Idaho gets vast majority of electricity from renewables, almost half from hydropower

Rising Electricity Prices are driven by inflation, climate change, and the clean energy transition, affecting energy bills, grid resilience, and supply. Renewables, storage, and infrastructure upgrades shape costs, volatility, and long-term sustainability.

Key Points

Rising electricity prices stem from inflation, climate risk, and costs of integrating clean energy and storage into modern grids.

✅ Inflation raises fuel, materials, and labor costs for utilities

✅ Extreme weather damages infrastructure and strains peak demand

✅ Clean energy rollout needs storage, backup, and grid upgrades

In recent months, consumers have been grappling with a concerning trend: rising electricity prices across the country. This increase is not merely a fluctuation but a complex issue shaped by a confluence of factors including inflation, climate change, and the transition to clean energy. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for navigating the current energy landscape and preparing for its future.

Inflation and Its Impact on Energy Costs

Inflation, the economic phenomenon of rising prices across various sectors, has significantly impacted the cost of living, including electricity and natural gas prices for households. As the price of goods and services increases, so too does the cost of producing and delivering electricity. Energy production relies heavily on raw materials, such as metals and fuels, whose prices have surged in recent years. For instance, the costs associated with mining, transporting, and refining these materials have risen, thereby increasing the operational expenses for power plants.

Moreover, inflation affects labor costs, as wages often need to keep pace with the rising cost of living. As utility companies face higher expenses for both materials and labor, these costs are inevitably passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills.

Climate Change and Energy Supply Disruptions

Climate change also plays a significant role in driving up electricity prices. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, heatwaves, and floods, have become more frequent and severe due to climate change. These events disrupt energy production and distribution by damaging infrastructure, impeding transportation, and affecting the availability of resources.

For example, hurricanes can knock out power plants and damage transmission lines, leading to shortages and higher costs. During periods of extreme summer heat across many regions, heatwaves can strain the power grid as increased demand for air conditioning pushes the system to its limits. Such disruptions not only lead to higher immediate costs but also necessitate costly repairs and infrastructure upgrades.

Additionally, the increasing frequency of natural disasters forces utilities to invest in more resilient infrastructure, as many utilities spend more on delivery to harden grids and reduce outages, which adds to overall costs. These investments, while necessary for long-term reliability, contribute to short-term price increases for consumers.

The Transition to Clean Energy

The shift towards clean energy is another pivotal factor influencing electricity prices. While renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydro power are crucial for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change, their integration into the existing grid presents challenges.

Renewable energy infrastructure requires substantial initial investment. The construction of wind farms, solar panels, and the associated grid improvements involve significant capital expenditure. These upfront costs are often reflected in electricity prices. Moreover, renewable energy sources can be intermittent, meaning they do not always produce electricity at times of high demand. This intermittency necessitates the development of energy storage solutions and backup systems, which further adds to the costs.

Utilities are also transitioning from fossil fuel-based energy production to cleaner alternatives, a process that involves both technological and operational shifts and intersects with the broader energy crisis impacts on electricity, gas, and EVs nationwide. These changes can temporarily increase costs as utilities phase out old systems and implement new ones. While the long-term benefits of cleaner energy include environmental sustainability and potentially lower operating costs, the transition period can be financially burdensome for consumers.

The Path Forward

Addressing rising electricity prices requires a multifaceted approach. Policymakers must balance the need for immediate relief, as California regulators face calls for action amid soaring bills, with the long-term goals of sustainability and resilience. Investments in energy efficiency can help reduce overall demand and ease pressure on the grid. Expanding and modernizing energy infrastructure to accommodate renewable sources can also mitigate price volatility.

Additionally, efforts to mitigate climate change through improved resilience and adaptive measures can reduce the frequency and impact of extreme weather events, thereby stabilizing energy costs.

Consumer education is vital in this process. Understanding the factors driving electricity prices can empower individuals to make informed decisions about energy consumption and conservation. Furthermore, exploring energy-efficient appliances and practices can help manage costs in the face of rising prices.

In summary, the rising cost of electricity is a multifaceted issue influenced by inflation, climate change, and the transition to clean energy, and recent developments show Germany's rising energy costs in the coming year. While these factors pose significant challenges, they also offer opportunities for innovation and improvement in how we produce, distribute, and consume energy. By addressing these issues with a balanced approach, it is possible to navigate the complexities of rising electricity prices while working towards a more sustainable and resilient energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas Proposition 7 Energy Fund will finance ERCOT grid reliability via loans and grants for new on-demand natural gas plants, maintenance, and modernization, administered by the Public Utility Commission of Texas after Winter Storm Uri.

Key Points

State-managed fund providing loans and grants to expand and upgrade ERCOT power generation for grid reliability.

✅ $7.2B incentives for new dispatchable plants in ERCOT

✅ Administered by Public Utility Commission of Texas

✅ Aims to prevent outages like Winter Storm Uri

Texans are set to vote on Tuesday on a constitutional amendment to determine whether the state will create a special fund for financing the "construction, maintenance, and modernization of its electric generating facilities."

The energy fund would be administered and used only by the Public Utility Commission of Texas to provide loans and grants to maintain and upgrade electric generating facilities and improve electricity reliability across the state.

The biggest chunk of the fund, $7.2 billion, would go into loans and incentives to build new power-generating facilities in the ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) region, where ERCOT has issued an RFP for winter capacity to address seasonal concerns.

The proposal, titled Proposition 7, is one of several electricity market reforms under consideration by lawmakers and regulators in Texas to avoid another energy crisis like the one caused by a deadly winter storm in February 2021.

That storm, known as Winter Storm Uri, left millions without power, water and heat for days as ERCOT struggled to prevent a grid collapse after the shutdown of an unusually large amount of generation, and bailout proposals soon surfaced in the Legislature as the market reeled.

Pablo Vegas, president and CEO of ERCOT, emphasized the grid has become more “volatile” given the current resources, as the Texas power grid faces recurring challenges.

“The complexities of managing a growing demand, and a very dynamic load environment with those types of resources becomes more and more challenging,” Vegas said Tuesday during a meeting of the ERCOT board of directors.

Vegas said one solution to overcome the challenge is investing in power production that is available on demand, like power plants fueled by natural gas. Those plants can help during times when the need for electricity strains the supply.

“With the passing of Proposition 7 on the ballot this November, we’ll see those incentives combined to incentivize a more balanced development strategy going forward,” Vegas told board members.

If Proposition 7 is passed by voters, it would enact S.B. 2627, which establishes an advisory committee to oversee the fund and the various projects it could be used for, amid severe-heat blackout risks that affect the broader U.S. $5 billion would be transferred from the General Revenue Fund to the Texas Energy Fund if Proposition 7 passes.

Opposition for Proposition 7 comes from the Lone Star chapter of the Sierra Club, an environmental organization based in Austin and which has issued a statement on Gov. Abbott's demands regarding grid policy. Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Lone Star chapter, said the Texas energy fund is slated to benefit private utilities to build gas plants using taxpayer’s money.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Energy Dominance envisions deregulation, oil and gas growth, LNG exports, pipelines, and geopolitical leverage, while facing OPEC pricing power, infrastructure bottlenecks, climate policy pressures, and accelerating renewables in global markets.

Key Points

U.S. policy to grow fossil fuel output and exports via deregulation, bolstering energy security, geopolitical influence.

✅ Deregulation to expand drilling, pipelines, and export capacity

✅ Exposed to OPEC pricing, global shocks, and cost competitiveness

✅ Faces infrastructure, ESG finance, and renewables transition risks

Former President Donald Trump has consistently advocated for “energy dominance” as a cornerstone of his energy policy. In his vision, the United States would leverage its abundant natural resources to achieve energy self-sufficiency, flood global markets with cheap energy, and undercut competitors like Russia and OPEC nations. However, while the rhetoric resonates with many Americans, particularly those in energy-producing states, the pursuit of energy dominance faces significant real-world challenges that could limit its feasibility and impact.

The Energy Dominance Vision

Trump’s energy dominance strategy revolves around deregulation, increased domestic production of oil and gas, and the rollback of climate-oriented restrictions. During his presidency, he emphasized opening federal lands to drilling, accelerating the approval of pipelines, and, through an executive order, boosting uranium and nuclear energy initiatives, as well as withdrawing from international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord. The goal was not only to meet domestic energy demands but also to establish the U.S. as a major exporter of fossil fuels, thereby reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.

This approach gained traction during Trump’s first term, with the U.S. achieving record levels of oil and natural gas production. Energy exports surged, making the U.S. a net energy exporter for the first time in decades. Yet, critics argue that this policy prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability, while supporters believe it provides a roadmap for energy security and geopolitical leverage.

Market Realities

The energy market is complex, influenced by factors beyond the control of any single administration, with energy crisis impacts often cascading across sectors. While the U.S. has significant reserves of oil and gas, the global market sets prices. Even if the U.S. ramps up production, it cannot insulate itself entirely from price shocks caused by geopolitical instability, OPEC production cuts, or natural disasters.

For instance, despite record production in the late 2010s, American consumers faced volatile gasoline prices during an energy crisis driven by $5 gas and external factors like tensions in the Middle East and fluctuating global demand. Additionally, the cost of production in the U.S. is often higher than in countries with more easily accessible reserves, such as Saudi Arabia. This limits the competitive advantage of U.S. energy producers in global markets.

Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns

A major obstacle to achieving energy dominance is infrastructure. Expanding oil and gas production requires investments in pipelines, export terminals, and refineries. However, these projects often face delays due to regulatory hurdles, legal challenges, and public opposition. High-profile pipeline projects like Keystone XL and Dakota Access have become battlegrounds between industry proponents and environmental activists, and cross-border dynamics such as support for Canadian energy projects amid tariff threats further complicate permitting, highlighting the difficulty of reconciling energy expansion with environmental and community concerns.

Moreover, the transition to cleaner energy sources is accelerating globally, with many countries committing to net-zero emissions targets. This trend could reduce the demand for fossil fuels in the long run, potentially leaving U.S. producers with stranded assets if global markets shift more quickly than anticipated.

Geopolitical Implications

Trump’s energy dominance strategy also hinges on the belief that U.S. energy exports can weaken adversaries like Russia and Iran. While increased American exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe have reduced the continent’s reliance on Russian gas, achieving total energy independence for allies is a monumental task. Europe’s energy infrastructure, designed for pipeline imports from Russia, cannot be overhauled overnight to accommodate LNG shipments.

Additionally, the influence of major producers like Saudi Arabia and the OPEC+ alliance remains significant, even as shifts in U.S. policy affect neighbors; in Canada, some viewed Biden as better for the energy sector than alternatives. These countries can adjust production levels to influence prices, sometimes undercutting U.S. efforts to expand its market share.

The Renewable Energy Challenge

The growing focus on renewable energy adds another layer of complexity. Solar, wind, and battery storage technologies are becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Many U.S. states and private companies are investing heavily in clean energy to align with consumer preferences and global trends, amid arguments that stepping away from fossil fuels can bolster national security. This shift could dampen the domestic demand for oil and gas, challenging the long-term viability of Trump’s energy dominance agenda.

Moreover, international pressure to address climate change could limit the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. Financial institutions and investors are increasingly reluctant to fund projects perceived as environmentally harmful, further constraining growth in the sector.

While Trump’s call for U.S. energy dominance taps into a desire for economic growth and energy security, it faces numerous challenges. Global market dynamics, infrastructure bottlenecks, environmental concerns, and the transition to renewable energy all pose significant barriers to achieving the ambitious vision.

For the U.S. to navigate these challenges effectively, a balanced approach that incorporates both traditional energy sources and investments in clean energy is likely needed. Striking this balance will require careful policymaking that considers not just immediate economic gains but also long-term sustainability and global competitiveness.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Global Renewable LCOE Trends reveal offshore wind costs down 32%, with 10MW turbines, lower CAPEX and OPEX, and parity for solar PV and onshore wind in Europe, China, and California, per BloombergNEF analysis.

Key Points

Benchmarks showing falling LCOE for offshore wind, onshore wind, and solar PV, driven by larger turbines and lower CAPEX

✅ Offshore wind LCOE $78/MWh; $53-64/MWh in DK/NL excl. transmission

✅ Onshore wind $47/MWh; solar PV $51/MWh, best $26-36/MWh

✅ Cost drivers: 10MW turbines, lower CAPEX/OPEX, weak China demand

World offshore wind costs have fallen 32% from just a year ago and 12% compared with the first half of 2019, according to a BNEF long-term outlook from BloombergNEF.

In its latest Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) Update, BloombergNEF said its current global benchmark LCOE estimate for offshore wind is $78 a megawatt-hour.

“New offshore wind projects throughout Europe, including the UK's build-out, now deploy turbines with power ratings up to 10MW, unlocking CAPEX and OPEX savings,” BloombergNEF said.

In Denmark and the Netherlands, it expects the most recent projects financed to achieve $53-64/MWh excluding transmission.

New solar and onshore wind projects have reached parity with average wholesale power prices in California and parts of Europe, while in China levelised costs are below the benchmark average regulated coal price, according to BloombergNEF.

The company's global benchmark levelized cost figures for onshore wind and PV projects financed in the last six months are at $47 and $51 a megawatt-hours, underscoring that renewables are now the cheapest new electricity option in many regions, down 6% and 11% respectively compared with the first half of 2019.

BloombergNEF said for wind this is mainly down to a fall in the price of turbines – 7% lower on average globally compared with the end of 2018.

In China, the world’s largest solar market, the CAPEX of utility-scale PV plants has dropped 11% in the last six months, reaching $0.57m per MW.

“Weak demand for new plants in China has left developers and engineering, procurement and construction firms eager for business, and this has put pressure on CAPEX,” BloombergNEF said.

It added that estimates of the cheapest PV projects financed recently – in India, Chile and Australia – will be able to achieve an LCOE of $27-36/MWh, assuming competitive returns for their equity investors.

Best-in-class onshore wind farms in Brazil, India, Mexico and Texas can reach levelized costs as low as $26-31/MWh already, the research said.

Programs such as the World Bank wind program are helping developing countries accelerate wind deployment as costs continue to drop.

BloombergNEF associate in the energy economics team Tifenn Brandily said: “This is a three- stage process. In phase one, new solar and wind get cheaper than new gas and coal plants on a cost-of- energy basis.

“In phase two, renewables reach parity with power prices. In phase three, they become even cheaper than running existing thermal plants.

“Our analysis shows that phase one has now been reached for two-thirds of the global population.

“Phase two started with California, China and parts of Europe. We expect phase three to be reached on a global scale by 2030.

“As this all plays out, thermal power plants will increasingly be relegated to a balancing role, looking for opportunities to generate when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Saskatchewan COVID-19 economic impact: real-time data shows drops in electricity demand, oil well licensing, traffic and tickets, plus spikes in internet usage, government site visits, remote work, and alcohol wholesale volumes.

Key Points

COVID-19 reduced energy use, drilling and traffic, while pushing activity online; jobs, rents and sales show strain.

✅ Electricity demand down 6.7%; residential usage up

✅ Oil well license applications fell 15-fold in April

✅ Internet traffic up 16%-46%; wireless LTE up 34%

We’re only just beginning to grasp how COVID-19 has upended Saskatchewan’s economy, its government and all of our lives.

The numbers that usually make headlines — job losses, economic contraction, bankruptcies — are still well behind the pace of the virus and its toll.

But other numbers change more quickly. Saskatchewan people are using less power, and the power industry is adopting on-site staffing plans to ensure reliability as conditions evolve. We’re racking up fewer speeding tickets. And as new restrictions come, we’re clicking onto Saskatchewan.ca as much as 10,000 times per minute.

Here’s some data that provides a first glimpse into how much our province has changed in just six weeks.

Electricity use tends to rise and fall in tandem with the health of the economy, and the most recent data from SaskPower suggests businesses are powering down, while regional utilities such as Manitoba Hydro seek unpaid days off to trim costs.

Peak load requirements between March 15 and April 26 were 220 MW lower than during the same period in 2019, and elsewhere BC Hydro is posting COVID-19 updates at Site C as it manages project impacts. That’s a decrease of 6.7 per cent, with total load on April 29 at 2,551 MW. A megawatt is enough electricity to power about 1,000 homes.

Separate from pandemic impacts, an external investigation at Manitoba Hydro has drawn attention to workplace conduct issues.

But it’s not homes that are turning off the lights. SaskPower spokesman Joel Cherry said commercial and industrial usage is down, while residential demand is up, with household electricity bills rising as more people stay home.

The timing of power demand has also shifted, a pattern seen as residential electricity use rises during work-from-home routines. Peak load would usually come around 8 or 9 p.m. in April. Now it’s coming earlier, typically between 5 and 6 p.m.

Oil well applications fall 15-fold
Oil prices have cratered since late February, and producers in Saskatchewan have reacted by pulling back on drilling plans, while neighbouring Alberta provides transition support for coal workers amid broader energy shifts.

Applications for well licences fell from 242 in January to 203 in February (including nine potash and one helium operations), before dropping to 84 in March. April, the month benchmark oil prices went negative for one day, producers submitted just 15 applications.

That’s 15 times fewer than the 231 applications the Ministry of Energy and Resources received in April 2019.

Well licences are needed for drilling, operating, injecting, producing or exploring an oil and gas or potash well in the province.

There has been no clear trend in well abandonment, however. There were 176 applications for abandonment in March and 155 in April, roughly in line with figures from the year before.

SGI spokesman Tyler McMurchy believes the lower numbers might stem from a combination of lower traffic volumes during part of the month, possibly combined with a shift in police priorities. The March 2020 numbers are also well below January and February figures.

Indeed, the Ministry of Highways and infrastructure reported a 16 per cent decrease in average daily traffic last month compared to March 2019, through its traffic counts at 11 different spots on highways across the province.

In Regina, traffic counts at 16 locations dropped from a high of 2.1 million in the first week of March to a low of 1.3 million during the week of March 22. That’s a 44 per cent decrease.

Counts have gradually recovered to 1.6 million in the weeks since. The data was fairly consistent at all 16 spots, which are largely major intersections, though the city cautioned they may not be representative of Regina as a whole.

Tickets for cellphone use while driving also fell, dropping from 562 in February to 314 in March. McMurchy noted that distracted driving numbers in general have been falling since November as stiffer penalties were announced. Impaired driving tickets were up, by contrast, but still within a typical range.

Internet traffic shoots up 16 per cent, far more for rural high speed
You may be spending a lot more time on Netflix and Facebook in the age of social distancing, and SaskTel has noticed.

From late February to late April, SaskTel has seen “very significant increases in provincial data traffic.” DSL and fibre optic networks have handled a 16 per cent increase in traffic, while demand on the wireless LTE network is up 34 per cent.

Usage on the Fusion network up 46 per cent. That network serves rural areas that don’t have access to other high-speed options.

The specific reference dates for comparison were February 24 and April 27.

“We attribute these changes in data usage to the pandemic and not expected seasonal or yearly shifts in usage patterns,” said spokesman Greg Jacobs.

Saskatchewan.ca was attracting just 70 page views per minute on average in February. But page views jumped over 10,000 per minute at 2:38 p.m. on March 18, as Moe was still announcing the new measures.

That’s a 14,000 per cent increase.

For all of March, visitor sessions on the site clocked in at 3,905,061, almost four times the 944,904 recorded for February.

Bureaucracy has increasingly migrated to cyberspace, with 62 per cent of civil servants now working from home. Government Skype calls, both audio and video, have tripled from 12,000 sessions per day to 35,000.Telephone conference calls increased by a factor of 14 from the first week of February to the second full week of April, with 25 times more weekly call participants. 

The Ministry of Central Services reported a 17 per cent jump in emails received by government over the past two months, excluding the Ministry of Health.

But as civil servants spend more time on their computers, the government’s fleet is spending a lot less time on the road. The ministry has purchased 40 per cent fewer litres of fuel for its vehicles over the past four weeks, compared to the same time last year.

Alcohol wholesale volumes up 22 per cent, then fall back to normal
Retailers bought more alcohol from the Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority (SLGA) last month, just as the government began tightening pandemic restrictions.

Wholesale sales volumes were up 22 per cent over March 15 to 28, compared to the same period in 2019. SLGA spokesman David Morris said the additional demand “was likely the result of retailers stocking-up as restrictions related to COVID-19 took effect.”

But the jump didn’t last. Wholesale volumes were back to normal for the first two weeks of April. SLGA did notice a very slight uptick last week, however, with volumes out of its distribution centre up three per cent. The numbers do not include Brewer’s Distributors Ltd.

It’s unclear how much more alcohol consumers actually purchased, since province-wide retail numbers were not available.

There was no discernible trend in March for anti-anxiety medication, however. The number of prescriptions filled for benzodiazepines like Valium, Xanax and Ativan see-sawed over March, according to data provided by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, but its associate registrar does not believe the trends are statistically relevant.

One-fifth of tenants miss April rent
About 20 per cent of residential rent went totally unpaid in the first six days of April, according to the Saskatchewan Landlord Association (SLA).

The precise number is 19.7 per cent, but there’s some uncertainty due to the survey method, which is based on responses from 300 residential landlords with 14,000 units. An additional 12 per cent of tenants paid a portion of their rent, but not the full amount. The figures do not include social housing.

Cameron Choquette, the association’s executive officer, partly blames the province’s decision to suspend most landlord tenant board hearings for evictions, saying it “allows more people to take advantage of landlords by not paying their rent and not facing any consequences.”

The government has defended the suspension by saying it’s needed to ensure everyone has a safe place to self-isolate if needed during the pandemic.

March’s jobs numbers were bad, with almost 21,000 fewer Saskatchewan people employed compared to February.

April’s labour force survey is expected on Friday. But new April numbers released Wednesday show that two-thirds of the province’s businesses managed to avoid laying off staff almost entirely.

According to Statistics Canada, 66.2 per cent of businesses reported laying off between zero and one per cent of their employees due to COVID-19. That was better than any other province. Just 7.6 per cent laid off all of their employees, again the best number outside the territories. The survey period was April 3 to 24.

Some businesses are even hiring. Walmart, for instance, has hired 300 people in Saskatchewan since mid-March.

Trade and Export Development Minister Jeremy Harrison chalked the data up to a relatively more optimistic business outlook in Saskatchewan, combined with “very targeted” restrictions and a support program for small and medium businesses.

That support program, which provides $5,000 grants to qualifying businesses affected by government restrictions, has only been around for three weeks. But it’s already been bombarded with 6,317 applications.

The total value of those applications would be $24,178,000, according to Harrison. Of them, 3,586 have been approved with a value of $11,755,000.

Businesses are coming to Harrison’s ministry with thousands of questions. Since it opened in March, the Business Response Team has received 4,125 calls and 1,758 emails.

The kinds of questions have changed over the course of the pandemic. Many are now asking when they can open their doors, according to Harrison, as they wonder about “grey areas” in the Re-Open Saskatchewan plan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Hydro One investment risk reflects Ontario government influence, board shakeup, Avista acquisition uncertainty, regulatory hearings, dividend growth prospects, and utility M&A moves in Peterborough, with stock volatility since the 2015 IPO.

Key Points

Hydro One investment risk stems from political control, governance turnover, regulatory outcomes, and uncertain M&A.

✅ Ontario retains near-50% stake, affecting autonomy and policy risk

✅ Board overhaul and CEO exit create governance uncertainty

✅ Avista deal, OEB hearings, local utility M&A drive outcomes

Hydro One may be only half-owned by the province on Ontario but that’s enough to cause uncertainty about the company’s future, thus making for an investment risk, says Douglas Kee of Leon Frazer & Associates.

Since its IPO in November of 2015, Hydro One has seen its share of ups and downs, including a Q2 profit decline earlier this year, mostly downs at this point. Currently trading at $19.87, the stock has lost 11 per cent of its value in 2018 and 12 per cent over the last 12 months, despite a one-time gain boosting Q2 profit that followed a court ruling.

This year has been a turbulent one, to say the least, as newly elected Ontario premier Doug Ford made good this summer on his campaign promise re Hydro One by forcing the resignation of the company’s 14-person board of directors along with the retirement of its chief executive, an event that saw Hydro One shares fall amid the turmoil. An interim CEO has been found and a new 10-person board and chairman put in place, but Kee says it’s unclear what impact the shakeup will ultimately have, other than delaying a promising-looking deal to purchase US utility Avista Corp, with the companies moving to ask the U.S. regulator to reconsider the order.

Douglas Kee’s take on Hydro One stock

“We looked at Hydro One a couple of times two years ago and just decided that with the Ontario government’s still owning a big chunk of the company … there are other public companies where you get the same kind of yield, the same kind of dividend growth, so we just avoided it,” says Kee, managing director and chief investment officer with Leon Frazer & Associates, to BNN Bloomberg.

“The old board versus the new board, I’m not sure that there’s much of an improvement. It was politics more than anything,” he says. “The unfortunate part is that the acquisition they were making in the United States is kind of on hold for now. The regulatory procedures have gone ahead but they are worried, and I guess the new board has to make a decision whether to go ahead with it or not.”

“Their transmissions side is coming up for regulatory hearings next year, which could be difficult in Ontario,” says Kee. “The offset to that is that there are a lot of municipal distributions systems in Ontario that may be sold — they bought one in Peterborough recently, which was a good deal for them. There may be more of that coming too.”

Last month, Hydro One reached an agreement with the City of Peterborough to buy its Peterborough Distribution utility which serves about 37,000 customers for $105 million. Another deal to purchase Orillia Power Distribution Corp for $41 million has been cancelled after an appeal to the Ontario Energy Board was denied in late August. Hydro One’s sought-after Avista Corp acquisition is reported to be worth $7 billion.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News