Consumers in Power Markets Will Soon Change the Industry

Ontario-Quebec Electricity Deal explores hydro imports, terawatt hours, electricity costs, greenhouse gas cuts, and baseload impacts, amid debates on Pickering nuclear operations and competitive procurement in Ontario's long-term energy planning.

Key Points

A proposed hydro import deal from Quebec, balancing costs, emissions, and reliability for Ontario electricity customers.

✅ Draft 20-year, 8 TWh offer reported by La Presse disputed

✅ Ontario seeks lower costs and GHG cuts versus alternatives

✅ Not a baseload replacement; Pickering closure not planned

Ontario is negotiating a possible energy swap agreement to buy electricity from Quebec, but the government is disputing a published report that it is preparing to sign a deal for enough electricity to power a city the size of Ottawa.

La Presse reported Tuesday that it obtained a copy of a draft, 20-year deal that says Ontario would buy eight terawatt hours a year from Quebec – about 6 per cent of Ontario’s consumption – whether the electricity is consumed or not.

Ontario Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault’s office said the province is in discussions to build on an agreement signed last year for Ontario to import up to two terawatt hours of electricity a year from Quebec.

But his office released a letter dated late last month to his Quebec counterpart, in which Mr. Thibeault said the offer extended in June was unacceptable because it would increase the average residential electricity bill by $30 a year.

“I am hopeful that your continued support and efforts will help to further discussions between our jurisdictions that could lead to an agreement that is in the best interest of both Ontario and Quebec,” Mr. Thibeault wrote July 27 to Pierre Arcand.

Ontario would prepare a “term sheet” for the next stage of discussions ahead of the two ministers meeting at the Energy and Mines Ministers Conference later this month in New Brunswick, Mr. Thibeault wrote.

Any future agreements with Quebec will have to provide a reduction in Ontario electricity rates compared with other alternatives and demonstrate measurable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, he wrote.

Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown said Ontario doesn’t need eight terawatt hours of additional power and suggested it means the Liberal government is considering closing power facilities such as the Pickering nuclear plant early.

A senior Energy Ministry official said that is not on the table. The government has said it intends to keep operating two units at Pickering until 2022, and the other four units until 2024.

Even if the Quebec offer had been accepted, the energy official said, that power wouldn’t have replaced any of Ontario’s baseload power because it couldn’t have been counted on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

The Society of Energy Professionals said Mr. Thibeault was right to reject the deal, but called on him to release the Long-Term Energy Plan – which was supposed to be out this spring – before continuing negotiations.

Some commentators have argued for broader reforms to address Ontario's hydro system challenges, urging policymakers to review all options as negotiations proceed.

The Ontario Energy Association said the reported deal would run counter to the government’s stated energy objectives amid concerns over electricity prices in the province.

“Ontarians will not get the benefit of competition to ensure it is the best of all possible options for the province, and companies who have invested in Ontario and have employees here will not get the opportunity to provide alternatives,” president and chief executive Vince Brescia said in a statement. “Competitive processes should be used for any new significant system capacity in Ontario.”

The Association of Power Producers of Ontario said it is concerned the government is even considering deals that would “threaten to undercut a competitive marketplace and long-term planning.”

“Ontario already has a surplus of energy, so it’s very difficult to see how this deal or any other sole-source deal with Quebec could benefit the province and its ratepayers,” association president and CEO David Butters said in a statement.

The Ontario Waterpower Association also said such a deal with Quebec would “present a significant challenge to continued investment in waterpower in Ontario.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Clean Electricity Exports leverage hydroelectric power, energy storage, and transmission interconnections to meet rising IEA-forecast demand, support electrification, decarbonize grids, and attract green finance with stable policy and advanced technology.

Key Points

Canada's cross-border power sales from hydro and renewables, enabled by storage, transmission, and supportive policy.

✅ Hydro leads generation; expand transmission interties to the US

✅ Deploy storage to balance wind and solar variability

✅ Streamline regulation and green finance to scale exports

As global electricity demand continues to surge, Canada finds itself uniquely positioned to capitalize on this expanding market by choosing an electric, connected and clean pathway that scales with demand. With its vast natural resources, advanced technology, and stable political environment, Canada can play a crucial role in meeting the world’s energy needs while also advancing its own economic interests.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has projected that global electricity demand will grow significantly over the next decade, driven by factors such as population growth, urbanization, and the increasing electrification of various sectors, including transportation and industry. This presents a golden opportunity for Canada to bolster its energy security as it boasts an abundance of renewable energy sources, particularly hydroelectric power. Currently, hydroelectricity accounts for about 60% of Canada’s total electricity generation, making it one of the largest producers of this clean energy source in the world.

The growing emphasis on renewable energy aligns perfectly with Canada’s strengths, with the Prairie Provinces emerging as leaders in new wind and solar capacity across the country. As countries worldwide strive to reduce their carbon footprints and transition to greener energy solutions, Canada’s clean energy resources can be harnessed not only to meet domestic needs but also to export electricity to neighboring countries and beyond. The U.S., for instance, is already a significant market for Canadian electricity, with interconnections facilitating the flow of power across borders. Expanding these connections and investing in infrastructure could further increase Canada’s electricity exports.

Moreover, advancements in energy storage technology present another avenue for Canada to enhance its role in the global electricity market. With the rise of intermittent energy sources like wind and solar, the ability to store excess electricity generated during peak production times becomes essential. Canada’s expertise in technology and innovation positions it well to develop and deploy energy storage solutions that can stabilize the grid through grid modernization projects and ensure a reliable supply of electricity.

Additionally, Canada’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change aligns with the global shift towards sustainable energy. By investing in renewable energy projects and supporting research and development, Canada can not only meet its climate targets, including zero-emissions electricity by 2035, but also attract international investment. Green financing initiatives are becoming increasingly popular, and Canada can leverage its reputation as a leader in environmental stewardship to tap into this growing market.

However, to fully realize these opportunities, Canada must address some key challenges. Regulatory hurdles, infrastructure limitations, and the need for a coordinated national energy strategy are critical issues that must be navigated. Streamlining regulations and fostering collaboration between federal and provincial governments will be essential in creating a conducive environment for investment in renewable energy projects.

Furthermore, public acceptance and community engagement are vital components of developing new energy projects, especially where solar power adoption lags and outreach is needed. Ensuring that local communities benefit from these initiatives—whether through job creation, economic investment, or shared revenues—will help garner support and facilitate smoother project implementation.

In addition to domestic efforts, Canada should also position itself as a global leader in energy diplomacy. By collaborating with other nations to share best practices, technologies, and resources, Canada can strengthen its influence in international energy discussions. Engaging in multilateral initiatives aimed at addressing energy poverty and promoting sustainable development will not only enhance Canada’s standing on the world stage but also open doors for Canadian companies to expand their reach.

In conclusion, as the global demand for electricity rises, Canada stands at a crossroads, with a tremendous opportunity to lead in the clean energy sector. By leveraging its natural resources, investing in technology, and fostering international partnerships, Canada can not only meet its energy needs but also pursue zero-emission electricity by 2035 while positioning itself as a key player in the global electricity market. The path forward will require strategic planning, investment, and collaboration, but the potential rewards are significant—both for Canada and the planet.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Site C Dam Electricity Demand underscores B.C.'s decarbonization path, enabling electrification of EVs, heat pumps, and industry, aligning with BC Hydro forecasts and 2030/2050 GHG targets to supply dependable, renewable baseload power.

Key Points

Projected clean power tied to Site C, driven by B.C. electrification to meet 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas targets.

✅ Aligns with 25-30% by 2030 and 55-70% by 2050 GHG cuts

✅ Supports EVs, heat pumps, and industrial electrification

✅ Provides dependable baseload alongside efficiency gains

There are valid reasons not to build the Site C dam. There are also valid reasons to build it. One of the latter is the rapid increase in clean electricity needed to reduce B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions from burning natural gas, gasoline, diesel and other harmful fossil fuel products.

Although former Premier Christy Clark casually avoided near-term emissions targets, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has set Canadian targets for both 2030 and 2050, and cleaning up Canada's electricity is critical to meeting them. Studies by my research group at Simon Fraser University and other independent analysts show that B.C.’s cost-effective contribution to these national targets requires us to reduce our emissions 25 to 30 per cent by 2030 and 55 to 70 per cent by 2050 — an energy evolution involving, among other things, a much greater use of electricity in buildings, vehicles and industry.

Recent submissions to the Site C hearing have offered widely different estimates of B.C.’s electricity demand in the decade after the project’s completion in 2025, some arguing the dam’s output will be completely surplus to domestic need for years and perhaps decades, even though improved B.C.-Alberta grid links could help balance regional demand. Some of this variation in demand forecasts is understandable. Industrial demand is especially difficult to predict, dependent as it is on global economic conditions and shifting trade relations. And there are legitimate uncertainties about B.C. Hydro’s ability to reduce electricity demand by promoting efficient products and behaviour through its Power Smart program. But some of the forecasts appear to be deliberate exaggerations, designed to support fixed positions for or against Site C.

Our university-based research team models the energy system changes required to meet national and provincial emissions targets, and we have been comparing estimates of the electricity demand implications. These estimates are produced by academics, as well as by key institutions like B.C. Hydro, the National Energy Board, and the governments of Canada and B.C.

Most electricity forecasts for B.C., including the most recent by B.C. Hydro, do not assume that B.C. reduces its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 30 per cent by 2030 and 55 to 70 per cent by 2050. When we adjust Hydro’s forecast for just the low end of these targets, we find that in its latest, August 30, submission to the Site C hearing, which followed the premier’s over-budget go-ahead on the project, Hydro has underestimated the demand for its electricity by about three terawatt-hours in 2025, four in 2030 and 10 in 2035. Hydro’s forecast indicates that it will need the five terawatt-hours from Site C. Our research shows that even if Hydro’s demand forecast is too high, appropriate climate policy nationally and in B.C. will absorb all the electricity the dam can produce soon after its completion.

B.C. Hydro does not forecast electricity demand to 2050. But, studies by us and others show that B.C. electricity demand will be almost double today’s levels if we are to reduce emissions by 55 to 70 per cent, even amid a documented risk of missing the 2050 target, in just over three decades while our population, economy, buildings and equipment grow significantly. Most mid- and small-sized vehicles will be electric. Most buildings will be well insulated and heated by electric resistance or electric heat-pumps, either individually or via district heating systems. And many low temperature industrial applications will be electric.

Aggressive efforts to promote energy efficiency will make an important contribution, such that energy demand will not grow nearly as fast as the economy. But it is delusional to think that humans will stop using energy. Even climate policy scenarios in which we assume unprecedented success with energy efficiency show dramatic increases in the consumption of electricity, this being the most favoured zero-emission form of energy as a replacement for planet-destroying gasoline and natural gas.

The completion of the Site C dam is a complicated and challenging societal choice, and delay-related cost risks highlighted by the premier underscore the stakes. There is unbiased evidence and argument supporting either completion or cancellation. But let’s stick to the unbiased evidence. In the case of our 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets, such evidence shows that we must substantially increase our generation of dependable electricity. If the Site C dam is built, and if we are true to our climate goals, all its electricity will be used in B.C. soon after completion.

Mark Jaccard is a professor of sustainable energy in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Cooperative Energy bond rating upgrade signals lower debt costs as Fitch lifts GO Zone Bonds to A, reflecting Kemper exit, shift to owned generation, natural gas, and renewable energy for co-op members and borrowing rates.

Key Points

Fitch raised Cooperative Energy's GO Zone Bonds to A, cutting debt costs after Kemper exit and shift to natural gas.

✅ Fitch upgrades 2009A GO Zone Bonds from A- to A.

✅ Kemper divestment reduced risk and exposure to coal.

✅ Shift to owned generation, natural gas, renewables lowers costs.

Cooperative Energy and its 11 co-op members will see lower debt costs on $35.4 million bond; similar to regional utilities offering one-time bill decreases for customers recently.

Bailing out of its 15 percent ownership stake in Mississippi Power’s Kemper gasification plant, amid debates over coal and nuclear subsidies in federal policy, has helped Hattiesburg-based Cooperative Energy gain a ratings upgrade on a $35.4 million bond issue.

The electric power co-op, which changed its name to Cooperative Energy from South Mississippi Electric Power Association in November, received a ratings upgrade from A- to A for its 2009 2009A Mississippi Business Finance Corporation Gulf Opportunity Zone Bonds, even as other utilities announced bill reductions for customers during 2020.

“This rating upgrade reflects the success of our strategy to move from purchased power to owned generation resources, and from coal to natural gas and renewable energy as clean energy priorities gain traction,” said Cooperative Energy President/CEO Jim Compton in a press release.  “The result for our members is lower borrowing costs and more favorable rates.”

An “A” rating from Fitch designates the bond issue as “near premium quality,” a status noted as utilities adapted to pandemic-era electricity demand trends nationwide.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Massachusetts Solar Net Metering faces new demand charges and elimination of residential time-of-use rates under an MDPU order, as Eversource cites grid cost fairness while clean energy advocates warn of impacts on distributed solar growth.

Key Points

Policy letting solar customers net out usage with exports; MDPU now adds demand charges and ends TOU rates.

✅ New residential solar demand charges start Dec 31, 2018.

✅ Optional residential TOU rates eliminated by MDPU order.

✅ Eversource cites grid cost fairness; advocates warn slower solar.

A recent Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities' rate case order changes the way solar net metering works and eliminates optional residential time-of-use rates, stirring controversy between clean energy advocates and utility Eversource and potential consumer backlash over rate design.

"There is a lot of room to talk about what net-energy metering should look like, but a demand charge is an unfair way to charge customers," Mark LeBel, staff attorney at non-profit clean energy advocacy organization Acadia Center, said in a Tuesday phone call. Acadia Center is an intervenor in the rate case and opposed the changes.

The Friday MDPU order implements demand charges for new residential solar projects starting on December 31, 2018. Such charges are based on the highest peak hourly consumption over the course of a month, regardless of what time the power is consumed.

Eversource contends the demand charge will more fairly distribute the costs of maintaining the local power grid, echoing minimum charge proposals aimed at low-usage customers. Net metering is often criticized for not evenly distributing those costs, which are effectively subsidized by non-net-metered customers.

"What the demand charge will do is eliminate, to the extent possible, the unfair cross subsidization by non-net-metered customers that currently exists with rates that only have kilowatt-hour charges and no kilowatt demand, Mike Durand, Eversource spokesman, said in a Tuesday email. 

"For net metered facilities that use little kilowatt-hours, a demand charge is a way to charge them for their fair share of the cost of the significant maintenance and upgrade work we do on the local grid every day," Durand said. "Currently, their neighbors are paying more than their share of those costs."

It will not affect existing facilities, Durand said, only those installed after December 31, 2018.

Solar advocates are not enthusiastic about the change and see it slowing the growth of solar power, particularly residential rooftop solar, in the state.

"This is a terrible outcome for the future of solar in Massachusetts," Nathan Phelps, program manager of distributed generation and regulatory policy at solar power advocacy group Vote Solar, said in a Tuesday phone call.

"It's very inconsistent with DPU precedent and numerous pieces of legislation passed in the last 10 years," Phelps said. "The commonwealth has passed several pieces of legislation that are supportive of renewable energy and solar power. I don't know what the DPU was thinking."

 

TIME-OF-USE PRICING ELIMINATED

It does not matter when during the month peak demand occurs -- which could be during the week in the evening -- customers will be charged the same as they would on a hot summer day, LeBel said. Because an individual customer's peak usage does not necessarily correspond to peak demand across the utility's system, consumers are not being provided incentives to reduce energy usage in a way that could benefit the power system, Acadia Center said in a Tuesday statement.

However, Eversource maintains that residential customer distribution peaks based on customer load profiles do not align with basic service peak periods, which are based on Independent System Operator New England's peaks that reflect market-based pricing, even as a Connecticut market overhaul advances in the region, according to the MDPU order.

"The residential Time of Use rates we're eliminating are obsolete, having been designed decades ago when we were responsible for both the generation and the delivery of electricity," Eversource's Durand said.

"We are no longer in the generation business, having divested of our generation assets in Massachusetts in compliance with the law that restructured of our industry back in the late 1990s. Time Varying pricing is best used with generation rates, where the price for electricity changes based on time of day and electricity demand and can significantly alter electric bills for households," he said.

Additionally, only 0.02% of residential customers take service on Eversource's TOU rates and it would be difficult for residential customers to avoid peak period rates because they do not have the ability to shift or reduce load, according to the order.

"The Department allowed the Companies' proposal to eliminate their optional residential TOU rates in order to consolidate and align their residential rates and tariffs to better achieve the rate structure goal of simplicity," the MDPU said in the order.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News