Red tape halts $300 million wind farm

US Electricity Demand 2018-2050 projects slower growth as energy consumption, power generation, air conditioning, and electric heating shift with efficiency standards, commercial floor space, industrial load, and household growth across the forecast horizon.

Key Points

A forecast of US power use across homes, commercial space, industrial load, and efficiency trends from 2018 to 2050.

✅ 2018 generation hit record; residential sales up 6%.

✅ Efficiency curbs demand; growth lags population and floor space.

✅ Commercial sales up 2%; industrial demand fell 3% in 2018.

Last year's Houston cold winter and hot summer drove power use to record levels, especially among households that rely on electricity for air conditioning during extreme weather conditions.

Electricity generation increased 4 per cent nationwide in 2018 and produced 4,178 million megawatt hours, driven in part by record natural gas generation across the U.S., surpassing the previous peak of 4,157 megawatt hours set in 2007, the Energy Department reported.

U.S. households bought 6 percent more electricity in 2018 than they did the previous year, despite longer-term declines in national consumption, reflecting the fact 87 percent of households cool their homes with air conditioning and 35 percent use electricity for heating.

Electricity sales to the commercial sector increased 2 percent in 2018 compared to the previous year while the industrial sector bought 3 percent less last year.

Going forward, the Energy Department forecasts that electricity consumption will grow at a slower pace than in recent decades, aligning with falling sales projections as technology improves and energy efficiency standards moderate consumption.

The economy and population growth are primary drivers of demand and the government predicts the number of households will grow at 0.7 percent per year from now until 2050 but electricity demand will grow only by 0.4 percent annually.

Likewise, commercial floor space is expected to increase 1 percent per year from now until 2050 but electricity sales will increase only by half that amount.

Globally, surging electricity demand is putting power systems under strain, providing context for these domestic trends.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

PG&E Drum Fire Cause identified as a power line failure in Santa Barbara County, with arcing electricity igniting vegetation near Buellton on Drum Canyon Road; 696 acres burned as investigators and CPUC review PG&E safety.

Key Points

A failed PG&E power line sparked the 696-acre Drum Fire near Buellton; the utility is conducting its own probe.

✅ Power line failed between poles, arcing ignited vegetation.

✅ 696 acres burned; no structures damaged or injuries.

✅ PG&E filed CPUC incident report; ongoing investigation.

A downed Pacific Gas and Electric Co. power line was the cause of the Drum fire that broke out June 14 on Drum Canyon Road northwest of Buellton, a reminder that a transformer explosion can also spark multiple fires, the Santa Barbara County Fire Department announced Thursday.

The fire broke out about 12:50 p.m. north of Highway 246 and burned about 696 acres of wildland before firefighters brought it under control, although no structures were damaged or mass outages like the Los Angeles power outage occurred, according to an incident summary.

A team of investigators pinpointed the official cause as a power line that failed between two utility poles and fell to the ground, and as downed line safety tips emphasize, arcing electricity ignited the surrounding vegetation, said County Fire Department spokesman Capt. Daniel Bertucelli.

In response, a PG&E spokesman said the utility is conducting its own investigation and does not have access to whatever data investigators used, and, as the ATCO regulatory penalty illustrates, such matters can draw significant oversight, but he noted the company filed an electric incident report on the wire with the California Public Utilities Commission on June 14.

"We are grateful to the first responders who fought the 2020 Drum fire in Santa Barbara County and helped make sure that there were no injuries or fatalities, outcomes not always seen in copper theft incidents, and no reports of structures damaged or burned," PG&E spokesman Mark Mesesan said.

"While we are continuing to conduct our own investigation into the events that led to the Drum fire, and as the Site C watchdog inquiry shows, oversight bodies can seek more transparency, PG&E does not have access to the Santa Barbara County Fire Department's report."

He said PG&E remains focused on reducing wildfire risk across its service area while limiting the scope and duration of public safety power shutoffs, including strategies like line-burying decisions adopted by other utilities, and that the safety of customers and communities it serves are its most important responsibility.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

California Income-Based Utility Fees would overhaul electricity bills as CPUC weighs fixed charges tied to income, grid maintenance costs, AB 205 changes, and per-kilowatt-hour rates, shifting from pure usage pricing to hybrid utility rate design.

Key Points

Income-based utility fees are fixed monthly charges tied to earnings, alongside per-kWh rates, to help fund grid costs.

✅ CPUC considers fixed charges by income under AB 205

✅ Separates grid costs from per-kWh energy charges

✅ Could shift rooftop solar and EV charging economics

Electricity bills in California are likely to change dramatically in 2026, with major changes under discussion statewide.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is in the midst of an unprecedented overhaul of the way most of the state’s residents pay for electricity, as it considers revamping electricity rates to meet grid and climate goals.

Utility bills currently rely on a use-more pay-more system, where bills are directly tied to how much electricity a resident consumes, a setup that helps explain why prices are soaring for many households.

California lawmakers are asking regulators to take a different approach, and some are preparing to crack down on utility spending as oversight intensifies. Some of the bill will pay for the kilowatt hours a customer uses and a monthly fixed fee will help pay for expenses to maintain the electric grid: the poles, the substations, the batteries, and the wires that bring power to people’s homes.

The adjustments to the state’s public utility code, section 739.9, came about because of changes written into a sweeping energy bill passed last summer, AB 205, though some lawmakers now aim to overturn income-based charges in subsequent measures.

A stroke of a pen, a legislative vote, and the governor’s signature created a move toward unprecedented income-based fixed charges across the state.

“This was put in at the last minute,” said Ahmad Faruqui, a California economist with a long professional background in utility rates. “Nobody even knew it was happening. It was not debated on the floor of the assembly where it was supposedly passed. Of course, the governor signed it.”

Faruqui wonders who was responsible for legislation that was added to the energy bill during the budget writing process. That process is not transparent.

“It’s a very small clause in a very long bill, which is mostly about other issues,” Faruqui said.

But that small adjustment could have a massive impact on California residents, because it links the size of a monthly flat fee for utility service to a resident’s income. Earn more money and pay a higher flat fee.

That fee must be paid even before customers are charged for how much power they draw.

Regulators interpreted legislative change as a mandate, but Faruqui is not sold.

“They said the commission may consider or should consider,” Faruqui said. “They didn’t mandate it. It’s worth re-reading it.”

In fact, the legislative language says the commission “may” adopt income-based flat fees for utilities. It does not say the commission “should” adopt them.

Nevertheless, the CPUC has already requested and received nine proposals for how a flat fee should be implemented, as regulators face calls for action amid soaring electricity bills.

The suggestions came from consumer groups, environmentalists, the solar industry and utilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Small Modular Reactors in Canada are advancing through provincial collaboration, offering nuclear energy, clean power and carbon reductions for grids, remote communities, and mines, with factory-built modules, regulatory roadmaps, and pre-licensing by the nuclear regulator.

Key Points

Compact, factory-built nuclear units for clean power, cutting carbon for grids, remote communities, and industry.

✅ Provinces: Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick collaborate

✅ Targets coal replacement, carbon cuts, clean baseload power

✅ Modular, factory-made units; 5-10 year deployment horizon

The premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have committed to collaborate on developing nuclear reactor technology in Canada. 

Doug Ford, Scott Moe and Blaine Higgs made the announcement and signed a memorandum of understanding on Sunday in advance of a meeting of all the premiers. 

They will be working on the research, development and building of small modular reactors as a way to help their individual provinces reduce carbon emissions and move away from non-renewable energy sources like coal. 

Small modular reactors are easy to construct, are safer than large reactors and are regarded as cleaner energy than coal, the premiers say. They can be small enough to fit in a school gym. 

SMRs are actually not very close to entering operation in Canada, though Ontario broke ground on its first SMR at Darlington recently, signaling early progress. Natural Resources Canada released an "SMR roadmap" last year, with a series of recommendations about regulation readiness and waste management for SMRs.

In Canada, about a dozen companies are currently in pre-licensing with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is reviewing their designs.

"Canadians working together, like we are here today, from coast to coast, can play an even larger role in addressing climate change in Canada and around the world," Moe said.  

Canada's Paris targets are to lower total emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and nuclear's role in climate goals has been emphasized by the federal minister in recent remarks. Moe says the reactors would help Saskatchewan reach a 70 per cent reduction by that year.

The provinces' three energy ministries will meet in the new year to discuss how to move forward and by the fall a fully-fledged strategy for the reactors is expected to be ready.

However, don't expect to see them popping up in a nearby field anytime soon. It's estimated it will take five to 10 years before they're built. 

Ford lauds economic possibilities
The provincial leaders said it could be an opportunity for economic growth, estimating the Canadian market for this energy at $10 billion and the global market at $150 billion.

Ford called it an "opportunity for Canada to be a true leader." At a time when Ottawa and the provinces are at odds, Higgs said it's the perfect time to show unity. 

"It's showing how provinces come together on issues of the future." 

P.E.I. premier predicts unity at Toronto premiers' meeting
No other premiers have signed on to the deal at this point, but Ford said all are welcome and "the more, the merrier."

But developing new energy technologies is a daunting task. Higgs admitted the project will need national support of some kind, though he didn't specify what. The agreement signed by the premiers is also not binding. 

About 8.6 per cent of Canada's electricity comes from coal-fired generation. In New Brunswick that figure is much higher — 15.8 per cent — and New Brunswick's small-nuclear debate has intensified as New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs has said he worries about his province's energy producers being hit by the federal carbon tax.

Ontario has no coal-fired power plants, and OPG's SMR commitment aligns with its clean electricity strategy today. In Saskatchewan, burning coal generates 46.6 per cent of the province's electricity.

How would it work?
The federal government describes small modular reactors (SMRs) as the "next wave of innovation" in nuclear energy technology, and collaborations like the OPG and TVA partnership are advancing development efforts, and an "important technology opportunity for Canada."

Traditional nuclear reactors used in Canada typically generate about 800 megawatts of electricity, and Ontario is exploring new large-scale nuclear plants alongside SMRs, or enough to power about 600,000 homes at once (assuming that 1 megawatt can power about 750 homes).

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN organization for nuclear co-operation, considers a nuclear reactor to be "small" if it generates under 300 megawatts.

Designs for small reactors ranging from just 3 megawatts to 300 megawatts have been submitted to Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, for review as part of a pre-licensing process, while plans for four SMRs at Darlington outline a potential build-out pathway that regulators will assess.

Ford rallying premiers to call for large increase in federal health transfers
Such reactors are considered "modular" because they're designed to work either independently or as modules in a bigger complex (as is already the case with traditional, larger reactors at most Canadian nuclear power plants). A power plant could be expanded incrementally by adding additional modules.

Modules are generally designed to be small enough to make in a factory and be transported easily — for example, via a standard shipping container.

In Canada, there are three main areas where SMRs could be used:

Traditional, on-grid power generation, especially in provinces looking for zero-emissions replacements for CO2-emitting coal plants.
Remote communities that currently rely on polluting diesel generation.
Resource extraction sites, such as mining and oil and gas.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Vancouver Natural Gas Ban Reversal spotlights energy policy, electrification tradeoffs, heat pumps, emissions, grid reliability, and affordability, reshaping building codes and decarbonization pathways while inviting stakeholders to weigh practical constraints and climate goals.

Key Points

Vancouver ending its ban on natural gas in new homes to balance climate goals with reliability, costs, and technology.

✅ Balances emissions goals with reliability and affordability

✅ Impacts builders, homeowners, and energy infrastructure

✅ Spurs debate on electrification, heat pumps, and grid capacity

In a significant policy shift, Vancouver has decided to lift its ban on natural gas appliances in new homes, a move that marks a pivotal moment in the city's energy policy and environmental strategy. This decision, announced recently and following the city's Clean Energy Champion recognition for Bloedel upgrades, has sparked a broader conversation about the future of energy systems and the balance between environmental goals and practical energy needs. Stewart Muir, CEO of Resource Works, argues that this reversal should catalyze a necessary dialogue on energy choices, highlighting both the benefits and challenges of such a policy change.

Vancouver's original ban on natural gas appliances was part of a broader initiative aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting sustainability, including progress toward phasing out fossil fuels where feasible over time. The city had adopted stringent regulations to encourage the use of electric heat pumps and other low-carbon technologies in new residential buildings. This move was aligned with Vancouver’s ambitious climate goals, which include achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 and significantly cutting down on fossil fuel use.

However, the recent decision to reverse the ban reflects a growing recognition of the complexities involved in transitioning to entirely new energy systems. The city's administration acknowledged that while electric alternatives offer environmental benefits, they also come with challenges that can affect homeowners, builders, and the broader energy infrastructure, including options for bridging the electricity gap with Alberta to enhance regional reliability.

Stewart Muir argues that Vancouver’s policy shift is not just about natural gas appliances but represents a larger conversation about energy system choices and their implications. He suggests that the reversal of the ban provides an opportunity to address key issues related to energy reliability, affordability, and the practicalities of integrating new technologies, including electrified LNG options for industry within the province into existing systems.

One of the primary reasons behind the reversal is the recognition of the practical limitations and costs associated with transitioning to electric-only systems. For many homeowners and builders, natural gas appliances have long been a reliable and cost-effective option. The initial ban on these appliances led to concerns about increased construction costs and potential disruptions for homeowners who were accustomed to natural gas heating and cooking.

In addition to cost considerations, there are concerns about the reliability and efficiency of electric alternatives. Natural gas has been praised for its stable energy supply and efficient performance, especially in colder climates where electric heating systems might struggle to maintain consistent temperatures or fully utilize Site C's electricity under peak demand. By reversing the ban, Vancouver acknowledges that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable for every situation, particularly when considering diverse housing needs and energy demands.

Muir emphasizes that the reversal of the ban should prompt a broader discussion about how to balance environmental goals with practical energy needs. He argues that rather than enforcing a blanket ban on specific technologies, it is crucial to explore a range of solutions that can effectively address climate objectives while accommodating the diverse requirements of different communities and households.

The debate also touches on the role of technological innovation in achieving sustainability goals. As energy technologies continue to evolve, renewable electricity is coming on strong and new solutions and advancements could potentially offer more efficient and environmentally friendly alternatives. The conversation should include exploring these innovations and considering how they can be integrated into existing energy systems to support long-term sustainability.

Moreover, Muir advocates for a more inclusive approach to energy policy that involves engaging various stakeholders, including residents, businesses, and energy experts. A collaborative approach can help identify practical solutions that address both environmental concerns and the realities of everyday energy use.

In the broader context, Vancouver’s decision reflects a growing trend in cities and regions grappling with energy transitions. Many urban centers are evaluating their energy policies and considering adjustments based on new information and emerging technologies. The key is to find a balance that supports climate goals such as 2050 greenhouse gas targets while ensuring that energy systems remain reliable, affordable, and adaptable to changing needs.

As Vancouver moves forward with its revised policy, it will be important to monitor the outcomes and assess the impacts on both the environment and the community. The reversal of the natural gas ban could serve as a case study for other cities facing similar challenges and could provide valuable insights into how to navigate the complexities of energy transitions.

In conclusion, Vancouver’s decision to reverse its ban on natural gas appliances in new homes is a significant development that opens the door for a critical dialogue about energy system choices. Stewart Muir’s call for a broader conversation emphasizes the need to balance environmental ambitions with practical considerations, such as cost, reliability, and technological advancements. As cities continue to navigate their energy futures, finding a pragmatic and inclusive approach will be essential in achieving both sustainability and functionality in energy systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News