More stability for electricity consumers

Western Grid Integration aligns CAISO with a regional transmission operator under FERC oversight, boosting renewables, reliability, and cost savings while respecting state energy policy, emissions goals, and utility regulation across the West.

Key Points

Western Grid Integration lets CAISO operate under FERC to cut costs, boost reliability, and accelerate renewables.

✅ Lowers wholesale costs via wider dispatch and resource sharing

✅ Improves reliability with regional balancing and reserves

✅ Preserves state policy authority under FERC oversight

A strong and timely endorsement for western grid integration forcefully rebuts claims that moving from a balkanized system with 38 separate entities to a regional operation could introduce environmental problems, raise costs, or, as critics warn, export California’s energy policies to other western states, or open state energy and climate policies to challenge by federal regulators. In fact, Yale University’s Environmental Protection Clinic identifies numerous economic and environmental benefits from allowing the California Independent System Operator to become a regional grid operator.

The groundbreaking report comprehensively examines the policy and legal merits of allowing the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) to become a regional grid operator, open to any western utility or generator that wants to join, as similar market structure overhauls proceed in New England.

The Yale report identifies the increasing constraints that today’s fragmented western grid imposes on system-wide electricity costs and reliability, addresses the potential benefits of integration, and evaluates  potential legal risks for the states involved. California receives particular attention because its legislature is considering the first step in the grid integration process, which involves authorizing the CAISO to create a fully independent board, even as it examines revamping electricity rates to clean the grid (other western states are unlikely to approve joining an entity whose governance is determined solely by California’s governor and legislature, as is the case now).

Elements of the report

The analysis examined all of California’s key energy and climate policies, from its cap on carbon emissions to its renewable energy goals and its pollution standards for power plants, and concludes that none would face additional legal risks under a fully integrated western grid. The operator of such a grid would be regulated by an independent federal agency (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)—but so is the CAISO itself, now and since its inception, by virtue of its extended involvement in interstate electricity commerce throughout the West. 

And if empowered to serve the entire region, the CAISO would not interfere with the longstanding rights of California and other states to regulate their utilities’ investments or set energy and climate policies. The study points out that grid operators don’t set energy policies for the states they serve; they help those states minimize costs, enhance reliability in the wake of California blackouts across the state, and avoid unnecessary pollution.

And as to whether an integrated grid would help renewable energy or fossil fuels, the report finds that renewable resources would be the inevitable winners, thanks to their lower operating costs, although the most important winners would be western utility customers, through lower bills, expanded retail choice options, and improved reliability.

Call to action

The Yale report concludes with what amounts to a call to action for California’s legislators:

“In sum, enhanced Western grid integration in general, and the emergence of a regional system operator in particular, would not expose California’s clean energy policies to additional legal risks. Shifting to a regional grid operator would enable more efficient, affordable and reliable integration of renewable resources without increasing the legal risk to California’s clean energy policies.”

The authors of the analysis, from the Yale Law School and the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, are Juliana Brint, Josh Constanti, Franz Hochstrasser. and Lucy Kessler. They dedicated months to the project, consulted with a diverse group of reviewers, and made the trek from New Haven to Folsom, CA, to visit the California Independent System Operator and interview key staff members.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

FPL Hurricane Surcharge explained: restoration costs, Florida PSC review, rate impacts, grid resilience, and transparency after Hurricanes Debby and Helene as FPL funds infrastructure hardening and rapid storm recovery across Florida.

Key Points

A fee by Florida Power & Light to recoup hurricane restoration costs, under Florida PSC review for consumer fairness.

✅ Funds Debby and Helene restoration, materials, and crews

✅ Reviewed by Florida PSC for consumer protection and fairness

✅ Raises questions on grid resilience, transparency, and renewables

In the aftermath of recent hurricanes, Florida Power & Light (FPL) is under scrutiny as it implements a rate surcharge, alongside proposed rate hikes that span multiple years, to help cover the costs of restoration and recovery efforts. The surcharges, attributed to Hurricanes Debby and Helene, have stirred significant debate among consumers and state regulators, highlighting the ongoing challenges of hurricane preparedness and response in the Sunshine State.

Hurricanes are a regular threat in Florida, and FPL, as the state's largest utility provider, plays a critical role in restoring power and services after such events. However, the financial implications of these natural disasters often leave residents questioning the fairness and necessity of additional charges on their monthly bills. The newly proposed surcharge, which is expected to affect millions of customers, has ignited discussions about the adequacy of the company’s infrastructure investments and its responsibility in disaster recovery.

FPL’s decision to implement a surcharge comes as the company faces rising operational costs due to extensive damage caused by the hurricanes. Restoration efforts are not only labor-intensive but also require significant investment in materials and equipment to restore power swiftly and efficiently. With the added pressures of increased demand for electricity during peak hurricane seasons, utilities like FPL must navigate complex financial landscapes, similar to Snohomish PUD's weather-related rate hikes seen in other regions, while ensuring reliable service.

Consumer advocacy groups have raised concerns over the timing and justification for the surcharge. Many argue that frequent rate increases following natural disasters can strain already financially burdened households, echoing pandemic-related shutoff concerns raised during COVID that heightened energy insecurity. Florida residents are already facing inflationary pressures and rising living costs, making additional surcharges particularly difficult for many to absorb. Critics assert that utility companies should prioritize transparency and accountability, especially when it comes to costs incurred during emergencies.

The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC), which regulates utility rates and services, even as California regulators face calls for action amid soaring bills elsewhere, is tasked with reviewing the surcharge proposal. The commission’s role is crucial in determining whether the surcharge is justified and in line with the interests of consumers. As part of this process, stakeholders—including FPL, consumer advocacy groups, and the general public—will have the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns. This input is essential in ensuring that the commission makes an informed decision that balances the utility’s financial needs with consumer protection.

In recent years, FPL has invested heavily in strengthening its infrastructure to better withstand hurricane impacts. These investments include hardening power lines, enhancing grid resilience, and implementing advanced technologies for quicker recovery, with public outage prevention tips also promoted to enhance preparedness. However, as storms become increasingly severe due to climate change, the question arises: are these measures sufficient? Critics argue that more proactive measures are needed to mitigate the impacts of future storms and reduce the reliance on post-disaster rate increases.

Additionally, the conversation around climate resilience is becoming increasingly prominent in discussions about energy policy in Florida. As extreme weather events grow more common, utilities are under pressure to innovate and adapt their systems. Some experts suggest that FPL and other utilities should explore alternative strategies, such as investing in decentralized energy resources like solar and battery storage, even as Florida declined federal solar incentives that could accelerate adoption, which could provide more reliable service during outages and reduce the overall strain on the grid.

The issue of rate surcharges also highlights a broader conversation about the energy landscape in Florida. With a growing emphasis on renewable energy and sustainability, consumers are becoming more aware of the environmental impacts of their energy choices, and some recall a one-time Gulf Power bill decrease as an example of short-term relief. This shift in consumer awareness may push utilities like FPL to reevaluate their business models and explore more sustainable practices that align with the public’s evolving expectations.

As FPL navigates the complexities of hurricane recovery and financial sustainability, the impending surcharge serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by utility providers in a climate-volatile world. While the need for recovery funding is undeniable, the manner in which it is implemented and communicated will be crucial in maintaining public trust and ensuring fair treatment of consumers. As discussions unfold in the coming weeks, all eyes will be on the PSC’s decision and FPL’s approach to balancing recovery efforts with consumer affordability.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Noncarbon Electricity Investment Strategy helps utilities hedge policy uncertainty, carbon tax risks, and emissions limits by scaling wind, solar, and CCS, avoiding stranded assets while balancing costs, reliability, and climate policy over decades.

Key Points

A strategy for utilities to invest 20-30 percent of capacity in low carbon sources to hedge emissions and carbon risks.

✅ Hedges future carbon tax and emissions limits

✅ Targets 20-30 percent of new generation from clean sources

✅ Reduces stranded asset risk and builds renewables capacity

When utility executives make decisions about building new power plants, a lot rides on their choices. Depending on their size and type, new generating facilities cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. They typically will run for 40 or more years — 10 U.S. presidential terms. Much can change during that time.

Today one of the biggest dilemmas that regulators and electricity industry planners face is predicting how strict future limits on greenhouse gas emissions will be. Future policies will affect the profitability of today’s investments. For example, if the United States adopts a carbon tax 10 years from now, it could make power plants that burn fossil fuels less profitable, or even insolvent.

These investment choices also affect consumers. In South Carolina, utilities were allowed to charge their customers higher rates to cover construction costs for two new nuclear reactors, which have now been abandoned because of construction delays and weak electricity demand. Looking forward, if utilities are reliant on coal plants instead of solar and wind, it will be much harder and more expensive for them to meet future emissions targets, even as New Zealand's electrification push accelerates abroad. They will pass the costs of complying with these targets on to customers in the form of higher electricity prices.

With so much uncertainty about future policy, how much should we be investing in noncarbon electricity generation in the next decade? In a recent study, we proposed optimal near-term electricity investment strategies to hedge against risks and manage inherent uncertainties about the future.

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, 20 to 30 percent of new generation in the coming decade should be from noncarbon sources such as wind and solar energy across markets. For most U.S. electricity providers, this strategy would mean increasing their investments in noncarbon power sources, regardless of the current administration’s position on climate change.

Many noncarbon electricity sources — including wind, solar, nuclear power and coal or natural gas with carbon capture and storage — are more expensive than conventional coal and natural gas plants. Even wind power, which is often mentioned as competitive, is actually more costly when accounting for costs such as backup generation and energy storage to ensure that power is available when wind output is low.

Over the past decade, federal tax incentives and state policies designed to promote clean electricity sources spurred many utilities to invest in noncarbon sources. Now the Trump administration is shifting federal policy back toward promoting fossil fuels. But it can still make economic sense for power companies to invest in more expensive noncarbon technologies if we consider the potential impact of future policies.

How much should companies invest to hedge against the possibility of future greenhouse gas limits? On one hand, if they invest too much in noncarbon generation and the federal government adopts only weak climate policies throughout the investment period, utilities will overspend on expensive energy sources.

On the other hand, if they invest too little in noncarbon generation and future administrations adopt stringent emissions targets, utilities will have to replace high-carbon energy sources with cleaner substitutes, which could be extremely costly.

Economic modeling with uncertainty

We conducted a quantitative analysis to determine how to balance these two concerns and find an optimal investment strategy given uncertainty about future emissions limits. This is a core choice that power companies have to make when they decide what kinds of plants to build.

First we developed a computational model that represents the sectors of the U.S. economy, including electric power. Then we embedded it within a computer program that evaluates decisions in the electric power sector under policy uncertainty.

The model explores different electric power investment decisions under a wide range of future emissions limits with different probabilities of being implemented. For each decision/policy combination, it computes and compares economy-wide costs over two investment periods extending from 2015 to 2030.

We looked at costs across the economy because emissions policies impose costs on consumers and producers as well as power companies. For example, they may lead to higher electricity, fuel or product prices. By seeking to minimize economy-wide costs, our model identifies the investment decision that produces the greatest overall benefits to society.

More investments in clean generation make economic sense

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, the optimal investment strategy for the coming decade is for 20 to 30 percent of new generation to be from noncarbon sources. Our model identified this as the best level because it best positions the United States to meet a wide range of possible future policies at a low cost to the economy.

From 2005-2015, we calculated that about 19 percent of the new generation that came online was from noncarbon sources. Our findings indicate that power companies should put a larger share of their money into noncarbon investments in the coming decade.

While increasing noncarbon investments from a 19 percent share to a 20 to 30 percent share of new generation may seem like a modest change, it actually requires a considerable increase in noncarbon investment dollars. This is especially true since power companies will need to replace dozens of aging coal-fired power plants that are expected to be retired.

In general, society will bear greater costs if power companies underinvest in noncarbon technologies than if they overinvest. If utilities build too much noncarbon generation but end up not needing it to meet emissions limits, they can and will still use it fully. Sunshine and wind are free, so generators can produce electricity from these sources with low operating costs.

In contrast, if the United States adopts strict emissions limits within a decade or two, they could prevent carbon-intensive generation built today from being used. Those plants would become “stranded assets” — investments that are obsolete far earlier than expected, and are a drain on the economy.

Investing early in noncarbon technologies has another benefit: It helps develop the capacity and infrastructure needed to quickly expand noncarbon generation. This would allow energy companies to comply with future emissions policies at lower costs.

Seeing beyond one president

The Trump administration is working to roll back Obama-era climate policies such as the Clean Power Plan, and to implement policies that favor fossil generation. But these initiatives should alter the optimal strategy that we have proposed for power companies only if corporate leaders expect Trump’s policies to persist over the 40 years or more that these new generating plants can be expected to run.

Energy executives would need to be extremely confident that, despite investor pressure from shareholders, the United States will adopt only weak climate policies, or none at all, into future decades in order to see cutting investments in noncarbon generation as an optimal near-term strategy. Instead, they may well expect that the United States will eventually rejoin worldwide efforts to slow the pace of climate change and adopt strict emissions limits.

In that case, they should allocate their investments so that at least 20 to 30 percent of new generation over the next decade comes from noncarbon sources. Sustaining and increasing noncarbon investments in the coming decade is not just good for the environment — it’s also a smart business strategy that is good for the economy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

U.S. Power Grid Cybersecurity combats DHS-FBI flagged threats to energy infrastructure, with PJM Interconnection using ICS/SCADA segmentation, phishing defenses, incident response, and resilience exercises against Russia-linked attacks and pipeline intrusions.

Key Points

Strategies, controls, and training that protect U.S. electric infrastructure from cyber threats and disruptions.

✅ ICS/SCADA network segmentation and zero-trust architecture

✅ Employee phishing drills and incident response playbooks

✅ DOE-led grid exercises and threat intelligence sharing

The joint alert from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security last month warning that Russia was hacking into critical U.S. energy infrastructure, as outlined in six essential reads on Russian hacks from recent coverage, came as no surprise to the nation’s largest grid operator, PJM Interconnection.

“You will never stop people from trying to get into your systems. That isn’t even something we try to do.” said PJM Chief Information Officer, Tom O’Brien. “People will always try to get into your systems. The question is, what controls do you have to not allow them to penetrate? And how do you respond in the event they actually do get into your system?”

PJM is the regional transmission organization for 65 million people, covering 13 states, including Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C.

On a rainy day in early April, about 10 people were working inside PJM’s main control center, outside Philadelphia, closely monitoring floor-to-ceiling digital displays showing real-time information from the electric power sector throughout PJM’s territory in the mid-Atlantic and parts of the midwest, amid reports that hackers accessed control rooms at U.S. utilities.

#google#

Donnie Bielak, a reliability engineering manager, was overseeing things from his office, perched one floor up.

“This is a very large, orchestrated effort that goes unnoticed most of the time,” Bielak said. “That’s a good thing.”

But the industry certainly did take notice in late 2015 and early 2016, when hackers successfully disrupted power to the Ukrainian grid. The outages lasted a few hours and affected about 225,000 customers. It was the first publicly-known case of a cyber attack causing major disruptions to a power grid. It was widely blamed on Russia.

One of the many lessons of the Ukraine attacks was a reminder to people who work on critical infrastructure to keep an eye out for odd communications.

“A very large percentage of entry points to attacks are coming through emails,” O’Brien said. “That’s why PJM, as well as many others, have aggressive phishing campaigns. We’re training our employees.”

O’Brien doesn’t want to get into specifics about how PJM deals with cyber threats. But one common way to limit exposure is by having separate systems: For example, industrial controls in a power plant are not connected to corporate business networks, a separation underscored after breaches at U.S. power plants prompted reviews across the sector.

Since 2011, North American grid operators and government agencies have also done large, security exercises every two years. Thousands of people practice how they’d respond to a coordinated physical or cyber event, including rising substation attacks that highlight resilience gaps.

So far, nothing like that has happened in the U.S. It’s possible, but not likely, according to Robert M. Lee, a former military intelligence analyst, who runs the industrial cybersecurity firm Dragos.

“The more complex the system, the harder it is to have a scalable attack,” said Lee, who co-authored a report analyzing the Ukraine attacks. “If you wanted to take out a power generation station– that isn’t the most complex thing. Let’s say you cause an hour of outage. But now you want to cause two months of outages? That’s an exponential increase in effort required.”

For example, he said, it would very difficult for hackers to knock out power to the entire east coast for a long time. But briefly disrupting a major city is easier. That’s the sort of thing that keeps him up at night.

“I worry about an adversary getting into, maybe, Washington D.C.’s portion of the grid, taking down power for 30 minutes,” he said.

The Department of Energy is creating a new office focused on cybersecurity and emergency response, following the U.S. government’s condemnation of power grid hacking by Russia.

Deterrence may be one reason why there has not yet been a major attack on the U.S. grid, said John MacWilliams, a former senior DOE official who’s now a fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

“That’s obviously an act of war,” he said. “We have the capability of responding either through cyber mechanisms or kinetic military.”

In the meantime, small-scale incidents keep happening.

This spring, another cyber attack targeted natural gas pipelines. Four companies shut down their computer systems, just in case, but they say no service was disrupted.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies 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

Canada Electricity Grid Decarbonization advances net-zero goals by expanding renewable energy (wind, solar, hydro), boosting grid reliability with battery storage, and aligning policy, efficiency, and investment to cut emissions and strengthen energy security.

Key Points

Canada's shift to low-carbon power using renewables and storage to cut emissions and improve grid reliability.

✅ Invest in wind, solar, hydro, and transmission upgrades

✅ Deploy battery storage to balance intermittent generation

✅ Support just transition, jobs, and energy efficiency

As Canada moves towards a more sustainable future, decarbonizing its electricity grid has emerged as a pivotal goal. The transition aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote renewable energy sources, and ultimately support global climate targets, with cleaning up Canada's electricity widely viewed as critical to meeting those pledges. However, the implications of this transition are multifaceted, impacting the economy, energy reliability, and the lives of Canadians.

Understanding Decarbonization

Decarbonization refers to the process of reducing carbon emissions produced from various sources, primarily fossil fuels. In Canada, the electricity grid is heavily reliant on natural gas, coal, and oil, which contribute significantly to carbon emissions. The Canadian government has committed to achieving net-zero by 2050 through federal and provincial collaboration, with the electricity sector playing a crucial role in this initiative. The strategy includes increasing the use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.

Economic Considerations

Transitioning to a decarbonized electricity grid presents both challenges and opportunities for Canada’s economy. On one hand, the initial costs of investing in renewable energy infrastructure can be substantial. This includes not only the construction of renewable energy plants but also the necessary upgrades to the grid to accommodate new technologies. According to the Fraser Institute analysis, these investments could lead to increased electricity prices, impacting consumers and businesses alike.

However, the shift to a decarbonized grid can also stimulate economic growth. The renewable energy sector is a rapidly growing industry that, as Canada’s race to net-zero accelerates, promises job creation in manufacturing, installation, and maintenance of renewable technologies. Moreover, as technological advancements reduce the cost of renewable energy, the long-term savings on fuel costs can benefit both consumers and businesses. The challenge lies in balancing these economic factors to ensure a smooth transition.

Reliability and Energy Security

A significant concern regarding the decarbonization of the electricity grid is maintaining reliability and energy security, especially as an IEA report indicates Canada will need substantially more electricity to achieve net-zero goals, requiring careful system planning.

To address this challenge, the implementation of energy storage solutions and grid enhancements will be essential. Advances in battery technology and energy storage systems can help manage supply and demand effectively, ensuring that energy remains available even during periods of low renewable output. Additionally, integrating a diverse mix of energy sources, including hydroelectric power, can enhance the reliability of the grid.

Social Impacts

The decarbonization process also carries significant social implications. Communities that currently depend on fossil fuel industries may face economic challenges as the transition progresses, and the Canadian Gas Association has warned of potential economy-wide costs for switching to electricity, underscoring the need for a just transition.

Furthermore, there is a need for public engagement and education on the benefits and challenges of decarbonization. Canadians must understand how changes in energy policy will affect their daily lives, from electricity prices to job opportunities. Fostering a sense of community involvement can help build support for renewable energy initiatives and ensure that diverse voices are heard in the planning process.

Policy Recommendations

For Canada to successfully decarbonize its electricity grid, and building on recent electricity progress across provinces nationwide, robust and forward-thinking policies must be implemented. This includes investment in research and development to advance renewable technologies and improve energy storage solutions. Additionally, policies should encourage public-private partnerships to share the financial burden of infrastructure investments.

Governments at all levels should also promote energy efficiency measures to reduce overall demand, making the transition more manageable. Incentives for consumers to adopt renewable energy solutions, such as solar panels, can further accelerate the shift towards a decarbonized grid.

Decarbonizing Canada's electricity grid presents a complex yet necessary challenge. While there are economic, reliability, and social considerations to navigate, the potential benefits of a cleaner, more sustainable energy future are substantial. By implementing thoughtful policies and fostering community engagement, Canada can lead the way in creating an electricity grid that not only meets the needs of its citizens but also contributes to global efforts in combating climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News