Massachusetts stirs controversy with solar demand charge, TOU pricing cut

Georgia Electricity Imports October 2017 surged as hydropower output fell and thermal power plants underperformed; ESCO balanced demand via low-cost imports, mainly from Azerbaijan, amid rising tariffs, kWh consumption growth, and a widening generation-consumption gap.

Key Points

They mark a record import surge due to costly local generation, lower hydropower, ESCO balancing costs, and rising demand.

✅ Imports rose 832% YoY to 157 mln kWh, mainly from Azerbaijan

✅ TPP output fell despite capacity; only low-tariff plants ran

✅ Balancing price 13.8 tetri/kWh signaled costly domestic PPAs

In October 2017, Georgian power plants generated 828 mln. KWh of electricity, marginally up (+0.79%) compared to September. Following the traditional seasonal pattern and amid European concerns over dispatchable power shortages affecting markets, the share of electricity produced by renewable sources declined to 71% of total generation (87% in September), while thermal power generation’s share increased, accounting for 29% of total generation (compared to 13% in September). When we compare last October’s total generation with the total generation of October 2016, however, we observe an 8.7% decrease in total generation (in October 2016, total generation was 907 mln. kWh). The overall decline in generation with respect to the previous year is due to a simultaneous decline in both thermal power and hydro power generation. 

Consumption of electricity on the local market in the same period was 949 mln. kWh (+7% compared to October 2016, and +3% with respect to September 2017), and reflected global trends such as India's electricity growth in recent years. The gap between consumption and generation increased to 121 mln. kWh (15% of the amount generated in October), up from 100 mln. kWh in September. Even more importantly, the situation was radically different with respect to the prior year, when generation exceeded consumption.

The import figure for October was by far the highest from the last 12 years (since ESCO was established), occurring as Ukraine electricity exports resumed regionally, highlighting wider cross-border dynamics. In October 2017, Georgia imported 157 mln. kWh of electricity (for 5.2 ¢/kWh – 13 tetri/kWh). This constituted an 832% increase compared to October 2016, and is about 50% larger than the second largest import figure (104.2 mln. kWh in October 2014). Most of the October 2017 imports (99.6%) came from Azerbaijan, with the remaining 0.04% coming from Russia.

The main question that comes to mind when observing these statistics is: why did Georgia import so much? One might argue that this is just the result of a bad year for hydropower generation and increased demand. This argument, however, is not fully convincing. While it is true that hydropower generation declined and demand increased, the country’s excess demand could have been easily satisfied by its existing thermal power plants, even as imported coal volumes rose in regional markets. Instead of increasing, however, the electricity coming from thermal power plants declined as well. Therefore, that cannot be the reason, and another must be found. The first that comes to mind is that importing electricity may have been cheaper than buying it from local TPPs, or from other generators selling electricity to ESCO under power purchase agreements (PPAs). We can test the first part of this hypothesis by comparing the average price of imported electricity to the price ceiling on the tariff that TPPs can charge for the electricity they sell. Looking at the trade statistics from Geostat, the average price for imported electricity in October 2017 remained stable with respect to the same month of the previous year, at 5.2 ¢ (13 tetri) per kWh. Only two thermal power plants (Gardabani and Mtkvari) had a price ceiling below 13 tetri per kWh. Observing the electricity balance of Georgia, we see that indeed more than 98% of the electricity generated by TPPs in October 2017 was generated by those two power plants.

What about other potential sources of electricity amid Central Asia's power shortages at the time? To answer this question, we can use the information derived from the weighted average price of balancing electricity. Why balancing electricity? Because it allows us to reconstruct the costs the market operator (ESCO) faced during the month of October to make sure demand and supply were balanced, and it allows us to gain an insight about the price of electricity sold through PPAs.

ESCO reports that the weighted average price of balancing electricity in October 2017 was 13.8 tetri/kWh, (25% higher than in October 2016, when it was below the average weighted cost of imports – 11 vs. 13 – and when the quantity of imported electricity was substantially smaller). Knowing that in October 2017, 61% of balancing electricity came from imports, while 39% came from hydropower and wind power plants selling electricity to ESCO under their PPAs, we can deduce that in this case, internal generation was (on average) also substantially more expensive than imports. Therefore, the high cost of internally generated electricity, rather than the technical impossibility of generating enough electricity to satisfy electricity demand, indeed appears to be one the main reasons why electricity imports spiked in October 2017.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Southeast Electricity Demand Forecast examines how energy efficiency, photovoltaics, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and demand response shape grid needs, stabilize load through 2030, shift peaks, and inform utility planning across the region.

Key Points

An outlook of load shaped by efficiency, solar, EVs, with demand response keeping usage steady through 2030.

✅ Stabilizes regional demand through 2030 under accelerated adoption

✅ Energy efficiency and demand response are primary levers

✅ EVs and heat pumps drive growth post 2030; shift winter peaks

Electricity markets in the Southeast are facing many changes on the customer side of the meter. In a new report released today, we look at how energy efficiency, photovoltaics (solar electricity), electric vehicles, heat pumps, and demand response (shifting loads from periods of high demand) might affect electricity needs in the Southeast.

We find that if all of these resources are pursued on an accelerated basis, electricity demand in the region can be stabilized until about 2030.

After that, demand will likely grow in the following decade because of increased market penetration of electric vehicles and heat pumps, but energy planners will have time to deal with this growth if these projections are borne out. We also find that energy efficiency and demand response can be vital for managing electricity supply and demand in the region and that these resources can help contain energy demand growth, reducing the impact of expensive new generation on consumer wallets.

National trends

This is the second ACEEE report looking at regional electricity demand. In 2016, we published a study on electricity consumption in New England, finding an even more pronounced effect. For New England, with even more aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency and these other resources, consumption was projected to decline through about 2030, before rebounding in the following decade.

These regional trends fit into a broader national pattern. In the United States, electricity consumption has been characterized by flat electricity demand for the past decade. Increased energy efficiency efforts have contributed to this lack of consumption growth, even as the US economy has grown since the Great Recession. Recently, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA – a branch of the US Department of Energy) released data on US electricity consumption in 2016, finding that 2016 consumption was 0.3% below 2015 consumption, and other analysts reported a 1% slide in 2023 on milder weather.

Five scenarios for the Southeast

ACEEE’s new study focuses on the Southeast because it is very different from New England, with warmer weather, more economic growth, and less-aggressive energy efficiency and distributed energy policies than the Northeast. For the Southeast, we examined five scenarios: a business-as-usual scenario; two alternative scenarios with progressively higher levels of energy efficiency, photovoltaics informed by a solar strategy for the South that is emerging regionally, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and demand response; and two scenarios combining high numbers of electric vehicles and heat pumps with more modest levels of the other resources. This figure presents electricity demand for each of these scenarios:

Over the 2016-2040 period, we project that average annual growth will range from 0.1% to 1.0%, depending on the scenario, much slower than historic growth in the region. Energy efficiency is generally the biggest contributor to changes in projected 2040 electricity consumption relative to the business-as-usual scenario, as shown in the figure below, which presents our accelerated scenario that is based on levels of energy efficiency and other resources now targeted by leading states and utilities in the Southeast.

To date, Entergy Arkansas has achieved the annual efficiency savings as a percent of sales shown in the accelerated scenario and Progress Energy (a division of Duke Energy) has nearly achieved those savings in both North and South Carolina. Sixteen states outside the Southeast have also achieved these savings statewide.

The efficiency savings shown in the aggressive scenario have been proposed by the Arkansas PSC. This level of savings has already been achieved by Arizona as well as six other states. Likewise, the demand response savings we model have been achieved by more than 10 utilities, including four in the Southeast. The levels of photovoltaic, electric vehicle, and heat pump penetration are more speculative and are subject to significant uncertainty.

We also examined trends in summer and winter peak demand. Most utilities in the Southeast have historically had peak demand in the summer, often seeing heatwave-driven surges that stress operations across the Eastern U.S., but our analysis shows that winter peaks will be more likely in the region as photovoltaics and demand response reduce summer peaks and heat pumps increase winter peaks.

Why it’s vital to plan broadly

Our analysis illustrates the importance of incorporating energy efficiency, demand response, and photovoltaics into utility planning forecasts as utility trends to watch continue to evolve. Failing to include these resources leads to much higher forecasts, resulting in excess utility system investments, unnecessarily increasing customer electricity rates. Our analysis also illustrates the importance of including electric vehicles and heat pumps in long-term forecasts. While these technologies will have moderate impacts over the next 10 years, they could become increasingly important in the long run.

We are entering a dynamic period of substantial uncertainty for long-term electricity sales and system peaks, highlighted by COVID-19 demand shifts that upended typical patterns. We need to carefully observe and analyze developments in energy efficiency, photovoltaics, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and demand response over the next few years. As these technologies advance, we can create policies to reduce energy bills, system costs, and harmful emissions, drawing on grid reliability strategies tested in Texas, while growing the Southeast’s economy. Resource planners should be sure to incorporate these emerging trends and policies into their long-term forecasts and planning.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro Ice Storm Response to Fraser Valley power outages highlights freezing rain impacts, round the clock crews, infrastructure challenges, and climate change risks across the Lower Mainland during winter weather and restoration efforts.

Key Points

A plan for freezing rain events that prioritizes safety, rapid repairs, and clear communication to restore power.

✅ Prioritizes hazards, critical loads, and public safety first

✅ Deploys crews, contractors, and equipment across affected areas

✅ Addresses climate risks without costly undergrounding expansion

Call it the straw that broke the llama's back.

The loss of power during recent Fraser Valley ice storms meant Jennifer Quick, who lives on a Mission farm, had no running water, couldn't cook with appliances and still had to tend to a daughter sick with stomach flu.

As if that wasn't enough, she had to endure the sight of her shivering llamas.

"I brought them outside at one point and when I brought them back in, they had icicles on their fur," she said, adding the animals stayed in the warmth of their barn from then on.

For three and a half days, Quick and her family were among more than 160,000 BC Hydro customers in the Fraser Valley left in the dark after ice storms whipped through the region.

BC Hydro expects to get all customers back online Tuesday, five days after the storm hit.

And with another storm possibly on the horizon, the utility is defending its response to the treacherous weather, noting that windstorm power outages can be widespread.

BC Hydro spokesperson Mora Scott said the utility has a "best in class" storm response system, similar to PG&E winter storm prep in the U.S.

"In a typical storm situation we normally have 95 per cent of our customers back up within 24 hours. Ice storms are different and obviously this was an atypical storm for us," she said.

Scott said that in this case, the utility got power back on for 75 per cent of customers within 24 hours. It took the work of 450 employees called in from around B.C., working around the clock, a mobilization echoed by Sudbury Hydro crews after a storm, she said.

The work was complicated by trees falling near crews, icy roads, low visibility and even substations so frozen over the ice had to be melted off with blowtorches.

She said that in the long term, BC Hydro has no plans to make changes to how it responds to extreme ice storms or how infrastructure is built.

"Seeing ice build up in the Lower Mainland like this is a rare event," she said. "So to build for extremes like that probably doesn't make a lot of sense."

Climate change will bring storms

But CBC meteorologist Johanna Wagstaffe said that might not always be the case as climate change continues to impact our planet.

"The less severe winter events, like light snowfall, will happen less often," she said. "But the disruptive events — like last week's storm — will actually happen more often and we are already seeing this shift happen."

Marc Eliesen, a former CEO of BC Hydro in the early 1990s, said the utility needs to keep that in mind when planning for worst-case scenarios.

"This [storm] is a condition characteristic of the weather in the east, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, where freezing rain outages in Quebec are more common, which is organized to deal with freezing rain and heavy snow on the lines," he said. "This is a new phenomenon for British Columbia."

Eliesen questions whether BC Hydro has adequate equipment and crew training to deal with ice storms if they become more frequent, pointing to Hydro One storm restoration in Ontario as a comparison.

'Always something we can learn'

Scott disagrees with some of Eliesen's points.

She said some of the crews called in to deal with the recent storm come from northern B.C. and the Interior and have plenty of experience with snow.

"There's always something we can learn in every major storm situation," she said.

The idea of putting power lines underground was raised by some CBC readers and listeners, but Scott said running underground lines is five to 10 times the cost of running lines on pole, so it is done sparingly. Besides, equipment like substations and transmission lines need to be kept aboveground.

Meanwhile, Wagstaffe said that beginning Thursday, wintry weather could return to the Lower Mainland.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Unanimous FERC vote rejects coal and nuclear compensation

✅ Cites no threat to grid reliability from plant retirements

✅ Opponents warned subsidies would distort power markets and prices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro Time-of-Use Rates propose off-peak credits and peak surcharges, with 5 cent/kWh differentials, encouraging demand shifting, EV charging at night, and smart meter adoption, pending BC Utilities Commission review in an optional opt-in program.

Key Points

Optional pricing that credits 5 cents/kWh off-peak and adds 5 cents/kWh during 4-9 p.m. peak to encourage load shifting.

✅ Off-peak credit: 11 p.m.-7 a.m., 5 cents/kWh savings

✅ Peak surcharge: 4-9 p.m., additional 5 cents/kWh

✅ Opt-in only; BCUC review; suits EV charging and flexible loads

BC Hydro is looking to charge customers less for electricity during off peak hours and more during the busiest times of the day, reflecting holiday electricity demand as well.

The BC Utilities Commission is currently reviewing the application that if approved would see customers receive a credit of 5 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity used from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.

Customers would be charged an additional 5 cents per kWh for electricity used during the on-peak period from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m., and in Ontario, there were no peak-rate cuts for self-isolating customers during early pandemic response.

There would be no credit or additional charge will be applied to usage during the off-peak period from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.

“We know the way our customers are using power is changing and they want more options,” BC Hydro spokesperson Susie Rieder said.

“It is optional and we know it may not work for everyone.”

For example, if a customer has an electric vehicle it will be cheaper to plug the car in after 9 p.m., similar to Ontario's ultra-low overnight plan offerings, rather than immediately after returning home from a standard work day.

If approved, the time of use rates would only apply to customers who opt in to the program, whereas Ontario provided electricity relief during COVID-19.

During the pandemic, Ontario extended off-peak electricity rates to help households and small businesses.

The regulatory review process is expected to take about one year.

Other jurisdictions, including Ontario's ultra-low overnight pricing, currently offer off peak rates. One of the challenges is that consumers change in hopes of altering their behaviour, but in reality, end up paying more.

“The cheapest electrical grid system is one with consistent demand and the issue of course is our consumption is not flat,” energyrates.ca founder Joel MacDonald said.

“There is a 5 cent reduction in off peak times, there is a 5 cent increase in peak times, you would have to switch 50 per cent of your load.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Maine Climate Council Act targets 80% renewable power by 2030 and 100% by 2050, slashing greenhouse gas emissions via clean electricity, grid procurement, long-term contracts, wind and hydro integration, resilience planning, and carbon sequestration.

Key Points

A Maine policy forming a Climate Council to reach 80% renewables in 2030 100% in 2050 and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

✅ 80% renewable electricity by 2030; 100% by 2050.

✅ 45% GHG cut by 2030; 80% by 2050.

✅ Utility procurement authority for clean capacity and energy.

The winds of change have shifted and are blowing Northward, as Maine’s Governor, Janet T. Mills, has put forth an act establishing a Climate Council to guide the state’s consumption to 80% renewable electricity in 2030 and 100% by 2050, echoing New York's Green New Deal ambitions underway.

The act, LR 2478 (pdf), also sets a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45% in 2030 and 80% by 2050. The document will be submitted to the state Legislature for consideration.

The commission would have the authority to direct investor owned transmission and distribution utilities to run competitive procurement processes, and enter into long-term contracts for capacity resources, energy resources, renewable energy credit contracts, and participate in regional programs, as these all lead toward the clean electricity and emissions-reducing goals that mirror California's 100% mandate debates today.

The Climate Council would convene industry working groups, including Scientific and Technical, Transportation, Coastal and Marine, Energy, and Building & Infrastructure working groups, plus others as needed, where examples like New Zealand's electricity transition could inform discussions.

Membership within the council would include two members of the State Senate, two members of the House, a tribal representative, many department commissioners (Education, Defense, Transportation, etc.), multiple directors, business representatives, environmental non-profit members, and climate science and resilience representatives as well.

The council would update the Maine State Climate Plan every four years, and solicit input from the public and report out progress on its goals every two years, similar to planning underway in Minnesota's carbon-free plan framework. The first Climate Action Plan would be submitted to the legislature by December 1, 2020.

Specifically, the responsibilities of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee were laid out. The group would be scheduled to meet at least every six months, beginning no later than October 1, 2019. The group would be tasked with reviewing existing scientific literature, including net-zero electricity pathways research, to use it as guidance, recognizing gaps in the state’s knowledge, and guiding outside experts to ascertain this knowledge.  The group would consider ocean acidification, and climate change effects on the state’s species; establish science-based sea-level rise projections for the state’s coastal regions by December 1, 2020; create a climate risk map for flooding and extreme weather events; and consider carbon sequestration via biomass growth.

The state’s largest power plants (above image), generate about 31% from gas, 28% from wood and 41% from hydro+wind. Already, the state has a very clean electricity profile, much like efforts to decarbonize Canada's power sector continue apace. Below, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) notes that 51% of electricity generation within the state comes from mostly wind+hydro, with a small touch from solar power. The state also gets 24% from wood and other biomass, which would lead some to argue that the state is already at 75% “renewable electricity”. The Governor’s document does reference wind power specifically as a renewable, however, no other specific electricity source. And there is much reference to forestry, agriculture, and logging – specifically noting carbon sequestration – but nothing regarding electricity.

The state’s final 25% of electricity mostly comes from natural gas, even as renewable electricity momentum builds across North America, with this author choosing to put “other” under the fossil percentage noted above.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News