Legislature wants Virginians to cut their electricity usage by 10 per cent over 15 years

BC Hydro Air Conditioning Efficiency Tips help cut energy bills as HVAC use rises. Avoid inefficient portable AC units, set thermostats near 25 C, use fans and window shading, and turn systems off when unoccupied.

Key Points

BC Hydro's guidelines to lower summer power bills by optimizing A/C settings, fans, shading, and usage habits at home.

✅ Set thermostats to 25 C; switch off A/C when away

✅ Prefer fans and window shading; close doors/windows in heat

✅ Avoid multiple portable A/C units; choose efficient HVAC

BC Hydro is scolding British Columbians for their ineffective, wasteful and costly use of home air conditioners.

In what the electric utility calls “not-so-savvy” behaviour, it says many people are over-spending on air conditioning units that are poorly installed or used incorrectly.

"The majority of British Columbians will spend more time at home this summer because of the COVID-19 pandemic," BC Hydro says in a news release about an August survey of customers.

"With A/C use on the rise, there is evidence British Columbians are not cooling down efficiently, leading to higher summer electricity bills, as extreme heat boosts U.S. bills too this summer."

BC Hydro estimates some customers are shelling out $200 more on their summer energy bills than they need to during a record-breaking 2021 demand year for electricity.

The pandemic is compounding the demand for cool, comfortable air at home. Roughly two in five British Columbians between the ages of 25 and 50 are working from home five days a week.

However, it’s not just COVID-19 that is putting a strain on energy consumption and monthly bills, with drought affecting generation as well today.

About 90 per cent of people who use an air conditioner set it to a temperature below the recommended 25 Celsius, according to BC Hydro.

In fact, one in three people have set their A/C to the determinedly unseasonable temperature of 19 C.

Another 30 per cent are using more than one portable air conditioning unit, which the utility says is considered the most inefficient model on the market, and questions remain about crypto mining electricity use in B.C. today.

The use of air conditioners is steadily increasing in B.C. and has more than tripled since 2001, according to BC Hydro, with all-time high demand also reported in B.C. during recent heat waves. The demand for climate control is particularly high among condo-dwellers since apartments tend to trap heat and stay warmer.

This may explain why one in 10 residents of the Lower Mainland has three portable air conditioning units, and elsewhere Calgary's frigid February surge according to Enmax.

In addition, 30 per cent of people keep the air conditioning on for the sake of their pets while no one is home.

BC Hydro makes these recommendations to save energy and money on monthly bills while still keeping homes cooled during summer’s hottest days, and it also offers a winter payment plan to help manage costs:

Cool homes to 25 C in summer months when home; air conditioning should be turned off when homes are unoccupied.
In place of air conditioning, running a fan for nine hours a day over the summer costs $7.
Shading windows with drapes and blinds can help insulate a home by keeping out 65 per cent of the heat.
If the temperature outside a home is warmer than inside, keep doors and windows closed to keep cooler air inside.
Use a microwave, crockpot or toaster oven to avoid the extra heat produced by larger appliances, such as an oven, when cooking. Hang clothes to dry instead of using a dryer on hot days.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Clean Energy Industry Support includes tax credits, refundability, safe harbor extensions, EV incentives, and stimulus measures to stabilize renewable energy projects, protect the workforce, and ensure financing continuity during economic recovery.

Key Points

Policies and funding to stabilize renewables, protect jobs, and extend tax incentives for workforce continuity.

✅ Extend PTC/ITC and remove phase-outs to sustain projects

✅ Enable direct pay or refundability to unlock financing

✅ Preserve safe harbor timelines disrupted by supply chains

U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) led 17 Senate colleagues, as the Senate moves to modernize public-land renewables, in sending a letter calling on Congress to include support for the United States' clean energy industry and workforce in any economic aid packages.

"As Congress takes steps to ensure that our nation's workforce is prepared to emerge stronger from the coronavirus health and economic crisis, we must act to shore up clean energy businesses and workers who are uniquely impacted by the crisis, echoing a power-sector call for action from industry groups," said the senators. "This action, which has precedent in prior financial recovery efforts, could take several forms, including tax credit extensions or removal of the current phase-out schedule, direct payment or refundability, or extensions of safe harbor continuity."

"We need to make sure that any package protects workers and helps families stay afloat in these challenging times. Providing support to the clean energy industry will give much-needed certainty and confidence, as the sector targets a market majority, for those workers that they will be able to keep their paychecks and their jobs in this critical industry," the senators also said.

In addition to Senator Cortez Masto, the letter was also signed by Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).

Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Wyden:

As Congress takes steps to ensure that our nation's workforce is prepared to emerge stronger from the coronavirus health and economic crisis, we must act to shore up clean energy businesses and workers who are uniquely impacted by the crisis, with wind investments at risk amid the pandemic. This action, which has precedent in prior financial recovery efforts, could take several forms, including tax credit extensions or removal of the current phase-out schedule, direct payment or refundability, or extensions of safe harbor continuity.

First and foremost, we need to take care of workers' health and immediate needs to stay in their homes and provide for their families, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act is a critical down payment. Now, we must make sure the workforce has jobs to return to and that employers remain able to pay for critical benefits like paid sick and family leave, healthcare, and Unemployment Insurance.

The renewable energy industry employs over 800,000 people across every state in the United States. This industry and its workers could suffer significant harms as a result of the coronavirus emergency and resulting financial impact. Renewable energy businesses are already seeing project cancellations or delays, as the Covid-19 crisis hits solar and wind across the sector, with the solar industry reporting delays of 30 percent. Likewise, the energy efficiency sector is susceptible to similar impacts. As the coronavirus pandemic intensifies in the United States, that rate of delay or cancellations will only continue to skyrocket. Global and domestic supply chains are already facing chaotic changes, with equipment delays of three to four months for parts of the industry. A major collapse in financing is all but certain as investment firms' profits turn to losses and capital is suddenly unavailable for large labor-intensive investments.

To ensure that we do not lose years of progress on clean energy and the source of employment for tens of thousands of renewable energy workers, Congress should look to previous relief packages as an example for how to support this sector and the broader American economy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the Recovery Act or ARRA) provided over $90 billion in funding for clean energy and grid modernization, along with emergency relief programs. Specifically, ARRA provided immediate funding streams like the 1603 Cash Grant program for renewables and the 30 percent clean energy manufacturing tax credit to give immediate relief for the clean energy industry. As Congress develops this new package, it should consider these immediate relief programs for the renewable and clean energy industry, especially as analyses suggest green energy could drive Covid-19 recovery at scale. This could include direct payment or refundability, extensions of safe harbor continuity, tax credit extensions, electric vehicle credit expansion, or removal of the current phase-out schedules for the clean energy industry.

We need to make sure that any package protects workers and helps families stay afloat in these challenging times. Providing support to the clean energy industry will give much-needed certainty and confidence for those workers that they will be able to keep their paychecks and their jobs in this critical industry.

These strategies to provide assistance to the clean energy industry must be included in any financial recovery discussions, particularly if the Trump Administration continues its push to aid the oil industry, even as some advocate a total fossil fuel lockdown to accelerate climate action. We appreciate your consideration and collaboration as we do everything in our power to quickly recover from this health and economic emergency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Alberta Electricity Price Hikes spotlight grid reliability, renewable transition, coal phase-out, and energy poverty, as policy shifts and investor reports warn of rate increases, biomass trade-offs, and sustainability challenges impacting households and businesses.

Key Points

Projected power bill hikes from market reforms, renewables, coal phase-out, and reliability costs in Alberta.

✅ Investor report projects 3x-7x bills and $50B market transition costs

✅ Policy missteps cited in Ontario, Germany, Australia price spikes

✅ Debate: retain coal vs. speed renewables, storage, and grid upgrades

Since when did electricity become a scarce resource?

I thought all the talk about greening the grid was about having renewable, sustainable, less polluting options to fulfill our growing need for power. Yet, increasingly, we are faced with news stories that indicate using power is bad in and of itself, even as flat electricity demand worries utilities.

The implication, I guess, is that we should be using less of it. But, I don’t want to use less electricity. I want to be able to watch TV, turn my lights on when the sun sets at 4 p.m. in the winter, keep my food cold and power my devices.

We once had a consensus that a reliable supply of power was essential to a growing economy and a high quality of life, a point underscored by brownout risks in U.S. markets.

I’m beginning to wonder if we still have that consensus.

And more importantly, if our decision makers have determined electricity is a vice as opposed to an essential of life – as debates over Alberta electricity policy suggest – you know what is going to happen next. Prices are going to rise, forcing all of us to use less.

How much would it hurt your bottom line if your electricity bill went up three-fold? How about seven-fold? That is the grim picture that Todd Beasley painted for us on Tuesday’s show.

Last week, he launched a campaign on behalf of Albertans for Sustainable Electricity, called Stop the Shock. He shared the results of an internal investor report that concluded Alberta’s power market overhaul would cost an estimated $50 billion to implement and could result in a three to seven-fold increase in electricity bills.

Now, my typical power bill averages $70 a month. That would be like having it grow to $210 a month, or just over $2,500 a year. If it’s a seven-fold increase that would be more like $5,000 a year. That may be manageable for some families, but I can think of a lot of things I’d rather do with $5,000 than pay more to keep my fridge running so my food doesn’t spoil.

For low-income families that would be a real hardship.

Beasley said Ontario’s inept handling of its electricity market and the phase-out of coal power resulted in price spikes that left more than 70,000 individuals facing energy poverty.

Germany and Australia realized they made the same mistake and are returning some electricity to coal.

Beasley shared a long list of Canadian firms – including our own Canadian Pension Plan – that are investing in coal development around the world. Meanwhile, Canadian governments remain in a mad rush to phase it out here. That’s not the only hypocrisy.

Rupert Darwall, author of Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex, revealed in a recent column what he calls “the scandal at the heart of the EU’s renewable policies.”

Turns out most of their expansion in renewable energy has come from biomass in the form of wood. Not only does burning wood produce more CO2, it also eliminates carbon sinks.

To meet the EU’s 2030 target would require cutting down trees equivalent to the combined harvest in Canada and the United States. As he puts it, “Whichever way you look at it, burning the world’s carbon sinks to meet the EU’s arbitrary renewable energy targets is environmentally insane.”

Beasley’s group is trying to bring some sanity back to the discussion. The goal should be to move to a greener grid while maintaining abundant, reliable and cheap power, and examples like Texas grid improvements show practical steps. He thinks to achieve all these goals, coal should remain part of the mix. What do you think?

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Rural Electrification Poverty Impact examines energy access, grid connections, and reliability, testing economic development claims via randomized trials; findings show minimal gains without appliances, reliable supply, and complementary services like education and job creation initiatives.

Key Points

Study of household grid connections showing modest poverty impact without reliable power and appliances.

✅ Randomized grid connections showed no short-term income gains.

✅ Low reliability and few appliances limited electricity use.

✅ Complementary investments in jobs, education, health may be needed.

The head of Swedfund, the development finance group, recently summarized a widely-held belief: “Access to reliable electricity drives development and is essential for job creation, women’s empowerment and combating poverty.” This view has been the driving force behind a number of efforts to provide electricity to the 1.1 billion people around the world living in energy poverty, such as India's village electrification initiatives in recent years.

But does electricity really help lift households out of poverty? My co-authors and I set out to answer this question. We designed an experiment in which we first identified a sample of “under grid” households in Western Kenya—structures that were located close to but not connected to a grid. These households were then randomly divided into treatment and control groups. In the treatment group, we worked closely with the rural electrification agency to connect the households to the grid for free or at various discounts. In the control group, we made no changes. After eighteen months, we surveyed people from both groups and collected data on an assortment of outcomes, including whether they were employed outside of subsistence agriculture (the most common type of work in the region) and how many assets they owned. We even gave children basic tests, as a frequent assertion is that electricity helps children perform better in school since they are able to study at night.

When we analyzed the data, we found no differences between the treatment and control groups. The rural electrification agency had spent more than $1,000 to connect each household. Yet eighteen months later, the households we connected seemed to be no better off. Even the children’s test scores were more or less the same. The results of our experiment were discouraging, and at odds with the popular view that supplying households with access to electricity will drive economic development. Lifting people out of poverty may require a more comprehensive approach to ensure that electricity is not only affordable (with some evidence that EV growth can benefit all customers in mature markets), but is also reliable, useable, and available to the whole community, paired with other important investments.

For instance, in many low-income countries, the grid has frequent blackouts and maintenance problems, making electricity unreliable, as seen in Nigeria's electricity crisis in recent years. Even if the grid were reliable, poor households may not be able to afford the appliances that would allow for more than just lighting and cell phone charging. In our data, households barely bought any appliances and they used just 3 kilowatt-hours per month. Compare that to the U.S. average of 900 kilowatt-hours per month, a figure that could rise as EV adoption increases electricity demand over time.

There are also other factors to consider. After all, correlation does not equal causation. There is no doubt that the 1.1 billion people without power are the world’s poorest citizens. But this is not the only challenge they face. The poor may also lack running water, basic sanitation, consistent food supplies, quality education, sufficient health care, political influence, and a host of other factors that may be harder to measure but are no less important to well-being. Prioritizing investments in some of these other factors may lead to higher immediate returns. Previous work by one of my co-authors, for example, shows substantial economic gains from government spending on treatment for intestinal worms in children.

It’s possible that our results don’t generalize. They certainly don’t apply to enhancing electricity services for non-residential customers, like factories, hospitals, and schools, and electric utilities adapting to new load patterns. Perhaps the households we studied in Western Kenya are particularly poor (although measures of well-being suggest they are comparable to rural households across Sub-Saharan Africa) or politically disenfranchised. Perhaps if we had waited longer, or if we had electrified an entire region, the household impacts we measured would have been much greater. But others who have studied this question have found similar results. One study, also conducted in Western Kenya, found that subsidizing solar lamps helped families save on kerosene, but did not lead children to study more. Another study found that installing solar-powered microgrids in Indian villages resulted in no socioeconomic benefits.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Manitoba Hydro Privatization Debate centers on subsidiaries, Crown corporation governance, clean energy priorities, and electricity rates, as board terms shift oversight and transparency, sparking concerns about sell-offs and government control.

Key Points

A dispute over Hydro's governance, subsidiaries, electricity rates, and clean energy amid fears of partial privatization.

✅ Rewritten terms allow subsidiaries and shift board duties.

✅ Low rates and clean energy mandates softened in guidance.

✅ Govt cites Hydro Act; NDP warns of sell-off risks.

The board of Manitoba Hydro is being reminded it can divvy up some of the utility's work to subsidiaries — which the NDP is decrying as a step toward privatization. 

A sentence seemingly granting the board permission to create subsidiaries was included in the board's new terms of reference, which the NDP raised during question period Wednesday. 

The document also eliminated references asking Manitoba Hydro to keep electricity rates low, even as rate hike hearings proceed, and supply power in an environmentally-friendly fashion.

NDP raises spectre of Manitoba Hydro's privatization with new CEO
"They're essentially taking the heart out of Manitoba Hydro," NDP leader Wab Kinew said.

Cheap, clean energy is the basis by which the Crown corporation was formed, even as scaled-back rate increases are planned for next year, he said. 

"That's the whole reason we created this utility in the first place."

Another addition to the board's guidelines include stating the corporation is responsible to the government minister, who must be "proactively informed" when significant issues arise. 

The provincial government, however, says the rewritten terms of reference was the directive of the Manitoba Hydro board and not itself.

CBC's requests to the government for an interview were directed to Manitoba Hydro.

In an interview, Manitoba Hydro spokesperson Scott Powell said the energy utility has undergone no legislative changes, and is still governed by the Manitoba Hydro Act. 

The terms of reference were altered to align the board's duties with the new act overseeing Crown corporations, Powell said.

"Whether you have one or two words different in the terms of reference, the essence of the company hasn't changed."

While the new terms of reference no longer instructs the corporation to ensure an "environmentally responsible supply of energy for Manitobans," it encourages the board to "promote economy and efficiency in all phases of power generation and distribution."

On the cost to ratepayers, the updated directions asks the utility to deliver "safe, reliable energy services at a fair price," a standard clarified by a recent appeal court ruling on First Nations rates, but the board is not specifically instructed with keeping electricity rates low. 

Kinew contends the added sentence on subsidiaries permits Hydro to be broken off and sold for parts, although the terms of reference does not specify if any subsidiary would be wholly owned by Hydro or contracted to a private company.

Powell said Manitoba Hydro has been permitted to create subsidiaries since 1997, and nothing has changed since.

Kinew warned about Hydro's privatization last week when Jay Grewal was announced as Hydro's incoming CEO and president.

She was employed with B.C. Hydro when then-premier Gordon Campbell — hired by the Manitoba government to investigate costly overruns on two electricity megaprojects — sold off segments of the utility.

She then became managing director of Accenture, a global management consulting firm, which acquired several B.C. Hydro departments.

During question period Wednesday, Pallister disputed that Manitoba Hydro is bound to be sold.

He slammed the NDP's "Americanization strategy" of producing more electricity than it is capable of selling, which has saddled ratepayers with billions in debt and prompted proposed 2.5% annual increases in coming years. 

The makeup of the Hydro board has undergone a complete turnover in under a year, a contrast to Ontario's Hydro One shakeup vow during that period.

Nine of the 10 members resigned en masse this March over an impasse with the Pallister government. The lone holdover, Cliff Graydon, was dismissed from his post last month after the Progressive Conservatives removed him from caucus. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

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