Industry looks to green future

US Summer Energy Bills Crisis is driven by record heatwaves, soaring electricity prices, AC cooling demand, energy poverty risks, and LIHEAP relief, straining low-income households, vulnerable seniors, and budgets amid volatile utilities and peak demand.

Key Points

Rising household energy costs from extreme heat, higher electricity prices, and AC demand, straining vulnerable families.

✅ Record heatwaves drive peak electricity and cooling loads

✅ Tiered rates and volatile markets inflate utility bills

✅ LIHEAP aid and cooling centers offer short-term relief

As the sweltering heat of summer continues to grip much of the United States, American households are grappling with a staggering rise in energy bills. The combination of record-breaking temperatures and rising electricity prices is placing an unprecedented financial strain on families, raising concerns about the long-term impact on household budgets and overall well-being.

Record Heat and Energy Consumption

This summer has witnessed some of the hottest temperatures on record across the country. With many regions experiencing prolonged heatwaves, the demand for air conditioning and cooling systems has surged amid unprecedented electricity demand across parts of the U.S. The increased use of these energy-intensive appliances has led to a sharp rise in electricity consumption, which, combined with elevated energy prices, has pushed household energy bills to new heights.

The situation is particularly dire for households that are already struggling financially. Many families are facing energy bills that are not only higher than usual but are reaching levels that are unsustainable, underscoring electricity struggles for thousands of families across the country. This has prompted concerns about the potential for energy poverty, where individuals are forced to make difficult choices between paying for essential services and covering other necessary expenses.

Impact on Low-Income and Vulnerable Households

Low-income households and vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected by these soaring energy costs. For many, the financial burden of high energy bills is compounded by energy insecurity during the pandemic and other economic pressures, such as rising food prices and stagnant wages. The strain of paying for electricity during extreme heat can lead to tough decisions, including cutting back on other essential needs like healthcare or education.

Moreover, the heat itself poses a serious health risk, particularly for the elderly, children, and individuals with pre-existing health conditions. High temperatures can exacerbate conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses, making the need for reliable cooling even more critical. For those struggling to afford adequate cooling, the risk of heat-related illnesses and fatalities increases significantly.

Utilities and Energy Pricing

The sharp rise in energy bills can be attributed to several factors, including higher costs of electricity production and distribution. The ongoing transition to cleaner energy sources, while necessary for long-term environmental sustainability, has introduced short-term volatility in energy markets. Additionally, power-company supply chain crises and increased demand during peak summer months have contributed to higher prices.

Utilities are often criticized for their pricing structures, which can be complex and opaque. Some regions, including areas where California electricity bills soar under scrutiny, use tiered pricing models that charge higher rates as energy consumption increases. This can disproportionately impact households that need to use more energy during extreme heat, further exacerbating financial strain.

Government and Community Response

In response to the crisis, various government and community initiatives are being rolled out to provide relief. Federal and state programs aimed at assisting low-income households with energy costs are being expanded. These programs, such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), offer financial assistance to help with utility bills, but demand often outstrips available resources.

Local community organizations are also stepping in to offer support. Initiatives include distributing fans and portable air conditioners, providing temporary cooling centers, and offering financial assistance to help cover energy costs. These efforts are crucial in helping to mitigate the immediate impact of high energy bills on vulnerable households.

Long-Term Solutions and Sustainability

The current crisis highlights the need for long-term solutions to address both the causes and consequences of high energy costs. Investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies can help reduce the overall demand for electricity and lower long-term costs. Improvements in building insulation, the adoption of energy-efficient appliances, and advancements in smart grid technologies to prevent summer power outages are all essential components of a sustainable energy future.

Furthermore, addressing income inequality and supporting economic stability are critical to ensuring that all households can manage their energy needs without facing financial hardship. Policymakers will need to consider a range of strategies, including financial support programs, regulatory reforms, and infrastructure investments, to create a more equitable and resilient energy system.

Conclusion

As American households endure the double burden of extreme summer heat and skyrocketing energy bills, the need for immediate relief and long-term solutions has never been clearer. The current crisis serves as a reminder of the broader challenges facing the nation’s energy system and the importance of addressing both short-term needs and long-term sustainability. By investing in efficient technologies, supporting vulnerable populations, and developing resilient infrastructure, the U.S. can work towards a future where energy costs are manageable, and everyone has access to the resources they need to stay safe and comfortable.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

OPG Small Modular Reactors advance clean energy with advanced nuclear, baseload power, renewables integration, and grid reliability; factory built, scalable, and cost effective to support Ontario energy security and net zero goals.

Key Points

Factory built nuclear units delivering reliable, low carbon power to support Ontario's grid, renewables, climate goals.

✅ Factory built modules cut costs and shorten schedules

✅ Provides baseload power to balance wind and solar

✅ Enhances grid reliability with advanced safety and waste reduction

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is at the forefront of Canada’s energy transformation, demonstrating a robust commitment to sustainable energy solutions. One of the most promising avenues under exploration is the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), as OPG broke ground on the first SMR at Darlington to launch this next phase. These innovative technologies represent a significant leap forward in the quest for reliable, clean, and cost-effective energy generation, aligning with Ontario’s ambitious climate goals and energy security needs.

Understanding Small Modular Reactors

Small Modular Reactors are advanced nuclear power plants that are designed to be smaller in size and capacity compared to traditional nuclear reactors. Typically generating up to 300 megawatts of electricity, SMRs can be constructed in factories and transported to their installation sites, offering flexibility and scalability that larger reactors do not provide. This modular approach reduces construction time and costs, making them an appealing option for meeting energy demands.

One of the key advantages of SMRs is their ability to provide baseload power—energy that is consistently available—while simultaneously supporting intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar. As Ontario continues to increase its reliance on renewables, SMRs could play a crucial role in ensuring that the energy supply remains stable and secure.

OPG’s Initiative

In its commitment to advancing clean energy technologies, OPG has been a strong advocate for the adoption of SMRs. The province of Ontario has announced plans to develop three additional small modular reactors, part of its plans for four Darlington SMRs that would further enhance the region’s energy portfolio. This initiative aligns with both provincial and federal climate objectives, and reflects a collaborative provincial push on nuclear innovation to accelerate clean energy.

The deployment of SMRs in Ontario is particularly strategic, given the province’s existing nuclear infrastructure, including the continued operation of Pickering NGS that supports grid reliability. OPG operates a significant portion of Ontario’s nuclear fleet, and leveraging this existing expertise can facilitate the integration of SMRs into the energy mix. By building on established operational frameworks, OPG can ensure that new reactors are deployed safely and efficiently.

Economic and Environmental Benefits

The introduction of SMRs is expected to bring substantial economic benefits to Ontario. The construction and operation of these reactors will create jobs, including work associated with the Pickering B refurbishment across the province, stimulate local economies, and foster innovation in nuclear technology. Additionally, SMRs have the potential to attract investment from both domestic and international stakeholders, positioning Ontario as a leader in advanced nuclear technology.

From an environmental perspective, SMRs are designed with enhanced safety features and lower waste production compared to traditional reactors, complementing life-extension measures at Pickering that bolster system reliability. They can significantly contribute to Ontario’s goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. By providing a reliable source of clean energy, SMRs will help mitigate the impacts of climate change while supporting the province's transition to a sustainable energy future.

Community Engagement and Collaboration

Recognizing the importance of community acceptance and stakeholder engagement, OPG is committed to an open dialogue with local communities and Indigenous groups. This collaboration is essential to addressing concerns and ensuring that the deployment of SMRs is aligned with the values and priorities of the residents of Ontario. By fostering a transparent process, OPG aims to build trust and support for this innovative energy solution.

Moreover, the development of SMRs will involve partnerships with various stakeholders, including government agencies, research institutions, and private industry, such as the OPG-TVA partnership to advance new nuclear technology. These collaborations will not only enhance the technical aspects of SMR deployment but also ensure that Ontario can capitalize on shared expertise and resources.

Looking Ahead

As Ontario Power Generation moves forward with plans for three additional Small Modular Reactors, the province stands at a critical juncture in its energy evolution. The integration of SMRs into Ontario’s energy landscape promises a sustainable, reliable, and economically viable solution to meet growing energy demands while addressing climate change challenges.

With the support of government initiatives, community collaboration, and continued innovation in nuclear technology, Ontario is poised to become a leader in the advancement of Small Modular Reactors. The successful implementation of these projects could serve as a model for other jurisdictions seeking to transition to cleaner energy sources, highlighting the role of nuclear power in a balanced and sustainable energy future.

In conclusion, OPG's commitment to developing Small Modular Reactors not only reinforces Ontario’s energy security but also demonstrates a proactive approach to addressing the pressing challenges of climate change and environmental sustainability. The future of energy in Ontario looks promising, driven by innovation and a commitment to clean energy solutions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Clean Power Plan Rollback signals EPA's shift to inside-the-fence efficiency at coal plants, emphasizing heat-rate improvements over sector-wide decarbonization, renewables, natural gas switching, demand-side efficiency, and carbon capture under Clean Air Act constraints.

Key Points

A policy shift by the EPA to replace broad emissions rules with plant-level efficiency standards, limiting CO2 cuts.

✅ Inside-the-fence heat-rate improvements at coal units

✅ Potential CO2 cuts limited to about 6% per plant

✅ Alternatives: fuel switching, renewables, carbon capture

President Barack Obama’s signature plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical generation took years to develop and touched every aspect of power production and use, from smokestacks to home insulation.

The Trump administration is moving to scrap that plan and has signaled that any alternative it might adopt would take a much less expansive approach, possibly just telling utilities to operate their plants more efficiently.

That’s a strategy environmentalists say is almost certain to fall short of what’s needed.

The Trump administration is making "a wholesale retreat from EPA’s legal, scientific and moral obligation to address the threats of climate change," said former Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy, the architect of Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

President Donald Trump promised to rip up the initiative, echoing an end to the 'war on coal' message from his campaign, which mandated that states change their overall power mix, displacing coal-fired electricity with that from wind, solar and natural gas. The EPA is about to make it official, arguing the prior administration violated the Clean Air Act by requiring those broad changes to the electricity sector, according to a draft obtained by Bloomberg.

Possible Replacements

Later, the agency will also ask the public to weigh in on possible replacements. The administration will ask whether the EPA can or should develop a replacement rule -- and, if so, what actions can be mandated at individual power plants, though some policymakers favor a clean electricity standard to drive broader decarbonization.

Follow the Trump Administration’s Every Move

Such changes -- such as adding automation or replacing worn turbine seals -- would yield at most a 6 percent gain in efficiency, along with a corresponding fall in greenhouse gas emissions, according to earlier modeling by the Environmental Protection Agency and other analysts. That compares to the 32 percent drop in emissions by 2030 under Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

"In these existing plants, there’s only so many places to look for savings," said John Larsen, a director of the Rhodium Group, a research firm. "There’s only so many opportunities within a big spinning machine like that."

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt outlined such an "inside-the-fence-line" approach in 2014, later embodied in the Affordable Clean Energy rule that industry groups backed, when he served as Oklahoma’s attorney general. Under his blueprint, states would set emissions standards after a detailed unit-by-unit analysis, looking at what reductions are possible given "the engineering limits of each facility."

The EPA has not decided whether it will promulgate a new rule at all, though it has also proposed new pollution limits for coal and gas plants in separate actions. In a forthcoming advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA will ask "what inside-the-fence-line options are legal, feasible and appropriate," according to a document obtained by Bloomberg.

Increased efficiency at a coal plant -- known as heat-rate improvement -- translates into fewer carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of electric power generated.

Under Obama, the EPA envisioned utilities would make some straightforward efficiency improvements at coal-fired power plants as the first step to comply with the Clean Power Plan. But that was expected to coincide with bigger, broader changes -- such as using more cleaner-burning natural gas, adding more renewable power projects and simply encouraging customers to do a better job turning down their thermostats and turning off their lights.

Obama’s EPA didn’t ask utilities to wring every ounce of efficiency they could out of coal-fired power plants because they saw the other options as cheaper. A plant-specific approach "would be grossly insufficient to address the public health and environmental impacts from CO2 emissions," Obama’s EPA said.

That approach might yield modest emissions reductions and, in a perverse twist, might event have the opposite effect. If utilities make coal plants more efficient -- thereby driving down operating costs -- they also make them more competitive with natural gas and renewables, "so they might run more and pollute more," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force.  

In a competitive market, any improvement in emissions produced for each unit of energy could be overwhelmed by an increase in electrical output, and debates over changes to electricity pricing under Trump and Perry added further uncertainty.

"A very minor heat rate improvement program would very likely result in increased emissions," Schneider said. "It might be worse than nothing."

Power companies want to get as much electricity as possible from every pound of coal, so they already have an incentive to keep efficiency high, said Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant EPA administrator now at Bracewell LLP. But an EPA regulation known as “new source review” has discouraged some from making those changes, for fear of triggering other pollution-control requirements, he said.

"If EPA’s replacement rule allows companies to improve efficiency without triggering new source review, it would make a real difference in terms of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions," Holmstead said.

Modest Impact

A plant-specific approach doesn’t have to mean modest impact.

"If you’re thinking about what can be done at the power plants by themselves, you don’t stop at efficiency tune-ups," said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean air program. "You look at things like switching to natural gas or installing carbon capture and storage."

Requirements that facilities use carbon capture technology or swap in natural gas for coal could actually come close to hitting the same goals as in Obama’s Clean Power Plan -- if not go even further, Schneider said. They just would cost more.

The benefit of the Clean Power Plan "is that it enabled states to create programs and enabled companies to find a reduction strategy that was the most efficient and made the most sense for their own content," said Kathryn Zyla, deputy director of the Georgetown Climate Center. "And that flexibility was really important for the states and companies."

Some utilities, including Houston-based Calpine Corp., PG&E Corp. and Dominion Resources Inc., backed the Obama-era approach. And they are still pushing the Trump administration to be creative now.

"The Clean Power Plan achieved a thoughtful, balanced approach that gave companies and states considerable flexibility on how best to pursue that goal," said Melissa Lavinson, vice president of federal affairs and policy for PG&E’s Pacific Gas and Electric utility. “We look forward to working with the administration to devise an alternative plan for decarbonizing the U.S. economy."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nuclear Energy Growth accelerates as nations pursue decarbonization, complement renewables, displace coal, and ensure grid reliability with firm, low-carbon baseload, benefiting from standardized builds, lower cost of capital, and learning-curve cost reductions.

Key Points

Expansion of nuclear capacity to cut CO2, complement renewables, replace coal, and stabilize grids at low-carbon cost.

✅ Complements renewables; displaces coal for faster decarbonization

✅ Cuts system costs via standardization and lower cost of capital

✅ Provides firm, low-carbon baseload and grid reliability

By Kirill Komarov, Chairman, World Nuclear Association.

As Europe and the wider world begins to wake up to the need to cut emissions, Dr Kirill Komarov argues that tackling climate change will see the use of nuclear energy grow in the coming years, not as a competitor to renewables but as a competitor to coal.

The nuclear industry keeps making headlines and spurring debates on energy policy, including the green industrial revolution agenda in several countries. With each new build project, the detractors of nuclear power crowd the bandwagon to portray renewables as an easy and cheap alternative to ‘increasingly costly’ nuclear: if solar and wind are virtually free why bother splitting atoms?

Yet, paradoxically as it may seem, if we are serious about policy response to climate change, nuclear energy is seeing an atomic energy resurgence in the coming decade or two.

Growth has already started to pick up with about 3.1 GW new capacity added in the first half of 2018 in Russia and China while, at the very least, 4GW more to be completed by the end of the year – more than doubling the capacity additions in 2017.

In 2019 new connections to the grid would exceed 10GW by a significant margin.

If nuclear is in decline, why then do China, India, Russia and other countries keep building nuclear power plants?

To begin with, the issue of cost, argued by those opposed to nuclear, is in fact largely a bogus one, which does not make a fully rounded like for like comparison.

It is true that the latest generation reactors, especially those under construction in the US and Western Europe, have encountered significant construction delays and cost overruns.

But the main, and often the only, reason for that is the ‘first-of-a-kind’ nature of those projects.

If you build something for the first time, be it nuclear, wind or solar, it is expensive. Experience shows that with series build, standardised construction economies of scale and the learning curve from multiple projects, costs come down by around one-third; and this is exactly what is already happening in some parts of the world.

Furthermore, those first-of-a-kind projects were forced to be financed 100% privately and investors had to bear all political risks. It sent the cost of capital soaring, increasing at one stroke the final electricity price by about one third.

While, according to the International Energy Agency, at 3% cost of capital rate, nuclear is the cheapest source of energy: on average 1% increase adds about US$6-7 per MWh to the final price.

When it comes to solar and wind, the truth, inconvenient for those cherishing the fantasy of a world relying 100% on renewables, is that the ‘plummeting prices’ (which, by the way, haven’t changed much over the last three years, reaching a plateau) do not factor in so-called system and balancing costs associated with the need to smooth the intermittency of renewables.

Put simply, the fact the sun doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t blow all the time means wind and solar generation needs to be backed up.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, integration of intermittent renewables into the grid is estimated in some cases to be as expensive as power generation itself.

Delivering the highest possible renewable content means customers’ bills will have to cover: renewable generation costs, energy storage solutions, major grid updates and interconnections investment, as well as gas or coal peaking power plants or ‘peakers’, which work only from time to time when needed to back up wind and solar.

The expected cost for kWh for peakers, according to investment bank Lazard is about twice that of conventional power plants due to much lower capacity factors.

Despite exceptionally low fossil fuel prices, peaking natural gas generation had an eye-watering cost of $156-210 per MWh in 2017 while electricity storage, replacing ‘peakers’, would imply an extra cost of $186-413 per MWh.

Burning fossil fuels is cheaper but comes with a great deal of environmental concern and extensive use of coal would make net-zero emissions targets all but unattainable.

So, contrary to some claims, nuclear does not compete with renewables. Moreover, a recent study by the MIT Energy Initiative showed, most convincingly, that renewables and load following advanced nuclear are complementary.

Nuclear competes with coal. Phasing out coal is crucial to fighting climate change. Putting off decisions to build new nuclear capacities while increasing the share of intermittent renewables makes coal indispensable and extends its life.

Scientists at the Brattle group, a consultancy, argue that “since CO2 emissions persist for many years in the atmosphere, near-term emission reductions are more helpful for climate protection than later ones”.

The longer we hesitate with new nuclear build the more difficult it becomes to save the Earth.

Nuclear power accounta for about one-tenth of global electricity production, but as much as one-third of generation from low-carbon sources. 1GWe of installed nuclear capacity prevents emissions of 4-7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year, depending on the region.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in order to limit the average global temperature increase to 2°C and still meet global power demand, we need to connect to the grid at least 20GW of new nuclear energy each year.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) sets the target even higher with the total of 1,000 GWe by 2050, or about 10 GWe per year before 2020; 25 GWe per year from 2021 to 2025; and on average 33 GWe from 2026 to 2050.

Regulatory and political challenges in the West have made life for nuclear businesses in the US and in Europe's nuclear sector very difficult, driving many of them to the edge of insolvency; but in the rest of the world nuclear energy is thriving.

Nuclear vendors and utilities post healthy profits and invest heavily in next-gen nuclear innovation and expansion. The BRICS countries are leading the way, taking over the initiative in the global climate agenda. From their perspective, it’s the opposite of decline.

Dr Kirill Komarov is first deputy CEO of Russian state nuclear energy operator Rosatom and chairman of the World Nuclear Association.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Toyota and Honda Moving e delivers hydrogen backup power via a fuel cell bus, portable batteries, and power exporters for disaster relief, emergency electricity, and grid outage support near charging stations and microgrids.

Key Points

A hydrogen mobile power system using a fuel cell bus and batteries to supply emergency electricity during disasters.

✅ Fuel cell bus outputs up to 18 kW, 454 kWh capacity

✅ Portable batteries and power exporter deliver site power

✅ Supports disaster relief near hydrogen charging stations

Without the uninterrupted supply of power and electricity, modern economies would be unable to function. A blackout can impact everything from transport to health care, communication, and even water supplies, as seen in a near-blackout in Japan that strained the grid. It is one of the key security concerns for every government on earth, a point underscored by Fatih Birol on electricity options during the pandemic, and the growth in the market for backup power reflects that fact. In 2018, the global Backup Power market was $14.9 billion and is expected to reach $22 billion by the end of 2025, growing at a CAGR of 5.0 percent between 2019 and 2025.

It is against this backdrop that Toyota and Honda have come up with a new and innovative solution to providing electricity during disasters. The two transport giants have launched a mobile power generation system that consists of a fuel cell bus that can carry a large amount of hydrogen, aligned with Japan's hydrogen energy system efforts underway, portable external power output devices, and portable batteries to disaster zones. The system, which is called ‘Moving e’ includes Toyota’s charging station fuel cell bus, Honda’s power exporter 9000 portable external power output device, two types of Honda’s portable batteries, and a Honda Mobile Power Pack Charge & Supply Concept charger/discharger for MPP. 

In simple terms, the bus would drive to a disaster zone, and while other approaches such as gravity energy storage are advancing, the portable batteries and power output devices would be used to extract electricity from the fuel cell bus and provide it wherever it is needed. The bus itself can generate 454kWh and has a maximum output of 18kW. That is more than enough energy to supply electricity for large indoor areas such as an evacuation area. The bus is also fitted with space for people to nap or rest during a disaster.

The two companies plan to test the effectiveness of the Moving e at multiple municipalities and businesses. These locations will have to be within 100km of a hydrogen station that is capable of refueling the bus. If the bus has to drive 200km, then its electricity supply to the disaster zone would drop from 490kwh to 240kWh. While there aren’t currently enough hydrogen stations to make this a realistic scenario for all disaster zones, especially as countries push for hydrogen-ready power plants in Germany and related infrastructure, hydrogen is growing increasingly competitive with gasoline and diesel.

While gas generators are still considered more reliable and generally cheaper than backup batteries for home use, cleaner backup power is growing increasingly popular, and novel storage like power-to-gas in Europe is also advancing across grids. This latest development by Toyota and Honda is another step forward for the battery and fuel cell industry, with initiatives like PEM hydrogen R&D in China accelerating progress, – especially considering the meteoric rise of hydrogen energy in recent years.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Newfoundland and Labrador electricity rate hike examines a proposed 18.6% increase under the PUB's Rate Stabilization Plan, driven by oil prices at Holyrood, with Consumer Advocate concerns over rate shock and use of RSP balances.

Key Points

A proposed 18.6% July 2017 increase under the RSP, driven by oil prices, now under PUB review for potential mitigation.

✅ PUB flags potential rate shock from proposed adjustment

✅ RSP balances cited to offset increases without depleting fund

✅ Oil-fired Holyrood volatility drives fuel cost uncertainty

How much of a rate hike is reasonable for users of electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador?

That's a question before the Public Utilities Board (PUB) as it examines an application by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which could see consumers pay up to 18.6 per cent more as of July 1, reflecting regional pressures seen in Nova Scotia, where regulators approved a 14% rate hike earlier this year.

"The estimated rate increase for July 2017 is such a significant increase that it may be argued that it would cause rate shock," said the PUB, asking the company to revise its application.

NL Hydro said the price adjustment is part of what happens every year through the Rate Stabilization Plan (RSP), which is used to offset the ups and downs of oil prices.

"The cost of fuel is volatile and as long as we rely on oil-fired generation at Holyrood, customers will continue to be impacted by this electricity price uncertainty," said the company in a statement to CBC News.

It noted that customers received a break from RSP adjustments in 2015 and 2016, even as costs from the Muskrat Falls project begin to be reflected.

The PUB noted that under the rate stabilization plan, prices have gone up or down by about 10 per cent in the past.

The regulatory board said the impact of the latest request would be a 27.6 per cent hike to Newfoundland Power, with "an estimated average end customer impact of 18.6 per cent."

Hydro's estimates are based on an average price for oil of $81.40 per barrel from July 2017 to June 2018, according to the PUB.

'Unacceptable' burden: Consumer Advocate

"To burden ratepayers with an 18 per cent rate increase is unacceptable," said Consumer Advocate Dennis Browne, echoing pushback in Nova Scotia, where the premier urged regulators to reject a 14% hike at the time.

Browne is arguing that there is money in the RSP to reduce the proposed increase, including the possibility of a lump-sum bill credit for customers.

"These ratepayer balances — which, according to NL Power, totals $77.4 million — are not the property of Hydro," he wrote in a letter to the PUB.

"No utility has the right to squirrel away ratepayers' money to be used by that utility for some future purpose. The Board has jurisdiction over those balances," Browne said.

Browne also wants the RSP overhauled so that it can be applied to price fluctuations every quarter, as opposed to annually.

Hydro has expressed concern that depleting the rate stabilization fund would lead to other, more significant, rate increases in the future.

It said several alternatives to mitigate high rates have been provided to the PUB, which has final say, similar to how Manitoba Hydro scaled back a planned increase in the next year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News