China to build 4,000-MW coal-fired plant

Global Energy Investment Decline risks future oil and electricity supply, says the IEA, as spending on upstream, coal plants, and grids falls while renewables, storage, and flexible generation lag in the energy transition.

Key Points

Multi-year cuts to oil, power, and grid spending that increase risks of future supply shortages and market tightness.

✅ IEA warns underinvestment risks oil supply squeeze

✅ China and India slow coal plant additions; renewables rise

✅ Batteries aid flexibility but cannot replace seasonal storage

An almost 20 per cent fall in global energy investment over the past three years could lead to oil and electricity shortages, as surging electricity demand persists, and there are concerns about whether current business models will encourage sufficient levels of spending in the future, according a new report.

The International Energy Agency’s second annual IEA benchmark analysis of energy investment found that while the world spent $US1.7 trillion ($2.2 trillion) on fossil-fuel exploration, new power plants and upgrades to electricity grids last year, with electricity investment surpassing oil and gas even as global energy investment was down 12 per cent from a year earlier and 17 per cent lower than 2014.

While the IEA said continued oversupply of oil and electricity globally would prevent any imminent shock, falling investment “points to a risk of market tightness and undercapacity at some point down the line’’.

The low crude oil price drove a 44 per cent drop in oil and gas investment between 2014 and 2016. It fell 26 per cent last year. It was due to falls in upstream activity and a slowdown in the sanctioning of conventional oilfields to the lowest level in more than 70 years.

“Given the depletion of existing fields, the pace of investment in conventional fields will need to rise to avoid a supply squeeze, even on optimistic assumptions about technology and the impact of climate policies on oil demand,’’ the IEA warned in its report released yesterday evening. “The energy transition has barely begun in several key sectors, such as transport and industry, which will continue to rely heavily on oil, gas and coal for the foreseeable future.’’

The fall in global energy spending also reflected declining investment in power generation, particularly from coal plants.

While 21 per cent of global ­energy investment was made by China in 2016, the world’s fastest growing economy had a 25 per cent decline in the commissioning of new coal-fired power plants, due largely to air pollution issues and investment in renewables.

Investment in new coal-fired plants also fell in India.

“India and China have slammed the brakes on coal-fired generation. That is the big change we have seen globally,’’ said ­Bruce Mountain a director at CME Australia.

“What it confirms is the ­pressures and the changes we are seeing in Australia, the restructuring of our energy supply, is just part of a global trend. We are facing the pressures more sharply in Australia because our power prices are very high. But that same shift in energy source in Australia are being mirrored internationally.’’ The IEA — a Paris-based adviser to the OECD on energy policy — also highlighted Australia’s reduced power reserves in its report and called for regulatory change to encourage greater use of renewables.

“Australia has one of the highest proportions of households with PV systems on their roof of any country in the world, and its ­electricity use in its National ­Electricity Market is spread out over a huge and weakly connected network,’’ the report said.

“It appears that a series of accompanying investments and regulatory changes are needed, including a plan to avoid supply threats, to use Australia’s abundant wind and solar potential: changing system operation methods and reliability procedures as well as investment into network capacity, flexible generation and storage.’’ The report found that in Australia there had been an increase in grid-scale installations mostly associated with large-scale solar PV plants.

Last month the Turnbull ­government revealed it was prepared to back the construction of new coal-fired power stations to prevent further shortfalls in electricity supplies, while the PM ruled out taxpayer-funded plants and declared it was open to using “clean coal” technology to replace existing generators.

He also pledged “immediate” ­action to boost the supply of gas by forcing exporters to divert ­production into the domestic ­market.

Since then technology billionaire Elon Musk has promised to solve South Australia’s energy ­issues by building the world’s largest lithium-ion battery in the state.

But the IEA report said batteries were unlikely to become a “one size fits all” single solution to ­electricity security and flexibility provision.

“While batteries are well-suited to frequency control and shifting hourly load, they cannot provide seasonal storage or substitute the full range of technical services that conventional plants provide to stabilise the system,’’ the report said.

“In the absence of a major technological breakthrough, it is most likely that batteries will complement rather than substitute ­conventional means of providing system flexibility. While conventional plants continue to provide essential system services, their business model is increasingly being called into question in ­unbundled systems.’’

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

European Electricity Market Trends 2020 highlight decarbonisation, rising renewables, EV adoption, shifting energy mix, COVID-19 impacts, fuel switching, hydro, wind and solar growth, gas price dynamics, and wholesale electricity price increases.

Key Points

EU power in 2020 saw lower emissions, more renewables, EV growth, demand shifts, and higher wholesale prices.

✅ Power sector CO2 down 14% on higher renewables, lower coal

✅ Renewables 39% vs fossil 36%; hydro, wind, solar expanded

✅ EV share hit 17%; wholesale prices rose with gas, ETS costs

According to the Market Observatory for Energy DG Energy report, the COVID-19 pandemic and favorable weather conditions are the two key drivers of the trends experienced within the European electricity market in 2020. However, the two drivers were exceptional or seasonal.

The key trends within Europe’s electricity market include:

1. Decrease in power sector’s carbon emissions

As a result of the increase in renewables generation and decrease in fossil-fueled power generation in 2020, the power sector was able to reduce its carbon footprint by 14% in 2020. The decrease in the sector’s carbon footprint in 2020 is similar to trends witnessed in 2019 when fuel switching was the main factor behind the decarbonisation trend.

However, most of the drivers in 2020 were exceptional or seasonal (the pandemic, warm winter, high
hydro generation). However, the opposite is expected in 2021, with the first months of 2021 having relatively cold weather, lower wind speeds and higher gas prices, with stunted hydro and nuclear output also cited, developments which suggest that the carbon emissions and intensity of the power sector could rise.

The European Union is targeting to completely decarbonise its power sector by 2050 through the introduction of supporting policies such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, the Renewable Energy Directive and legislation addressing air pollutant emissions from industrial installations, with expectations that low-emissions sources will cover most demand growth in the coming years.

According to the European Environment Agency, Europe halved its power sector’s carbon emissions in 2019 from 1990 levels.

2. Changes in energy consumption

EU consumption of electricity fell by -4% as majority of industries did not operate at full level during the first half of 2020. Although majority of EU residents stayed at home, meaning an increase in residential energy use, rising demand by households could not reverse falls in other sectors of the economy.

However, as countries renewed COVID-19 restrictions, energy consumption during the 4th quarter was closer to the “normal levels” than in the first three quarters of 2020. 

The increase in energy consumption in the fourth quarter of 2020 was also partly due to colder temperatures compared to 2019 and signs of surging electricity demand in global markets.

3. Increase in demand for EVs

As the electrification of the transport system intensifies, the demand for electric vehicles increased in 2020 with almost half a million new registrations in the fourth quarter of 2020. This was the highest figure on record and translated into an unprecedented 17% market share, more than two times higher than in China and six times higher than in the United States.

However, the European Environment Agency (EEA)argues that the EV registrations were lower in 2020 compared to 2019. EEA states that in 2019, electric car registrations were close to 550 000 units, having reached 300 000 units in 2018.

4. Changes in the region’s energy mix and increase in renewable energy generation

The structure of the region’s energy mix changed in 2020, according to the report.

Owing to favorable weather conditions, hydro energy generation was very high and Europe was able to expand its portfolio of renewable energy generation such that renewables (39%) exceeded the share of fossil fuels (36%) for the first time ever in the EU energy mix.

Rising renewable generation was greatly assisted by 29 GW of wind and solar capacity additions in 2020, which is comparable to 2019 levels. Despite disrupting the supply chains of wind and solar resulting in project delays, the pandemic did not significantly slow down renewables’ expansion.

In fact, coal and lignite energy generation fell by 22% (-87 TWh) and nuclear output dropped by 11% (-79 TWh). On the other hand, gas energy generation was not significantly impacted owing to favorable prices which intensified coal-to-gas and lignite-to-gas switching, even as renewables crowd out gas in parts of the market.

5. Retirement of coal energy generation intensify

 As the outlook for emission-intensive technologies worsens and carbon prices rise, more and more early coal retirements have been announced. Utilities in Europe are expected to continue transitioning from coal energy generation under efforts to meet stringent carbon emissions reduction targets and as they try to prepare themselves for future business models that they anticipate to be entirely low-carbon reliant.

6. Increase in wholesale electricity prices

In recent months, more expensive emission allowances, along with rising gas prices, have driven up wholesale electricity prices on many European markets to levels last seen at the beginning of 2019. The effect was most pronounced in countries that are dependent on coal and lignite. The wholesale electricity prices dynamic is expected to filter through to retail prices.

The rapid sales growth in the EVs sector was accompanied by expanding charging infrastructure. The number of high-power charging points per 100 km of highways rose from 12 to 20 in 2020.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Tucson Electric Power Coal Phaseout advances an Integrated Resource Plan to exit Springerville coal by 2032, lift renewables past 70 percent by 2035, add wind, solar, battery storage, and cut carbon emissions 80 percent.

Key Points

A 2032 coal exit and 2035 plan to lift renewables above 70 percent, add wind, solar, storage, and cut CO2 80 percent.

✅ Coal purchases end at Springerville units by 2032

✅ Renewables exceed 70 percent of load by 2035

✅ 80 percent CO2 cut from 2005 baseline via wind, solar, storage

In a dramatic policy shift, Tucson Electric Power says it will stop using coal to generate electricity by 2032 and will increase renewable energy's share of its energy load to more than 70% by 2035.

As part of that change, the utility will stop buying electricity from its two units at its coal-fired Springerville Generating Station by 2032. The plant, TEP's biggest power source, provides about 35% of its energy.

The utility already had planned to start up two New Mexico wind farms and a solar storage plant in the Tucson area by next year. The new plan calls for adding an additional 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2035.

The utility's switch from fossil fuels is spelled out in the plan, submitted to the Arizona Corporation Commission, amid shifts in federal power plant rules that could affect implementation. Called an Integrated Resource Plan, it would reduce TEP's carbon dioxide emissions 80% by 2035 compared with 2005 levels.

The plan drew generally positive reviews from a number of environmentalists and other representatives of an advisory committee that had worked with TEP for a year.

Two commissioners, Chairman Bob Burns and Tucsonan Lea Marquez Peterson, also generally praised the plan, although they held off on final judgment.

University of Arizona researchers said the plan would likely meet the utility's share of the worldwide goal of holding down global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius, or about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above pre-industrial levels, even as studies find that climate change threatens grid reliability in many regions.

But a representative of AARP and the Pima Council on Aging expressed concern because the plan would require 1% annual electric rate increases a year to put into effect.

Officials in the eastern Arizona town of Springerville aren't happy.

And Sierra Club official Sandy Bahr said the plan doesn't move fast enough to get TEP off coal. She listed 14 separate units of various Western coal-fired plants that are scheduled to shut down sooner than 2032, many in the 2020s.

But TEP says the plan best balances costs and environmental benefits compared with 24 others it reviewed.

"We know our customers want safe, reliable energy from resources that are both affordable and environmentally responsible. TEP's 2020 Integrated Resource Plan will help us maintain that delicate balance," TEP CEO David Hutchens wrote in the forward to the plan.

The plan isn't legally binding but is aimed at sending a signal to regulators and the public about TEP's future direction. TEP and other regulated Arizona utilities update such plans every three years.

TEP has been one of the West's more fossil-fuel-friendly utilities. It stuck with coal even as many other utilities were moving away from it, including Alliant Energy's carbon-neutral plan to cut emissions and costs, and as the Sierra Club called on utilities to move beyond what it termed a highly polluting energy source that emits large quantities of heat-trapping greenhouse gases linked by scientists to global warming.

Last year, TEP got 13% of its electricity from renewables such as wind farms and solar plants along with photovoltaic solar panels atop individual homes. Fossil fuels coal and natural gas supplied the rest, a University of Arizona study paid for by TEP found.

Economics, not just emissions, a big factor

TEP's previous resource plan, from 2017, called for boosting renewable use to 30% by 2030 and to cut coal to 38% of its electric load by then from 69% in 2017, reflecting broader 2017 utility trends across the industry.

A TEP official said last week the utility is heading in a different direction not only due to concerns about greenhouse gas emissions but because of changing economics.

"For the last several decades, coal was the most economical resource. It was the lowest-cost resource to supply energy for our customers, and it wasn't really close," said Jeff Yockey, TEP's resource planning director.

But over the past few years, first natural gas prices and more recently solar and wind energy prices have fallen dramatically, he said.

Their prices are projected to keep falling, along with the cost of battery-fueled storage of solar energy for use when the sun is down, he said.

"Coal just isn't the most economical resource" now, Yockey said.

Yet the utility still needs, for now, the extra energy capacity that coal provides, he said, even as other states outline ways to improve grid reliability through targeted investments.

"Being a utility with no nuclear or hydro(electric) energy, with coal, there is reliability, a fuel on the ground, 30 or 90 days supply," he said. "It's the only source not subject to disruption in the next hour. It's our only long-term, stable fuel supply. Over time, we will be able to overcome that."

UA researchers, community panel worked on plan

TEP paid the UA $100,000 to have three researchers prepare two reports, one comparing 24 different proposals and a second comparing TEP's fossil fuel/renewable split with those of other utilities.

Also, the utility appointed an advisory council representing environmental, business and government interests that met regularly to guide TEP in producing the plan. The utility chose a preferred energy "portfolio," Yockey said.

The goal "was very much about basically achieving significant emissions reductions as quickly as we can and as cost effectively as we can," he said. TEP wanted the biggest cumulative emission cut possible over 15 years.

"If it was just about cost, we wouldn't have selected the portfolio that we selected. It wasn't the lowest cost portfolio."

UA assistant research professors Ben McMahan and Will Holmgren said combined carbon dioxide emission reductions from TEP's new plan over 15 years would be expected to hit the Paris accord's 2-degree target.

"There is considerable uncertainty about what will happen between now and 2050, but the preferred portfolio's early start on reductions and lowest cumulative emissions is certainly a positive sign that well below 2C is achievable," the researchers said in an email.

Environmentalists pleased, but some want coal cut sooner

The Sierra Club, Western Resource Advocates, the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project and Pima County offered varying degrees of praise for the new TEP plan.

In a memo Friday, County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry congratulated TEP for "the comprehensive, inclusive and transparent process" used to develop the plan.

Because of UA's involvement, TEP's advisory council and the public "can feel confident that the utility is on track to make significant progress in curbing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change," Huckelberry wrote.

The TEP plan "is the most aggressive commitment to reducing emissions by a utility in Arizona," said Autumn Johnson of Western Resource Advocates in a news release.

"Adding clean energy generation and storage while accelerating the retirement of coal units will ensure a healthier and better future for Arizonans," said Johnson, an energy policy analyst in Phoenix.

The Sierra Club will have a technical expert review the plan and already wants more energy savings, said Bahr, director of the group's Grand Canyon chapter. But overall, this plan is a step in the right direction for TEP, she said.

By comparison, Arizona Public Service's new resource plan only calls for 45% renewable energy by 2030, Bahr noted, while California regulators consider more power plants to ensure reliability. APS committed to going coal-free by 2031.

A Sierra Club proposal that the UA reviewed called for TEP to quit coal by 2027.

But TEP analyzed that proposal and concluded it would require $300 million in investments and would reduce the utility's cumulative emissions by only 2.4 million tons, to 70.2 million tons by 2035, Yockey said.

The Sierra Club plan was the most expensive portfolio investigated, Yockey said.

"The difference is in the timing. We still have a fair amount of value in our coal plants which we need to depreciate, which we do over time," Yockey said. "Trying to replace the capacity that coal provides in the near term with storage and solar is very expensive, although those costs are declining."

Seniors on fixed incomes could be hurt, advocate says

Rene Pina, an advisory council member representing two senior citizen organizations, praised the plan's goals but was concerned about impacts of even 1% annual rate increases on elderly people on fixed incomes.

They can't always handle such an increase, he said.

One possible fix is that TEP could ease eligibility requirements for its low-income energy assistance program, aligning with equity-focused electricity regulation principles, to allow more seniors to benefit, said Pina, representing AARP and the Pima Council on Aging.

"The program is structured so it just barely disqualifies most of our seniors. Their social security pension is just barely over the low-income limit. It can easily be adjusted without any problems to the utility," Pina said.

Advisory council member Rob Lamb, an engineer with GHLN, an architecture-engineering firm, said he was very pleased with TEP's plan.

"One of the things a lot of people don't realize when they put together a plan like that, is they have to balance environment with 'Hey, what's the reliability of service? Are we going to be able to keep our rates for something that will work?'" Lamb said.

"This a very balanced and resilient portfolio."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canadian Softwood Lumber Tariffs challenge British Columbia's forestry sector, strain U.S.-Canada trade, and risk redirecting critical minerals and energy resources, threatening North American supply chains, manufacturing, and energy security across integrated markets.

Key Points

Duties imposed by the U.S. on Canadian lumber, affecting BC forestry, trade flows, and North American energy security.

✅ U.S. duties strain BC forestry and cross-border supply chains

✅ Risks redirecting critical minerals and energy exports

✅ Tariff rollback could bolster North American energy security

British Columbia Premier David Eby has raised concerns that U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber are prompting the province to redirect its critical minerals and energy resources, while B.C. challenges Alberta's electricity export restrictions domestically, away from the United States. In a recent interview, Eby emphasized the broader implications of these tariffs, suggesting they could undermine North American energy security and put electricity exports at risk across the border.

Since 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce has imposed tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imports, alleging that Canadian producers benefit from unfair subsidies. These duties have been a persistent source of tension between the two nations, coinciding with Canadian support for energy and mineral tariffs and significantly impacting British Columbia's forestry sector—a cornerstone of the province's economy.

Premier Eby highlighted that the financial strain imposed by these tariffs not only jeopardizes the Canadian forestry industry but also has unintended repercussions for the United States. He pointed out that the economic challenges faced by Canadian producers might lead them to seek alternative markets for their critical minerals and energy resources, as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects domestically, thereby reducing the supply to the U.S. British Columbia is endowed with an abundance of critical minerals essential for various industries, including technology and defense.

The potential redirection of these resources could have significant consequences for American industries that depend on a stable and affordable supply of critical minerals and energy. Eby suggested that the tariffs might incentivize Canadian producers to explore other international markets, even as experts advise against cutting Quebec's energy exports amid the tariff dispute, diminishing the availability of these vital resources to the U.S.

In light of these concerns, Premier Eby has advocated for a reassessment of the tariffs, urging a more cooperative approach between Canada and the United States. He contends that eliminating the tariffs would be mutually beneficial, aligning with views that Biden is better for Canada's energy sector and cross-border collaboration, ensuring a consistent supply of critical resources and fostering economic growth in both countries.

The issue of U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber remains complex and contentious, with far-reaching implications for trade relations and resource distribution between the two nations. As discussions continue, stakeholders on both sides of the border are closely monitoring the situation, noting that Ford has threatened to cut U.S. electricity exports amid trade tensions, recognizing the importance of collaboration in addressing shared economic and security challenges.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric Buses reduce urban emissions and noise, but require charging infrastructure, grid upgrades, and depot redesigns; they offer lower operating costs and simpler maintenance, with range limits influencing routes, schedules, and on-route fast charging.

Key Points

Battery-electric buses cut emissions and noise while lowering operating and maintenance costs for transit agencies.

✅ Lower emissions, noise; improved rider experience

✅ Requires charging, grid upgrades, depot redesigns

✅ Range limits affect routes; on-route fast charging helps

In lots of ways, the electric bus feels like a technology whose time has come. Transportation is responsible for about a quarter of global emissions, and those emissions are growing faster than in any other sector. While buses are just a small slice of the worldwide vehicle fleet, they have an outsize effect on the environment. That’s partly because they’re so dirty—one Bogotá bus fleet made up just 5 percent of the city’s total vehicles, but a quarter of its CO2, 40 percent of nitrogen oxide, and more than half of all its particulate matter vehicle emissions. And because buses operate exactly where the people are concentrated, we feel the effects that much more acutely.

Enter the electric bus. Depending on the “cleanliness” of the electric grid into which they’re plugged, e-buses are much better for the environment. They’re also just straight up nicer to be around: less vibration, less noise, zero exhaust. Plus, in the long term, e-buses have lower operating costs, and related efforts like US school bus electrification are gathering pace too.

So it makes sense that global e-bus sales increased by 32 percent last year, according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, as the age of electric cars accelerates across markets worldwide. “You look across the electrification of cars, trucks—it’s buses that are leading this revolution,” says David Warren, the director of sustainable transportation at bus manufacturer New Flyer.

Today, about 17 percent of the world’s buses are electric—425,000 in total. But 99 percent of them are in China, where a national mandate promotes all sorts of electric vehicles. In North America, a few cities have bought a few electric buses, or at least run limited pilots, to test the concept out, and early deployments like Edmonton's first e-bus offer useful lessons as systems ramp up. California has even mandated that by 2029 all buses purchased by its mass transit agencies be zero-emission.

But given all the benefits of e-buses, why aren’t there more? And why aren’t they everywhere?

“We want to be responsive, we want to be innovative, we want to pilot new technologies and we’re committed to doing so as an agency,” says Becky Collins, the manager of corporate initiative at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which is currently on its second e-bus pilot program. “But if the diesel bus was a first-generation car phone, we’re verging on smartphone territory right now. It’s not as simple as just flipping a switch.”

One reason is trepidation about the actual electric vehicle. Some of the major bus manufacturers are still getting over their skis, production-wise. During early tests in places like Belo Horizonte, Brazil, e-buses had trouble getting over steep hills with full passenger loads. Albuquerque, New Mexico, canceled a 15-bus deal with the Chinese manufacturer BYD after finding equipment problems during testing. (The city also sued). Today’s buses get around 225 miles per charge, depending on topography and weather conditions, which means they have to re-up about once a day on a shorter route in a dense city. That’s an issue in a lot of places.

If you want to buy an electric bus, you need to buy into an entire electric bus system. The vehicle is just the start.

The number one thing people seem to forget about electric buses is that they need to get charged, and emerging projects such as a bus depot charging hub illustrate how infrastructure can scale. “We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles,” says Camron Gorguinpour, the global senior manager for the electric vehicles at the World Resources Institute, a research organization, which last month released twin reports on electric bus adoption. “The actual charging stations get lost in the mix.”

But charging stations are expensive—about $50,000 for your standard depot-based one. On-route charging stations, an appealing option for longer bus routes, can be two or three times that. And that’s not even counting construction costs. Or the cost of new land: In densely packed urban centers, movements inside bus depots can be tightly orchestrated to accommodate parking and fueling. New electric bus infrastructure means rethinking limited space, and operators can look to Toronto's TTC e-bus fleet for practical lessons on depot design. And it’s a particular pain when agencies are transitioning between diesel and electric buses. “The big issue is just maintaining two sets of fueling infrastructure,” says Hanjiro Ambrose, a doctoral student at UC Davis who studies transportation technology and policy.

“We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles. The actual charging stations get lost in the mix as the American EV boom gathers pace across sectors.”

Then agencies also have to get the actual electricity to their charging stations. This involves lengthy conversations with utilities about grid upgrades, rethinking how systems are wired, occasionally building new substations, and, sometimes, cutting deals on electric output, since electric truck fleets will also strain power systems in parallel. Because an entirely electrified bus fleet? It’s a lot to charge. Warren, the New Flyer executive, estimates it could take 150 megawatt-hours of electricity to keep a 300-bus depot charged up throughout the day. Your typical American household, by contrast, consumes 7 percent of that—per year. “That’s a lot of work by the utility company,” says Warren.

For cities outside of China—many of them still testing out electric buses and figuring out how they fit into their larger fleets—learning about what it takes to run one is part of the process. This, of course, takes money. It also takes time. Optimists say e-buses are more of a question of when than if. Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects that just under 60 percent of all fleet buses will be electric by 2040, compared to under 40 percent of commercial vans and 30 percent of passenger vehicles.

Which means, of course, that the work has just started. “With new technology, it always feels great when it shows up,” says Ambrose. “You really hope that first mile is beautiful, because the shine will come off. That’s always true.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News