Utility outline show bids would work

U.S. Grid Modernization is critical for renewable energy integration, EV adoption, climate resilience, and reliability, requiring transmission upgrades, inter-regional links, hardened substations, and smart grid investments to handle extreme weather and decarbonization targets.

Key Points

U.S. Grid Modernization upgrades power networks to improve reliability, integrate renewables, and support EV demand.

✅ $2T+ investment needed for transmission upgrades

✅ Extreme weather doubling outages since 2017

✅ Regulatory fragmentation slows inter-regional lines

After decades of struggle, the U.S. clean-energy business is booming, with soaring electric-car sales and fast growth in wind and solar power. That’s raising hopes for the fight against climate change.

All this progress, however, could be derailed, as the green revolution stalls without a massive overhaul of America’s antiquated electric infrastructure – a task some industry experts say requires more than $2 trillion. The current network of transmission wires, substations and transformers is decaying with age and underinvestment, a condition highlighted by catastrophic failures during increasingly frequent and severe weather events.

Power outages over the last six years have more than doubled in number compared to the previous six years, according to a Reuters examination of federal data. In the past two years, power systems have collapsed in Gulf Coast hurricanes, West Coast wildfires, Midwest heat waves and a Texas deep freeze and recurring Texas grid crisis risks, causing long and sometimes deadly outages.

Compounding the problem, the seven regional grid operators in the United States are underestimating the growing threat of severe weather caused by climate change, Reuters found in a review of more than 10,000 pages of regulatory documents and operators’ public disclosures. Their risk models, used to guide transmission-network investments, consider historical weather patterns extending as far back as the 1970s. None account for scientific research documenting today’s more extreme weather and how it can disrupt grid generation, transmission and fuel supplies simultaneously.

The decrepit power infrastructure of the world’s largest economy is among the biggest obstacles to expanding clean energy and combating climate change on the ambitious schedule laid out by U.S. President Joe Biden. His administration promises to eliminate or offset carbon emissions from the power sector by 2035 and from the entire U.S. economy by 2050. Such rapid clean-energy growth would pressure the nation’s grid in two ways: Widespread EV adoption will spark a huge surge in power demand; and increasing dependence on renewable power creates reliability problems on days with less sun or wind, as seen in Texas, where experts have outlined reliability improvements that address these challenges.

The U.S. transmission network has seen outages double in recent years amid more frequent and severe weather events, driven by climate change and a utility supply-chain crunch that slows critical repairs. The system needs a massive upgrade to handle expected growth in clean energy and electric cars. 

“Competition from renewables is being strangled without adequate and necessary upgrades to the transmission network,” said Simon Mahan, executive director of the Southern Renewable Energy Association, which represents solar and wind companies.

The federal government, however, lacks the authority to push through the massive grid expansion and modernization needed to withstand wilder weather and accommodate EVs and renewable power. Under the current regulatory regime, and amid contentious electricity pricing proposals in recent years, the needed infrastructure investments are instead controlled by a Byzantine web of local, state and regional regulators who have strong political incentives to hold down spending, according to Reuters interviews with grid operators, federal and state regulators, and executives from utilities and construction firms.

“Competition from renewables is being strangled without adequate and necessary upgrades to the transmission network.”

Paying for major grid upgrades would require these regulators to sign off on rate increases likely to spark strong opposition from consumers and local and state politicians, who are keen to keep utility bills low. In addition, utility companies often fight investments in transmission-network improvements because they can result in new connections to other regional grids that could allow rival companies to compete on their turf, even as coal and nuclear disruptions raise brownout risks in some regions. With the advance of green energy, those inter-regional connections will become ever more essential to move power from far-flung solar and wind installations to population centers.

The power-sharing among states and regions with often conflicting interests makes it extremely challenging to coordinate any national strategy to modernize the grid, said Alison Silverstein, an independent industry consultant and former senior adviser to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

“The politics are a freakin’ nightmare,” she said.

The FERC declined to comment for this story. FERC Commissioner Mark Christie, a Republican, acknowledged the limitations of the agency’s power over the U.S. grid in an April 21 agency meeting involving transmission planning and costs.

“We can’t force states to do anything,” Christie said.

The White House and Energy Department did not comment in response to detailed questions from Reuters on the Biden administration’s plans to tackle U.S. grid problems and their impact on green-energy expansion.

The administration said in an April news release that it plans to offer $2.5 billion in grants for grid-modernization projects as part of Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure package, complementing a proposed clean electricity standard to accelerate decarbonization over the next decade. A modernized grid, the release said, is the “linchpin” of Biden’s clean-energy agenda.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Quebec Hydropower Export Retaliation examines using electricity exports to counter U.S. tariffs amid Canada-U.S. trade tensions, weighing clean energy supply, grid reliability, energy security, legal risks, and long-term market impacts.

Key Points

Using Quebec electricity exports as leverage against U.S. tariffs, and its economic, legal, and diplomatic consequences.

✅ Revenue loss for Quebec and higher costs for U.S. consumers

✅ Risk of legal disputes under trade and energy agreements

✅ Long-term erosion of market share and grid cooperation

As trade tensions between Canada and the United States continue to escalate, with electricity exports at risk according to recent reporting, discussions have intensified around potential Canadian responses to the imposition of U.S. tariffs. One of the proposals gaining attention is the idea of reducing or even halting the export of energy from Quebec to the U.S. This measure has been suggested by some as a potential countermeasure to retaliate against the tariffs. However, experts and industry leaders are urging caution, emphasizing that the consequences of such a decision could have significant economic and diplomatic repercussions for both Canada and the United States.

Quebec plays a critical role in energy trade, particularly in supplying hydroelectric power to the United States, especially to the northeastern states, including New York where tariffs may spike energy prices according to analysts, strengthening the case for stable cross-border flows. This energy trade is deeply embedded in the economic fabric of both regions. For Quebec, the export of hydroelectric power represents a crucial source of revenue, while for the U.S., it provides access to a steady and reliable supply of clean, renewable energy. This mutually beneficial relationship has been a cornerstone of trade between the two countries, promoting economic stability and environmental sustainability.

In the wake of recent U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods, some policymakers have considered using energy exports as leverage, echoing threats to cut U.S. electricity exports in earlier disputes, to retaliate against what is viewed as an unfair trade practice. The idea is to reduce or stop the flow of electricity to the U.S. as a way to strike back at the tariffs and potentially force a change in U.S. policy. On the surface, this approach may appear to offer a viable means of exerting pressure. However, experts warn that such a move would be fraught with significant risks, both economically and diplomatically.

First and foremost, Quebec's economy is heavily reliant on revenue from hydroelectric exports to the U.S. Any reduction in these energy sales could have serious consequences for the province's economic stability, potentially resulting in job losses and a decrease in investment. The hydroelectric power sector is a major contributor to Quebec's GDP, and recent events, including a tariff threat delaying a green energy bill in Quebec, illustrate how trade tensions can ripple through the policy landscape, while disrupting this source of income could harm the provincial economy.

Additionally, experts caution that reducing energy exports could have long-term ramifications on the energy relationship between Quebec and the northeastern U.S. These two regions have developed a strong and interconnected energy network over the years, and abruptly cutting off the flow of electricity could damage this vital partnership. Legal challenges could arise under existing trade agreements, and even as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects among some stakeholders, the situation would grow more complex. Such a move could also undermine trust between the two parties, making future negotiations on energy and other trade issues more difficult.

Another potential consequence of halting energy exports is that U.S. states may seek alternative sources of energy, diminishing Quebec's market share in the long run. As the U.S. has a growing demand for clean energy, especially as it looks to transition away from fossil fuels, and looks to Canada for green power in several regions, cutting off Quebec’s electricity could prompt U.S. states to invest in other forms of energy, including renewables or even nuclear power. This could have a lasting effect on Quebec's position in the U.S. energy market, making it harder for the province to regain its footing.

Moreover, reducing or ceasing energy exports could further exacerbate trade tensions, leading to even greater economic instability. The U.S. could retaliate by imposing additional tariffs on Canadian goods or taking other measures that would negatively impact Canada's economy. This could create a cycle of escalating trade barriers that would hurt both countries and undermine the broader North American trade relationship.

While the concept of using energy exports as a retaliatory tool may seem appealing to some, the experts' advice is clear: the potential economic and diplomatic costs of such a strategy outweigh the short-term benefits. Quebec’s role as an energy supplier to the U.S. is crucial to its own economy, and maintaining a stable, reliable energy trade relationship is essential for both parties. Rather than escalating tensions further, it may be more prudent for Canada and the U.S. to seek diplomatic solutions that preserve trade relations and minimize harm to their economies.

While the idea of using Quebec’s energy exports as leverage in response to U.S. tariffs may appear attractive on the surface, and despite polls showing support for tariffs on energy and minerals among Canadians, it carries significant risks. Experts emphasize the importance of maintaining a stable energy export strategy to protect Quebec’s economy and preserve positive diplomatic relations with the U.S. Both countries have much to lose from further escalating trade tensions, and a more measured approach is likely to yield better outcomes in the long run.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Clean Electricity Standard targets a net-zero grid by 2035, using carbon pricing, CO2 caps, and carbon capture while expanding renewables and interprovincial trade to decarbonize power in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario.

Key Points

A federal plan to reach a net-zero grid by 2035 using CO2 caps, carbon pricing, carbon capture, renewables, and trade.

✅ CO2 caps and rising carbon prices through 2050

✅ Carbon capture required on gas plants in high-emitting provinces

✅ Renewables build-out and interprovincial trade to balance supply

A new tool has been proposed in the federal election campaign as a way of eradicating the carbon emissions from Canada’s patchwork electricity system. 

As the country’s need for power grows through the decarbonization of transportation, industry and space heating, the Liberal Party climate plan is proposing a clean energy standard to help Canada achieve a 100% net-zero-electricity system by 2035, aligning with Canada’s net-zero by 2050 target overall. 

The proposal echoes a report released August 19 by the David Suzuki Foundation and a group of environmental NGOs that also calls for a clean electricity standard, capping power-sector emissions, and tighter carbon-pricing regulations. The report, written by Simon Fraser University climate economist Mark Jaccard and data analyst Brad Griffin, asserts that these policies would effectively decarbonize Canada’s electricity system by 2035.

“Fuel switching from dirty fossil fuels to clean electricity is an essential part of any serious pathway to transition to a net-zero energy system by 2050,” writes Tom Green, climate policy advisor to the Suzuki Foundation, in a foreword to the report. The pathway to a net-zero grid is even more important as Canada switches from fossil fuels to electric vehicles, space heating and industrial processes, even as the Canadian Gas Association warns of high transition costs.

Under Jaccard and Griffin’s proposal, a clean electricity standard would be established to regulate CO2 emissions specifically from power plants across Canada. In addition, the plan includes an increase in the carbon price imposed on electricity system releases, combined with tighter regulation to ensure that 100% of the carbon price set by the federal government is charged to electricity producers. The authors propose that the current scheduled carbon price of $170 per tonne of CO2 in 2030 should rise to at least $300 per tonne by 2050.

In Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the 2030 standard would mean that all fossil-fuel-powered electricity plants would require carbon capture in order to comply with the standard. The provinces would be given until 2035 to drop to zero grams CO2 per kilowatt hour, matching the 2030 standard for low-carbon provinces (Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island). 

Alberta and Saskatchewan targeted 
Canada has a relatively clean electricity system, as shown by nationwide progress in electricity, with about 80% of the country’s power generated from low- or zero-emission sources. So the biggest impacts of the proposal will be felt in the higher-carbon provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Alberta has a plan to switch from coal-based electric power to natural gas generation by 2023. But Saskatchewan is still working on its plan. Under the Jaccard-Griffin proposal, these provinces would need to install carbon capture on their gas-fired plants by 2030 and carbon-negative technology (biomass with carbon capture, for instance) by 2035. Saskatchewan has been operating carbon capture and storage technology at its Boundary Dam power station since 2014, but large-scale rollout at power plants has not yet been achieved in Canada. 

With its heavy reliance on nuclear and hydro generation, Ontario’s electricity supply is already low carbon. Natural gas now accounts for about 7% of the province’s grid, but the clean electricity standard could pose a big challenge for the province as it ramps up natural-gas-generated power to replace electricity from its aging Pickering station, scheduled to go out of service in 2025, even as a fully renewable grid by 2030 remains a debated goal. Pickering currently supplies about 14% of Ontario’s power. 

Ontario doesn’t have large geological basins for underground CO2 storage, as Alberta and Saskatchewan do, so the report says Ontario will have to build up its solar and wind generation significantly as part of Canada’s renewable energy race, or find a solution to capture CO2 from its gas plants. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance has kicked off a campaign to encourage the Ontario government to phase out gas-fired generation by purchasing power from Quebec or installing new solar or wind power.

As the report points out, the federal government has Supreme Court–sanctioned authority to impose carbon regulations, such as a clean electricity standard, and carbon pricing on the provinces, with significant policy implications for electricity grids nationwide.

The federal government can also mandate a national approach to CO2 reduction regardless of fuel source, encouraging higher-carbon provinces to work with their lower-carbon neighbours. The Atlantic provinces would be encouraged to buy power from hydro-heavy Newfoundland, for example, while Ontario would be encouraged to buy power from Quebec, Saskatchewan from Manitoba, and Alberta from British Columbia.

The Canadian Electricity Association, the umbrella organization for Canada’s power sector, did not respond to a request for comment on the Jaccard-Griffin report or the Liberal net-zero grid proposal.

Just how much more clean power will Canada need? 
The proposal has also kicked off a debate, and an IEA report underscores rising demand, about exactly how much additional electricity Canada will need in coming decades.

In his 2015 report, Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in Canada, energy and climate analyst Chris Bataille estimated that to achieve Canada’s climate net-zero target by 2050 the country will need to double its electricity use by that year.

Jaccard and Griffin agree with this estimate, saying that Canada will need more than 1,200 terawatt hours of electricity per year in 2050, up from about 640 terawatt hours currently.

But energy and climate consultant Ralph Torrie (also director of research at Corporate Knights) disputes this analysis.

He says large-scale programs to make the economy more energy efficient could substantially reduce electricity demand. A major program to install heat pumps and replace inefficient electric heating in homes and businesses could save 50 terawatt hours of consumption on its own, according to a recent report from Torrie and colleague Brendan Haley. 

Put in context, 50 terawatt hours would require generation from 7,500 large wind turbines. Applied to electric vehicle charging, 50 terawatt hours could power 10 million electric vehicles.

While Torrie doesn’t dispute the need to bring the power system to net-zero, he also doesn’t believe the “arm-waving argument that the demand for electricity is necessarily going to double because of the electrification associated with decarbonization.” 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Canada Oil Recession Outlook analyzes the Russia-Saudi price war, OPEC discord, COVID-19 demand shock, WTI and WCS collapse, Alberta oilsands exposure, U.S. shale stress, and GDP risks from blockades and fiscal responses.

Key Points

An outlook on how the oil price war and COVID-19 demand shock could tip Canada into recession and strain producers.

✅ WTI and WCS prices plunge on OPEC-Russia discord

✅ Alberta oilsands face break-even pressure near 30 USD WTI

✅ RBC flags global recession; GDP hit from blockades, virus

A war between Russia and Saudi Arabia for market share for oil may have been triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic in China, but the oil price crash contagion that it will spread could have impacts that last longer than the virus.

The prospects for Canada are not good.

Plunging oil prices, reduced economic activity from virus containment, and the fallout from weeks of railway blockades over the Coastal GasLink pipeline all add up to “a one-two-three punch that I think is almost inevitably going to put Canada in a position where its growth has to be negative,” said Dan McTeague, a former Liberal MP and current president of Canadians for Affordable Energy. The situation “certainly has the makings” of a recession, said Ken Peacock, chief economist for the Business Council of British Columbia.

“At a minimum, it’s going to be very disruptive and we’re going to have maybe one negative quarter,” Peacock said. “Whether there’s a second one, where it gets labeled a recession, is a different question. But it’s going to generate some turmoil and challenges over the next two quarters – there’s no doubt about that.”

RBC Economics on March 13 announced it now predicts a global recession and cut its growth projections for Canada's economy in 2020 by half a per cent.

Oil price futures plunged 30% last week, dragging stock markets and currencies, including the Canadian dollar, down with them, even as a deep freeze strained U.S. energy systems. That drop came on top of a 17% decline in February, due to falling demand for oil due to the virus.

The latest price plunge – the worst since the 1991 Gulf War – was the result of Russia and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), led by Saudi Arabia, failing to agree on oil production cuts.

The COVID-19 outbreak in China – the world’s second-largest oil consumer – had resulted in a dramatic drop in oil demand in that country, and a sudden glut of oil, with the U.S. energy crisis affecting electricity, gas and EV markets.

OPEC has historically been able to moderate global oil prices by controlling output. But when Russia refused to co-operate with OPEC and agree to production cuts, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned company, Aramco, announced it plans to boost its oil output from 9.7 million barrels per day (bpd) to 12.3 million bpd in April.

In response to that announcement, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices dropped 18% to below US$34 per barrel while the Canadian Crude Index fell 24% to US$21. Western Canadian Select dropped 39% to US$15.73.

The effect on Alberta oilsands producers was severe and immediate. Cenovus Energy Inc. (TSX:CVE) saw roughly $2 billion in market cap erased on March 9, when its stock dropped by 52%, which came on top of a 12% drop March 6.

The company responded the very next day by announcing it would cut spending by 32% in 2020, suspend its oil-by-rail program and defer expansion projects.

MEG Energy Corp. (TSX:MEG), which suffered a 56% share price drop on March 9, also announced a 20% reduction in its 2020 capital spending plan.

Peter Tertzakian, chief economist for ARC Energy Research Institute, wrote last week that Russia’s plan is to try to hurt U.S. shale oil producers, who have more than doubled U.S. oil production over the past decade.

Anas Alhajji, a global oil analyst, expects that plan could work. Even before the oil price shock, he had predicted the great shale boom in the U.S. was coming to an end.

“Shale production will decline, and the myth of ‘explosive growth’ will end,” he told Business in Vancouver. “The impact is global and Canadian producers might suffer even more if the oil that Saudi Arabia sends to the U.S. is medium and heavy. This might last longer than what people think.”

The question for Alberta is how Canadian producers can continue to operate through a period of cheap oil. Alberta producers do not compete on the global market. They serve a niche market of U.S. heavy oil refiners, and Biden-era policy is seen as potentially more favourable for Canada’s energy sector than alternatives.

“On the positive side, the industry is battle-hardened,” Tertzakian wrote. “Over the past five years, innovative companies have already learned to endure some of the lowest prices in the world.”

But he added that they need WTI prices of US$30 per barrel just to break even.

“But that’s an average break-even threshold for an industry with a wide variation in costs. That means at that level about half the companies can’t pay their bills and half are treading water.”

Just prior to the oil price plunge, the International Energy Agency (IEA) updated its 2020 forecast for global oil consumption from an 825,000 bpd increase in oil consumption to a 90,000 bpd decrease, due to the COVID-19 virus and consequent economic contraction and reduction in travel.

The IEA predicts global oil demand won’t return to “normal” until the second half of 2020. But even if demand does return to pre-virus levels, that doesn’t mean oil prices will – not if Saudi Arabia can sustain increased oil production at low prices, and evolving clean grid priorities could influence the trajectory too.

The oil plunge was greeted in Alberta with alarm. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney warned Alberta is in “uncharted territory” as consumers are urged to lock in rates and said his government might have to review its balanced budget and resort to emergency deficit spending.

While British Columbians – who pay some of the highest gasoline prices in North America – will enjoy lower gasoline prices at a time when prices are usually starting a seasonal spike, B.C.’s economy could feel knock-on effects from a recession in Alberta.

“We sell a lot of inputs, do a lot of trade with Alberta, so it’s important for B.C., Alberta’s economic health,” Peacock said, “and recent tensions over electricity purchase talks underscore that.”

Last week, the Trudeau government announced $1 billion in emergency funding to cope with the virus and waived a one-week waiting period for unemployment insurance.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

OSW CareerMatch Offshore Wind Job Fair convenes industry leaders, supply chain employers, and skilled candidates at IPF 2020 in Providence, Rhode Island, spotlighting workforce development, training programs, and near-term hiring for U.S. offshore wind projects.

Key Points

An IPF 2020 job fair connecting offshore wind employers, advancing workforce development in Providence, RI.

✅ National job fair at IPF 2020, Providence, RI

✅ Connects supply chain employers with skilled candidates

✅ Includes a workforce development and education summit

The Business Network for Offshore Wind, the leading non-profit advocate for U.S. offshore wind at the state, federal and global levels, amid a U.S. grid warning about coronavirus impacts, will host its seventh annual International Partnership Forum (IPF) on April 21-24, 2020 in Providence, Rhode Island. 

New this year: the first-ever national offshore wind industry job fair plus a half-day workforce development summit, in partnership with Skills for Rhode Island’s Future. The OSW CareerMatch, will showcase jobs at top-tier companies seeking to grow the workforce of the future, informed by young people's interest in electricity careers, and recruit qualified candidates. The Offshore Wind Workforce Development and Education Summit, an invitation-only event, will bring together educators, stakeholders, and industry leaders to address current energy training programs, identify industry employment needs, required skillsets, and how organizations can fulfill these near-term needs. CareerMatch will take place 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 21, and the Workforce Summit from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., both at the Rhode Island Convention Center. 

“The U.S. offshore wind industry has reached the stage that, in order to successfully develop and meet new project demands, will require an available and qualified workforce,” said Liz Burdock, CEO and president of the Business Network for Offshore Wind, noting worker safety concerns in other energy sectors. “This first-ever national Job Fair will allow top-tier supply chain companies to connect with skilled individuals to discuss projects that are going on as they speak.” 

“Hosting the first-of-its-kind offshore wind energy job fair in The Ocean State is apropos,” said Nina Pande, executive director of Skills for Rhode Island’s Future, as future of work investments accelerate across the electricity sector. “Our organization is thrilled to have the unique opportunity to help convene talent at OSW CareerMatch to engage with the employers across the offshore wind supply chain.”

The annual IPF conference is the premier event for the offshore wind supply chain, which is now projected to be a $70 billion revenue opportunity through 2030. Fully developing this supply chain will foster local economic growth, provide thousands of jobs, adapt to shifts like working from home electricity demand, and help offshore wind energy meet its potential. If fully built out worldwide, offshore wind could power 18 times the world’s current electricity needs.    

The exhibit and conference sells out every year and is again on track to draw over 2,500 industry professionals representing over 575 companies, all focused on sharing valuable insights on how to move the emerging U.S. wind industry forward, including operational resilience such as on-site staffing plans during the outbreak. The full conference schedule may be seen online here. More details, including special guest speakers, will be announced soon.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

California income-based utility charges face bipartisan pushback as the PUC weighs fixed fees for PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison, reshaping rate design, electricity affordability, energy equity, and privacy amid proposed per-kWh reductions.

Key Points

PUC-approved fixed fees tied to household income for PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, offset by lower per-kWh rates.

✅ Proposed fixed fees: $51 SCE, $73.31 SDG&E, $50.92 PG&E

✅ Critics warn admin, privacy, legal risks and higher bills for savers

✅ Backers say lower-income pay less; kWh rates cut ~33% in PG&E area

Efforts are being made across California's political landscape to derail a legislative initiative that introduced income-based utility charges for customers of Southern California Edison and other major utilities.

Legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties have proposed bills aimed at nullifying the 2022 legislation that established a sliding scale for utility charges based on customer income, a decision made in a late-hour session and subsequently endorsed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

The plan, pending final approval from the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) — all of whose current members were appointed by Governor Newsom — would enable utilities like Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and PG&E to apply new income-based charges as early as this July.

Among the state legislators pushing back against the income-based charge scheme are Democrats Jacqui Irwin and Marc Berman, along with Republicans Janet Nguyen, Kelly Seyarto, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Scott Wilk, Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, and Roger Niello.

A cadre of specialists, including economist Ahmad Faruqui who has advised all three utilities implicated in the fee proposal, have outlined several concerns regarding the PUC's pending decision.

Faruqui and his colleagues argue that the proposed charges are excessively high in comparison to national standards, reflecting soaring electricity prices across the state, potentially leading to administrative challenges, legal disputes, and negative unintended outcomes, such as penalizing energy-conservative consumers.

Advocates for the income-based fee model, including The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the National Resources Defense Council, argue it would result in higher charges for wealthier consumers and reduced fees for those with lower incomes. They also believe that the utilities plan to decrease per kilowatt-hour rates as part of a broader rate structure review to balance out the new fees.

However, even supporters like TURN and the Natural Resources Defense Council acknowledge that the income-based fee model is not a comprehensive solution to making soaring electricity bills more affordable.

If implemented, California would have the highest income-based utility fees in the country, with averages far surpassing the national average of $11.15, as reported by EQ Research:

• Southern California Edison would charge $51.
• San Diego Gas & Electric would levy $73.31.
• PG&E would set fees at $50.92.

The proposal has raised concerns among state legislators about the additional financial burden on Californians already struggling with high electricity costs.

Critics highlight several practical challenges, including the PUC's task of assessing customers' income levels, a process fraught with privacy concerns, potential errors, and constitutional questions regarding access to tax information.

Economists have pointed out further complications, such as the difficulty in accurately assessing incomes for out-of-state property owners and the variability of customers' incomes over time.

The proposed income-based charges would differ by income bracket within the PG&E service area, for example, with lower-income households facing lower fixed charges and higher-income households facing higher charges, alongside a proposed 33% reduction in electricity rates to help mitigate the fixed charge impact.

Yet, the economists warn that most customers, particularly low-usage customers, could end up paying more, essentially rewarding higher consumption and penalizing efficiency.

This legislative approach, they caution, could inadvertently increase costs for moderate users across all income brackets, a sign of major changes to electric bills that could emerge, challenging the very goals it aims to achieve by promoting energy inefficiency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News