Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. Completes Acquisition of The Empire District Electric Company

Massachusetts Solar Net Metering faces new demand charges and elimination of residential time-of-use rates under an MDPU order, as Eversource cites grid cost fairness while clean energy advocates warn of impacts on distributed solar growth.

Key Points

Policy letting solar customers net out usage with exports; MDPU now adds demand charges and ends TOU rates.

✅ New residential solar demand charges start Dec 31, 2018.

✅ Optional residential TOU rates eliminated by MDPU order.

✅ Eversource cites grid cost fairness; advocates warn slower solar.

A recent Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities' rate case order changes the way solar net metering works and eliminates optional residential time-of-use rates, stirring controversy between clean energy advocates and utility Eversource and potential consumer backlash over rate design.

"There is a lot of room to talk about what net-energy metering should look like, but a demand charge is an unfair way to charge customers," Mark LeBel, staff attorney at non-profit clean energy advocacy organization Acadia Center, said in a Tuesday phone call. Acadia Center is an intervenor in the rate case and opposed the changes.

The Friday MDPU order implements demand charges for new residential solar projects starting on December 31, 2018. Such charges are based on the highest peak hourly consumption over the course of a month, regardless of what time the power is consumed.

Eversource contends the demand charge will more fairly distribute the costs of maintaining the local power grid, echoing minimum charge proposals aimed at low-usage customers. Net metering is often criticized for not evenly distributing those costs, which are effectively subsidized by non-net-metered customers.

"What the demand charge will do is eliminate, to the extent possible, the unfair cross subsidization by non-net-metered customers that currently exists with rates that only have kilowatt-hour charges and no kilowatt demand, Mike Durand, Eversource spokesman, said in a Tuesday email. 

"For net metered facilities that use little kilowatt-hours, a demand charge is a way to charge them for their fair share of the cost of the significant maintenance and upgrade work we do on the local grid every day," Durand said. "Currently, their neighbors are paying more than their share of those costs."

It will not affect existing facilities, Durand said, only those installed after December 31, 2018.

Solar advocates are not enthusiastic about the change and see it slowing the growth of solar power, particularly residential rooftop solar, in the state.

"This is a terrible outcome for the future of solar in Massachusetts," Nathan Phelps, program manager of distributed generation and regulatory policy at solar power advocacy group Vote Solar, said in a Tuesday phone call.

"It's very inconsistent with DPU precedent and numerous pieces of legislation passed in the last 10 years," Phelps said. "The commonwealth has passed several pieces of legislation that are supportive of renewable energy and solar power. I don't know what the DPU was thinking."

 

TIME-OF-USE PRICING ELIMINATED

It does not matter when during the month peak demand occurs -- which could be during the week in the evening -- customers will be charged the same as they would on a hot summer day, LeBel said. Because an individual customer's peak usage does not necessarily correspond to peak demand across the utility's system, consumers are not being provided incentives to reduce energy usage in a way that could benefit the power system, Acadia Center said in a Tuesday statement.

However, Eversource maintains that residential customer distribution peaks based on customer load profiles do not align with basic service peak periods, which are based on Independent System Operator New England's peaks that reflect market-based pricing, even as a Connecticut market overhaul advances in the region, according to the MDPU order.

"The residential Time of Use rates we're eliminating are obsolete, having been designed decades ago when we were responsible for both the generation and the delivery of electricity," Eversource's Durand said.

"We are no longer in the generation business, having divested of our generation assets in Massachusetts in compliance with the law that restructured of our industry back in the late 1990s. Time Varying pricing is best used with generation rates, where the price for electricity changes based on time of day and electricity demand and can significantly alter electric bills for households," he said.

Additionally, only 0.02% of residential customers take service on Eversource's TOU rates and it would be difficult for residential customers to avoid peak period rates because they do not have the ability to shift or reduce load, according to the order.

"The Department allowed the Companies' proposal to eliminate their optional residential TOU rates in order to consolidate and align their residential rates and tariffs to better achieve the rate structure goal of simplicity," the MDPU said in the order.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro Ice Storm Response to Fraser Valley power outages highlights freezing rain impacts, round the clock crews, infrastructure challenges, and climate change risks across the Lower Mainland during winter weather and restoration efforts.

Key Points

A plan for freezing rain events that prioritizes safety, rapid repairs, and clear communication to restore power.

✅ Prioritizes hazards, critical loads, and public safety first

✅ Deploys crews, contractors, and equipment across affected areas

✅ Addresses climate risks without costly undergrounding expansion

Call it the straw that broke the llama's back.

The loss of power during recent Fraser Valley ice storms meant Jennifer Quick, who lives on a Mission farm, had no running water, couldn't cook with appliances and still had to tend to a daughter sick with stomach flu.

As if that wasn't enough, she had to endure the sight of her shivering llamas.

"I brought them outside at one point and when I brought them back in, they had icicles on their fur," she said, adding the animals stayed in the warmth of their barn from then on.

For three and a half days, Quick and her family were among more than 160,000 BC Hydro customers in the Fraser Valley left in the dark after ice storms whipped through the region.

BC Hydro expects to get all customers back online Tuesday, five days after the storm hit.

And with another storm possibly on the horizon, the utility is defending its response to the treacherous weather, noting that windstorm power outages can be widespread.

BC Hydro spokesperson Mora Scott said the utility has a "best in class" storm response system, similar to PG&E winter storm prep in the U.S.

"In a typical storm situation we normally have 95 per cent of our customers back up within 24 hours. Ice storms are different and obviously this was an atypical storm for us," she said.

Scott said that in this case, the utility got power back on for 75 per cent of customers within 24 hours. It took the work of 450 employees called in from around B.C., working around the clock, a mobilization echoed by Sudbury Hydro crews after a storm, she said.

The work was complicated by trees falling near crews, icy roads, low visibility and even substations so frozen over the ice had to be melted off with blowtorches.

She said that in the long term, BC Hydro has no plans to make changes to how it responds to extreme ice storms or how infrastructure is built.

"Seeing ice build up in the Lower Mainland like this is a rare event," she said. "So to build for extremes like that probably doesn't make a lot of sense."

Climate change will bring storms

But CBC meteorologist Johanna Wagstaffe said that might not always be the case as climate change continues to impact our planet.

"The less severe winter events, like light snowfall, will happen less often," she said. "But the disruptive events — like last week's storm — will actually happen more often and we are already seeing this shift happen."

Marc Eliesen, a former CEO of BC Hydro in the early 1990s, said the utility needs to keep that in mind when planning for worst-case scenarios.

"This [storm] is a condition characteristic of the weather in the east, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, where freezing rain outages in Quebec are more common, which is organized to deal with freezing rain and heavy snow on the lines," he said. "This is a new phenomenon for British Columbia."

Eliesen questions whether BC Hydro has adequate equipment and crew training to deal with ice storms if they become more frequent, pointing to Hydro One storm restoration in Ontario as a comparison.

'Always something we can learn'

Scott disagrees with some of Eliesen's points.

She said some of the crews called in to deal with the recent storm come from northern B.C. and the Interior and have plenty of experience with snow.

"There's always something we can learn in every major storm situation," she said.

The idea of putting power lines underground was raised by some CBC readers and listeners, but Scott said running underground lines is five to 10 times the cost of running lines on pole, so it is done sparingly. Besides, equipment like substations and transmission lines need to be kept aboveground.

Meanwhile, Wagstaffe said that beginning Thursday, wintry weather could return to the Lower Mainland.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Ontario-Quebec Electricity Deal explores hydro imports, terawatt hours, electricity costs, greenhouse gas cuts, and baseload impacts, amid debates on Pickering nuclear operations and competitive procurement in Ontario's long-term energy planning.

Key Points

A proposed hydro import deal from Quebec, balancing costs, emissions, and reliability for Ontario electricity customers.

✅ Draft 20-year, 8 TWh offer reported by La Presse disputed

✅ Ontario seeks lower costs and GHG cuts versus alternatives

✅ Not a baseload replacement; Pickering closure not planned

Ontario is negotiating a possible energy swap agreement to buy electricity from Quebec, but the government is disputing a published report that it is preparing to sign a deal for enough electricity to power a city the size of Ottawa.

La Presse reported Tuesday that it obtained a copy of a draft, 20-year deal that says Ontario would buy eight terawatt hours a year from Quebec – about 6 per cent of Ontario’s consumption – whether the electricity is consumed or not.

Ontario Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault’s office said the province is in discussions to build on an agreement signed last year for Ontario to import up to two terawatt hours of electricity a year from Quebec.

But his office released a letter dated late last month to his Quebec counterpart, in which Mr. Thibeault said the offer extended in June was unacceptable because it would increase the average residential electricity bill by $30 a year.

“I am hopeful that your continued support and efforts will help to further discussions between our jurisdictions that could lead to an agreement that is in the best interest of both Ontario and Quebec,” Mr. Thibeault wrote July 27 to Pierre Arcand.

Ontario would prepare a “term sheet” for the next stage of discussions ahead of the two ministers meeting at the Energy and Mines Ministers Conference later this month in New Brunswick, Mr. Thibeault wrote.

Any future agreements with Quebec will have to provide a reduction in Ontario electricity rates compared with other alternatives and demonstrate measurable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, he wrote.

Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown said Ontario doesn’t need eight terawatt hours of additional power and suggested it means the Liberal government is considering closing power facilities such as the Pickering nuclear plant early.

A senior Energy Ministry official said that is not on the table. The government has said it intends to keep operating two units at Pickering until 2022, and the other four units until 2024.

Even if the Quebec offer had been accepted, the energy official said, that power wouldn’t have replaced any of Ontario’s baseload power because it couldn’t have been counted on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

The Society of Energy Professionals said Mr. Thibeault was right to reject the deal, but called on him to release the Long-Term Energy Plan – which was supposed to be out this spring – before continuing negotiations.

Some commentators have argued for broader reforms to address Ontario's hydro system challenges, urging policymakers to review all options as negotiations proceed.

The Ontario Energy Association said the reported deal would run counter to the government’s stated energy objectives amid concerns over electricity prices in the province.

“Ontarians will not get the benefit of competition to ensure it is the best of all possible options for the province, and companies who have invested in Ontario and have employees here will not get the opportunity to provide alternatives,” president and chief executive Vince Brescia said in a statement. “Competitive processes should be used for any new significant system capacity in Ontario.”

The Association of Power Producers of Ontario said it is concerned the government is even considering deals that would “threaten to undercut a competitive marketplace and long-term planning.”

“Ontario already has a surplus of energy, so it’s very difficult to see how this deal or any other sole-source deal with Quebec could benefit the province and its ratepayers,” association president and CEO David Butters said in a statement.

The Ontario Waterpower Association also said such a deal with Quebec would “present a significant challenge to continued investment in waterpower in Ontario.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Electricity Demand Stagnation reflects decoupling from GDP as TVA's IRP revises outlook, with energy efficiency, distributed generation, renewables, and cheap natural gas undercutting coal, reshaping utility business models and accelerating grid modernization.

Key Points

US electricity demand stagnation is flat load growth driven by efficiency, DG, and decoupling from GDP.

✅ Flat sales pressure IOU profits and legacy baseload investments.

✅ Efficiency and rooftop solar reduce load growth and capacity needs.

✅ Utilities must pivot to services, DER orchestration, and grid software.

The US electricity sector is in a period of unprecedented change and turmoil, with emerging utility trends reshaping strategies across the industry today. Renewable energy prices are falling like crazy. Natural gas production continues its extraordinary surge. Coal, the golden child of the current administration, is headed down the tubes.

In all that bedlam, it’s easy to lose sight of an equally important (if less sexy) trend: Demand for electricity is stagnant.

Thanks to a combination of greater energy efficiency, outsourcing of heavy industry, and customers generating their own power on site, demand for utility power has been flat for 10 years, with COVID-19 electricity demand underscoring recent variability and long-run stagnation, and most forecasts expect it to stay that way. The die was cast around 1998, when GDP growth and electricity demand growth became “decoupled”:

This historic shift has wreaked havoc in the utility industry in ways large and small, visible and obscure. Some of that havoc is high-profile and headline-making, as in the recent requests from utilities (and attempts by the Trump administration) to bail out large coal and nuclear plants amid coal and nuclear industry disruptions affecting power markets and reliability.

Some of it, however, is unfolding in more obscure quarters. A great example recently popped up in Tennessee, where one utility is finding its 20-year forecasts rendered archaic almost as soon as they are released.

Falling demand has TVA moving up its planning process

Every five years, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) — the federally owned regional planning agency that, among other things, supplies electricity to Tennessee and parts of surrounding states — develops an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) meant to assess what it requires to meet customer needs for the next 20 years.

The last IRP, completed in 2015, anticipated that there would be no need for major new investment in baseload (coal, nuclear, and hydro) power plants; it foresaw that energy efficiency and distributed (customer-owned) energy generation would hold down demand.

Even so, TVA underestimated. Just three years later, the Times Free Press reports, “TVA now expects to sell 13 percent less power in 2027 than it did two decades earlier — the first sustained reversal in the growth of electricity usage in the 85-year history of TVA.”

TVA will sell less electricity in 10 years than it did 10 years ago. That is bonkers.

This startling shift in prospects has prompted the company to accelerate its schedule. It will now develop its next IRP a year early, in 2019.

Think for a moment about why a big utility like TVA (serving 9 million customers in seven states, with more than $11 billion in revenue) sets out to plan 20 years ahead. It is investing in extremely large and capital-intensive infrastructure like power plants and transmission lines, which cost billions of dollars and last for decades. These are not decisions to make lightly; the utility wants to be sure that they will still be needed, and will still pay off, for many years to come.

Now think for a moment about what it means for the electricity sector to be changing so fast that TVA’s projections are out of date three years after its last IRP, so much so that it needs to plunge back into the multimillion-dollar, year-long process of developing a new plan.

TVA wanted a plan for 20 years; the plan lasted three.

The utility business model is headed for a reckoning

TVA, as a government-owned, fully regulated utility, has only the goals of “low cost, informed risk, environmental responsibility, reliability, diversity of power and flexibility to meet changing market conditions,” as its planning manager told the Times Free Press. (Yes, that’s already a lot of goals!)

But investor-owned utilities (IOUs), which administer electricity for well over half of Americans, face another imperative: to make money for investors. They can’t make money selling electricity; monopoly regulations forbid it, raising questions about utility revenue models as marginal energy costs fall. Instead, they make money by earning a rate of return on investments in electrical power plants and infrastructure.

The problem is, with demand stagnant, there’s not much need for new hardware. And a drop in investment means a drop in profit. Unable to continue the steady growth that their investors have always counted on, IOUs are treading water, watching as revenues dry up

Utilities have been frantically adjusting to this new normal. The generation utilities that sell into wholesale electricity markets (also under pressure from falling power prices; thanks to natural gas and renewables, wholesale power prices are down 70 percent from 2007) have reacted by cutting costs and merging. The regulated utilities that administer local distribution grids have responded by increasing investments in those grids, including efforts to improve electricity reliability and resilience at lower cost.

But these are temporary, limited responses, not enough to stay in business in the face of long-term decline in demand. Ultimately, deeper reforms will be necessary.

As I have explained at length, the US utility sector was built around the presumption of perpetual growth. Utilities were envisioned as entities that would build the electricity infrastructure to safely and affordably meet ever-rising demand, which was seen as a fixed, external factor, outside utility control.

But demand is no longer rising. What the US needs now are utilities that can manage and accelerate that decline in demand, increasing efficiency as they shift to cleaner generation. The new electricity paradigm is to match flexible, diverse, low-carbon supply with (increasingly controllable) demand, through sophisticated real-time sensing and software.

That’s simply a different model than current utilities are designed for. To adapt, the utility business model must change. Utilities need newly defined responsibilities and new ways to make money, through services rather than new hardware. That kind of reform will require regulators, politicians, and risky experiments. Very few states — New York, California, Massachusetts, a few others — have consciously set off down that path.

Flat or declining demand is going to force the issue

Even if natural gas and renewables weren’t roiling the sector, the end of demand growth would eventually force utility reform.

To be clear: For both economic and environmental reasons, it is good that US power demand has decoupled from GDP growth. As long as we’re getting the energy services we need, we want overall demand to decline. It saves money, reduces pollution, and avoids the need for expensive infrastructure.

But the way we’ve set up utilities, they must fight that trend. Every time they are forced to invest in energy efficiency or make some allowance for distributed generation (and they must always be forced), demand for their product declines, and with it their justification to make new investments.

Only when the utility model fundamentally changes — when utilities begin to see themselves primarily as architects and managers of high-efficiency, low-emissions, multidirectional electricity systems rather than just investors in infrastructure growth — can utilities turn in earnest to the kind planning they need to be doing.

In a climate-aligned world, utilities would view the decoupling of power demand from GDP growth as cause for celebration, a sign of success. They would throw themselves into accelerating the trend.

Instead, utilities find themselves constantly surprised, caught flat-footed again and again by a trend they desperately want to believe is temporary. Unless we can collectively reorient utilities to pursue rather than fear current trends in electricity, they are headed for a grim reckoning.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

PG&E property tax payments bolster counties, education, public safety, and infrastructure across Northern and Central California, reflecting semi-annual levies tied to utility assets, capital investments, and economic development that serve 16 million customers.

Key Points

PG&E property tax payments are semi-annual county taxes funding public services and linked to utility infrastructure.

✅ $230M paid for Jul-Dec 2017 across 50 California counties

✅ Estimated $461M for FY 2017-2018, up 12% year over year

✅ Investments: $5.9B in grid, Gas Safety Academy, control center

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) paid property taxes of more than $230 million this fall to the 50 counties where the energy company owns property and operates gas and electric infrastructure that serves 16 million Californians. The tax payments help support essential public services like education and public health and safety actions across the region.

The semi-annual property tax payments made today cover the period from July 1 to December 31, 2017.

Total payments for the full tax year of July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 are estimated to total more than $461 million—an increase of $50 million, or 12 percent, compared with the prior fiscal year, even as customer rates are expected to stabilize in the years ahead.

“Property tax payments provide crucial resources to the many communities where we live and work, supporting everything from education to public safety. By continuing to make local investments in gas and electric infrastructure, we are not only creating one of the safest and most reliable energy systems in the country, including wildfire risk reduction programs and related efforts, we’re investing in the local economy and helping our communities thrive,” said Jason Wells, senior vice president and chief financial officer for PG&E.

PG&E invested more than $5.7 billion last year and expects to invest $5.9 billion this year to enhance and upgrade its gas and electrical infrastructure amid power line fire risks across Northern and Central California.

Some recent investments include the construction of PG&E’s $75 millionGas Safety Academy in Winters in Yolo County, which opened in September. Last year, PG&E opened a $36 million, state-of-the-art electric distribution control center in Rocklin.

PG&E supports the communities it serves in a variety of ways. In 2016, PG&E provided more than $28 million in charitable contributions to enrich local educational opportunities, preserve the environment, and support economic vitality and emergency preparedness and safety, including its Wildfire Assistance Program for impacted residents. PG&E employees provide thousands of hours of volunteer service in their local communities. The company also offers a broad spectrum of economic development services to help local businesses grow.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro Time-of-Use Rates propose off-peak credits and peak surcharges, with 5 cent/kWh differentials, encouraging demand shifting, EV charging at night, and smart meter adoption, pending BC Utilities Commission review in an optional opt-in program.

Key Points

Optional pricing that credits 5 cents/kWh off-peak and adds 5 cents/kWh during 4-9 p.m. peak to encourage load shifting.

✅ Off-peak credit: 11 p.m.-7 a.m., 5 cents/kWh savings

✅ Peak surcharge: 4-9 p.m., additional 5 cents/kWh

✅ Opt-in only; BCUC review; suits EV charging and flexible loads

BC Hydro is looking to charge customers less for electricity during off peak hours and more during the busiest times of the day, reflecting holiday electricity demand as well.

The BC Utilities Commission is currently reviewing the application that if approved would see customers receive a credit of 5 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity used from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.

Customers would be charged an additional 5 cents per kWh for electricity used during the on-peak period from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m., and in Ontario, there were no peak-rate cuts for self-isolating customers during early pandemic response.

There would be no credit or additional charge will be applied to usage during the off-peak period from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.

“We know the way our customers are using power is changing and they want more options,” BC Hydro spokesperson Susie Rieder said.

“It is optional and we know it may not work for everyone.”

For example, if a customer has an electric vehicle it will be cheaper to plug the car in after 9 p.m., similar to Ontario's ultra-low overnight plan offerings, rather than immediately after returning home from a standard work day.

If approved, the time of use rates would only apply to customers who opt in to the program, whereas Ontario provided electricity relief during COVID-19.

During the pandemic, Ontario extended off-peak electricity rates to help households and small businesses.

The regulatory review process is expected to take about one year.

Other jurisdictions, including Ontario's ultra-low overnight pricing, currently offer off peak rates. One of the challenges is that consumers change in hopes of altering their behaviour, but in reality, end up paying more.

“The cheapest electrical grid system is one with consistent demand and the issue of course is our consumption is not flat,” energyrates.ca founder Joel MacDonald said.

“There is a 5 cent reduction in off peak times, there is a 5 cent increase in peak times, you would have to switch 50 per cent of your load.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News