Filling up at home is the goal

UK Energy Price Cap drives household electricity bills and gas prices, as Ofgem adjusts unit rates amid natural gas shortages, Russia-Ukraine disruptions, inflation, recession risks, and limited storage; government support offers only short-term relief.

Key Points

The UK Energy Price Cap limits per-unit gas and electricity charges set by suppliers and adjusted by Ofgem.

✅ Reflects wholesale natural gas costs; varies quarterly

✅ Protects consumers from sudden electricity and heating bill spikes

✅ Does not cap total annual spend; usage still determines bills

The government organization that controls the cost of energy in Great Britain recently increased what is known as a price cap on household energy bills. The price cap is the highest amount that gas suppliers can charge for a unit of energy.

The new, higher cost has people concerned that they may not be able to pay for their gas and electricity this winter. Some might pay as much as $4,188 for energy next year. Earlier this year, the price cap was at $2,320, and a 16% decrease in bills is anticipated in April.

Why such a change?

Oil and gas prices around the world have been increasing since 2021 as economies started up again after the coronavirus pandemic. More business activities required more fuel.

Then, Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, creating a new energy crisis. Russia limited the amount of natural gas it sent to European countries that needed it to power factories, produce electricity and keep homes warm.

Some energy companies are charging more because they are worried that Russia might completely stop sending gas to European countries. And in Britain, prices are up because the country does not produce much gas or have a good way to store it. As a result, Britain must purchase gas often in a market where prices are high, and ministers have discussed ending the gas-electricity price link to ease bills.

Citibank, a U.S. financial company, believes the higher energy prices will cause inflation in Britain to reach 18 percent in 2023, while EU energy inflation has also been driven higher by energy costs this year. And the Bank of England says an economic slowdown known as a recession will start later this year.

Public health and private aid organizations worry that high energy prices will cause a “catastrophe” as Britons choose between keeping their homes warm and eating enough food.

What can government do?

As prices rise, the British government plans to give people between $450 and $1,400 to help pay for energy costs, while some British MPs push to further restrict the price charged for gas and electricity. But the help is seen by many as not enough.

If the government approves more money for fuel, it will probably not come until September, as the energy security bill moves toward becoming law. That is the time the Conservative Party will select a new leader to replace Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

The Labour Party says the government should increase the amount it provides for people to pay for fuel by raising taxes on energy companies. However, the two politicians who are trying to become the next Prime Minister do not seem to support that idea.

Giovanna Speciale leads an organization called the Southeast London Community Energy group. It helps people pay their bills. She said the money will help but it is only a short-term solution to a bigger problem with Britain’s energy system. Because the system is privately run, she said, “there’s very little that the government can do to intervene in this.”

Other European countries are seeing higher energy costs, but not as high, and at the EU level, gas price cap strategies have been outlined to tackle volatility. In France, gas prices are capped at 2021 levels. In Germany, prices are up by 38 percent since last year. However, the government is reducing some taxes, which will make it easier for the average person to buy gas. In Italy, prices are going up, but the government recently approved over $8 billion to help people pay their energy bills.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Direct power sales to industrials in UK and US

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Electricity Trade by State, 2013-2017 highlights EIA grid patterns, interstate imports and exports, cross-border flows with Canada and Mexico, net exporters and importers, and market regions like ISOs and RTOs shaping consumption and generation.

Key Points

Brief EIA overview of interstate and cross-border power flows, ranking top net importers and exporters.

✅ Pennsylvania was the largest net exporter, averaging 59 million MWh.

✅ California was the largest net importer, averaging 77 million MWh.

✅ Top cross-border: NY, CA, VT, MN, MI imports; WA, TX, CA, NY, MT exports.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) State Electricity Profiles, from 2013 to 2017, Pennsylvania was the largest net exporter of electricity, while California was the largest net importer.

Pennsylvania exported an annual average of 59 million megawatt-hours (MWh), while California imported an average of 77 million MWh annually.

Based on the share of total consumption in each state, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Idaho and Delaware were the five largest power-importing states between 2013 and 2017, highlighting how some clean states import 'dirty' electricity as consumption outpaces local generation. Wyoming, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana and New Hampshire were the five largest power-exporting states. Wyoming and West Virginia were net power exporting states between 2013 and 2017.

New York, California, Vermont, Minnesota and Michigan imported the most electricity from Canada or Mexico on average from 2013 to 2017, reflecting the U.S. look to Canada for green power during that period. Similarly, Washington, Texas, California, New York, and Montana exported the most electricity to Canada or Mexico, on average, during the same period.

Electricity routinely flows among the Lower 48 states and, to a lesser extent, between the United States and Canada and Mexico. From 2013 to 2017, Pennsylvania was the largest net exporter of electricity, sending an annual average of 59 million megawatthours (MWh) outside the state. California was the largest net importer, receiving an average of 77 million MWh annually.

Based on the share of total consumption within each state, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Idaho, and Delaware were the five largest power-importing states between 2013 and 2017. Wyoming, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, and New Hampshire were the five largest power-exporting states. States with major population centers and relatively less generating capacity within their state boundaries tend to have higher ratios of net electricity imports to total electricity consumption, as utilities devote more to electricity delivery than to power production in many markets.

Wyoming and West Virginia were net power exporting states (they exported more power to other states than they consumed) between 2013 and 2017. Customers residing in these two states are not necessarily at an economic disadvantage or advantage compared with customers in neighboring states when considering their electricity bills and fees and market dynamics. However, large amounts of power trading may affect a state’s revenue derived from power generation.

Some states also import and export electricity outside the United States to Canada or Mexico, even as Canada's electricity exports face trade tensions today. New York, California, Vermont, Minnesota, and Michigan are the five states that imported the most electricity from Canada or Mexico on average from 2013 through 2017. Similarly, Washington, Texas (where electricity production and consumption lead the nation), California, New York, and Montana are the five states that exported the most electricity to Canada or Mexico, on average, for the same period.

Many states within the continental United States fall within integrated market regions, referred to as independent system operators or regional transmission organizations. These integrated market regions allow electricity to flow freely between states or parts of states within their boundaries.

EIA’s State Electricity Profiles provide details about the supply and disposition of electricity for each state, including net trade with other states and international imports and exports, and help you understand where your electricity comes from more clearly.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

B.C. Hydro Salary Continuance Payout spotlights executive compensation, severance, and governance at a Crown corporation after a firing, citing financial disclosure reports, Site C dam ties, and a leadership change under a new government.

Key Points

Severance-style pay for B.C. Hydro's fired CEO, via salary continuance and disclosed in public filings.

✅ $541,615 total compensation without working days

✅ Salary continuance after NDP firing; financial disclosures

✅ Later named Canada Post interim CEO amid strike

Former B.C. Hydro president and chief executive officer Jessica McDonald received a total of $541,615 in compensation during the 2017-2018 fiscal year, a figure that sits amid wider debates over executive pay at utilities such as Hydro One CEO pay at the provincial utility, without having worked a single day for the Crown corporation.

She earned this money under a compensation package after the in-coming New Democratic government of John Horgan fired her, a move comparable to Ontario's decision when the Hydro One CEO and board exit amid share declines. The previous B.C. Liberal government named her president and CEO of B.C. Hydro in 2014, and McDonald was a strong supporter of the controversial Site C dam project now going ahead following a review.

The current New Democratic government placed her on what financial disclosure documents call “salary continuance” effective July 21, 2017 — the day the government announced her departure — at a utility scrutinized in a misled regulator report that raised oversight concerns.

According to financial disclosure statements, McDonald remained on “salary continuance” until Sept. 21 of this year, and the utility has also been assessed in a deferred operating costs report released by the auditor general. During this period, she earned $272,659, a figure that includes benefits, pension and other compensation.

McDonald — who used to be the deputy minister to former premier Gordon Campbell — is now working for Canada Post, which appointed her as interim president and chief executive officer in March, while developments at Manitoba Hydro highlight broader political pressures on Crown utilities.

She started in her new role on April 2, 2018, and now finds herself in the middle of managing a postal carrier strike.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

IESO Fictitious Demand Error inflated HOEP in the Ontario electricity market, after embedded generation was mis-modeled; the OEB says double-counted load lifted wholesale prices and shifted costs via the Global Adjustment.

Key Points

An IESO modeling flaw that double-counted load, inflating HOEP and charges in Ontario's wholesale market.

✅ Double-counted unmetered load from embedded generation

✅ Inflated HOEP; shifted costs via Global Adjustment

✅ OEB flagged transparency; exporters paid more

For almost a year, the operator of Ontario’s electricity system erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing prices to spike and hundreds of millions of dollars in extra charges to consumers, according to the provincial energy regulator.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) also failed to tell anyone about the error once it noticed and fixed it.

The error likely added between $450 million and $560 million to hourly rates and other charges before it was fixed in April 2017, according to a report released this month by the Ontario Energy Board’s Market Surveillance Panel.

It did this by adding as much as 220 MW of “fictitious demand” to the market starting in May 2016, when the IESO started paying consumers who reduced their demand for power during peak periods. This involved the integration of small-scale embedded generation (largely made up of solar) into its wholesale model for the first time.

The mistake assumed maximum consumption at such sites without meters, and double-counted that consumption.

The OEB said the mistake particularly hurt exporters and some end-users, who did not benefit from a related reduction of a global adjustment rate applicable to other customers.

“The most direct impact of the increase in HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) was felt by Ontario consumers and exporters of electricity, who paid an artificially high HOEP, to the benefit of generators and importers,” the OEB said.

The mix-up did not result in an equivalent increase in total system costs, because changes to the HOEP are offset by inverse changes to a electricity cost allocation mechanism such as the Global Adjustment rate, the OEB noted.

A chart from the OEB's report shows the time of day when fictitious demand was added to the system, and its influence on hourly rates.

Peak time spikes
The OEB said that the fictitious demand “regularly inflated” the hourly price of energy and other costs calculated as a direct function of it.

For almost a year, Ontario's electricity system operator @IESO_Tweets erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing price spikes and hundreds of millions in charges to consumers, @OntEnergyBoard says. @5thEstate reports.

It estimated the average increase to the HOEP was as much as $4.50/MWh, but that price spikes, compounded by scheduled OEB rate changes, would have been much higher during busier times, such as the mid-morning and early evening.

“In times of tight supply, the addition of fictitious demand often had a dramatic inflationary impact on the HOEP,” the report said.

That meant on one summer evening in 2016 the hourly rate jumped to $1,619/MWh, it said, which was the fourth highest in the history of the Ontario wholesale electricity market.

“Additional demand is met by scheduling increasingly expensive supply, thus increasing the market price. In instances where supply is tight and the supply stack is steep, small increases in demand can cause significant increases in the market price.

The OEB questioned why, as of September this year, the IESO had failed to notify its customers or the broader public, amid a broader auditor-regulator dispute that drew political attention, about the mistake and its effect on prices.

“It's time for greater transparency on where electricity costs are really coming from,” said Sarah Buchanan, clean energy program manager at Environmental Defence.

“Ontario will be making big decisions in the coming years about whether to keep our electricity grid clean, or burn more fossil fuels to keep the lights on,” she added. “These decisions need to be informed by the best possible evidence, and that can't happen if critical information is hidden.”

In a response to the OEB report on Monday, the IESO said its own initial analysis found that the error likely pushed wholesale electricity payments up by $225 million. That calculation assumed that the higher prices would have changed consumer behaviour, while upcoming electricity auctions were cited as a way to lower costs, it said.

In response to questions, a spokesperson said residential and small commercial consumers would have saved $11 million in electricity costs over the 11-month period, even as a typical bill increase loomed province-wide, while larger consumers would have paid an extra $14 million.

That is because residential and small commercial customers pay some costs via time-of-use rates, including a temporary recovery rate framework, the IESO said, while larger customers pay them in a way that reflects their share of overall electricity use during the five highest demand hours of the year.

The IESO said it could not compensate those that had paid too much, given the complexity of the system, and that the modelling error did not have a significant impact on ratepayers.

While acknowledging the effects of the mistake would vary among its customers, the IESO said the net market impact was less than $10 million, amid ongoing legislation to lower electricity rates in Ontario.

It said it would improve testing of its processes prior to deployment and agreed to publicly disclose errors that significantly affect the wholesale market in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Puerto Rico Tesla Solar Power enables resilient microgrids using batteries, renewable energy, and energy storage to rebuild the hurricane-damaged grid, reduce fossil fuels, cut costs, and accelerate recovery with scalable solar-plus-storage solutions.

Key Points

A solar-plus-storage plan using Tesla microgrids and batteries to restore Puerto Rico's cleaner, resilient power.

✅ Microgrids cut diesel reliance and harden critical facilities.

✅ Batteries stabilize the grid and shave peak demand costs.

✅ Scalable solar enables faster, modular disaster recovery.

Puerto Rico’s governor Ricardo Rossello has said that he will speak to Elon Musk after the Tesla inventor said his innovative solar and battery systems could be used to restore electricity on the island.

Mr Musk was mentioned in a tweet, referencing an article discussing ways to restore Puerto Rico’s power grid, which was knocked out by Hurricane Maria on September 20.

Restoring the ageing and already-weakened network has proved slow: as of Friday 90 per cent of the island remained without power. The island’s electricity company was declared bankrupt in July.

Mr Musk was asked: “Could @ElonMusk go in and rebuild #PuertoRico’s electricity system with independent solar & battery systems?”

The South African entrepreneur replied: “The Tesla team has done this for many smaller islands around the world, but there is no scalability limit, so it can be done for Puerto Rico too.

“Such a decision would be in the hands of the PR govt, PUC, any commercial stakeholders and, most importantly, the people of PR.”

His suggestion was seized upon by Mr Rossello, who then tweeted: “@ElonMusk Let's talk. Do you want to show the world the power and scalability of your #TeslaTechnologies?

“PR could be that flagship project.”

Mr Musk replied that he was happy to talk.

Restoring power to the battered island is a priority for the government, and improving grid resilience remains critical, with hospitals still running on generators and the 3.5 million people struggling with a lack of refrigeration or air conditioning.

Radios broadcast messages advising people how to keep their insulin cool, and doctors are concerned about people not being able to access dialysis.

And, with its power grid wiped out, the Caribbean island could totally rethink the way it meets its energy needs, drawing on examples like a resilient school microgrid built locally. 

“This is an opportunity to completely transform the way electricity is generated in Puerto Rico and the federal government should support this,” said Judith Enck, the former administrator for the region with the environmental protection agency.

“They need a clean energy renewables plan and not spending hurricane money propping up the old fossil fuel infrastructure.”

Forty-seven per cent of Puerto Rico’s power needs were met by burning oil last year - a very expensive and outdated method of electricity generation. For the US as a whole, petroleum accounted for just 0.3 per cent of all electricity generated in 2016 even as the grid isn’t yet running on 100% renewable energy nationwide.

The majority of the rest of Puerto Rico’s energy came courtesy of coal and natural gas, with renewables, which later faced pandemic-related setbacks, accounting for only two per cent of electricity generation.

“In that time of extreme petroleum prices, the utility was borrowing money and buying oil in order to keep those plants operating,” said Luis Martinez, a lawyer at natural resources defense council and former special aide to the president of Puerto Rico’s environmental quality board.

“That precipitated the bankruptcy that followed. It was in pretty poor shape before the storm. Once the storm got there, it finished the job.”

But Mr Martinez told the website Earther that it might be difficult to secure the financing for rebuilding Puerto Rico with renewables from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) funds.

“A lot of distribution lines were on wood poles,” he said.

“Concrete would make them more resistant to winds, but that would potentially not be authorized under the use of FEMA funds.

"We’re looking into if some of those requirements can be waived so rebuilding can be more resilient.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News