Energy crisis: EU outlines possible gas price cap strategies

Shenao Power Plant Controversy intensifies as the EPA, Taipower, and New Taipei officials clash over EIA findings, a marine conservation area, fisheries, public health risks, and protests against a coal-fired plant in Rueifang.

Key Points

Dispute over coal plant EIA, marine overlap, and health risks, pitting EPA and Taipower against New Taipei and residents.

✅ EPA approved EIA changes; city cites marine conservation conflict

✅ Rueifang residents protest; 400+ signatures, wardens oppose

✅ Debate centers on fisheries, public health, and coal plant impacts

The controversy over the Shenao Power Plant heated up yesterday as Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) and New Taipei City Government officials quibbled over the project’s potential impact on a fisheries conservation area and other issues, mirroring New Hampshire hydropower clashes seen elsewhere.

State-run Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) wants to build a coal-fired plant on the site of the old Shenao plant, which was near Rueifang District’s (瑞芳) Shenao Harbor.

The company’s original plan to build a new plant on the site passed an environmental impact assessment (EIA) in 2006, similar to how NEPA rules function in the US, and the EPA on March 14 approved the firm’s environmental impact difference analysis report covering proposed changes to the project.

#google#

That decision triggered widespread controversy and protests by local residents, environmental groups and lawmakers, echoing enforcement disputes such as renewable energy pollution cases reported in Maryland.

The controversy reached a new peak after New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu on Tuesday last week posted on Facebook that construction of wave breakers for the project would overlap with a marine conservation area that was established in November 2014.

The EPA and Taipower chose to ignore the demarcation lines of the conservation area, Chu wrote.

Dozens of residents from Rueifang and other New Taipei City districts yesterday launched a protest at 9am in front of the Legislative Yuan in Taipei, amid debates similar to the Maine power line proposal in the US, where the Health, Environment and Labor Committee was scheduled to review government reports on the project.

More than 400 Rueifang residents have signed a petition against the project, including 17 of the district’s 34 borough wardens, Anti-Shenao Plant Self-Help Group director Chen Chih-chiang said.

Ruifang residents have limited access to information, and many only became aware of the construction project after the EPA’s March 14 decision attracted widespread media coverage, Chen said,

Most residents do not support the project, despite Taipower’s claims to the contrary, Chen said.

New Power Party Executive Chairman Huang Kuo-chang, who represents Rueifang and adjacent districts, said the EPA has shown an “arrogance of power” by neglecting the potential impact on public health and the local ecology of a new coal-fired power plant, even as it moves to revise coal wastewater limits elsewhere.

Huang urged residents in Taipei, Keelung, Taoyaun and Yilan County to reject the project.

If the New Taipei City Government was really concerned about the marine conservation area, it should have spoken up at earlier EIA meetings, rather than criticizing the EIA decision after it was passed, Environmental Protection Administration Deputy Minister Chan Shun-kuei told lawmakers at yesterday’s meeting.

Chan said he wondered if Chu was using the Shenao project for political gain.

However, New Taipei City Environmental Protection Department specialist Sun Chung-wei  told lawmakers that the Fisheries Agency and other experts voiced concerns about the conservation area during the first EIA committee meeting on the proposed changes to the Shenao project on June 15 last year.

Sun was invited to speak to the legislative committee by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Arthur Chen.

While the New Taipei City Fisheries and Fishing Port Affairs Management Office did not present a “new” opinion during later EIA committee meetings, that did not mean it agreed to the project, Sun said.

However, Chan said that Sun was using a fallacious argument and trying to evade responsibility, as the conservation area had been demarcated by the city government.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Pickering Nuclear Closure will shift supply to natural gas, raising emissions as the electricity grid manages nuclear refurbishment, IESO planning, clean power imports, and new wind, solar, and storage to support electrification.

Key Points

Ontario will close Pickering and rely on natural gas, increasing emissions while other nuclear units are refurbished.

✅ 14% of Ontario electricity supplied by Pickering now

✅ Natural gas use rises; grid emissions projected up 375%

✅ IESO warns gas phaseout by 2030 risks blackouts, costs

The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall with natural gas-generated power in a move that will, as an analysis of Ontario's grid shows, hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions substantially in the coming years.

In a report released this week, a nuclear advocacy group urged Ontario to refurbish the aging facility east of Toronto, which is set to be shuttered in phases in 2024 and 2025, prompting debate over a clean energy plan after Pickering as the closure nears. The closure of Pickering, which provides 14 per cent of the province’s annual electricity supply, comes at the same time as Ontario’s other two nuclear stations are undergoing refurbishment and operating at reduced capacity.

Canadians for Nuclear Energy, which is largely funded by power workers' unions, argued closing the 50-year-old facility will result in job losses, emissions increases, heightened reliance on imported natural gas and an electricity supply gap across Ontario.

But Palmer Lockridge, spokesperson for the provincial energy minister, said further extending Pickering’s lifespan isn’t on the table.

“As previously announced in 2020, our government is supporting Ontario Power Generation’s plan to safely extend the life of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station through the end of 2025,” said Lockridge in an emailed response to questions.

“Going forward, we are ensuring a reliable, affordable and clean electricity system for decades to come. That’s why we put a plan in place that ensures we are prepared for the emerging energy needs following the closure of Pickering, and as a result of our government’s success in growing and electrifying the province’s economy.”

The Progressive Conservative government under Premier Doug Ford has invested heavily in electrification, sinking billions into electric vehicle and battery manufacturing and industries like steel-making to retool plants to run on electricity rather than coal, and exploring new large-scale nuclear plants to bolster baseload supply.

Natural gas now provides about seven per cent of the province’s energy, a piece of the pie that will rise significantly as nuclear energy dwindles. Emissions from Ontario’s electricity grid, which is currently one of the world’s cleanest with 94 per cent zero-emission power generation, are projected to rise a whopping 375 per cent as the province turns increasingly to natural gas generation. Those increases will effectively undo a third of the hard-won emissions reductions the province achieved by phasing out coal-fired power generation.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which manages Ontario’s grid, studied whether the province could phase out natural gas generation by 2030 and concluded that “would result in blackouts and hinder electrification” and increase average residential electricity costs by $100 per month.

The Ontario Clean Air Alliance, however, obtained draft documents from the electricity operator that showed it had studied, but not released publicly, other scenarios that involved phasing out natural gas without energy shortfalls, price hikes or increases in emissions.

The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall facing Ontario with natural gas-generated power in a move that will hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions.

One model suggested increasing carbon taxes and imports of clean energy from other provinces could keep blackouts, costs and emissions at bay, while another involved increasing energy efficiency, wind generation and storage.

“By banning gas-fired electricity exports to the U.S., importing all the Quebec water power we can with the existing transmission lines and investing in energy efficiency and wind and solar and storage — do all those things and you can phase out gas-fired power and lower our bills,” said Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

The IESO has argued in response that the study of those scenarios was not complete and did not include many of the challenges associated with phasing out natural gas plants.

Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith asked the IESO to develop “an achievable pathway to zero-emissions in the electricity sector and evaluate a moratorium on new-build natural gas generation stations,” said his spokesperson. That report, an early look at halting gas power, is expected in November.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

British Columbia electricity rate increase will raise BC Hydro bills 3.75% over 2025-2026 to fund infrastructure, Site C, and clean energy, balancing affordability, reliability, and energy security while keeping prices below the North American average.

Key Points

BC will raise BC Hydro rates 3.75% in 2025-2026, about $3.75/month, to fund grid upgrades, Site C, and clean energy.

✅ 3.75% over 2025-2026; about $3.75/month on $100 average bill

✅ Funds Site C, grid maintenance, and clean energy capacity

✅ Keeps BC Hydro rates below North American averages

British Columbia's electricity rates will experience a 3.75% increase over the next two years, following an earlier 3% rate increase approval that set the stage, as confirmed by the provincial government on March 17, 2025. The announcement was made by Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, Adrian Dix, who emphasized the decision's necessity for maintaining BC Hydro’s infrastructure while balancing affordability for residents.

For most households, the increase will amount to an additional $3.75 per month, based on an average BC Hydro bill of $100, though some coverage framed an earlier phase as a BC Hydro $2/month proposal that later evolved. While this may seem modest, the increase reflects a broader strategy to stabilize the utility's rates amidst economic challenges and ensure long-term energy security for the province.

Reasons Behind the Rate Hike

The rate increase comes during a period of rising costs in both global markets and local economies. According to Dix, the economic uncertainty stemming from trade dynamics and inflation has forced the government to act. Despite these pressures, and after a prior B.C. rate freeze to moderate impacts, the increase remains below cumulative inflation over the last several years, a move designed to shield consumers from the full force of these economic changes.

Dix also noted that, when adjusted for inflation, electricity rates in British Columbia in 2025 are effectively at the same price they were four decades ago. This stability, he argued, underscores the provincial government’s commitment to keeping rates as low as possible for residents, even as operating costs rise.

“We must take urgent action to protect British Columbians from the uncertainty posed by rising costs while building a strong, resilient electricity system for the long-term benefit of B.C.’s energy independence,” Dix said. He also highlighted the government's approach to minimizing the financial burden on consumers by keeping electricity costs well below the North American average.

Infrastructure and Maintenance Costs

The primary justification for the rate increase is to allow BC Hydro to continue its critical infrastructure development, including the Site C hydroelectric project, which is expected to become operational in the coming years. The increased costs of maintaining and upgrading the province's electricity grid also contribute to the need for higher rates.

The Site C project, a massive hydroelectric dam under construction on the Peace River, is expected to provide a substantial increase in clean, renewable energy capacity. However, such large-scale projects require significant investment and maintenance, both of which have contributed to the increased operating costs for BC Hydro.

A Strategic Move for Rate Stability

The provincial government has been clear that the rate increase will allow for a continuation of infrastructure development while keeping the rates manageable for consumers. The 3.75% increase will be spread across two years, with the first hike scheduled for April 1, 2025, reflecting the typical April rate changes BC Hydro implements, and the second for April 1, 2026.

Dix confirmed that the rate hike would still keep electricity costs among the lowest in North America, noting that British Columbians pay about half of what residents in Alberta pay for electricity. This is part of a broader effort by the provincial government to provide stable energy pricing while bolstering the transition to clean energy solutions, such as the Site C project and other renewable energy initiatives.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although the government has framed the increase as a necessary measure to ensure the province's long-term energy independence and reliability, the rate hikes are likely to face scrutiny from residents, particularly those already struggling with the rising cost of living, even as provinces like Ontario face their own Ontario hydro rate increase pressures this fall.

Public reactions to utility rate increases are often contentious, as residents feel the pressure of rising prices across various sectors, from housing to healthcare. However, the government has promised that the new rates will remain manageable, especially considering the relatively low rate increases compared to inflation and other regions where Manitoba Hydro scaled back a planned increase to temper impacts.

Furthermore, the increase comes as part of a broader strategy that aims to keep the overall impact on consumers as low as possible. Minister Dix emphasized that these rate increases were intended to ensure the continued reliability of BC Hydro’s services, without overwhelming ratepayers.

Long-Term Goals

Looking ahead, the province's strategy centers on not only maintaining affordable electricity rates but also reinforcing the importance of renewable energy, while some jurisdictions consider a 2.5% annual increase plan over multiple years to stabilize their grids. As climate change becomes an increasingly pressing issue, BC’s investments in clean energy projects like Site C aim to provide sustainable power for generations to come.

The government’s long-term vision involves building a resilient, energy-independent province that can weather future economic and environmental challenges. In this context, the rate increases are framed not just as a response to immediate inflationary pressures but as a necessary step in preparing BC’s energy infrastructure for the future.

The 3.75% rate increase set for 2025 and 2026 represents a balancing act between managing the financial health of BC Hydro and protecting consumers from higher costs. While the increase will have a modest effect on household bills, the long-term goal is to build a more robust and sustainable electricity system for British Columbia’s future. Through investments in clean energy and strategic infrastructure development, the province aims to keep electricity rates competitive while positioning itself as a leader in energy independence and climate action.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project faces NEB certificate review, with public hearings, Indigenous consultation, and cross-border approval weighing permit vs certificate timelines, potential land expropriation, and Hydro's 2020 in-service date for the 308-MW intertie.

Key Points

A cross-border hydro line linking Manitoba and Minnesota, now under NEB review through a permit or certificate process.

✅ NEB recommends certificate with public hearings and cabinet approval

✅ Stakeholders cite land, health, and economic impacts along route

✅ Hydro targets May-June 2020 in-service despite review

A recommendation from the National Energy Board could push back the construction start date of a $453-million hydroelectric transmission line from Manitoba to Minnesota.

In a letter to federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, the regulatory agency recommends using a "certificate" approval process, which could take more time than the simpler "permit" process Manitoba Hydro favours.

The certificate process involves public hearings, reflecting First Nations intervention seen in other power-line debates, to weigh the merits of the project, which would then go to the federal cabinet for approval.

The NEB says this process would allow for more procedural flexibility and "address Aboriginal concerns that may arise in the circumstances of this process."

The Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project would provide the final link in a chain that brings hydroelectricity from generating stations in northern Manitoba, through the Bipole III transmission line and, like the New England Clean Power Link project, across the U.S. border as part of a 308-megawatt deal with the Green Bay-based Wisconsin Public Service.

When Hydro filed its application in December 2016, it had expected to have approval by the end of August 2017 and to begin construction on the line in mid-December, in order to have the line in operation by May or June 2020.  

Groups representing stakeholders along the proposed route of the transmission line had mixed reactions to the energy board's recommendation.

A lawyer representing a coalition of more than 120 landowners in the Rural Municipality of Taché and around La Broquerie, Man., welcomed the opportunity to have a more "fulsome" discussion about the project.

"I think it's a positive step. As people become more familiar with the project, the deficiencies with it become more obvious," said Kevin Toyne, who represents the Southeast Stakeholders Coalition.

Toyne said some coalition members are worried that Hydro will forcibly expropriate land in order to build the line, while others are worried about potential economic and health impacts of having the line so close to their homes. They have proposed moving the line farther east.

When the Clean Environment Commission — an arm's-length provincial government agency — held public hearings on the proposed route earlier this year, the coalition brought their concerns forward, echoing Site C opposition voiced by northerners, but Toyne says both the commission and Hydro ignored them.

Hydro still aiming for 2020 in-service date

The Manitoba Métis Federation also participated in those public hearings. MMF president David Chartrand worries about the impact a possible delay, as seen with the Site C work halt tied to treaty rights, could have on revenue from sales of hydroelectric power to the U.S.

"I know that a lot of money, billions have been invested on this line. And if the connection line is not done, then of course this will be sitting here, not gaining any revenue, which will affect every Métis in this province, given our Hydro bill's going to go up," Chartrand said.The NEB letter to Minister Carr requests that he "determine this matter in an expedited manner."

Manitoba Hydro spokesperson Bruce Owen said in an email that the Crown corporation will participate in whatever process, permit or certificate, the NEB takes.

"Manitoba Hydro does not have any information at this point in time that would change the estimated in-service date (May-June 2020) for the Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project," he said.

The federal government "is currently reviewing the NEB's recommendation to designate the project as subject to a certificate, which would result in public hearings," said Alexandre Deslongchamps, a spokesperson for Carr.

"Under the National Energy Board Act, an international power line requires either the approval by the NEB through a permit or approval by the Government of Canada by a certificate. Both must be issued by the NEB," he wrote in an email to CBC News.

By law, the certificate process is not to take longer than 15 months.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Columbia River Treaty Negotiations involve Canada-U.S. talks on B.C. dams, flood control, hydropower sharing, and downstream benefits, prioritizing ecosystem health, First Nations rights, and salmon restoration while balancing affordable electricity for northwest consumers.

Key Points

Talks to update flood control, hydropower, and ecosystem terms for fair benefits to B.C. and U.S. communities.

✅ Public consultations across B.C.'s Columbia Basin

✅ First Nations priorities include salmon restoration

✅ U.S. seeks cheaper power; B.C. defends downstream benefits

With talks underway between Canada and the U.S. on the future of the Columbia River Treaty, the B.C. New Democrats have launched public consultations in the region most affected by the high-stakes negotiation.

“We want to ensure Columbia basin communities are consulted, kept informed and have their voices heard,” said provincial cabinet minister Katrine Conroy via a press release announcing meetings this month in Castlegar, Golden, Revelstoke, Nakusp, Nelson and other communities.

As well as having cabinet responsibility for the talks, Conroy’s Kootenay West riding includes several places that were inundated under the terms of the 1964 flood control and power generation treaty.

“We will continue to work closely with First Nations affected by the treaty, to ensure Indigenous interests are reflected in the negotiations,” she added by way of consolation to Indigenous people who’ve been excluded from the negotiating teams on both sides of the border.

#google#

The stakes are also significant for the province as a whole. The basics of the treaty saw B.C. build dams to store water on this side of the border, easing the flood risk in the U.S. and allowing the flow to be evened out through the year. In exchange, B.C. was entitled to a share of the additional hydro power that could be generated in dams on the U.S. side.

B.C.’s sale of those downstream benefits to the U.S has poured almost $1.4 billion into provincial coffers over the past 10 years, albeit at a declining rate these days amid scrutiny from a regulator report on BC Hydro that raised concerns, because of depressed prices for cross-border electricity sales.

Politicians on the U.S. side have long sought to reopen the treaty, believing there was now a case for reducing B.C.’s entitlement.

They did not get across the threshold under President Barack Obama.

Then, last fall his successor Donald Trump served notice of intent, initiating the formal negotiations that commenced with a two day session last week in Washington, D.C. The next round is set for mid-August in B.C.

American objectives in the talks include “continued, careful management of flood risk; ensuring a reliable and economical power supply; and better addressing ecosystem concerns,” with recognition of recent BC Hydro demand declines during the pandemic.

“Economical power supply,” being a diplomatic euphemism for “cheaper electricity for consumers in the northwest states,” achievable by clawing back most of B.C.’s treaty entitlement.

On taking office last summer, the NDP inherited a 14-point statement of principles setting out B.C. hopes for negotiations to “continue the treaty” while “seeking improvements within the existing framework” of the 54-year-old agreement.

The New Democrats have endorsed those principles in a spirit of bipartisanship, even as Manitoba Hydro governance disputes play out elsewhere in Canada.

“Those principles were developed with consultation from throughout the region,” as Conroy advised the legislature this spring. “So I was involved, as well, in the process and knew what the issues were, right as they would come up.”

The New Democrats did chose to put additional emphasis on some concerns.

“There is an increase in discussion with Canada and First Nations on the return of salmon to the river,” she advised the house, recalling how construction of the enormous Grand Coulee Dam on the U.S. side in the 1930s wiped out salmon runs on the upper Columbia River.

“There was no consideration then for how incredibly important salmon was, especially to the First Nations people in our region. We have an advisory table that is made up of Indigenous representation from our region, and also we are discussing with Canada that we need to see if there’s feasibility here.”

As to feasibility, the obstacles to salmon migration in the upper reaches of the Columbia include the 168-metre high Grand Coulee and the 72-metre Chief Joseph dams on the U.S. side, plus the Keenleyside (52 metres), Revelstoke (175 metres) and Mica (240 metres) dams on the Canadian side.

Still, says Conroy “the First Nations from Canada and the tribes from the United States, have been working on scientific and technical documents and research to see if, first of all, the salmon can come up, how they can come up, and what the things are that have to be done to ensure that happens.”

The New Democrats also put more emphasis on preserving the ecosystem, aligning with clean-energy efforts with First Nations that support regional sustainability.

“I know that certainly didn’t happen in 1964, but that is something that’s very much on the minds of people in the Columbia basin,” said Conroy. “If we are going to tweak the treaty, what can we do to make sure the voices of the basin are heard and that things that were under no consideration in the ’60s are now a topic for consideration?”

With those new considerations, there’s still the status quo concern of preserving the downstream benefits as a trade off for the flooding and other impacts on this side of the border.

The B.C. position on that score is the same under the New Democrats as it was under the Liberals, despite a B.C. auditor general report on deferred BC Hydro costs.

“The level of benefits to B.C., which is currently solely in the form of the (electricity) entitlement, does not account for the full range of benefits in the U.S. or the impacts in B.C.,” says the statement of principle.

“All downstream U.S. benefits such as flood risk management, hydropower, ecosystems, water supply (including municipal, industrial and agricultural uses), recreation, navigation and other related benefits should be accounted for and such value created should be shared equitably between the two countries.”

No surprise if the Americans do not see it the same way.  But that is a topic for another day.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News