A gold rush in green technology

Power-to-gas converts surplus renewable electricity into green hydrogen or synthetic methane via electrolysis and methanation, enabling seasonal energy storage, grid balancing, hydrogen injection into gas pipelines, and decarbonization of heat, transport, and industry.

Key Points

Power-to-gas turns excess renewable power into hydrogen or methane for storage, grid support, and clean fuel.

✅ Enables hydrogen injection into existing natural gas networks

✅ Balances grids and provides seasonal energy storage capacity

✅ Supplies low-carbon fuels for industry, heat, and heavy transport

Last month Denmark’s biggest energy firm, Ørsted, said wind farms it is proposing for the North Sea will convert some of their excess power into gas. Electricity flowing in from offshore will feed on-shore electrolysis plants that split water to produce clean-burning hydrogen, with oxygen as a by-product. That would supply a new set of customers who need energy, but not as electricity. And it would take some strain off of Europe’s power grid as it grapples with an ever-increasing share of hard-to-handle EU wind and solar output on the grid.

Turning clean electricity into energetic gases such as hydrogen or methane is an old idea that is making a comeback as renewable power generation surges and crowds out gas in Europe. That is because gases can be stockpiled within the natural gas distribution system to cover times of weak winds and sunlight. They can also provide concentrated energy to replace fossil fuels for vehicles and industries. Although many U.S. energy experts argue that this “power-to-gas” vision may be prohibitively expensive, some of Europe’s biggest industrial firms are buying in to the idea.

European power equipment manufacturers, anticipating a wave of renewable hydrogen projects such as Ørsted’s, vowed in January that, as countries push for hydrogen-ready power plants across Europe, all of their gas-fired turbines will be certified by next year to run on up to 20 percent hydrogen, which burns faster than methane-rich natural gas. The natural gas distributors, meanwhile, have said they will use hydrogen to help them fully de-carbonize Europe’s gas supplies by 2050.

Converting power to gas is picking up steam in Europe because the region has more consistent and aggressive climate policies and evolving electricity pricing frameworks that support integration. Most U.S. states have goals to clean up some fraction of their electricity supply; coal- and gas-fired plants contribute a little more than a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, European countries are counting on carbon reductions of 80 percent or more by midcentury—reductions that will require an economywide switch to low-carbon energy.

Cleaning up energy by stripping the carbon out of fossil fuels is costly. So is building massive new grid infrastructure, including transmission lines and huge batteries, amid persistent grid expansion woes in parts of Europe. Power-to-gas may be the cheapest way forward, complementing Germany’s net-zero roadmap to cut electricity costs by a third. “In order to reach the targets for climate protection, we need even more renewable energy. Green hydrogen is perceived as one of the most promising ways to make the energy transition happen,” says Armin Schnettler, head of energy and electronics research at Munich-based electric equipment giant Siemens.

Europe already has more than 45 demonstration projects to improve power-to-gas technologies and their integration with power grids and gas networks. The principal focus has been to make the electrolyzers that convert electricity to hydrogen more efficient, longer-lasting and cheaper to produce.

The projects are also scaling up the various technologies. Early installations converted a few hundred kilowatts of electricity, but manufacturers such as Siemens are now building equipment that can convert 10 megawatts, which would yield enough hydrogen each year to heat around 3,000 homes or fuel 100 buses, according to financial consultancy Ernst & Young.

The improvements have been most dramatic for proton-exchange membrane electrolyzers, which are akin to the fuel cells used in hydrogen vehicles (but optimized to produce hydrogen rather than consume it). The price of proton-exchange electrolyzers has dropped by roughly 40 percent during the past decade, according to a study published in February in Nature Energy. They are also five times more compact than older alkaline electrolysis plants, enabling onsite hydrogen production near gas consumers, and they can vary their power consumption within seconds to operate on fluctuating wind and solar generation.

Many European pilot projects are demonstrating “methanation” equipment that converts hydrogen to methane, too, which can be used as a drop-in replacement for natural gas. Europe’s electrolyzer plants, however, are showing that methanation is not as critical to the power-to-gas vision as advocates long believed. Many electrolyzers are injecting their hydrogen directly into natural gas pipelines—something that U.S. gas firms forbid—and they are doing so without impacting either the gas infrastructure or natural gas consumers.

Europe’s first large-scale hydrogen injection began in eastern Germany in 2013 at a two-megawatt electrolyzer installed by Essen-based power firm E.ON. Germany has since ratcheted up the amount of hydrogen it allows in natural gas lines from an initial 2 percent by volume to 10 percent, in a market where renewables now outpace coal and nuclear in Germany, and other European states have followed suit with their own hydrogen allowances. Christopher Hebling, head of hydrogen technologies at the Freiburg-based Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, predicts that such limits will rise to the 20-percent level anticipated by Europe’s turbine manufacturers.

Moving renewable hydrogen and methane via natural gas pipelines promises to cut the cost of switching to renewable energy. For example, gas networks have storage caverns whose reserves could be tapped to run gas-fired electric generation power plants during periods of low wind and solar output. Hebling notes that Germany’s gas network can store 240 terawatt-hours of energy—roughly 25 times more energy than global power grids can presently store by pumping water uphill to refill hydropower reservoirs. Repurposing gas infrastructure to help the power system could save European consumers 138 billion euros ($156 billion) by 2050, according to Dutch energy consultancy Navigant (formerly Ecofys).

For all the pilot plants and promise, renewable hydrogen presently supplies a tiny fraction of Europe’s gas. And, globally, around 4 percent of hydrogen is supplied via electrolysis, with the bulk refined from fossil fuels, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency.

Power-to-gas is catching up, however. According to the February Nature Energy study, renewable hydrogen already pays for itself in some niche applications, and further electrolyzer improvements will progressively extend its market. “If costs continue to decline as they have done in recent years, power-to-gas will become competitive at large scale within the next decade,” says study co-author Gunther Glenk, an economist at the Technical University of Munich.

Glenk says power-to-gas could scale up faster if governments guaranteed premium prices for renewable hydrogen and methane, as they did to mainstream solar and wind power.

Tim Calver, an energy storage researcher turned consultant and Ernst & Young’s executive director in London, agrees that European governments need to step up their support for power-to-gas projects and markets. Calver calls the scale of funding to date, “not proportionate to the challenge that we face on long-term decarbonization and the potential role of hydrogen.”

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

Ontario EV Battery Storage ROI leverages V2B, V2G, two-way charging, demand response, and second-life batteries to monetize peak pricing, cut GHG emissions, and unlock up to $38,000 in lifetime value for commuters and buildings.

Key Points

The economic return from V2B/V2G two-way charging and second-life storage using EV batteries within Ontario's grid.

✅ Monetize peak pricing via workplace V2B discharging

✅ Earn up to $8,400 per EV over vehicle life

✅ Reduce gas generation and GHGs with demand response

The payback that usually comes to mind when people buy an electric vehicle is to drive an emissions-free, low-maintenance, better-performing mode of transportation.

On top of that, you can now add $38,000.

That, according to a new report from Ontario electric vehicle education and advocacy nonprofit, Plug‘n Drive, is the potential lifetime return for an electric car driven as a commuter vehicle while also being used as an electricity storage option amid an energy storage crunch in Ontario’s electricity system.

“EVs contain large batteries that store electric energy,” says the report. “Besides driving the car, [those] batteries have two other potentially useful applications: mobile storage via vehicle-to-grid while they are installed in the vehicle, and second-life storage after the vehicle batteries are retired.”

Pricing and demand differentials
The study, prepared by the research firm Strategic Policy Economics, modeled a two-stage scenario calculating the total benefits from both mobile and second-life storage when taking advantage of differences in daytime and nighttime electricity pricing and demand.

If done systematically and at scale, the combined benefits to EV owners, building operators and the electricity system in Ontario could reach $129 million per year by 2035, according to the report. Along with the financial gains, the province would also cut GHG emissions by up to 67.2 kilotons annually.

The math might sound complicated, but the concepts are simple. All it requires is for drivers to charge their batteries with low-cost electricity overnight at home, then plug them into two-way EV charging stations at work and discharge their stored electricity for use by the building by day when buying power from the grid is more expensive.

“Workplace buildings could avoid high daytime prices by purchasing electricity from EVs parked onsite and enjoy savings as a result,” says the report.

Based on average commuting distances, EVs in this scenario could make half their storage capacity available for discharge. Drivers would be paid out of the building’s savings, effectively selling electricity back to the grid and earning up to $8,400 over the life of their vehicle.

According to the report, Ontario could have as many as 18,555 vehicles participating in mobile storage by 2030. At this level, the daily electricity demand would be reduced by 565 MWh. This, in turn, would reduce demand for natural gas-fired electricity generation, a fossil-fuel electricity source, avoiding the expense of gas purchases while reducing GHG emissions.

The second-life storage opportunity begins when the vehicle lifespan ends. “EV batteries will still have over 80% of their storage capacity after being driven for 13 years and providing mobile storage,” the report states. “Those-second life batteries could provide a low-cost energy storage solution for the electricity grid and enhance grid stability over time.”

Some of the savings could be shared with EV owners in the form of a rebate worth up to 20 per cent of the batteries’ initial cost.

Call to action
The report concludes with a call to action for EV advocates to press policy makers and other stakeholders to take actions on building codes, the federal Clean Fuel Standard and other business models in order to maximize the benefits of using EV batteries for the electricity system in this way, even as growing adoption could challenge power grids in some regions.

“EVs are often approached as an environmental solution to climate change,” says Cara Clairman, Plug’n Drive president and CEO. “While this is true, there are significant economic opportunities that are often overlooked.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

East-West Transmission Project Ontario connects Thunder Bay to Wawa, facing OEB bidding, Hydro One vs NextBridge, First Nations consultation, environmental assessment, Pukaskwa National Park route, and reliability needs for Northwestern Ontario industry and communities.

Key Points

A 450 km Thunder Bay-Wawa power line proposal facing OEB bidding, Hydro One competition, and First Nations consultation.

✅ Competing bids: Hydro One vs NextBridge under OEB rules

✅ First Nations cite duty to consult and environmental review gaps

✅ Route debate: Pukaskwa Park vs bypass; jobs and reliability at stake

Leaders of six First Nations are urging the Ontario government to "clean up" the bureaucratic process that determines who will build an "urgently needed" high-capacity power transmission line to service northern Ontario.

The proposed 450 kilometre East-West Transmission Project is set to stretch from Thunder Bay to Wawa, providing much-needed electricity to northern Ontario. NextBridge Infrastructure, in partnership with Bamkushwada Limited Partnership (BLP) — an entity the First Nations created in order to become co-owners and active participants in the economic development of the line — have been the main proponents of the project since 2012 and were awarded the right to construct.

In 2018, Hydro One appealed to the previous Liberal government with a proposal to build the transmission line with lower maintenance costs. On Dec. 20, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) issued a decision that said it will issue the contract to construct the project to the company with the lowest bid, even as a Manitoba Hydro line delay followed a board recommendation in a comparable case.

The transmission regime in Ontario allows competing bids at the beginning of a project to designate a transmitter, and then again at the end of the project to award leave to construct.

As a result, the Hydro One was permitted to submit a competing bid, five years after it was first proposed. The chiefs of the six First Nations say that will delay the project by two years, impede their land and violate their rights. The former Liberal government under which the project was initiated "left the door open" for competition to enter this late in the construction, according to the community leaders.

"The former government created this mess and Hydro One has taken advantage of this loophole," Fort William First Nation Chief Peter Collins said in a Queen's Park news conference on Thursday. "Hydro One is an interloper coming in at the last minute, trying taking over the project and all the hard work that has been done, without doing the work it needs to do."

Mess will explode, says chief

According to Collins, the Ontario Energy Board is likely to choose Hydro One's late submission in February, "causing this mess to explode." The electricity and distribution utility has not completed any of the legal requirements demanded by a project of this magnitude, Collins said, including extensive consultations with First Nations, such as oral traditional evidence hearings that inform regulators, and thorough environment assessments. He speculated that by ignoring these two things, even though in B.C. Ottawa did not oppose a Site C work halt pending a treaty rights challenge, Hydro One's bid will be the lowest cost.

"Hydro One's interference is a big problem," said Collins. He was flanked by the leaders of the Pic Mobert First Nation, Opwaaganasiniing (also known as the Red Rock Indian Band), Michipicoten, Biigtigong Nishnaabeg — or Pic River First Nation — and Pays Plat First Nation.

Collins also highlighted that Hydro One's proposed route for the transmission line will go through Pukaskwa National Park on which there are Aboriginal title claims, and noted that an opponent of the Site C dam has been sharing concerns with northerners, underscoring the need for meaningful engagement. NextBridge's proposal, Collins said, will go around the park.

If Hydro One is awarded the construction project, at risk, too, are as many as 1,000 job opportunities in northern Ontario (including the Ring of Fire) that are expected from NextBridge's proposal, as well as the "many millions" in contracting opportunities for the communities, Collins said.

"That companies such as Hydro One can do this and dissolve all that has been developed by NextBridge and our [partnership] and all the opportunities we have created will signal to ... everyone in Ontario that Ontario's not open for business, at least fair business," Collins said.

Ontario Energy Minister 'disappointed' by OEB's decision

In an email statement to National Observer, Energy Minister Greg Rickford's press secretary said the government acknowledged the concerns of the First Nations leaders, and is "disappointed that the OEB continues to stall on this important project."

"The East-West Tie project is a priority for Ontario because it is needed to provide a reliable and adequate supply of electricity to northwestern Ontario to support economic growth," she wrote.

In October, Rickford wrote to the OEB outlining his expectation that a prompt decision would be made through an efficient and fair process.

Despite the minister’s request, the OEB delayed a decision on this project in December — as in B.C., a utilities watchdog has pressed for answers on Site C dam stability — pushing the service date back to at least 2021. In 2017, NextBridge said that, pending OEB approval, it would start construction in 2018, with completion scheduled for 2020.

Without the transmission line, the community faces a higher likelihood of power outages and less reliable electricity overall.

"Our government takes the duty to consult seriously and it is committed to ensuring that all Indigenous communities are properly consulted and kept informed regardless of the result of the OEB process," Rickford's office's statement said.

In a letter sent to Premier Doug Ford, Rickford and to Environment Minister Rod Phillips, all members of the Bamkushwada Limited Partnership said they will be compelled to appeal the OEB's decision if the right to construct is given to Hydro One.

The entire situation, they wrote in their letter, is "an undeniable mess" that requires government intervention.

"If the Ontario government can correct this looming outcome, it is incumbent on the Ontario government to do so," they wrote, urging the government to "take all legal means to prevent the OEB from rendering an unconstitutional and unjust decision."

"Our First Nations and the north have waited five long years for this transmission project," Collins said. "Enough is enough."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas Electric Cooperatives outperformed during Winter Storm Uri, with higher customer satisfaction, equitable rolling blackouts, and stronger grid reliability compared to deregulated markets, according to ERCOT-area survey data of regulated utilities and commercial providers.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities in Texas delivering power, noted for reliability and fair outages during Winter Storm Uri.

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

Winter Storm Uri began to hit parts of Texas on February 13, 2021 and its onslaught left close to 4.5 million Texas homes and businesses without power, and many faced power and water disruptions at its peak. By some accounts, the preliminary number of deaths attributed to the storm is nearly 200, and the economic toll for the Lone Star State is estimated to be as high as $295 billion. 

The more than two-thirds of Texans who lost power during this devastating storm were notably more negative than positive in their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, mirrored by a rise in electricity complaints statewide, with one exception. That exception are the members of the more than 60 electric cooperatives operating within the Texas Interconnection electrical grid, which, in sharp contrast to the customers of the commercial utilities that provide power to the majority of Texans, gave their local utility a positive evaluation related to its performance during the storm.

In order to study Winter Storm Uri’s impact on Texas, the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston conducted an online survey during the first half of March of residents 18 and older who live in the 213 counties (91.5% of the state population) served by the Texas power grid, which is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 

Three-quarters of the survey population (75%) live in areas with a deregulated utility market, where a specified transmission and delivery utility by region is responsible for delivering the electricity (purchased from one of a myriad of private companies by the consumer) to homes and businesses. The four main utility providers are Oncor, CenterPoint CNP -2.2%, American Electric Power (AEP) North, and American Electric Power (AEP) Central. 

The other 25% of the survey population live in areas with regulated markets, where a single company is responsible for both delivering the electricity to homes and businesses and serves as the only source from which electricity is purchased. Municipal-owned and operated utilities (e.g., Austin Energy, Bryan Texas Utilities, Burnet Electric Department, Denton Municipal Electric, New Braunfels Utilities, San Antonio’s CPS Energy CMS -2.1%) serve 73% of the regulated market. Electric cooperatives (e.g., Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Central Texas Electric Cooperative, Guadalupe Valley Cooperative, Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Pedernales Electricity Cooperative, Wood County Electric Cooperative) serve one-fifth of this market (21%), with private companies accounting for 6% of the regulated market.

The overall distribution of the survey population by electric utility providers is: Oncor (38%), CenterPoint (21%), municipal-owned utilities (18%), AEP Central & AEP North combined (12%), electric cooperatives (6%), other providers in the deregulated market (4%) and other providers in the regulated market (1%). 

There were no noteworthy differences among the 31% of Texans who did not lose power during the winter storm in regard to their evaluations of their local electricity provider or their belief that the power cuts in their locale were carried out in an equitable manner.  

However, among the 69% of Texans who lost power, those served by electric cooperatives in the regulated market and those served by private electric utilities in the deregulated market differed notably regarding their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, both in regard to their management of the rolling blackouts, amid debates over market reforms to avoid blackouts, and to their overall performance during the winter storm. Those Texans who lost power and are served by electric cooperatives in a regulated market had a significantly more positive evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility than did those Texans who lost power and are served by a private company in a deregulated electricity market. 

For example, only 24% of Texans served by electric cooperatives had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s overall performance during the winter storm, compared to 55%, 56% and 61% of those served by AEP, Oncor and CenterPoint respectively. A slightly smaller proportion of Texans served by electric cooperatives (22%) had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s performance managing the rolling blackouts during the winter storm, compared to 58%, 61% and 71% of Texans served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint, respectively.

Texans served by electric cooperatives in regulated markets were more likely to agree that the power cuts in their local area were carried out in an equitable manner compared to Texans served by commercial electricity utilities in deregulated markets. More than half (52%) of those served by an electric cooperative agreed that power cuts during the winter storm in their area were carried out in an equitable manner, compared to only 26%, 23% and 23% of those served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint respectively

The survey data did not allow us to provide a conclusive explanation as to why the performance during the winter storm by electric cooperatives (and to a much lesser extent municipal utilities) in the regulated markets was viewed more favorably by their customers than was the performance of the private companies in the deregulated markets viewed by their customers. Yet here are three, far from exhaustive, possible explanations.

First, electric cooperatives might have performed better (based on objective empirical metrics) during the winter storm, perhaps because they are more committed to their customers, who are effectively their bosses. .  

Second, members of electric cooperatives may believe their electric utility prioritizes their interests more than do customers of commercial electric utilities and therefore, even if equal empirical performance were the case, are more likely to rate their electric utility in a positive manner than are customers of commercial utilities.  

Third, regulated electric utilities where a single entity is responsible for the commercialization, transmission and distribution of electricity might be better able to respond to the type of challenges presented by the February 2021 winter storm than are deregulated electric utilities where one entity is responsible for commercialization and another is responsible for transmission and distribution, aligning with calls to improve electricity reliability across Texas.

Other explanations for these findings may exist, which in addition to the three posited above, await future empirical verification via new and more comprehensive studies designed specifically to study electric cooperatives, large commercial utilities, and the incentives that these entities face under the regulatory system governing production, commercialization and distribution of electricity, including rulings that some plants are exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under state law. 

Still, opinion about electricity providers during Winter Storm Uri is clear: Texans served by regulated electricity markets, especially by electric cooperatives, were much more satisfied with their providers’ performance than were those in deregulated markets. Throughout its history, Texas has staunchly supported the free market. Could Winter Storm Uri change this propensity, or will attempts to regulate electricity lessen as the memories of the storm’s havoc fades? With a hotter summer predicted to be on the horizon in 2021 and growing awareness of severe heat blackout risks, we may soon get an answer.   

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News