B.C. Commercial electricity consumption plummets during COVID-19 pandemic

California Income-Based Utility Fees would overhaul electricity bills as CPUC weighs fixed charges tied to income, grid maintenance costs, AB 205 changes, and per-kilowatt-hour rates, shifting from pure usage pricing to hybrid utility rate design.

Key Points

Income-based utility fees are fixed monthly charges tied to earnings, alongside per-kWh rates, to help fund grid costs.

✅ CPUC considers fixed charges by income under AB 205

✅ Separates grid costs from per-kWh energy charges

✅ Could shift rooftop solar and EV charging economics

Electricity bills in California are likely to change dramatically in 2026, with major changes under discussion statewide.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is in the midst of an unprecedented overhaul of the way most of the state’s residents pay for electricity, as it considers revamping electricity rates to meet grid and climate goals.

Utility bills currently rely on a use-more pay-more system, where bills are directly tied to how much electricity a resident consumes, a setup that helps explain why prices are soaring for many households.

California lawmakers are asking regulators to take a different approach, and some are preparing to crack down on utility spending as oversight intensifies. Some of the bill will pay for the kilowatt hours a customer uses and a monthly fixed fee will help pay for expenses to maintain the electric grid: the poles, the substations, the batteries, and the wires that bring power to people’s homes.

The adjustments to the state’s public utility code, section 739.9, came about because of changes written into a sweeping energy bill passed last summer, AB 205, though some lawmakers now aim to overturn income-based charges in subsequent measures.

A stroke of a pen, a legislative vote, and the governor’s signature created a move toward unprecedented income-based fixed charges across the state.

“This was put in at the last minute,” said Ahmad Faruqui, a California economist with a long professional background in utility rates. “Nobody even knew it was happening. It was not debated on the floor of the assembly where it was supposedly passed. Of course, the governor signed it.”

Faruqui wonders who was responsible for legislation that was added to the energy bill during the budget writing process. That process is not transparent.

“It’s a very small clause in a very long bill, which is mostly about other issues,” Faruqui said.

But that small adjustment could have a massive impact on California residents, because it links the size of a monthly flat fee for utility service to a resident’s income. Earn more money and pay a higher flat fee.

That fee must be paid even before customers are charged for how much power they draw.

Regulators interpreted legislative change as a mandate, but Faruqui is not sold.

“They said the commission may consider or should consider,” Faruqui said. “They didn’t mandate it. It’s worth re-reading it.”

In fact, the legislative language says the commission “may” adopt income-based flat fees for utilities. It does not say the commission “should” adopt them.

Nevertheless, the CPUC has already requested and received nine proposals for how a flat fee should be implemented, as regulators face calls for action amid soaring electricity bills.

The suggestions came from consumer groups, environmentalists, the solar industry and utilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Doug Ford's Hydro One firing vow targets CEO pay, the utility's board, and privatization, amid Ontario politics over electricity rates, governance, and control, raising questions about legal tools, contracts, and impacts on customers and taxpayers.

Key Points

Ford vows to oust Hydro One's CEO and board to curb pay and signal rate restraint, subject to legal and governance limits.

✅ Province lacks direct control post-privatization

✅ Possible board removals to influence executive pay

✅ Impact on rates, contracts, and shareholders unclear

Ontario PC Leader Doug Ford is vowing to fire the head of Hydro One, and its entire board if he's elected premier in June.

Ford made the announcement, calling President and CEO Mayo Schmidt, Premier "Kathleen Wynne's $6-Million dollar man," referring to his yearly salary and bonuses, which now add up to $6.2 million.

"This board and this CEO are laughing themselves to the bank," Ford said.

However, it's unclear how Ford would do that since the province does not control the company anymore.

"We don't have the ability to go out and say we are firing the CEO at Hydro One," PC energy critic Todd Smith said while speaking to reporters after Ford's remarks.

#google#

However, he said "we do have tools at our disposal in the tool box. The unfortunate thing is that Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals have just let those tools sit there for the last couple of years and [have] not taken action on things like this."

Smith declined to provide details about what those tools are, but suggested Ford would have the right to fire Hydro's board.

He said that would send a message "that we're not going to accept these salaries."

Smith says the Ontario gov still has the right to fire Hydro One board. What about their contracts? Pay them out? Smith says they don't know the details of people's contacts

We will not engage in politics,' Hydro One says

A Hydro One spokesperson said the amount customers pay to compensate the CEO's salary is the same as before privatization — two cents on each monthly bill.

"We will not engage in politics, however our customers deserve the facts," said the email statement to CBC Toronto.

"Nearly 80 per cent of the total executive compensation package is paid for by shareholders."

Ontario NDP MPP Peter Tabuns says Ford is pro-privatization, and that won't help those struggling with high hydro bills. (Michelle Siu/The Canadian Press)

Peter Tabuns, the NDP's energy critic, said his government would aim to retake public control of Hydro One to cap CEO pay and control the CEO's "outrageous salary."

But while he shares Ford's goal of cutting Schmidt's pay, Tabuns blasted what he believes would be the PC leader's approach.

"Doug Ford has no idea how to reign [sic] in the soaring hydro bills that Ontario families are facing — in fact, if his threats of further privatization include hydro, he'll drive bills and executive salaries ever higher," he said in an email statement.

The only plan we've heard from Doug Ford so far is firing people and laying off people.- Glenn Thibeault, Energy Minister

​Tabuns says his party would aim to cut hydro bills by 30 per cent.

Meanwhile, Liberal Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault said Ford's plan will do nothing to address the actual issue of keeping hydro rates low, comparing his statement Thursday to the rhetoric and actions of U.S. President Donald Trump.

"The only plan we've heard from Doug Ford so far is firing people and laying off people," Thibeault said.

"What I'm seeing a very strong prevalence to is the person running the White House. He's been doing a lot of firing as well and that's not been working out so well for them."

Wynne government has taken steps to cut hydro bills, including legislation to lower electricity rates in Ontario.

Hydro prices have shot up in recent years prompting criticism from across Ontario. Wynne made the controversial move of privatizing part of the utility beginning in 2015.

By Oct. 2017, the Ontario Liberal government's "Fair Hydro Plan" had brought down the average household electricity bill by a 25% rate cut from the peak it hit in the summer of 2016. The Wynne government has also committed to keep rate increases below inflation for the next four years, but admits bills will rise significantly in the decade that follows as a recovery rate could drive costs higher.

Ford blasted the government's moves during a Toronto news conference, echoing calls to scrap the Fair Hydro Plan and review other options.

"The party's over with the tax payer's money, we're going to start respecting the tax payers," Ford said, repeatedly saying the money spent on Hydro One salaries is "morally indefensible."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One CEO Pay Cap sets executive compensation at $1.5 million under Ontario's provincial directive, linking incentives to transmission and distribution cost reductions, governance improvements, and board pay limits at the electricity utility.

Key Points

The Hydro One CEO Pay Cap limits pay to $1.5M, linking incentives to cost reductions and defined targets.

✅ Base salary set at $500,000 per year.

✅ Incentives capped at $1,000,000, tied to cost cuts.

✅ Board pay capped: chair $120,000; members $80,000.

Hydro One has agreed to cap the annual compensation of its chief executive at $1.5 million, the provincial utility said Friday, acquiescing to the demands of the Progressive Conservative government.

The CEO's base salary will be set at $500,000 per year, while short-term and long-term incentives are limited to $1 million. Performance targets under the pay plan will include the CEO's contributions to reductions in transmission and distribution costs, even as Hydro One has pursued a bill redesign to clarify charges for customers.

The framework represents a notable political victory for Premier Doug Ford, who vowed to fire Hydro One's CEO and board during the campaign and promised to reduce the annual earnings of Hydro One's board members.

In February, the province issued a directive to the board, ordering it to pay the utility's CEO no more than the $1.5 million figure it has now agreed to, as part of a broader push to lower electricity rates across Ontario.

Hydro One and the government had been at loggerheads over executive compensation, with the company refusing repeated requests to slash the CEO pay below $2,775,000. The board argued it would have difficulty recruiting suitable leaders for anything less, even as customers contend with a recovery rate that could raise hydro bills.

Further, the company agreed to pay the board chair no more than $120,000 annually and board members no more than $80,000 — figures Energy Minister Greg Rickford had outlined in his directive last month, amid calls for cleaning up Ontario's hydro mess from policy commentators.

"Hydro One's compliance with this directive allows us to move forward as a province. It sets the company on the right course for the future, proving that it can operate as a top-class electricity utility while reining in executive compensation and increasing public transparency," Rickford said in a statement issued Friday morning.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

PG&E dividend halt for wildfire mitigation directs cash from shareholders to tree clearing, wildfire risk reduction, and probation compliance under Judge William Alsup, amid bankruptcy, Camp Fire liabilities, and power line vegetation management mandates.

Key Points

A court-ordered dividend halt funding vegetation clearance and wildfire mitigation as PG&E meets probation terms.

✅ Judge Alsup bars dividends until mitigation targets met

✅ 375,000 trees cleared near power lines in high-risk zones

✅ Measures tied to probation amid bankruptcy and liabilities

A U.S. judge said on Tuesday that PG&E may not resume paying dividends and must use the money to fund its plan for cutting down trees to reduce the risk of wildfires in California, stopping short of more costly measures he proposed earlier this year.

The new criminal probation terms for PG&E are modest compared with ones the judge had in mind in January and that PG&E said could have cost upwards of $150 billion.

The terms will, however, keep PG&E under the supervision of Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and hold the company, which also is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and whose bankruptcy plan has drawn support from wildfire victims, to its target for clearing areas around its power lines of some 375,000 trees this year.

PG&E's probation stems from its felony conviction after a deadly 2010 natural gas pipeline blast in San Bruno, California, near San Francisco, that killed eight people and injured 58 others.

PG&E filed for bankruptcy protection on Jan. 29 in anticipation of liabilities from wildfires, including a catastrophic 2018 blaze, the Camp Fire, for which PG&E later pleaded guilty to 85 counts in state court. It killed 86 people in the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history.

At a January hearing, Alsup, who is overseeing PG&E's probation, said he felt compelled to propose additional probation terms in the aftermath of Camp Fire. San Francisco-based PG&E expects its equipment will be found to have caused the blaze.

The probation process is separate from San Francisco-based PG&E's bankruptcy filing and from operational measures such as its pandemic response and shutoff moratorium implemented to protect customers.

As the company faces $30 billion in wildfire liabilities and bankruptcy proceedings and has opened a wildfire assistance program for affected residents, the energy company is expected to name as its new chief executive Bill Johnson, a source said on Tuesday. Johnson has been the CEO of the Tennessee Valley Authority since 2013 and is retiring on Friday.

Additional probation terms imposed by Alsup on Tuesday will require PG&E to meet goals in a wildfire mitigation plan it unveiled in February.

The goals include removing 375,000 dead, dying or hazardous trees from areas at high risk of wildfires in 2019, compared with 160,000 last year.

The judge said PG&E will not be able to pay shareholders until it complies with his new probation terms.

Shares fell 2% on Tuesday to close at $17.66 on the New York Stock Exchange and are down 63% since November 2018 due to concerns about the company's bankruptcy and wildfire liabilities, though the utility has said rates are set to stabilize in 2025 as part of its long-term plan. The shares traded as low as $5.07 in January.

PG&E in December 2017 suspended its quarterly cash dividend, while continuing to pay significant property taxes to California counties, citing uncertainty about liabilities from wildfires in October of that year that struck Northern California.

PG&E paid $798 million in dividends in 2017 and $925 million in 2016, a period in which the company did a poor job of clearing areas around its power lines of hazardous trees, according to Alsup.

Money meant for shareholders should have been spent on efforts to reduce wildfire risks in recent years, Alsup said at Tuesday's hearing.

"PG&E has started way more than its share of these fires," Alsup said.

"I want to see the people of California safe," the judge added.

Lawyers for PG&E did not contest the new terms, which the company considers more feasible than terms Alsup proposed in January.

To comply with the terms Alsup proposed in January, PG&E said it would have to remove 100 million trees. The company added that shutting power lines during high winds as Alsup proposed would not be feasible because the lines traverse rural areas to service cities and suburbs.

Idling lines could also affect the power grid in other states, PG&E said.

Alsup on Tuesday said he was still considering his proposal to require PG&E to shut down power lines during windy weather to prevent tree branches from making contact and sparking wildfires linked to power lines in the region.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Electricity Reliability covers grid resilience amid heat waves, rolling blackouts, renewable energy integration, resource adequacy, battery storage, natural gas peakers, ISO oversight, and peak demand management to keep homes, businesses, and industry powered.

Key Points

Dependable California power delivery despite heat waves, peak demand, and challenges integrating renewables into grid.

✅ Rolling blackouts revealed gaps in resource adequacy.

✅ Early evening solar drop requires fast ramping and storage.

✅ Agencies pledge planning reforms and flexible backup supply.

One hallmark of an advanced society is a reliable supply of electrical energy for residential, commercial and industrial consumers. Uncertainty that California electricity will be there when we need it it undermines social cohesion and economic progress, as demonstrated by the travails of poor nations with erratic energy supplies.

California got a small dose of that syndrome in mid-August when a record heat wave struck the state and utilities were ordered to impose rolling blackouts to protect the grid from melting down under heavy air conditioning demands.

Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly demanded that the three overseers of electrical service to most of the state - the Public Utilities Commission, the Energy Commission and the California Independent Service Operator – explain what went wrong.

"These blackouts, which occurred without prior warning or enough time for preparation, are unacceptable and unbefitting of the nation's largest and most innovative state," Newsom wrote. "This cannot stand. California residents and businesses deserve better from their government."

Initially, there was some fingerpointing among the three entities. The blackouts had been ordered by the California Independent System Operator, which manages the grid and its president, Steve Berberich, said he had warned the Public Utilities Commission about the potential supply shortfall facing the state.

"We have indicated in filing after filing after filing that the resource adequacy program was broken and needed to be fixed," he said. "The situation we are in could have been avoided."

However, as political heat increased, the three agencies hung together and produced a joint report that admitted to lapses of supply planning and grid management and promised steps to avoid a repeat next summer.

"The existing resource planning processes are not designed to fully address an extreme heat storm like the one experienced in mid August," their report said. "In transitioning to a reliable, clean and affordable resource mix, resource planning targets have not kept pace to lead to sufficient resources that can be relied upon to meet demand in the early evening hours. This makes balancing demand and supply more challenging."

Although California's grid had experienced greater heat-related demands in previous years, most notably 2006, managers then could draw standby power from natural gas-fired plants and import juice from other Western states when necessary.

Since then, the state has shut down a number of gas-fired plants and become more reliant on renewable but less reliable sources such as windmills and solar panels.

August's air conditioning demand peaked just as output from solar panels was declining with the setting of the sun and grid managers couldn't tap enough electrons from other sources to close the gap.

While the shift to renewables didn't, unto itself, cause the blackouts, they proved the need for a bigger cushion of backup generation or power storage in batteries or some other technology. The Public Utilities Commission, as Beberich suggested, has been somewhat lax in ordering development of backup supply.

In the aftermath of the blackouts, the state Water Resources Control Board, no doubt with direction from Newsom's office, postponed planned shutdowns of more coastal plants, which would have reduced supply flexibility even more.

Shifting to 100% renewable electricity, the state's eventual goal, while maintaining reliability will not get any easier. The state's last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, is ticketed for closure and demand will increase as California eliminates gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles in favor of "zero emission vehicles" as part of its climate policies push and phases out natural gas in homes and businesses.

Politicians such as Newsom and legislators in last week's blackout hearing may endorse a carbon-free future in theory, but they know that they'll pay the price as electricity prices climb if nothing happens when Californians flip the switch.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News