Partnership to explore offshore wind-hydrokinetic power

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

Key Points

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

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Manitoba Hydro Integrated Resource Plan outlines electrification-driven demand growth, clean electricity needs, wind generation, energy efficiency, hydropower strengths, and net-zero policy impacts, guiding investments to expand capacity and decarbonize Manitoba's grid.

Key Points

Manitoba Hydro IRP forecasting 2.5x demand, clean power needs, and capacity additions via wind and energy efficiency.

✅ Projects electricity demand could more than double within 20 years.

✅ Leverages 97% hydro supply; adds wind generation and efficiency.

✅ Positions for net-zero, electrification, and new capacity by the 2030s.

Electrical demand in Manitoba could more than double in the next 20 years, a trend echoed by BC Hydro's call for power in response to electrification, according to a new report from Manitoba Hydro.

On Tuesday, the Crown corporation released its first-ever Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which not only predicts a significant increase in electrical demand, but also that new sources of energy, and a potential need for new power generation, could be needed in the next decade.

“Right now, what [our customers] are telling us, with the climate change objectives, with federal policy, provincial policies, is they see using electricity much more in the future than they do today,” said president and CEO of Manitoba Hydro Jay Grewal.

“And our current, where we’re at now, our customers have told us through all this consultation and engagement over the last two years, they’re going to want and need more than 2.5 times the electricity than we have in the province today.”

The IRP indicates that the move towards low or no-carbon energy sources will accelerate the need for clean electricity, which will require significant investments, including new turbine investments to expand capacity. Some of the clean energy measures Hydro is looking at for the future include wind generation and energy efficiency.

The report also found that Manitoba is in a good position as it prepares for the future due to its hydroelectric system, which delivers around 97 per cent of the yearly electricity. However, the province’s existing supply is limited, and vulnerable to Western Canada drought impacts on hydropower, so other electrical energy sources will be needed.

“Something Manitobans may not realize is, we are in such a privileged province, because 97 per cent of the electricity produced in Manitoba today is clean energy and net zero,” Grewal said.

Manitoba also supplies power to neighbouring utilities, with a SaskPower purchase agreement to buy more electricity under an expanded deal.

The IRP is the result of a two-year development process that involved multiple rounds of engagement with customers and other interested parties. The IRP is not a development plan, but it arrives as Hydro warns it can't service new energy-intensive customers under current capacity, and it outlines how Manitoba Hydro will monitor, prepare and respond to the changes in the energy landscape.

“We spoke with over 15,000 of our customers, whether they’re residential, commercial, industrial, industry associations, regulators, government – across the board, we talked with our customers,” said Grewal.

“And what we did was through this work, we understood what our customers are anticipating using electricity for going forward.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Electricity Market Reform reshapes policy under the UCP, weighing a capacity market versus energy-only design, AESO reliability rules, renewables targets, coal phase-out, carbon pricing, consumer rates, and investment certainty before AUC decisions.

Key Points

Alberta Electricity Market Reform is the UCP plan to reassess capacity vs energy-only, renewables, and carbon pricing.

✅ Reviews capacity market timeline and AESO procurement

✅ Alters subsidies for renewables; slows wind and solar growth

✅ Adjusts industrial carbon levy; audits Balancing Pool losses

Hearings kicked off this week into the future of the province’s electricity market design, amid an electricity market reshuffle pledged by the province, but a high-stakes decision about the industry’s fate — affecting billions of dollars in investment and consumer costs — won’t be made inside the meeting room of the Alberta Utilities Commission.

Instead, it will take place in the office of Jason Kenney, as the incoming premier prepares to pivot away from the seismic reforms to Alberta’s electricity sector introduced by the Notley government.

The United Conservative Party has promised to adopt market-based policies, reflecting changes to how Alberta produces and pays for power, that will reset how the sector operates, from its approach to renewable energy and carbon pricing to re-evaluating the planned transition to an electricity “capacity market.”

“Every ball in electricity is up in the air right now,” Vittoria Bellissimo, of the Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta, said Tuesday during a break in the commission hearings.

Industry players are uncertain how quickly the UCP will change direction on power policies, but there’s little doubt Kenney’s government will take a strikingly different approach to the sector that keeps the lights on in Alberta.

“There’s some things they are going to change that are going to impact the electricity industry significantly,” said Duane Reid-Carlson, chief executive of consultancy EDC Associates.

“But I don’t think it’s going to be upheaval. I think the new government will proceed with caution because electricity is the foundation of our economy.”

Alberta’s electricity market has been turned on its head in recent years due to the recession, power prices dropping to near two-decade lows and several transformative policies initiated by the NDP.

The Notley government’s climate plan included an accelerated phase-out of all coal-fired generation and set targets for more renewable energy.

The most significant, but least-understood, move has been the planned shift to an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Under the strategy, generators will no longer solely be paid for the power produced and sold into the market; they will also receive payments for having electricity capacity available to the grid on demand.

The change was recommended by the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) as a way to reduce price volatility and provide more reliability than the current energy-only market, which some argue needs more competition to deliver better outcomes.

The independent system operator and industry officials have spent more than two years planning the transition since the switch was announced in late 2016. Proposed rules for the new system, outlining market changes, are now being discussed at the Alberta Utilities Commission hearings.

However, there is no ironclad guarantee the system remake will go ahead following the UCP’s election victory last week — amid calls to scrap the overhaul from a Calgary retailer — it plans to study the issue further — while other substantive electricity changes are already in store.

The UCP has promised to end “costly subsidies” to renewable energy developments and abandon the NDP’s pledge to have such energy sources make up 30 per cent of all power generation by 2030.

It will remove the planned phase-out of coal-fired electricity generation, although federal regulations for a 2030 prohibition remain in place.

It will also ask the auditor general to conduct a special audit of the massive losses sustained by the province’s Balancing Pool due to power purchase arrangements being handed back to the agency three years ago.

While Kenney has pledged to cancel the provincewide carbon tax, a levy on large industrial greenhouse gas emitters (such has power plants) will still be charged, although at a reduced rate of $20 a tonne.

The biggest unknown remains the power market’s structure, which underpins how the entire system operates.

The UCP has promised to consult on the shift to the capacity market and report back to Albertans within 90 days.

The complex issue may sound like an eye-glazer, but it will have a profound effect on industry investment, as well as how much consumers pay on their monthly electricity bills.

A number of industry players worry the capacity market will lead AESO to procure more power than is necessary, foisting unnecessary costs onto all Albertans.

“I still have concerns for what the impact on consumers is going to be,” said energy market consultant Sheldon Fulton. “I’d love to see the capacity market go away.”

An analysis by EDC Associates found the transition to a capacity market will procure additional electricity before it’s needed, requiring consumers to pay up to 40 per cent more — an extra $1.4 billion — for power in 2021-22 than under the existing market structure.

“I don’t think there’s any prejudged outcome,” said Blake Shaffer, former head trader at TransAlta Corp. and a fellow-in-residence at the C.D. Howe Institute.

“But it really matters about getting this right.”

Evan Bahry, executive director of the Independent Power Producers Society of Alberta, said the fact the UCP’s review was confined to just 90 days is helpful, as it avoids throwing the entire industry into a prolonged period of uncertainty.

As for the greening of Alberta’s power grid, amid growing attention to clean grids and storage, the demise of the NDP’s Renewable Electricity Program will likely slow down the rapid pace of wind and solar development. But it’s unlikely to stop the growth trend as costs continue to fall for such developments.

“Renewables over the last number of years have evolved to the point that they make sense on a subsidy-free basis,” said Dan Balaban, CEO of Greengate Power Corp., which has developed 480 MW of wind power in Alberta and Ontario.

“There is a path to clean electricity ahead.”

Chris Varcoe is a Calgary Herald columnist.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Manufacturing Policy prioritizes affordable energy, trims carbon taxes, aligns with Buy America, and supports the resource sector, PPE and plastics supply, nearshoring, and resilient supply chains amid COVID-19, correcting costly green energy policies.

Key Points

A policy to boost industry with affordable energy, lower carbon taxes, resource ties, and aligned U.S. trade.

✅ Cuts energy costs and carbon tax burdens for competitiveness

✅ Rebuilds resource-sector linkages and domestic supply chains

✅ Seeks Buy America relief and clarity on plastics regulation

By Jocelyn Bamford

Since its inception in 2017, the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses has warned all levels of government that there would be catastrophic effects if policies that drove both the manufacturing and natural resources sectors out of the country were adopted.

The very origins of our coalition was in the fight for a competitive landscape in Ontario, a cornerstone of which is affordable energy and sounding the alarm that the Green Energy Policy in Ontario pushed many manufacturers out of the province.

The Green Energy Policy made electricity in Ontario four times the average North American rate. These unjust prices were largely there to subsidize the construction of expensive and inefficient wind and solar energy infrastructure, even as cleaning up Canada's grid is cited as critical to meeting climate pledges.

My company’s November hydro bill was $55,000 and $36,500 of that was the so-called global adjustment charge, the name given to these green energy costs.

Unaffordable electricity, illustrated by higher Alberta power costs in recent years, coupled with ever-more burdensome carbon taxes, have pushed Canadian manufacturing into the open arms of other countries that see the importance of affordable energy to attract business.

One can’t help but ask the question: If Canada had policies that attracted and maintained a robust manufacturing sector, would we be in the same situation with a lack of personal protective equipment and medical supplies for our front-line medical workers and our patients during this pandemic?  If our manufacturing sector wasn’t crippled by taxes and regulation, would it be more nimble and able to respond to a national emergency?

It seems that the federal government’s policies are designed to push manufacturing out, stifle our resource sector, and kill the very plastics industry that is so essential to keeping our front-line medical staff, patients, and citizens safe, even as the net-zero race accelerates federally.

As the federal government chased its obsession with a new green economy – a strange obsession given our country’s small contribution to global GHGs – including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 advocated by some leaders, it has been blinded from the real threats to our country, threats that became very, very real with COVID-19.

After the pandemic has passed, the federal government must work to make Canada manufacturing and resource friendly again, recognizing that the IEA net-zero electricity report projects the need for more power. COVID-19 proves that Canada relies on a robust resource economy and manufacturing sector to survive. We need to ensure that we are prepared for future crises like the one we are facing now.

Here are five things our government can do now to meet that end:

1. End all carbon taxes immediately.

2. Create a mandate to bring manufacturing back to Canada through competitive offerings and favourable tax regimes.

3. Recognize the interconnections between the resource sector and manufacturing, including how fossil-fuel workers support the transition across supply chains. Many manufacturers supply parts and pieces to the resource sector, and they rely on affordable energy to compete globally.

4. Stop the current federal government initiative to label plastic as toxic. At a time when the government is appealing to manufacturers to re-tool and produce needed plastic products for the health care sector, labelling plastics as toxic is counterproductive.

5. Work to secure a Canadian exemption to Buy America. This crisis has clearly shown us that dependency on China is dangerous. We must forge closer ties with America and work as a trading block in order to be more self-sufficient.

These are troubling times. Many businesses will not survive.

We need to take back our manufacturing sector.  We need to take back our resource sector.

We need to understand the interconnected nature of these two important segments of our gross domestic production, and opportunities like an Alberta–B.C. grid link to strengthen reliability.
If we do not, in the next pandemic we may find ourselves not only without ventilators, masks and gowns but also without energy to operate our hospitals.

Jocelyn Bamford is a Toronto business executive and President of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

V.C. Summer nuclear plant leak update: Dominion Energy repaired a valve in the reactor cooling system; radioactive water stayed within containment, NRC oversight continues as power output ramps toward full operation.

Key Points

A minor valve leak in the reactor cooling system contained onsite; Dominion repaired it as the plant resumes power.

✅ Valve leak in piping to steam generators, not environmental release.

✅ Radioactive water remained in containment, monitored per NRC rules.

✅ Plant ramping from 17% power; full operations may take days.

The V.C. Summer nuclear power plant, which has been shut down since early November because of a pipe leak, is expected to begin producing energy in a few days, a milestone comparable to a new U.S. reactor startup reported recently.

Dominion Energy says it has fixed the small leak in a pipe valve that allowed radioactive water to drip out. The company declined to say when the plant would be fully operational, but spokesman Ken Holt said that can take several days, amid broader discussions about the stakes of early nuclear closures across the industry.

The plant was at 17 percent power Wednesday, he said, as several global nuclear project milestones continue to be reported this year.

Holt, who said Dominion is still investigating the cause, said water that leaked was part of the reactor cooling system. While the water came in contact with nuclear fuel in the reactor, the water never escaped the plant's containment building and into the environment, Holt said.

He characterized the valve leak as '"uncommon" but not unexpected. The nuclear leak occurred in piping that links the nuclear reactor with the power plant's steam generators. Hundreds of pipes are in that part of the nuclear plant, a complexity often cited in the energy debate over struggling nuclear plants nationwide.

"There is always some level of leakage when you are operating, but it is contained and monitored, and when it rises to a certain level, you may take action to stop it," Holt said.

A nuclear safety watchdog has criticized Dominion for not issuing a public notice about the leak, but both the company and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission say the amount was so small it did not require notice.

The V.C. Summer Nuclear plant is about 25 miles northwest of Columbia in Fairfield County. It was licensed in the early 1980s. At one point, Dominion's predecessor, SCE&G, partnered with state owned Santee Cooper to build two more reactors there, even as new reactors in Georgia were taking shape. But the companies walked away from the project in 2017, citing high costs and troubles with its chief contractor, Westinghouse, even as closures such as Three Mile Island's shutdown continued to influence policy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Energy equity in utility regulation prioritizes fair rates, clean energy access, and DERs, addressing fixed charges and energy burdens on low-income households through stakeholder engagement and public utility commission reforms.

Key Points

Fairly allocates clean energy benefits and rate burdens, ensuring access and protections for low-income households.

✅ Reduces fixed charges that burden low-income households

✅ Funds community participation in utility proceedings

✅ Prioritizes DERs, energy efficiency, and solar in impacted areas

By Kiran Julin

Pouring over the line items on your monthly electricity bill may not sound like an enticing way to spend an afternoon, but the way electricity bills are structured has a significant impact on equitable energy access and distribution. For example, fixed fees can have a disproportionate impact on low-income households. And combined with other factors, low-income households and households of color are far more likely to report losing home heating service, with evidence from pandemic power shut-offs highlighting these disparities, according to recent federal data.

Advancing Equity in Utility Regulation, a new report published by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), makes a unifying case that utilities, regulators, and stakeholders need to prioritize energy equity in the deployment of clean energy technologies and resources, aligning with a people-and-planet electricity future envisioned by advocacy groups. Equity in this context is the fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of energy production and consumption. The report outlines systemic changes needed to advance equity in electric utility regulation by providing perspectives from four organizations — Portland General Electric, a utility company; the National Consumer Law Center, a consumer advocacy organization; and the Partnership for Southern Equity and the Center for Biological Diversity, social justice and environmental organizations.
 
“While government and ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs have made strides towards equity by enabling low-income households to access energy-efficiency measures, that has not yet extended in a major way to other clean-energy technologies,” said Lisa Schwartz, a manager and strategic advisor at Berkeley Lab and technical editor of the report. “States and utilities can take the lead to make sure the clean-energy transition does not leave behind low-income households and communities of color. Decarbonization and energy equity goals are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, they need to go hand-in-hand.”

Energy bills and electricity rates are governed by state laws and utility regulators, whose mission is to ensure that utility services are reliable, safe, and fairly priced. Public utility commissions also are increasingly recognizing equity as an important goal, tool, and metric, and some customers face major changes to electric bills as reforms advance. While states can use existing authorities to advance equity in their decision-making, several, including Illinois, Maine, Oregon, and Washington, have enacted legislation over the last couple of years to more explicitly require utility regulators to consider equity.

“The infrastructure investments that utility companies make today, and regulator decisions about what goes into electricity bills, including new rate design steps that shape customer costs, will have significant impacts for decades to come,” Schwartz said.

Solutions recommended in the report include considering energy justice goals when determining the “public interest” in regulatory decisions, allocating funding for energy justice organizations to participate in utility proceedings, supporting utility programs that increase deployment of energy efficiency and solar for low-income households, and accounting for energy inequities and access in designing electricity rates, while examining future utility revenue models as technologies evolve.

The report is part of the Future of Electric Utility Regulation series that started in 2015, led by Berkeley Lab and funded by DOE, to encourage informed discussion and debate on utility trends and tackling the toughest issues related to state electric utility regulation. An advisory group of utilities, public utility commissioners, consumer advocates, environmental and social justice organizations, and other experts provides guidance.

Taking stock of past and current energy inequities

One focus of the report is electricity bills. In addition to charges based on usage, electricity bills usually also have a fixed basic customer charge, which is the minimum amount a household has to pay every month to access electricity. The fixed charge varies widely, from $5 to more than $20. In recent years, utility companies have sought sizable increases in this charge to cover more costs, amid rising electricity prices in some markets.

This fixed charge means that no matter what a household does to use energy more efficiently or to conserve energy, there is always a minimum cost. Moreover, low-income households often live in older, poorly insulated housing. Current levels of public and utility funding for energy-efficiency programs fall far short of the need. The combined result is that the energy burden – or percent of income needed to keep the lights on and their homes at a healthy temperature – is far greater for lower-income households.

“While all households require basic lighting, heating, cooling, and refrigeration, low-income households must devote a greater proportion of income to maintain basic service,” explained John Howat and Jenifer Bosco from the National Consumer Law Center and co-authors of Berkeley Lab’s report. Their analysis of data from the most recent U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey shows households with income less than $20,000 reported losing home heating service at a pace more than five times higher than households with income over $80,000. Households of color were far more likely than those with a white householder to report loss of heating service. In addition, low-income households and households of color are more likely to have to choose between paying their energy bill or paying for other necessities, such as healthcare or food.

Based on the most recent data (2015) from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), households with income less than $20,000 reported losing home heating service at a rate more than five times higher than households with income over $80,000. Households of color were far more likely than those with a white householder to report loss of heating service. Click on chart for larger view. (Credit: John Howat/National Consumer Law Center, using EIA data)

Moreover, while many of the infrastructure investment decisions that utilities make, such as whether and where to build a new power plant, often have long-term environmental and health consequences, impacted communities often are not at the table. “Despite bearing an inequitable proportion of the negative impacts of environmental injustices related to fossil fuel-based energy production and climate change, marginalized communities remain virtually unrepresented in the energy planning and decision-making processes that drive energy production, distribution, and regulation,” wrote Chandra Farley, CEO of ReSolve and a co-author of the report.

Engaging impacted communities
Each of the perspectives in the report identify a need for meaningful engagement of underrepresented and disadvantaged communities in energy planning and utility decision-making. “Connecting the dots between energy, racial injustice, economic disinvestment, health disparities, and other associated equity challenges becomes a clarion call for communities that are being completely left out of the clean energy economy,” wrote Farley, who previously served as the Just Energy Director at Partnership for Southern Equity. “We must prioritize the voices and lived experiences of residents if we are to have more equity in utility regulation and equitably transform the energy sector.”

In another essay in the report, Nidhi Thaker and Jake Wise from Portland General Electric identify the importance of collaborating directly with the communities they serve. In 2021, the Oregon Legislature passed Oregon HB 2475, which allows the Oregon Public Utility Commission to allocate ratepayer funding for organizations representing people most affected by a high energy burden, enabling them to participate in utility regulatory processes.

The report explains why energy equity requires correcting inequities resulting from past and present failures as well as rethinking how we achieve future energy and decarbonization goals. “Equity in energy requires adopting an expansive definition of the ‘public interest’ that encompasses energy, climate, and environmental justice. Energy equity also means prioritizing the deployment of distributed energy resources and clean energy technologies in areas that have been hit first and worst by the existing fossil fuel economy,” wrote Jean Su, energy justice director and senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity.

This report was supported by DOE’s Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium, with funding from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Office of Electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News