TVA manager: Utility a leader in cutting emissions

California Income-Based Electricity Rates propose a fixed monthly fee set by income as utilities and the CPUC weigh progressive pricing, aiming to cut low-income bills while PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E retain usage-based charges.

Key Points

CPUC plan adds income-tiered fixed fees to lower low-income bills while keeping per-kWh usage charges.

✅ Adds fixed monthly fees by income to complement per-kWh charges

✅ Cuts bills for low-income households; higher earners pay more

✅ Utilities say revenue neutral; conservation signals preserved

California’s electric bills — already some of the highest in the nation — are rising as electricity prices soar across the state, but regulators are debating a new plan to charge customers based on their income level. 

Typically what you pay for electricity depends on how much you use. But the state’s three largest electric utilities — Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company — have proposed a plan to charge customers not just for how much energy they use, but also based on their household income, moving toward income-based flat-fee utility bills over time. Their proposal is one of several state regulators received designed to accommodate a new law to make energy less costly for California’s lowest-income customers.

Some state Republican lawmakers are warning the changes could produce unintended results, such as weakening incentives to conserve electricity or raising costs for customers using solar energy, and some have introduced a plan to overturn the charges in the Legislature.

But the utility companies say the measure would reduce electricity bills for the lowest income customers. Those residents would save about $300 per year, utilities estimate.

California households earning more than $180,000 a year would end up paying an average of $500 more a year on their electricity bills, according to the proposal from utility companies. 

The California Public Utilities Commission’s deadline for deciding on the suggested changes is July 1, 2024, as regulators face calls for action from consumers and advocates. The proposals come at a time when many moderate and low-income families are being priced out of California by rising housing costs.  

Who wants to change the fee structure?
Lawmakers passed and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a comprehensive energy bill last summer that mandates restructuring electricity pricing across the state. 

The Legislature passed the measure in a “trailer-bill” process that limited deliberation. Included in the 21,000-word law are a few sentences requiring the public utilities commission to establish a “fixed monthly fee” based on each customer’s household income. 

A similar idea was first proposed in 2021 by researchers at UC Berkeley and the nonprofit thinktank Next 10. Their main recommendation was to split utility costs into two buckets. Fixed charges, which everyone has to pay just to be connected to the energy grid, would be based on income levels. Variable charges would depend on how much electricity you use.

Utilities say that part of customers’ bills still will be based on usage, but the other portion will reduce costs for lower- and middle-income customers, who “pay a greater percentage of their income towards their electricity bill relative to higher income customers,” the utilities argued in a recent filing. 

They said the current billing system is unjust, regressive and fails to recognize differences in energy usage among households,

“When we were putting together the reform proposal, front and center in our mind were customers who live paycheck to paycheck, who struggle to pay for essentials such as energy, housing and food,” Caroline Winn, CEO of San Diego Gas & Electric in a statement. 

The utilities say in their proposal that the changes likely would not reduce or increase their revenues.

James Sallee, an associate professor at UC Berkeley, said the utilities’ prior system of billing customers mostly by measuring their electric use to pay for what are essentially fixed costs for power is inefficient and regressive. 

The proposed changes “will shift the burden, on average, to a more progressive system that recovers more from higher income households and less from lower income households,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Ultra-Low Overnight Electricity Rate lets eligible customers opt in to 2.4 cents per kWh time-of-use pricing, set by the Ontario Energy Board, as utilities roll out the plan between May 1 and Nov. 1.

Key Points

An OEB-set overnight TOU price of 2.4 cents per kWh for eligible Ontarians, rolling out in phases via local utilities.

✅ 8 of 61 utilities offering rate at May 1 launch

✅ About 20% of 5M customers eligible at rollout

✅ Enova Power delays amid merger integration work

A million households can opt into a new ultra-low overnight electricity rate offered by the Ministry of Energy, as province-wide rate changes begin, but that's just a fraction of customers in Ontario.

Only eight of the 61 provincial power utilities will offer the new rate on the May 1 launch date, following the earlier fixed COVID-19 hydro rate period. The rest have up to six months to get on board.

That means it will be available to 20 percent of the province's five million electricity consumers, the Ministry of Energy confirmed to CBC News.

The Ford government's new overnight pricing was pitched as a money saver for Ontarians, amid the earlier COVID-19 recovery rate that could raise bills, undercutting its existing overnight rate from 7.4 to 2.4 cents per kilowatt hour. Both rates are set by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB).

"We wanted to roll it out to as many people as possible," Kitchener-Conestoga PC MPP Mike Harris Jr. told CBC News. "These companies were ready to go, and we're going to continue to work with our local providers to make sure that everybody can meet that Nov. 1 deadline."

Enova Power — which serves Kitchener, Waterloo, Woolwich, Wellesley and Wilmot — won't offer the reduced overnight rate until the fall, after typical bills rose when fixed pricing ended province-wide.

Enova merger stalls adoption

The power company is the product of the recently merged Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro and Waterloo North Hydro.

The Sept. 1 merger is a major reason Enova Power isn't offering the ultra-low rate alongside the first wave of power companies, said Jeff Quint, innovation and communications manager.

"With mergers, a lot of work goes into them. We have to evaluate, merge and integrate several systems and processes," said Quint.

"We believe that we probably would have been able to make the May 1 timeline otherwise."

The ministry said retroactive pricing wouldn't be available, unlike the off-peak price freeze earlier in the pandemic, and Harris said he doesn't expect the province will issue any rebates to customers of companies that introduce the rates later than May 1.

"These organizations were able to look at rolling things out sooner. But, obviously — if you look at Toronto Hydro, London, Centre Wellington, Hearst, Renfrew — there's a dynamic range of large and smaller-scale providers there. I'm very hopeful the Region of Waterloo folks will be able to work to try and get this done as soon as we can," Harris said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CPUC Decision on San Diego Community Power directs SDG&E to use updated forecasts, stabilizing electricity rates for CCA customers and supporting clean energy in San Diego with accurate rate forecasting and reduced volatility.

Key Points

A CPUC ruling directing SDG&E to use updated forecasts to ensure accurate, stable CCA rates and limit volatility.

✅ Uses 2021 sales forecasts for rate setting

✅ Aims to prevent undercollection and bill spikes

✅ Levels changes across customer classes

The California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday sided with the soon-to-launch San Diego community energy program in a dispute it had with San Diego Gas & Electric.

San Diego Community Power — which will begin to purchase power for customers in San Diego, Chula Vista, La Mesa, Encinitas and Imperial Beach later this year — had complained to the commission that data SDG&E intended to use to calculate rates, including community choice exit fees that could make the new energy program less attractive to prospective customers.

SDG&E argued it was using numbers it was authorized to employ as part of a general rate case amid a potential rate structure revamp that is still being considered by the commission.

But in a 4-0 vote, the commission, or CPUC, sided with San Diego Community Power and directed SDG&E to use an updated forecast for energy sales.

"This was not an easy decision," said CPUC president Marybel Batjer at the meeting, held remotely due to COVID-19 restrictions. "In my mind, this outcome best accounts for the shifting realities ... in the San Diego area while minimizing the impact on ratepayers during these difficult financial times."

In filings to the commission, SDG&E predicted a rate decrease of 12.35 percent in the coming year. While that appears to be good news for customers, Californians still face soaring electricity prices statewide, Commissioner Martha Guzman Aceves said the data set SDG&E wanted to use would lead to an undercollection of $150 million to $260 million.

That would result in rates that would be "artificially low," Guzman Aceves said, and rates "would inevitably go up quite a bit after the undercollection was addressed."

San Diego Community Power, or SDCP, said the temporary reduction would make its rates less attractive than SDG&E's, especially amid SDG&E's minimum charge proposal affecting low-usage customers, just as it is about to begin serving customers. SDCP's board members wrote an open letter last month to the commission, accusing the utility of "willful manipulation of data."

Working with an administrative law judge at the CPUC, Guzman Aceves authored a proposal requiring SDG&E to use numbers based on 2021 forecasts, as regulators simultaneously weigh whether the state needs more power plants to ensure reliability. The utility argued that could result in an increase of "roughly 40 percent" for medium and large commercial and industrial customers this year.

To help reduce potential volatility, Guzman Aceves, SDCP and other community energy supporters called for using a formula that would average out changes in rates across customer classes amid debates over income-based utility charges statewide. That's what the commissioners OK'd Thursday.

"It is essential that customer commodity rates be as accurate as we can possibly get them to avoid undercollections," said Commissioner Genevieve Shiroma.

San Diego Community Power is one of 23 community choice aggregation, or CCA, energy programs that have launched in California in the past decade.

CCAs compete with traditional power companies amid California's evolving power competition landscape, in one important role — purchasing power for a given community. They were created to boost the use of cleaner energy sources, such as wind and solar, at rates equal to or lower than investor-owned utilities.

However, CCAs do not replace utilities because the incumbent power companies still perform all of the tasks outside of power purchasing, such as transmission and distribution of energy and customer billing.

When a CCA is formed, California rules stipulate the utility customers in that area are automatically enrolled in the CCA. If customers prefer to stay with their previous power company, they can opt out of joining the CCA.

The shift of customers from SDG&E to San Diego Community Power is expected to be large. The total number of accounts for SDCP is expected to be 770,000, which would make it the second-largest CCA in the state. That's why SDCP considered Thursday's CPUC decision to be so important.

"At a time when customers are choosing between sticking with San Diego Gas & Electric and migrating to a CCA, we want them to have accurate bill information," said Commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen.

"SDCP is very happy with today's CPUC decision, and that the commissioners shared our goal of limiting rate volatility for businesses and families in the region," said SDCP interim CEO Bill Carnahan. "This is definitely a win for accurate rate forecasting, and our mutual customers, and we look forward to working with SDG&E on next steps."

In an email, SDG&E spokeswoman Helen Gao said, "We are committed to continuing to work collaboratively with local Community Choice Aggregation programs to support their successful launch in 2021 and ensure that our mutual customers receive excellent customer service."

San Diego Community Power's case before the CPUC was joined by the California Community Choice Association, a trade group advocating for CCAs, and the Clean Energy Alliance — the North County-based CCA representing Del Mar, Solana Beach and Carlsbad that is scheduled to launch this summer.

SDCP will begin its rollout this year, folding in about 71,000 municipal, commercial and industrial accounts. The bulk of its roughly 700,000 residential accounts is expected to come in January 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nevada Renewable Portfolio Standard 2030 targets 50% clean energy, advancing solar, geothermal, and wind, cutting GHG emissions, phasing out coal, and expanding storage, EV infrastructure, and in-state renewables under PUCN oversight and tax abatements.

Key Points

A state mandate requiring 50% of electricity from renewables by 2030, driving solar, geothermal, wind, and storage.

✅ 50% clean power by 2030; 100% carbon-free target by 2050

✅ Growth in solar, geothermal, wind; coal phase-out; natural gas remains

✅ RETA incentives spur 6.1 GW capacity, jobs, and in-state investment

Nevada is on track to meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard of 50% of electricity generated by renewable energy sources by 2030, according to the Governor's Office of Energy's annual Status of Energy Report.

Based on compliance reports the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada has received, across all providers, about 20% of power is currently generated by renewable resources, and, nationally, renewables ranked second in 2020 as filings show Nevada's investor-owned utility and other power providers have plans to reach the state's ambitious RPS of 50% by 2030, according to the report released Jan. 28.

"Because transportation and electricity generation are Nevada's two largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, GOE's program work in 2021 underscored our focus on transportation electrification and reaching the state's legislatively required renewable portfolio standard," GOE Director David Bobzien said in a statement Jan. 28. "While electricity generated from renewable resources currently accounts for about 25% of the state's electricity, a share similar to projections that renewables will soon provide about one-fourth of U.S. electricity overall, we continue to collaborate with the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, electricity providers, the renewable energy industry and conservation organizations to ensure Nevada reaches our target of 50% clean energy by 2030."

The state's RPS, enacted in 1997 and last modified in 2019, requires an increase in renewable energy, starting with 22% in 2020 and increasing to 50% by 2030. The increase in renewables will reduce GHG emissions and help the state reach its goal of 100% carbon-free power by 2050, while states like Rhode Island have a 100% by 2030 plan, highlighting varying timelines.

Renewable additions
The state added 1.332 GW of renewable capacity in 2021 as part of the Renewable Energy Tax Abatement program, at a time when U.S. renewable energy hit a record 28% in April, for a total renewable capacity of 6.117 GW, according to the report.

The RETA program awards partial sales and use tax and partial property-tax abatements to eligible renewable energy facilities, which increase Nevada's tax revenue and create jobs in a growing industry. Eligible projects must employ at least 50% Nevada workers, pay 175% of Nevada's average wage during construction, and offer health care benefits to workers and their dependents.

Since its adoption in 2010, the GOE has approved 60 projects, including large-scale solar PV, solar thermal, biomass, geothermal and wind projects throughout the state, according to the report. Projects granted abatements in 2021 include:

• 100-MW Citadel Solar Project
• 150-MW Dry Lake Solar + Storage Project
• 714-MW Gemini Solar Project
• 55-MW North Valley Power Geothermal Project
• 113-MW Boulder Flats Solar Project
• 200-MW Arrow Canyon Solar Project

"Nevada does not produce fossil fuels of any significant amount, and gasoline, jet fuel and natural gas for electricity or direct use must be imported," according to the report. "Transitioning to domestically produced renewable resources and electrified transportation can provide cost savings to Nevada residents and businesses, as seen in Idaho's largely renewable mix today, while reducing GHG emissions. About 86% of the fuel for energy that Nevada consumes comes from outside the state."

Phasing out coal plants
Currently, more than two-thirds of the state's electricity is produced by natural gas-fired power plants, with renewables covering most of the remaining generation, according to the report. Nevada continues to phase out its remaining coal power plants, as renewables surpassed coal nationwide in 2022, which provide less than 10% of produced electricity.

"Nevada has seen a significant increase in capturing its abundant renewable energy resources such as solar and geothermal," according to the report. "Renewable energy production continues to grow, powering Nevada homes and business and serves to diversify the state's economy by exporting solar and geothermal to neighboring states, as California neared 100% renewable electricity for the first time. Nevada has more than tripled its renewable energy production since 2011."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Hydro One Avista Takeover faces Washington UTC scrutiny as regulators deny approval; companies plan a reconsideration petition, citing acquisition terms, governance concerns, merger risks, EPS dilution, and balance sheet impacts across regulated utility operations.

Key Points

A $6.7B bid by Hydro One to buy Avista, denied by Washington UTC on governance risk, under reconsideration petition.

✅ UTC denied over potential provincial interference.

✅ Petition for reconsideration due by Dec. 17.

✅ Deal seen diluting EPS, weakening balance sheet.

Hydro One Ltd. and Avista Corp. say they plan to formally request that the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission reconsider its order last week denying approval of the $6.7-billion takeover, which previously received U.S. antitrust clearance from federal regulators, of the U.S.-based energy utility.

The two companies say they will file a petition no later than Dec. 17 but haven't indicated on what grounds they are making the request, even as investor concerns about Hydro One persist.

Under Washington State law, the UTC has 20 days to consider the petition, otherwise it is deemed to be denied.

If it reconsiders its decision, the UTC can modify the prior order or take any actions it deems appropriate, similar to provincial rulings such as the OEB decision on Hydro One's first combined T&D rates, including extending deliberations.

Washington State regulators said they would not allow Ontario's largest utility to buy Avista for fear the provincial government, which owns 47 per cent of Hydro One's shares and recently prompted a CEO and board exit at the utility, might meddle in Avista's operations.

Hydro One's shares have risen since the order because the deal, announced in July 2017, would have eroded earnings per share and weakened Hydro One's balance sheet, according to analysts, even as the company reported a one-time-boosted Q2 profit earlier this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News