EU Smart Meters Spur Growth in the Customer Analytics Market

BC Hydro Ice Storm Response to Fraser Valley power outages highlights freezing rain impacts, round the clock crews, infrastructure challenges, and climate change risks across the Lower Mainland during winter weather and restoration efforts.

Key Points

A plan for freezing rain events that prioritizes safety, rapid repairs, and clear communication to restore power.

✅ Prioritizes hazards, critical loads, and public safety first

✅ Deploys crews, contractors, and equipment across affected areas

✅ Addresses climate risks without costly undergrounding expansion

Call it the straw that broke the llama's back.

The loss of power during recent Fraser Valley ice storms meant Jennifer Quick, who lives on a Mission farm, had no running water, couldn't cook with appliances and still had to tend to a daughter sick with stomach flu.

As if that wasn't enough, she had to endure the sight of her shivering llamas.

"I brought them outside at one point and when I brought them back in, they had icicles on their fur," she said, adding the animals stayed in the warmth of their barn from then on.

For three and a half days, Quick and her family were among more than 160,000 BC Hydro customers in the Fraser Valley left in the dark after ice storms whipped through the region.

BC Hydro expects to get all customers back online Tuesday, five days after the storm hit.

And with another storm possibly on the horizon, the utility is defending its response to the treacherous weather, noting that windstorm power outages can be widespread.

BC Hydro spokesperson Mora Scott said the utility has a "best in class" storm response system, similar to PG&E winter storm prep in the U.S.

"In a typical storm situation we normally have 95 per cent of our customers back up within 24 hours. Ice storms are different and obviously this was an atypical storm for us," she said.

Scott said that in this case, the utility got power back on for 75 per cent of customers within 24 hours. It took the work of 450 employees called in from around B.C., working around the clock, a mobilization echoed by Sudbury Hydro crews after a storm, she said.

The work was complicated by trees falling near crews, icy roads, low visibility and even substations so frozen over the ice had to be melted off with blowtorches.

She said that in the long term, BC Hydro has no plans to make changes to how it responds to extreme ice storms or how infrastructure is built.

"Seeing ice build up in the Lower Mainland like this is a rare event," she said. "So to build for extremes like that probably doesn't make a lot of sense."

Climate change will bring storms

But CBC meteorologist Johanna Wagstaffe said that might not always be the case as climate change continues to impact our planet.

"The less severe winter events, like light snowfall, will happen less often," she said. "But the disruptive events — like last week's storm — will actually happen more often and we are already seeing this shift happen."

Marc Eliesen, a former CEO of BC Hydro in the early 1990s, said the utility needs to keep that in mind when planning for worst-case scenarios.

"This [storm] is a condition characteristic of the weather in the east, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, where freezing rain outages in Quebec are more common, which is organized to deal with freezing rain and heavy snow on the lines," he said. "This is a new phenomenon for British Columbia."

Eliesen questions whether BC Hydro has adequate equipment and crew training to deal with ice storms if they become more frequent, pointing to Hydro One storm restoration in Ontario as a comparison.

'Always something we can learn'

Scott disagrees with some of Eliesen's points.

She said some of the crews called in to deal with the recent storm come from northern B.C. and the Interior and have plenty of experience with snow.

"There's always something we can learn in every major storm situation," she said.

The idea of putting power lines underground was raised by some CBC readers and listeners, but Scott said running underground lines is five to 10 times the cost of running lines on pole, so it is done sparingly. Besides, equipment like substations and transmission lines need to be kept aboveground.

Meanwhile, Wagstaffe said that beginning Thursday, wintry weather could return to the Lower Mainland.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Maine Climate Council Act targets 80% renewable power by 2030 and 100% by 2050, slashing greenhouse gas emissions via clean electricity, grid procurement, long-term contracts, wind and hydro integration, resilience planning, and carbon sequestration.

Key Points

A Maine policy forming a Climate Council to reach 80% renewables in 2030 100% in 2050 and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

✅ 80% renewable electricity by 2030; 100% by 2050.

✅ 45% GHG cut by 2030; 80% by 2050.

✅ Utility procurement authority for clean capacity and energy.

The winds of change have shifted and are blowing Northward, as Maine’s Governor, Janet T. Mills, has put forth an act establishing a Climate Council to guide the state’s consumption to 80% renewable electricity in 2030 and 100% by 2050, echoing New York's Green New Deal ambitions underway.

The act, LR 2478 (pdf), also sets a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45% in 2030 and 80% by 2050. The document will be submitted to the state Legislature for consideration.

The commission would have the authority to direct investor owned transmission and distribution utilities to run competitive procurement processes, and enter into long-term contracts for capacity resources, energy resources, renewable energy credit contracts, and participate in regional programs, as these all lead toward the clean electricity and emissions-reducing goals that mirror California's 100% mandate debates today.

The Climate Council would convene industry working groups, including Scientific and Technical, Transportation, Coastal and Marine, Energy, and Building & Infrastructure working groups, plus others as needed, where examples like New Zealand's electricity transition could inform discussions.

Membership within the council would include two members of the State Senate, two members of the House, a tribal representative, many department commissioners (Education, Defense, Transportation, etc.), multiple directors, business representatives, environmental non-profit members, and climate science and resilience representatives as well.

The council would update the Maine State Climate Plan every four years, and solicit input from the public and report out progress on its goals every two years, similar to planning underway in Minnesota's carbon-free plan framework. The first Climate Action Plan would be submitted to the legislature by December 1, 2020.

Specifically, the responsibilities of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee were laid out. The group would be scheduled to meet at least every six months, beginning no later than October 1, 2019. The group would be tasked with reviewing existing scientific literature, including net-zero electricity pathways research, to use it as guidance, recognizing gaps in the state’s knowledge, and guiding outside experts to ascertain this knowledge.  The group would consider ocean acidification, and climate change effects on the state’s species; establish science-based sea-level rise projections for the state’s coastal regions by December 1, 2020; create a climate risk map for flooding and extreme weather events; and consider carbon sequestration via biomass growth.

The state’s largest power plants (above image), generate about 31% from gas, 28% from wood and 41% from hydro+wind. Already, the state has a very clean electricity profile, much like efforts to decarbonize Canada's power sector continue apace. Below, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) notes that 51% of electricity generation within the state comes from mostly wind+hydro, with a small touch from solar power. The state also gets 24% from wood and other biomass, which would lead some to argue that the state is already at 75% “renewable electricity”. The Governor’s document does reference wind power specifically as a renewable, however, no other specific electricity source. And there is much reference to forestry, agriculture, and logging – specifically noting carbon sequestration – but nothing regarding electricity.

The state’s final 25% of electricity mostly comes from natural gas, even as renewable electricity momentum builds across North America, with this author choosing to put “other” under the fossil percentage noted above.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

UK Free Electricity Debate weighs soaring energy prices against market regulation, renewables, and social equity, examining price caps, funding via windfall taxes, grid investment, and consumer protection in the UK's evolving energy policy landscape.

Key Points

A policy dispute over free power, balancing consumer relief with market stability, renewables, and investment.

✅ Pros: relief for households; boosts efficiency and green adoption.

✅ Cons: risks to market signals, quality, and grid investment.

✅ Policy options: price caps, windfall taxes, targeted subsidies.

In recent months, the debate over free electricity in the UK has intensified, revealing a divide within the energy sector. With soaring energy prices and economic pressures impacting consumers, the discussion around providing free electricity has gained traction. However, the idea has sparked significant controversy among industry stakeholders, each with their own perspectives on the feasibility and implications of such a move.

The Context of Rising Energy Costs

The push for free electricity is rooted in the UK’s ongoing energy crisis, exacerbated by geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions, and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. As energy prices reached unprecedented levels, households faced the harsh reality of skyrocketing bills, prompting calls for government intervention to alleviate financial burdens.

Supporters of free electricity argue that it could serve as a vital lifeline for struggling families and businesses. The proposal suggests that by providing a certain amount of electricity for free, the government could help mitigate the effects of rising costs while encouraging energy conservation and efficiency.

Industry Perspectives

However, the notion of free electricity has not been universally embraced within the energy sector. Some industry leaders express concerns about the financial viability of such a scheme. They argue that providing free electricity could undermine the market dynamics that incentivize investment in infrastructure and renewable energy, in a market already exposed to natural gas price volatility today. Critics warn that if energy companies are forced to absorb costs, it could lead to diminished service quality and investment in necessary advancements.

Additionally, there are worries about how free electricity could be funded. Proponents suggest that a tax on energy companies could generate the necessary revenue, but opponents question whether this would stifle innovation and competition. The fear is that placing additional financial burdens on energy providers could ultimately lead to higher prices in the long run.

Renewable Energy and Sustainability

Another aspect of the debate centers around the UK’s commitment to transitioning to renewable energy sources. Supporters of free electricity emphasize that such a policy could encourage more widespread adoption of green technologies by making energy more accessible. They argue that by removing the financial barriers associated with energy costs, households would be more inclined to invest in solar panels, heat pumps, and other sustainable solutions.

On the other hand, skeptics contend that the focus should remain on ensuring a stable and reliable energy supply as the UK moves toward its climate goals. They caution against implementing policies that might disrupt the balance of the energy market, potentially hindering the necessary investments in renewable infrastructure.

Government's Role

As discussions unfold, the government’s role in this debate is crucial. Policymakers must navigate the complex landscape of energy regulation, market dynamics, and consumer needs. The government has already introduced measures aimed at assisting vulnerable households, such as energy price caps and direct financial support. However, the question remains whether these initiatives go far enough in addressing the root causes of the energy crisis.

In this context, the government faces pressure from both consumers demanding relief and industry leaders advocating for market stability, including proposals to end the link between gas and electricity prices to curb price volatility. The challenge lies in finding a middle ground that balances immediate support for households with long-term sustainability and investment in the energy sector.

Future Implications

The ongoing debate about free electricity in the UK underscores broader themes related to energy policy, market regulation, and social equity, with rising electricity prices abroad offering context for comparison. As the country navigates its energy transition, the decisions made today will have far-reaching implications for both consumers and the industry.

If the government chooses to pursue a model that includes free electricity, it will need to carefully consider how to implement such a system without jeopardizing the market. Transparency, stakeholder engagement, and thorough impact assessments will be essential to ensure that any new policies are sustainable and equitable.

Conversely, if the concept of free electricity is ultimately rejected, the focus will likely shift back to addressing energy costs through other means, such as enhancing energy efficiency programs or increasing support for vulnerable populations.

The divide within the UK’s energy industry regarding free electricity highlights the complexities of balancing consumer needs with market stability. As the energy crisis continues to unfold, the conversations surrounding this issue will remain at the forefront of public discourse. Ultimately, finding a solution that addresses the immediate challenges while promoting a sustainable energy future will be key to navigating this critical juncture in the UK’s energy landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Russia-Ukraine Energy Ceasefire explores halting strikes on power plants, safeguarding energy infrastructure and grids, easing humanitarian crises, stabilizing European markets, and advancing diplomatic talks on security, resilience, and critical infrastructure protection.

Key Points

A proposed pact to halt strikes on power plants, protect energy infrastructure, and stabilize grids and security.

✅ Shields power plants and grid infrastructure from attacks

✅ Eases humanitarian strain and improves winter resilience

✅ Supports European energy security and market stability

In a significant diplomatic development amid ongoing conflict, Russia and Ukraine are reportedly exploring the possibility of reaching an agreement to halt attacks on each other’s power plants. This potential cessation of hostilities could have far-reaching implications for the energy security and stability of both nations, as well as for the broader European energy landscape.

The Context of Energy Warfare

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has escalated into what many analysts term "energy warfare," where both sides have targeted each other’s energy infrastructure. Such actions not only aim to undermine the adversary’s military capabilities but also have profound effects on civilian populations, leading to widespread power outages and humanitarian crises. Energy infrastructure has become a focal point in the conflict, with power plants and grids frequently damaged or destroyed.

The ongoing hostilities have raised concerns about energy security in Europe, with some warning of an energy nightmare if disruptions escalate, especially as many countries in the region rely on energy supplies from Russia. The attacks on power facilities exacerbate vulnerabilities in the energy supply chain, prompting calls for a ceasefire that encompasses energy infrastructure.

The Humanitarian Implications

The humanitarian impact of the conflict has been staggering, with millions of civilians affected by power outages, heating shortages, and disrupted access to essential services. The winter months, in particular, pose a grave challenge, as Ukraine prepares for winter amid ongoing energy constraints for vulnerable populations. A potential agreement to cease attacks on power plants could provide much-needed relief and stability for civilians caught in the crossfire.

International organizations, including the United Nations and various humanitarian NGOs, have been vocal in urging both parties to prioritize civilian safety and to protect critical infrastructure. Any agreement reached could facilitate aid efforts and enhance the overall humanitarian situation in affected areas.

Diplomatic Efforts and Negotiations

Reports indicate that diplomatic channels are being utilized to explore this potential agreement. While the specifics of the negotiations remain unclear, the idea of protecting energy infrastructure has been gaining traction among international diplomats. Key players, including European nations and the United States, with debates over U.S. energy security shaping positions, may play a pivotal role in mediating discussions.

Negotiating a ceasefire concerning energy infrastructure could serve as a preliminary step toward broader peace talks. By demonstrating goodwill through a tangible agreement, both parties might foster an environment conducive to further negotiations on other contentious issues in the conflict.

The Broader European Energy Landscape

The ramifications of an agreement between Russia and Ukraine extend beyond their borders. The stability of energy supplies in Europe is inextricably linked to the dynamics of the conflict, and the posture of certain EU states, such as Hungary's energy alliance with Russia, also shapes outcomes across the region. Many European nations have been grappling with rising energy prices and supply uncertainties, particularly in light of reduced gas supplies from Russia.

A halt to attacks on power plants could alleviate some of the strain on energy markets, which have experienced price hikes and instability in recent months, helping to stabilize prices and improve energy security for neighboring countries. Furthermore, it could pave the way for increased cooperation on energy issues, such as joint projects for renewable energy development or grid interconnections.

Future Considerations

While the prospect of an agreement is encouraging, skepticism remains about the willingness of both parties to adhere to such terms. The historical context of mistrust and previous violations of ceasefires, as both sides have accused each other of violations in recent months, raises questions about the durability of any potential pact. Continued dialogue and monitoring by international entities will be essential to ensure compliance and to build confidence between the parties.

Moreover, as discussions progress, it will be crucial to consider the long-term implications for energy policy in both Russia and Ukraine. The conflict has already prompted Ukraine to seek alternative energy sources and reduce its dependence on Russian gas, turning to electricity imports to keep the lights on, while Russia is exploring new markets for its energy exports.

The potential agreement between Russia and Ukraine to stop targeting each other’s power plants represents a glimmer of hope in a protracted conflict characterized by violence and humanitarian suffering. As both nations explore this diplomatic avenue, the implications for energy security, civilian safety, and the broader European energy landscape could be profound. Continued international support and monitoring will be vital to ensure that any agreement reached translates into real-world benefits for affected populations and contributes to a more stable energy future for the region.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Ports Electric Truck Leasing accelerates zero-emission logistics, cutting diesel pollution at Los Angeles and Long Beach. A $250 million nonprofit plan funds heavy-duty EVs and charging infrastructure to improve air quality and community health.

Key Points

A nonprofit's $250M plan to lease EV trucks at LA/Long Beach ports to cut diesel emissions and improve air quality.

✅ $250M lease program for heavy-duty EVs at LA/Long Beach ports

✅ Cuts diesel emissions; improves air quality in nearby communities

✅ Requires robust charging infrastructure and OEM partnerships

In a significant move towards sustainable transportation, a prominent U.S. nonprofit has announced plans to invest $250 million in leasing electric trucks for operations at California ports. This initiative aims to reduce air pollution and promote greener logistics, responding to the urgent need for environmentally friendly solutions in the transportation sector.

Addressing Environmental Concerns

California’s ports, particularly the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, are among the busiest in the United States. However, they also contribute significantly to air pollution due to the heavy reliance on diesel trucks for cargo transport. These ports are essential for the economy, facilitating trade and commerce, but the environmental toll is considerable. Diesel emissions are linked to respiratory issues and other health problems in nearby communities, which often bear the brunt of pollution.

The nonprofit's investment in electric trucks is a critical step towards mitigating these environmental challenges. By transitioning to electric vehicles (EVs), the project aims to significantly cut emissions from port operations, contributing to California's broader goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality.

The Scale of the Initiative

This ambitious initiative involves leasing a fleet of electric trucks that will operate within the ports and surrounding areas. The $250 million investment is expected to facilitate the acquisition of hundreds of electric vehicles, which will replace conventional diesel trucks used for cargo transport. This fleet will help demonstrate the viability and effectiveness of electric trucks in heavy-duty applications, paving the way for broader adoption.

The plan includes partnerships with established electric truck manufacturers, such as the Volvo VNR Electric platform, and local logistics companies to ensure seamless integration of these vehicles into existing operations. By collaborating with industry leaders, the initiative seeks to establish a model that can be replicated in other major logistics hubs across the country.

Economic and Community Benefits

The introduction of electric trucks is expected to yield multiple benefits, not only in terms of environmental impact but also economically. As these trucks begin operations, and as other fleets adopt electric mail trucks, they will create jobs within the green technology sector, from manufacturing to maintenance and charging infrastructure development. The project is anticipated to stimulate local economies, providing new opportunities in communities that have historically been disadvantaged by pollution.

Moreover, the initiative is poised to enhance public health. By reducing diesel emissions, the nonprofit aims to improve air quality for residents living near the ports, and emerging research links EV adoption to fewer asthma-related ER visits in local communities. This could lead to decreased healthcare costs associated with pollution-related illnesses, benefiting both the community and the healthcare system.

Challenges Ahead

While the initiative is promising, challenges remain. The successful implementation of electric trucks at scale requires a robust charging infrastructure capable of supporting the significant power needs of a large fleet. Additionally, the transition from diesel to electric vehicles involves significant upfront costs, even with leasing arrangements. Ensuring that logistics companies can manage these costs effectively will be crucial for the project's success.

Furthermore, electric trucks currently face limitations in terms of range and payload capacity compared to their diesel counterparts. Continued advancements in battery technology and infrastructure development will be necessary to fully realize the potential of electric vehicles in heavy-duty applications.

The Bigger Picture

This investment in electric trucks aligns with broader national and global efforts to combat climate change. As governments and organizations commit to reducing carbon emissions, initiatives like this one represent crucial steps toward achieving sustainability goals, and ports worldwide are also piloting complementary technologies like hydrogen-powered cranes to decarbonize cargo handling.

California has set ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including a mandate for all new trucks to be zero-emission by 2045. The nonprofit’s investment not only supports these goals, amid ongoing debates over funding priorities in the state, but also serves as a pilot program that could inform future policies and investments in clean transportation.

The $250 million investment in electric trucks for California ports marks a significant milestone in the push for sustainable transportation solutions. By addressing the urgent need for cleaner logistics, this initiative stands to benefit the environment, public health, and the economy. As the project unfolds, it will be closely watched as a potential model for similar efforts across the country and beyond, with developments such as the all-electric berth at London Gateway illustrating parallel advances, highlighting the critical intersection of innovation, sustainability, and community well-being in the modern logistics landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

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

Key Points

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

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

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

✅ Balancing price 13.8 tetri/kWh signaled costly domestic PPAs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News