German Energy Demand Hits Historic Low Amid Economic Stagnation

Hydro One Bill Redesign Spending sparks debate over Ontario Energy Board regulation, rate applications, privatization, and digital billing upgrades, as surveys cite confusing invoices under the Fair Hydro Plan for residential, commercial, and industrial customers.

Key Points

$15M project to simplify Hydro One bills, upgrade systems, and improve digital billing for commercial customers.

✅ $9M spent; $6M proposed for C&I and large-account changes.

✅ OEB to rule amid rate application and privatization scrutiny.

✅ Survey: 40% of customers struggled to understand bills.

Ontario's largest and recently privatized electricity utility has spent $9-million to redesign bills and is proposing to spend an additional $6-million on the project.

Hydro One has come under fire for spending since the Liberal government sold more than half of the company, notably for its CEO's $4.5-million pay.

Now, the NDP is raising concerns with the $15-million bill redesign expense contained in a rate application from the formerly public utility.

"I don't think the problem we face is a bill that people can't understand, I think the problem is rates that are too high," said energy critic Peter Tabuns. "Fifteen million dollars seems awfully expensive to me."

But Hydro One says a 2016 survey of its customers indicated about 40 per cent had trouble understanding their bills.

Ferio Pugliese, the company's executive vice-president of customer care and corporate affairs, said the redesign was aimed at giving customers a simpler bill.

"The new format is a format that when tested and put in front of our customers has been designed to give customers the four or five salient items they want to see on their bill," he said.

About $9-million has already gone into redesigning bills, mostly for residential customers, Pugliese said. Cosmetic changes to bills account for about 25 per cent of the cost, with the rest of the money going toward updating information systems and improving digital billing platforms, he said.

The additional $6-million Hydro One is looking to spend would go toward bill changes mostly for its commercial, industrial and large distribution account customers.

Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault noted in a statement that the Ontario Energy Board has yet to decide on the expense, but he suggested he sees the bill redesign as necessary alongside legislation to lower electricity rates introduced by the province.

"With Ontarians wanting clearer bills that are easier to understand, Hydro One's bill redesign project is a necessary improvement that will help customers," he wrote.

"Reductions from the Fair Hydro Plan (the government's 25 per cent cut to bills last year) are important information for both households and businesses, and it's our job to provide clear, helpful answers whenever possible."

The OEB recently ordered Hydro One to lower a rate increase it had been seeking for this year to 0.2 per cent down from 4.8 per cent.

The regulator also rejected a Hydro One proposal to give shareholders all of the tax savings generated by the IPO in 2015 when the Liberal government first began partially privatizing the utility. The OEB instead mandated shareholders receive 62 per cent of the savings while ratepayers receive the remaining 38 per cent.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Vancouver October 2024 Windstorm brought extreme weather to British Columbia, causing power outages, storm damage, and downed lines as BC Hydro crews led emergency response and restoration, highlighting climate change resilience and community preparedness.

Key Points

A severe storm with 100 km/h gusts that caused outages and damage in Vancouver, prompting wide power restoration.

✅ 100 km/h gusts toppled trees and downed power lines

✅ Over 200,000 BC Hydro customers lost electricity

✅ Crews and communities coordinated emergency response

In October 2024, a powerful windstorm swept through the Vancouver area, resulting in widespread power outages and disruption across the region. The storm, characterized by fierce winds and heavy rainfall, reflected conditions seen when strong winds in the Miami Valley knocked out power earlier this year, and was part of a larger weather pattern that affected much of British Columbia. Residents braced for the impacts, with local authorities and utility companies preparing for the worst.

The Storm's Impact

The windstorm hit Vancouver with wind gusts exceeding 100 km/h, toppling trees, and downing power lines. As the storm progressed, reports of damaged properties and fallen trees began to flood in. Many neighborhoods experienced significant power outages, mirroring widespread outages in Quebec earlier in the season, with thousands of residents left without electricity for extended periods. The areas hardest hit included the West End, Kitsilano, and parts of the North Shore, where the impact of the storm was particularly severe.

Utility companies, including BC Hydro operations, mobilized their crews quickly in response to the storm's aftermath. Emergency response teams worked tirelessly to restore power, often facing challenging conditions. The restoration efforts were complicated by the sheer number of outages reported—over 200,000 customers were affected at the height of the storm. Crews encountered not only downed lines but also hazardous conditions as they navigated through debris-laden streets.

Community Response and Resilience

In the wake of the storm, the community showcased remarkable resilience. Local residents rallied together to assist one another, sharing resources and providing support to those most affected. Many community centers opened their doors as emergency shelters, offering warmth and safety to those without power, a step also taken when a London power outage disrupted mornings for thousands across the city.

Authorities also emphasized the importance of preparedness in such situations. They urged residents to have emergency kits ready, including food, water, and essential supplies, noting that nearby areas like North Seattle can face sudden outages with little warning. Local officials highlighted the value of staying informed through weather updates and alerts, allowing residents to make informed decisions during extreme weather events.

The Role of Climate Change

The October windstorm serves as a stark reminder of the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, a trend often linked to climate change. Experts have noted that rising global temperatures are contributing to more severe weather patterns, including stronger storms and increased Toronto flooding events. As cities like Vancouver face the reality of climate change, discussions about infrastructure resilience and adaptation strategies have gained urgency.

City planners and environmental advocates are pushing for initiatives that enhance the city's ability to withstand extreme weather. This includes improving stormwater management systems, increasing green spaces to absorb rainfall, and investing in renewable energy sources. By addressing these challenges proactively, Vancouver aims to mitigate the impacts of future storms and protect its residents.

Moving Forward

As recovery efforts continue, the focus now shifts to restoring normalcy and preparing for future weather events. Residents are encouraged to report any ongoing outages or hazards to local authorities and to stay updated through reliable news sources. BC Hydro and other utility companies are committed to transparency, providing regular updates on power restoration efforts, even as outages can persist for days as seen in Toronto after a spring storm.

The October 2024 windstorm will be remembered not only for its immediate impacts but also as a catalyst for discussions on resilience and community preparedness. As Vancouver looks ahead, the lessons learned from this storm will shape strategies for better handling extreme weather, ensuring that the city is equipped to face the challenges posed by a changing climate.

In conclusion, while the windstorm caused significant disruption and hardship for many, it also highlighted the strength of community spirit and the importance of proactive planning in the face of climate challenges. Vancouver's response and recovery will be crucial in building a more resilient future for all its residents.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Flat sales pressure IOU profits and legacy baseload investments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Falling demand has TVA moving up its planning process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The utility business model is headed for a reckoning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flat or declining demand is going to force the issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Manitoba Hydro rate hikes face public hearings over electricity rates, utility bills, and debt, with impacts on low-income households, Indigenous communities, and Winnipeg services amid credit rating pressure and rising energy costs.

Key Points

Manitoba Hydro seeks 7.9% annual increases to stabilize finances and debt, impacting electricity costs for households.

✅ Proposed hikes: 7.9% yearly through 2023/24

✅ Driven by debt, credit rating declines, rising interest

✅ Disproportionate impact on low-income and Indigenous communities

Hearings began Monday into Manitoba Hydro’s request for consecutive annual rate hikes of 7.9 per cent.  The crown corporation is asking for the steep hikes to commence April 1, 2018.

The increases would continue through 2023/2024, under a multi-year rate plan before dropping to what Hydro calls “sustainable” levels.

Patti Ramage, legal counsel for Hydro, said while she understands no one welcomes the “exceptional” rate increases, the company is dealing with exceptional circumstances.

It’s the largest rate increase Hydro has ever asked for, though a scaled-back increase was discussed later, saying rising debt and declining credit ratings are affecting its financial stability.

President and CEO Kelvin Shepherd said Hydro is borrowing money to fund its interest payments, and acknowledged that isn’t an effective business model.

Hydro’s application states that it will be spending up to 63 per cent of its revenue on paying financial expenses if the current request for rate hikes is not approved.

If it does get the increase it wants, that number could shrink to 45 per cent – which Ramage says is still quite high, but preferable to the alternative.

She cited the need to take immediate action to fix Hydro’s finances instead of simply hoping for the best.

“The worst thing we can do is defer action… that’s why we need to get this right,” Ramage said.

A number of intervenors presented varying responses to Hydro’s push for increased rates, with many focusing on how the hikes would affect Manitobans with lower incomes.

Senwung Luk spoke on behalf of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, and said the proposed rates would hit First Nations reserves particularly hard.

He noted that 44.2 per cent of housing on reserves in the province needs significant improvement, which means electricity use tends to be higher to compensate for the lower quality of infrastructure.

Luk says this problem is compounded by the higher rates of poverty in Indigenous populations, with 76 per cent of children on reserves in Manitoba living below the poverty line.

If the increase goes forward, he said the AMC hopes to see a reduced rate for those living on reserves, despite a recent appeal court ruling on such pricing.

Byron Williams, speaking on behalf of the Consumers Coalition, said the 7.9 per cent increase unreasonably favours the interests of Hydro, and is unjustly biased against virtually everyone else.

In Saskatchewan, the NDP criticized an SaskPower 8 per cent rate hike as unfair to customers, highlighting regional concerns.

Williams said customers using electric space heating would be more heavily targeted by the rate increase, facing an extra $13.14 a month as opposed to the $6.88 that would be tacked onto the bills of those not using electric space heating.

Williams also called Hydro’s financial forecasts unreliable, bringing the 7.9 per cent figure into question.

Lawyer George Orle, speaking for the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, said the proposed rate hikes would “make a mockery” of the sacrifices made by First Nations across the province, given that so much of Hydro’s infrastructure is on Indigenous land.

The city of Winnipeg also spoke out against the jump, saying property taxes could rise or services could be cut if the hikes go ahead to compensate for increased, unsustainable electricity costs.

In British Columbia, a BC Hydro 3 per cent increase also moved forward, drawing attention to affordability.

A common theme at the hearing was that Hydro’s request was not backed by facts, and that it was heading towards fear-mongering.

Manitoba Hydro’s CEO begged to differ as he plead his case during the first hearing of a process that is expected to take 10 weeks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

FERC Rejects Trump Coal Plan, denying subsidies for coal-fired and nuclear plants as energy policy shifts toward natural gas and renewables, citing no grid reliability threat and warning about electricity prices and market impacts.

Key Points

FERC unanimously rejected subsidies for coal and nuclear plants, finding no grid reliability risk from retirements.

✅ Unanimous FERC vote rejects coal and nuclear compensation

✅ Cites no threat to grid reliability from plant retirements

✅ Opponents warned subsidies would distort power markets and prices

A decision by an independent energy agency to reject the Trump administration’s electricity pricing plan to bolster the coal industry could lead to more closures of coal-fired power plants and the loss of thousands of jobs, a top coal executive said Tuesday.

Robert Murray, CEO of Ohio-based Murray Energy Corp., called the action by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission “a bureaucratic cop-out” that will raise the cost of electricity and jeopardize the reliability and security of the nation’s electric grid.

“While FERC commissioners sit on their hands and refuse to take the action directed by Energy Secretary Rick Perry and President Donald Trump, the decommissioning of more coal-fired and nuclear plants could result, further jeopardizing the reliability, resiliency and security of America’s electric power grids,” Murray said. “It will also raise the cost of electricity for all Americans.”

The five-member energy commission voted unanimously Monday to reject Trump’s plan to reward nuclear and coal-fired power plants for adding reliability to the nation’s power grid. The plan would have made the plants eligible for billions of dollars in government subsidies and help reverse a tide of bankruptcies and loss of market share suffered by the once-dominant coal industry as utilities' shift to natural gas and renewable energy continues.

The Republican-controlled commission said there’s no evidence that any past or planned retirements of coal-fired power plants pose a threat to reliability of the nation’s electric grid.

Murray disputed that and said the recent cold snap that hit the East Coast showed coal’s value, as power users in the Southeast were asked to cut back on electricity usage because of a shortage of natural gas. “If it were not for the electricity generated by our nation’s coal-fired and nuclear power plants, we would be experiencing massive brownouts risk and blackouts in this country,” he said.

Murray Energy is the largest privately owned coal company in the United States, with mining operations in Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Utah and West Virginia. Robert Murray, a Trump friend and political supporter, has been pushing hard for federal assistance for his industry. The Associated Press reported last year that Murray asked the Trump administration to issue an emergency order protecting coal-fired power plants from closing. Murray warned that failure to act could cause thousands of coal miners to be laid off and force his largest customer, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Solutions, into bankruptcy.

Perry ultimately rejected Murray’s request, but later asked energy regulators to boost coal and nuclear plants as the administration moved to replace the Clean Power Plan with a more limited approach.

The plan drew widespread opposition from business and environmental groups that frequently disagree with each other, even as some coal and business interests backed the EPA's Affordable Clean Energy rule in court.

Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, said Tuesday that the Trump plan was “far too narrow” in its focus on power sources that maintain a 90-day fuel supply.

API, the largest lobbying group for oil and gas industry, supports coal and other energy sources, Gerard said, “but we should not put our eggs in an individual basket defined as a 90-day fuel supply (while) unnecessarily intervening in private markets.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News