IESO praised for compliance with key reliability standards

France Diesel Prices at Pre-Ukraine Levels reflect energy market stabilization as supply chains adapt and subsidies help; easing fuel costs, inflation, and logistics burdens for households, transport firms, and the wider economy.

Key Points

They mark normalization as oil supply stabilizes, easing fuel costs and logistics expenses for consumers and firms.

✅ Lower transport and logistics operating costs

✅ Softer inflation and improved household budgets

✅ Market stabilization amid adjusted oil supply chains

In a significant development for French consumers and businesses alike, diesel prices in France have recently fallen back to levels last seen before the Ukrainian conflict began, mirroring European gas prices returning to pre-war levels across the region. This drop comes as a relief to many who have been grappling with volatile energy costs and their impact on the cost of living and business operations. The return to lower diesel prices is a noteworthy shift in the energy landscape, with implications for the French economy, transportation sector, and broader European market.

Context of Rising Diesel Prices

The onset of the Ukrainian conflict in early 2022 triggered a dramatic increase in global energy prices, including diesel. The conflict's disruption of supply chains, coupled with sanctions on Russian oil and gas exports, contributed to a steep rise in fuel prices across Europe, prompting the EU to weigh emergency electricity price measures to shield consumers. For France, this meant that diesel prices soared to unprecedented levels, putting significant pressure on consumers and businesses that rely heavily on diesel for transportation and logistics.

The impact was felt across various sectors. Transportation companies faced higher operational costs, which were often passed down to consumers in the form of increased prices for goods and services. Additionally, higher fuel costs contributed to broader inflationary pressures, with EU inflation hitting lower-income households hardest, affecting household budgets and overall economic stability.

Recent Price Trends and Market Adjustments

The recent decline in diesel prices in France is a welcome reversal from the peak levels experienced during the height of the conflict. Several factors have contributed to this price reduction. Firstly, there has been a stabilization of global oil markets as geopolitical tensions have somewhat eased and supply chains have adjusted to new realities. The gradual return of Russian oil to global markets, albeit under complex sanctions and trading arrangements, has also played a role in moderating prices.

Moreover, France's strategic reserves and diversified energy sources have helped cushion the impact of global price fluctuations. The French government has also implemented measures to stabilize energy prices, including subsidies and tax adjustments, and a new electricity pricing scheme to satisfy EU concerns, which have helped alleviate some of the financial pressure on consumers.

Implications for the French Economy

The return to pre-conflict diesel price levels brings several positive implications for the French economy. For consumers, the decrease in fuel prices means lower transportation costs, which can ease inflationary pressures and improve disposable income, and, alongside the EDF electricity price deal, reduce overall utility burdens for households. This is particularly beneficial for households with long commutes or those relying on diesel-powered vehicles.

For businesses, especially those in the transportation and logistics sectors, the drop in diesel prices translates into reduced operational costs. This can help lower the cost of goods and services, potentially leading to lower prices for consumers and improved profitability for businesses. In a broader sense, stabilized fuel prices can contribute to overall economic stability and growth, as lower energy costs can support consumer spending and business investment.

Environmental and Policy Considerations

While the decrease in diesel prices is advantageous in the short term, it also raises questions about long-term energy policy and environmental impact, with the recent crisis framed as a wake-up call for Europe to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels. Diesel, as a fossil fuel, continues to pose environmental challenges, including greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. The drop in prices might inadvertently discourage investments in cleaner energy alternatives, such as electric and hybrid vehicles, which are crucial for achieving long-term sustainability goals.

In response, there is a growing call for continued investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. France has been actively pursuing policies to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and increase the adoption of cleaner technologies, amid ongoing EU electricity reform debates with Germany. The government’s support for green energy initiatives and incentives for low-emission vehicles will be essential in balancing short-term benefits with long-term environmental objectives.

Conclusion

The recent return of French diesel prices to pre-Ukrainian conflict levels marks a significant shift in the energy market, offering relief to both consumers and businesses. While this decline brings immediate financial benefits and supports economic stability, it also underscores the ongoing need for a strategic approach to energy policy and environmental sustainability. As France navigates the evolving energy landscape, the focus will need to remain on fostering a transition towards cleaner energy sources while managing the economic and environmental impacts of fuel price fluctuations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Duration Portfolio Energy Storage aligns layered peak demand with right-sized batteries, enabling peak shaving, gas peaker replacement, and solar-plus-storage synergy while improving grid flexibility, reliability, and T&D deferral through two- to four-hour battery durations.

Key Points

An approach that layers battery durations to match peaks, cut costs, replace peakers, and boost grid reliability.

✅ Layers 2- to 4-hour batteries by peak duration

✅ Enables solar-plus-storage and peak shaving

✅ Cuts T&D upgrades, emissions, and fuel costs

The debate over energy storage replacing gas-fired peakers has raged for years, but a new approach that shifts the terms of the argument could lead to an acceleration of storage deployments.

Rather than looking at peak demand as a single mountainous peak, some analysts now advocate a layered approach that allows energy storage to better match peak needs and complement ongoing efforts to improve solar and wind power across the grid.

"You don’t have to have batteries that run to infinity."

Some developers of solar-plus-storage projects, bolstered by cheap batteries, say they can already compete head-to-head with gas-fired peakers. "I can beat a gas peaker anywhere in the country today with a solar-plus-storage power plant," Tom Buttgenbach, president and CEO of developer 8minutenergy Renewables, recently told S&P Global.

Customers are very busy these days and rebate programs need to fit the speed of their life. Participation should be quick, easy, and accessible anywhere.

Others disagree. Storage is not disruptive for generation, but will be disruptive for transmission and distribution, Kris Zadlo, executive vice president and chief development officer at Invenergy, told the audience at a Bloomberg New Energy Finance conference last spring. Invenergy, like many renewable power developers, develops generation, energy storage and transmission projects.

But there is another path that avoids the pitfalls of positions on either end of the all-or-none approach. "Do the analysis of the need itself," Ray Hohenstein, market applications director at Fluence, told Utility Dive. If the need is only two hours in duration, it may be best served by a two-hour battery. "You don’t have to have batteries that run to infinity."

Storage vs. fossil fuel peakers

Energy storage has several benefits over traditional fossil fuel peaking plants, Hohenstein said. It is instantaneous, it has no emissions and requires no fuel, and has limited infrastructure needs. It can also help the grid absorb higher levels of renewable generation by soaking up excess output, such as solar power at noon, and many planned storage additions will be paired with solar in the next few years. But the one thing energy storage cannot do, he said, is provide limitless energy.

So, instead of looking at replacing an individual peaker, Hohenstein advocated a "duration portfolio" approach that uses energy storage to shave peak load.

If the need is for 150 MW of resources that will never need to run for more than two hours at a time, then a battery is "quite cheap," significantly less than a four or eight-hour battery, said Hohenstein. "If you fill up your peak by duration layer, it could be more cost effective."

NREL research driver

Fluence’s approach is informed by research by Paul Denholm and Robert Margolis at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), released last spring.

The NREL researchers looked at the California market where they said 11 GW of fossil fuel capacity is expected to be retired by 2029 because of new once-through-cooling requirements that are taking effect. A lot of that capacity is peaking capacity and, according to NREL’s analysis, a large fraction could be replaced with four-hour energy storage, assuming continued storage cost reductions and growth in solar installations.

The key in NREL’s research was the level of solar power penetration. There is a "synergistic" relationship between solar penetration and storage deployment, the researchers wrote, and other studies suggest wind and solar could meet 80% of U.S. demand as these trends continue.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

COVID-19 Impact on U.S. Electricity Consumption shows commercial and industrial demand dropped as residential use rose, with flattened peak loads, weekday-weekend convergence, Texas hourly data, and energy demand as a real-time economic indicator.

Key Points

It reduced commercial and industrial demand while raising residential use, shifting peaks and weekday patterns.

✅ Commercial electricity down 12%; industrial down 14% in Q2 2020

✅ Residential use up 10% amid work-from-home and lockdowns

✅ Peaks flattened; weekday-weekend loads converged in Texas

This is an important turning point for the United States. We have a long road ahead. But one of the reasons I’m optimistic about Biden-Harris is that we will once again have an administration that believes in science.

To embrace this return to science, I want to write today about a fascinating new working paper by Tufts economist Steve Cicala.

Professor Cicala has been studying the effect of Covid on electricity consumption since back in March, when the Wall Street Journal picked up his work documenting an 18% decrease in electricity consumption in Italy.

The new work, focused on the United States, is particularly compelling because it uses data that allows him to distinguish between residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, against a backdrop of declining U.S. electricity sales over recent years.

Without further ado, here are four facts he uncovers about Covid and U.S. electricity demand during COVID-19 and consumption.

Fact #1: Firms Are Using Less
U.S. commercial electricity consumption fell 12% during the second quarter of 2020. U.S. industrial electricity consumption fell 14% over the same period.

This makes sense. The second quarter was by some measures, the worst quarter for the U.S. economy in over 145 years!

Economic activity shrank. Schools closed. Offices closed. Factories closed. Restaurants closed. Malls closed. Even health care offices closed as patients delayed going to the dentist and other routine care. All this means less heating and cooling, less lighting, less refrigeration, less power for computers and other office equipment, less everything.

The decrease in the industrial sector is a little more surprising. My impression had been that the industrial sector had not fallen as far as commercial, but amid broader disruptions in coal and nuclear power that strained parts of the energy economy, the patterns for both sectors are quite similar with the decline peaking in May and then partially rebounding by July. The paper also shows that areas with higher unemployment rates experienced larger declines in both sectors.

Fact #2: Households Are Using More
While firms are using less, households are using more. U.S. residential electricity consumption increased 10% during the second quarter of 2020. Consumption surged during March, April, and May, a reflection of the lockdown lifestyle many adopted, and then leveled off in June and July – with much less of the rebound observed on the commercial/industrial side.

This pattern makes sense, too. In Professor Cicala’s words, “people are spending an inordinate amount of time at home”. Many of us switched over to working from home almost immediately, and haven’t looked back. This means more air conditioning, more running the dishwasher, more CNN (especially last week), more Zoom, and so on.

The paper also examines the correlates of the decline. Areas in the U.S. where more people can work from home experienced larger increases. Unemployment rates, however, are almost completely uncorrelated with the increase.

Fact #3: Firms are Less Peaky
The paper next turns to a novel dataset from Texas, where Texas grid reliability is under active discussion, that makes it possible to measure hourly electricity consumption by sector.

As the figure above illustrates, the biggest declines in commercial/industrial electricity consumption have occurred Monday through Friday between 9AM and 5PM.

The dashed line shows the pattern during 2019. Notice the large spikes in electricity consumption during business hours. The solid line shows the pattern during 2020. Much smaller spikes during business hours.

Fact #4: Everyday is Like Sunday
Finally, we have what I would like to nominate as the “Energy Figure of the Year”.

Again, start with the pattern for 2019, reflected by the dashed line. Prior to Covid, Texas households used a lot more electricity on Saturdays and Sundays.

Then along comes Covid, and turned every day into the weekend. Residential electricity consumption in Texas during business hours Monday-Friday is up 16%(!).

In the pattern for 2020, it isn’t easy to distinguish weekends from weekdays. If you feel like weekdays and weekends are becoming a big blur – you are not alone.

Conclusion
Researchers are increasingly thinking about electricity consumption as a real-time indicator of economic activity, even as flat electricity demand complicates utility planning and investment. This is an intriguing idea, but Professor Cicala’s new paper shows that it is important to look sector-by-sector.

While commercial and industrial consumption indeed seem to measure the strength of an economy, residential consumption has been sharply countercylical – increasing exactly when people are not at work and not at school.

These large changes in behavior are specific to the pandemic. Still, with the increased blurring of home and non-home activities we may look back on 2020 as a key turning point in how we think about these three sectors of the economy.

More broadly, Professor Cicala’s paper highlights the value of social science research. We need facts, data, and yes, science, if we are to understand the economy and craft effective policies on energy insecurity and shut-offs as well.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK Energy Network Profits are under scrutiny as Ofgem price controls, Citizens Advice claims, and National Grid margins spark debate over monopolies, allowed returns, consumer bills, rebates, and future investment under tougher regulation.

Key Points

UK Energy Network Profits are returns set by Ofgem for regulated grid operators, shaping consumer bills and investment

✅ Ofgem sets allowed returns for monopoly networks via price controls

✅ Dispute over interest rates, bond yields, and risk premiums

✅ Reforms proposed: shorter controls, tougher investor incentives

Companies that run Britain’s electricity and gas networks, including National Grid, are making “eye-watering” profits at the expense of households, according to a well-known consumer group.

Citizens Advice believes £7.5bn in “unjustified” profits should be returned to consumers who pay for network costs via their electricity and gas bills, with parallels seen in a deferred BC Hydro costs report abroad, although its figures have been contested by the energy industry and regulator.

Ownership of electricity and gas networks came under the spotlight in the run-up to June’s general election, after the Labour party said in its manifesto it would bring both national and regional grid infrastructure to back into public ownership, amid wider debates about grid privatization concerns elsewhere, over time.

Electricity sector privatisation began in 1990 and the gas industry was privatised in 1986. Energy network companies — which own and operate the cables and wires that help deliver electricity and gas to homes and businesses — are in effect monopolies that are regulated by Ofgem. Ofgem evaluates what their costs, including the cost of capital to finance investments, might be over an eight-year “price control” period, similar to determinations like the OEB decision on Hydro One rates in Ontario, Canada. Citizens Advice claims many of the regulator’s calculations for the most recent price control went “considerably in networks’ financial favour”.

It believes assumptions Ofgem made about factors such as the future path of interest rates and returns on government bonds were too generous, with international contrasts like power theft challenges in India illustrating different risk contexts, as was the regulator’s assessment of the risk associated with operating a network company. 

These “generous” assumptions will lead to network companies making average profit margins of 19 per cent and an average return of 10 per cent for their investors at the expense of consumers, Citizens Advice claims in a report published on Wednesday, which recommends a shorter price control period to allow for more accurate forecasting.

“Decisions made by Ofgem have allowed gas and electricity network companies to make sky-high profits that we’ve found are not justified by their performance,” said Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice. Ofgem defended its regulatory regime, saying it helped to cut costs, improve reliability and customer satisfaction. 

“Ofgem has already cut costs to consumers by 6 per cent in the current price control and secured a rebate of over £4.5bn from network companies and is engaging with the industry to deliver further savings, with some regions seeing Ontario electricity rate reductions for businesses as well,” said Dermot Nolan, chief executive of the energy regulator.

Mr Nolan insisted the next price controls would be “tougher for investors”. The current price controls for the gas and electricity transmission networks, plus gas distribution, run until 2021 and until 2023 for local electricity distribution networks.

“While we don’t agree with its modelling and the figures it has produced, the Citizens Advice report raises some important issues about network regulation which will be addressed in the next control,” Mr Nolan said.

The Energy Networks Association, a trade body, refuted the claims of Citizens Advice, insisting that costs had fallen by 17 per cent in real terms since privatisation. The current regulatory framework was established after a public consultation, it said, adding that today’s report repeated several old claims that had previously been rejected by the Competition and Markets Authority.

“Our energy networks are among the most reliable and lowest cost in the world and their performance has never been better. In the next six years energy network companies are forecasted to deliver £45bn of investment in the UK economy,” a spokesman for the networks association added. National Grid said that since 2013 it had generated savings of £460m for bill payers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for ratepayers, impacting hydropower and the California-Oregon Intertie under the Trump 2018 budget proposal in the Pacific Northwest region.

Key Points

Selling Bonneville's transmission grid to private owners, raising rates and returns, shifting costs to ratepayers.

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

✅ Higher capital costs, taxes, and profit would raise transmission rates.

✅ California-Oregon Intertie and hydropower flows face price impacts.

President Trump's 2018 budget proposal is so chock-full of noxious elements — replacing food stamps with "food boxes," drastically cutting Medicaid and Medicare, for a start — that it's unsurprising that one of its most misguided pieces has slipped under the radar.

That's the proposal to privatize the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration, which owns about three-quarters of the high-voltage electric transmission lines in a region that includes California, Washington state and Oregon, serving more than 13.5 million customers. By one authoritative estimate, any such sale would drive up the cost of transmission by 26%-44%.

The $5.2-billon price cited by the Trump administration, moreover, is nearly 20% below the actual value of the Bonneville grid — meaning that a private buyer would pocket an immediate windfall of $1.2 billion, at the expense of federal taxpayers and Bonneville customers.

Trump's plan for Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville is part of a larger proposal to sell off other government-owned electricity bodies, including the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration and the Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. But Bonneville is by far the largest of the three, accounting for nearly 90% of the total $5.8 billion the budget anticipates collecting from the sales. The proposal is also part of the administration's

Both plans are said to be politically dead-on-arrival in Washington. But they offer a window into the thinking in the Trump White House.

"The word 'muddle' comes to mind," says Robert McCullough, a respected Portland energy consultant, referring to the justification for the privatization sale included in the Trump budget.

The White House suggests that selling the Bonneville grid would result in lower costs. But that narrative, McCullough wrote in a blistering assessment of the proposal, "displays a severe lack of understanding about the process of setting transmission rates."

McCullough's assessment is an update of a similar analysis he performed when the privatization scheme was first raised by the Trump administration last year. In that analysis issued in June, McCullough said the proposal "raises the question of why these valuable assets would be sold at a discount — and who would get the benefit of the discounted price."

The implications of a sale could be dire for Californians. Bonneville is the majority owner of the California-Oregon Intertie, an electrical transmission system that carries power, including Columbia River-generated hydropower and other clean-energy generation in British Columbia that supports the regional exchange, south to California in the summer and excess California generation to the Pacific Northwest in the winter.

But the idea has drawn fire throughout the region. When it was first broached last year, the Public Power Council, an association of utilities in the Northwest, assailed it as an apparent "transfer of value from the people of the Northwest to the U.S. Treasury," drawing parallels to Manitoba Hydro governance issues elsewhere.

The region's political leaders had especially harsh words for the idea this time around. "Oregonians raised hell last year when Trump tried to raise power bills for Pacific Northwesterners by selling off Bonneville Power, and yet his administration is back at it again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said after the idea reappeared. "Our investment shouldn't be put up for sale to free up money for runaway military spending or tax cuts for billionaires." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promised in a statement to work to "stop this bad idea in its tracks."

The notion of privatizing Bonneville predates the Trump administration; it was raised by Bill Clinton and again by George W. Bush, who thought the public would gain if the administration could sell its power at market rates. Both initiatives failed.

The same free-enterprise ideology underlies the Trump proposal. Privatizing the transmission lines "encourages a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigates unnecessary risk to taxpayers," the budget asserts. "Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives."

But that's based on a misunderstanding of how transmission rates are set, McCullough says. Transmission is essentially a monopoly enterprise, with rates overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission based on the grid's costs, and with federal scrutiny of public utilities such as the TVA underscoring that oversight. There's very little in the way of market "incentives" involved in transmission, since no one has come forward to build a competing grid.

Those include the owners' cost of capital — which would be much higher for a private owner than a government agency, McCullough observes, as Hydro One investor uncertainty demonstrates in practice. A private owner, unlike the government-owned Bonneville, also would owe federal income taxes, which would be passed on to consumers.

Then there's the profit motive. Bonneville "currently sells and delivers its power at cost," McCullough wrote last year. "Under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely charge a higher rate of return, a pattern seen when UK network profits drew regulatory rebukes."

None of these considerations appears to have been factored into the White House budget proposal. "Either there's an unsophisticated person at the Office of Management and Budget thinking up these numbers himself," McCullough told me, "or there would seem to be ongoing negotiations with an unidentified third party." No such buyer has emerged in the past, however.

What's left is a blind faith in the magic of the market, compounded by ignorance about how the transmission market operates. Put it together, and there's reason to wonder if Trump is even serious about this plan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Massachusetts Energy Code Updates align DOER regulations with BBRS standards, advancing Stretch Code and Specialized Code beyond the Base Energy Code to accelerate net-zero construction, electrification, and high-efficiency building performance across municipal opt-in communities.

Key Points

They are DOER-led changes to Base, Stretch, and Specialized Codes to drive net-zero, electrified, efficient buildings.

✅ Updates apply Base, Stretch, or opt-in Specialized Code.

✅ Targets net-zero by 2050 with electrification-first design.

✅ Municipalities choose code path via City Council or Town Meeting.

Massachusetts will soon see significant updates to the energy codes that govern the construction and alteration of buildings throughout the Commonwealth.

As required by the 2021 climate bill, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) has recently finalized regulations updating the current Stretch Energy Code, previously promulgated by the state's Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS), and establishing a new Specialized Code geared toward achieving net-zero building energy performance.

The final code has been submitted to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy for review as required under state law, amid ongoing Connecticut market overhaul discussions that could influence regional dynamics.

Under the new regulations, each municipality must apply one of the following:

Base Energy Code - The current Base Energy Code is being updated by the BBRS as part of its routine updates to the full set of building codes. This base code is the default if a municipality has not opted in to an alternative energy code.

Stretch Code - The updated Stretch Code creates stricter guidelines on energy-efficiency for almost all new constructions and alterations in municipalities that have adopted the previous Stretch Code, paralleling 100% carbon-free target in Minnesota and elsewhere to support building decarbonization. The updated Stretch Code will automatically become the applicable code in any municipality that previously opted-in to the Stretch Code.

Specialized Code - The newly created Specialized Code includes additional requirements above and beyond the Stretch Code, designed to get to ensure that new construction is consistent with a net-zero economy by 2050, similar to Canada's clean electricity regulations that set a 2050 decarbonization pathway. Municipalities must opt-in to adopt the Specialized Code by vote of City Council or Town Meeting.

The new codes are much too detailed to summarize in a blog post. You can read more here. Without going into those details here, it is worth noting a few significant policy implications of the new regulations:

With roughly 90% of Massachusetts municipalities having already adopted the prior version of the Stretch Code, the Commonwealth will effectively soon have a new base code that, even if it does not mandate zero-energy buildings, is nonetheless very aggressive in pushing new construction to be as energy-efficient as possible, as jurisdictions such as Ontario clean electricity regulations continue to reshape the power mix.

Although some concerns have been raised about the cost of compliance, particularly in a period of high inflation, and amid solar demand charge debates in Massachusetts, our understanding is that many developers have indicated that they can work with the new regulations without significant adverse impacts.

Of course, the success of the new codes depends on the success of the Commonwealth's efforts to transition quickly to a zero-carbon electrical grid, supported by initiatives like the state's energy storage solicitation to bolster reliability. If the cost of doing so is higher than expected, there could well be public resistance. If new transmission doesn't get built out sufficiently quickly or other problems occur, such that the power is not available to electrify all new construction, that would be a much more significant problem - for many reasons!

In short, the new regulations unquestionably set the Commonwealth on a course to electrify new construction and squeeze carbon emissions out of new buildings. However, as with the rest of our climate goals, there are a lot of moving pieces, including proposals for a clean electricity standard shaping the power sector that are going to have to come together to make the zero-carbon economy a reality.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News