Ontario hydro hike sought

BC Hydro Rate Freeze Rejection details the BCUC decision enabling a 3% rate increase, citing revenue requirements, debt, and capital costs, affecting electricity bills, with NDP government proposing lifeline rates and low-income relief.

Key Points

It is the BCUC ruling allowing a 3% BC Hydro rate hike, citing cost recovery, debt, and capital needs.

✅ BCUC rejects freeze; 3% increase proceeds April 1, 2018

✅ Rationale: cost recovery, debt, capital expenditures

✅ Relief: lifeline rate, $600 grants, winter payment plan

The B.C. Utilities Commission has rejected a request by the provincial government to freeze rates at BC Hydro for the coming year, meaning a pending rate increase of three percent will come into effect as higher BC Hydro rates on April 1, 2018.

BC Hydro had asked for the three per cent increase, aligning with a rate increase proposal that would add about $2 a month, but, last year, Energy Minister Michelle Mungall directed the Crown corporation to resubmit its request in order to meet an NDP election promise.

"After years of escalating electricity costs, British Columbians deserve a break on their bills," she said at the time.

However, the utilities commission found there was "insufficient regulatory justification to approve the zero per cent rate increase."

"Even these increases do not fully recover B.C. Hydro's forecast revenue requirement, which includes items such as operating costs, new capital expenditures and carrying costs on capital expenditures," the commission wrote in a news release.

Mungall said she was disappointed by the decision.

"We were always clear we were going to the BCUC. We need to respect the role the BCUC has here for the ratepayers and for the public. I'm very disappointed obviously with their decision."

Mungall blamed the previous government for leaving BC Hydro in a financial state where a rate freeze was ultimately not possible.

Last month, Moody's Investors Service calculated BC Hydro's total debt at $22 billion and said it was one of the province's two credit challenges going forward.

"There's quite a financial mess that is a B.C. Liberal legacy after 16 years of government. We have the responsibility as a new government to clean that up."

B.C. Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson said it was an example of the new government not living up to its campaign promises.

"British Columbians, particularly those on fixed incomes, believed the B.C. NDP when they promised a freeze on hydro bills. They planned accordingly and are now left in the lurch and face higher expenses. This is a government that stumbles into messes that cost all of us because they put rhetoric ahead of planning," he said.

Help on the way?

With the freeze being rejected, Mungall said the government would be going forward on other initiatives to help low-income ratepayers, as advocates' call for change after a fund surplus, including:

Legislating a "lifeline rate" program, allowing people with "demonstrated need" to apply for a lower rate for electricity.

Starting in May, providing an emergency grant of $600 for customers who have an outstanding BC Hydro bill.

Hydro's annual winter payment plan also allows people the chance to spread the payment of bills from December to February out over six months, and, with a two-year rate increase on the horizon, a new pilot program to help people paying their bills begins in July.

Mungall couldn't say whether the government would apply for rate freezes in the future.

"I don't have a crystal ball, and can't predict what might happen in two or three years from now, but we need to act swiftly now," she said.

"I appreciate the [BCUC's] rationale, I understand it, and we'll be moving forward with other alternatives for making life more affordable."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Quebec Energy Bill Tariff Delay disrupts Canada-U.S. trade, renewable energy investment, hydroelectric expansion, and clean technology projects, as Trump tariffs on aluminum and steel raise costs, threatening climate targets and green infrastructure timelines.

Key Points

A policy pause in Quebec from U.S. tariff threats, disrupting clean investment, hydro expansion, and climate targets.

✅ Tariff risk inflates aluminum and steel project costs.

✅ Quebec delays clean energy legislation amid trade uncertainty.

✅ Hydroelectric reliance complicates emissions reduction timelines.

The Trump administration's tariff threat has had a significant impact on Quebec's energy sector, with tariff threats boosting support for projects even as the uncertainty resulted in the delay of a critical energy bill. Originally introduced to streamline energy development and tackle climate change, the bill was meant to help transition Quebec towards greener alternatives while fostering economic growth. However, the U.S. threat to impose tariffs on Canadian goods, including energy products, introduced a wave of uncertainty that led to a pause in the bill's legislative process.

Quebec’s energy bill had ambitious goals of transitioning to renewable sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. It sought to support investments in clean technologies and the expansion of the province's clean energy infrastructure, as the U.S. demand for Canadian green power continues to grow across the border. Moreover, it emphasized the reduction of carbon emissions, an important step towards meeting Quebec's climate targets. At its core, the bill aimed to position the province as a leader in green energy development in Canada and globally.

The interruption caused by President Donald Trump's tariff rhetoric has, however, cast a shadow over the legislation. Tariffs, if enacted, would disproportionately affect Canada's energy exports, with electricity exports at risk under growing tensions, particularly in sectors like aluminum and steel, which are integral to energy infrastructure development. These tariffs could increase the cost of energy-related projects, thereby hindering Quebec's ability to achieve its renewable energy goals and reduce carbon emissions in a timely manner.

The tariff threat was seen as a part of the broader trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada, a continuation of the trade war that had escalated under Trump’s presidency. In this context, the Quebec government was forced to reconsider its legislative priorities, with policymakers citing concerns over the potential long-term consequences on the energy industry, as leaders elsewhere threatened to cut U.S.-bound electricity to exert leverage. With the uncertainty around tariffs and trade relations, the government opted to delay the bill until the geopolitical situation stabilized.

This delay underscores the vulnerability of Quebec’s energy agenda to external pressures. While the provincial government had set its sights on an ambitious green energy future, it now faces significant challenges in ensuring that its projects remain economically viable under the cloud of potential tariffs, even as experts warn against curbing Quebec's exports during the dispute. The delay in the energy bill also reflects broader challenges faced by the Canadian energy sector, which is highly integrated with the U.S. market.

The situation is further complicated by the province's reliance on hydroelectric power, a cornerstone of its energy strategy that supplies markets like New York, where tariffs could spike New York energy prices if cross-border flows are disrupted. While hydroelectric power is a clean and renewable source of energy, there are concerns about the environmental impact of large-scale dams, and these concerns have been growing in recent years. The tariff threat may prompt a reevaluation of Quebec’s energy mix and force the government to balance its environmental goals with economic realities.

The potential imposition of tariffs also raises questions about the future of North American energy cooperation. Historically, Canada and the U.S. have enjoyed a symbiotic energy relationship, with significant energy trade flowing across the border. The energy bill in Quebec was designed with the understanding that cross-border energy trade would continue to thrive. The Trump administration's tariff threat, however, casts doubt on this stability, forcing Quebec lawmakers to reconsider how they proceed with energy policy in a more uncertain trade environment.

Looking forward, Quebec's energy sector will likely need to adjust its strategies to account for the possibility of tariffs, while still pushing for a sustainable energy future, especially if Biden outlook for Canada's energy proves more favorable for the sector in the medium term. It may also open the door for deeper discussions about diversification, both in terms of energy sources and trade partnerships, as Quebec seeks to mitigate the impact of external threats. The delay in the energy bill, though unfortunate, may serve as a wake-up call for Canadian lawmakers to rethink how they balance environmental goals with global trade realities.

Ultimately, the Trump tariff threat highlights the delicate balance between regional energy ambitions and international trade dynamics. For Quebec, the delay in the energy bill could prove to be a pivotal moment in shaping the future of its energy policy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

PJM Capacity Auction Price Drop signals PJM Interconnection capacity market shifts, with $50/MW-day clearing, higher renewables and nuclear participation, declining coal, natural gas pressure, and zone impacts in ComEd and EMAAC, amid 21% reserve margins.

Key Points

A decline to $50 per MW-day in PJM capacity prices, shifting resource mix, zonal rates, and reserve margins.

✅ Clearing price fell to $50/MW-day from $140 in 2018

✅ Renewables and nuclear up; coal units down across PJM

✅ Zonal prices: ComEd $68.96, EMAAC $97.86; 21% reserves

Power-plant owners serving the biggest U.S. grid will be paid 64% less next year for being on standby to keep the lights on from New Jersey to Illinois.

Suppliers to PJM Interconnection LLC’s grid, which serves more than 65 million people, will get $50 a megawatt-day to provide capacity for the the year starting June 2022, according to the results of an auction released Wednesday. That’s down sharply from $140 in the previous auction, held in 2018. Analysts had expected the price would fall to about $85.

“Renewables, nuclear and new natural gas generators saw the greatest increases in cleared capacity, while coal units saw the largest decrease,” PJM said in a statement.

The PJM auction is the single most important event for power generators across the eastern U.S., including Calpine Corp., NRG Energy Inc. and Exelon Corp., because it dictates a big chunk of their future revenue. It also plays a pivotal role in shaping the region’s electricity mix, determining how much the region is willing to stick with coal and natural gas plants or replace them with wind and solar even as the aging grid complicates progress nationwide.

The results showed that the capacity price for the Chicago-area zone, known as ComEd, was $68.96 compared with $195.55 in the last auction. The price for the Pennsylvania and New Jersey zone, known as EMAAC, fell to $97.86 percent, from $165.73. All told, 144,477 megawatts cleared, representing a reserve margin of 21%.

Exelon shares fell 0.4% after the results were released. Vistra fell 1.5%. NRG was unchanged.

Blackouts triggered by extreme weather in Texas and California over the last year have reignited a debate over whether other regions should institute capacity systems similar to the one used by PJM, and whether to adopt measures like emergency fuel stock programs in New England as well. The market, which pays generators to be on standby in case extra power is needed, has long been a source of controversy. While it makes the grid more reliable, the system drives up costs for consumers. In the area around Chicago, for instance, these charges total more than $1.7 billion per year, accounting for 20% of customer bills, according to the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition.

In the 2018 auction, PJM contracted supplies that were about 22% in excess of the peak demand projection at the time. This year, the grid is projected to start summer with a reserve margin of about 26%, as COVID-19 demand shifts persist, according to the market monitor -- far higher than the 16% most engineers say is needed to prevent major outages.

“This certainly doesn’t seem fair to ratepayers,” said Ari Peskoe, director of Harvard Law School’s Electricity Law Initiative.

Fossil-Fuel Advantage
Heading into the auction, analysts expected coal and gas plants to have the advantage. Nuclear reactors and renewables, they said, were poised to struggle amid coal and nuclear disruptions nationwide.

That’s because this is the first PJM auction run under a major pricing change imposed by federal regulators during the Trump administration. The new structure creates a price floor for some bidders, effectively hobbling nuclear and renewables that receive state subsidies while making it easier for fossil fuels to compete.

Those rules triggered contentious wrangling between power providers, PJM and federal regulators, delaying the auction for two years. The new system, however, may be short lived. The Biden administration is moving to overhaul the rules in time for the next auction in December.

Also See: Biden Climate Goals to Take Backseat in Biggest U.S. Power Grid

Dominion Energy Inc., one of the biggest U.S. utility owners, pulled out of the market over the rules. The Virginia-based company, which has a goal to have net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, said the new PJM format will “make renewables more expensive” than delivering clean energy through alternative markets.

Illinois, New Jersey and Maryland have also threatened to leave the capacity market unless the new price floor is eliminated, and Connecticut is leading a market overhaul in New England as well. PJM has already launched a process to do it.

PJM is already one of the most fossil-fuel intensive grids, with 60% of its electricity coming from coal and gas. Power plants that bid into the auction rely on it for the bulk of their revenue. That means plants that win contracts have an incentive to continue operating for as long as they can, even amid a supply-chain crisis this summer.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Champlain Hudson Power Express Converter Station brings Canadian hydropower via HVDC to Queens, converting 1,250 MW to AC for New York City's grid, replacing a retired fossil site with a zero-emission, grid-scale clean energy hub.

Key Points

A Queens converter turning 1,250 MW HVDC hydropower into AC for NYC's grid, repurposing an Astoria fossil site.

✅ 340-mile underwater/underground HVDC link from Quebec to Queens

✅ 1,250 MW DC-AC conversion feeding directly into NY grid by 2026

✅ Replaces Astoria oil site; supports NY's 70% renewables by 2030

New York Governor Kathy Hochul has announced the start of construction on the converter station of the Champlain Hudson Power Express transmission line, a project to bring electricity generated from Canadian hydropower to New York City.

The 340 mile (547 km) transmission line is a proposed underwater and underground high-voltage direct current power transmission line to deliver the power from Quebec, Canada, to Queens, New York City. The project is being developed by Montreal-based public utility Hydro-Quebec (QBEC.UL) and its U.S. partner Transmission Developers, while neighboring New Brunswick has signed NB Power deals to bring more Quebec electricity into the province.

The converter station for the line will be the first-ever transformation of a fossil fuel site into a grid-scale zero-emission facility in New York City, its backers say.

Workers have already removed six tanks that previously stored 12 million gallons (45.4 million liters) of heavy oil for burning in power plants and nearly four miles (6.44 km) of piping from the site in the Astoria, Queens neighborhood, echoing Hydro-Quebec's push to wean the province off fossil fuels as regional power systems decarbonize.

The facility is expected to begin operating in 2026, even as the Ontario-Quebec power deal was not renewed elsewhere in the region. Once the construction is completed, it will convert 1,250 megawatts of energy from direct current to alternating current power that will be fed directly into the state's power grid, helping address transmission constraints that have impeded incremental Quebec-to-U.S. power deliveries.

“Renewable energy plays a critical role in the transformation of our power grid while creating a cleaner environment for our future generations,” Hochul said. The converter station is a step towards New York’s target for 70% of the state’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030, as neighboring Quebec has closed the door on nuclear power and continues to lean on hydropower.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Off-Peak Electricity Rate Relief extends 8.5 cents/kWh pricing 24/7 for residential, small business, and farm customers, covering Time-Of-Use and tiered plans to stabilize utility bills during COVID-19 Stay-at-Home measures across Ontario.

Key Points

A province-wide 8.5 cents/kWh price applied 24/7 until Feb 22, 2021 for TOU and tiered users to reduce electricity bills

✅ 8.5 cents/kWh, applied 24/7 through Feb 22, 2021

✅ Available to TOU and tiered OEB-regulated customers

✅ Automatic on bills for homes, small businesses, farms

The Ontario government is once again extending electricity rate relief for families, small businesses and farms to support those spending more time at home while the province maintains the Stay-at-Home Order in the majority of public health regions. The government will continue to hold electricity prices to the off-peak rate of 8.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with higher peak rates elsewhere in the day, until February 22, 2021. This lower rate is available 24 hours per day, seven days a week for Time-Of-Use and tiered customers.

"We know staying at home means using more electricity during the day when electricity prices are higher, that's why we are once again extending the off-peak electricity rate to provide households, small businesses and farms with stable and predictable electricity bills when they need it most," said Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, Minister of Indigenous Affairs. "We thank Ontarians for continuing to follow regional Stay-at-Home orders to help stop the spread of COVID-19."

The off-peak rate came into effect January 1, 2021, providing families, farms and small businesses with immediate electricity rate relief, and for industrial and commercial companies, stable pricing initiatives have provided additional certainty. The off-peak rate will now be extended until the end of day February 22, 2021, for a total of 53 days of emergency rate relief. During this period, and alongside temporary disconnect moratoriums for residential customers, the off-peak price will continue to be automatically applied to electricity bills of all residential, small business, and farm customers who pay regulated rates set by the Ontario Energy Board and get a bill from a utility.

"We extend our thanks to the Ontario Energy Board and local distribution companies across the province, including Hydro One, for implementing this extended emergency rate relief and supporting Ontarians as they continue to work and learn from home," said Bill Walker, Associate Minister of Energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News