Down, Danger, Dial: Electrical Safety Tips to Help British Columbians Stay Safe During Storm Season

Cooperative Energy bond rating upgrade signals lower debt costs as Fitch lifts GO Zone Bonds to A, reflecting Kemper exit, shift to owned generation, natural gas, and renewable energy for co-op members and borrowing rates.

Key Points

Fitch raised Cooperative Energy's GO Zone Bonds to A, cutting debt costs after Kemper exit and shift to natural gas.

✅ Fitch upgrades 2009A GO Zone Bonds from A- to A.

✅ Kemper divestment reduced risk and exposure to coal.

✅ Shift to owned generation, natural gas, renewables lowers costs.

Cooperative Energy and its 11 co-op members will see lower debt costs on $35.4 million bond; similar to regional utilities offering one-time bill decreases for customers recently.

Bailing out of its 15 percent ownership stake in Mississippi Power’s Kemper gasification plant, amid debates over coal and nuclear subsidies in federal policy, has helped Hattiesburg-based Cooperative Energy gain a ratings upgrade on a $35.4 million bond issue.

The electric power co-op, which changed its name to Cooperative Energy from South Mississippi Electric Power Association in November, received a ratings upgrade from A- to A for its 2009 2009A Mississippi Business Finance Corporation Gulf Opportunity Zone Bonds, even as other utilities announced bill reductions for customers during 2020.

“This rating upgrade reflects the success of our strategy to move from purchased power to owned generation resources, and from coal to natural gas and renewable energy as clean energy priorities gain traction,” said Cooperative Energy President/CEO Jim Compton in a press release.  “The result for our members is lower borrowing costs and more favorable rates.”

An “A” rating from Fitch designates the bond issue as “near premium quality,” a status noted as utilities adapted to pandemic-era electricity demand trends nationwide.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Noncarbon Electricity Investment Strategy helps utilities hedge policy uncertainty, carbon tax risks, and emissions limits by scaling wind, solar, and CCS, avoiding stranded assets while balancing costs, reliability, and climate policy over decades.

Key Points

A strategy for utilities to invest 20-30 percent of capacity in low carbon sources to hedge emissions and carbon risks.

✅ Hedges future carbon tax and emissions limits

✅ Targets 20-30 percent of new generation from clean sources

✅ Reduces stranded asset risk and builds renewables capacity

When utility executives make decisions about building new power plants, a lot rides on their choices. Depending on their size and type, new generating facilities cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. They typically will run for 40 or more years — 10 U.S. presidential terms. Much can change during that time.

Today one of the biggest dilemmas that regulators and electricity industry planners face is predicting how strict future limits on greenhouse gas emissions will be. Future policies will affect the profitability of today’s investments. For example, if the United States adopts a carbon tax 10 years from now, it could make power plants that burn fossil fuels less profitable, or even insolvent.

These investment choices also affect consumers. In South Carolina, utilities were allowed to charge their customers higher rates to cover construction costs for two new nuclear reactors, which have now been abandoned because of construction delays and weak electricity demand. Looking forward, if utilities are reliant on coal plants instead of solar and wind, it will be much harder and more expensive for them to meet future emissions targets, even as New Zealand's electrification push accelerates abroad. They will pass the costs of complying with these targets on to customers in the form of higher electricity prices.

With so much uncertainty about future policy, how much should we be investing in noncarbon electricity generation in the next decade? In a recent study, we proposed optimal near-term electricity investment strategies to hedge against risks and manage inherent uncertainties about the future.

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, 20 to 30 percent of new generation in the coming decade should be from noncarbon sources such as wind and solar energy across markets. For most U.S. electricity providers, this strategy would mean increasing their investments in noncarbon power sources, regardless of the current administration’s position on climate change.

Many noncarbon electricity sources — including wind, solar, nuclear power and coal or natural gas with carbon capture and storage — are more expensive than conventional coal and natural gas plants. Even wind power, which is often mentioned as competitive, is actually more costly when accounting for costs such as backup generation and energy storage to ensure that power is available when wind output is low.

Over the past decade, federal tax incentives and state policies designed to promote clean electricity sources spurred many utilities to invest in noncarbon sources. Now the Trump administration is shifting federal policy back toward promoting fossil fuels. But it can still make economic sense for power companies to invest in more expensive noncarbon technologies if we consider the potential impact of future policies.

How much should companies invest to hedge against the possibility of future greenhouse gas limits? On one hand, if they invest too much in noncarbon generation and the federal government adopts only weak climate policies throughout the investment period, utilities will overspend on expensive energy sources.

On the other hand, if they invest too little in noncarbon generation and future administrations adopt stringent emissions targets, utilities will have to replace high-carbon energy sources with cleaner substitutes, which could be extremely costly.

Economic modeling with uncertainty

We conducted a quantitative analysis to determine how to balance these two concerns and find an optimal investment strategy given uncertainty about future emissions limits. This is a core choice that power companies have to make when they decide what kinds of plants to build.

First we developed a computational model that represents the sectors of the U.S. economy, including electric power. Then we embedded it within a computer program that evaluates decisions in the electric power sector under policy uncertainty.

The model explores different electric power investment decisions under a wide range of future emissions limits with different probabilities of being implemented. For each decision/policy combination, it computes and compares economy-wide costs over two investment periods extending from 2015 to 2030.

We looked at costs across the economy because emissions policies impose costs on consumers and producers as well as power companies. For example, they may lead to higher electricity, fuel or product prices. By seeking to minimize economy-wide costs, our model identifies the investment decision that produces the greatest overall benefits to society.

More investments in clean generation make economic sense

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, the optimal investment strategy for the coming decade is for 20 to 30 percent of new generation to be from noncarbon sources. Our model identified this as the best level because it best positions the United States to meet a wide range of possible future policies at a low cost to the economy.

From 2005-2015, we calculated that about 19 percent of the new generation that came online was from noncarbon sources. Our findings indicate that power companies should put a larger share of their money into noncarbon investments in the coming decade.

While increasing noncarbon investments from a 19 percent share to a 20 to 30 percent share of new generation may seem like a modest change, it actually requires a considerable increase in noncarbon investment dollars. This is especially true since power companies will need to replace dozens of aging coal-fired power plants that are expected to be retired.

In general, society will bear greater costs if power companies underinvest in noncarbon technologies than if they overinvest. If utilities build too much noncarbon generation but end up not needing it to meet emissions limits, they can and will still use it fully. Sunshine and wind are free, so generators can produce electricity from these sources with low operating costs.

In contrast, if the United States adopts strict emissions limits within a decade or two, they could prevent carbon-intensive generation built today from being used. Those plants would become “stranded assets” — investments that are obsolete far earlier than expected, and are a drain on the economy.

Investing early in noncarbon technologies has another benefit: It helps develop the capacity and infrastructure needed to quickly expand noncarbon generation. This would allow energy companies to comply with future emissions policies at lower costs.

Seeing beyond one president

The Trump administration is working to roll back Obama-era climate policies such as the Clean Power Plan, and to implement policies that favor fossil generation. But these initiatives should alter the optimal strategy that we have proposed for power companies only if corporate leaders expect Trump’s policies to persist over the 40 years or more that these new generating plants can be expected to run.

Energy executives would need to be extremely confident that, despite investor pressure from shareholders, the United States will adopt only weak climate policies, or none at all, into future decades in order to see cutting investments in noncarbon generation as an optimal near-term strategy. Instead, they may well expect that the United States will eventually rejoin worldwide efforts to slow the pace of climate change and adopt strict emissions limits.

In that case, they should allocate their investments so that at least 20 to 30 percent of new generation over the next decade comes from noncarbon sources. Sustaining and increasing noncarbon investments in the coming decade is not just good for the environment — it’s also a smart business strategy that is good for the economy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Maryland Community Solar Program enables renters and condo residents to subscribe to offsite solar, earn utility bill discounts, and support projects across BGE, Pepco, Delmarva, and Potomac Edison territories, with low to moderate income participation.

Key Points

A pilot allowing residents to subscribe to offsite solar and get bill credits and savings, regardless of home ownership.

✅ 5-10 percent discounts on standard utility rates

✅ Available in BGE, Pepco, Delmarva, Potomac Edison areas

✅ Includes low and moderate income subscriber carve-outs

Maryland has launched a pilot program that will allow anyone to power their home with solar panels — even if they are renters or condo-dwellers, or live in the shade of trees.

Solar developers are looking for hundreds of residents to subscribe to six power projects planned across the state, including recently announced sites in Owings Mills and Westminster. Their offers include discounts on standard electric rates.

The developers need a critical mass of customers who are willing to buy the projects’ electricity before they can move forward with plans to install solar panels on about 80 acres. Under state rules, the customer base must include low- and moderate-income residents, many of whom face energy insecurity challenges.

The idea of the community solar program is to tap into the pool of residential customers who don’t want to get their energy from fossil fuels but currently have no way to switch to a cleaner alternative.

That could significantly expand demand for solar projects, said Gary Skulnik, a longtime Maryland solar entrepreneur.

Skulnik is now CEO of Neighborhood Sun, a company recruiting customers for the six projects.

“You’re signing up for a project that won’t exist unless we get enough subscribers,” Skulnik said. “You’re actually getting a new project built.”

It could also stoke simmering conflicts over what sort of land is appropriate for solar development.

The General Assembly authorized the community solar pilot program in 2015. But not-in-my-backyard opposition and concerns about the loss of agricultural land have slowed progress.

Community solar could force more communities to confront those sorts of clashes — and to consider more carefully where solar farms belong.

“We are going to see a lot more solar development in the state,” said Megan Billingsley, assistant director of the Valleys Planning Council in Baltimore County. “One of the things we haven’t seen is any direction or thoughtful planning on where we want to see solar development.”

The General Assembly authorized about 200 megawatts in community solar projects — enough to power about 40,000 households — over three years.

Customers can sign up for projects built within the territory of their electric utility. About half of that solar energy load has been allotted for the region served by Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.

By subscribing to a community solar project, customers won’t actually be getting their electricity from its photovoltaic panels. But their payments will help finance it and, in some cases, complementary battery storage solutions as well.

The Public Service Commission has approved six projects so far: Two in BGE territory, in Owings Mills and near Westminster; one in Pepco territory, in Prince George’s County; two in Delmarva Power and Light territory, in Caroline and Worcester counties; and one in Potomac Edison territory, in Washington County where planning officials have developed proposed recommendations.

More projects are expected to win approval in the next two years.

But none of them can be built unless they catch on with electricity customers. The developers are looking for 2,600 customers statewide.

Skulnik would not say how many customers an individual project needs to get the green light. But he said that the Prince George’s proposal, a 25-acre array atop a Fort Washington landfill is the closest, with about 100 subscribers so far.

The terms of subscription vary by project, but discounts range from 5 percent to 10 percent off utility rates. Customers are asked to commit to the projects for as long as 25 years. (They can break the contracts with advance notice, or if they move to a different utility service area.)

Maryland joins more than a dozen states in advancing community solar projects, as scientists work to improve solar and wind power technology.

Corey Ramsden is an executive for Solar United Neighbors, a nonprofit that promotes the solar industry in eight states and the District of Columbia.

He said potential customers are often confused by the mechanics of subscribing to community solar, or hesitant to commit for years or even decades. The industry is working to answer questions and get people more comfortable with the idea, he said.

But it has been a challenge across the country, including debates over New England grid upgrades, and in Maryland. Advocates for solar say there is broad support for renewable energy generation. The state has set goals to increase green energy use and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Still, many Marylanders don’t welcome the reality when a project attempts to move in.

Rural land is often the most desirable for solar developers, because it requires the least effort to prepare for an array of panels. But community groups in those areas have asked whether land historically used for farming is right for a more industrial use.

“People are very much in favor of going for a lot more renewables, for whatever reason,” said Dru Schmidt-Perkins, the former president of the land conservation group 1,000 Friends of Maryland. “That support comes to a screeching halt when land that is perceived to be valuable for other things, whether a historic view­shed or farming, suddenly becomes a target of a location for this new project.”

Such concerns have at least temporarily stalled the momentum for solar across the state. Anne Arundel County had at least five small community solar projects in the pipeline in December when officials decided to pause development for eight months. Baltimore County officials imposed a four-month moratorium on solar development before passing an ordinance last year to limit the size and number of solar farms.

Billingsley said the Valley Plannings Council, which advocates for historic and rural areas in western Baltimore County, is frustrated that there hasn’t been more discussion about which areas the county should target for solar development — and which it shouldn’t.

She said she fears that pressure to expand solar farms across rural lands is only going to grow as community solar projects launch, and as lawmakers in Annapolis talk about more policies to promote investment in renewable energy.

Schmidt-Perkins called community solar “an amazing program” for those who would install solar panels on their roofs if they could. But she said its launch heightens the importance of discussions about a broader solar strategy.

“Most communities are caught a little flat-footed on this and are somewhat at the mercy of an industry that’s chomping at the bit,” she said. “It’s time for Maryland to say, ‘Okay, let’s come up with our plan so that we know how much solar can we really generate in this state on lands that are not conflict-based.’”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

FPL Hurricane Surcharge explained: restoration costs, Florida PSC review, rate impacts, grid resilience, and transparency after Hurricanes Debby and Helene as FPL funds infrastructure hardening and rapid storm recovery across Florida.

Key Points

A fee by Florida Power & Light to recoup hurricane restoration costs, under Florida PSC review for consumer fairness.

✅ Funds Debby and Helene restoration, materials, and crews

✅ Reviewed by Florida PSC for consumer protection and fairness

✅ Raises questions on grid resilience, transparency, and renewables

In the aftermath of recent hurricanes, Florida Power & Light (FPL) is under scrutiny as it implements a rate surcharge, alongside proposed rate hikes that span multiple years, to help cover the costs of restoration and recovery efforts. The surcharges, attributed to Hurricanes Debby and Helene, have stirred significant debate among consumers and state regulators, highlighting the ongoing challenges of hurricane preparedness and response in the Sunshine State.

Hurricanes are a regular threat in Florida, and FPL, as the state's largest utility provider, plays a critical role in restoring power and services after such events. However, the financial implications of these natural disasters often leave residents questioning the fairness and necessity of additional charges on their monthly bills. The newly proposed surcharge, which is expected to affect millions of customers, has ignited discussions about the adequacy of the company’s infrastructure investments and its responsibility in disaster recovery.

FPL’s decision to implement a surcharge comes as the company faces rising operational costs due to extensive damage caused by the hurricanes. Restoration efforts are not only labor-intensive but also require significant investment in materials and equipment to restore power swiftly and efficiently. With the added pressures of increased demand for electricity during peak hurricane seasons, utilities like FPL must navigate complex financial landscapes, similar to Snohomish PUD's weather-related rate hikes seen in other regions, while ensuring reliable service.

Consumer advocacy groups have raised concerns over the timing and justification for the surcharge. Many argue that frequent rate increases following natural disasters can strain already financially burdened households, echoing pandemic-related shutoff concerns raised during COVID that heightened energy insecurity. Florida residents are already facing inflationary pressures and rising living costs, making additional surcharges particularly difficult for many to absorb. Critics assert that utility companies should prioritize transparency and accountability, especially when it comes to costs incurred during emergencies.

The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC), which regulates utility rates and services, even as California regulators face calls for action amid soaring bills elsewhere, is tasked with reviewing the surcharge proposal. The commission’s role is crucial in determining whether the surcharge is justified and in line with the interests of consumers. As part of this process, stakeholders—including FPL, consumer advocacy groups, and the general public—will have the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns. This input is essential in ensuring that the commission makes an informed decision that balances the utility’s financial needs with consumer protection.

In recent years, FPL has invested heavily in strengthening its infrastructure to better withstand hurricane impacts. These investments include hardening power lines, enhancing grid resilience, and implementing advanced technologies for quicker recovery, with public outage prevention tips also promoted to enhance preparedness. However, as storms become increasingly severe due to climate change, the question arises: are these measures sufficient? Critics argue that more proactive measures are needed to mitigate the impacts of future storms and reduce the reliance on post-disaster rate increases.

Additionally, the conversation around climate resilience is becoming increasingly prominent in discussions about energy policy in Florida. As extreme weather events grow more common, utilities are under pressure to innovate and adapt their systems. Some experts suggest that FPL and other utilities should explore alternative strategies, such as investing in decentralized energy resources like solar and battery storage, even as Florida declined federal solar incentives that could accelerate adoption, which could provide more reliable service during outages and reduce the overall strain on the grid.

The issue of rate surcharges also highlights a broader conversation about the energy landscape in Florida. With a growing emphasis on renewable energy and sustainability, consumers are becoming more aware of the environmental impacts of their energy choices, and some recall a one-time Gulf Power bill decrease as an example of short-term relief. This shift in consumer awareness may push utilities like FPL to reevaluate their business models and explore more sustainable practices that align with the public’s evolving expectations.

As FPL navigates the complexities of hurricane recovery and financial sustainability, the impending surcharge serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by utility providers in a climate-volatile world. While the need for recovery funding is undeniable, the manner in which it is implemented and communicated will be crucial in maintaining public trust and ensuring fair treatment of consumers. As discussions unfold in the coming weeks, all eyes will be on the PSC’s decision and FPL’s approach to balancing recovery efforts with consumer affordability.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Russia Bitcoin Mining Ban highlights electricity deficits, grid stability concerns, and sustainability challenges, prompting stricter cryptocurrency regulation as mining operations in Siberia face shutdowns, relocations, and renewed focus on energy efficiency and resource allocation.

Key Points

Policy halting Bitcoin mining in key regions to ease electricity deficits, stabilize the grid, and prioritize energy.

✅ Targets high-load regions like Siberia facing electricity deficits

✅ Protects residential and industrial energy security, limits outages

✅ Prompts miner relocations, regulation, and potential renewables

In a significant shift in its stance on cryptocurrency, Russia has announced plans to ban Bitcoin mining in several key regions, primarily due to rising electricity deficits. This move highlights the ongoing tensions between energy management and the growing demand for cryptocurrency mining, which has sparked a robust debate about sustainability and resource allocation in the country.

Background on Bitcoin Mining in Russia

Russia has long been a major player in the global cryptocurrency landscape, particularly in Bitcoin mining. The country’s vast and diverse geography offers ample opportunities for mining, with several regions boasting low electricity costs and cooler climates that are conducive to operating the high-powered computers used for mining, similar to Iceland's mining boom in cold regions.

However, the boom in mining activities has put a strain on local electricity grids, as seen with BC Hydro suspensions in Canada, particularly as demand for energy continues to rise. This situation has become increasingly untenable, leading government officials to reconsider the viability of allowing large-scale mining operations.

Reasons for the Ban

The decision to ban Bitcoin mining in certain regions stems from a growing electricity deficit that has been exacerbated by both rising temperatures and increased energy consumption. Reports indicate that some regions are struggling to meet domestic energy needs, and jurisdictions like Manitoba's pause on crypto connections reflect similar grid concerns, particularly during peak consumption periods. Officials have expressed concern that continuing to support cryptocurrency mining could lead to blackouts and further strain on the electrical infrastructure.

Additionally, this ban is seen as a measure to redirect energy resources toward more critical sectors, including residential heating and industrial needs. By curbing Bitcoin mining, the government aims to prioritize the energy security of its citizens and maintain stability within its energy markets and the wider global electricity market dynamics.

Regional Impact

The regions targeted by the ban include areas that have seen a significant influx of mining operations, often attracted by the low costs of electricity. For instance, Siberia, known for its abundant natural resources and inexpensive power, has become a major center for miners. The ban is likely to have profound implications for local economies that have come to rely on the influx of investments from cryptocurrency companies.

Many miners are expected to be affected financially as they may have to halt operations or relocate to regions with more favorable regulations. This could lead to job losses and a decline in local business activities that have sprung up around the mining industry, such as hardware suppliers and tech services.

Broader Implications for Cryptocurrency in Russia

This ban reflects a broader trend within Russia’s approach to cryptocurrencies. While the government has been cautious about outright banning digital currencies, it has simultaneously sought to regulate the industry more stringently. Recent legislation has aimed to establish a legal framework for cryptocurrencies, focusing on taxation and oversight while navigating the balance between innovation and regulation.

As other countries around the world grapple with the implications of cryptocurrency mining, Russia’s decision adds to the narrative of the challenges associated with energy consumption in this sector. The international community is increasingly aware of the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining, which has come under fire for its significant energy use and carbon footprint.

Future of Mining in Russia

Looking ahead, the future of Bitcoin mining in Russia remains uncertain. While some regions may implement strict bans, others could potentially embrace a more regulated approach to mining, provided it aligns with energy availability and environmental considerations. The country’s vast landscape offers opportunities for innovative solutions, such as utilizing renewable energy sources, even as India's solar growth slows amid rising coal generation, to power mining operations.

As global attitudes toward cryptocurrency evolve, Russia will likely continue to adapt its policies in response to both domestic energy needs and international pressures, including Europe's shift away from Russian energy that influence policy choices. The balance between fostering a competitive cryptocurrency market and ensuring energy sustainability will be a key challenge for Russian policymakers moving forward.

Russia’s decision to ban Bitcoin mining in key regions marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of cryptocurrency and energy management. As the nation navigates its energy deficits, the implications for the mining industry and the broader cryptocurrency landscape will be significant. This move not only underscores the need for responsible energy consumption in the digital age but also reflects the complexities of integrating emerging technologies within existing frameworks of governance and infrastructure. As the situation unfolds, all eyes will be on how Russia balances innovation with sustainability in its approach to cryptocurrency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Hydro One Bill Redesign Spending sparks debate over Ontario Energy Board regulation, rate applications, privatization, and digital billing upgrades, as surveys cite confusing invoices under the Fair Hydro Plan for residential, commercial, and industrial customers.

Key Points

$15M project to simplify Hydro One bills, upgrade systems, and improve digital billing for commercial customers.

✅ $9M spent; $6M proposed for C&I and large-account changes.

✅ OEB to rule amid rate application and privatization scrutiny.

✅ Survey: 40% of customers struggled to understand bills.

Ontario's largest and recently privatized electricity utility has spent $9-million to redesign bills and is proposing to spend an additional $6-million on the project.

Hydro One has come under fire for spending since the Liberal government sold more than half of the company, notably for its CEO's $4.5-million pay.

Now, the NDP is raising concerns with the $15-million bill redesign expense contained in a rate application from the formerly public utility.

"I don't think the problem we face is a bill that people can't understand, I think the problem is rates that are too high," said energy critic Peter Tabuns. "Fifteen million dollars seems awfully expensive to me."

But Hydro One says a 2016 survey of its customers indicated about 40 per cent had trouble understanding their bills.

Ferio Pugliese, the company's executive vice-president of customer care and corporate affairs, said the redesign was aimed at giving customers a simpler bill.

"The new format is a format that when tested and put in front of our customers has been designed to give customers the four or five salient items they want to see on their bill," he said.

About $9-million has already gone into redesigning bills, mostly for residential customers, Pugliese said. Cosmetic changes to bills account for about 25 per cent of the cost, with the rest of the money going toward updating information systems and improving digital billing platforms, he said.

The additional $6-million Hydro One is looking to spend would go toward bill changes mostly for its commercial, industrial and large distribution account customers.

Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault noted in a statement that the Ontario Energy Board has yet to decide on the expense, but he suggested he sees the bill redesign as necessary alongside legislation to lower electricity rates introduced by the province.

"With Ontarians wanting clearer bills that are easier to understand, Hydro One's bill redesign project is a necessary improvement that will help customers," he wrote.

"Reductions from the Fair Hydro Plan (the government's 25 per cent cut to bills last year) are important information for both households and businesses, and it's our job to provide clear, helpful answers whenever possible."

The OEB recently ordered Hydro One to lower a rate increase it had been seeking for this year to 0.2 per cent down from 4.8 per cent.

The regulator also rejected a Hydro One proposal to give shareholders all of the tax savings generated by the IPO in 2015 when the Liberal government first began partially privatizing the utility. The OEB instead mandated shareholders receive 62 per cent of the savings while ratepayers receive the remaining 38 per cent.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News