'Energy Citizens' rally vs. climate, energy bill

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

TVA Rates and Renewable Energy Scrutiny spotlights electricity rates, distributed energy resources, solar and wind deployment, natural gas plans, grid access charges, energy efficiency cuts, and House oversight of lobbying, FERC inquiries, and least-cost planning.

Key Points

A congressional probe into TVA pricing and practices affecting renewables, energy efficiency, and climate goals.

✅ House panel probes TVA rates, DER and solar policies.

✅ Efficiency programs cut; least-cost planning questioned.

✅ Inquiry on lobbying, hidden fees; FERC scrutiny.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is facing federal scrutiny about its electricity rates and climate action, amid ongoing debates over network profits in other markets.

Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce are “requesting information” from TVA about its ratepayer bills and “out of concern” that TVA is interfering with the deployment of renewable and distributed energy resources, even as companies such as Tesla explore electricity retail to expand customer options.

“The Committee is concerned that TVA’s business practices are inconsistent with these statutory requirements to the disadvantage of TVA’s ratepayers and the environment,” the committee said in a letter to TVA CEO Jeffrey Lyash.

The four committee members — U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Bobby L. Rush (D-IL), Diana DeGette (D-CO), and Paul Tonko (D-NY) — suggested that Tennessee Valley residents pay too much for electricity despite TVA’s relatively low rates, even as regulators have, in other cases, scrutinized mergers like the Hydro One-Avista deal to safeguard ratepayers, underscoring similar concerns. In 2020, Tennessee residents had electric bills higher than the national average, while low-income residents in Memphis have historically faced one of the highest energy burdens in the U.S.

In 2018, TVA reduced its wholesale rate while adding a grid access charge on local power companies—and interfered with the adoption of solar energy. Internal TVA documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Energy and Policy Institute revealed that TVA permitted local power companies to impose new fees on distributed solar generation to “lessen the potential decrease in TVA load that may occur through the adoption of [behind the meter] generation.”

Additionally, the committee said TVA is not prioritizing energy conservation and efficiency or “least-cost planning” that includes renewables, as seen in oversight such as the OEB's Hydro One rates decision emphasizing cost allocation. TVA reduced its energy efficiency programs by nearly two-thirds between 2014 and 2018 and cut its energy efficiency customer incentive programs.

At this time, TVA has not aligned its long-term planning with the Biden administration’s goal to achieve a carbon-free electricity sector by 2035. TVA’s generation mix, which is roughly 60% carbon-free, comprises 39% nuclear, 19% coal, 26% natural gas, 11% hydro, 3% wind and solar, and 1% energy efficiency programs, according to TVA.

The committee is “greatly concerned that TVA has invested comparatively little to date in deploying solar and wind energy, while at the same time considering investments in new natural gas generation.”

TVA has announced plans to shutter the Kingston and Cumberland coal plants and is evaluating whether to replace this generation with natural gas, which is a fossil fuel, while debates over grid privatization raise questions about consumer benefits. TVA’s coal and natural gas plants represent most of the largest sources of greenhouses emissions in Tennessee.

TVA responded with a statement without directly addressing the committee’s concerns. TVA said its “developing and implementing emerging technologies to drive toward net-zero emissions by 2050.”

The final question that the House committee posed is whether TVA is funding any political activity. In 2019, the committee questioned TVA about its membership to the now-disbanded Utility Air Regulatory Group, a coalition that was involved in over 200 lawsuits that primarily fought Clear Air Act regulations.

TVA revealed that it had contributed $7.3 million to the industry lobbying group since 2001. Since TVA doesn’t have shareholders, customers paid for UARG membership fees, echoing findings that deferred utility costs burden customers in other jurisdictions. An Office of the Inspector General investigation couldn’t prove whether TVA’s contributions directly funded litigation because UARG didn’t have a line-by-line accounting of what they did with TVA’s dollars.

The congressional committee questioned whether TVA is still paying for lobbying or litigation that opposes “public health and welfare regulations.”

This last question follows a recent trend of questioning utilities about “hidden fees.” In December, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry to examine how bills from investor-owned utilities might contain fees that fund political activity, and regulators have penalized firms like NT Power over customer notice practices, highlighting consumer protection. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition to protect electric and gas customers of investor-owned utilities from paying these fees, which may be used for lobbying, campaign-related donations and litigation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

US Power Grid Blackouts highlight aging infrastructure, rising outages, and declining reliability per DOE and NERC data, with weather-driven failures, cyberattack risk, and underinvestment stressing utilities, transmission lines, and modernization efforts.

Key Points

US power grid blackouts are outages caused by aging grid assets, severe weather, and cyber threats reducing reliability.

✅ DOE and NERC data show rising outage frequency and duration.

✅ Weather now drives 68-73% of major failures since 2008.

✅ Modernization, hardening, and cybersecurity investments are critical.

The United States power grid has more blackouts than any other country in the developed world, according to new data and U.S. blackout warnings that spotlight the country’s aging and unreliable electric system.

The data by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) shows that Americans face more power grid failures lasting at least an hour than residents of other developed nations.

And it’s getting worse.

Going back three decades, the US grid loses power 285 percent more often than it did in 1984, when record keeping began, International Business Times reported. The power outages cost businesses in the United States as much as $150 billion per year, according to the Department of Energy.

Customers in Japan lose power for an average of 4 minutes per year, as compared to customers in the US upper Midwest (92 minutes) and upper Northwest (214), University of Minnesota Professor Massoud Amin told the Times. Amin is director of the Technological Leadership Institute at the school.

#google#

The grid is becoming less dependable each year, he said.

“Each one of these blackouts costs tens of hundreds of millions, up to billions, of dollars in economic losses per event,” Amin said. “… We used to have two to five major weather events per year [that knocked out power], from the ‘50s to the ‘80s. Between 2008 and 2012, major outages caused by weather, reflecting extreme weather trends, increased to 70 to 130 outages per year. Weather used to account for about 17 to 21 percent of all root causes. Now, in the last five years, it’s accounting for 68 to 73 percent of all major outages.”

As previously reported by Off The Grid News, the power grid received a “D+” grade on its power grid report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in 2013. The power grid grade card rating means the energy infrastructure is in “poor to fair condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life.” It further means a “large portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration” with a “strong risk of failure.”

“America relies on an aging electrical grid and pipeline distribution systems, some of which originated in the 1880s,” the 2013 ASCE report read. “Investment in power transmission has increased since 2005, but ongoing permitting issues, weather events, and limited maintenance have contributed to an increasing number of failures and power interruptions.”

As The Times noted, the US power grid as it exists today was built shortly after World War II, with the design dating back to Thomas Edison. While Edison was a genius, he and his contemporaries could not have envisioned all the strains the modern world would place upon the grid and the multitude of tech gadgets many Americans treat as an extension of their body. While the drain on the grid has advanced substantially, the infrastructure itself has not.

There are approximately 5 million miles of electrical transmission lines throughout the United States, and thousands of power generating plants dot the landscape. The electrical grid is managed by a group of 3,300 different utilities and serve about 150 million customers, The Times said. The entire power grid system is currently valued at $876 billion.

Many believe the grid is vulnerable to an attack on substations and other threats.

Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano once said that a power grid cyber attack is a matter of “when” not “if,” as Russians hacked utilities incidents have shown.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Egypt-Saudi Electricity Interconnection enables cross-border power trading, 3,000 MW capacity, and peak-demand balancing across the Middle East, boosting grid stability, reliability, and energy security through an advanced electricity network, interconnector infrastructure, and GCC grid integration.

Key Points

A 3,000 MW grid link letting Egypt and Saudi Arabia trade power, balance peak demand, and boost regional reliability.

✅ $1.6B project; Egypt invests ~$600M; 2-year construction timeline

✅ 3,000 MW capacity; peak-load shifting; cross-border reliability

✅ Links GCC grid; complements Jordan and Libya interconnectors

Egypt will connect its electricity network to Saudi Arabia, joining a system in the Middle East that has allowed neighbors to share power, similar to the Scotland-England subsea project that will bring renewable power south.

The link will cost about $1.6 billion, with Egypt paying about $600 million, Egypt’s Electricity Minister Mohamed Shaker said Monday at a conference in Cairo, as the country pursues a smart grid transformation to modernize its network. Contracts to build the network will be signed in March or April, and construction is expected to take about two years, he said. In times of surplus, Egypt can export electricity and then import power during shortages.

"It will enable us to benefit from the difference in peak consumption,” Shaker said. “The reliability of the network will also increase.”

Transmissions of electricity across borders in the Gulf became possible in 2009, when a power grid connected Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, a dynamic also seen when Ukraine joined Europe's grid under emergency conditions. The aim of the grid is to ensure that member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council can import power in an emergency. Egypt, which is not in the GCC, may have been able to avert an electricity shortage it suffered in 2014 if the link with Saudi Arabia existed at the time, Shaker said.

The link with Saudi Arabia should have a capacity of 3,000 megawatts, he said. Egypt has a 450-megawatt link with Jordan and one with Libya at 200 megawatts, the minister said. Egypt will seek to use its strategic location to connect power grids in Asia, where the Philippines power grid efforts are raising standards, and elsewhere in Africa, he said.

In 2009, a power grid linked Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, allowing the GCC states to transmit electricity across borders, much like proposals for a western Canadian grid that aim to improve regional reliability. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas EV Registration Fee adds a $200 annual charge under Senate Bill 505, offsetting lost gasoline tax revenue to the State Highway Fund, impacting electric vehicle owners at registration and renewals across Texas.

Key Points

A $200 yearly charge on electric vehicles to replace lost gasoline tax revenue and support Texas Highway Fund road work.

✅ $200 due at registration or renewal; $400 upfront on new EVs.

✅ Enacted by Senate Bill 505 to offset lost gasoline tax revenue.

✅ Advocates propose mileage-based fees; limited $2,500 rebates exist.

Plano resident Tony Federico bought his Tesla five years ago in part because he hated spending lots of money on gas, and Supercharger billing changes have also influenced charging expenses. But that financial calculus will change slightly on Sept. 1, when Texas will start charging electric vehicle drivers an additional fee of $200 each year.

“It just seems like it’s arbitrary, with no real logic behind it,” said Federico, 51, who works in information technology. “But I’m going to have to pay it.”

Earlier this year, state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 505, which requires electric vehicle owners to pay the fee when they register a vehicle or renew their registration, even as fights for control over charging continue among utilities, automakers and retailers. It’s being imposed because lawmakers said EV drivers weren’t paying their fair share into a fund that helps cover road construction and repairs across Texas.

The cost will be especially high for those who purchase a new electric vehicle and have to pay two years of registration, or $400, up front.

Texas agencies estimated in a 2020 report that the state lost an average of $200 per year in federal and state gasoline tax dollars when an electric vehicle replaced a gas-fueled one. The agencies called the fee “the most straightforward” remedy.

Gasoline taxes go to the State Highway Fund, which the Texas Department of Transportation calls its “primary funding source.” Electric vehicle drivers don’t pay those taxes, though, because they don’t use gasoline.

Still, EV drivers do use the roads. And while electric vehicles make up a tiny portion of cars in Texas for now, that fraction is expected to increase, raising concerns about state power grids in the years ahead.

Many environmental and consumer advocates agreed with lawmakers that EV drivers should pay into the highway fund but argued over how much, and debates over fairer vehicle taxes are surfacing abroad as well.

Some thought the state should set the fee lower to cover only the lost state tax dollars, rather than both the state and federal money, because federal officials may devise their own scheme. Others argued the state should charge nothing because EVs help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change and can offer budget benefits for many owners.

“We urgently need to get more electric vehicles on the road,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “Any increased fee could create an additional barrier for Texans, and particularly more moderate- to low-income Texans, to make that transition.”

Tom “Smitty” Smith, the executive director of the Texas Electric Transportation Resources Alliance, advocated for a fee based on how many miles a person drove their electric car, which would better mirror how the gas taxes are assessed.

Texas has a limited incentive that could offset the cost: It offers rebates of up to $2,500 for up to 2,000 new hydrogen fuel cell, electric or hybrid vehicles every two years. Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen’s Texas office director, recommended that the state expand the rebates, noting that state-level EV benefits can be significant.

In the Houston area, dealer Steven Wolf isn’t worried about the fee deterring potential customers from buying the electric Ford F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E vehicles he sells. Electric cars are already more expensive than comparable gasoline-fueled cars, and charging networks compete for drivers, he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario-Quebec Energy Swap streamlines electricity exchange, balancing peak demand across clean grids with hydroelectric and nuclear power, enhancing reliability, capacity banking, and interprovincial load management for industry growth, EV adoption, and seasonal heating-cooling needs.

Key Points

10-year, no-cash power swap aligning peaks; hydro and nuclear enhance reliability and let Ontario bank capacity.

✅ Up to 600 MW exchanged yearly; reviews adjust volumes

✅ Peaks differ: summer A/C in Ontario, winter heating in Quebec

✅ Capacity banking enables future-year withdrawals

Ontario and Quebec have agreed to swap energy to build on an electricity deal to help each other out when electricity demands peak.

The provinces' electricity operators, the Independent Electricity System Operator holds capacity auctions and Hydro-Quebec, will trade up to 600 megawatts of energy each year, said Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith.

“The deal just makes a lot of sense from both sides,” Smith said in an interview.

“The beauty as well is that Quebec and Ontario are amongst the cleanest grids around.”

The majority of Ontario's power comes from nuclear energy while the majority of Quebec's energy comes from hydroelectric power, including Labrador power in regional transmission networks.

The deal works because Ontario and Quebec's energy peaks come at different times, Smith said.

Ontario's energy demands spike in the summer, largely driven by air conditioning on hot days, and the province has occasionally set off-peak electricity prices to provide temporary relief, he said.

Quebec's energy needs peak in the winter, mostly due to electric heating on cold days.

The deal will last 10 years, with reviews along the way to adjust energy amounts based on usage.

“With the increase in energy demand, we must adopt more energy efficiency programs like Peak Perks and intelligent measures in order to better manage peak electricity consumption,” Quebec's Energy Minister Pierre Fitzgibbon wrote in a statement.

Smith said the energy deal is a straight swap, with no payments on either side, and won't reduce hydro bills as the transfer could begin as early as this winter.

Ontario will also be able to bank unused energy to save capacity until it is needed in future years, Smith said.

Both provinces are preparing for future energy needs, as electricity demands are expected to grow dramatically in the coming years with increased demand from industry and the rise of electric vehicles, and Ontario has tabled legislation to lower electricity rates to support consumers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News