A few watts short of an idea

New England oil-fired generation surges as ISO New England manages a cold snap, dual-fuel switching, and a natural gas price spike, highlighting winter reliability challenges, LNG and pipeline limits, and rising CO2 emissions.

Key Points

Reliance on oil-burning power plants during winter demand spikes when natural gas is costly or constrained.

✅ Driven by dual-fuel switching amid high natural gas prices

✅ ISO-NE winter reliability rules encourage oil stockpiles

✅ Raises CO2 emissions despite coal retirements and renewables growth

New England is relying on oil-fired generators for the most electricity since 2018 as a frigid blast boosts demand for power and natural gas prices soar across markets. 

Oil generators were producing more than 4,200 megawatts early Thursday, accounting for about a quarter of the grid’s power supply, according to ISO New England. That was the most since Jan. 6, 2018, when oil plants produced as much as 6.4 gigawatts, or 32% of the grid’s output, said Wood Mackenzie analyst Margaret Cashman.  

Oil is typically used only when demand spikes, because of higher costs and emissions concerns. Consumption has been consistently high over the past three weeks as some generators switch from gas, which has surged in price in recent months. New England generators are producing power from oil at an average rate of almost 1.8 gigawatts so far this month, the highest for January in at least five years. 

Oil’s share declined to 16% Friday morning ahead of an expected snowstorm, which was “a surprise,” Cashman said. 

“It makes me wonder if some of those generators are aiming to reserve their fuel for this weekend,” she said.

During the recent cold snap, more than a tenth of the electricity generated in New England has been produced by power plants that haven’t happened for at least 15 years.

Burning oil for electricity was standard practice throughout the region for decades. It was once our most common fuel for power and as recently as 2000, fully 19% of the six-state region’s electricity came from burning oil, according to ISO-New England, more than any other source except nuclear power at the time.

Since then, however, natural gas has gotten so cheap that most oil-fired plants have been shut or converted to burn gas, to the point that just 1% of New England’s electricity came from oil in 2018, whereas about half our power came from natural gas generation regionally during that period. This is good because natural gas produces less pollution, both particulates and greenhouse gasses, although exactly how much less is a matter of debate.

But as you probably know, there’s a problem: Natural gas is also used for heating, which gets first dibs. Prolonged cold snaps require so much gas to keep us warm, a challenge echoed in Ontario’s electricity system as supply tightens, that there might not be enough for power plants – at least, not at prices they’re willing to pay.

After we came close to rolling brownouts during the polar vortex in the 2017-18 winter because gas-fired power plants cut back so much, ISO-NE, which has oversight of the power grid, established “winter reliability” rules. The most important change was to pay power plants to become dual-fuel, meaning they can switch quickly between natural gas and oil, and to stockpile oil for winter cold snaps.

We’re seeing that practice in action right now, as many dual-fuel plants have switched away from gas to oil, just as was intended.

That switch is part of the reason EPA says the region’s carbon emissions have gone up in the pandemic, from 22 million tons of CO2 in 2019 to 24 million tons in 2021. That reverses a long trend caused partly by closing of coal plants and partly by growing solar and offshore wind capacity: New England power generation produced 36 million tons of CO2 a decade ago.

So if we admit that a return to oil burning is bad, and it is, what can we do in future winters? There are many possibilities, including tapping more clean imports such as Canadian hydropower to diversify supply.

The most obvious solution is to import more natural gas, especially from fracked fields in New York state and Pennsylvania. But efforts to build pipelines to do that have been shot down a couple of times and seem unlikely to go forward and importing more gas via ocean tanker in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is also an option, but hits limits in terms of port facilities.

Aside from NIMBY concerns, the problem with building pipelines or ports to import more gas is that pipelines and ports are very expensive. Once they’re built they create a financial incentive to keep using natural gas for decades to justify the expense, similar to moves such as Ontario’s new gas plants that lock in generation. That makes it much harder for New England to decarbonize and potentially leaves ratepayers on the hook for a boatload of stranded costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany Energy Transition faces offshore wind expansion, grid bottlenecks, and North-South transmission delays, while Nord Stream 2 boosts Russian gas reliance and lignite coal persists amid a nuclear phaseout and rising re-dispatch costs.

Key Points

Germanys shift to renewables faces grid delays, boosting gas via Nord Stream 2 and extending lignite coal use.

✅ Offshore wind grows, but grid congestion curtails turbines.

✅ Nord Stream 2 expands Russian gas supply to German industry.

✅ Lignite coal persists, raising emissions amid nuclear exit.

On a blazing hot August day on Germany’s Baltic Sea coast, a few hundred tourists skip the beach to visit the “Fascination Offshore Wind” exhibition, held in the port of Mukran at the Arkona wind park. They stand facing the sea, gawking at white fiberglass blades, which at 250 feet are longer than the wingspan of a 747 aircraft. Those blades, they’re told, will soon be spinning atop 60 wind-turbine towers bolted to concrete pilings driven deep into the seabed 20 miles offshore. By early 2019, Arkona is expected to generate 385 megawatts, enough electricity to power 400,000 homes.

“We really would like to give the public an idea of what we are going to do here,” says Silke Steen, a manager at Arkona. “To let them say, ‘Wow, impressive!’”

Had the tourists turned their backs to the sea and faced inland, they would have taken in an equally monumental sight, though this one isn’t on the day’s agenda: giant steel pipes coated in gray concrete, stacked five high and laid out in long rows on a stretch of dirt. The port manager tells me that the rows of 40-foot-long, 4-foot-thick pipes are so big that they can be seen from outer space. They are destined for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a colossus that, when completed next year, will extend nearly 800 miles from Russia to Germany, bringing twice the amount of gas that a current pipeline carries.

The two projects, whose cargo yards are within a few hundred feet of each other, provide a contrast between Germany’s dream of renewable energy and the political realities of cheap Russian gas. In 2010, Germany announced an ambitious goal of generating 80 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2050. In 2011, it doubled down on the commitment by deciding to shut down every last nuclear power plant in the country by 2022, as part of a broader coal and nuclear phaseout strategy embraced by policymakers. The German government has paid more than $600 billion to citizens and companies that generate solar and wind power. As a result, the generating capacity from renewable sources has soared: In 2017, a third of the nation’s electricity came from wind, solar, hydropower and biogas, up from 3.6 percent in 1990.

But Germany’s lofty vision has run into a gritty reality: Replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power in one of the largest industrial nations in the world is politically more difficult and expensive than planners thought. It has forced Germany to put the brakes on its ambitious renewables program, ramp up its investments in fossil fuels, amid a renewed nuclear option debate over climate strategy, and, to some extent, put its leadership role in the fight against climate change on hold.

The trouble lies with Germany’s electricity grid. Solar and wind power call for more complex and expensive distribution networks than conventional large power plants do. “What the Germans were good at was getting new technology into the market, like wind and solar power,” said Arne Jungjohann, author of Energy Democracy: Germany’s ENERGIEWENDE to Renewables. To achieve its goals, “Germany needs to overhaul its whole grid.”

The North-South Conundrum

The boom in wind power has created an unanticipated mismatch between supply and demand. Big wind turbines, especially offshore plants such as Arkona, produce powerful, concentrated gusts of energy. That’s good when the factory that needs that energy is nearby and the wind kicks up during working hours. It’s another matter when factories are hundreds of miles away. In Germany, wind farms tend to be located in the blustery north. Many of the nation’s big factories lie in the south, which also happens to be where most of the country’s nuclear plants are being mothballed.

Getting that power from north to south is problematic. On windy days, northern wind farms generate too much energy for the grid to handle. Power lines get overloaded. To cope, grid operators ask wind farms to disconnect their turbines from the grid—those elegant blades that tourists so admired sit idle. To ensure a supply of power, operators employ backup generators at great expense. These so-called re-dispatching costs ran to 1.4 billion euros ($1.6 billion) last year.

The solution is to build more power transmission lines to take the excess wind from northern wind farms to southern factories. A grid expansion project is underway to do exactly that. Nearly 5,000 miles of new transmission lines, at a cost of billions of euros, will be paid for by utility customers. So far, less than a fifth of the lines have been built.

The grid expansion is “catastrophically behind schedule,” Energy Minister Peter Altmaier told the Handelsblatt business newspaper in August. Among the setbacks: citizens living along the route of four high-voltage power lines have demanded the cables be buried underground, which has added to the time and expense. The lines won’t be finished before 2025—three years after Germany’s nuclear shutdown is due to be completed.

With this backlog, the government has put the brakes on wind power, reducing the number of new contracts for farms and curtailing the amount it pays for renewable energy. “In the past, we have focused too much on the mere expansion of renewable energy capacity,” Joachim Pfeiffer, a spokesman for the Christian Democratic Union, wrote to Newsweek. “We failed to synchronize this expansion of generation with grid expansion.”

Advocates of renewables are up in arms, accusing the government of suffocating their industry and making planning impossible. Thousands of people lost their jobs in the wind industry, according to Wolfram Axthelm, CEO of the German Wind Energy Association. “For 2019 and 2020, we see a highly problematic situation for the industry,” he wrote in an email.

Fueling the Gap

Nord Stream 2, by contrast, is proceeding according to schedule. A beige and black barge, Castoro 10, hauls dozens of lengths of giant pipe off Germany’s Baltic Sea coast, where a welding machine connects them for lowering onto the seabed. The $11 billion project is funded by Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom and five European investors, at no direct cost to the German taxpayer. It is slated to cross the territorial waters of five countries—Germany, Russia, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. All but Denmark have approved the route. “We have good reason to believe that after four governments said yes, that Denmark will also approve the pipeline,” says Nord Stream 2 spokesman Jens Mueller.

Construction of the pipeline off Finland began in September, and the gas is expected to start flowing in late 2019, giving Russia leverage to increase its share of the European gas market. It already provides a third of the gas used in the EU and will likely provide more after the Netherlands stops its gas production in 2030. President Donald Trump has called the pipeline “a very bad thing for NATO” and said that “Germany is totally controlled by Russia.” U.S. senators have threatened sanctions against companies involved in the project. Ukraine and Poland are concerned the new pipeline will make older pipelines in their territories irrelevant.

German leaders are also wary of dependence on Russia but are under considerable pressure to deliver energy to industry. Indeed, among the pipeline’s investors are German companies that want to run their factories, like BASF’s Wintershall subsidiary and Uniper, the German utility. “It’s not that Germany is naive,” says Kirsten Westphal, an energy expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. It’s just pragmatic. “Economically, the judgment is that yes, this gas will be needed, we have an import gap to fill.”

The electricity transmission problem has also opened an opportunity for lignite coal, as coal generation in Germany remains significant, the most carbon-intensive fuel available and the source for nearly a quarter of Germany’s power. Mining companies are expanding their operations in coal-rich regions to strip out the fuel while it is still relevant. In the village of Pödelwitz, 155 miles south of Berlin, most houses feature a white sign with the logo of Mibrag, the German mining giant, which has paid nearly all the 130 residents to relocate. The company plans to level the village and scrape lignite that lies below the soil.

A resurgence in coal helped raise carbon emissions in 2015 and 2016 (2017 saw a slight decline), maintaining Germany’s place as Europe’s largest carbon emitter. Chancellor Angela Merkel has scrapped her pledge to slash carbon emissions to 40 percent of 1990 levels by the year 2020. Several members have threatened to resign from her policy commission on coal if the government allows utility company RWE to mine for lignite in Hambach Forest.

Only a few years ago, during the Paris climate talks, Germany led the EU in pushing for ambitious plans to curb emissions. Now, it seems to be having second thoughts. Recently, the European Union’s climate chief, Miguel Arias Cañete, suggested EU nations step up their commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 45 percent of 1990 levels instead of 40 percent by 2030. “I think we should first stick to the goals we have already set ourselves,” Merkel replied, even as a possible nuclear phaseout U-turn is debated, “I don’t think permanently setting ourselves new goals makes any sense.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Idaho Power Valmy Settlement outlines early closure of the North Valmy coal-fired plant in Nevada, accelerated depreciation recovery, a 1.17% base-rate increase, and impacts for customers, NV Energy co-ownership, and Idaho Public Utilities Commission review.

Key Points

A proposed agreement to close North Valmy early, recover costs via a 1.17% rate hike, and seek PUC approval.

✅ Unit 1 closes 2019; Unit 2 closes 2025 in Nevada.

✅ 1.17% base-rate hike; about $1.20 per 1,000 kWh monthly bill.

✅ Idaho PUC comment deadline May 25; NV Energy co-owner.

State regulators have set a May 25 deadline for public comment on a proposed settlement related to the early closure of a coal-fired plant co-owned by Idaho Power, even as some utilities plan to keep a U.S. coal plant running indefinitely in other jurisdictions.

The settlement calls for shuttering Unit 1 of the North Valmy Power Plant in Nevada in 2019, with Unit 2 closing in 2025, amid regional coal unit retirements debates. The units had been slated for closure in 2031 and 2035, respectively.

If approved by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, the settlement would increase base rates by approximately $13.3 million, or 1.17 percent, in order to allow the company to recover its investment in the plant on an accelerated basis.

That equates to an additional $1.20 on the monthly bill of the typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours of energy per month.

Idaho Power, which co-owns the plant with NV Energy, maintains that closing Valmy early rather than continuing to operate it until it is fully depreciated in 2035, will ultimately save customers $103 million in today's dollars.

The company said a significant decrease in market prices for electricity has made it uneconomic to operate the plant except during extremely cold or hot weather, when the demand for energy peaks, a trend underscored by transactions involving the San Juan Generating Station deal elsewhere. The company also said plant balances have increased by approximately $70 million since its last general rate case in 2011, due to routine maintenance and repairs, as well as investments required to meet environmental regulations.

The proposed settlement reflects a number of changes to Idaho Power's original proposal regarding Valmy, and comes in the wake of discussions with interested parties in February and April, against the backdrop of a broader energy debate over plant closures and reliability.

In its initial application, filed in October, Idaho Power proposed closing both units in 2025. The original proposal would have increased base rates by $28.5 million, or about 2.5 percent, in order to allow the company to recover its costs associated with the plant's accelerated depreciation, decommissioning and anticipated investments, with cautionary examples such as the Kemper power plant costs illustrating potential risks.

Concurrently, Idaho Power asked for commission approval to adjust depreciation rates for its other plants and equipment based on the result of a study it conducts every five years, as outlined in Case IPC-E-16-23. The adjustment would have led to a $6.7 million increase to base rates.

The two requests filed in October would have increased customer costs by a total of $35.2 million or 3.1 percent, leading to a $3.08 increase on the bills of the typical residential customer who uses 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month.

The proposed settlement submitted to the Commission on May 4 calls for $13,285,285 to be recovered from all customer classes through base rates until 2028, all related to the Valmy shutdown. That is an increase of 1.17 percent and would result in a $1.20 increase on the bills of the typical residential customer who uses 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas EV Registration Fee adds a $200 annual charge under Senate Bill 505, offsetting lost gasoline tax revenue to the State Highway Fund, impacting electric vehicle owners at registration and renewals across Texas.

Key Points

A $200 yearly charge on electric vehicles to replace lost gasoline tax revenue and support Texas Highway Fund road work.

✅ $200 due at registration or renewal; $400 upfront on new EVs.

✅ Enacted by Senate Bill 505 to offset lost gasoline tax revenue.

✅ Advocates propose mileage-based fees; limited $2,500 rebates exist.

Plano resident Tony Federico bought his Tesla five years ago in part because he hated spending lots of money on gas, and Supercharger billing changes have also influenced charging expenses. But that financial calculus will change slightly on Sept. 1, when Texas will start charging electric vehicle drivers an additional fee of $200 each year.

“It just seems like it’s arbitrary, with no real logic behind it,” said Federico, 51, who works in information technology. “But I’m going to have to pay it.”

Earlier this year, state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 505, which requires electric vehicle owners to pay the fee when they register a vehicle or renew their registration, even as fights for control over charging continue among utilities, automakers and retailers. It’s being imposed because lawmakers said EV drivers weren’t paying their fair share into a fund that helps cover road construction and repairs across Texas.

The cost will be especially high for those who purchase a new electric vehicle and have to pay two years of registration, or $400, up front.

Texas agencies estimated in a 2020 report that the state lost an average of $200 per year in federal and state gasoline tax dollars when an electric vehicle replaced a gas-fueled one. The agencies called the fee “the most straightforward” remedy.

Gasoline taxes go to the State Highway Fund, which the Texas Department of Transportation calls its “primary funding source.” Electric vehicle drivers don’t pay those taxes, though, because they don’t use gasoline.

Still, EV drivers do use the roads. And while electric vehicles make up a tiny portion of cars in Texas for now, that fraction is expected to increase, raising concerns about state power grids in the years ahead.

Many environmental and consumer advocates agreed with lawmakers that EV drivers should pay into the highway fund but argued over how much, and debates over fairer vehicle taxes are surfacing abroad as well.

Some thought the state should set the fee lower to cover only the lost state tax dollars, rather than both the state and federal money, because federal officials may devise their own scheme. Others argued the state should charge nothing because EVs help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change and can offer budget benefits for many owners.

“We urgently need to get more electric vehicles on the road,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “Any increased fee could create an additional barrier for Texans, and particularly more moderate- to low-income Texans, to make that transition.”

Tom “Smitty” Smith, the executive director of the Texas Electric Transportation Resources Alliance, advocated for a fee based on how many miles a person drove their electric car, which would better mirror how the gas taxes are assessed.

Texas has a limited incentive that could offset the cost: It offers rebates of up to $2,500 for up to 2,000 new hydrogen fuel cell, electric or hybrid vehicles every two years. Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen’s Texas office director, recommended that the state expand the rebates, noting that state-level EV benefits can be significant.

In the Houston area, dealer Steven Wolf isn’t worried about the fee deterring potential customers from buying the electric Ford F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E vehicles he sells. Electric cars are already more expensive than comparable gasoline-fueled cars, and charging networks compete for drivers, he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

COVID-19 Energy Burden drives higher electricity bills as income falls, intensifying energy poverty, utility shut-offs, and affordability risks for low-income households; policy moratoriums, bill relief, and efficiency upgrades are vital responses.

Key Points

The COVID-19 energy burden is the rising share of income spent on energy as bills increase and earnings decline.

✅ Rising home demand and lost wages increase energy cost share.

✅ Mandated shut-off moratoriums and reconnections protect health.

✅ Fund assistance, efficiency, and solar for LMI households.

I have asthma. It’s a private piece of medical information that I don’t normally share with people, but it makes the potential risks associated with exposure to the coronavirus all the more dangerous for me. But I’m not alone. 107 million people in the U.S. have pre-existing medical conditions like asthma and heart disease; the same pre-existing conditions that elevate their risk of facing a life-threatening situation were we to contract COVID-19. There are, however, tens of millions more house-bound Americans with a condition that is likely to be exacerbated by COVID-19: The energy burden.

The energy burden is a different kind of pre-existing condition:
In the last four weeks, 22 million people filed for unemployment. Millions of people will not have steady income (or the healthcare tied to it) to pay rent and utility bills for the foreseeable future which means that thousands, possibly millions of home-bound Americans will struggle to pay for energy.

Your energy burden is the amount of your monthly income that goes to paying for energy, like your monthly electric bill. So, when household energy use increases or income decreases, your energy burden rises. The energy burden is not a symptom of the pandemic and the economic downturn; it is more like a pre-existing condition for many Americans.

Before the coronavirus outbreak, I shared a few maps that showed how expensive electricity is for some. The energy burden in most pronounced in places already struggling economically, like in Appalachia, where residents in some counties must put more than 30 percent of their income toward their electric bills, and in the Midwest where states such as Michigan have some families spending more than 1/5 of their income on energy bills. The tragic facts are that US families living below the poverty line are far more likely to also be suffering from their energy burden.

But like other pre-existing conditions, the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic are exacerbating the underlying problems afflicting communities across the country.

Critical responses to minimize the spread of COVID-19 are social distancing, washing hands frequently, covering our faces with masks and staying at home. More time at home for most will drive up energy bills, and not by a little. Estimates on how much electricity demand during COVID-19 will increase vary but I’ve seen estimates as high as a 20% increase on average. For some families that’s a bag of groceries or a refill on prescription medication.

What happens when the power gets turned off?
Under normal conditions, if you cannot pay your electric bill your electricity can get turned off. This can have devastating consequences. Most states have protections for health and medical reasons and some states have protections during extreme heat or cold weather. But enforcement of those protections can vary by utility service area and place unnecessary burdens on the customer.

UCS
Only Florida has no protections of any kind against utility shut-offs when health or medical reasons would merit protection against it. However, when it comes to protection against extreme heat, only a few states have mandatory protections based on temperature thresholds.

The NAACP has also pointed out that utilities have unceremoniously disconnected the power of millions of people, disproportionally African-American and Latinx households.

April tends to be a mild month for most of the country, but the South already had its first heat wave at the end of March. If this pandemic lasts into the summer, utility disconnects could become deadly, and efforts to prevent summer power outages will be even more critical to public health. In the summer, during extreme summer heat families can’t turn off the A/C and go to the movies if we are following public health measures and sheltering in place. Lots of families that don’t have or can’t afford to run A/C would otherwise gather at local community pools, beaches, or in cooling centers, but with parks, pools and community groups closed to prevent the virus’s spread, what will happen to these families in July or August?

But we won’t have to wait till the summer to see how families will be hard hit by falling behind on bills and losing power. Here are a few ways electricity disconnection policies cause people harm during the pandemic:

Loss of electricity during the COVID-19 pandemic means families will lose their ability to refrigerate essential food supplies.
Child abuse guidance discusses how unsanitary household conditions are a contributing factor to child protective services involvement. Unsanitary household conditions can include, for example, rotting food (which might happen if electricity is cut off).

HUD’s handbook on federally subsidized housing includes a chapter on termination, which says that lease agreements can be terminated for repeated minor infractions including failing to pay utilities.
Airway machines used to treat respiratory ailments—pre-existing conditions in this pandemic—will not work. Our elderly neighbors in particular might rely on medicine that requires refrigeration or medical equipment that requires electricity. They too have fallen victim to utility shut-offs even during the pandemic.

Empowering solutions are available today

Decisionmakers seeking solutions can look to implement utility shut off moratoriums as a good start. Good news is that many utilities have voluntarily taken action to that effect, and New Jersey and New York have suspended shut-offs, one of the best trackers on who is taking what action has been assembled by Energy Policy Institute.

But voluntary actions do not always provide comprehensive protection, and they certainly have not been universally adopted across the country. Some utilities are waiving fees as relief measures, and some moratoriums only apply to customers directly affected by COVID-19, which will place additional onerous red tape on households that are stricken and perhaps unable to access testing. Others might only be an extension of standard medical shut off protections. Moratoriums put in place by voluntary action can also be revoked or lifted by voluntary action, which does not provide any sense of certainty to people struggling to make ends meet.

This is why the US needs mandatory moratoriums on all utility disconnections. These normally would be rendered at the state level, either by a regulatory commission, legislative act, or even an emergency executive order. But the inconsistent leadership among states in response to the COVID-19 crisis suggests that Congressional action is needed to ensure that all vulnerable utility customers are protected. That’s exactly what a coalition of organizations, including UCS, is calling for in future federal aid legislation. UCS has called for a national moratorium on utility shut-offs.

And let’s be clear, preventing new shut-offs isn’t enough. Cutting power off at residence during a pandemic is not good public policy. People who are without electricity should have it restored so residents can safely shelter in place and help flatten the curve. So far, only Colorado and Wisconsin’s leadership has taken this option.

Addressing the root causes of energy poverty
Preventing shut-offs is a good first step, but the increased bill charges will nevertheless place greater economic pressure on an incalculable number of families. Addressing the root of the problem (energy affordability) must be prioritized when we begin to recover from the health and economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

One way policymakers can do that is to forgive outstanding balances on utility bills, perhaps with an eligibility cap based on income. Additional funds could be made available to those who are still struggling to pay their bills via capping bills, waiving late payment fees, automating payment plans or other protective measures that rightfully place consumers (particularly vulnerable consumers) at the center of any energy-related COVID-19 response. Low-and-moderate-income energy efficiency and solar programs should be funded as much as practically possible.

New infrastructure, particularly new construction that is slated for public housing, subsidized housing, or housing specifically marketed for low- and moderate-income families, should include smart thermostats, better insulation, and energy-efficient appliances.

Implementing these solutions may seem daunting, let us not forget that one of the best ways to ease people’s energy burden is to keep a utility’s overall energy costs low. That means state utility commissions must be vigilant in utility rate cases and fuel recovery cost dockets to protect people facing unfathomable economic pressures. Unscrupulous utilities have been known to hide unnecessary costs in our energy bills. Commissions and their staff are overwhelmed at this time, but they should be applying extra scrutiny during proceedings when utilities are recovering costs associated with delivering energy.

What might a utility try to get past the commission?
Well, residential demand is up, so for many people, bills will increase. However, wholesale electricity rates are low right now, in some cases at all-time lows. Why? Because industrial and commercial demand reductions (from social distancing at home) have more than offset residential demand increases. Overall US electricity demand is flat or declining, and supply/demand economics predicts that when demand decreases, prices decrease.

At the same time, natural gas prices have set record lows each month of this year and that’s a trend that is expected to hold true for a while.

Low demand plus low gas prices mean wholesale market prices are incredibly low. Utilities should be taking advantage of low market prices to ensure that they deliver electricity to customers at as low a cost as possible. Utilities must also NOT over-run coal plants uneconomically or lean on aging capacity despite disruptions in coal and nuclear that can invite brownouts because that will not only needlessly cost customers more, but it will also increase air pollution which will exacerbate respiratory issues and susceptibility to COVID-19, according to a recent study published by Harvard.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Clean Electricity Regulations 2050 balance net-zero goals with grid reliability and affordability, setting emissions caps, enabling offset credits, and flexible provincial pathways, including support for non-grid facilities during the clean energy transition.

Key Points

A federal plan for a net-zero grid by 2050 with emissions caps, offsets, and flexible provincial compliance.

✅ Emissions cap targeting 181 Mt CO2 from the power sector by 2050

✅ Offset credits and annual limits enable compliance flexibility

✅ Support for remote, non-grid facilities and regional pathways

In December 2024, the Government of Canada announced a significant policy shift regarding its clean electricity objectives. The initial target to achieve a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 has been extended to 2050. This decision reflects the government's response to feedback from provinces and energy industry stakeholders, who expressed concerns about the feasibility of meeting the 2035 deadline.

Revised Clean Electricity Regulations

The newly finalized Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) outline the framework for Canada's transition to a net-zero electricity grid by 2050, advancing the goal of 100 per cent clean electricity nationwide.

• Emissions Reduction Targets: The regulations set a cap on emissions from the electricity sector, targeting a reduction of 181 megatonnes of CO₂ by 2050. This is a decrease from the previous goal of 342 megatonnes, reflecting a more gradual approach to emissions reduction.

• Flexibility Mechanisms: To accommodate the diverse energy landscapes across provinces, the CER introduces flexibility measures. These include annual emissions limits and the option to use offset credits, allowing provinces to tailor their strategies while adhering to national objectives.

• Support for Non-Grid Connected Facilities: Recognizing the unique challenges of remote and off-grid communities, the regulations provide accommodations for certain non-grid connected facilities, ensuring that all regions can contribute to the national clean electricity goals.

Implications for Canada's Energy Landscape

The extension of the net-zero electricity target to 2050 signifies a strategic recalibration of Canada's energy policy. This adjustment acknowledges the complexities involved in transitioning to a clean energy future, including:

• Grid Modernization: Upgrading the electrical grid to accommodate renewable energy sources and ensure reliability is a critical component of the transition, especially as Ontario's EV wave accelerates across the province.

• Economic Considerations: Balancing environmental objectives with economic impacts is essential. The government aims to create over 400,000 clean energy jobs, fostering economic growth while reducing emissions, supported by ambitious EV goals in the transport sector.

• Regional Variations: Provinces have diverse energy profiles and resources, and British Columbia's power supply challenges highlight planning constraints. The CER's flexibility mechanisms are designed to accommodate these differences, allowing for tailored approaches that respect regional contexts.

Public and Industry Reactions

The policy shift has elicited varied responses:

• Environmental Advocates: Some environmental groups express concern that the extended timeline may delay critical climate action, while debates over Quebec's push for EV dominance underscore policy trade-offs. They emphasize the need for more ambitious targets to address the escalating impacts of climate change.

• Industry Stakeholders: The energy sector generally welcomes the extended timeline, viewing it as a pragmatic approach that allows for a more measured transition, particularly amid criticism of the 2035 EV mandate in transportation policy. The flexibility provisions are particularly appreciated, as they provide the necessary leeway to adapt to evolving market and technological conditions.

Looking Forward

As Canada moves forward with the implementation of the Clean Electricity Regulations, the focus will be on:

• Monitoring Progress: Establishing robust mechanisms to track emissions reductions and ensure compliance with the new targets.

• Stakeholder Engagement: Continuing dialogue with provinces, industry, and communities to refine strategies and address emerging challenges, including coordination on EV sales regulations as complementary measures.

• Innovation and Investment: Encouraging the development and deployment of clean energy technologies through incentives and support programs.

The extension of Canada's net-zero electricity target to 2050 represents a strategic adjustment aimed at achieving a balance between environmental goals and practical implementation considerations. The Clean Electricity Regulations provide a framework that accommodates regional differences and industry concerns, setting the stage for a sustainable and economically viable energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News