Cyprus can’t delay joining the electricity highway

Texas ERCOT Power Grid leads U.S. wind generation yet faces isolated interconnection, FERC exemption, and high industrial energy use, with distinct electricity and natural gas prices managed by a single balancing authority.

Key Points

The state-run interconnection that balances Texas electricity, isolated from FERC oversight and other U.S. grids.

✅ Largest U.S. wind power producer, high industrial demand

✅ Operates one balancing authority, independent interconnection

✅ Pays lower electricity, higher natural gas vs national average

For nearly two decades, the Lone Star State has generated more wind-sourced electricity than any other state in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Administration, or EIA.

In 2022, EIA reported Texas produced more electricity than any other state and generated twice as much as second-place Florida.

However, Texas also leads the country in another category. According to EIA, Texas is the largest energy-consuming state in the nation across all sectors with more than half of the state’s energy being used by the industrial sector.

As of May 2023, Texas residents paid 43% more for natural gas and around 10% less for electricity compared to the national average, according to EIA, and in competitive areas shopping for electricity is getting cheaper as well. Commercial and industrial sectors on average for the same month paid 25% less for electricity compared to the national average.

U.S. electric system compared to Texas
The U.S. electric system is essentially split into three regions called interconnections and are managed by a total of 74 entities called balancing authorities that ensure that power supply and demand are balanced throughout the region to prevent the possibility of blackouts, according to EIA.

The three regions (Interconnections):

Eastern Interconnection: Covers all U.S. states east of the Rocky Mountains, a portion of northern Texas, and consists of 36 balancing authorities.
Western Interconnection: Covers all U.S. states west of the Rockies and consists of 37 balancing authorities.
ERCOT: Covers the majority of Texas and consists of one balancing authority (itself).

During the 2021 winter storm, Texas electric cooperatives were credited with helping maintain service in many communities.

“ERCOT is unique in that the balancing authority, interconnection, and the regional transmission organization are all the same entity and physical system,” according to EIA, a structure often discussed in analyses of Texas power grid challenges today.

With this being the case, Texas is the only state in the U.S. that balances itself, the only state that is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, and the only state that is not synchronously interconnected to the grid in the rest of the United States in the event of tight grid conditions, highlighting ongoing discussions about improving Texas grid reliability before peak seasons, according to EIA.

Every other state in the U.S. is connected to a web of multiple balancing authorities that contribute to ensuring power supply and demand are met.

California, for example, was the fourth largest electricity producer and the third largest electricity consumer in the nation in 2022, according to EIA, and California imports the most electricity from other states while Pennsylvania exports the most.

Although California produces significantly less electricity than Texas, it has the ability to connect with more than 10 neighboring balancing authorities within the Western Interconnection to interchange electricity, a dynamic that can see clean states importing dirty electricity under certain market conditions. ERCOT being independent only has electricity interchange with two balancing authorities, one of which is in Mexico.

Regardless of Texas’ unique power structure compared to the rest of the nation, the vast majority of the U.S. risked electricity supplies during this summer’s high heat, as outlined in severe heat blackout risks reports, according to EIA.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One Avista merger faces regulatory scrutiny in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, as political risk outweighs defensive utilities fundamentals like stable cash flow, rate base growth, EPS outlook, and a near 5% dividend yield.

Key Points

A planned Hydro One-Avista acquisition awaiting key state approvals amid elevated political and regulatory risk.

✅ Hold rating, $24 price target, 28.1% implied return

✅ EPS forecast: $1.27 in 2018; $1.38 in 2019

✅ Defensive utility: stable cash flow, 4-6% rate base growth

A seemingly positive development for Hydro One is overshadowed by ongoing political and regulatory risk, as seen after the CEO and board ouster, Industrial Alliance Securities analyst Jeremy Rosenfield says.

On October 4, staff from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission filed updated testimony in support of the merger of Hydro One and natural gas distributor Avista, which had previously received U.S. antitrust clearance from federal authorities.

The merger, which was announced in July of 2017 has received the green light from federal and key states, with Washington, Oregon and Idaho being exceptions, though the companies would later seek reconsideration from U.S. regulators in the process.

But Rosenfield says even though decisions from Oregon and Idaho are expected by December, there are still too many unknowns about Hydro One to recommend investors jump into the stock.

Hydro One stock defensive but risky

“We continue to view Hydro One as a fundamentally defensive investment, underpinned by (1) stable earnings and cash flows from its regulated utility businesses (2) healthy organic rate base and earning growth (4-6%/year through 2022) and (3) an attractive dividend (~5% yield, 70-80% target payout),” the analyst says. “In the meantime, and ahead of key regulatory approvals in the AVA transaction, we continue to see heightened political/regulatory risk as an overhand on the stock, outweighing Hydro One’s fundamentals in the near term.”

In a research update to clients today, Rosenfield maintained his “Hold” rating and one year price target of $24.00 on Hydro One, implying a return of 28.1 per cent at the time of publication.

Rosenfield thinks Hydro One will generate EPS of $1.27 per share in fiscal 2018, even though its Q2 profit plunged 23% as electricity revenue fell. He expects that number will improve to EPS of $1.38 a share the following year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric Ireland Electricity Price Increase stems from rising wholesale costs as energy suppliers adjust tariffs. Customers face higher electricity bills, while gas remains unchanged; switching provider could deliver savings during winter.

Key Points

A 4% increase in Electric Ireland electricity prices from 1 Feb 2018, driven by wholesale costs; gas unchanged.

✅ 4% electricity rise effective 1 Feb 2018

✅ Increase attributed to rising wholesale energy costs

✅ Switching supplier may reduce bills and boost savings

ELECTRIC IRELAND has announced that it will increase its household electricity prices by 4% from 1 February 2018.

This comes just a week after both Bord Gáis Energy and SSE Airtricity announced increases in their gas and electricity prices, while national efforts to secure electricity supplies continue in parallel.

Electric Ireland has said that the electricity price increase is unavoidable due to the rising wholesale cost of electricity, with EU electricity prices trending higher as well.

The electricity provider said it has no plans to increase residential gas prices at the moment.

Commenting on the latest announcement, Eoin Clarke, managing director of Switcher.ie, said: “This is the third largest energy supplier to announce a price increase in the last week, so the other suppliers are probably not far behind.

“The fact that the rise is not coming into effect until 1 February will be welcomed by Electric Ireland customers who are worried about the rising cost of energy as winter sets in,” he said.

However, any increase is still bad news, especially as a quarter of consumers (27%) say their energy bill already puts them under financial pressure, and EU energy inflation has disproportionately affected lower-income households.

According to Electric Ireland, this will amount to a €2.91 per month increase for an average electricity customer, amounting to €35 per year.

Meanwhile, SSE Airtricity’s change amounts to an increase of 90 cent per week or €46.80 per year for someone with average consumption on their 24hr SmartSaver standard tariff, far below the dramatic Spain electricity price surge seen recently.

Bord Gáis Energy said its announcement will increase a typical gas bill by €2.12 a month and a typical electricity bill by €4.77 a month, reflecting wider trends such as the Germany power price spike reported recently.

In a statement, Bord Gáis Energy said: “The changes, which will take effect from 1st November 2017, are due to significant increases in the wholesale cost of energy as well as higher costs associated with distributing energy on the gas and electricity networks.

“In percentage terms, the increase represents 3.4% in a typical customer’s gas bill and an increase of 5.9% in a typical customer’s electricity bill.”

Clark said that if customers haven’t switched electricity provider in over a year that they should review the deals available at the moment.

“The market is highly competitive so there are huge savings to be made by switching,” he said.

“All suppliers use the same cables to supply electricity to your home, so you don’t need to worry about any loss in service, and you could save up to 324 by switching from typical standard tariffs to the cheapest deals on the market.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Electricity Price Surge reflects soaring wholesale rates, natural gas spikes, carbon tax pressures, and grid decarbonization challenges amid cold-weather demand, constrained supply, and Europe-style energy crisis impacts across the province.

Key Points

An exceptional jump in Alberta's power costs driven by gas price spikes, high demand, policy costs, and tight supply.

✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December

✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages

✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs

Albertans just endured the highest electricity prices in 21 years. Wholesale prices averaged $123 per megawatt-hour in December, more than triple the level from the previous year and highest for December since 2000.

The situation in Alberta mirrors the energy crisis striking Europe where electricity prices are also surging, largely due to a shocking five-fold increase in natural gas prices in 2021 compared to the prior year.

The situation should give pause to Albertans when they consider aggressive plans to “decarbonize” the electric grid, including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 from some policymakers.

The explanation for skyrocketing energy prices is simple: increased demand (because of Calgary's frigid February demand and a slowly-reviving post-pandemic economy) coupled with constrained supply.

In the nitty gritty details, there are always particular transitory causes, such as disputes with Russian gas companies (in the case of Europe) or plant outages (in the case of Alberta).

But beyond these fleeting factors, there are more permanent systemic constraints on natural gas (and even more so, coal-fired) power plants.

I refer of course to the climate change policies of the Trudeau government at the federal level and some of the more aggressive provincial governments, which have notable implications for electricity grids across Canada.

The most obvious example is the carbon tax, the repeal of which Premier Jason Kenney made a staple of his government.

Putting aside the constitutional issues (on which the Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the federal government could impose a carbon tax on Alberta), the obvious economic impact will be to make carbon-sourced electricity more expensive.

This isn’t a bug or undesired side-effect, it’s the explicit purpose of a carbon tax.

Right now, the federal carbon tax is $40 per tonne, is scheduled to increase to $50 in April, and will ultimately max out at a whopping $170 per tonne in 2030.

Again, the conscious rationale of the tax, aligned with goals for cleaning up Canada's electricity, is to make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive to induce consumers and businesses to use alternative energy sources.

As Albertans experience sticker shock this winter, they should ask themselves — do we want the government intentionally making electricity and heating oil more expensive?

Of course, the proponent of a carbon tax (and other measures designed to shift Canadians away from carbon-based fuels) would respond that it’s a necessary measure in the fight against climate change, and that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA.

Yet the reality is that Canada is a bit player on the world stage when it comes to carbon dioxide, responsible for only 1.5% of global emissions (as of 2018).

As reported at this “climate tracker” website, if we look at the actual policies put in place by governments around the world, they’re collectively on track for the Earth to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, far above the official target codified in the Paris Agreement.

Canadians can’t do much to alter the global temperature, but federal and provincial governments can make energy more expensive if policymakers so choose, and large-scale electrification could be costly—the Canadian Gas Association warns of $1.4 trillion— if pursued rapidly.

As renewable technologies become more reliable and affordable, business and consumers will naturally adopt them; it didn’t take a “manure tax” to force people to use cars rather than horses.

As official policy continues to make electricity more expensive, Albertans should ask if this approach is really worth it, or whether options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap could better balance costs.

Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

VW Germany Plant Closures For EV Shift signal a strategic realignment toward electric vehicles, sustainability, and zero-emission mobility, optimizing manufacturing, cutting ICE capacity, boosting battery production, retraining workers, and aligning with the Accelerate decarbonization strategy.

Key Points

VW is shuttering German plants to cut ICE costs and scale EV output, advancing sustainability and competitiveness.

✅ Streamlines operations; reallocates capital to EV platforms and batteries.

✅ Cuts ICE output, lowers emissions, and boosts clean manufacturing capacity.

✅ Retrains workforce amid closures; invests in software and charging tech.

Volkswagen (VW), one of the world’s largest automakers, is undergoing a significant transformation with the announcement of plant closures in Germany. As reported by The Guardian, this strategic shift is part of VW’s broader move towards prioritizing electric vehicles (EVs) and adapting to the evolving automotive market as EVs reach an inflection point globally. The decision highlights the company’s commitment to sustainability and innovation amid a rapidly changing industry landscape.

Strategic Plant Closures

Volkswagen’s decision to close several of its plants in Germany marks a pivotal moment in the company's history. These closures are part of a broader strategy to streamline operations, reduce costs, and focus on the production of electric vehicles. The move reflects VW’s response to the growing demand for EVs and the need to transition from traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to cleaner, more sustainable alternatives.

The affected plants, which have been key components of VW’s manufacturing network, will cease production as the company reallocates resources and investments towards its electric vehicle programs. This realignment is aimed at improving operational efficiency and ensuring that VW remains competitive in a market that is increasingly oriented towards electric mobility.

A Shift Towards Electric Vehicles

The closures are closely linked to Volkswagen’s strategic shift towards electric vehicles. The automotive industry is undergoing a profound transformation as governments and consumers place greater emphasis on sustainability and reducing carbon emissions. Volkswagen has recognized this shift and is investing heavily in the development and production of EVs as part of its "Accelerate" strategy, anticipating widespread EV adoption within a decade across key markets.

The company’s commitment to electric vehicles is evident in its plans to launch a range of new electric models and increase production capacity for EVs. Volkswagen aims to become a leader in the electric mobility sector by leveraging its technological expertise and scale to drive innovation and expand its EV offerings.

Economic and Environmental Implications

The closure of VW’s German plants carries both economic and environmental implications. Economically, the move will impact the workforce and local economies dependent on these manufacturing sites. Volkswagen has indicated that it will work on providing support and retraining opportunities for affected employees, as the EV aftermarket evolves and reshapes service needs, but the transition will still pose challenges for workers and their communities.

Environmentally, the shift towards electric vehicles represents a significant positive development. Electric vehicles produce zero tailpipe emissions, which aligns with global efforts to combat climate change and reduce air pollution. By focusing on EV production, Volkswagen is contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and supporting the transition to a more sustainable transportation system.

Challenges and Opportunities

While the transition to electric vehicles presents opportunities, it also comes with challenges. Volkswagen will need to manage the complexities of closing and repurposing its existing plants while ramping up production at new or upgraded facilities dedicated to EVs. This transition requires substantial investment in new technologies, infrastructure, and training, including battery supply strategies that influence manufacturing footprints, to ensure a smooth shift from traditional automotive manufacturing.

Additionally, Volkswagen faces competition from other automakers that are also investing heavily in electric vehicles, including Daimler's electrification plan outlining the scope of its transition. To maintain its competitive edge, VW must continue to innovate and offer attractive, high-performance electric models that meet consumer expectations.

Future Outlook

Looking ahead, Volkswagen’s focus on electric vehicles aligns with broader industry trends and regulatory pressures. Governments worldwide are implementing stricter emissions regulations and providing incentives for EV adoption, although Germany's plan to end EV subsidies has sparked debate domestically, creating a favorable environment for companies that are committed to sustainability and clean technology.

Volkswagen’s investment in electric vehicles and its strategic realignment reflect a proactive approach to addressing these trends. The company’s ability to navigate the challenges associated with plant closures and the transition to electric mobility will be critical, especially as Europe's EV slump tests demand signals, in determining its success in the evolving automotive landscape.

Conclusion

Volkswagen’s decision to close several plants in Germany and focus on electric vehicle production represents a significant shift in the company’s strategy. While the closures present challenges, they also highlight Volkswagen’s commitment to sustainability and its response to the growing demand for cleaner transportation solutions. By investing in electric vehicles and adapting its operations, Volkswagen aims to lead the way in the transition to a more sustainable automotive future. As the company moves forward, its ability to effectively manage this transition will be crucial in shaping its role in the global automotive market.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News