liberals have promised to create a 100 percent net-zero-emitting electricity system by 2035, with regulating oil and gas emissions and electric car sales as part of the plan; by then, every new light-duty vehicle sold in Canada will be a zero-emission vehicle. The switch from gas guzzlers to plug-in electric vehicles will create new pressures on Canada's electrical grid, as will any turn away from fossil natural gas for home heating.

To meet these challenges, the IEA warns, Canada would need to double or triple the power generated from non-emitting sources compared to today, a shift whose cost could reach $1.4 trillion according to the Canadian Gas Association. 

"Such a shift will require significant regulatory action," the report states, highlighting the need for climate policy for electricity grids to guide implementation, and that will require the federal government to work closely with provinces and territories that control power generation and distribution.

The report notes that the further integration of territorial and provincial electrical grids could allow fossil fuel-dependent provinces, like Alberta, to decarbonize and electrify their economies.

The report, entitled Canada 2022 Energy Policy Review, offers what it calls an "in-depth" look at the commitments Canada has made to transform its energy policy. Since the IEA conducted its last review in 2015, Canada has committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero by 2050 under an extended national target.

The IEA is well-known for the production of its annual World Energy Outlook. The Paris-based autonomous intergovernmental organization provides analysis, data, and policy recommendations to promote global energy security and sustainability. Canada is a part of the intergovernmental body, which also conducts peer reviews of its members' energy policy.

Oil and gas emissions rising
Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson responded to the report in the IEA news release.

"This report acknowledges Canada's ambitious efforts and historic investments to develop pathways to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and ensure a transition that aligns with our shared objective of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius," Wilkinson's statement read.

The report notes that — despite that objective — absolute emissions from Canadian oil and gas extraction went up 26 per cent between 2000 and 2019, largely from increased production.

Minister of Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson responds to a question at a news conference after the federal cabinet was sworn in, in Ottawa, on Oct. 26, 2021. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press)
"Canada will need to reconcile future growth in oil sands production with increasingly strict greenhouse gas requirements," the report states.

On the plus side, the IEA found emissions per barrel of oilsands crude have decreased by 20 per cent in the last decade from technical and operational improvements.

The improving carbon efficiency of the oilsands is a "trend that is expected to continue at even higher rates," said Ben Brunnen, vice-president of oilsands, fiscal and economic policy at the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

That may become important, the IEA report notes, as energy investors and buyers look for low-carbon assets and more countries adopt net-zero policies.

Further innovation, such as carbon capture and storage, could help to turn things around for Canada's oil patch, the report says. The Liberals have also said they will place a hard cap on oil and gas emissions from production, but that does not include the burning of the fossil fuels. 

In 2021, the IEA released a report that determined to achieve net-zero by 2050, among many steps, investments needed to end in coal mines, oil and gas wells. Thursday's report, however, made no mention of that, which disappointed at least one environmental group.

"A glaring omission was that this assessment says nothing about production. We know that the most important thing we can do is to stop using and producing oil and gas," said Julia Levin, a senior climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence.

"And yet that was absent from this report, and that really is a glaring omission, which is completely out of line with their [the IEA's] own work."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News