Manitoba Hydro Allegations Investigation reveals RCMP and OPP probes into 1960s abuses in northern Manitoba, affecting Fox Lake Cree Nation, citing racism, discrimination, sexual assault, and oversight by the IIU and Clean Environment Commission.
Key Points
A coordinated probe into historic abuses tied to Manitoba Hydro projects, led by OPP and IIU after RCMP referral.
✅ OPP to investigate historical cases involving Hydro staff and contractors.
✅ IIU to examine any allegations implicating Manitoba RCMP officers.
✅ Findings follow CEC report on racism and abuse near Fox Lake.
Manitoba RCMP have called in outside investigators to probe alleged assaults linked to hydro projects in the province’s north during the 1960s.
RCMP say any historical criminal investigations involving Manitoba Hydro employees or contractors will be handled by the Ontario Provincial Police.
The Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba, the province’s police watchdog, will investigate any allegations involving RCMP officers.
A report released last month by an arm’s-length review agency outlined racism, discrimination and sexual abuse at the Crown-owned utility’s work sites dating back decades, while projects like Site C COVID-19 updates provide contemporary examples of reporting.
Much of the development at that time was centered around the community of Gillam and the nearby Fox Lake Cree Nation.
The report said the presence of a largely male construction workforce led to the sexual abuse of Indigenous women, some of whom said their complaints were ignored by the RCMP, and in a different context, Hydro One worker injury highlights safety risks in the sector.
Premier Brian Pallister says his government is taking the right approach to addressing alleged sexual assaults and racism by Manitoba Hydro workers against members of a remote northern First Nation, while pandemic cost-cutting at Manitoba Hydro has shaped recent operations.
Pallister made his first public comments about the allegations after a private meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Tuesday evening, as COVID-19 reshaped Saskatchewan and other Prairie priorities were in focus.
The allegations, made by members of Fox Lake Cree Nation, were revealed in a report produced by the Clean Environment Commission. The report was released by the provincial government in August, although it was completed in May.
Allegations against Manitoba Hydro workers: What you need to know
"My reaction would be that's deplorable behaviour, and I have to admit, my puzzlement is why this wasn't investigated sooner or didn't come to light sooner," Pallister said, adding that he believes his government has taken the right approach by referring the information to the RCMP.
Some members of Fox Lake Cree Nation say the government didn't give them any advance notice of the release of the report, so the community was traumatized when it hit the news.
Pallister said his government didn't want to delay the release of the report.
'Pure trauma': Fox Lake members stricken after hasty release of troubling report
"I think the right thing to do is release the report. A lot of this information was in the public domain over the last number of weeks and months anyway. It wasn't the case of it being new in that respect," he said.
However, he accepted criticism of the timeline of the report's release.
"I would rather accept those criticisms, than accept the argument that we were in any way covering up information that is important to be released," he said.
Fox Lake Chief Walter Spence has said he expects Pallister to visit the community.
The premier said Tuesday he was not sure of the effectiveness of such a trip.
"I think most of the communities would prefer that there be electricity jobs for young Canadians created in their communities, that there be better water, many other tangible things rather than symbolism," he said.
"That's what I'm hearing and I've been in dozens of First Nations communities in the last two years."
Washington-Led Lawsuit Against Energy Emergency challenges President Trump's executive order, citing state rights, environmental reviews, permitting, and federal overreach; coalition argues record energy output undermines emergency claims in Seattle federal court.
Key Points
Multistate suit to void Trump's energy emergency, alleging federal overreach and weakened environmental safeguards.
✅ Challenges executive order's legal basis and scope
✅ Seeks to halt emergency permits for non-emergencies
In a significant legal move, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown has spearheaded a coalition of 15 states in filing a lawsuit against President Donald Trump's executive order declaring a national energy emergency. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Seattle on May 9, 2025, challenges the legality of the emergency declaration, which aims to expedite permitting processes for fossil fuel projects in pursuit of an energy dominance vision by bypassing key environmental reviews.
Background of the Energy Emergency Declaration
President Trump's executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, asserts that the United States faces an inadequate and unreliable energy grid, particularly affecting the Northeast and West Coast regions. The order directs federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior, to utilize "any lawful emergency authorities" to facilitate the development of domestic energy resources, with a focus on oil, gas, and coal projects. This includes expediting reviews under the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, potentially reducing public input and environmental oversight.
Legal Grounds for the Lawsuit
The coalition of states, led by Washington and California, argues that the emergency declaration is an overreach of presidential authority, echoing disputes over the Affordable Clean Energy rule in federal courts. They contend that U.S. energy production is already at record levels, and the declaration undermines state rights and environmental protections. The lawsuit seeks to have the executive order declared unlawful and to halt the issuance of emergency permits for non-emergency projects.
Implications for Environmental Protections
Critics of the energy emergency declaration express concern that it could lead to significant environmental degradation. By expediting permitting processes, including geothermal permitting, and reducing public participation, the order may allow projects to proceed without adequate consideration of their impact on water quality, wildlife habitats, and cultural resources. Environmental advocates argue that such actions could set a dangerous precedent, enabling future administrations to bypass essential environmental safeguards under the guise of national emergencies, even as the EPA advances new pollution limits for coal and gas plants to address the climate crisis.
Political and Legal Reactions
The Trump administration defends the executive order, asserting that the president has the authority to declare national emergencies and that the energy emergency is necessary to address perceived deficiencies in the nation's energy infrastructure and potential electricity pricing changes debated by industry groups. However, legal experts suggest that the broad application of emergency powers in this context may face challenges in court. The outcome of the lawsuit could have significant implications for the balance of power between state and federal authorities, as well as the future of environmental regulations in the United States.
The legal challenge led by Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over energy policy and environmental protection. As the lawsuit progresses through the courts, it will likely serve as a bellwether for future conflicts between state and federal governments regarding the scope of executive authority and the preservation of environmental standards, amid ongoing efforts to expand uranium and nuclear energy programs nationwide. The outcome may set a precedent for how national emergencies are declared and managed, particularly concerning their impact on state governance and environmental laws.
Alberta-BC Pipeline Dispute centers on Trans Mountain expansion, diluted bitumen shipments, federal approval, spill response capacity, and electricity trade, as Alberta suspends power talks and Ottawa insists the Kinder Morgan project proceeds in national interest.
Key Points
Dispute over Trans Mountain expansion, bitumen limits, and jurisdiction between Alberta, B.C., and Canada.
✅ Alberta suspends BC electricity talks as leverage
✅ Ottawa affirms federal approval and spill response
✅ BC plans advisory panel on diluted bitumen risks
Alberta Premier Rachel Notley says her government is suspending talks with British Columbia on the purchase of electricity from the western province.
It’s the first step in Alberta’s fight against the B.C. government’s proposal to obstruct the Kinder Morgan oil pipeline expansion project by banning increased shipments of diluted bitumen to the province’s coast.
Up to $500 million annually for B.C.’s coffers from electricity exports hangs in the balance, Notley said.
“We’re prepared to do what it takes to get this pipeline built — whatever it takes,” she told a news conference Thursday after speaking with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the phone.
Notley said she told Trudeau, who’s in Edmonton for a town-hall meeting, that the federal government needs to act decisively to end the dispute.
Speaking on Edmonton talk radio station CHED earlier in the day, Trudeau said the pipeline expansion is in the national interest and will go ahead, even as the federal government undertakes a study on electrification across sectors.
“That pipeline is going to get built,” Trudeau said. “We will stand by our decision. We will ensure that the Kinder Morgan pipeline gets built.”
B.C.’s environment minister has said his minority government plans to ban increased shipments until it can determine that shippers are prepared and able to properly clean up a spill, and, separately, has implemented an electricity rate freeze affecting consumers. He said he will establish an independent scientific advisory panel to study the issue.
The move infuriated Notley, who has accused B.C. of trying to change the rules after the federal government gave the project the green light. B.C. has the right to regulate how any spills would be cleaned up, but can’t dictate what flows through pipelines, she said.
Trudeau said Canada needs to get Alberta’s oil safely to markets other than the U.S. energy market today. He said the federal government did the research and has spent billions on spill response.
“The Kinder Morgan pipeline is not a danger to the B.C. coast,” he said.
Notley said she thanked Trudeau for his assurance that the project will go ahead, but the federal government has to do more to ensure the pipeline’s expansion.
“This is not an Alberta-B.C. issue. This is a Canada-B.C. issue,” she said. “This kind of uncertainty is bad for investment and bad for working people
“Enough is enough. We need to get these things built.”
B.C. Premier John Horgan said his government consulted Alberta and Ottawa about his province’s intentions, noting that Columbia River Treaty talks also shape regional electricity policy.
“I don’t see what the problem is,” Horgan said Thursday at a school opening north of Kelowna, B.C. “It’s within our jurisdiction to put in place regulations to protect the public interest.
“That’s what we are doing.”
He downplayed any possibility of court action or sanctions by Alberta.
“There’s nothing to take to court,” Horgan said. “We are consulting with the people of B.C. It’s way too premature to talk about those sorts of issues.
“Sabre-rattling doesn’t get you very far.”
Speaking in Ottawa, Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr wouldn’t say what Canada might do if British Columbia implements its regulation.
“That’s speculative,” said Carr.
He noted at this point, B.C. has just pledged to consult. He said the federal government heard from thousands of people before the pipeline was approved.
“That’s what they have announced — an intention to consult. We have already consulted.”
B.C.’s proposal creates more uncertainty for Kinder Morgan’s already-delayed Trans Mountain expansion project that would nearly triple the capacity of its pipeline system to 890,000 barrels a day.
Alberta Electricity Market faces energy-only vs capacity debate as transmission, distribution, and administration fees surge; rural rates rise amid a regulated duopoly of investor-owned utilities, prompting calls for competition, innovation, and lower bills.
Key Points
Alberta's electricity market is an energy-only system with rising delivery charges and limited rural competition.
✅ Energy-only design; capacity market scrapped
✅ Delivery charges outpace energy on monthly bills
✅ Rural duopoly limits competition and raises rates
Last week, Alberta’s new Energy Minister Sonya Savage announced the government, through its new electricity rules, would be scrapping plans to shift Alberta’s electricity to a capacity market and would instead be “restoring certainty in the electricity system.”
The proposed transition from energy only to a capacity market is a contentious subject as a market reshuffle unfolds across the province that many Albertans probably don’t know much about. Our electricity market is not a particularly glamorous subject. It’s complicated and confusing and what matters most to ordinary Albertans is how it affects their monthly bills.
What they may not realize is that the cost of their actual electricity used is often just a small fraction of their bill amid rising electricity prices across the province. The majority on an average electricity bill is actually the cost of delivering that electricity from the generator to your house. Charges for transmission, distribution and franchise and administration fees are quickly pushing many Alberta households to the limit with soaring bills.
According to data from Alberta’s Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA), and alongside policy changes, in 2004 the average monthly transmission costs for residential regulated-rate customers was below $2. In 2018 that cost was averaging nearly $27 a month. The increase is equally dramatic in distribution rates which have more than doubled across the province and range wildly, averaging from as low as $10 a month in 2004 to over $80 a month for some residential regulated-rate customers in 2018.
Where you live determines who delivers your electricity. In Alberta’s biggest cities and a handful of others the distribution systems are municipally owned and operated. Outside those select municipalities most of Alberta’s electricity is delivered by two private companies which operate as a regulated duopoly. In fact, two investor-owned utilities deliver power to over 95 per cent of rural Alberta and they continue to increase their share by purchasing the few rural electricity co-ops that remained their only competition in the market. The cost of buying out their competition is then passed on to the customers, driving rates even higher.
As the CEO of Alberta’s largest remaining electricity co-op, I know very well that as the price of materials, equipment and skilled labour increase, the cost of operating follows. If it costs more to build and maintain an electricity distribution system there will inevitably be a cost increase passed on to the consumer. The question Albertans should be asking is how much is too much and where is all that money going with these private- investor-owned utilities, as the sector faces profound change under provincial leadership?
The reforms to Alberta’s electricity system brought in by Premier Klein in the late 1900s and early 2000s contributed to a surge in investment in the sector and led to an explosion of competition in both electricity generation and retail.
More players entered the field which put downward pressure on electricity rates, encouraged innovation and gave consumers a competitive choice, even as a Calgary electricity retailer urged the government to scrap the overhaul. But the legislation and regulations that govern rural electricity distribution in Alberta continue to facilitate and even encourage the concentration of ownership among two players which is certainly not in the interests of rural Albertans.
It is also not in the spirit of the United Conservative Party platform commitment to a “market-based” system. A market-based system suggests more competition. Instead, what we have is something approaching a monopoly for many Albertans. The UCP promised a review of the transition to a capacity market that would determine which market would be best for Alberta, and through proposed electricity market changes has decided that we will remain an energy-only market. Consumers in rural Alberta need electricity to produce the goods that power our biggest industries. Instead of regulating and approving continued rate increases from private multinational corporations, we need to drive competition and innovation that can push rates down and encourage growth and investment in rural-based industries and communities.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
AI-Powered Utility Customer Experience enables transparency, real-time pricing, smart thermostats, demand response, and billing optimization, helping utilities integrate distributed energy resources, battery storage, and microgrids while boosting customer satisfaction and reducing costs.
Key Points
An approach where utilities use AI and real-time data to personalize service, optimize billing, and cut energy costs.
✅ Real-time pricing aligns retail and wholesale market signals
✅ Device control via smart thermostats and home energy management
✅ Analytics reveal appliance-level usage and personalized savings
The latest electric utility customer satisfaction survey results from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Energy Utilities report reveal that nearly every investor-owned utility saw customer satisfaction go down from 2018 to 2019. Residential customers are sending a clear message in the report: They want more transparency and control over energy usage, billing and ways to reduce costs.
With both customer satisfaction and utility revenues on the decline, utilities are facing daunting challenges to their traditional business models amid flat electricity demand across many markets today. That said, it is the utilities that see these changing times as an opportunity to evolve that will become the energy leaders of tomorrow, where the customer relationship is no longer defined by sales volume but instead by a utility company's ability to optimize service and deliver meaningful customer solutions.
We have seen how the proliferation of centralized and distributed renewables on the grid has already dramatically changed the cost profile of traditional generation and variability of wholesale energy prices. This signals the real cost drivers in the future will come from optimizing energy service with things like batteries, microgrids and peer-to-peer trading networks. In the foreseeable future, flat electricity rates may be the norm, or electricity might even become entirely free as services become the primary source of utility revenue.
The key to this future is technological innovation that allows utilities to better understand a customer’s unique needs and priorities and then deliver personalized, well-timed solutions that make customers feel valued and appreciated as their utility helps them save and alleviates their greatest pain points.
I predict utilities that adopt new technologies focused on customer experience, aligned with key utility trends shaping the sector, and deliver continual service improvements and optimization will earn the most satisfied, most loyal customers.
To illustrate this, look at how fixed pricing today is applied for most residential customers. Unless you live in one of the states with deregulated utilities where most customers are free to choose a service provider in a competitive marketplace, as consumers in power markets increasingly reshape offerings, fixed-rate tariffs or time-of-use tariffs might be the only rate structures you have ever known, though new utility rate designs are being tested nationwide today. These tariffs are often market distortions, bearing little relation to the real-time price that the utility pays on the wholesale market.
It can be easy enough to compare the rate you pay as a consumer and the market rate that utilities pay. The California ISO has a public dashboard -- as do other grid operators -- that shows the real-time marginal cost of energy. On a recent Friday, for example, a buyer in San Francisco could go to the real-time market and procure electricity at a rate of around 9.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), yet a residential customer can pay the utility PG&E between 22 cents and 49 cents per kWh amid major changes to electric bills being debated, depending on usage.
The problem is that utility customers do not usually see this data or know how to interpret it in a way that helps add value to their service or drive down the cost.
This is a scenario ripe for innovation. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are beginning to be applied to give customers the transparency and control over the energy they desire, and a new type of utility is emerging using real-time pricing signals from wholesale markets to give households hassle-free energy savings. Evolve Energy in Texas is developing a utility service model, even as Texas utilities revisit smart home network strategies, that delivers electricity to consumers at real-time market prices and connects to smart thermostats and other connected devices in the home for simple monitoring and control -- all managed via an intuitive consumer app.
My company, Bidgely, partners with utilities and energy retailers all over the world to apply artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms to customer data in order to bring transparency to their electricity bills, showing exactly where the customers’ money is going down to the appliance and offering personalized, actionable advice on how to save.
Another example is from energy management company Keewi. Its wireless outlet adaptors are revealing real-time energy usage information to Texas A&M dorm residents as well as providing students the ability to conserve energy through controlling items in their rooms from their smartphones.
These are but a few examples of innovations among many in play that answer the consumer demand for increased transparency and control over energy usage.
Electric service providers will be closely watching how consumers respond to AI-driven innovation, including providers in traditionally regulated markets that are exploring equitable regulation approaches now, to stay aligned with policy and customer expectations. While regulated utilities have no reason to fear that their customers might sign up with a competitor, they understand that the revenues from electricity sales are going down and the deployment of distributed energy resources is going up. Both trends were reflected in a March report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (via ThinkProgress) that claimed unsubsidized storage projects co-located with solar or wind are starting to compete with coal and gas for dispatchable power. Change is coming to regulated markets, and some of that change can be attributed to customer dissatisfaction with utility service.
Like so many industries before, the utility-customer relationship is on track to become less about measuring unit sales and more about driving revenue through services and delivering the best customer value. Loyal customers are most likely to listen and follow through on the utility’s advice and to trust the utility for a wide range of energy-related products and services. Utilities that make customer experience the highest priority today will emerge tomorrow as the leaders of a new energy service era.
We Energies rate increase driven by nuclear energy costs at Point Beach, Wisconsin PSC filings, and rising utility rates, affecting electricity prices for residential, commercial, and industrial customers while supporting WEC carbon reduction goals.
Key Points
A 2021 utility rate hike to recover Point Beach nuclear costs, modestly raising Wisconsin electricity bills.
✅ Residential bills rise about $0.73 per month
✅ Driven by $55.82/MWh Point Beach contract price
✅ PSC review and consumer advocates assessing alternatives
Wisconsin's largest utility company is again asking regulators to raise rates to pay for the rising cost of nuclear energy.
We Energies says it needs to collect an additional $26.5 million next year, an increase of about 3.4%.
For residential customers, that would translate to about 73 cents more per month, or an increase of about 0.7%, while some nearby states face steeper winter rate hikes according to regulators. Commercial and industrial customers would see an increase of 1% to 1.5%, according to documents filed with the Public Service Commission.
If approved, it would be the second rate increase in as many years for about 1.1 million We Energies customers, who saw a roughly 0.7% increase in 2020 after four years of no change, while Manitoba Hydro rate increase has been scaled back for next year, highlighting regional contrasts.
We Energies' sister utility, Wisconsin Public Service Corp., has requested a 0.13% increase, which would add about 8 cents to the average monthly residential bill, which went up 1.6% this year.
We Energies said a rate increase is needed to cover the cost of electricity purchased from the Point Beach nuclear power plant, which according to filings with the Securities Exchange Commission will be $55.82 per megawatt-hour next year.
So far this year, the average wholesale price of electricity in the Midwestern market was a little more than $25.50 per megawatt-hour, and recent capacity market payouts on the largest U.S. grid have fallen sharply, reflecting broader market conditions.
Owned and operated by NextEra Energy Resources, the 1,200-megawatt Point Beach Nuclear Plant is Wisconsin's last operational reactor. We Energies sold the plant for $924 million in 2007 and entered into a contract to purchase its output for the next two decades.
Brendan Conway, a spokesman for WEC Energy Group, said customers have benefited from the sale of the plant, which will supply more than a third of We Energies' demand and is a key component in WEC's strategy to cut 80% of its carbon emissions by 2050, amid broader electrification trends nationwide.
"Without the Point Beach plant, carbon emissions in Wisconsin would be significantly higher," Conway said.
As part of negotiations on its last rate case, WEC agreed to work with consumer advocates and the PSC to review alternatives to the contracted price increases, which were structured to begin rising steeply in 2018.
Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, said the contract will be an issue for We Energies customers into the next decade
"It's a significant source (of energy) for the entire state," Content said. "But nuclear is not cheap."
WEC filed the rate requests Monday, one week after the withdrawing similar applications. Conway said the largely unchanged filings had "undergone additional review by senior management."
WEC last week raised its second quarter profit forecast to 67 to 69 cents per share, up from the previous range of 58 to 62 cents per share.
The company credited better than expected sales in April and May along with operational cost savings and higher authorized profit margin for American Transmission Company, of which WEC is the majority owner.
Wisconsin's other investor-owned utilities have reported lower than expected fuel costs for 2020 and 2021, even as emergency fuel stock programs in New England are expected to cost millions this year.
Alliant Energy has proposed using about $31 million in fuel savings to help freeze rates in 2021, aligning with its carbon-neutral electricity plans as it rolls out long-term strategy, while Xcel Energy is proposing to lower its rates by 0.8% next year and refund its customers about $9.7 million in fuel costs for this year.
Madison Gas and Electric is negotiating a two-year rate structure with consumer groups who are optimistic that fuel savings can help prevent or offset rate increases, though some utilities are exploring higher minimum charges for low-usage customers to recover fixed costs.
