CAA Quebec Shines at the Quebec Electric Vehicle Show

Georgia Electricity Imports October 2017 surged as hydropower output fell and thermal power plants underperformed; ESCO balanced demand via low-cost imports, mainly from Azerbaijan, amid rising tariffs, kWh consumption growth, and a widening generation-consumption gap.

Key Points

They mark a record import surge due to costly local generation, lower hydropower, ESCO balancing costs, and rising demand.

✅ Imports rose 832% YoY to 157 mln kWh, mainly from Azerbaijan

✅ TPP output fell despite capacity; only low-tariff plants ran

✅ Balancing price 13.8 tetri/kWh signaled costly domestic PPAs

In October 2017, Georgian power plants generated 828 mln. KWh of electricity, marginally up (+0.79%) compared to September. Following the traditional seasonal pattern and amid European concerns over dispatchable power shortages affecting markets, the share of electricity produced by renewable sources declined to 71% of total generation (87% in September), while thermal power generation’s share increased, accounting for 29% of total generation (compared to 13% in September). When we compare last October’s total generation with the total generation of October 2016, however, we observe an 8.7% decrease in total generation (in October 2016, total generation was 907 mln. kWh). The overall decline in generation with respect to the previous year is due to a simultaneous decline in both thermal power and hydro power generation. 

Consumption of electricity on the local market in the same period was 949 mln. kWh (+7% compared to October 2016, and +3% with respect to September 2017), and reflected global trends such as India's electricity growth in recent years. The gap between consumption and generation increased to 121 mln. kWh (15% of the amount generated in October), up from 100 mln. kWh in September. Even more importantly, the situation was radically different with respect to the prior year, when generation exceeded consumption.

The import figure for October was by far the highest from the last 12 years (since ESCO was established), occurring as Ukraine electricity exports resumed regionally, highlighting wider cross-border dynamics. In October 2017, Georgia imported 157 mln. kWh of electricity (for 5.2 ¢/kWh – 13 tetri/kWh). This constituted an 832% increase compared to October 2016, and is about 50% larger than the second largest import figure (104.2 mln. kWh in October 2014). Most of the October 2017 imports (99.6%) came from Azerbaijan, with the remaining 0.04% coming from Russia.

The main question that comes to mind when observing these statistics is: why did Georgia import so much? One might argue that this is just the result of a bad year for hydropower generation and increased demand. This argument, however, is not fully convincing. While it is true that hydropower generation declined and demand increased, the country’s excess demand could have been easily satisfied by its existing thermal power plants, even as imported coal volumes rose in regional markets. Instead of increasing, however, the electricity coming from thermal power plants declined as well. Therefore, that cannot be the reason, and another must be found. The first that comes to mind is that importing electricity may have been cheaper than buying it from local TPPs, or from other generators selling electricity to ESCO under power purchase agreements (PPAs). We can test the first part of this hypothesis by comparing the average price of imported electricity to the price ceiling on the tariff that TPPs can charge for the electricity they sell. Looking at the trade statistics from Geostat, the average price for imported electricity in October 2017 remained stable with respect to the same month of the previous year, at 5.2 ¢ (13 tetri) per kWh. Only two thermal power plants (Gardabani and Mtkvari) had a price ceiling below 13 tetri per kWh. Observing the electricity balance of Georgia, we see that indeed more than 98% of the electricity generated by TPPs in October 2017 was generated by those two power plants.

What about other potential sources of electricity amid Central Asia's power shortages at the time? To answer this question, we can use the information derived from the weighted average price of balancing electricity. Why balancing electricity? Because it allows us to reconstruct the costs the market operator (ESCO) faced during the month of October to make sure demand and supply were balanced, and it allows us to gain an insight about the price of electricity sold through PPAs.

ESCO reports that the weighted average price of balancing electricity in October 2017 was 13.8 tetri/kWh, (25% higher than in October 2016, when it was below the average weighted cost of imports – 11 vs. 13 – and when the quantity of imported electricity was substantially smaller). Knowing that in October 2017, 61% of balancing electricity came from imports, while 39% came from hydropower and wind power plants selling electricity to ESCO under their PPAs, we can deduce that in this case, internal generation was (on average) also substantially more expensive than imports. Therefore, the high cost of internally generated electricity, rather than the technical impossibility of generating enough electricity to satisfy electricity demand, indeed appears to be one the main reasons why electricity imports spiked in October 2017.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

French Antitrust Fines for Electrical Cartel expose price fixing by Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar, after a Competition Authority probe into electrical distribution, collusion, and compliance breaches impacting market competition and customers.

Key Points

Penalties on Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar for electrical price fixing, upholding competition law.

✅ Competition Authority fined four major suppliers.

✅ Collusion raised prices across construction and industry.

✅ Firms bolster compliance programs and training.

In a significant crackdown on corporate malfeasance, French authorities have imposed hefty fines on four major electrical equipment companies—Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar—after concluding a price-fixing investigation. The total fines amount to approximately €500 million, underscoring the seriousness with which regulators are addressing anti-competitive practices in the electrical distribution sector, even as France advances a new electricity pricing scheme to address EU concerns.

Background of the Investigation

The probe, initiated by France’s Competition Authority, sought to uncover collusion among these leading firms regarding the pricing of electrical equipment and services between 2005 and 2012. This investigation is part of a broader initiative to promote fair competition within the market, as Europe prepares to revamp its electricity market to bolster transparency, ensuring that consumers and businesses alike benefit from competitive pricing and innovative products.

The inquiry revealed that these companies had engaged in illicit agreements to fix prices and coordinate their market strategies, limiting competition in a sector critical to both the economy and infrastructure. The findings indicated that the collusion not only stifled competition but also led to inflated prices for customers, illustrating why rolling back electricity prices is often more complex than it appears for customers across various sectors, from construction to manufacturing.

The Fines Imposed

Following the conclusion of the investigation, the fines levied against the companies were substantial. Schneider Electric faced the largest penalty, receiving a fine of €220 million, while Legrand was fined €150 million. Rexel and Sonepar were each fined €70 million and €50 million, respectively. These financial penalties serve as a deterrent to other companies that might consider engaging in similar practices, reinforcing the message that anti-competitive behavior will not be tolerated.

The fines are particularly significant given the size and influence of these companies within the electrical equipment market. Their combined revenues amount to billions of euros annually, making the repercussions of their actions far-reaching. As major players in the industry, their pricing strategies have a direct impact on numerous sectors, from residential construction to large-scale industrial projects.

Industry Reactions

The response from the affected companies has varied. Schneider Electric expressed its commitment to compliance and transparency, acknowledging the importance of adhering to competition laws, amid ongoing EU electricity reform debates that influence market expectations.

Legrand also emphasized its commitment to fair competition, noting that it has taken steps to enhance its compliance framework in response to the investigation. Rexel and Sonepar similarly reaffirmed their dedication to ethical business practices and their intention to cooperate with regulators in the future.

Industry experts have pointed out that these fines, while significant, may not be enough to deter large corporations from engaging in similar behavior unless accompanied by a broader cultural shift within the industry. There is a growing call for enhanced oversight and stricter penalties to ensure that companies prioritize ethical conduct over short-term profits.

Implications for the Market

The fines imposed on Schneider, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar could have broader implications for the electrical equipment market and beyond. They signal to other companies within the sector that regulatory bodies are vigilant, even as nine EU countries oppose electricity market reforms proposed as fixes for price spikes, and willing to take decisive action against anti-competitive practices. This could foster a more competitive environment, ultimately benefiting consumers through better prices and enhanced product offerings.

Moreover, the case highlights the importance of regulatory bodies in maintaining fair market conditions. As industries evolve, ongoing vigilance from competition authorities will be necessary to prevent similar instances of collusion and ensure that markets remain competitive and innovative, as seen when New York opened a formal review of retail energy markets.

The recent fines imposed on Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar mark a significant moment in France's ongoing battle against corporate price-fixing and anti-competitive practices, occurring as the government and EDF reached a deal on electricity prices to balance market pressures. With total penalties exceeding €500 million, the investigation underscores the commitment of French authorities to uphold market integrity and protect consumer interests.

As the industry reflects on these developments, it remains crucial for companies to prioritize compliance and ethical business practices. The ultimate goal is to create an environment where competition thrives, innovation flourishes, and consumers benefit from fair pricing. This case serves as a reminder that transparency and accountability are vital in maintaining the health of any market, particularly one as essential as the electrical equipment sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Site C Dam Electricity Demand underscores B.C.'s decarbonization path, enabling electrification of EVs, heat pumps, and industry, aligning with BC Hydro forecasts and 2030/2050 GHG targets to supply dependable, renewable baseload power.

Key Points

Projected clean power tied to Site C, driven by B.C. electrification to meet 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas targets.

✅ Aligns with 25-30% by 2030 and 55-70% by 2050 GHG cuts

✅ Supports EVs, heat pumps, and industrial electrification

✅ Provides dependable baseload alongside efficiency gains

There are valid reasons not to build the Site C dam. There are also valid reasons to build it. One of the latter is the rapid increase in clean electricity needed to reduce B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions from burning natural gas, gasoline, diesel and other harmful fossil fuel products.

Although former Premier Christy Clark casually avoided near-term emissions targets, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has set Canadian targets for both 2030 and 2050, and cleaning up Canada's electricity is critical to meeting them. Studies by my research group at Simon Fraser University and other independent analysts show that B.C.’s cost-effective contribution to these national targets requires us to reduce our emissions 25 to 30 per cent by 2030 and 55 to 70 per cent by 2050 — an energy evolution involving, among other things, a much greater use of electricity in buildings, vehicles and industry.

Recent submissions to the Site C hearing have offered widely different estimates of B.C.’s electricity demand in the decade after the project’s completion in 2025, some arguing the dam’s output will be completely surplus to domestic need for years and perhaps decades, even though improved B.C.-Alberta grid links could help balance regional demand. Some of this variation in demand forecasts is understandable. Industrial demand is especially difficult to predict, dependent as it is on global economic conditions and shifting trade relations. And there are legitimate uncertainties about B.C. Hydro’s ability to reduce electricity demand by promoting efficient products and behaviour through its Power Smart program. But some of the forecasts appear to be deliberate exaggerations, designed to support fixed positions for or against Site C.

Our university-based research team models the energy system changes required to meet national and provincial emissions targets, and we have been comparing estimates of the electricity demand implications. These estimates are produced by academics, as well as by key institutions like B.C. Hydro, the National Energy Board, and the governments of Canada and B.C.

Most electricity forecasts for B.C., including the most recent by B.C. Hydro, do not assume that B.C. reduces its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 30 per cent by 2030 and 55 to 70 per cent by 2050. When we adjust Hydro’s forecast for just the low end of these targets, we find that in its latest, August 30, submission to the Site C hearing, which followed the premier’s over-budget go-ahead on the project, Hydro has underestimated the demand for its electricity by about three terawatt-hours in 2025, four in 2030 and 10 in 2035. Hydro’s forecast indicates that it will need the five terawatt-hours from Site C. Our research shows that even if Hydro’s demand forecast is too high, appropriate climate policy nationally and in B.C. will absorb all the electricity the dam can produce soon after its completion.

B.C. Hydro does not forecast electricity demand to 2050. But, studies by us and others show that B.C. electricity demand will be almost double today’s levels if we are to reduce emissions by 55 to 70 per cent, even amid a documented risk of missing the 2050 target, in just over three decades while our population, economy, buildings and equipment grow significantly. Most mid- and small-sized vehicles will be electric. Most buildings will be well insulated and heated by electric resistance or electric heat-pumps, either individually or via district heating systems. And many low temperature industrial applications will be electric.

Aggressive efforts to promote energy efficiency will make an important contribution, such that energy demand will not grow nearly as fast as the economy. But it is delusional to think that humans will stop using energy. Even climate policy scenarios in which we assume unprecedented success with energy efficiency show dramatic increases in the consumption of electricity, this being the most favoured zero-emission form of energy as a replacement for planet-destroying gasoline and natural gas.

The completion of the Site C dam is a complicated and challenging societal choice, and delay-related cost risks highlighted by the premier underscore the stakes. There is unbiased evidence and argument supporting either completion or cancellation. But let’s stick to the unbiased evidence. In the case of our 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets, such evidence shows that we must substantially increase our generation of dependable electricity. If the Site C dam is built, and if we are true to our climate goals, all its electricity will be used in B.C. soon after completion.

Mark Jaccard is a professor of sustainable energy in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Netherlands renewable energy progress highlights rising wind energy and solar power output, delivering 17 billion kWh of green electricity from sustainable sources, yet trailing EU targets, with wind providing 60% and solar 34%.

Key Points

It is the country's growth in green electricity, led by wind and solar, yet short of EU targets at 13.8% of generation.

✅ 17 billion kWh green output; 13.8% of total generation

✅ Wind energy up 16% to 9.6 billion kWh; 60% of green power

✅ Solar power up about 13%; 34% of renewable production

The Netherlands is generating more electricity from sustainable sources as US renewable record 28% in April underscores broader momentum but is still far from reaching its targets, the national statistics office CBS said on Friday.

In total, the Netherlands produced 17 billion kilowatts of green energy last year, a rise of 10% on 2016. Sustainable sources now account for 13.8 per cent of energy generation, even as solar reshapes prices in Northern Europe across the region.

The biggest growth was in wind energy – up 16 per cent to 9.6 billion kWh – or the equivalent of energy for three million households. Wind energy now accounts for 60 per cent of green Dutch power. The amount of solar power, which accounts for 34% of green energy production, rose almost 13 per cent, and Dutch solar outpaces Canada according to recent reports.

In January, European statistics agency Eurostat said the Netherlands is near the bottom of a new table on renewable energy use in Europe. The EU has a target of a fifth of all energy use from green sources by 2020 and – while some countries have reached their own targets, including Germany's 50% clean power milestones – the Dutch, French and Irish need to increase their rates by at least 6%, Eurostat said, and Ireland has set green electricity goals for the next four years to close the gap.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Western Grid Integration aligns CAISO with a regional transmission operator under FERC oversight, boosting renewables, reliability, and cost savings while respecting state energy policy, emissions goals, and utility regulation across the West.

Key Points

Western Grid Integration lets CAISO operate under FERC to cut costs, boost reliability, and accelerate renewables.

✅ Lowers wholesale costs via wider dispatch and resource sharing

✅ Improves reliability with regional balancing and reserves

✅ Preserves state policy authority under FERC oversight

A strong and timely endorsement for western grid integration forcefully rebuts claims that moving from a balkanized system with 38 separate entities to a regional operation could introduce environmental problems, raise costs, or, as critics warn, export California’s energy policies to other western states, or open state energy and climate policies to challenge by federal regulators. In fact, Yale University’s Environmental Protection Clinic identifies numerous economic and environmental benefits from allowing the California Independent System Operator to become a regional grid operator.

The groundbreaking report comprehensively examines the policy and legal merits of allowing the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) to become a regional grid operator, open to any western utility or generator that wants to join, as similar market structure overhauls proceed in New England.

The Yale report identifies the increasing constraints that today’s fragmented western grid imposes on system-wide electricity costs and reliability, addresses the potential benefits of integration, and evaluates  potential legal risks for the states involved. California receives particular attention because its legislature is considering the first step in the grid integration process, which involves authorizing the CAISO to create a fully independent board, even as it examines revamping electricity rates to clean the grid (other western states are unlikely to approve joining an entity whose governance is determined solely by California’s governor and legislature, as is the case now).

Elements of the report

The analysis examined all of California’s key energy and climate policies, from its cap on carbon emissions to its renewable energy goals and its pollution standards for power plants, and concludes that none would face additional legal risks under a fully integrated western grid. The operator of such a grid would be regulated by an independent federal agency (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)—but so is the CAISO itself, now and since its inception, by virtue of its extended involvement in interstate electricity commerce throughout the West. 

And if empowered to serve the entire region, the CAISO would not interfere with the longstanding rights of California and other states to regulate their utilities’ investments or set energy and climate policies. The study points out that grid operators don’t set energy policies for the states they serve; they help those states minimize costs, enhance reliability in the wake of California blackouts across the state, and avoid unnecessary pollution.

And as to whether an integrated grid would help renewable energy or fossil fuels, the report finds that renewable resources would be the inevitable winners, thanks to their lower operating costs, although the most important winners would be western utility customers, through lower bills, expanded retail choice options, and improved reliability.

Call to action

The Yale report concludes with what amounts to a call to action for California’s legislators:

“In sum, enhanced Western grid integration in general, and the emergence of a regional system operator in particular, would not expose California’s clean energy policies to additional legal risks. Shifting to a regional grid operator would enable more efficient, affordable and reliable integration of renewable resources without increasing the legal risk to California’s clean energy policies.”

The authors of the analysis, from the Yale Law School and the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, are Juliana Brint, Josh Constanti, Franz Hochstrasser. and Lucy Kessler. They dedicated months to the project, consulted with a diverse group of reviewers, and made the trek from New Haven to Folsom, CA, to visit the California Independent System Operator and interview key staff members.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Flat sales pressure IOU profits and legacy baseload investments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Falling demand has TVA moving up its planning process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The utility business model is headed for a reckoning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flat or declining demand is going to force the issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News